Sitting of 16 February 1987

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

    Electricity Demand
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amoryasked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the peak demand for electricity met by the Central Electricity Generating Board during the recent cold weather.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): The most severe weather lasted from 12 January to 19 January. During that time a record peak demand of 47,926 MW was met at 5.30 pm on Monday 12 January. This is an integrated half-hourly figure, and the spot peak reached during the previous 30 minutes was in fact 48,290 MW.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my hon. Friend agree that the record demand increases the case for early orders to be made for power stations? Against the background of deciding which type of power station should be built, does my hon. Friend agree that cheap electricity is of overriding national interest, alongside safety requirements? Does he accept Sir Frank Layfield's comments that nuclear energy will almost certainly be cheaper than energy provided by coal-fired stations?
    Mr. Goodlad: The declared net capability of generating plant on the CEGB's system at 31 March last year was 52,101 MW. My hon. Friend may draw his own conclusions from that. In view of my right hon. Friend's quasi-judicial position, my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on the Sizewell inquiry.
    Mr. Powley: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is fair to say that without the 16 or 18 per cent. of our electricity that is supplied by nuclear energy the extraordinarily high demand over the recent winter would not have been met and could have led to either a reduction in the power of electricity or, indeed, a cut?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is quite right. Nuclear power stations made an important contribution towards meeting the demand. I congratulate the CEGB's staff on their excellent performance in the face of the severe weather and the record demand. I congratulate also the area board staff who worked in terrible conditions to maintain supplies and overcome the few distribution failures that occurred.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Although I recognise that the Minister wishes to pursue a policy of fulfilling energy demand, I put it to him that if the Government go down
    640
    the Sizewell route those of us who have always supported nuclear power will part company on that issue, because the public have no confidence, and the whole future—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This question would be better related to a later question.

    Coal-Fired Power Stations
    Mr. Ormeasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss the ordering of new coal-fired stations.
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Energy what additional coal-fired generating capacity will be ordered during the next three years.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. A lick Buchanan-Smith): My right hon. Friend meets the chairman regularly. Applications for consent to the construction of power stations are a matter for the CEGB, and my right hon. Friend has received no applications for a coal-fired station. If he did, he would give them immediate consideration.
    Mr. Orme: The Minister must be aware that informed press reports state that the CEGB urgently needs two coal-fired stations to he ordered at once because of the increasing demand for power. What is the Government's reaction to that? If such stations are ordered, where will they be sited?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. There have been various reports in the press and elsewhere about proposals from the CEGB. Obviously, my right hon. Friend will have to wait until he receives applications before he can consider them. As I stated in my original answer, he will certainly endeavour to deal with them as expeditiously as possible.
    Mr. Hardy: If an order is to be placed, does the Minister of State accept that it should be placed now, in order to sustain the relevant sectors of British industry? Will he give an assurance that should an application for coal-fired power stations be granted, the coal that will be burnt in them will not be bought from South Africa?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: So long as the CEGB makes an application, the other factors can flow from it, but until an application is made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy it is not, of course, possible to comment.
    Mr. Patrick NcNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the disturbingly high level of industrial disputes still current in the coal industry and the worrying political uncertainties facing many overseas oil producers, it would be prudent to place orders for dual-fired stations, certainly for those in the south of England, built near to large oil refineries?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I note what my hon. Friend has said, but, as I am sure he realises and acknowledges, we in the United Kingdom are blessed with a wide variety of different sources of energy and it is important that we should make the best use of them. As for coal, of particular significance over the past year has been the enormous improvement in productivity, and that has to be considered as well.
    Mr. Forth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the known death rate from producing energy from such sources as coal and oil is vastly higher than it is from nuclear energy? Does this not point in the direction of relying more on nuclear energy in the future? In addition, is not the reliability of supplies from nuclear sources much greater? Those who are employed in the nuclear power industry do not often go on strike. Does that not also strengthen the argument for much greater reliance on nuclear sources than on other sources in the future?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend knows that we are shortly to have a debate on the Sizewell report. Thereafter my right hon. Friend will be taking a decision on these very important matters.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Minister of State not accept that the CEGB will need about 12,500 MW of additional capacity by the end of the decade? Taking into consideration the planning time and the outcry regarding Sizewell, is it not correct that we should need not two coal-fired power stations but four?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The industry makes its own forecasts and a number of them are discussed publicly and otherwise, but I return to what I said earlier, that if the CEGB wished to go ahead with some of the proposals that it has been discussing it would have to make an application to my right hon. Friend, who would consider it as soon as possible after he received it.

    Power Stations (Coal Burn)
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the prospects for the expansion of coal burn in power stations in Britain.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In England and Wales the agreement with British Coal announced last June underlined the CEGB's strong commitment to the use of coal, combined with its aim of buying supplies at internationally competitive prices. Responsibility for the Scottish electricity boards rests with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The best prospects for the expansion of coal burn lie in production by the British coal industry at competitive prices.
    Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister accept that the agreement to which he referred is of very short-term duration? Do the Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland know that in my constituency there is an under-utilised coal-fired power station at Kincardine-on-Forth that could be utilised quickly, primarily if the transmission links between the various parts of the United Kingdom were strengthened? Will the Minister give urgent attention to these matters?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I certainly take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I know of his interest in these matters and I shall draw them to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the problems with the CEGB seem to be, first, the decision that there should be increased capacity in the south of England and, secondly, the desire to find an almost perfect answer to coal burn? Should not my right hon. Friend be putting pressure on the CEGB for an early decision on future stations in the south of England?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The CEGB has mentioned a number of different sites, which are known, but, as far as I know, no decision has been taken in relation to any particular site. Once the CEGB has taken a decision, no doubt it will make an application to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Benn: Will the Minister assure the House that no South African coal will be used in power stations, in view of the reports of its importation and burning in this country?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman keeps referring to this issue, but I am not aware of the CEGB importing any coal from South Africa.
    Mr. Watts: Will my right hon. Friend look at any proposals for increasing coal burn with great care and just a little scepticism as it has yet to be established that British Coal can produce coal at a low and economic world price in the longer term, and that long-term commitments of investment to increase coal burn, when British Coal has not established that it can produce low-cost coal consistently, should be avoided?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is significant that since 1983–84 the output per manshift has risen from 2·43 tonnes to more than 3·5 tonnes. That is a considerable achievement. Obviously, such an achievement helps to make coal a much more competitive fuel for electricity generation. I have no doubt that the electricity industry and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take that into account in due course. However, of course I hope that that improvement is maintained.
    Mr. Eadie: Does the Minister agree that the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) about increased coal burn was made on two accounts: first, because there has been record productivity in the mining industry; and secondly, because it is well known that if we were to pursue a policy of renewing power station plant it would be good both for the mining industry and power station manufacturers. At present those industries are hungry for jobs. Does the Minister agree that that is the quickest and most expeditious way of providing jobs and more coal burn?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I hope the hon. Gentleman realises that it is only since the disruption of the coal industry that this great achievement in productivity has been made. We hope that it is maintained, It is in the best interests of the miners. — I congratulate them on what they have achieved recently — to maintain that productivity and demonstrate that it will continue. That is the best way of ensuring that the electricity industry pays full attention to coal as a source of power generation.

    Severn Barrage
    Mr. Sternasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to complete and place in the Library the list of organisations and individuals to be consulted in connection with studies into the proposed Severn barrage.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): I have today placed copies of the proposed work programme, including the consultation arrangements, in the Libraries of both Houses.
    Mr. Stern: I thank my hon. Friend and congratulate him on that excellent reply. In advance of our studying the

    643
    documents concerned, will my hon. Friend say whether they show how long the proposed studies will take, given the extent of interest in the Severnside area and the fact that, on the one hand, people are fearful of the decision that will be taken, but, on the other, they would like to know fairly soon what it will be?
    Mr. Hunt: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's tireless campaign on behalf of his constituents and the campaign of other right hon. and hon. Friends in pressing for the fullest possible consultation. We are dealing with the first two years of a six-year programme, originally adduced by the Severn Tidal Power Group. We are contemplating studies that will last for 18 months, but the programme's objective is to reduce uncertainty about the scheme to the point where it will be possible to make decisions on whether to plan for construction.
    Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend recall, from his days as chairman of Bristol Young Conservatives, when I was a Member of Parliament for that great city, that this project was first raised in the House in 1971? That is now more than 15 years ago. Does he not think that that is long, enough for us to have been to be looking into this project? If his had been in France, the barrage would probably have been built and working 5 years ago.
    Mr. Hunt: For many reasons, I have no wish to explore the past with my hon. Friend. What we have now is certainly one of the most extensive and detailed research programmes into tidal energy anywhere in the world. That shows that this Government mean business on the subject of tidal energy, which we believe to be one of the most promising of our renewable energy resources.

    Electricity (Nuclear Generation)
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of electricity supply in 1986 came from nuclear power.
    Mr. Goodlad: Based on provisional figures, some 20 per cent. of the electricity available from the United Kingdom public supply system was provided by nuclear power in 1986.
    Mr. Chapman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that that is a relatively small proportion compared with many other countries, including Japan, West Germany and France? Will he further confirm that 26 countries now have significant civil nuclear power programmes? In any debate on Sizewell, should not an important point be that the independent Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has a good track record of ensuring and insisting upon the highest safety standards in British nuclear power stations?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is correct in the first part of his question. He is absolutely right in saying that the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate does a good job.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister accept that to proceed with Sizewell risks fracturing the strong public majority support in favour of nuclear power? Is it worth the risk of upsetting that lobby? Is there not a danger that if there were even a minor incident in a PWR station a strong majority against nuclear power may develop, when we are trying to avoid that?
    Mr. Goodlad: I note what the hon. Gentleman said. He will appreciate that because of the quasi-judicial position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State I cannot anticipate his decision on Sizewell.
    Mr. Hannam: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to refute the allegation that the Government are holding up the report on the linkage of leukaemia with nuclear power stations? Will he also confirm that coal-fired power stations produce more than double the radiation emissions of nuclear stations?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is right. The Government would certainly not wish to intervene to hold back the report, which has been sent to the printers. I understand that it took longer than expected because the authors took longer than expected to assemble the material.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has today given a full description of the report, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I understand that a summary of the findings prepared by one of the authors shows that in the CEGB nuclear power stations, taken as a group, no indication of an abnormal pattern for leukaemia was found. On the second part of the question, my hon. Friend is right in saying that in coal-fired power stations the collective committed dose equivalent is about 5 manSieverts per GW year of electricity generated and that for nuclear stations it is less than 2 manSieverts. There is, of course, much more coal-fired electricity.
    The important point is that the overall dose from either source is very small indeed compared with the dose to the population from natural background radiation.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Is it not a significant coincidence that the best estimate for the amount of energy that could be saved by conservation is about 20 per cent. — the same as the amount of energy currently produced by nuclear power stations?
    Mr. Goodlad: The hon. Gentleman produces a very interesting statistic.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: Does my hon. Friend agree that the public are at greater risk from radon gas and the common X-ray than from nuclear power stations? Does he also agree that if the Labour party proposals were implemented it would take nothing short of 20 years to phase out nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the dose to the population from the nuclear industry is very small indeed compared with that from naturally occurring sources. I am happy to say that I am not responsible for Labour party policy on nuclear power, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is preposterous.
    Mr. Benn: Has the Minister consulted the American Government, who will explain to him very clearly the massive popular opposition in the United States to the pressurised water reactor, which explains why the Americans have not ordered one for 10 years? Is the Minister aware that, without ordering such a reactor for 10 years' the Americans, who have fewer other fuel resources than we have, have been able to manage perfectly well?
    Mr. Goodlad: For reasons that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate. I do not wish to comment on matters that were the subject of the Sizewell inquiry.
    Mr. Waller: Is my hon. Friend aware of the complaints that hon. Members persistently receive from companies in their constituencies about the access to cheap energy enjoyed by their French competitors? Is it not a fact that even if we have relatively low economic growth in the future there will be a disproportionate increase in our demand for energy which can be met effectively and economically only by our relying to a considerable extent on nuclear generation?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is correct in what he says about the French. On the question of nuclear generation, I should prefer to rely on what I have already said.

    Sizewell B
    Mr. Simon Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received concerning the implications for energy policy of the report of the Layfield committee into the proposed Sizewell B pressurised water reactor.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. Friend has received a number of letters about Sir Frank Layfield's report.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for his staightforward answer. May I pursue a matter already touched on by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam)? Will it be possible to have the OPCS and medical review on the leukaemia link before our debate next Monday? The Minister knows that there is pressure for that, despite the answer about the precis given by the Secretary of State for Social Services. Would it be possible to obtain information about the post-Chernobyl review, about which I expect the Minister has received certain representations, before the debate next Monday? The House will want to be as fully informed as possible, and it would be helpful for hon. Members to have the full information before we debate Sizewell.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We have briefly discussed the report this afternoon, but it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I note what the hon. Gentleman said on the other matter. I assure him that my right hon. Friend will consider these important issues before he comes to a decision.
    Mr. Leigh: Further to the question by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), do not the residents of Aberdeen receive more radiation from the granite out of which their houses are made than the residents of Sizewell receive from the power station?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My constituency covers part of Aberdeen and a large area of the Cairngorms, where the predominant rock is granite. I have not, so far as I am aware, been badly affected yet.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that I have had plenty of representations about nuclear power in my constituency, bearing in mind that it is a mining constituency? The Minister stands there speaking with a forked tongue, because he says one thing at the Dispatch Box but other things when he is in the Department. Why does he not come clean and give the people, rather than the individual hon. Member, the opportunity to decide? His Government have a majority of over 100 and can totally ignore me.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I would never dream of speaking to him with a forked tongue. I am sure that when we debate these matters the hon. Gentleman will be ready to make his own contribution.
    Mr. Adley: Would it not be helpful if members of the Liberal party were a little more careful with their language? When the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) refers to the leukaemia link, he presumably means the alleged leukaemia link, which in my right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) was clearly shown not to be a link at all in terms of harmful health problems. Will my right hon. Friend therefore encourage people to be aware that CND and others are constantly trying to denigrate the civil nuclear power industry through this alleged link between leukaemia and nuclear power stations, which is patent nonsense?
    Mr. Buchannan-Smith: I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend has said and I could not agree more. It pays, when reports are complex and important, to read and analyse them properly and not to come to instant conclusions.
    Mr. Orme: Has Sir Frank Layfield written to the Secretary of State to raise the matter of the Chernobyl disaster, which was not covered in the Layfield report, and will we have a statement before the debate next Monday?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be speaking in the debate next Monday, when the right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to put his point.

    Energy Efficiency
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for Energy what further plans he has to improve energy efficiency in 1987.
    Mr. David Hunt: We intend to build upon the success of Energy Efficiency Year by developing the 14-point programme of action that I outlined on 26 January 1986.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although great progress has been made in alerting the nation to the benefits of energy efficiency — especially during a successful Energy Efficiency Year—there are still hundreds of millions of pounds to be saved by energy efficiency in the home and work place? Will he particularly encourage public bodies to look at the example set recently, by Surrey county council which signed an agreement to extend its contract energy management to several other sites in Surrey?
    Mr. Hunt: I had the opportunity of congratulating Surrey county council personally at the national energy management conference. My hon. Friend is right to point to a number of initiatives that are under way among local authorities and to say that there is still considerable waste, which we estimate at £7 billion a year. Although some progress has been made, there is still much to do.
    Mr. Raynsford: Will the Minister recognise that, according to the latest figures that his Department has provided, 12·5 million homes in Britain are inadequately insulated against the cold? A large number of those homes are occupied by poorer people who cannot afford the cost

    647
    of insulation. Will he ensure that more funds are made available to expand the neighbourhood energy action initiatives? Will the Minister ensure that the keep warm project in my constituency receives adequate funding to enable it to carry out its much-needed work?
    Mr. Hunt: When the Government came into office there were six neighbourhood energy action schemes. Currently there are 360, with a further 180 planned. The hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to the Government's efforts in that respect. I shall check the availability of finance for the hon. Gentleman's local project.
    Mr. Rathbone: I applaud the Government's activity in this sector. However, will my hon. Friend have talks with my hon. Friend the Minister in the Northern Ireland Office responsible for energy conservation, to see whether some of the more extensive plans applied to Northern Ireland could be applied to the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Hunt: Yes, of course I will.
    Mr. Rowlands: Will the Minister confirm the following facts at the end of Energy Efficiency Year: only 37 per cent. of all households have loft insulation to current adequate standards, the budget for the programme has been cut from £24·5 million to £13 million and the Government propose to withdraw grants for millions of householders if the Secretary of State for the Environment has his way?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman has a tremendous capacity for getting the facts wrong. He should be aware that 89 per cent. of lofts are insulated, and the Government have already put an extra—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would listen, he would hear the facts. The Government have already put an extra £1·5 million into the homes insulation scheme this winter, and under the new scheme, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will lay before Parliament in due course, the number of people who can benefit from 90 per cent. grants will increase by about 70 per cent.

    Power Stations
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has received any applications from the Central Electricity Generating Board for a new power station other than that relating to Sizewell.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he proposes to meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board in the month of February to discuss power station orders.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. Friend meets the chairman regularly. The only application which he has for consent to construct a power station is that for Sizewell B.
    Mr. Carlisle: Do not the suppliers of electricity generating plant urgently need new orders if they are to avoid redundancies and keep their skilled teams intact? Because of this, and in view of the possible shortage of electricity in 10 years' time, will my right hon. Friend take urgent steps to support a programme of ordering new power stations?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am aware that some manufacturers of power plant equipment and those who
    648
    work in the industry are concerned about this. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has before him just the one application. However, as I said earlier, if he receives such applications he will endeavour to deal with them as quickly as he can.
    Mr. Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman has confirmed what he said earlier, that if applications were made for two new coal-fired power stations he would not discourage them. Is he aware that if consideration was being given to strengthening the south-east electricity grid link, Scotland could import two power stations because of the surplus capacity, and we would not need Sizewell?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we shall have an opportunity to debate this matter next week and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider all the evidence presented to him. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is right that my right hon. Friend should await the results of the debate before he comes to a decision. The debate will give an opportunity for these issues to be raised.
    Mr. Eastham: Is the Minister aware that there is great suspicion in the engineering industry that the CEGB is holding back on placing orders for coal-fired stations until the Government decide about Sizewell? While this is going on the engineering industry is in a desperate state as it waits for orders, and month after month hundreds of workers are losing their jobs. In the end, we may no longer have the engineering capacity to manufacture the turbines and other equipment needed to carry out the orders.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As the hon. Gentleman knows, particularly from the exchanges this afternoon, my right hon. Friend has an application before him for a power station. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind what he said about that.

    Alternative Energy Sources
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to have discussions with the European Commission about alternative sources of energy.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: At the Council of Energy Ministers, which is planned for 31 March. I am pleased that during the British presidency it was agreed that more Community collaboration should be organised in this sphere.
    Mr. Knox: Is the balance between United Kingdom national research and Community research into alternative sources of energy about right? Has the meeting cif Community scientists about alternative sources of energy, announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 27 November last year, taken place, and if so, what was the outcome?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I believe that there is a place both for Community-sponsored research and for research sponsored by national Governments, as the needs of national Governments are quite often different. Many projects have been supported by Community funds and I hope that that will continue. On my hon. Friend's second question, the chief scientists have still to meet, but I understand that that meeting will take place shortly.

    Conservation
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Energy what lessons his Department has drawn from the recent cold spell about energy conservation.
    Mr. David Hunt: The recent cold weather confirms the importance of my right hon. Friend's campaign for energy efficiency in every sector, particularly with regard to roof and wall insulation.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate him on the success of the Government's community insulation projects. However, does he agree that we still have centrally heated gardens and warm streets resulting from heat emanating from homes, in which that heat should remain?
    In my hon. Friend's discussions with the Scottish Office and the Department of the Environment, will he consider some means whereby rebates on rates or the community charge may be made available to individuals and local authorities to ensure that housing insulation satisfies certain requirements, something with which other countries cope far better than us?
    Mr. Hunt: We shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's points. It is right to pay particular tribute to neighbourhood energy action for its tremendous achievement in organising so many people to help those who could not afford insulation. By the end of this year the Government's insulation projects will have helped 450,000 homes. My hon. Friend is right to point out that many people who could take action do not do so.
    Mr. Rowlands: Can the Minister confirm that only 37 per cent. of households have adequate loft insulation in line with Government standards?
    Mr. Hunt: I have tried to point out to the hon. Gentleman that currently almost 90 per cent. of lofts have insulation, although most of that is inadequate. Surely it is right to focus the greatest help on those less able to help themselves. That is why, in 1980, the Government introduced a 90 per cent. grant under the home insulation scheme. So far that has helped about 500,000 elderly and disabled householders on low incomes to insulate their lofts. We are determined that there should be more progress under this important scheme.

    British Coal Enterprise Ltd.
    Sir Kenneth Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement about the activities of British Coal Enterprise Ltd.
    Mr. David Hunt: I am pleased to report that British Coal Enterprise has just approved its 1,000th project. At the end of January the company had committed £22·1 million and had helped to create nearly 14,000 new job opportunities.
    Sir Kenneth Lewis: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his answer. When I first entered the House 30 years ago it was the aim of most people to get as many underground workers as possible out of the mines because it was such a rough, dirty and nasty job. It is rather nice to know that British Coal Enterprise is proving that it can provide alternative jobs. Will my hon. Friend keep up the good work?
    Mr. Hunt: I shall certainly pass my hon. Friend's generous comments to the management of British Coal Enterprise. I stress once again that the Government are committed to the success of that company.

    British Coal (Capital Investment)
    Mr. Gerald Howarthasked the Secretary of State for Energy what was the value of capital investment made by British Coal in 1986; and how much of that was devoted to the western area.
    Mr. David Hunt: The western area of British Coal received £69 million of the £660 million invested in the industry during 1985–86.
    Mr. Howarth: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the efforts made by British Coal to invest in the western area? That is excellent news for the coal miners in my constituency. Is my hon. Friend aware that for three weeks running the miners at Littleton and Lea Hall collieries have produced record outputs per man shift? Littleton colliery is producing 30,000 tons weekly, which is a record.
    Mr. Hunt: British Coal is currently investing almost £2 million a day in the coal industry. So far, the Government have invested £5 billion in the coal industry since they came to power in 1979 — far more than the Labour Government. I congratulate my hon. Friend's constituents on the response that we have received from the men and management of the industry. Those record productivity figures offer the best news to the industry that it could ever have.

    North Sea Oil and Gas
    Mr. Rowlandsasked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his current estimate of the number of people employed directly and indirectly in the development of North sea oil and gas.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Department of Employment estimates that 26,400 persons were employed in the oil and gas extraction industry as at September 1986. Figures for employment in the supply industry in the United Kingdom as a whole are not available.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is the Minister aware that the Scottish Development Agency and other agencies forecast losses of up to 30,000 jobs in the industry in the next two years unless there is an increase in activity? Has the Minister any proposals to put to the House for the development of the 90 discoveries within 20 miles of existing installations to encourage activity and to save us from a rapid decline in self-sufficiency?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There is concern about jobs, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman is encouraged by the fact that last year we approved new developments worth over £2 billion, which will generate work. As recently as a couple of weeks ago I approved the Audrey gas development, worth over £80 million. Work is continuing. In addition, the early repayment of petroleum revenue tax has improved the industry's cash flow by £300 million. I understand the problems. We are watching what is happening in the offshore industry closely because it is important to our economy.

  THE ARTS

    Employment
    Mr. Cabornasked the Minister for the Arts whether he will undertake a study of the impact of the arts on employment.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): Two studies are currently under way. I am participating in the funding of one of them, and I await the results with interest.
    Mr. Caborn: I thank the Minister for that reply. I hope that the criteria adopted for the study will not mean robbing Peter to pay Paul. Will the Minister consider developments in Sheffield which have created employment, particularly at the Leadmill centre, with its new recording studio? The constraints on that project are now only financial. Will the Minister have a word with the Secretary of State for the Environment and ask him to stop running round the country like a philistine taking a crack at every local authority, especially in Sheffield, where he condemned the new recording studio which has given new vision to many young people in Sheffield?
    Mr. Luce: I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has tabled his first question to me on the arts, and that at least 47 other questions have been tabled by Opposition Members. I welcome the Opposition's new-found interest in the arts. More questions have been tabled today than at any other time since I have been responsible for the arts. I welcome that warmly.
    The two studies are important because they will give us information about the impact of the arts on the economy. That information will be helpful to us in assessing the value of the arts in both the public and private sectors.
    I look forward to my visit to Sheffield next week. I have great admiration for the work at the Crucible theatre and for other arts activities in that area.
    Mr. Jesse!: As Britain is flourishing as one of the arts capitals of the world, and as our theatres, concerts, operas, ballet, art galleries and museums — our heritage generally, not excluding military bands — attract foreigners whose spending generates employment and income, will the Government continue to build on that strength?
    Mr. Luce: I agree that we have a remarkable record, which is illustrated by the large numbers of overseas tourists who enjoy our arts activities. If every hon. Member in the House supported our overall encouragement for increased resources for the arts, including those from the private sector, the arts would have even better prospects.

    Sherman Theatre, Cardiff
    Mr. Gareth Wardellasked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about the future of the Sherman theatre, Cardiff.
    Mr. Luce: I have received three representations. The university college, Cardiff is in touch with the Welsh Arts Council and the local authorities concerned about the future of the theatre.
    Mr. Wardell: Will the Minister make urgent representations to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of
    652
    State for Wales about the desperate plight of this theatre? It is an important theatre, especially in terms of Welsh language productions. There have been precedents whereby the Welsh Office has given one-off payments, such as in May 1979, when a £750,000 trust was set up. The income from that led to the installation of a professor of geriatric medicine in the National School of Medicine in Cardiff. I shall be grateful to the Minister if he will make such representations.
    Mr. Luce: Both my right hon. Friend and I know the importance of the Sherman theatre to Cardiff and, indeed, to Wales. I observe that the University college has decided to give a tiding-over sum running into early 1988. This will give time for the theatre to look for other sources of funds. The Welsh Arts Council already gives considerable sums and it is reasonable to look to local authorities to play their part too. The South Glamorgan county council plays its part, and other local authorities should look upon the Sherman theatre as a good investment for their areas.
    Mr. Grist: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Cardiff city council already gives generously to one theatre in Cardiff and to the finest concert hall in Britain? The county council should certainly give more support, but there is room for central Government short-term financing which will, unfortunately, be necessary over and above anything that the university will give. The university funding is ceasing at short notice.
    Mr. Luce: I know the importance that my hon. Friend attaches to this theatre. The Welsh Arts Council receives money direct from the Arts Council of Great Britain—taxpayers' money. It gives a sizeable sum and is taking a keen interest in the whole question of the future financing of this theatre.
    Mr. Freud: Does the Minister not feel that the Government have some responsibility for the continued existence and wellbeing of university theatres in general? When UGC funding dries up, is it not important for the Government to provide interim finance so that the wellbeing not only of the theatre in Wales but of those in Exeter and Oxford can be preserved?
    Mr. Luce: I must reiterate the point that I have already made, that the Government through the Welsh Arts Council, are already giving considerable support. For this financial year the Welsh Arts Council is giving £250,000 to the theatre. This shows the importance that it attaches to it. With all these theatres, it is partnership and the variety of sources of finance that are important. That is why it is right to look to local authorities to play their part.

    Royal Opera House
    Mr. Fisherasked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about the development and extension of the Royal Opera House.
    Mr. Luce: I have discussed the development plans with the Royal Opera House and have met representatives of the Covent Garden Community Association.
    Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister practise a little open government here and allow the public to know what is going on in this matter, which is of some significance to the arts and to public expenditure? Will he do two things? First, will he publish the 1975 trust deed so that the public can see the terms and conditions on which the land for the

    653
    development of the opera house was granted? Secondly, could he explain what is the interest, if any, of the Royal Opera House in the Lyceum and how the financial involvement of the London Residuary Body might be concerned in this project? Unless he gives some more information to the public on these important matters, people will feel that public expenditure and the future of the Royal Opera House are not in safe hands.
    Mr. Luce: I am quite happy to give as much information on this as I can. The Royal Opera House came forward with an imaginative plan for its long-term development. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the plan involves raising about £55 million, and the opera house proposes that at least a substantial proportion of that, about £30 million, should come from commercial development. It is important that the opera house should be able to prove that it can raise this money from the private sector. That is its objective. I shall look at the question of the publication of the deeds and whether that is possible. In the meantime, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the long-term proposals, which are subject to planning approval and to approval by me, are imaginative and should be carefully considered.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that just before Christmas the all-party arts and heritage group examined the plans and proposals and found them exciting, imaginative and entirely realistic? Like me, does my right hon. Friend wish the Royal Opera House every success?
    Mr. Luce: I am pleased that the Royal Opera House has put forward imaginative plans. Clearly, it is important to realise that they have to go through certain stages, which includes planning approval from Westminster city council. After that I shall have to consider, as the trustee under the deed of covenant, whether I can allow this to go through. Like my hon. Friend, I broadly praise the long-term objectives.

    Public Library Service
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Minister for the Arts when he last met with the Association of County Councils to discuss the future of the Public Library Service.
    Mr. Luce: The Association of County Councils has not sought a meeting to discuss this matter with me, but I shall be happy to see the association if it does.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that there have been 200 library closures since 1979, a 34 per cent. cut in book funding per head of population since 1979 and a 20 per cent. cut in the same figure for the county of Cumbria? Are the Government simply anti-culture?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that this is the first time that he has put an oral question to me—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: No. Withdraw.
    Mr. Luce: If that is not true, I am happy to withdraw it. I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in the subject of arts and libraries. I hope, therefore, that he will welcome the fact that the amount of money allocated to local authority libraries and museums will increase in the coming financial year by 15 per cent. I hope he will also
    654
    welcome the fact that, compared with a decade ago, when the Socialists were last in power, there are more books in libraries.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Staff Reporting and Appraisal
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Minister for the Civil Service what action he is taking to improve staff reporting and appraisal throughout the Civil Service.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): All Departments are introducing new appraisal systems to cover staff in non-industrial grades. The new systems must focus on results achieved in relation to planned objectives. Early evidence shows they are being well received.
    Mr. Greenway: I welcome the openness of the system that my right hon. Friend has just described. It compares well with the snoops being appointed by many Labour local authorities to push people in local authority employment in places such as Ealing and Brent.
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I am grateful also for the increasing openness in the Civil Service, especially on appraisals. There is an increasing move in the Civil Service to relate pay to performance, which is also resulting in higher productivity.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will the Minister accept the gratitude of the House for any part that he played in getting the Prime Minister to accept the loyalty and dedication of the Civil Service and to show her admiration for it — elements that were lacking over the previous seven years? Will the right hon. Gentleman now go on to ensure that many of those civil servants who are leaving the Civil Service are encouraged to remain in it?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I should like to take advantage of his question to say that recently the Management and Personnel Office tabled an annual report for the first time, copies of which are in the Library. This gives a clear message from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the importance of the Civil Service and its dedication and loyalty. That is true of the vast bulk of the Civil Service.
    Mr. Stokes: Returning to the subject of staff appraisal, is my right hon. Friend aware that in my experience, which goes back a long time, the Civil Service and the armed forces are very much better at staff appraisal than are a great deal of industry and commerce, which is a shame for industry and commerce?
    Mr. Luce: There may be a considerable amount of truth in that. The modern methods used by today's Civil Service are as good as anything in the private sector.
    Dr. McDonald: Is the Minister aware that the research commissioned by the MPO shows that women are consistently marked down in terms of promotability? What steps will he take to reverse that trend?
    Mr. Luce: There is an Equal Opportunities Office and, as employers, we are totally pledged to equal opportunities within the Civil Service. In the service as a whole at least half of the Civil Service comprises women, but they are employed principally in junior positions. Obviously, our

    655
    interest is to persuade more women to serve in senior positions, in long-term careers, and to do our best in that direction.

    Productivity
    Mr. Gerald Bowdenasked the Minister for the Civil Service what is his estimate of improvements in productivity in the Civil Service as a result of management reform and other changes since 1979.
    Mr. Luce: About 90,000 Civil Service posts were saved between April 1979 and April 1986 by general streamlining and greater efficiency. That is an improvement of well over 10 per cent. of the size of the Civil Service in 1979 and a major contribution to the overall reduction of 19 per cent.
    Mr. Bowden: I am encouraged by my right hon. Friend's reply. Does he agree that one of the management objectives of any enterprise must be value for money? Does he consider that cost efficiency might be achieved by contracting out some of the ancillary services within the Civil Service, such as catering?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. Clearly, the objective of the Civil Service is to get the best possible value for money for the taxpayer. The evidence of the past few years shows that our achievement is solid. We have saved just under £1 billion of taxpayers money by improvements in productivity as a whole and reductions in the size of the Civil Service, and we have been able to improve services as well. I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's points.
    Mr. Heifer: While the Minister is considering improvements in productivity, surely he will not accept the nonsense that we saw in the press over the weekend about members of the Civil Service who are supporters of the Militant Tendency. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we shall not follow the ideas of McCarthy in the United States of America and extend the concept so that people must take a loyalty test before they can be members of the Civil Service?
    Mr. Luce: I have not, as yet, had any evidence of that drawn to my attention. However, a question on that subject has been tabled for me for tomorrow. As the hon. Gentleman may know, long-standing arrangements have been designed to prevent extremists gaining access to highly classified Government information. Political affiliation is not a factor in recruitment to the public service. The Civil Service has a long tradition of political impartiality. The only requirement is that civil servants should serve the democratically elected Government of the day with loyalty and integrity. The vast majority of the Civil Service do so.

    Secondments
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister for the Civil Service what recent initiatives he has taken to encourage exchanges between civil servants and industrialists, other than full-time secondments.
    Mr. Luce: We have introduced the Whitehall and industry scheme, under which young civil servants can spend short periods on attachment to business organisations. Under another scheme, civil servants can he attached, on an unpaid basis, to the boards of private sector companies.
    Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that there are practical difficulties in encouraging full-time secondments'? However, I welcome the increase in them in recent years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that many more initiatives could be taken to encourage part-time secondments between industry and the Civil Service, and vice versa, which would be beneficial to both sides? Will he consider ways in which more civil servants could be appointed to non-executive, albeit unpaid, posts on public and private industry boards?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's continuing interest in the problem. It is singularly important that there should be the greatest degree of interchange between the Civil Service, other parts of the public sector, and, principally, the private sector. As he knows, I am trying to persuade other Departments to increase the number of secondments from the private sector and the number of inward secondments from the private sector to the Civil Service. I am looking at ways of doing that, including non-executive and unpaid directors, short courses with businesses and our training courses, to seek a greater interchange between the two.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Minister agree that the numbers involved are still pitifully small and that his remarks are, therefore, very welcome. I, too, acknowledge that there is a great deal for people from the private sector to learn by working in the public sector, in which the constraints and the whole way of life is entirely different from that in the private sector.
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is right and I am certainly doing my best to encourage that. It is not, as was said earlier, an easy process to arrange, but, as the hon. Gentleman may know, several important posts in the Civil Service are being filled by outside people for short periods.

    Management and Personnel Office
    Mr. Roweasked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will provide more information on the work and achievements of the Management and Personnel Office.
    Mr. Luce: Information on aspects of the work of the Management and Personnel Office is published frequently. On 28 January, for the first time, a report on the work of the MPO as a whole was published. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. I shall consider producing a similar publication in future years.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us who have had the opportunity to meet members of that Office are grateful for the chance to learn more about its work? Does he also accept that progress towards eliminating discrimination against people with non-white skins is moving much more slowly than some of us would like? Can he assure us that that will be a priority within that Office?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in this subject, and I am certainly anxious for hon. Members on both sides of the House to have a chance to learn more about the workings of the Civil Service. On his last point, it is very much our policy as employers to pursue the principle of equal opportunities for all. My hon. Friend may know that several studies are taking place about the ethnic origins of people recruited

    657
    to the service. I hope that this will help us in our overall campaign to encourage the maximum number of ethnic minorities to join.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Minister aware that many of us will not be happy with the inadequate reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)? Whatever answer he may give tomorrow—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are discussing question 88.
    Mr. Winnick: I am dealing with the management of personnel in the Civil Service, Mr. Speaker. Many of us believe that there must be the widest possible opposition to any sort of McCarthyism. If the Minister is worried about extremists, he should be worrying about the Cabinet.
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. No one has ever suggested that there is any sort of McCarthyism. We have well laid-down procedures for dealing with any problems in the Civil Service, and the vast bulk of civil servants are loyal and impartial and do their job properly.
    Later——
    Mr. Fisher: On a point of order arising from Question Time, Mr. Speaker. You may have noticed the enthusiasm of the Minister for the Arts for the number of questions tabled by my hon. Friends in an attempt to scrutinise the Government's appalling record on the arts. At an appropriate moment in the parliamentary year will you consider granting more time to this matter so that my hon. Friends can explore fully the Government's bad record?
    Mr. Jessel rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Is it on the same matter?
    Mr. Jessel: It is related, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Let me deal with one matter at a time. First, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) knows that it is not for me to decide which questions to take on which day. That is for the usual channels. Nevertheless, I share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm, because I wish to see the Chamber as full as possible all the time. Forty-seven questions to the Minister for the Arts is extremely good.
    Mr. Jessel: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As Arts Question Time for 10 minutes every three weeks is greatly valued by hon. Members who care about the arts, is it not an abuse for Opposition Members, who, by and large, are not philistines, suddenly to table 47 questions in one day so as to—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is certainly not an abuse. It is good news that there is such a great interest in the arts.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must be seeking to raise a matter on which I can rule. I shall take points of order now because, as I said on Thursday, there is no statement today.
    Mr. Greenway: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not expected that, if hon. Members table questions, they should turn up to ask them? That has not happened today in the case of many of the 47 Opposition Members who tabled questions to the Minister for the Arts. That is a gross discourtesy to him and the House.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Only the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young) was not present for Arts Questions today.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did you notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) exited stage left in high dudgeon because he was unable to get in at Arts Question Time? If we were given more time, perhaps he would not have to leave so abruptly.
    Mr. Speaker: I have no idea why the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) left the Chamber.
    Mr. Freud: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It must be admitted that 10 of the 47 questions were not tabled by the Labour party. May I suggest that the chances of hijacking an Arts Question Time by tabling so many questions make it extraordinarily difficult to question the Minister in respect of his prime responsibility to the arts. Would it not be possible to have one open question per session?
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This process only delays us. I am sure that the whole House wants to see Question Time taken seriously. From the Chair, I welcome the fact that hon. Members take such an interest in Question Time. I would like to see the Chamber full all the time.
    Mr. Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you agree that the fact that the Liberal Members were not able to ask the questions that they felt they wanted to ask is nothing to do with your control of the Chamber, but with their dilatoriness in tabling questions?
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you consider the request put to you by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) that Arts Question Time might be extended, will you bear in mind that it is estimated that it costs an average of £70 to answer a parliamentary question? There is a view that the £2,520 of public money that it will have cost to answer the 36 questions tabled so energetically by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central would perhaps have been better used towards action on the arts.
    Mr. Winnick: On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I shall deal with one thing at a time. I should say to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) that the timing of questions is not a matter for me. I have already said that.
    Mr. Winnick: On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could consideration be given to looking at our procedures enabling us to raise matters of great importance? As I understand it, you are not in favour of the abuse of Standing Order No. 20. You may know that on Thursday, during business questions, I raised the acute plight of the Palestinians who are facing starvation in the Lebanon. The situation has hardly changed. It may be argued that we have an opportunity of asking the Foreign Secretary oral questions every five or six weeks. I took the opportunity today to look at the questions that are on the agenda for Wednesday. I found that there is one question, No. 12, which may be reached and which you may allow to be extended to include the topic I have chosen. The other question is No. 22, which it is likely will not be reached.

    659
    I ask you to bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that in the country at large—however important arts questions and the rest of today's business is—there is acute anxiety as to whether Britain, through the international agencies, could play some part in trying to bring relief to people facing starvation. Is there no way, on a day such as this when there is not too much business, for such matters to be raised?
    Mr. Speaker: If by chance today's business were to conclude earlier than anticipated, there may be other opportunities.
    Mr. Boyes: Further to an earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may have noticed that I rose in my place briefly but was not called and did not exit left in a hurry. However, you give preference to people wanting to make maiden speeches. You may not have been aware that I was trying to ask my maiden question to the Minister for the Arts. I hope that you will take that into consideration next time.

Nuclear Waste (Debate)
3.30 pm
The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning (Mr. Waldegrave): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a debate on nuclear waste disposal last Monday I paid tribute to what I believed to be the courage of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for saying that, if the geology and other conditions were right, he would not necessarily object to the disposal of nuclear waste in his constituency. By a slip of the tongue I referred to him as the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and this was recorded in Hansard. This has understandably embarrassed the hon. Member for Midlothian. I should like both to put the record straight and to apologise to him.

Orders of the Day

  Broadcasting Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.38 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, That the Bill he now read a Second time.
  This is not a massive Bill and may not, at first blush, seem an exciting Bill. However, it is an essential part of the change coming over British broadcasting which is both massive and exciting. Professor Peacock did not, contrary to some reports, invent the idea of change; change will come about because of the way in which technology will increase choice. However, he and his colleagues did set the agenda for change, as the House recognised when it debated his report before Christmas.
  It is noticeable that the days have gone when those who supposed themselves to be in the know in these matters sniggered and sneered at the Peacock report. There is no doubt that it will have a striking influence on the way in which we move from a highly regulated duopoly towards a more open broadcasting system that is founded on the choice of the viewer and the listener. I do not contend that the Peacock committee produced all the right answers, but it set the agenda. We in government are going steadily through the items on the agenda and announcing decisions as they are necessary. A recent example is the indexation of the BBC licence fee. We shall he listening to views—r example, on radio—after we publish our Green Paper later this month.
  The Bill deals with the ITV part of broadcasting. Its main provision is designed to give the Government enough time to consider whether there should be changes in the way in which ITV terrestrial contracts are let. The ITV system has many achievements to its credit since it came into being and both the companies and the IBA deserve credit for them. It is my experience that most minds within the ITV system are lively ones that accept the need for further change. After all, some of them began as radicals thrusting forward to find their place in the sun when the BBC had the monopoly. I do not believe that they or their successors want to end up as slightly overweight giants trying to keep newcomers out of the kingdom in which they themselves were newcomers not long ago.
  I think that it is accepted by everyone that there must be further change. I believe that the arrival of British direct broadcasting by satellite will in itself be a powerful agent of change.
  The first proposal in the Bill is to ensure that the new DBS—direct broadcasting by satellite—services have a chance to prove themselves. Provision for DBS was made in the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984. I do not need to go through the slightly painful history of the project, but in 1985 we invited the IBA to assess the prospects of a British DBS service to be provided by independent commercial interests. The IBA told us after it had made its assessment that interest in the venture was such that the relevant provisions of the 1984 Act should be brought into operation.
  The IBA went on to advertise a contract fora DBS service and announced in December 1986 that it had

  663
  decided to give a contract to British Satellite Broadcasting Ltd. There is now the prospect of the British DBS service providing three national television channels and becoming available by the end of the decade. This will be a great step towards broadening consumer choice in a way that Professor Peacock anticipated and as we would like to see.
  The financial investment that is required to establish a DBS runs to hundreds of millions of pounds. A highly specialised sort of satellite has to be built to carry the high-powered transmitters that are needed for DBS. Programmes have to be bought and schedules devised, and all of this must be done before the service begins. Finally, the satellite has to be launched. There cannot be certainty of success. There is no doubt that it is an expensive and risky business. Responsibility for making all the financial arrangements rests entirely with the contractor.
  Even if preparations go reasonably well and the service is launched, it will he some time before the contractor begins to see a return on his investment. The number of households able to receive the service will build up fairly slowly, and in the early years it will not be large enough to cover his costs. To provide a reasonable balance between the risks and the likely return, we believe that a longer contract period is needed than is necessary normally for a terrestrial television contract.
  In the 1984 Act, some allowance was made by providing for DBS contracts to last for a maximum of 12 years compared with eight years for the terrestrial ITV contracts. It became clear after that, in discussions with the IBA, that 12 years would still not be enough to provide would-be investors with a reasonable expectation of return. I therefore announced last year, before the DBS contract was advertised, that the Government would see an opportunity to change the law to extend the contract period from 12 years to 15 years. There is nothing magical in the period of 15 years, hut, having looked carefully at the business projections, we believe that it provides a fairer balance between risks and returns. Hence, clause 1(2) gives effect to the undertaking that I have given.
  As the lifetime of the IBA expires on 31 December 1996—some years before the expiry of the 15-year period that I am talking about—we also intend in the near future to bring into force section 45 of the 1984 Act. This provides for the extension of the lifetime of the authority and will pave the way for the authority to award a DBS contract for the full 15-year period.
  The second purpose of the Bill is to keep open the options for change in the terrestrial independent television system. The Peacock committee made a number of specific proposals in this regard. The majority recommended that ITV contracts should be put out to competitive tender. There is also a proposal in the report that Channel 4 should be, not compelled, but given the option of selling its own advertising time rather than being financed by subscription from the ITV companies. The committee also reflected on the possibility that some or all IBA services might be encoded alongside BBC services if subscription were introduced in place of the television licence fee. From what I said in the general debate, the House will know that the Government have commissioned consultants to carry out a study of the technical and economic aspects of subscription, and we expect that report before too long.
  The Peacock committee is not the only body that has made proposals for changing the system under which ITV contracts are let.. I find that, even among the beneficiaries of the existing system, for several years there has been a
  664
  certain restlessness about the way in which the matter is managed, and the IBA has put forward proposals, in what it describes as "A Better Way", for awarding ITV contracts. The IBA has proposed new arrangements which include the possibility of a longer contract period and provision for a formal review of a company's performance at specified intervals.
  We are considering different ideas from different stables for change in the way in which ITV contracts are awarded. Obviously, they are important decisions, and we have not yet come to firm conclusions on them. We want to listen to and take proper account of the views not only of interested parties but of the public as a whole. Therefore, we believe that a period is needed in which we can assess the changes in the system, which will he sensible against the background of developments scanned by the Peacock committee.
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: The point that my right hon. Friend made is absolutely crucial to the assessment of the present performance of ITV contractors. Will he assure the House that we shall have a chance to debate any proposed new system before it is introduced?
  Mr. Hurd: That is inevitable. Any change of any substance would need legislation. Therefore, I do not think that it can be much of a secret that we would intend to produce early in the next Parliament a substantial broadcasting Bill covering this and, no doubt. other matters. We have not taken decisions of policy. There should be time for hon. Members and interested parties to express their views not only on the Peacock proposals—that is, those of the majority and of the minority—but on the IBA proposals and on what the ITV companies may think. Under the present system and timings, there is not the necessary room for manoeuvre—the necessary time for the kind of process that my hon. Friend wishes to see.
  The ITV contracts now in force expire on 31 December 1989. Unless some action is taken, the IBA will advertise during the course of this year new contracts for a maximum of eight years, to run from the beginning of 1990 until the end of 1997. This would mean that there would be no opportunity for changes to the contracts system itself, or for other changes that might closely affect new contracts, before 1998.
  We have discussed this problem with the IBA and as a result have come to the conclusion that the best course would be to provide in the Bill for a three-year extension of the existing contracts. I say "in the Bill." I mean, in effect, because anybody who has studied the Bill w ill see that, on the face of it, it is a more complicated procedure. However, the effect is to provide for a three-year extension of existing contracts.
  That is achieved in two ways. First, provision is made in the Bill for the next round of ITV contracts. They will run from 1 January 1990 and will last for only three years. Clause 1(3) therefore amends the relevant provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1981 to provide that the contracts that commence on 1 January 1990 should expire no later than 31 December 1992. That would include the next breakfast. television contract, which is due to begin on 1 February 1991. If, therefore, the Government come to the conclusion, after reflection and after having listened to views, that changes in the contract system are necessary, they can be introduced in time for the contracts running from 1 January 1993.

  665
  On the other hand, if the Government decide to make no substantive changes, the Bill also provides for the IBA to award contracts under the existing system from 1993 onwards.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Suggestions have been made, which are causing concern in the county of Cumbria, that a decision is likely to be made in favour of a reduction in the number of contractors to 10. Effectively that would wipe out a number of smaller, regional television stations. Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that that does not happen and that it is ruled off the agenda? Some parts of the country, such as mine, which enjoys Border Television, would be very angry if once again a decision of this nature were to be taken, as was taken by the BBC, against the interests of the county as a whole.
  Mr. Hurd: I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern about the BBC, because I think he wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about it. I have no power, nor does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—nor would the House wish us to have the power—to intervene in the way in which the BBC organises these matters. Any change of that kind would not flow from the Bill, and I know of no such change in prospect. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, it would be a very serious matter, and I have no news that that is in prospect or under consideration.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Prime Minister especially had no interest or concern and would not involve herself in this matter. Will he assure us that when it comes to the appointment of the new director-general of the BBC she will not again use those words, "Is he one of us?"
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying far from the terms of the Bill.
  Mr. Hurd: Far from the terms of the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and far from the terms of reality. The Prime Minister entered the discussion simply because the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) sought to invoke her, rather exaggerating the powers that she has over the regulation of the BBC.
  The second step that the Government propose to take, if Parliament agrees to the Bill, is to bring into force section 46 of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984. The effect would be to relieve the IBA of the obligation to advertise the shortened round of contracts. Section 46 was originally drawn up to encourage ITV companies to join in the so-called "joint venture" DBS project. That venture did not proceed, as the House knows. Therefore, section 46 was not implemented. However, a similar provision is needed now to extend existing terrestrial contracts. This Bill provides the opportunity for Parliament to consider the provision in the 1984 Act in its new context.
  The provisions of section 46 will have effect for one contract round only. In other words, after the shortened round of contracts to run from 1 January 1990, the IBA will, unless there is fresh legislative provision, be required to advertise succeeding contracts in the normal way.
  To sum up, this part of the Bill keeps open the options for change. It does not propose substantive changes to our
  666
  broadcasting system, or commit the House to such changes. As I have already said, any such changes would require further changes in the law in due course.
  It is no secret that, day by day. we edge nearer to the date of a general election. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) thinks that the Labour party will win and I think that the Conservative party will win. I do not know what obscure ambitions may be swirling about in the mind of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), but, whoever is right in those assumptions, no one would wish to have a position in which, although everyone has been discussing change in this area for a long time, change would not be possible because of action which the IBA had already set in hand, under the existing procedures, to advertise new contracts.
  Broadcasting, especially at this time, should not be the prisoner of its own procedures. If we are to make intelligent use of the opportunities now opening up, we need legislative room for manoeuvre.
  3.57 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I can open on a note of profound consensus. All of us on both sides of the House will agree that, day by day, we are getting nearer to the future. The Home Secretary was accurate on that matter.
  I start by making an apology to the House. A commitment relating to tomorrow's Committee sittings of the Criminal Justice Bill will take me out of the Chamber just before 6 o'clock. I hope that that will not prevent me from returning to hear the winding-up speeches.
  Although this is a small Bill, with limited objectives, its implications are important and could be disturbing. One disturbing aspect is the piecemeal way in which the Government enunciate their policy on broadcasting. The Bill deals with the Government's policy and the Home Secretary says that the Government are going through the Peacock recommendations one by one. At the same time he promises us that, within the next couple of weeks, the long-awaited Green Paper on radio broadcasting policy will be published. It is unsatisfactory to be given pieces of a jigsaw which we then have to try to fit together without seeing the whole picture.
  The extension of franchise periods for DBS stems from the knowledge—about which the Home Secretary has been frank this afternoon—that DBS, far from being an instant gold mine for investors, requires a huge and hazardous investment that cannot rely on an early return.
  Already the original timetable for DBS has slipped by a couple of years and Ministers have been careful not to promise that a 1990 start is assured. Already we are catering for franchises that will stretch into the 21st century. Those delays follow an uncertain start. I remember taking part in the Second Reading debate on the Cable and Broadcasting Bill with the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan). I remember those heady days of certainty, symbolised by the brave prophecy of the Home Secretary's predecessor. That is nearly three years ago. I remember listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying:
  "I believe that the consortium approach offers the most realistic chance of getting the British DBS service into action within the next three or four years."—[Official Report, 8 May 1984; Vol. 59, c. 757.]
  That prophecy, like many others in broadcasting policy, has fallen by the wayside. Those disappointments have led

  667
  the Government, regrettably in our view, to take the completely commercial route with such brave participants as Granada, Anglia and, among others, Mr. Richard Branson. By the way, whatever happened to his Litter Clean Up campaign? I hope that his participation in satellite broadcasting will he a little more clear cut and reliable than that.
  It is impossible to calculate the likely effect of successful DBS on television programming. Increased choice for the viewer is greatly to be welcomed and is inevitable. There will be much more of it as time goes by, but no one knows to what extent the viewer will take advantage of even the limited extra choice that will come when DBS arrives. We must bear in mind the extra and, at first, quite substantial costs of adapting sets and obtaining other equipment and the need, which has so far scuppered cable, to pay subscriptions to receive some of the new DBS channels.
  Current ITV franchise holders will be watching the extent to which they may need to go down market to compete for revenue and the possible effect on their finances if DBS grabs a sizeable part of advertising revenue. Independent local radio will also be watching fearfully, bearing in mind the precarious finances of a number of stations. It will be interesting to see next week or the week after how the Government intend to assist the prospects of such local radio stations if, as we hope, community radio is at long last to be brought into being.
  Of course, the real impact on ITV will come from any decision to adopt the Peacock recommendation of auctioning off the ITV franchises. That is the real reason for the extension in the Bill of the existing franchises. The Home Secretary was at his blandest when he said during our debate on the Peacock report:
  "One of the most significant recommendations was the proposal that in future ITV contracts should he put out to competitive tender. On 3 July I made it clear in my statement that the option for carrying out this recommendation, or indeed any changes in the system, including changes which the IBA has suggested, would he closed off for the next 10 years if the IBA were to proceed under the timetable in the present legislation to award the next round of ITV contracts to take effect from the beginning of 1990."
  The Home Secretary, referring to this Bill, said:
  "That Bill has not been brought forward because we have already decided on the changes that should be made. We simply do not want to foreclose the options."—[Official Report, 20 November 1986; Vol. 105, c. 717–8.]
  The right hon. Gentleman repeated that sentiment today when he said that he wanted to keep open the options for change. That means that if the Government were returned to office at the forthcoming general election there would be a danger that the foolish and damaging Peacock recommendation that ITV franchises should be auctioned off would be implemented.
  Selling television channels to the highest bidder would mean an inevitable degradation of the standards of programme content. Peacock makes it clear that the highest bidders would be expected to win and that explanations would be required if they did not; Peacock had in mind the crudest kind of commercial tendering. That would mean that money, not standards, would be the deciding factor in who runs ITV in the next decade and would set the pattern for the round of franchises after that. That would leave the field clear for the wealthiest multinationals, with the crassest standards.
  The misgivings of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) about the future of such estimable small companies as Border Television
  668
  would be more than justified. Anybody who has seen that company in operation knows that it is an admirable example of how a small, local television station can cater to a small area with a recognisable identity. The idea that a company such as Border could be bought out by a multinational bidder or even a bidder within this country is unacceptable.
  Let us be clear that any company that paid huge sums for a franchise—or sums that were huge in proportion to the area and population covered by the franchise—would be looking to get back its outlay as quickly as possible, which would mean maximising revenue through maximising audiences. The generally high standards of ITV would go. Any chance of increased access to independents—which, incidentally, was another Peacock recommendation—would also go. Visual musak and worse would be the order of the day.
  The Opposition believe that there is much to be said for examining the possibility of increasing access to independents, but that must not be made an excuse for casualising employment in ITV and the BBC, with the inevitable harmful effects on pay, conditions and employment prospects for those working in the industry.
  The Home Secretary spoke in November about the Bill facilitating "any changes" to the system, and any changes could mean the adoption of the Peacock recommendation to enable a change in the present system of supporting Channel 4. Such a change, leaving Channel 4 to cast around for its own advertising revenue, would not only lead to higher costs for Channel 4 in setting up machinery for obtaining such revenue, but would mean that Channel 4 would not have a guaranteed income, with all the uncertainties that that would produce. Channel 4 would be thrown directly into the market place and such a change would risk throwing away the reputation that Channel 4 has achieved as perhaps the most brilliantly successful television channel in the world.
  Such changes in ITV would inevitably have a harmful effect on BBC1 and BBC2. A national ITV network sold off to the highest bidders would force the BBC down market to compete, and a commercially avaricious Channel 4 would have an equally inevitable effect on its public sector counterpart, BBC2.
  In such an environment the position of the director-general of the BBC would become impossible. Already, following the deplorable Government and Tory party pressures on the BBC, the calibre of the new director-general will be of paramount importance in defending and enhancing the independence and standards of both BBC television and radio. The choice of director-general, which is to be made by the BBC board of governors during the next few days, will be a crucial test of the courage and integrity of that body. Its members will be failing in their duty if they simply go for a safe man or woman whose appointment will pacify the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
  The new director-general——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Bill is in no way related to BBC matters.
  Mr. Kaufman: As I have sought to explain, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Bill is related to the BBC, because if the ITV franchises are auctioned off that will degrade the standards of ITV and the competition in the market place

  669
  will inevitably drag down the standards of the BBC. In that context the ability, integrity and calibre of the director-general of the BBC will be of crucial importance.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is being very fair. I understand the general principle, but he must not go into details about the director-general, and so on.
  Mr. Kaufman: What I am saying relates directly to one of the clauses of the Bill which would affect the way in which ITV franchises are disposed of, and that would have a direct effect on the programming, quality, independence and integrity of the BBC. It is for that reason, which is directly related to the content of the Bill, that I say that the new director-general of the BBC will have to be a tough and independent person, with sufficient self-confidence to stand up not only to political pressure from any political party, but, if necessary, to the very governors who make the appointment. The future of an indispensable national institution rests on that decision, and the board of governors must not fall short of what the occasion demands.
  Let me make it clear that the Labour party wants a BBC which is dedicated and committed to independence and high standards and two ITV channels which will seek to maintain comparable standards. That is why a Labour Government will ensure protection of the present structure of Channel 4. A Labour Government will have nothing to do with any proposals to auction off the ITV franchises. We reject such a proposal totally and outright.
  However, we believe that improvements can and should be made in the present method of allocating ITV franchises. We believe that the process should be more open and more accountable. Applicants should know more precisely what is expected of them, and if they fail they should know more clearly why that is so. Therefore, we shall consult the unions in the industry, the IBA and all the others who have helpful proposals to make to ensure that this highly important process of allocation of franchises is more appropriate to a democratic society, in which freedom of information should extend to the activities of public bodies.
  The Bill could be dangerous as an Act in the hands of a Conservative Government. However, it will be of great importance in enabling a Labour Government to assist in making possible a television structure for the next decade and beyond which will maintain high standards and enhance democracy and freedom of expression in Britain. For that reason, we shall not oppose it.
  4.11 pm
  Mr. Julian Critchley: I appreciate that there is a fine line in this debate between the problems of the IBA and of the BBC. I hope that you will be kind to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I take a leaf out of the Secretary of State's book. He began by saying that he has indexed the licence fee of the BBC. Handsome though that may be, it is not handsome enough, because it means that in real terms, over the years, the BBC will suffer from a diminishing income, and with that will be less able to compete with the IBA.
  The second point that the Secretary of State made was about the Peacock committee recommendation that in future the contracts for the independent programme
  670
  companies should be put out to competition. Many Conservative Members feel that that would be a retrograde step, and that it could lead only to the expansion of the media empires of people like Murdoch, who would be able to range from the printed word into television and purchase it. That would not be of universal advantage.
  Mr. Clement Freud: Will the hon. Gentleman quantify "people like Murdoch"? Who else is there?
  Mr. Critchley: There are one or two fellow Australians who might, at first glimpse, be indistinguishable from Mr. Murdoch.
  It would be a grave error were our television companies to fall under the direct control of foreign-based companies in the way that many of our newspapers have in recent years. The Conservative party should look pretty severely at any of the conditions that may hedge round the ownership of massive media companies.
  The Secretary of State mentioned, en passant, Channel 4.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Before my hon. Friend passes from that important point, does he agree that it has implications not just for television, but far-reaching implications for the British film industry which is much patronised by Channel 4, for example?
  Mr. Critchley: Over the years I have become something of a nationalist, in the French sense. I do not think that a French Government of any complexion would be prepared to look happily upon the ownership of the French media by Australian or American entrepreneurs. That may be a lesson which the United Kingdom Government, of whatever party, could happily absorb.
  Channel 4 is a Conservative conception. The former Home Secretary, who now leads the House of Lords with such distinction, is the father of the fourth channel. Its success is something for which our great Government can claim credit, and, alarming though the fourth channel might be to Mrs. Whitehouse from time to time, it has greatly added to the cultural scene in the United Kingdom. Therefore, we must be careful not to muck about with its financial arrangements in a way that could conceivably be to its detriment.
  Members of the IBA sometimes see in advance the programmes that are made by the independent programme companies. Should not the governors of the BBC make a habit of doing so? Rule by the stable door has not proved to be successful.
  The setting up of commercial television nearly 30 years ago was one of the great achievements of the old Conservative party. The running battle which has been fought more recently between Conservative central office and the BBC cannot be so described. It has muddied the waters. We are in danger of not being able to distinguish between state and public service broadcasting. We have, alas, an Under-Secretary with responsibilities for sport—thank God we have not yet appointed a Minister for Information.
  The role of the governors of the BBC, like that of the members of the IBA, should be to act as a shock absorber. Not only should they be shock absorbers between the BBC and the Government, but they should be encouraged to play a more active role within the BBC. The governors

  671
  must, from time to time, flex their muscles. They should make a habit of seeing some programmes in advance and not just react to events. The governors of the BBC need to regain control of the BBC, not only from the special branch, but from many of the programme producers.
  The problem facing the BBC—this is different from the problem facing the independent companies and the IBA—is to resolve the difficulty of how to keep editorial control over so vast an output. There is a need to provide managerial and editorial control without excessive supervision. The problem is that there are part-time governors of the BBC who, with the help of executives working full-time, have to control a massive output.
  The parliamentary Lobby, as is well known, meets most days in the Palace of Westminster in a room from which Members of Parliament are debarred. I have often wondered what might happen were I to turn up at the Lobby briefing early one morning. I am told that the Lobby, steered by No 10, claimed that all the 12 members of the board of governors of the BBC are "acceptable" to the Prime Minister and No. 10 Downing street. "Acceptable"? That is a strangely disturbing word to have used. All 12 members have been appointed by the Prime Minister. Should all 12 be equally acceptable to the leaders of the Opposition parties? Should Prime Ministers, of whatever persuasion, treat the BBC as if it were the United States supreme court, to be filled by presidential nominees? Is there no other way in which the governors of the BBC and IBA might be appointed, save from No. 10 Downing street directly? It is worth a thought.
  To a politician, every broadcast is a party political broadcast. We have grown thin skinned in recent years. We have witnessed the growth of political intolerance as the gap between the Labour and Conservative parties has widened, the sad end to the old consensus, and the advent of three-party politics. At the same time, our great newspapers have fallen into the hands of opinionated and foreign owners.
  The BBC is not the state broadcasting corporation. It does not exist to please either Conservative central office or Walworth road. If it offends, as it has in the past, one should only have to raise a telephone and speak to the chairman of the board of governors. Ultimately, independence is not a luxury to be offered to broadcasters but a necessity for our audiences and for democracy. The future of broadcasting is too important to be left to the chairman of our great party.
  4.20 pm
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: As ever, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) aims his arrows deftly, and it is only later that one sees the full point of his remarks. I have appointed two governors of the BBC. One was suggested by the Foreign Secretary, so that there should be experience for the overseas services, and the other I determined myself. I cannot recall the Prime Minister playing any part in the choice. If ever I have the chance again—I doubt that I shall—when he is in his older and more mature years, I would look forward to appointing the hon. Member for Aldershot.
  The hon. Gentleman made a remark about Channel 4 and Lord Whitelaw. I must admit to paternity of Channel 4, although the Annan report played a bigger part. Its sex, or structure, was determined by Lord Whitelaw, but it did not come just from one Government.
  672
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman about indexing the licence fee. The BBC asked for that in 1978, and we turned it down. I doubt whether it wants it now and it will not remove the problem of the licence fee in the years ahead.
  It is right that there should be the delay set out in the Bill. It is probably inevitable. It is easier said than done, to move quickly in these matters, because profound technical changes are taking place. I hope that the Government are moving slowly because there will he a general election. Nobody knows what the result will be. but there will be a different political complexion and a different feel in the House. For that reason alone, it is right that there should be delay.
  I have three questions. I am no longer involved in broadcasting on a day-to-day basis, and sometimes I read or listen to remarks made by the Home Secretary and his Ministers, or read about changes that have taken place and cannot be clear what they involve. What about the rolling review? I thought—I am obviously wrong—that this was to change profoundly the nature of the way that new contracts are awarded every 10 years. Are the rolling reviews that take place at the moment based on legislation, or are they administrative changes made by the IBA? Are the reports made about the various companies made public? I hear them discussed when I sometimes mix in television circles, and I hear that, as part of the rolling review, the IBA has called in a certain company and has made changes in what it is doing. How many changes have been made so far, who carries them out, and how do they fit into the way that new contracts are awarded?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) made an interesting point. I can recall—my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) will remember this as he hails originally from Yorkshire and knows a great deal about that side of affairs in Yorkshire—that about five or six years ago Yorkshire Television and Tyne Tees were allied, However, the IBA stepped in and told them that the marriage, however tenuous on financial grounds, had to be broken up. There is talk about a major company taking over Border Television, but would this not require the approval of the IBA?
  My second point is about competitive tendering. I am against it because it is one of the silliest and most worrying proposals in the Peacock report. It had a good agenda, but anyone who gives a minute's thought to the problems of broadcasting and the technical changes that are coming about can write an agenda. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton that competitive tendering is a sure way to debase the coinage of programmes.
  My third point is about direct broadcasting by satellite. As I travel about the country, I see in the back gardens of houses dishes of quite a size. I have been thinking of having one on the roof of my house in Southwark, so I declare an interest. What does one have to do to get a satellite receiving dish in one's garden? If one wrote to one's local authority, would it know what one was talking about'? Would it need planning permission? What are the rules about these installations? Would anyone stop me'? Do I have to get approval? I would love to listen to the Irish satellite that will apparently be put up shortly.
  This is a short but important Bill. In case any of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench have any ideas about this, I look forward to reading the Committee reports.
  4.26 pm
  Mr. Tim Brinton: I remind hon. Members of my interest in these matters in that I work for the BBC and ITV. I am a member of the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians and Equity. Therefore, I am up to my neck in it.
  My predominant thought about the Bill is that, much though I support it, it seems to me that we are working from the wrong ball park for the future. Whenever I have spoken about broadcasting in the House, I have noticed that hon. Members tend to take the position as it is today. In 1977, there was no Channel 4, there was a hot debate about Annan, there were hardly any video recording machines in domestic households, local radio was only just beginning to develop in full, and the whole scene was different. To look on today's Bill, which adjusts the licences and the length of them, in the context that perhaps in 10 years' time we shall be looking at anything vaguely similar to today's broadcasting patterns of two BBC channels, two ITV channels, and so on, is not the right calculation to make. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that the purpose of extending these contracts is to look at the position more closely, in more detail, and above all else—quite rightly—after a general election.
  Over the years, the Home Office has developed a tradition on broadcasting policy. It brings it forward piecemeal, but, after the general election, when these matters are looked at in the context of what we shall do about the methods by which we award contracts to the terrestrial franchises of ITV, that Bill must incorporate everything else, or it will not work.
  Some of the weightiest decisions since the foundation of the BBC in the 1920s must be made about what we want from public service broadcasting. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) made an interesting distinction between state broadcasting and public service broadcasting. That is a subject of great debate and, in some senses, it is responsible for some of the friction between broadcasters and politicians.
  Recently I was at a broadcasting conference, as was the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan)—who is listening closely to this debate. I do not believe that he was present when I said that the first word of the initials BBC was British and there was a hiss from the back of the hall. Lord Annan referred to the problem of defining the role of the BBC. It must be independent. It must be free from all spheres of influence, particularly governmental, but it must, at the same time, reflect the state. In that sense I quarrel with the distinction between the two roles as put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot. Public service broadcasting must not be a member of the Establishment nor party to it in any way, but generally it must reflect the state.
  Mr. Critchley: Would my hon. Friend accept, as a compromise, that the BBC should reflect the liberal consensus and exclude extremes?
  Mr. Brinton: My hon. Friend is trying to tempt me down the path of liberal consensus. One of the reasons that prompted me to enter this House 12 years ago was that I felt that the general consensus was not working and was not the way forward. I do not believe that the liberal consensus would be a true reflection of the wishes of all the British people. It is much more subtle, especially when
  674
  applied to broadcasting. A broadcaster must present the news objectively and factually and his comments must clearly be shown to be comments only. He must present arguments fairly from all points of view, including, I hasten to add, the liberal consensus view. The broadcaster should not just be a guardian of the air, if I can use that simile, for that would ignore other important matters.
  The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) earlier expressed his understandable anxiety about the smaller television stations such as Border Television. Once again, I should like to look at the crystal ball. I can understand his anxiety, but if we consider the pattern of progress in technology and electronics it is certain that, in the next 10 years, there will be a fragmentation in television in the same way as occurred in radio. There may be changes of all sorts which may affect Border Television, but I believe that local television, which I believe that the hon. Member for Workington wants, is something that will continue to develop and gain strength.
  In the next 10 years, rather than four terrestrially transmitted channels there may be as many as 50 channels coming from satellites fed through increasingly popular cable services and competing directly with our public service broadcasting—and by that I mean both the BBC and ITV. The question to which we should address ourselves in this all too short a debate is whether we expect the BBC and ITV to compete directly for viewers with, in effect, no control.
  The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said that he wants a satellite dish on the top of his house. That dish may receive programmes with all sorts of unrestricted commercials. For example, we may even have the ludicrous position of 50 minutes of commercials with 10-minute programmes in between. If that and other pap programmes became popular, how would ITV make a living? Any future Government must address that question in considerable detail.
  There appear to be two ways forward. The first is that ITV should have unrestricted competition, and I would be very sorry if that happened. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot that there would be a considerable lowering of programme standards and we would lose Channel 4 and programmes such as "Brideshead Revisited". What would we do with the BBC? Would it sit on a little island making middle-class liberal consensus programmes and nothing else? We must recognise the limitations of public service broadcasting in the years ahead and plan accordingly.
  If, in two or three years' time, Parliament felt strongly that it must protect the styles of ITV and the BBC to the full, with two channels, that will need considerable support. If there is to be a BBC licence fee, which can support one national BBC channel making general programmes of a popular as well as a less popular nature, with the other channel paid for through subscriptions, we might apply the same sort of answer to ITV—which is primarily what we are discussing today. It would not take much of a touch on the popularity switch for Channel 4 to be able to pay for itself.
  One of the most interesting arguments to consider is if Channel 4 could up the rating, by five points or whatever may be involved, to make it pay for itself, would that destroy what I believe to be the most interesting television service in the world? I certainly watch it a great deal and I do not want to destroy it. I believe that we must work out ways to protect it. It may be that much of the main

  675
  channel ITV output is popular, and we may conclude that it should compete directly with the popular major channels that, in 10 years' time, will be coming in from the rest of the world as, I hope, we shall be sending out our programmes.
  I welcome the emergence of Superchannel, which the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South will discover he can receive with a smaller dish. I also welcome the news that the BBC's external services are thinking about a satellite news service to the rest of the world. All those developments must he included in our deliberations.
  Comments have been made about the governors of the BBC and the members of the IBA, especially to the effect that the governors of the BBC should study some of the programmes before they are transmitted. I wonder whether it is time for an even greater change than has been mentioned today—and it has been mentioned before—in that we should think of changing the structure of public service broadcasting so that, in the fullness of time, there is a television authority that regulates both the BBC and the ITV. Perhaps it could be made up of people similar to those who currently serve the BBC and IBA. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) suggested in a previous debate, perhaps the board of management of the BBC should include some non-executive directors who could be lay members. We would then achieve a regulating body that is remote from the day-to-day executive work of the board of management of the BBC, something perhaps that is desirable. Currently, many of the troubles of the BBC stem from the fact that the governors are neither with the board of management nor right outside it—they do not know where they lie. The same applies to the members of the IBA, especially with their connections with Channel 4.
  I shall not delay the House any further. I think that this is an interesting first step and I hope that, while this legislation gives us time, that time will be used to the full to discuss all those wider questions.
  4.39 pm
  Mr. Norman Buchan: We tend to forget that this small Bill flows directly from the Peacock report. The Peacock committee was established not to prepare a blueprint for the future, although it did that, but to deal with funding and finance.
  The Bill was introduced in another place by Lord Beaverbrook. It arises out of the Peacock committee, but not because of the changes which that committee advocated. The Bill deals with keeping open the options for change. It is a significant Bill, although it is small. It deals with the purpose of the Peacock committee and with what happened as a result of that committee's report.
  I have argued on behalf of the Labour party that the Government have put the cart before the horse. The Government gave that committee the remit of considering how we should fund the BBC. Clearly, the Prime Minister—that great abstentionist who does not want to interfere with broadcasting— was thinking about introducing advertising to help fund the BBC. We argued that that was putting the cart before the horse. We feared that decisions about how to fund broadcasting would preempt decisions about the nature of future broadcasting. We argued that we should take a quick look at the changes in broadcasting before the problem of financing was tackled. That is what is now happening. The committee was asked to examine alternative financing methods, other
  676
  than public, so it was pushed towards recommending private financing, whether by subscription or advertising. The pattern of thinking is now being established.
  The great technological shift that will alter the pattern dramatically is broadcasting by satellite. Despite that, there is little discussion about how it should be used in public service broadcasting. It is already being considered in the allocation of franchises. Even in an apparently minor Bill such as this we should consider the nature of broadcasting for the future. A type of alliance exists among the more civilised hon. Members—some Tories and the entire membership of the Labour party—in relation to public service broadcasting.
  I want to follow the arguments used by the hon. Members for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) and for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley). I believe that there is a dichotomy between state broadcasting and public service broadcasting. The hon. Member for Gravesham said that there was some hissing at a broadcasting conference. I suspect that he was talking about one of the two conferences in Edinburgh, last year and the year before. I think that the hissing must have come from some Scottish nationalists at the back of the hall who were looking for a different solution for broadcasting.
  There is a separation between broadcasting and the apparatus of the state. This Government are trying to narrow that gap by using extra-legal methods. They are trying, not to differentiate between public service broadcasting and the state, but to bring public service broadcasting under the effective control, if not the legal control, of the Government and particularly of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. We saw that in relation to "Real Lives" two years ago. There is a distinction between what happened over that and what happened over the Zircon film.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying hard to relate what the hon. Gentleman is saying to the Bill's provisions, but I am finding it difficult. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the Bill, which deals with the IBA and contracts.
  Mr. Buchan: With respect—I mean that—Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Home Secretary said that the Bill would give us time to examine the options. We are now looking at the options. If we did not want to do that there would be no reason for the Bill. We are dealing with a crucial question. I was saying that two years ago it was necessary for the Home Secretary publicly to intervene and that the BBC had capitulated over Zircon. It applied a form of self-censorship—the most dangerous of all censorships.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Equally with great respect, I cannot see how interference wig h the BBC relates in any way to the Bill's provisions.
  Mr. Buchan: I shall do my best to keep within the proper bounds of discussion, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  There are two questions to be asked about the options. The first is whether it is necessary to extend the time for consideration at all. I am not sure whether we need three years, but if we are to allow that extension we must use the time to examine the options.
  For independent television the crucial element is direct broadcasting by satellite and in that connection the great problem is how to control it. We are told that the British

  677
  external service is considering satellite broadcasting. Satellites from other countries are also being used. There is no doubt that three or four entrepreneurs will control the structure. It has been said that France would never tolerate interference from foreign broadcasting authorities, but not even the chauvinistic French are able to prevent that. Berlusconi is an obvious case in point, dictating as he does the future of French and Italian television.
  Mr. Brinton: It has been said before, but is this not unlike the problem faced by the medieval monks who, 100 or 150 years after the printing press was invented and publishing became free to anyone who had the technology, tried to protect their vested interest?
  Mr. Buchan: The same analogy was used by Professor Peacock in his report. He compared the opening up of freedom in broadcasting with the freedom of the press after 1694 and the Censorship Act. I know my history, even though I am a member of the Labour party.
  Let us examine the freedoms which have been achieved. We have handed over 80 per cent. of the popular dissemination of news and information in this country to three people—Maxwell, Murdoch and Stevens. So much for the opening up of publishing and the monopoly of the monks. It has been the monopoly of the masters and is an even greater monopoly than that which occurred in medieval times.
  The analogy is fatal because it says more than Peacock thought it would say. It says that the only way to prevent monopoly is to ensure that there is regulated broadcasting. It should be regulated in order to give freedom of access and diversity of programmes and to prevent monopoly. We are concerned with the freedom of the listener, but he is concerned with the freedom of the contractor. Freedom for the contractor means that he has an eventual monopoly. The 3 million or 4 million readers of The Sun matter more than the one Murdoch who sits in Wapping. That is the kind of freedom that we ought to seek.
  The hon. Member for Gravesham is right; it is a fair analogy. We have seen what happened in the past and are determined that it shall not happen in the future through direct broadcasting by satellite. If it applied only to Britain we could deal with it, but it has an international aspect. How can we control that? I have seen direct broadcasting by satellite relayed by cable to some of the poorest countries in the world. Parents in those countries who have no running water in their huts have said to me, "My child wants a computer for Christmas." That is because they see the advertising of the consumer society, the aculturisation of people. Therefore, we must not only find a British method to deal with it but must rapidly develop an international method of dealing with it.
  We in the Labour party have made a tiny start towards finding a solution. If we do not find a solution, then, just as our popular press is controlled by three people, the whole of broadcasting by satellite in western Europe will be controlled by five people—Maxwell, Murdoch, Stevens, Berlusconi and one other. That is what will happen. That is the sort of problem we are facing.
  We have immediate options in relation to Channel 4. Perhaps this is the reason for the three-year postponement, but I hope not. I agree with those who say that the competition for advertising would be fatal. All the
  678
  analyses that we have made and that others have made about the pool of broadcasting revenue suggest that the opening up of competition by Channel 4 would do two things: first, it would weaken the regional element of all our commercial broadcasting—and local broadcasting is more expensive than buying in programmes; secondly, it would force Channel 4 to compete for the greatest amount of advertising and, instead of Channel 4 providing a fraction of our television programmes, it would have to compete with the lowest common denominator.
  The second reason for the delay is to allow time for the examination of the franchises. I question delay, because the whole purpose of the franchises was to analyse the work and the methods and the success or otherwise of the independent companies so that a franchise could be withdrawn if a company was not up to the mark. Once we begin to extend that, we remove the possibility of a rapid shift in some of the worst of the stations and encourage them to do what sometimes happened in the past in Scottish television—a period of mediocrity followed by a frenetic 18 months of promises about programmes and ideas for the future that are never implemented.
  We ought not to be too happy about an extension. It is made necessary not because of that for which the Peacock committee was set up, but for that which the Peacock committee eventually encouraged the Government to go ahead with—a major change in the structures of broadcasting. All of those major changes are pulling us away from public service broadcasting.
  Indexing will not be a stratification of the broadcasting open to the BBC because developing technology does not necessarily get any cheaper and indexing will mean that an inferior product will be forced upon the BBC. Most important, it will be unable to compete in new technology with commercial companies.
  We are moving very rapidly. After the Peacock evidence I hoped that I might continue with this subject for a little longer than I have been allowed to do. I had hoped that by this time the Labour party would have established a forward thinking working party. I hope to get some assurance from my Front Bench about that.
  Broadcasting has been in the forefront of political thought over the last few weeks. That is because of the events surrounding "The Secret Society" programmes and the conduct of the Government in relation to those programmes. If we are to defend and develop public service broadcasting, we must prevent the formation of a Ministry of Information. It would be right to remove broadcasting from the Home Office. We can no longer safely leave broadcasting in the hands of the Home Office, and that is the reason for my argument that it should be under a proper Ministry of the Arts. That could still happen. Sadly, the events of the last few weeks show that the quicker it happens the better for all of us.
  4.56 pm
  Mr. William Powell: This is the first time that I have had the privilege of being called to speak on the Second Reading of any Bill as early as 4.56 pm. Further, it is the first time, and it may be the only time, when I shall be called as the fifth person to speak from the Back Benches on Second Reading so early in the afternoon. That shows that the Bill is relatively uncontroversial. It is a modest measure, but being modest I welcome it. I wish

  679
  that we had more legislation that caused so little controversy. It is often the case that when a Bill tries to do too much it runs into difficulties.
  All hon. Members will agree that there is absolutely no danger of this Bill attempting to do too much. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing forward a measure of this nature. I welcome the Bill and hope that the House will give it an unopposed Second Reading. We have a procedure whereby relatively uncontroversial and modest measures can be referred to a Second Reading Committee upstairs. The decisions about whether Bills are referred to that Committee or are taken on the Floor of the House are, I imagine, taken through the usual channels. I hope that on reflection those responsible for timetabling this Bill to take up the time of the House will perhaps realise that it might have been more sensible to take it upstairs to a Second Reading Committee. That happens to some Bills and it is unfortunate that more Bills cannot bedealt with it in that way.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that a Bill which will fundamentally affect the whole of broadcasting should not be debated on the Floor of the House just because there appears to be no open desire to vote against it? I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Floor of the House is and ought to be and will remain the most important part of the Houses of Parliament.
  Mr. Powell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. No doubt the matters that she mentions were in the mind of the business managers when they decided that it was appropriate for this Bill to he dealt with on the Floor of the House. I have put the contrary argument and I hope that the procedure for Second Reading Committees upstairs can be used more widely than currently happens. That is my view but, of course. the hon. Lady is perfectly entitled to disagree. She may he right, but I suggest that this Bill could have been dealt with in the way that I have outlined.
  This is a holding Bill because it provides more time to consider matters vital to the future of public service broadcasting than is allowed by current statutory arrangements. It is right and proper that that should happen. The Peacock report made it plain to those who are not specialists in broadcasting that the fundamental issues which will face public service broadcasting will have a much greater potential impact than any other matters have in the past generation.
  Given the political timetable, with a general election likely to intervene in less than two years, it is only right and proper that whichever party forms the Government—naturally, I hope that it will be mine—has the proper time to consider these important matters.
  Current ITV contracts are to be extended for three years. The Peacock committee made it plain that the Government and Parliament had to face serious and important issues in deciding how ITV franchises should be allocated. 1 welcome the fact that under the Bill it will be possible for that allocation to be considered at more leisure than they would have been under the very tight programme that would otherwise have existed.
  I have considerable sympathy for many of the points raised by the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan). I wished—perhaps this is a salutary point for
  680
  any politician — that he would develop some of his points at greater length. I for one would have been happy to listen to him uninterrupted for a longer period.
  Direct service broadcasting offers enormous opportunities to the viewer. All those opportunities are subject to the type of consideration to which the hon. Member for Paisley, South referred. In general, I welcome the opportunity to have a much broader range of programmes. I am one of those who often bewails the absence of choice, even with four channels. I welcome the fact that this debate is likely to be shorter than many Second Reading debates because I hope that other right hon. and hon. Members and I will be able this evening to watch one of the outstanding programmes on television —"Rumpole of the Bailey". I hope that not only the existing channels but other companies will he able to establish a continuous series of "Rumpoles of the Bailey" or similar programmes. The Bill gives us an opportunity for more mature reflection on the issues which we must face. For those reasons, I hope that the House will give it an unopposed Second Reading.
  5.4 pm
  Mr. Clement Freud: This is a very minor Bill. It is not one with which the alliance or anyone else disagrees. However, I deplore the fact that it is such a minor Bill and that it lacks courage, foresight and dynamism. As hon. Members have said, it is another example of piecemeal legislation. It asks us to wait and see. It allows the Government — 1 suppose that this is important to any Government before an election — to say, "Our hands are clean," even if they have to add, "We have not done anything."
  I was disturbed by the Home Secretary's answer to an intervention by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) when the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government proposed to introduce a comprehensive Broadcasting Bill early in the next Session. Is it Conservative policy to introduce some non-specific Bill? Since we have a Broadcasting Bill before us, it is the Home Secretary's duty to give us a little more information before he tries to put this piecemeal legislation on the statute book. The House deserves to know what the legislation will do to preserve the quality of television stations such as Border—small, excellent, vulnerable and open to predators. We deserve to know whether the forthcoming legislation will seek to sell off independent television companies and whether it will use money or standards as the criterion for sale.
  It is terribly wrong to allow the Peacock recommendations to lie idle without any word from the Government other than, "We wish to hear the debate." All hon. Members want to know how the Government will react to the Peacock suggestions. Will the Government preserve the opportunities for independent television producers and for independent producers generally? A move within market place economics will not be encouraging in any way to those who make independent programmes.
  Your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, intervened to say that the Bill does not concern the BBC. I believe that any debate on broadcasting cannot isolate one form of broadcasting because one form reverberates substantially on all other forms. Hon. Members are disturbed by what is happening in the BBC and by the

  681
  concept of "acceptability of BBC governors" without a move to bring in governors, as there are hon. Members whose job it is to probe what is happening.
  I am concerned about the centralisation of television production in the south-east of England. We want to know what the Government will do about this. It is extraordinary that, in every facet of Government responsibility, people are being directed without much concern about where the expertise lies.
  The whole nation is interested in community radio, and that includes even those people who did not want community broadcasting to come about — but it ill becomes the Government to make a promise, to allow people to spend substantial sums on research and development and then withdraw that promise and say, "There will not be any community radio for the time being; you must wait and see."
  We are also concerned about subscription television because we fear that it could lead to an even more divided society. Some people might be unable to see "Rumpole of the Bailey" because they do not have the money to buy the programmes that their neighbours watch. It is essential that the concept of subscription television will be to top up, and not to take from people their right to view.
  What they propose to do to Channel 4 is perhaps the most brilliant example of the Government's inability to leave good things alone. It is one of the most successful of broadcasting enterprises. Why do the Government not leave it to flourish instead of attempting to make it a commercial, avaricious begetter of its own advertising? That would not do any service whatsoever for Channel 4 but would jeopardise something of great and substantial quality.
  Mr. Hurd: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with great care. From what he has said, I derive that he would like us to rest absolutely on the status quo. I find that a dim and dismal outlook. If I had produced a set of detailed proposals on the matters that are before the House today, he knows that he would have been among the first to say "How monstrous of this dictatorship of a Government to ram all these proposals down our throats without giving us an opportunity to discuss them or to have any public debate." We are acting in the opposite way and in a liberal manner we are simply saying that, whatever the position immediately after the election, a Government will need time to prepare proposals and to think them through. The Bill enables that to happen. That is what it is about.
  Mr. Freud: It is rewarding to hear a Conservative Home Secretary arguing for change. I said clearly that I wished the status quo to remain for Channel 4, which has quality and which, I believe, is brilliant.
  My hon. Friends and I also wish to know what plans the Government have in respect of the proposals in the Peacock report. I do not agree that saying, "Wait and see" and, "We need more discussion" is remotely satisfying. If commercial criteria are used, we shall have "The Price is Right" from wall to wall. Conservative Members have suggested that we might get 50 minutes of commercials, followed by 10 minutes of programming. My great fear is that we shall go back to what happened when commercial television started and that there will be advertising magazines, in whatever disguise they may come.
  682
  The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) intimated that he did not wish to serve on the Committee. I cannot imagine that that would be an onerous task or that the Committee will have many sittings because this is a holding Bill.
  We accept that DBS needs more time to attract sufficient capital. If the carrot is not big enough, one must attempt to make it bigger by shovelling on the manure and then seeing whether somebody will grasp it.
  It is absolutely right to extend the ITV franchises because there is no evidence of abuse by any contractor. They deserve nothing less than that three years' bonus, and that is what their putative successors will need to prepare their case.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends and I support the Bill, but are sorry that it is not a more courageous or radical measure.
  5.14 pm
  Mr. John Powley: It is a particular pleasure for me to have the opportunity to make a modest speech on this Bill. I crave the indulgence of the House for a moment because I suspect—I am open to correction from any hon. Member if I am not right—that I am the only qualified radio and television service engineer who is a Member of this House. I am not advertising any services in saying that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have a personal interest in broadcasting which many other hon. Members may not share. I also suspect that I may be one of only a few hon. Members to have run a radio and television business, as I did for 24 years, before becoming a Member of the House. Therefore, I take pleasure in making a modest contribution to the debate.
  When the House debated the Peacock report I was unable to speak because of the interests of other hon. and right hon. Members. I should now like to say a few words about the part of the Bill that relates to direct broadcasting by satellite. I welcome the measures to extend the period under discussion. There must be tremendous advantages from the extension of direct broadcasting for all those in the trade, for the manufacturers of the equipment and of the receivers that will be used when satellite broadcasting becomes more readily available, and, indeed, for the public. However, anybody with any experience will know that considerable technical problems remain to be resolved.
  I should like to draw the attention of the House to the IBA members of the consortium which grants the franchise. My own local independent television station of Anglia is a member of that consortium. I am pleased to see that, because East Anglia is often regarded as the backwater of events. That is not the case and I am pleased that Anglia Television is involved in such an exciting concept.
  When we get direct broadcasting by satellite the public will be able to enjoy a further additional service through the type of programme that they can watch. Indeed, from a professional point of view, although not from a financial, professional, point of view, I have long advocated the more extensive use of the television set in one's home as a means of communication. Direct broadcasting by satellite will mean that the type of programme, entertainment and information that is available on television will be greatly extended. I have no doubt that there are a great many other uses to which the television

  683
  set could be put, in addition to receiving direct broadcasting from satellites. Demand for television sets will increase in line with the increase in DBS.
  About 98 per cent. of all the homes in the country have a television set of one sort or another, the overwhelming majority of which are colour television receivers. We know that the two-television set family is fairly commonplace today. I suppose that it is not uncommon for some homes to have three or four television receivers. Being in the position to which I referred earlier. I must confess that we have five sets in our home. Each of my three children has a television receiver in their bedroom, we have the main one in the lounge and another in the study. That is an example of the increasing use of the television set by individual members of the family. Television is not just for entertainment; it conveys knowledge. Broadcasters can widen the range of programmes available and DBS is just one means by which the volume of information available can be extended.
  It follows that because of the amount of investment by the various companies in the DBS franchise, because there are considerable technical problems for the manufacturers of the equipment and because the DBS system needs greater public acceptance, we need extra time. The consortium needs to advertise the advantages of DBS. It is undoubtedly right for everyone to extend the period and I hope that that will not be a matter for dissent. I support all the other parts of the Bill and hope that it will receive a favourable passage through the House.
  5.21 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: This is only a small Bill if one considers the foundations of a building to be unremarkable because they go in a small hole. However, I need to know much more about what will be built on it before I dismiss it as a modest measure.
  The Bill is important. It gives the Home Secretary an opportunity to state in no uncertain terms how he sees the problems of the breathing space that the Bill provides. I would have liked him today to have said, "If we are to have DBS—there are already considerable difficulties because people are not prepared to invest millions in this sort of development without knowing what they will gain from it—I want to use this time to consider its political and financial implications. Then we shall have a clear view of where we shall go in the interim three years."
  I am worried that today we have seen a little demonstration of the salami technique. The Government have said, "We haven't had time to hear the views of all the interested parties, so we shall extend the time to the companies concerned and ask everyone what they want to do. We shall then have an idea of their forward planning." That seems both sensible and civilised. The Home Secretary is a man of wit and culture which, luckily for his political career, he succeeds in hiding from the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, it is not good enough simply to say, "We shall have a major development, but the Government do not have a clear political line."
  Once we have DBS, Parliament must have in place a series of simple but wide-reaching laws to control the way in which the signals are redirected into the United Kingdom. We must think seriously about controls for the public broadcasting system and the IBA. 1 do not want us under any circumstances to move towards open tender for commercial' companies. I do not want to hear that suggestion either in the House or anywhere else. A danger
  684
  of that is that as soon as the IBA is told to accept the largest tender, the reason for its existence is wiped out. Even a continuing rolling programme of extending contracts for commercial companies opens up considerable questions about the political and cultural controls that will operate on those companies for the franchise. That has not been fully discussed.
  Above all, if the House has no control over DBS, Mrs. Whitehouse will not come to the House and witter on about the problems of obscenity because we shall have no control over the signals. Nor shall we have control over the news content. Hon. Members who have said today that they have seen the future and it looks like a dingo were not exaggerating. We must contend, not only with Mr. Murdoch, but with news centres rather like that run by Ted Turner of Atlanta. have no desire to see the newscasting services of the television stations follow the line of our newspapers.
  The reason why so few people take their news from the popular press is simply because it does not contain any news. No one would know from most of the tabloid newspapers that Parliament even existed until there is a screaming, immediate, social problem. The newspapers manage to wheel in rent-a-quotes from both sides of the Chamber which are a fortissimo expression of a minute, and usually superficial, nature. We have been able to deal with that deterioration in the news-gathering centres of the nation because most people still see the news on one of the television channels. They get their views and news largely from either the IBA or BBC news which still strive, no matter what the ruling party says, to maintain a reasonable balance on political, religious and delicate social problems.
  What shall we do if DBS becomes a market place where those with money can move with no restraint on the content of their programmes? The Government have not made that clear. They have not said today, "We realise that this is an extremely limited measure, but we shall immediately set up a working party to consider all its implications." There has been no such suggestion. What will the Government do in relation to the IBA? If they are to change the way in which the franchises are extended or debated, let them set out those new changes so that the house can debate them openly. If they are to use this opportunity to change the financing of Channel 4, for example, let them come here and say so openly and let them give us the opportunity to say that Channel 4 should not compete with ITV for advertising revenue and that it should be given a specific mandate to involve itself in even more independent producers' work than at present. Channel 4 has done a remarkable job in opening up broadcasting to independent producers. The Bill provides the opportunity for us to say that we shall look actively at ways of widening opportunities for producers across the board.
  I should like to see a Bill to guarantee a reasonable percentage — 25 per cent. or more, if necessary — of independent air time to producers in both services. The BBC is being dealt with in a hole-in-the-corner manner. Mr. Deputy Speaker has already pointed out that, although we see a clear link in the Government's attitudes to the BBC and ITV, now is not the time to discuss it. In reality, the Minister of State cares about the quality of broadcasting and telecasting in the United Kingdom. He, and certainly the Home Secretary, have a duty to set out how the Government see the future of broadcasting. They are not doing that. They are giving us the impression that

  685
  somewhere along the line they will squeeze the BBC's finances but open up the IBA's responsibilities in such a way that it will do away with any element of control and simply make it a market place transaction. That is extremely dangerous. I believe that one would get continuous broadcasting of a sort that most hon. Members would find fairly sleazy and unacceptable. If the Minister has any doubt, let him see what happened in Italy when Radio Audiovisione Italiana was forced to concede air time in a completely different way and there was a constant eruption of soft porn and semi-porn films running for 24 hours. That is the reality of broadcasting that is left to the market place.
  The idea that more is better is disproved simply by looking at what happens in America. Anybody who has seen the hundreds of channels and the rubbish that is churned out hour after hour knows that choice is not necessarily a way of improving the quality of the production material. Quality depends on the money that is available and the expertise and it certainly depends, above all, on the restraints that Government put on the hours of broadcasting, the type of broadcasting and the responsibilities that we have always accepted were part of a public service effort in this country.
  The BBC and IBA contribute to extremely high quality programme material because of the legislation which, over the years, has been discussed by the House. The two are inextricably linked. I see no reason now why, in a country that imports vast amounts of electronic hardware, we cannot be talking about putting extra taxes on some of those things to maintain the quality of our material. I see no reason why, in the next three years, we should not be energetically examining other ways of raising cash for independent producers and making sure that the work that comes forward is of a standard that we find acceptable.
  I give the Minister one warning. I do not believe that the House will accept a Government diktat which hands over control of DBS to any system which cannot be controlled in some way by the House of Commons. I do not believe that public service broadcasting should ever be restricted on the basis of whichever political party is in charge. Indeed, if I bought only newspapers with which I agreed and which have not insulted me and watched only programmes with which I was in absolute agreement, I would have an extremely limited reading and viewing programme.
  I believe that the Government have a responsibility over and above simply saying, "Look, we shall give them three more years and then decide what will happen." No one knows what electronic developments will be created between now and the end of the period of the franchise, but we should be debating the political implications here and now and we are not doing so. There may be a great future for someone who creates a marvellous way of blocking the broadcasting from DBS systems that put out the 50 minutes of advertisements with which we have been threatened. Who knows? However, until we sit down seriously and think about the implications, it is not good enough to say, "This is a modest measure. Let it go through because we are all in agreement and it does not upset anybody." It upsets me simply because it is so empty and poor and, if I may say, such a cop-out in relation to
  686
  the responsibilities of broadcasting. The Minister ought to do better. He has the wit and the intelligence, and he should trust the House of Commons more.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Michael Brown: It is a great pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She has brought to the debate some of the questions that I acknowledge we have to address and answer. I shall try to answer some of them. I do not suppose that my views will find favour necessarily with my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, and still less with Opposition Members. However, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich is right to draw our attention to the fact that we will have to take some major and fundamental decisions.
  In broadcasting debates in the House there are usually large numbers of right hon. and hon. Members wanting to take part and only those with an important or well-known interest seem to have been able to contribute in the past. This debate has afforded many of us, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley), me and others, who have never before spoken in a debate on broadcasting, to contribute.
  The scope of the Bill is limited, but it enables us to peer into the future. I welcome the Bill. It is right, to this extent, that the Government should come before the House and say that major decisions will have to be taken in the future and that they are not ready to take those decisions now. It is right and proper that they should extend the period for the individual television companies to be able to carry on for the time being. The proposal regarding DBS is sensible. However, I accept the injunction from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich that there are some fundamental decisions that one day, during the course of the next two or three years, a Government will have to take. Therefore, I recognise that we cannot say that we all agree, let the Bill reach the statute book and then stand back and say that we have done our duty and that is the end of it.
  The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich is right to say that technology is moving so fast that a variety of television stations will be available to the public. We have to address ourselves to the extent to which Government and Parliament are to play their part in setting up the framework for what will be inevitable. I welcome the fact that it is inevitable that the viewer, in not so many years to come, will have available to him or her a television set with a large number of selection controls, and will be able to view a wide variety of programmes. Some of those programmes, broadcast by the BBC, will be under the authority of the governors of the BBC. We cannot discuss those today, but they will continue to exist largely along present lines, perhaps with account taken of some of the recommendations of the Peacock committee. There will be the basic structure that we have now, perhaps amended to take account of the views of whichever Government are in power at the time and the individual television companies. We will also have the whole raft of programmes and technology available to people which will enable them to receive programmes from abroad without controls. People will have access to television stations and will be able to purchase programmes of which hon. Members might not approve. Therefore, when future technology offers us a

  687
  television screen with a wide variety of pre-selections, to what extent should we seek to control one area of television, the BBC, and, in the case of this Bill—
  Mr. Powley: I am interested in my hon. Friend's remarks. Does he agree that we are moving into an era where the television set will be used not only for entertainment provided from this country and others, to which my hon. Friend has rightly referred, but for information technology that will be available in the home from a variety of sources? Ceefax and Oracle are available now and viewdata is available for a minority interest. In the future, there will be other developments that will enable information to be gleaned by the person in the home using a television receiver.
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is correct. Indeed, I have the good fortune to live in the Yorkshire Television area and, at night, when the formal broadcasting is finished, we have an example of what the future holds. When Yorkshire Television closes down about midnight, there is then a Yorkshire Television job-finder which flashes up on the screen all the jobs that have been notified to Yorkshire Television by individual companies and, I believe, by the Department of Employment. Yorkshire Television is providing a typical example of what we shall be able to achieve as a result of information technology.
  A fundamental issue is the extent to which Parliament and Government are to control the future output of television. I take the opposite view to that which is held by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), but she is right to make the House face one of the crucial decisions that will have to be taken. I believe that in future it will be impossible for us to have a strong regulatory system to control the output of television. We shall have the BBC, the ITV companies under the authority of the IBA and a raft of television programmes, and this overall will be beyond the control of the Government or surrogate authorities.
  I believe in freedom of choice but I acknowledge what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said about the Italian experience and I accept that programmes will be shown on some channels which none of us in this place would like to watch and which few of our constituents would wish to see. When there is a multiplicity of channels available, the viewer will have to be trusted, and I am left wondering whether it is right to maintain the IBA. The authority is designed rigorously to control the extent of advertising—the number of minutes of it in any one hour—and what is known as subliminal television. That means that there is control of game shows, for example. We might all loathe "The Price is Right", and many of us are suspicious that if there is too much freedom of choice there will be hours and hours of such programmes. We must recognise, however, that "The Price is Right" is an extremely popular programme. The public should have the right to see such a programme if that is their wish.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I accept that there is individuality of taste. I would not wish to watch "EastEnders" but I do not object to others doing so. That is entirely their problem. There is a difference between that programme and material that most people would find unacceptable. That is the difference between controlled broadcasting and that which is not.
  Mr. Brown: We have a relatively narrow choice at present and it is probably generally unacceptable to the
  688
  viewer that there should be some of the sleazy television that the hon. Lady has described. If there is a wide variety of choice, sleazy television will have to maintain a sufficient level of demand if it is to survive. If viewers turn off their television sets or change to another channel, it will not survive. I am sure that all of us in this place believe in the freedom of speech. On the whole, we believe in the freedom of the press and a wide variety of newspapers being available. Surely we should believe in the freedom of choice when it comes to television.
  The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich talked about America, where there is a wide choice of television programmes. One of the benefits of the American system is that it finds room for a channel that broadcasts the Congress debates in their entirety. Anyone who lives on the east coast, at any rate—for example, in Washington or New York, or in any of the populous east coast states — can turn away from the tremendous amount of advertising that is shown on some channels and the sleazy television that is on others—American television is not all good by any means—and select a channel that is funded by companies and academic foundations and organisations. This channel broadcasts the debates of the House of Representatives from the moment that the House sits until it rises.
  We all believe that it is right and proper that the British people should have access to events in the Houses of Paliament. At present there is only limited coverage of our proceedings—half an hour on the radio at night and 20 minutes the following morning with a few minutes devoted to our proceedings in some of the news clips. Of course, with only four channels available to the television companies it is impossible to broadcast the proceedings in this place from 2.30 in the afternoon to 2.30 the following morning. Freedom of choice and a multiplicity of channels would allow those who were interested to follow our proceedings. If market demand were sufficient, a small company would be able to present to the nation by means of the television screen our proceedings in this place.
  I accept that there will be programmes that will suit only minorities that some of us may find distasteful. However, many minorities that are currently not served well by television could have programmes shown that would interest them. New technology will force the Government to embrace a multiplicity of channels and to recognise that they can control only to a certain extent. In that context, is it right to have many controls?
  Mr. Robin Corbett: May I counsel the hon. Gentleman to be cautious? He should not suggest that something is praiseworthy because it is popular. Perhaps he will bear in mind the dreadful example of The Sun, a sewer newspaper.
  Mr. Brown: I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. I accept also that many of us in this place would turn up our noses at some of the programmes that our constituents watch in their droves. They may not necessarily be good programmes. Under the market system, however, our constituents will be supplied with the television programmes that they want, and the market will determine whether programmes are successful.
  Mr. Chris Smith: think that we would all agree that if people want to watch a programme such as "The Price is Right", it should be available to them. Unfortunately, if nothing is available

  689
  except programmes such as "The Price is Right", other programmes that people might want to watch will be driven out.
  Mr. Brown: I do not believe that that would happen. There are some programmes that cause offence to some viewers, including Mrs. Mary Whitehouse, and under the system that I am advocating there would be freedom to broadcast that sort of programme. Mrs. Whitehouse, the House and the Government would have to acknowledge that the viewer should have the freedom to watch whatever he wants to see.
  There are some television programmes that offend the viewer when they are shown on BBC 1. Offence is caused because the viewer has a one-in-four chance of seeing them. He is forced in many instances to watch such a programme or to turn off his television set if he does not like the other three options. I remember that there was a great furore last year over one of the programmes that was shown on Channel 4. It caused Mrs. Whitehouse and her colleagues great concern. She is concerned about the majority of television viewers being forced to watch programmes that they do not want and I know that hon. Members are concerned about the broadcasting of slushy programmes that people may not want to watch. Twelve channels would give viewers many choices. If people do not watch a programme, the programme company will go out of business.
  There is no chance that any Government will consider my remarks. 1 am flying a kite. 1 am challenging the very existence of any form of control on broadcasting. 1 believe in the freedom of the BBC to be as biased as it likes one way or the other. With a multiplicity of choice, the viewer will sort out any bias. I do not want to see any controls on the BBC's output, from whatever source. I do not like the idea, apart from occasions on which matters of national security arise, of BBC governors controlling the BBC or the IBA controlling individual television companies. I do not like the idea of controls on television. At the end of the day, the biggest control on television is the viewer. The viewer can change channels and can always turn off. The viewer should decide for himself or herself what controls there will be on television, and the viewer can do that much better than Parliament or Government can.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: I cannot accept the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). He has a naive belief that the market mechanism will always operate in a virtuous fashion. That is nonsense. It is a point that will always divide all hon. Members.
  I must declare an interest. I have a close connection with the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians and have been grateful for the discussions that I have had with it in preparation for the debate.
  I have no objection to the Bill. The extension of the existing ITV franchises is quite sensible. The current eightyear franchise period may be too short in any case. I broadly welcome extending the period for a further three years. The crucial question is that, having said that the franchises are to be extended for three years, what is the
  690
  Government's purpose in doing so? The Home Secretary was clear, open and honest. He said, "We are doing so to keep open the options for change." The centre of the debate, quite clearly and quite rightly, is what those options for change will be.
  Three potential dangers are on the horizon. At least two of them have been raised in the debate. The first danger is that when existing ITV franchises come up for re-tender in three years, they will go out to competitive tender, and competition will be the overriding criterion for deciding who gets them. That is the Peacock proposal. It was warmly endorsed in the debate on the Peacock report by a previous Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan). He said that going for the highest bidder, with a number of safeguards—he did not specify exactly how the safeguards would work — was a sensible way of allocating future franchises. I cannot possibly agree with that. In many ways, going for the highest bidder will not only distort the tendering procedure and process but will almost inevitably lead to some of the worst bidders getting franchises.
  The range of programming that will be available to viewers as a result of the successful competitor winning a tender is bound to be affected. The narrower range of programmes will diminish opportunities for the viewer. Broadcasting standards are likely to fall. Of course, in going for competition and competition alone, the cheaper, more popular options will be chosen. Of course, competitive tendering, as has been mentioned once or twice in the debate, will give a major financial advantage to multinational companies that have a much sharper edge than have smaller companies. The idea of multinational companies—for example, ones that might be headed by people such as Rupert Murdoch or Robert Maxwell—getting their hands on major television franchises for the ITV network fills me with considerable horror. Competitive tendering as the major motivating force in deciding who gets franchises in three years' time is the first danger. I hope that the Government will not go along that road, although I fear that their insane belief in the appropriateness of market competition may lead them in that direction. It would be to the detriment of public sector broadcasting.
  The second danger is that of hiving off Channel 4. That was proposed by the Peacock report. It would involve Channel 4 selling its own advertising directly, rather than operating through the mechanism of the IBA. Two things would inevitably follow. First, there would be competition for advertising revenue between Channel 4 and ITV. One must question whether that is a sensible way of grabbing available revenue from the world of advertising. Secondly, there would be competition in programming. To compete effectively for advertising one will have to compete for programming and audience figures. That will mean, first, that Channel 4 will be pushed down market and will no longer be as innovative as it is at the moment, with such excellent results, and, secondly, that it will compete directly in the popular slots with the other main ITV channel. That will also be to the detriment of viewers. The inevitable result will be that the two independent channels will offer a poorer quality of choice for the viewer.
  I hope that the Government will not hive off Channel 4. It has been one of the great success stories of British broadcasting in the past few years. I fear that if the

  691
  Government go ahead with the proposals that the Peacock committee put forward, it will be much to the detriment of that success.
  The third issue that has not yet received a major airing in this debate, and which should do so, is that of access for independent producers. The Home Secretary made a lot of this issue in the debate on the Peacock report. The Peacock committee recommended a guaranteed 40 per cent. quota for independents. The Home Secretary stated that 25 per cent. might he a sensible idea. No quota should be established. I do not believe in setting rigid quotas of that kind. There is nothing necessarily virtuous about having more independent television productions, just as there is nothing necessarily detrimental about having more independent television productions.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: When the British film industry had no quota. it was completely drowned by its larger American cousin.
  Mr. Smith: I shall refer to that point in a moment. In some ways, the allocation of a specific quota for independents may lead to the problem that we fear—that is, of multinational penetration of independent and public sector broadcasting networks. I shall turn to that point in a moment. The question ought not to be, what proportion of time is taken by independent producers and what proportion of time is taken by network producers? The question ought to be, what is the range and quality of programming from either stable that is available on the channels that are open to viewers?
  A number of points ought to be made. First, the existing network channels arc very successful in gaining sales on the international market. That is one of the arguments that has been advanced for a greater amount of independent home market production to give the independents an edge in obtaining international sales. The existing networks are very successful in gaining international sales. They are also quite successful in providing material for Channel 4.
  Secondly, there is a danger in guaranteeing quotas for independents. I make this point in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: And Nantwich.
  Mr. Smith: Yes, and Nantwich. The danger is that it will not necessarily be the small companies that will benefit from a quota that is established for independents. It will be the large companies, and very often the multinationals, that will be able to take advantage of any established quota for independents. Already there are a number of media conglomerates that are active in European satellite, and I fear that any guarantee of a quota for independents may give an advantage to predators of that kind.
  The third point that has to he made is that there is a large amount to be said for the maintenance of a permanently employed studio base as the foundation for all network productions. There is no necessarily innate British broadcasting genius. The reason that our broadcasting is so successful is that we have built up experience over a long period and that skills and facilities are available in both the BBC and ITV to make very good quality products. The danger of removing a major slice of the available network time from the networks is that the skills, experience and facilities that have been built up over the years will be damaged. I should hate that to happen.
  692
  I do not quarrel with more independent products being shown on television, but I want the permanently employed studio base, which has proved to be so successful in both the BBC and ITV, to be preserved so that that quality of product can be retained. We have only to consider what has happened in the film industry. Effectively, only one film studio that is producing films on a permanent basis is left in Britain. Its future is now under threat. I should hate the same diminution of facilities, skills and experience to happen in television as has happened in the film industry during the last couple of decades. I suspect that this argument will continue for some time.
  I understand that the ACTT has asked to see the Minister to discuss the matter and that, although it has been suggested that there should be discussions at Civil Service level, the Minister and the Secretary of State have not said that they are prepared to talk to the major unions in the television industry about the independents and about access for the independents. I hope that the Minister of State will be prepared to see a delegation from a number of interested hon. Members and one or two interested Members of the other place, together with representatives of the trade unions in the broadcasting industry, for talks about this issue. It is important for the future of broadcasting and for what should happen about the Peacock recommendations that those talks should take place.
  We have to welcome good products from, and the participation of, the independent sector. We must not be wedded to the acceptance of over-protective working practices, but I believe that there must be stability for the employees in the industry, the maintenance of good production facilities for the networks and, above all, width range and quality of programming—not automatic acceptance that rigid application of a quota system will lead to a better quality of programming or product.
  Therefore, I give the Bill a somewhat half-hearted welcome. It is a very small Bill that does not do very much. However, it provides a breathing space, which is w hat the Government wanted it to do. The crucial question is what the Government will do with that breathing space and what consideration they will give to the future of broadcasting that will benefit the viewers, the range of programmes and the quality of the product. Those are the key questions. There must not simply be an acceptance of competition or acceptance of the view that independent is better than network, or that Peacock was right in everything or wrong in everything. We must consider the range of programmes and products that are available to all viewers in this country.
  I fear that the Government are ducking out of asking the real questions about broadcasting and about the range of programmes that are available and that instead they will accept some of the ideological implications of Peacock. That will not be best either for broadcasting or For the people of this country.
  6.7 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), I am concerned about the position of the smaller companies and the Minister of State will not be surprised if, as a Scot, I ask him a question about the Government's assessment of the position, first, of Border Television and, secondly, of Grampian Television. In my experience, both of these small companies have produced excellent

  693
  programmes. They are well thought of in the area that they serve—Grampian in the Highlands, and Border both in Cumbria and in southern Scotland.
  Secondly, like the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), I hope that every help will be given to the interests of the independent television producers. Like the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East, many of us are concerned about the centralisation of television production. Far too much of it is located in this city. Many excellent television programmes are produced in Birmingham. [Interruption.] I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) grunting approval on the Opposition Front Bench. Indeed, many excellent programmes are produced at all points north. However, small companies are vulnerable and deserve to be encouraged.
  I agree very strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich—not forgetting Nantwich — (Mrs. Dunwoody) that Channel 4 should be allowed to flourish, and I support her plea that about 25 per cent. of programmes should be given over to the independent producers. Those who have had dealings with independent producers feel that they do some admirable work and that they should be encouraged. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich knows a great deal about the industry. I share her fears of what Mr. Ted Turner of Atlanta may do in this country. DBS is a major development. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich that we are not discussing a trivial matter. Relations between Ministers and broadcasting authorities are delicate.
  I tabled today's written question 212 in which I asked
  "the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner about the date on which the Metropolitan police first contacted Strathclyde police about the proposed search of BBC premises in Glasgow."
  The Home Secretary replied:
  "I understand that the Metropolitan police first contacted Strathclyde police on this matter on 29 January."
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that this Bill does not concern the BBC. Incidental references are in order, but the hon. Gentleman is not in order to go in detail into the affairs of the BBC.
  Mr. Dalyell: Every hon. Member who has spoken referred at some length to the BBC and to DBS.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. A number of rulings have been given from the Chair about the restrictions on the debate. Incidental references are in order, but there is nothing about the BBC in the Bill. Therefore, detailed remarks would be out of order.
  Mr. Dalyell: Suppose the DBS got DBS contracts as it is entitled to do. If hon. Members refer back to section 19(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1981, they will see that, on the whole, I am in order.
  I want to save the time of the House. I want to ask the Minister whether we are to believe that the Metropolitan police never saw—
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): Order.
  Mr. Dalyell: It is no good the Minister getting angry when he is asked questions. I am asking him a simple question about the Home Secretary's reply to my written question today. Are we to believe that the Metropolitan police never saw fit to ask any Minister—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already given a ruling to the hon. Gentleman. He is a good House of Commons man. He knows what is in order and what is not. I know, too, that he invariably respects the rulings of the Chair. I ask the hon. Gentleman to ensure that his remarks are in order.
  Mr. Dalyell: You say rightly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am a good House of Commons man. I am certainly a good House of Commons man in that I believe that the House should be told the truth in answer to awkward questions. It is regrettable when Ministers take refuge in all sorts of devices and do not answer perfectly civil questions. I tabled a written question. I addressed it to the Home Office and the answer came back—
  Mr. Francis Maude: That has nothing to do with the Bill.
  Mr. Dalyell: If there is any argument about it, the Minister could easily get me to move on to the rest of my speech if he would just say when Ministers—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist on that course. He knows that a reference of that sort is quite out of order. It is very unfair to the House and the rest of the business of the House that he should attempt to introduce matters which have nothing to do with the debate. I ask the hon. Gentleman again to ensure that his remarks are in order and are relevant to the Bill.
  Mr. Dalyell: Considering how other people have been allowed to wander during the debate, and I am asking a delicate question—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman appears to be disputing my ruling. There have already been a number of rulings. All other hon. Members who have spoken have responded if the Chair has told them that they are going too wide and have brought their remarks within order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will do the same.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is the BBC or is it not involved in DBS? I believe that it is.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am open to correction, but I understand that it is the intention of the BBC to be involved in DBS. It was in the consortia and has specific views about the extension. It is obvious that that matter comes within the Bill.
  Mr. Dalyell: The difficulty is the uncharacteristic anger of the Minister of State, Home Office. I know from his petulance that he does not want to answer on a particular matter. Normally, he is the most obliging of Ministers. If he wished to answer the question that I have just put, he would do so very quickly.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the Minister were to attempt to answer that question, I should immediately rule him out of order. I would not allow him to do so.
  Mr. Dalyell: I must say that you are being uncharacteristically harsh, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to cast aspersions on other hon. Members. The Bill

  695
  is definitely about the delicate relations between the broadcasting authorities, on the one hand, and the sponsoring Department, the Home Office, on the other. You nod to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask a specific question about the meaning of the answer that was given to my question 212. Does it mean that Home Office Ministers allow the Metropolitan police, on matters of DBS or general matters, to go into the BBC without any consultation?
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I shall attempt to keep in order. In attempting to be helpful I was asking myself a question sotto voce. What would happen if the Zircon film was beamed to Britain by satellite from France and I picked it up on that little thing that I shall buy to put on the roof of my house to pick up the programmes? That is a legitimate question to ask and is relevant to the much more important question that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked.
  Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) always was a friend in need. If the former Home Secretary can ask that question, cannot we extend the good will? Perhaps the Minister will answer the question that I put to him. [Interruption.] It is all right for the Government Whip. It is all right if hon. Members make gentle speeches in the House, but if they ask awkward, factual questions the whole weight of procedure is brought down on top of them. I am asking a simple factual question: when were Ministers told by the Metropolitan police that they were going into the BBC? I would have been shocked—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman three times now that detailed references to the BBC are not in order in this debate. I hope that he will respond to the rulings that I have given. If he does not, I shall have no alternative but to order him to resume his seat.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is the BBC involved in DBS contracts? Since Queen Margaret drive is the BBC's second largest office, it is not exactly a trivial matter when the Metropolitan police are ordered in. I simply ask, in innocence, when were Ministers told of that? If they were not told on 29 January, the Metropolitan police were not doing their job. My experience of senior police officers is that they do their job and on a matter like this—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist in making remarks which are clearly out of order and which I have already ruled to be out of order. That is very unfair to the House and to the debate. I must again ask the hon. Member to bring his remarks in order or I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
  Mr. Dalyell: I do not like to transgress the rules of the House and I do not want to put you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in an embarrassing position. Before resuming my seat, I merely note that there has been a great reluctance by Home Office Ministers to answer a question that affects the delicate relationship between the broadcasting authorities and the police. I do not want to be offensive to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I note that the Minister has had ample opportunity to get to the Dispatch Box —[HON. MEMBERS: "He would have been out of order".] If there had been any good will of the nature that we
  696
  should expect, in candour with each other, that answer would have been forthcoming. I can only suspect the worst.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Robin Corbett: This has been a quiet, though interesting, debate. The matters raised by a superficially minor Bill are extremely important and the ripples that the Bill will cause will spread wide.
  I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) mentioned the access of independent producers. He came down against a rigid quota and I notice that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) did not mention that subject, even though the alliance has been flying trailers all day about how it will do a wonderful job for independent producers during the Committee stage of the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the persistent Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was right to mention the position of the smaller companies. He mentioned Border and Grampian, but there are others and I hope that the Minister and all other hon. Members will agree that the regional flavour of the productions of some small companies makes them successful and popular in their areas. Regional flavour cannot be sprinkled like salt and pepper on to programmes made overwhelmingly in London and the south-east.
  I hope that I shall not add to any of the difficulties of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) if 1 say that he again treated the House to a delightful and perceptive speech. If we dealt with our debates in a different way, there would be universal agreement that the hon. Gentleman was the man of the match. The Minister of State will have noticed that he and I have performed our usual trick of emptying the House.
  The Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred to the great risks of DBS, which are well demonstrated by Mr. Richard Branson who is part of a successful DBS consortium and has recently taken up hot air ballooning. Last week, in pursuit of that new interest, he managed, instead of going up, to land on a factory roof. I hope that that was not part of a training programme in a bid to ride to glory on his DBS satellite.
  We all know that the size and shape of broadcasting will change in an exciting and dramatic way over the next few years. The Bill makes little or no contribution to that process and in many senses will simply delay decisions that need to be taken. Keeping the options open can also be code for, "We don't know what to do." The Bill is the minimum that the Government can get away with while they await a change of Government at the election.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said, we shall consult the trade unions, the IBA and others with an interest about changes in the system of allocation of ITV franchises. One possible change would be to stagger the period for which the franchises run. They do not all have to run for exactly the same period from the same starting point. Indeed, there are strong arguments For looking at a system that would stagger the timings of franchises. The present system puts an enormous burden on those within the industry who wish to make bids and on the IBA which has to consider them.
  There is also merit in the idea of regular reviews of the operation of a franchise, built in over whatever period the

  697
  franchises are to run. The reviews would be known in advance and would require the company to account, against the terms on which the franchise was awarded, for its performance. I agree with the ACTT that the performance reviews should include consultation with the broadcasting unions which should have access to the results of those reviews. The unions should also be given adequate notice when a franchise is to be reallocated.
  Thought also needs to be given to the continuity of employment of existing employees when a contract changes hands. Currently, that generally happens through the commitments won in collective bargaining, but I believe that it would be better to have it underpinned as a right.
  When a bid is being put together it is all too easy for the bidders to pledge what they think will be attractive to the IBA in terms of, for example, more news and current affairs, but for those pledges to slip in a bid for ratings, and for news programmes to be replaced by more soaps and game shows. We have seen that demonstrated in commercial television. Companies have gone back to the IBA after promising a minimum amount of regional news coverage. They say that advertising revenue is down, so they cannot sustain their commitment and the three minute news programme every hour is chopped down to two minutes.
  I believe that rolling reviews would be a better insurance against a slide into lower quality programming which is topped up only when the end of the franchise period approaches so that the company can make itself look better.
  We have a commitment to a system that leads to better accountability by those who give the contracts and those who receive them. That is only proper in a democratic society and I suspect that there is general agreement in the House on that proposition.
  It has been suggested that a system of financial penalties for serious breaches of a contract might assist the maintenance of programme standards. I am not sure that that is the best route, but it would have the attraction of raiding extra profits gained from a departure from the terms on which a franchise was given and a lowering of programme standards or programme cover. Whichever system is favoured, a better attempt must be made to enforce the franchise terms, to guard against any increase in cheap American imports and to try to give better scope within expanding broadcasting hours to independent producers. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that rigid quotas may not be the best answer, but within the estimated 4 per cent. per annum rise in the number of broadcasting hours—there is no reason to assume that that number will decrease; indeed, it may grow—there should be scope for a larger slice for independent productions. That could also help to counter the risk—to put it at its lowest—of the major companies, whether the BBC or ITV companies, putting too much cash into new and expensive production facilities rather than into programme making.
  I was talking only last night to a leading producer who has worked for the BBC and ITV. He was complaining about a shortage of studio capacity and when I quizzed him he admitted that he was talking about a shortage in London. I told him that there are acres of studio capacity in Nottingham, where half of the Central TV operation is
  698
  centred. Central originates many of its programmes in Birmingham and Nottingham and makes a reasonable job of it. That shows that programmes can be made outside London, and Central has plans to do more in that line.
  I want to make it clear that an incoming Labour Government will not, under any circumstances, accept the auctioning of franchises. We oppose this totally free market approach to broadcasting, which could only threaten the high standards set through public service broadcasting by the BBC, and which others seek to meet. It is no exaggeration to say that the standards, quality, range, width and depth of BBC programming sets a general standard to which the independent commercial sector tries to aspire. Auctions — apart from anything else that they would do—would almost certainly divert cash that would otherwise be spent on programming.
  Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair on the independent companies. I would argue, as many of his hon. Friends have argued, that the independent companies—particularly Channel 4—have been in the business of innovative change.
  Mr. Corbett: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about Channel 4, which has been praised from both sides of the House this afternoon, quite properly. The example that it has set by the imaginative way in which it has gone into the areas of programming neglected by the giants is first class.
  Regrettably, I need to re-emphasise the fact that unless we hold on to the public service broadcasting sector—in which we want to see exciting developments — programming standards in the commercial sector will be put into question.
  The Labour party believes that the auction system would be run under the banner of. "Never mind the quality, feel the width of the bank roll." That is no way to treat the companies involved, the people working in them and, above all, those who are invited to watch the programmes. That is an improper way to protect and promote programme quality. It would have the reverse effect. The Labour party believes that an all cash-led system, such as in sections of the press, would do nothing other than lower programme standards and narrow choice through limiting the variety and range of the programmes in a bid to chase the ratings, on which the advertising revenue critically depends.
  As the House knows, we are not seeking to divide on the Bill. I am happy to tell the Minister of State that we do not intend, should the Bill get its Second Reading, as seems likely, to delay its further progress.
  6.35 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) has spoken with his customary clarity and warmth. I am glad to have an opportunity once again of sharing a parliamentary high spot with him.
  I make no apologies for the fact that this is a modest Bill. It is not a substitute for the more far-reaching changes in broadcasting that many hon. Members want to see; it rather prepares the ground to allow that change to be fully and properly discussed in the House and elsewhere. The Bill allows two changes to be made that we believe are beneficial to the development of broadcasting in Britain,

  699
  and that will allow us to decide. at a sensible pace, whether some more fundamental changes should be made to the independent television system.
  All the hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon appreciate that we have reached an important stage in the development of broadcasting services. New technology will not be denied. It will happen and is already happening, as the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) observed, with the increasing presence on roofs in Britain of satellite dishes. A consequence of the new technology will be to increase the number of channels available to the viewer, and to make possible other ways of paying for what we watch. All of those considerations are controversial; all of them pose questions that were properly addressed in the debate about standards.
  A great deal has rightly been said about the maintenence of the public broadcasting service tradition in Britain. A challenging speech was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who properly made it clear that the business of regulating international satellite delivery of programmes is not as easy as dealing with the business of terrestrial programmes that emanate from, and are received by, people who are within our jurisdiction.
  The Peacock committee has deliberated and its deliberations are under consideration by the Government. We have had a debate in the House on its report. Other observations were made about the Peacock report. Peacock, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear, has not determined any of the issues. It has fixed in people's minds the need to debate these areas. It has stimulated discussion and responses, even from those who disagree fundamentally with one or two of the Peacock recommendations. We shall return to the report in due course.
  The IBA has offered for consideration proposals for changes in the ITV contract system. As yet, we have not made up our minds on these issues, but we do not want to close the opportunity for change. That opportunity would be closed if the IBA were to have to advertise the new contracts now and then award those contracts for a maximum period of eight years from 1 January 1990.
  Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister give some view of the Government's thinking on the great paradox of the situation in which the experience of the increasing multiplicity of channels, when they are under commercial control, has meant a diminution of choice? The greater the number of channels, the less the choice has been. That has been true of American and Italian broadcasting. How does the Minister propose to deal with this point
  Mr. Mellor: The question whether there is a wide choice such as there is in the United States will inevitably be a matter for individual value judgment. Our aim is to ensure that viewers are given the opportunity of a width in choice but that there is not a diminution of standards by trying to ensure that the sensible regulations that we have long experienced—the charter of the BBC, the Broadcasting Acts, the cable Acts—are extended to cover the other activities that are under our control. Indeed, the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) and I discussed that at a somewhat later hour some weeks ago. We tried to move towards sensible European regulation of European satellite broadcasts via the mechanism of a Council of Europe convention rather than a European
  700
  Community directive, which is not appropriate. In that way, choice and quality can be maintained. Precisely how these things turn out will depend a great deal not on what I or the hon. Member for Paisley, South think, but on what the consumer thinks. None of us wants to be too dogmatic about that.
  It would be quite wrong, with all these proposals for change and at this point in technological development, for us to permit the contractuail period to expire and for the advertising process to begin now. That would, in effect, close the option of making any changes in the way in which independent television contracts are awarded, or the way in which the independent television system operates for another decade. That is why this is a modest Bill, and I make no apologies for its modesty. It makes no substantive changes to the independent television system, because those matters remain under consideration. I can assure the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that when we have reached further conclusions and have had a chance to reflect on all that has been said the House will have every opportunity of further debate on these important matters.
  All the Bill seeks to do is, first, to improve the prospects of a British DBS service in the 1990s and, secondly, to provide the opportunity of earlier changes in the ITV contract services by, in effect, providing for a three-year extension to the existing contracts. Substantive changes to the contract arrangements, if they are put forward, or any substantive changes to other features of the broadcasting structure will require further legislation. That is a further reason why Parliament will have a full opportunity to consider in detail whatever proposals for change may in due course emerge.
  Mr. Dalyell: What are the Government's reflections on the position of the two small Scottish companies, Border and Grampian?
  Mr. Mellor: I was going to come to that point, but I do not mind answering it now, because it is important and a number of hon. Members have referred to it.
  The way in which contracts are allocated on a regional basis is entirely a matter for the IBA, and nothing that we are proposing in the Bill or otherwise makes any alteration to that. We have, as the hon. Gentleman knows, 15 regional companies, and that will continue for as long as the IBA wishes it to do so. It is in the driving seat on these issues. That is part of the arm's length regulation in these matters that we have always thought proper, so that the Government are not too concerned on the sensitive issue as to where the franchises should be and who should get them. That is a bipartisan policy from which we should move away at out peril and I am glad to see the assent of the hon. Gentleman.
  The IBA, in making its decision as it would have to in due course about the future of various companies and the areas of various franchises, will make its determination on the basis of public approval or otherwise of the way in which individual companies have done their jobs and franchises are worked out. I have no doubt that the approbation of hon. Members for their regional companies will be taken into account.
  I welcome the speech made by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South, which added substance to the debate. He asked about the reviews of the performance of ITV companies undertaken by the IBA which, as he

  701
  properly said, is the background to its proposals for a more formalised way of operating in the future. The IBA carried out a mid-term review of all ITV contracts and the results were published in its annual report for 1985–86. For each ITV company the IBA considered what improvements in programme performance were necessary or desirable. These were internal administrative reviews and results were not bound in any formal or legal way to whether the franchise would be continued to certain companies in future contract rounds. However, any ITV company waiting to reapply for a contract under the procedures now in force would want to take the IBA's views seriously, and we would all want that to be the case.
  These reviews are different from the Peacock committee's proposal for a rolling review. Its recommendation No. 11 envisaged a formal annual review of each contractor's performance, with termination of contract to be a sanction in the event of a company's failure to meet its obligation. Some part of that thinking is reflected, as the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South knows, in the IBA's recent proposals for a new approach, one of the propositions on the table that we are considering when looking at the future of the ITV system.
  The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether the IBA's approval would be needed for Border Television to be taken over. The answer is yes, because the Broadcasting Act 1981 provides that the assignment of programme contracts or a change in the ownership or control of an ITV company requires the IBA's consent. However, if it is not a full takeover but just the absorption of one contract area into another, this is again a matter for the IBA when drawing up or advertising new contracts. Once again, the ball lies in its court.
  The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the provision of satellite dishes. The present range of satellite dishes generally requires planning consent, but also a licence obtainable from the Department of Trade and Industry at a cost of £10. These are to receive low-powered satellite broadcasts from some of the companies presently operating, most of which operate through cable systems. The high-powered satellites, the so-called big birds, which are what DBS is all about, will, paradoxically, require smaller dishes and these can freely be put on roofs, without the need for permission. However, we do not yet know how far DBS will go straight to the household or how far it will go to cable heads and so through cable systems. Again, none of us would want to be dogmatic or assertive about these matters. We want to see the way in which these arrangements develop.
  I always listen to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) with interest and respect. She raised an important point about the supervision of satellite services, and I can give her some of the answers that she wants. I make it clear that DBS will be regulated by the IBA, just as terrestrial services are.
  Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman continually refers to DBS in relation to the IBA. Do the Government think that there will be no public service broadcasting by DBS?
  Mr. Mellor: The IBA is public service broadcasting. This touches on a key point. I hope that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich will forgive me if I deviate from answering her points, but this is at the heart of the debate.
  702
  We can all be proud that we have proved that public service broadcasting can exist in both the private and the public sector. It was interesting to be able to make that point with great confidence in Vienna, to the astonishment of a number of those gathered around the table. Many of those countries are still teetering on the brink of deciding whether to bring any commercial input into their television services and are troubled about advertising. We have proved over 30 years that one can switch on BBC and ITV knowing that one is receiving a good variety of programmes but within a sensible framework imposed by a public service broadcasting concept. Our aim is to ensure as far as possible that a similar framework continues to exist with satellite broadcasting.
  Mr. Buchan: Including non-commercial?
  Mr. Mellor: The DBS could be non-commercial. The reason why it is not non-commercial has nothing to do with the Government. The hon. Gentleman will remember—this is relevant to the tussle that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) had with the Chair earlier—that originally the idea was that the BBC should take on DBS. At one point it was exclusively entrusted to the BBC. However, it then found that it could not afford to take the financial risk. The up-front risk is major, which is why one of the key elements of the Bill is to extend the franchise period by three years to make it a more attractive commercial proposition.
  The BBC said at first that it did not want to continue with the exclusive DBS contract and then failed to enter into partnership. The IBA then picked up the baton, and I am sure that we are delighted that British Satellite Broadcasting has provisionally been awarded a contract. It includes a range of experienced United Kingdom-based broadcasters. I hope that, following the success of some other United Kingdom-based low-powered satellite programmers such as Sky Channel or the Superchannel, we may also look forward to having, by 1990, a high-powered DBS service based in Britain.
  Mr. Buchan rose——
  Mr. Dalyell rose——
  Mr. Mellor: I am enjoying my dialogue with the hon. Member for Paisley, South, so I shall give way to him first, and I shall give way to the hon. Member for Linlithgow later.
  Mr. Buchan: Is it the Government's intention within the next year, if they are in power—I do not believe they will be—to allow non-commercial satellite DBS as well as independent commercial television?
  Mr. Mellor: We have no objections. We made that clear when the BBC was initially asked to participate. Our approach is straight forward. We do not wish to lay down who should participate—provided the company satisfies reasonable criteria — but rather to try to ensure that anyone who has a commercially viable business proposition can participate provided he accepts the sensible broadcasting regulations that we have always had.
  Mr. Buchan: How does that tie up with the proposal that the BBC revenue should be indexed? How will the BBC afford to get into DBS if the Government are blocking its chance for further financial resources?
  Mr. Mellor: Five channels are potentially available and three have been allocated to the IBA. The allocation of the

  703
  other two channels must depend on resources. It has never been our intention to subsidise DBS. Indeed, it is clear from Europe that those countries that have tried to do that have failed. We are not raising obstacles to prevent anyone, whether in the private or public sector, from becoming involved in this project.
  On the one hand, the hon. Member for Paisley, South has said that I am helpful but, on the other, he is snickering at the answers he has received. The IBA was the only organisation able to take on this project. It has awarded the contracts for three channels and there are another two available. Whether those two channels will develop will turn on commercial factors over which the Government neither have control nor should attempt to exercise control.
  Mr. Buchan rose—
  Mr. Mellor: I will give the hon. Gentleman one more bite at the cherry.
  Mr. Buchan: The Minister said that two channels were available, subject to commercial criteria. Do the Government intend to take steps to ensure that there will be public service, non-commercial financed broadcasting by satellite? In other words, will the Government release sufficient resources? Will they scrap the idea of indexing present BBC expenditure? If the Government are not prepared to do that, it is no use saying that there are two channels available to the BBC as the resources will not be available to it to take advantage of them.
  Mr. Mellor: We do not intend to subsidise the channels. There was no obstacle to prevent the BBC involvement earlier on and, similarly, there is no reason why the BBC should not be involved at a later stage.
  It has always been envisaged that DBS should be financed in a way that reflects the popularity of the programmes and not by virtue of a state handout. That would be inappropriate.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Mellor: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Dalyell: Before we leave the subject of the BBC, and as we are all brimming with good will, will the Home Secretary whisper to his hon. Friend the Minister of State whether, on 29 January, the Metropolitan police told the right hon. Gentleman what they intended to do?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): That would be out of order. I am sure that the Minister will not comment.
  Mr. Mellor: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman keeps pursuing the matter. If he tables a written question—he needs no lesson about that subject from me—he will get his answer. If I were to answer him now, I would be out of order and it would be a distortion of a Broadcasting Bill on quite different matters. If I were pressed for an answer, it would mean that whenever a Home Office Minister was at the Dispatch Box he would be subjected to cross-examination on that point. If the hon. Gentleman tables a question in the proper form, he will get an answer. Now is not the time for that answer.
  The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich discussed the regulation of DBS. At the moment, that regulation turns on individual countries regulating the direct broadcasting that emanates from their jurisdiction. There is some basis for control at the receiving end. We have
  704
  already discovered that most satellite systems must be received via a cable distribution system and therefore the distribution by cable is controlled under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984. The standards of requirement are contained in that Act. In effect, a cable operator has legal responsibility for anything that is disseminated.
  I repeat that we do not regard that as entirely satisfactory. We believe that some sort of convention, such as that which we are trying to introduce in the Council of Europe, would be useful. Unlike those in Brussels, we are trying to impose not the heavy hand but the light hand of regulation to mirror the arrangements that already exist in the Cable and Broadcasting Act and the charter of the BBC. I am sure that that is a sensible basis on which to proceed.
  The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that we had adopted a piecemeal approach to this matter. That is not so. Throughout our period of office we have taken a steady, sensible, practical view of the potential within the United Kingdom both to expand broadcasting within our society and to make use of the outstanding international reputation of British broadcasting. That expansion would give us the opportunity to win audiences for British programming overseas with the consequential possibilities for business expansion and jobs. There are a number of notable feathers in our cap.
  I am glad that the right hon. Member for Gorton said that Channel 4 was the most brilliantly successful channel in the world. I am aware that the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South claims some part in the paternity of that channel—whether the right hon. Gentleman and my noble Friend the Leader of the House of Lords will have to have blood tests to decide this question remains to be seen. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the final version and the manner in which the project was carried through was due in large part to my noble Friend.
  Some Opposition Members are sceptical about the manner in which the Government approach such matters. It is paradoxical that they should commend Channel 4 — a Government creation — and then express such concern that the Government are interested only in a form of cheap-jack commercialism with regard to future broadcasting.
  We are as committed as any Opposition Member to the concept of public service broadcasting. I believe that we approach the task of widening consumer choice with a more realistic appreciation of the potential market. Many of the objections to Peacock and the other arrangements we have been proposing and are likely to propose have been raised on many occasions in the past. Precisely the same objections were raised, when we proposed the ITV system, as happened when we proposed commercial radio. We cannot detect any reason why commercial success must be equated with a lowering of standards. On the contrary, many of our most outstanding businesses and broadcasting companies have proved that commercial success and high standards run hand in hand.
  Modest steps forward have been proposed in the Bill—and I am not knocking modest Bills of two clauses since I am discussing one with 128 clauses in Committee. The Bill makes it more likely that direct broadcasting by satellite will be successful. It extends the period by three years to 15 years and give us a period when, quietly and steadily, we may continue to evaluate the future of the independent television system in the knowledge that we

  705
  have a few more years for that consideration. When the next full contract round comes forward we will be able to make changes that will take broadcasting through to the end of the century and will make use of all the knowledge and experience gleaned in the 30 years in which the ITV system has operated.
  Whatever else the House may fall out about, I am glad that the House will not fall out about this Bill, and I warmly commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills.)

  Motor Cycle Noise Bill [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Motor Cycle Noise Bill, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other Act.—[Mr. Peter Bottoniley.]
  6.58 pm
  Mr. Robert Adley: In the two minutes before the debate is postponed, I should like to commend the money resolution to the House. It is a good money resolution in support of a good Bill. As the sponsor of this private Member's Bill, I thank the Ministers and the officials at the Department of Transport for the considerable time and effort they have expended in helping to draft the Bill.
  There is already legislation that enables a prosecution to be brought against motor cyclists for having noisy exhaust systems. However, the purpose of the Bill and the money resolution is to deal with the matter at source so that noisy exhaust systems can be dealt with by one action, which clearly is more time effective and much more cost-efficient than taking dozens of individuals to court. That is the purpose of the money resolution. The Bill is supported by—
  It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business), further proceeding stood postponed.

  British Railways Bill (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7 pm
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is one in a long series of general powers Bills that British Railways has brought forward over the years. It follows closely on the Third Reading of the Stansted Bill a fortnight ago. I hope that today will not prove quite so contentious.
  Such Bills are designed to provide British Rail with powers to enable it to bring up to date the whole of its permanent way and other operations. I recognise that the feature of such Bills is often the closure of level crossings and other facilities, but it is worth remembering the positive side to all that is included in such Bills.
  Investment in British Rail in the past three years has been £1,400 million and another £2,500 million is planned for the next five years. The House will be aware that recently orders for £95 million worth of new inter-city rolling stock for the east coast main line have been placed. Against the background of the closure of level crossings and the rest, I should like to remind the House that there are now plans to open five branch lines and 12 stations to add to the 56 stations and other facilities opened since 1982.
  The Bill follows the normal procedures of past legislation and I do not intend to weary the House by dealing with non-contentious matters. Some of my hon. Friends, and hon. Members in other parts of the House, are anxious about some of the proposed plans so I shall deal with them in particular. If, with the permission of the House, I have the opportunity to speak again, I shall deal with other matters which might arise.
  Part II of the Bill deals with proposed works. The first deals with the railway system in the Canterbury area. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) in his place. I refer to work Nos. 2, 2A, 2B, and 3 at Whitehall road leading to Whitehall farm. It might be convenient for the House to consider clause 6 at the same time. The works are needed to connect The Chartham and Canterbury West lines and the Selling Canterbury East lines, thereby permitting through running from Chartham and Canterbury East and thence to Dover, avoiding the circuitous route via Minster. That proposal is the subject of a petition by Professor Pressnell, which I have no doubt will be considered in the proper way at the proper time. I mention that proposal because there is a fear that. by virtue of clause 6, a plan exists undisclosed in the Bill to close Canterbury West station. I can give an assurance that that is definitely not so. The board has no plans for such a closure.
  Work No. 4 concerns the deviation railway at Llantrisant, which will be of interest to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). This work is designed to help the Mid Glamorgan county council with its plan to construct a bypass at Talbot Green. British Rail's proposal will divert the railway, so enabling the land to be released for the road.
  Work No. 7 is also the subject of a petition and has been a matter of concern to those living in the area. Petitions have been tabled by the Doncaster borough council and the Ramblers Association. The work relates to the level crossings at Dormer Green and Noblethorpe. They are
  708
  public level crossings located close to each other, separated by about 450 yards. They are conventional gated crossings controlled by a gatekeeper who lives in a house adjacent to Noblethorpe crossing. The hoard believes that there is no justification for the retention of the gatekeeper. Since the roads, which are described as through routes, can be used only by farm traffic the board wishes to close the Dormer Green crossing and to divert traffic over the Noblethorpe crossing by means of a road to be built, at the board's expense, across land owned by the owner of Thorpe Grange farm, the person most directly concerned.
  The future road will be suitable for vehicular traffic but will have private status. I draw attention to subsection (5) of clause 11 which states:
  "Any person who suffers loss by the extinguishment under this section of such private rights of way, if any, as may exist over Dormer Green and Noblethorpe crossings shall be entitled to be paid by the Board compensation, to be determined in case of dispute by the tribunal."
  There is a remedy in that subsection for anyone who is affected.
  Clause 25 is of great interest to my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Mr.Cash) and for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle). It relates to the closure of Whitebridge lane, Stone and involves the closure of a public level crossing to vehicular traffic. Pedestrian rights are to be retained. The board's plan is to withdraw the crossing keepers. The clause authorises the board to stop up Whitebridge lane. Wicket gates and stiles will be provided to provide a crossing for pedestrian use.
  Staffordshire county council has petitioned against the board's proposal because it believes that it will create problems for heavy vehicles. It is important to remember that alternative routes will be available and that the Staffordshire police state that Whitebridge lane between the level crossing and Mount road is unsuitable for exceptional loads. The British Waterways Board contends that the bridge over the Trent and Mersey canal is capable of carrying any vehicle which complies with the construction and use regulations. I hope that those assurances will meet the point.
  Part III of the Bill deals with works at Blyth and the termination of a short railway, following the Coal Board's decision after the long miners' strike not to use the railways for transportation. This provision enables the board and British Rail to come to agreement as a result of that decision.
  Part IV of the Bill deals with the purchase of land and part V with the incorporation of works and lands provisions. Part VI deals with protective provisions under the British Rail Acts 1981 and 1984, both of which I guided through the House. Part VII deals with miscellaneous provisions and part VIII with general provisions, including repeal and arbitration procedures.
  I draw attention to the two schedules to the Bill. Schedule I deals with the acquisition of land. Clause 36 gives powers to take land to enlarge the electrical substation at Branksome near Poole. That is of great interest to my constituents and to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley). They know how well that railway system is improving, and the extra electrification to Weymouth should make a great difference to the journeys of our constituents.
  Schedule 2 deals with enactments that are to be repealed by the Bill. This is not a contentious measure. As I say, it is a housekeeping measure, as are most of the

  709
  British Rail Bills. Following my short explanation, I hope that the House will feel able to give the Bill a Second Reading. If I am given permission to speak again, I shall try to deal with any specific matters raised by hon. Members.
  7.10 pm
  Mr. John Heddle: I should like to make three constituency points, two of them on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown). He represents the second most beautiful seat in Britain, but because of his much-deserved appointment to the Whips Office a few months ago he is unable to put to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) these two points. In chronological order they appear in clause 12 and deal with the stopping up of two level crossings just by the A38 at Alrewas.
  I do not know that part of Staffordshire quite as well as does my hon. Friend, but I know it almost as well because in a previous incarnation in the Parliament of 1979 to 1983 I represented the constituency of Lichfield and Tamworth. That included the village of Alrewas, which now forms the heart of my hon. Friend's Staffordshire, South-East constituency. The level crossings to be stopped up are at Fine lane and at Roddige lane.
  I should like my hon. Friend to consider my remarks about an equally important matter. Perhaps I should say a matter of great commercial importance and in saying that I am expressing a partial prejudice, but I ask my hon. Friend to forgive me for that. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East wish to make representations on behalf of Staffordshire county council. It has lobbied vigorously and vociferously, and I hope that it will continue to lobby persuasively to persuade British Rail and its professional advisers—notwithstanding the advice that they have received from the Staffordshire police, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the British Waterways Board and any other authority that they may wish to call to support their case—to consider the views of the democratically elected representatives of the people who use and derive benefit from the land to which these level crossings give access.
  I direct the attention of the House to clause 25. That clause gives power to close the level crossing in Whitebridge lane in Stone in my constituency. The proposed closure of this level crossing causes great worry not only to the county council, but to many of my constituents in Stone and to one section of my constituents with which I shall deal in a moment. The level crossing is one of only two means of access to the Whitebridge lane industrial estate and to an adjoining factory estate on the opposite side of the road.
  The other access to the industrial estate and to the factories is from the A51 along Whitebridge lane over an inadequate and steep hump-backed bridge, about which my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest spoke. That bridge is over the Trent and the Mersey canal. It is just not possible for certain long wheel base vehicles to pass over the hump because they bottom upon it. The hump is too steep. Last summer the level crossing was temporarily closed, and Staffordshire county council received complaints about the need to double handle loads. The
  710
  only access for such long vehicles is over the level crossing and if passed unamended the Bill would give British Rail permission to close that crossing.
  The chief fire officer of Staffordshire county council is also worried about the possibility of closure of the level crossing because it would be difficult for his larger appliances to pass over the bridge.
  It is estimated that between 65 and 70 per cent. of the industrial units on the Whitebridge industrial estate, an important part of the economy of Stone, are let. It is thought that if this level crossing is closed not only would it be difficult to let the remaining units, but the present occupiers might have to consider whether to relocate, because some of the occupants depend very much on deliveries by the types of vehicles about which I have spoken and they can only gain access over the bridge.
  My next point is not party political: I do not need to underline that. As the House will appreciate, local employment opportunities are very much at stake. I ask my hon. Friend to give me an assurance on behalf of the promoters of the Bill that they will take that into account in any subsequent discussions that they may have with Staffordshire county council. The county council has considered the possibility of the construction of an alternative access to the industrial estate. That would be by means of a new bridge over the canal. The present estimated cost of the bridge and its associated roadworks is £300,000.
  I take more than a passing interest in local government finance in general and in the finance of Staffordshire county council in particular. I do not think that the county council could support the funding of this programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East and I both know that there are many village bypasses and other road improvement schemes in our constituencies and throughout the county that deserve greater priority.
  I understand that discussions about this level crossing took place with British Rail as long ago as 1978 and that no firm agreement was reached. British Rail considered that the possibility of contributing towards the cost of a new bridge would be a possible way out, but nothing further has been heard from British Rail about that. What does British Rail seek to save by allowing this clause to remain in the Bill? I do not know. Perhaps my hon. Friend could find out and let me know between now and 2 March. I suspect that it may mean the saving of one part-time job of a level crossing keeper during the day, and one part-time job of a level crossing keeper during the night.
  I ask my hon. Friend to pass to the promoters that much more is at stake and that it rests on the promoters' decision. It is the continued prosperity and profitability of the factories and the creation of jobs in the two factory estates about which I have spoken. I remind him that 65 to 70 per cent. of the factories are let. That means that 30 per cent. are not. If this level crossing is closed, the possibility of letting those factories will he remote and the viability of the factories that are let will become questionable. He will know that the promoters of the Bill intend to debate this matter further with Staffordshire county council on 2 March. I hope that the promoters will consider discussions with the occupiers of the industrial units on these estates, with Stone chamber of trade, the Staffordshire Development Association and other interested parties.
  When the history of this Bill is written in the annals of British Rail, the stopping up of this level crossing and the

  711
  saving of these two part-time jobs will be seen not to have been worth the candle. I hope that the industrial, commercial and capitalist candle will continue to burn brightly for many years in Stone in my constituency.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. David Crouch: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) for having introduced the Bill. As he said, it is a sort of routine measure and a general purpose Bill for British Rail and it should do us no harm. The proposals in clauses 5 and 6, which concern my constituency, are improvements on two relatively old lines in the British Rail system, but to say that they would do no one any harm would be wrong. Certain of my constituents will be done considerable harm and that harm can be removed only by generous compensation.
  Clauses 5 and 6 refer to work No. 2, work No. 3 and detailed works Nos. 2A and 2B. They will be considerable improvements. The British Railways Board has been very helpful. Its solicitor sent me advance notice of what was to happen, as I imagine he did to all other hon. Members affected by the proposed changes. The information has revealed an inadequacy in the line from London to the Kent coast—to Canterbury and beyond to Ramsgate and to Dover. In the past, the two separate lines—one from Victoria and Cannon Street to Dover and the other from Charing Cross through Ashford, through Canterbury West to Ramsgate and Sandwich — have crossed in Canterbury. That crossover is a disadvantage. It was probably a wrong piece of planning, but there it is. The proposed change will remove that crossover and produce a link between the lines so that, in future, it will be possible for a person travelling from Ashford to Canterbury West to join the other line and go through Canterbury East to Dover. That is a much better plan.
  This plan will affect some of my constituents who own the farmland where the rail building is to take place. That work is quite small—between 1,000 and 1,500 yards of rail. My constituent, Mr. Todd, farms Whitehall farm, which is mentioned in the Bill. The effect of the Bill is to carve his farm in two, which makes the farm no longer viable. That is why generous compensation must be considered.
  A similar problem arose 10 or 12 years ago with farms and farmers in my constituency when the Canterbury bypass was built. It cut through many farms, robbing them not only of land but of their viability. If a farm is cut in half, the two halves cannot be farmed together. Even if a bridge is built to help the farmer, farming is extremely difficult. Whitehall farm is a small farm and I do not think —nor does the farmer—that there would be a case for building a bridge there. I am sure that this problem will be solved. British Rail has much experience of it. The fact that British Rail wrote to me to inform me of the proposal helped me to advise Mr. Todd and his brother, who together farm Whitehall farm, on the steps that they should take.
  A petition has been presented by Professor Pressnell from the university of Kent in Canterbury. My constituents, the farmers, did not succeed in submitting a petition to the House and I have advised them to consider petitioning the other place in due course. I have sought the advice of the solicitor's office of the British Railways Board to pass further information on to my constituents.
  712
  I am not complaining about the proposed rail change because it will be a considerable improvement. We do riot often hear of new railway lines being built. I know that I am talking about fewer than 1,500 yards of railway line, but that is a considerable improvement. I thank British Rail for its initiative in building a little more railway line and in improving the route to the Kent coast which will feature prominently in the next few years when the Channel tunnel is built. People will want to get to the tunnel entrance, and one of these lines will serve the tunnel directly. The infrastructure generally needs to be improved as well—an argument which is advanced all the time by people in Kent as one of the measures needed in the area.
  I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest say that there was no question of Canterbury West station being closed. Canterbury is sometimes looked upon as being remarkable. Of course it is a remarkable place, but it is remarkable also in that it has two stations — Canterbury West and Canterbury East. They are extremely good and important stations. Canterbury West is a very distinguished, fine-looking and beautifully kept station. I always congratulate the station manager and the staff on the way that it is kept. Perhaps its appearance has influenced British Rail's decision to keep it going.
  More important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) knows, Canterbury West played a famous part in the history of British railways and the railways of the world. The first passenger service in the world was on the line From Canterbury West to Whitstable. I know that because I happened to attend a service in Canterbury cathedral five years ago at which the Archbishop of Canterbury preached, and we recognised the great achievement of none other than Stephenson in having built the railway line to connect with ships sailing out of Whitstable harbour taking people to London.
  Another reason why Canterbury West must remain open is that the original railway track laid down by Stephenson is in the station yard. That line has been preserved. Those industrial and archaeological reminders are important. That is not the only reason to keep the station open. The route to the coast served by Canterbury West is distinct and separate from the route served by Canterbury East.
  I commend the Bill. It is an advantage to our infrastructure and our railway system. I hope that the British Railways Board will note what I have said. It must in turn take note of the concern expressed by Mr. Todd at Whitehall farm and ensure that he is properly compensated.
  7.28 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I hope that the House will forgive me if I intervene now because I hope to be helpful. I have not waited for my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) to speak because I suspect that I shall speak after him arid I want to get the retaliation in first.
  I am delighted to be involved in a railway debate. Each of us is here as a Member of Parliament, and our constituency system means that hon. Members can speak for particular level crossings or beautiful railway stations. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), a Government Whip, nodded wisely and enthusiastically when parts of his constituency were mentioned. Within the past fortnight, I have had the

  713
  opportunity to open a new railway bridge—the Well Hall railway bridge—which I hope will also go down in British Rail's history.
  In no sense am I trying to wind up or answer the debate. The Government have considered the Bill's contents and there are no objections in principle to the powers sought by the British Railways Board. A few minor points will need to be raised by the Department of Transport and I have no reason to doubt that they will be cleared up satisfactorily.
  As has been mentioned, there are four petitioners against the Bill who will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee, which will be in a position to give more detailed examination to the issues that are involved, and which will have the added advantage of access to expert evidence.
  I recommend to the House that the Bill is given a Second Reading and that it is allowed to proceed in the usual way to detailed consideration in Committee. However, I should like to say that anyone who has not had the enjoyment of reading a Bill such as this might, with advantage, read clause 27(5), where they will notice that for the words
  "shut and fasten any gate"
  it is possible to substitute the words,
  "lower and lock any lifting barrier".
  That shows that the House gives immense attention to
  detail, as is absolutely right.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Robert Adley: I am delighted to have the opportunity to make a brief speech. I hope that my hon. and neighbouring Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) will allow me to say that British Rail owes him an immense debt of gratitude for his work. The House knows and recognises his eloquence and knowledge in presenting such Bills, and that should be put on the record.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) treated us to a delightful nugget of parliamentary history. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) rightly raised an important matter of concern to his constituents.
  I should like to pick out one or two points about the Bill in relation to my hon. Friend's remarks because they provide an interesting illustration of some of the matters about the railways that we take for granted in the House and in the country. Without wishing to cross swords with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire, I suspect that the railway line was there before the factories to which he referred. However, it is assumed that it must always be British Rail that must take the necessary steps to enable life to continue. That is one of the presumptions which we all make and which, of course, costs British Rail a large sum every year. When we consider the figures for British Rail's overall costs, we should never forget the assumptions that we make which cost them money as is illustrated in the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury discussed the new Canterbury link, but which is very welcome albeit rather less dramatic than the new Windsor link in Manchester, which has already been approved by the House.
  714
  The Bill illustrates concern for individuals, but also the larger matter on which my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest touched. Quite properly, he referred to the number of new stations that are being opened. However, I suspect that most people would imagine that British Rail is busy closing stations, rather than opening them. In fact, the reverse is the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell) reminded me the other day of the comparatively large number of new stations that British Rail has opened since the Government were elected.
  My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest discussed the electrification of the Weymouth to Bournemouth line, which, as he rightly said, is important to his constituents and to mine. Of course, that electrification is welcome, but it pales into insignificance when compared with the electrification of the east coast main line, which has been talked about for many years, but which is coming to fruition only now, under this Government.
  Therefore, the Bill is an interesting illustration of the way in which, with the railways, the facts belie the story of neglect that is often laid at the door of the present Government and their attitude to the railways.
  Mr. Peter Snape: I hesitate to intervene in the hon. Gentleman's habitually eloquent opening remarks. However, I am not sure where his remarks are leading us in our debate on the Bill. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that all those improvements to which he has referred have been financed entirely out of British Rail's own resources by the selling-off of land and property, and that not a penny piece for those improvements has come from the Department of Transport or the Government?
  Mr. Adley: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has decided to inject a partisan point into the debate. British Rail's finances are in a rather better state than many people might be led to believe. One of the reasons for that could be the support that BR receives from the Government. I am not suggesting, nor is he, that we should not like to see a great deal more investment in British Rail. However, some of the achievements that have been made belie the tales of woe about the railways which are frequently put about by some Opposition Members.
  If I am asked whether what I have said about the east coast main line is related to the Bill, I refer to page 5, clause 5, line 43 which refers to the line between Doncaster and York. Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will be delighted to know that I am not too far out of order in my remarks.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State discussed level crossings and lifting barriers. If, as occasionally happens, there is a mishap at a lifting barrier, concern is aroused and questions are asked about the safety of those comparatively new devices. The press automatically assumes either that the mechanism was faulty or that the accident was the fault of the train driver. Anybody who has studied the accident reports relating to lifting barriers —mercifully those accidents are few and far between—will find that, generally speaking, amber gambling or flashing red light gambling car drivers are much more likely to be the cause of any distress or accidents at the barriers.
  Level crossings are rarely debated in the House. I wonder how many people realise that last year the

  715
  Department of Transport contributed £18·5 million to British Rail, through the level crossing grant, but that British Rail had to provide a great deal more money from its own resources to allow roads and railway lines to cross. Through its own resources and finances, British Rail has to provide funds and account for them, although the cost of motoring is borne out of general taxation. That is one of the small points that illustrates the unfairness of comparisons between road and rail transport in this country. That is largely due to the historic way in which we deal with those matters in this House, as well as in the country.
  The Bill on page 2 states that
  "'the Act of 1845' means the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845",
  and that
  "'the Act of 1863' means the Railway Clauses Act 1863".
  When one starts to count the number of individual pieces of legislation that are referred to in this small Bill alone, one gains some idea of the obligations that have been laid by Parliament for 150 years upon the operators of our railways. Would that we had taken the same care, concern and time over our attitude to the methods by which we control, or do not control, the traffic on our roads. Through Bills such as this, Parliament sets tight rules and high standards for British Rail which make our railway travel one of the safest forms of transport on earth. However, on our roads we happily slaughter more than 5,000 people a year and maim 250,000 for the simple reason that we refuse to impose, upon ourselves as road users, anything remotely approaching the high standards of safety that we lay upon the railways.
  I am glad to have had the opportunity to speak briefly, and I should like to congratulate my hon. and neighbouring Friend the Member for New Forest. I am happy to support his Bill.
  7.38 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: Like the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), I shall be extremely brief in commenting on the Bill. I join Conservative Members in congratulating the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) on the clear, concise and detailed manner which he habitually adopts to present such Bills. They are traditionally nonpolitical, but not always non-controversial. It is greatly to the hon. Gentleman's credit that the controversy behind some of those Bills is not reflected in the exchanges between the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members.
  Like the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), I am somewhat concerned about the clause that refers to the Canterbury accord. I hope that the Minister will re-emphasise the assurance that the addition of the new stretch of railway will not mean that in future British Rail will introduce proposals to close the Canterbury East station.
  The Bill is studded with references to level crossings. Many of us will agree with some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Christchurch. The provision, maintenance and upkeep of level crossings costs the British Railways Board considerable sums and protects not its assets, but private and commercial motorists from the consequences of their actions. For once, I do not blame the Government. About 50 per cent. of the total costs of level crossings falls on the board. I suggest to the Minister that we look at that in a non-controversial, non-partisan way.
  716
  If the Department coughed up, it would not be political, controversial or partisan. That area would repay further study.
  The Bill understandably does not mention automatic crossings. We understand that following last year's fatal accident near Hull some crossings which may have been thought suitable for conversion to automatic crossings will not be converted because of the suspension of those crossings. Again, I must agree with the hon. Member for Christchurch that, although the provision of flashing lights without barriers is regarded as dangerous, particularly in view of that accident, it is dangerous only if motorists ignore the lights. Although we read occasionally in the newspapers about the failure of those lights, one rarely sees any detailed evidence. I know from reading the reports of the Department of Transport's railway inspectorate that their reliability is not often questioned.
  A worrying aspect of the suspension of the conversion of crossings of this type is the increased financial burden of maintenance and operating services on these comparatively lightly used stretches of track. I wish to use this opportunity to express our concern that further closure proposals are not introduced because of that additional expense which is largely beyond British Rail's control. Accidents are often caused by the stupidity and carelessness of motorists who appear to believe that they can treat red lights at railway crossings as they treat red lights at road crossings. Occasionally they get a salutary reminder, and often a fatal reminder, that racing a train across a crossing against a red light is even more dangerous than jumping red lights in the normal course of driving round our towns anc cities.
  The Opposition welcome the Bill and I hope that when the hon. Member for New Forest replies he will appreciate our concern about the future of Canterbury East. I know that he will relay back to the British Railways Board that we would not wish the welcome provision of a new stretch of line to prejudice the line that already exists.
  7.43 pm
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to some of the points that have been raised.
  I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) for his support. He and I have been through several such occasions together and I hope that there has been a greater measure of agreement on this occasion than we may have had in the past.
  I should also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) for his kind remarks and speech. He is an acknowledged expert on the railways. Not only is he an expert on the railway system, but a fine photographer of railways arid all things that travel on them. I appreciate what he said.
  Both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend laid considerable stress on the safety of level crossings, lifting barriers and other systems in use. I assure them both that the board bears that in mind and is extremely anxious at all times to improve the operation of unmanned crossings wherever possible. I assure them that the chairman and members of the board will note their remarks.
  My hon. Friend referred to legislation and pointed out that a great deal of it was 19th century. That is absolutely true. It may be worth noting the way in which the legislation has stood the test of time. When we discuss Bills

  717
  of this nature we are inevitably taking a snapshot—if I dare say that with my hon. Friend so close — of the railway system, but we are looking, not only at a long history, but at a long future.
  If I may, in the good spirit of some television competitions, I shall start in reverse order and deal with matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) relating to clauses 5 and 6. His remarks will be carefully noted by the board and his constituents' problems carefully considered. On clause 5, I remind him that a lesser but significant factor is the condition of bridge 259, carrying the Faversham-Canterbury East line over the route between Chartham and Canterbury West, which will require major engineering work within the next few years. Implementation of the scheme will enable the bridge to be eliminated by removing the superstructure and substituting solid embankment. The bridge has a separate brick arch over Whitehall road which will be retained.
  The various works in the scheme include a new railway — work No. 2 — connecting the Ashford-Minster line with the Faversham-Canterbury East line; and a new railway — work No. 3 — following the course of a connecting line between the railways mentioned above which was installed during the last war and removed in 1957, to relink those railways and work in conjunction with work No. 2, creating a route for Ashford-Minster traffic which avoids bridge No. 259.
  I can assure my hon. Friend that his other anxieties about individuals who are affected will be carefully noted.
  Mr. Crouch: My point is that Mr. Todd and his brother who own Whitehall farm will receive a compulsory purchase order for the land that British Rail takes from their farm and should receive compensation for the fact that their farm is no longer viable by being cut in half by these railway works.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: As I pointed out in my opening remarks, subsection (5) provides an opportunity for aggrieved parties to seek compensation and redress through a tribunal. I hope that that will apply in the case of my hon. Friend's constituents.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) referred to clauses 12 and 25 and I was glad
  718
  to see my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) present. The eloquent way in which my hon. Friend described the problems which may confront his constituents will be carefully noted, especially the point relating to job opportunities and the prosperity of Stone and the surrounding area.
  On the matter of clause 25, alternative routes exist and it will be for the petitioners in Committee to make their case. Nevertheless, clause 12—
  "Stopping up of roads at Alrewas, Staffordshire"—
  is worth an additional comment. Fine lane and Roddige lane level crossings are both public crossings. Crossing keepers are employed manually to work the gates. Both crossings are situated on the board's railway between Lichfield City and Wichnor Junction. With a view to improving the economies in the operation of the railway — this is the point to which my hon. Friend referred when he talked about part-time employees—the board proposes to convert the crossing to automatic operation, thus enabling the attendants to be withdrawn altogether. It is intended that the authority for that will be sought from the Secretary of State by means of an order under the Level Crossings Act 1983.
  The road over each crossing is approximately 30 ft wide, far wider than the road approaches, and the board wishes to reduce the width of the crossing decks before embarking on any scheme. I hope that that will help to clarify the points which concern my hon. Friend. I can assure him that the petitions from the Staffordshire county council will be carefully considered.
  I remind my hon. Friend that the Staffordshire police have made it clear that they do not believe that the road, as at present operated, is suitable for heavy vehicles. Although I listened to what he said about vehicles touching bottom on the bridge over the canal, we are assured by British Waterways that any vehicles which are legitimately on the road should be able to use that thoroughfare perfectly adequately.
  We have had an extremely useful and valuable, although short, debate. As I said at the beginning, it marks a milestone in the development of the railway system. I hope that the House will allow the Bill to go forward to its next stage.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  Motor Cycle Noise Bill [Money]
  Postponed proceeding resumed.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Adley: As I was saying—as they say—perhaps I should repeat the few words I said earlier. I hope that my thanks to the Minister and the Department for the work they have done will be taken as read.
  I was saying that there is legislation available at present enabling prosecutions to be brought against individual motor cyclists for having noisy exhaust systems. However, the purpose of the Motor Cycle Noise Bill and the money resolution is to deal with the matter at source, where the total supply can be dealt with by one action, which is clearly not only more time-effective but cost-efficient than the present proposition of the police having to take dozens of individuals to court.
  The British Motor Cyclists' Federation supports the Bill and the money resolution as does the Motor Cycle Association. I will not weary the House by reading out endless quotations because this is not a Second Reading debate and, happily, the Bill has already received a Second Reading.
  Money for the Bill is needed quite simply to enable trading standards officers to do their job as proposed in the powers they will be given under the Bill. That should relieve the police of a great deal of works.
  The Bill concerns non-standard exhaust systems or exhaust systems modified to make more noise. That is the point that has to be stressed. We are dealing with a Bill that is trying to prevent people from deliberately making more noise. The Bill makes illegal the sale or use of unstamped exhaust systems and the trading standards officers, the funding of whom will be provided by the money resolution if the House passes it, will have the power to confiscate unstamped systems, which will obviously cost money. There is a trade at present in approved exhaust systems and one hopes that if the Bill, the money resolution and all its works are ultimately approved by Parliament there will be a growing sale of those approved exhaust systems.
  The Bill gives powers to trading standards officers to enter factories to look around and take away exhaust systems which they believe might be contravening the regulations. The relevant clauses mean that they do not have to make a prior appointment but can simply enter the premises.
  This is a small but important money resolution for a small Bill. Noise is the curse of modern society and deliberate noise is unacceptable. The internal combustion engine is a major source of noise and pollution and I hope that the House will agree to give its support to this small but worthwhile step.
  7.56 pm
  Mr. Toby Jessel: I wish to support the money resolution which will give effect to the Motor Cycle Noise Bill. The purpose of the money resolution is to authorise limited spending of public money on the purpose of the Bill and to provide finance for weights and measures officers. The explanatory and financial memorandum says:
  "It is estimated that when the provisions are fully operational the cost of purchasing samples and testing them will initially be in the range of £50,000 to £150,000, but as the provisions take effect, these costs will probably diminish."
  720
  The object of that is to enforce the law proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) who should be warmly congratulated on bringing forward his private Member's Bill and the money resolution that goes with it.
  The money resolution should be supported enthusiastically by the whole House. The resolution, like the Bill to which it relates, has the paramount aim of improving the quality of life. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has just said, noise is the curse of modern society. The explanatory and financial memorandum refers to the modest cost. In a population of about 50 million in the United Kingdom, a sum of £50,000 to £150,000 — [Interruption.] It is a little difficult to address the House with another speech going on on the Opposition Benches. In a population of 50 million, a sum of £50,000 to £150,000 works out at one tenth to three tenths of a penny per head per year. That is a small price to pay for improving our environment and controlling and curbing the curse and bane of motor cycle noise.
  The money resolution appears to be open-ended and I hope that the Government will not feel inhibited if some further modest expenditure is required. I should like to explain why. Our so-called civilisation is afflicted by far too much loud and strident noise. There are radios blaring, human beings shouting and yelling, dogs harking, unwanted piped music, noise from aircraft, lorries, cars and, as we are discussing, motor cycles. People's nerves are shattered and their senses are dulled. British common law emphasises the right of individuals to the quiet enjoyment of their homes and gardens but all too often that is marred and blighted by the curse of motor cycle noise.
  The money resolution relates directly to this matter as it sanctions provision for the work of weights and measures inspectors to inspect and deal with motor cycle noise. Motor cycle noise is particularly unpleasant. It is not only its volume but the character of the noise which is unsettling and juddering, like a pneumatic drill, whether in residential areas or quiet country lanes. In both that is an outrage to people's freedom to live in peace and quiet by day and, even more so, by night.
  My constituents have three special reasons for wishing me to support the resolution. First, there happen to be many main roads or trunk roads with houses along them in my constituency that are used by a considerable number of motor cyclists. These roads include the A305, the A308, the A310, the A311, the A312, the A313, the A314 and, most important, the A316, the great Chertsey road, which links with the M25, along which a substantial number of motor cyclists travel.
  Secondly, the resolution is of special concern to my constituents because, in addition to motor cycle noise, they have to suffer aircraft noise. The one nuisance has to be taken with the other. If the resolution is passed and weights and measures inspectors are empowered to deal with the nuisance of motor cycle noise, the totality of aircraft noise and motor cycle noise, which comprises a great deal of noise, would be mitigated. The Government have tried already to mitigate aircraft noise by refusing planning permission for a fifth terminal at Heathrow and by refusing to allow a helicopter link from Heathrow to Gatwick. That is not enough, however, and I hope that the resolution will be passed by the House so that motor cycle noise can be reduced as well.
  Thirdly and finally, there is a local problem that could be relieved by the passage of the resolution. I refer to the

  721
  long-standing problem of scrambling motor cycles on the Butts farm estate, which is in the borough of Hounslow but adjacent to my constituency, which is within the borough of Richmond. The two local authorities, Richmond and Hounslow, have dragged their feet. The latest information is that they are only considering erecting fences. They need their heads knocked together. There is a need for legal action to be taken with an order of mandamus against the local authorities. Meanwhile, I am glad that the resolution seems likely to be passed. It will tend to make motor cycles quieter and could contribute to the solution of a distressing local problem.
  8.2 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): If it is necessary, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for me to ask for the leave of the House to speak again, I do so.
  I used to be responsible for noise regulation under health and safety at work legislation when I was an Employment Minister. I once sneaked a noise meter into the Chamber and during Prime Minister's Questions the reading was 95 dB. Such a noise level would be banned in most factories. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) was not present at the time.
  Mr. Snape: The reading would have been 98 dB if he had been.
  Mr. Bottomley: I went with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the health and safety research laboratories at Cricklewood, where she was shown some resounding cymbals. Well, one pair of cymbals resounded
  722
  and the other pair made only a dull thud when she touched them. The pair that thudded had been sprayed with some noise-reducing aerosol. If I may spread a remark that she did not make, she did not say that she would like to use them on the Leader of the Opposition when he interrupted too frequently during Prime Minister's Question Time.
  The money resolution should not be taken as meaning that taxpayers' money will be provided for all the work done by the trading standards officers employed by local authorities. However, regulations made under the main legislation—in other words, the Bill—will be enforced by the trading standards officers. Some local authorities may need to buy silencers for testing, but we have been told that the estimated cost of purchasing and testing will be small. I am not sure whether all the moneys will be provided by Parliament. As the provisions take effect the need for actual enforcement will diminish because suppliers will stop supplying illegal and noisy exhaust systems.
  The House and the country will owe a great debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) in bringing forward this sensible, simple and useful Bill. I do not consider it to be a small Bill because the effect of one noisy motor cycle can destroy the environment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham has reminded us, over almost a mile. The additional work load is expected to have no significant manpower implications. I commend the resolution to the House and I hope that the Bill is enacted.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Motor Cycle Noise Bill, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other Act.

  Hospital Provision (Machynlleth)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Portillo]
  8.4 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: My good fortune in obtaining the Adjournment debate enables me to talk about a small but important town in mid-Wales, Machynlleth. It is not a declining town although it is small. It is in an area that, like other parts of mid-Wales, is seeing the growth of small industry. There is burgeoning tourism and many people are coming into the area to live and work because of the beauty that it offers as well as opportunities.
  I am pleased to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales with responsibilitites for the Health Service in the Principality is in his place. I thank him for meeting me last week and having a discussion with me about the Machynlleth hospitals, which are the subject of the debate. I express my gratitude to him on behalf of my constituents for arranging for a petition, which I shall refer to later, to be received by one of his officials in the Welsh Office. I wish to express my gratitude also to that official for his courtesy in receiving the representations that were made to him. I commend that official's courtesy greatly. He listened with great care and made many notes. As the Minister knows, I should have been happier if he had been the person to meet the deputation that came with me to the Welsh Office, but there is no doubt that we were well received and are thankful for that.
  In considering hospital provision in Machynlleth, perhaps we should know a little about the town. For centuries it has been an important centre to which people have come to market from a wide area. At one time it was the capital of Wales and the home of the Parliament of Owain Glyndwr. One might say
  "how are the mighty fallen!"
  because only last Saturday I held one of my constituency surgeries on the site of Owain Glyndwr's Parliament. What I can say for certain it that the people of Machynlleth hold their democracy at least as valuable now as they did centuries ago with Owain Glyndwr when he held sway in the area.
  Machynlleth is a town in need of good hospital provision. It is a busy town with a growing industrial sector. It has a considerable craft industry and some remarkable shops that are perhaps a part of the original Laura Ashley boom. These shops attract people from throughout the area and from far afield. The town has a considerable part of the backbone of the economy of my constituency of Montgomery — a strong agriculture sector—and it has the important business of tourism. This means that in the summer months especially—we try to make the season in Machynlleth as long as possible now—there is a considerable influx of visitors with the result that the population grows considerably. A growing number of hotels, guest houses and camp sites fills up each year.
  It is right to observe that whenever planning consent is granted for any new property in or around the town, it is in great demand. It is a town that has an increasing use for an increasing number of public buildings. Recently the remarkable Machynlleth tabernacle was restored, and it is now the tabernacle arts centre. The restoration took place
  724
  with private money and the new centre is showing signs of thriving. It brings many people into the town and it will do so increasingly.
  The Plas is one of the most attractive and historic buildings in mid and west Wales. There are plans afoot for it, and for new tourist facilities and other public facilities alongside the town's excellent high school. There is the now celebrated Centre for Alternative Technology outside the town.
  I say all that not to cause a diversion but to emphasise that Machynlleth is growing and blooming rather than shrinking and wilting.
  In a few moments, I shall refer to the views of the people of Machynlleth and to a petition that was presented on their behalf. The people of Machynlleth are not greedy. They have never demanded more than their fair share of the public spending cake. However, I remind the Minister of a snippet of Welsh history that, no doubt, he will recall. The strong community feeling and the ability to identify community needs in that town can be traced as tar hack as the resistance of Caradoc to Agricola's onslaught of mid-Wales. There are independent witnesses of the independence of spirit of mid-Wales and west Wales. I am sure that the Minister, who went to school rather more recently than I did, will remember his Tacitus with enthusiasm. Tacitus described in his Agricola the stout spirit and resistance of the people of mid-Wales.
  That may be a rather roundabout and pittoresque way of making a point, but it is an important one. The people of Machynlleth and district are sound judges of their interests. They feel those interests strongly. They state them firmly and they have an impeccable nose for unfairness. Their nose for unfairness, as they perceive it on the matter of the Machynlleth hospitals, was demonstrated most eloquently by the petition signed by nearly 11,000 people, which has already been presented to the Welsh Office.
  I seek to make a case in support of the 11,000 signatures. It is not just in support of the voices of the ordinary people of the town and the district but also of the voices of many who are closely involved in the medical profession and in the National Health Service in the area, not least the general practitioners in Machynlleth whose views accord entirely with those of the petitioners. There have been times during the history of the dispute when the general practitioners may not have seemed wholeheartedly to support the case made by the petitioners; but it is quite clear that, when they were given the opportunity to stand back and take an objective view of the situation, they formed the view that the proposals of the Powys health authority, which are currently before the Welsh Office, were not in the best interests of the town and the area.
  There are two hospitals in Machynlleth. They are approximately 80 yards or so apart on opposite sides of the main road which leads through the town and towards the coast — towards Aberystwyth in one direction and towards Aberdovey in the other. The newer of those hospitals is about 50 years old. It is called the Machynlleth and Corris district hospital. It was built as a result of public subscription. Some families gave massively towards the construction of the district hospital. What is perhaps more important is that, as I have been told, every family in the district gave something, including not a few widows' mites.
  As I live in mid-Wales, I am delighted to say that we who live in mid-Wales — "Powys Paradwys Cymru" —

  725
  live somewhat longer than average. Thus, many people living in Machynlleth and other parts of mid-Wales remember well the excitement of the collection of the money and the satisfaction of the building of the hospital.
  The other hospital, the Machynlleth chest hospital, started its life, perhaps a little less promisingly, as a workhouse about 125 years ago. More recently, it achieved an enviable reputation as the Machynlleth chest hospital.
  It is a pleasure to see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Conwy (Mr. Roberts), on the Government Front Bench. He will be well aware of the name and the reputation of Dr. G. O. Thomas, who did years of distinguished work in the Machynlleth chest hospital. Dr. Thomas and others did pioneering work in the chest hospital on the treatment of farmer's lung. They made great strides and became famed worldwide for their work on that dreadful disease. Sadly, there has been an increase in the incidence of farmer's lung in the past few years. It is one of the diseases which the Machynlleth chest hospital still treats.
  The chest hospital is a place not only for the treatment of farmers lung. It has become a popular and highly respected hospital for the treatment of all sorts of chest-related ailments. Some of my own friends have had excellent treatment there. I recall a celebrated resident of Montgomeryshire, Mr. R. O. Hughes of Castle Caereinion, who sadly died recently, but was kept alive for many years by the excellent treatment that he periodically received at the chest hospital in Machynlleth. He was a patient who regularly travelled about 35 miles for treatment there. That is an example of the breadth of the hospital's catchment area.
  The chest hospital and the district hospital have a wonderful reputation for their nursing care. I have visited them both on many occasions and have seen for myself the tradition of care that is carried on excellently by the present staff and Mrs. Lloyd the matron—if I may be permitted to use the old-fashioned word that is still well-understood in Wales.
  The two hospitals are physically close. They work efficiently together. They efficiently share the same catering and the same administration. They have a joint league of friends which has provided a fully-furnished day room in each hospital. It is worth noting that the league of friends has in its possession a sum of money, the size of which is staggering when one considers the size of Machynlleth. I am given to understand that the amount of money which could be provided by the league of friends is in excess of £100,000. They would like to apply that sum of money to schemes of which they approve.
  The catchment area, as I have already intimated, is much wider than Machynlleth itself. Indeed, it is much more than simply the whole of west Montgomeryshire or, for that matter, the whole of Montgomeryshire. It includes the old counties of Ceredigion and Meirionnydd. It is difficult to make precise estimates of its catchment area. One submission made to me suggested that it might be as large as 100,000 people. Perhaps so. Perhaps one should err on the lower side and say that the catchment area consists of 50,000 or 60,000 people. It is still substantial and, in my view, greater than has been suggested by the Powys health authority, whose proposals are currently before the Minister.
  726
  It is a town where acute medical services are required on a reasonable scale for the whole of the district. We know of many patients who live, for example, in Dolgellau, the county town of the old county of Meirionydd, who, for some quite routine medical treatment, have to travel for long distances over country roads to the town of Wrexham. It is very much to be hoped that we shall not see more people being forced to travel that kind of distance for medical treatment, or to visit their relatives in hospital.
  As the Member of Parliament for Montgomery, of course I welcome the decision by the Powys health authority to spend money on the hospitals in Machynlleth to upgrade the provision of medical facilities there. Money is needed, particularly for the chest hospital, some parts of which are in less than excellent condition. However, local people believe—and I share their belief—that there are a number of misconceptions and errors in the plans that are under consideration.
  The first of those misconceptions and errors relates to the proposed new geriatric unit, combined with a unit for the elderly mentally infirm—a geriatric-EMI unit, as it has come to be known. Of course I welcome the decision. and so do my constituents, to build a new geriatric-EMI unit and associated day facilities, but having reflected upon the matter and looked at it in great detail we are all of the view that it is quite wrong that those facilities should be placed in the grounds of the chest hospital, rather than on that side of the road where the district hospital is situated.
  The site of the chest hospital is entirely unsuited to the provision of those facilities. It is a congested site. On that site there are the comings and goings of the ambulance station. The mortuary's proximity is a problem that causes great concern. And it causes offence in Machynlleth that it is proposed that the geriatric-EMI unit, where some patients will live for years, should have a clear view of the cemetery. In my constituency in mid-Wales, matters of birth and death are viewed very seriously indeed—perhaps in a less cavalier fashion than in some of the modernistic urban areas of England. For elderly people to have to watch corteges proceed on their stately way could hardly drive home an unwelcome point more tellingly.
  I believe that those of the elderly who have to spend their last months or years in a geriatric unit are entitled to a better view than that; and that the people of Machynlleth are right in drawing this important detail to the Minister's attention. No amount of landscaping will achieve in any reasonable time the screening that would be required to remove that defect in the proposals.
  If all that I were saying was that the site is unsuitable, the Powys health authority would be able to reply—I know that the Minister is constrained tonight because he will have to decide this matter in due course — "But what is your alternative?" The alternative is a good one, and it is readily available.
  Whereas the chest hospital is on the more built up side of the town, the district hospital is on the less built r,p side. It is on the same side of the town as the Cartref Dyfi home for the elderly. It is also on the same side of the town, conveniently, as the car park, and on the side of town with some most attractive views.
  Next to the district hospital there is a site that already belongs to the health authority. It is a flat site that is large enough for the geriatric-EMI unit. That site could be built upon without any difficulty whatsoever. What is more, it

  727
  is a site that is free of obstruction and free of charge to the builders. On one side it has a view of the road. The elderly in the geriatric unit would be able to see the world go by. On the other side it has a view of the mountain. The elderly would he able to see the world in which they had lived their earlier lives. One cannot imagine a better site for the geriatric-EMI unit than that which is supported and proposed by my constituents in Machynlleth—the site next to the district hospital.
  If the geriatric-EMI unit were put on the opposite side of the road from the chest hospital, people might ask what would happen to the associated occupational therapy and physiotherapy facilities. That is not a valid objection, either. In the proposed plans of the Powys health authority, the geriatric-EMI unit would have integral gymnasium-type mobility facilities and also occupational therapy facilities of its own. I suggest, therefore, that there would be no extra cost, to speak of, in putting the geriatric-EMI unit on the district hospital site and that if there were any extra cost it would be small and would be amply justified by the overall improvement in the facilities and by the fact that the unit would be in a far more attractive position.
  The second of the misconceptions and errors in the plans to which I wish to draw special attention relates to the size of the geriatric-EMI unit. The Powys health authority's proposal is that there should be 14 geriatric beds, four EMI beds and two respite care beds. Those are inadequate numbers to meet the future local need. I have already said that we have a substantial elderly population, because longevity is remarkable in Montgomeryshire. Indeed, 21 per cent. of the population of the catchment area of these hospitals is over 65 years old, a very high figure. Local estimates, including those of the general practitioners who know the state of health of the young and the middle aged within the catchment area, make it clear that a greater number of beds will be needed in the future. Detailed submissions have been made to the Welsh Office on this matter. I suggest that what would be appropriate would be 20 geriatric beds, six EMI beds and two respite care beds.
  The third of the misconceptions and errors is the proposal that the general practitioner and maternity beds should be moved out of the district hospital altogether to the existing site of the Machynlleth chest hospital. The effect of that would be that the district hospital would be closed to in-patients. It would probably be closed for ever; indeed, it would almost certainly he closed for ever. There have been suggestions that it would be retained for Health Service facilities, but it is a matter of considerable dubiety as to exactly what those facilities would be and how long they would last.
  During the discussions on the fate of the district hospital there have been all sorts of suggestions. At one time the health authority suggested that Powys county council should take over the district hospital for some sort of use—perhaps as a day centre—but Powys county council had not even been asked, and does not have the money to take it over. We must face the fact that if the general practitioner and maternity beds are moved out of the district hospital that will probably be the beginning of the end of that hospital.
  At present there are 14 general practitioner beds and two maternity beds in the district hospital. It is proposed that on the chest hospital site there should be a reduction to 12 general practitioner beds and two maternity beds.
  728
  One may get the impression from the proposal to close the district hospital that in some way it is an unpleasant place, that it does not meet the needs of the patients and that it falls below an acceptable standard of care. I say to those who feel that. "Go and see for yourself, as I have. See whether there are any complaints from patients or their relations." They will find that there are none.
  Many patients use the general practitioner beds in the district hospital during the year. Some are there for relatively minor complaints, others go there for a rest and recuperation, and a third group go there, sadly, for care at the ebbing of their lives when acute medical assistance no longer avails them. Of course, some modernisation would be welcome in that hospital. What hospital other than the brand new would not welcome some form of modernisation? It is a quiet, efficient, homely and attractive hospital. It is wholly unnecessary to replace it entirely. A moderate modernisation would make the Machynlleth district hospital into a general practitioner unit which could be the pride of Powys and of the Powys health authority.
  The numbers proposed —a reduction to 12 general practitioner beds—are inadequate. From time to time I have checked randomly through local residents who visit the hospital on a regular basis. On several occasions this winter the district hospital's general practitioner beds have been full. Furthermore, the maternity suite operates satisfactorily. Mothers like being there and there is no need for any substantial change.
  On the matter of the provision of acute medical services in Machynlleth, I draw attention to the fourth of the misconceptions and errors in the plan. It is proposed that there should be a reduction from 35 beds with an operating theatre to 15 consultant beds and minor operating facilities. There has been a gross underestimate of the needs for acute and consultant beds, having regard to a number of factors. First, as I have already said, the catchment area has been underestimated. Secondly, there has been such a delay in the completion of the second stage at Bronllys hospital in Aberystwyth that, to quote one consultant physician in the area:
  "Machynlleth has been a valuable pressure valve in soaking up patients from Aberystwyth."
  A point worth mentioning in passing, although I do not wish to exaggerate it too much or put a false perspective on it, is the proximity of the nuclear power stations in north Wales. With that in mind, it is as well that there should be adequate facilities for hospital beds in the area. There is already an operating theatre in the district hospital which serves both hospitals. The operating theatre needs upgrading, but I am informed that the league of friends would be especially interested in examining the possibilities, perhaps with a view to helping towards the upgrading of the operating theatre to more modern standards. Recently, when I checked, the acute beds were full. They were full on two occasions when inquiries were made recently of the occupancy of them.
  I shall mention briefly the consultation process that has taken place and led to the recommendations and proposals of the Powys health authority. It has not, unfortunately, been a happy process. I do not regard it as appropriate here to make special criticism of the Powys health authority, but I observe, for I was there, that the public meeting that was reluctantly and eventually agreed to by the health authority on 9 June of last year was a wretched occasion. The presentation of the proposals was done with

  729
  great skill and professionalism by those representing Powys health authority, but most people at that meeting felt that the many strong feelings expressed by local residents and representatives of the local community—myself and many others—met a response that was less sympathetic than was appropriate. As a result, many representations on these matters have had to be made privately and, in some cases, fairly desperately.
  The local community does not believe that it has had a fair opportunity to make out its case fully until recent weeks. The local community welcomes the fact that in the end the decision will be taken by Ministers in the Welsh Office and hopes that it can be confident that all the representations that it has made and that I have had the opportunity to make tonight will be taken into account. We all look forward to a decision that will be acceptable to the community, consistent with good medicine, and will lead to the early start of building work to improve hospital facilities in Machynlleth.
  8.36 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Mark Robinson): I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on his good fortune in securing tonight's Adjournment debate. I congratulate him not just on his success in doing so but on the fact that the business of the House has allowed him to state his case about hospital provision in Machynlleth in rather more detail than would normally have been allowed. If he had had the opportunity in a normal debate to speak at this length, I should not now be replying to him.
  I thank him, as I am sure the House does, for the interesting history that he gave us of Machynlleth and the developments that have taken place in the town from the days of Owain Glyndwr, and indeed before that of those of Caradoc and right up to the present day.
  However, on checking Dods — perhaps this is my youthful appearance—I discovered that I had received my schooling just a short time in advance of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Therefore, his memory of Tacitus is perhaps even clearer than my own.
  In recent months the hon. and learned Gentleman and I have been in correspondence on the subject of Powys health authority's proposals for future hospital provision for Machynlleth. I am grateful for his kind words about the manner in which his constituents, who presented a petition, were received. I have attempted to explain the procedures under which the district health authority can bring about changes of use through the established procedures and the process of public consultation that is required. I welcome the chance to expand on that tonight, bearing in mind the fact that it is not appropriate for me to make any substantive comments, which the hon. and learned Gentleman has already recognised, on the proposals at this stage as they have now been submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and that the one-month period for public representations has begun and will conclude on 28 February.
  I fully realise the importance of this matter to the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents and I urge them to submit any further representations that they wish to make
  730
  as soon as possible. I also assure him that the petition presented to the Welsh Office will be taken into account as part of that exercise.
  It would perhaps be useful if I began by sketching out the background to the proposals in terms of the health authority's strategic plan of January 1985 and the current provision at Machynlleth. The strategic plan details the direction to be taken over the 10 years to 1994 in the operation and development of health services in Powys. Changes are proposed in all services, especially in the priority areas of caring for the elderly, the elderly mentally infirm, the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped with a change of emphasis from hospital care to continuing care in the community.
  The health authority has stated that its philosophy will be to care for people as far as possible within the community and that, in order to achieve that objective, particular attention will be paid to providing community-based consultant services in geriatrics and mental handicap. The authority intends that the development of community hospitals within the district should assist the realisation of those objectives.
  The proposals for provision of services take into account the fact that public transport within the county is sparse. The authority is therefore adopting the principle of developing community hospitals which can bring medical services close to small concentrations of people throughout Powys. In relation to the care of the elderly, the strategy retains the target of 10 beds per 1,000 population over the age of 65, but accepts the need to encourage the elderly to remain in their homes and aims to work jointly with the social services department, local housing authorities, other statutory bodies and voluntary groups to provide increased special housing and develop local day centres for the elderly.
  Current hospital services in Machynlleth are provided at two long-established sites. The Machynlleth and Corris district hospital is situated in a 50-year-old purpose-built premises about half a mile from the centre of the town on the road towards Welshpool and Newtown. It was built as a cottage hospital in 1935, funded by voluntary contributions from the people of Machynlleth and surrounding areas. The Machynlleth chest hospital occupies an older building, the former workhouse, and is opposite the district hospital. The Poor Law institute made the workhouse available to the Red Cross during the 1914–18 war. The Welsh national memorial hospital trust leased the building in 1921 and eventually bought the workhouse for use as a chest hospital in 1929. In total, the two hospitals have 51 beds run by 54 medical and nursing staff. I also pay tribute to the league of friends and its support for the two hospitals.
  The existing bed provision of Machynlleth chest hospital is 35 beds. In making its proposals, the Powys health authority considers that the categories of patients have changed over the years. The chest hospital apparently now caters mainly for elderly patients with or without a chest ailment, and the authority's view is that only one third of the 450 discharges per annum can truly be considered chest cases. In 1985, the average daily number of occupied beds at the hospital was 22·3 out of an average number available of 33·8. I apologise for the technicality of those figures.
  The Machynlleth and district hospital provides 16 GP beds, two of which are maternity beds. In 1985 the average daily number of occupied beds was about nine out of an

  731
  average number available of 16. Both hospitals cater for patients from the adjoining areas of Meirionnydd and Ceredigion, as well as from Powys. For that reason, Gwynedd and East Dyfed health authorities are involved in the consultation process.
  With regard to the current proposals under consideration, I understand that Powys health authority began to give detailed consideration to the future hospital needs of the Machynlleth area in 1985. That was prompted by the announcement by the consultant in chest diseases of his impending retirement, the need to consider how best to provide geriatric facilities with appropriate consultant cover, and the requirement to make the best possible use of medical services in general.
  The health authority published its proposals for the future of hospital provision in the Machynlleth area in April 1986. It undertook consultation with members of the public, community health councils, other representative bodies and the neighbouring health authorities of Gwynedd and East Dyfed, but. having failed to reach local agreement on the proposals, the authority has, as I have already said. referred them to my right hon. Friend for decision.
  Although I cannot comment on them, it may be helpful if I tell the House the nature of the proposals submitted by the authority. First, it is intended to provide a new 20-bed geriatric and elderly mentally ill unit and associated day hospital facilities on the Machynlleth chest hospital site. It is also intended that the facilities at present accommodated at the district hospital be transferred to the chest hospital to provide 12 GP beds, two maternity beds, a delivery suite and minor operating facilities, that 15 consultant beds be provided on the chest hospital site, that an appropriate level of both consultant and junior medical staff be appointed to manage the service and that the out-patient services currently provided by Dr. J. J. Griffiths at Tywyn, Dolgellau and Bronglais hospitals be discontinued.
  The health authority has said in its public consultation document on these proposals that, although it seeks to transfer the acute services from the district hospital to the chest hospital in updated and modernised accommodation, it is intended that the district hospital will be retained for the provision of medical services. The acute psychiatric day hospital that is to be developed in the area can be accommodated in the district hospital along with county council social services provision.
  With the expansion of community services in all areas of Powys, the health authority considers that there is a need for day hospital facilities not only for the elderly, but for the mentally handicapped, mentally ill and the physically disabled. In its consultation paper the health authority says that it envisages over the next five to 10 years that the district hospital would be fully utilised as a day hospital, thereby ensuring that provision is made available for the increasing needs that are inherent in any programme of expansion of community services.
  The health authority has outlined in the proposals published for consultation its wish to develop a full range of services, with provision more appropriate to the needs of each discipline, to current day standards and beyond. The authority's decision to site the geriatric — elderly mentally ill unit at the chest hospital is based on its view that, over a 15-year period, a full development at Machynlleth should be on a single site. The authority
  732
  considers the district hospital site too small and lacking the patient accommodation areas and range of facilities that are available on the chest hospital site.
  The authority points out that the new remedial therapy department and out-patient department were built on the chest hospital site for that reason and because it had been expected that the geriatric unit, when built, could be phased into this development with an enhancement of the paramedical departments to provide a day hospital facility.
  It may be helpful if I outline the details of the procedures which must he followed before a change in health care provision can be implemented. Responsibility for the detailed planning of Health Service provision and for local consultation on the plans produced rests of course in the first instance with district health authorities. In formulating plans, authorities are required to have in mind the need to make the most efficient use of their available resources which is consistent with the changing needs of patients. Ultimate ownership of all health authority buildings is normally vested in my right hon. Friend and, as proposals for permanent closure or change of use can and do have a significant effect on the local and, as in this case, wider community, special arrangements have been designed to ensure that the public and all local interests are fully consulted and that, in cases of controversy, my right hon. Friend should decide on the proposals in full knowledge of the contending considerations.
  Guidance is given to health authorities in Health Service planning paper five, entitled "Procedure for Consultation on the Closure and Change of Use of Health Buildings". The procedure can be summarised as follows: the health authority should first prepare a consultation document giving the reasons for the proposals, which should include the implications for patients, such as travelling and transport, the options which have been considered and the arguments put forward in favour of them. There should be an evaluation of the possibilities of using any redundant facilities for other purposes, and manpower implications must be considered. The relationship between the closure or change of use and other developments in the district's plans should be drawn out.
  A three-month period of consultation is the next stage, with comments being invited from community health councils, local authorities, joint staff consultative committees, any other recognised staff organisation not represented on the committees, family practitioner committees, local advisory committees and any other body or person which the health authority considers should be consulted.
  The health authority should then reconsider the proposed closure or change of use in the light of the comments received. Should an agreed decision be reached which accords with the guidelines from the Welsh Office, the health authority may proceed with the closure or change of use. If the result is either irresolvable disagreement, as in this case, or a locally agreed conclusion which differs substantially from the original proposals, the authority is required to refer the matter with its recommendations and an outline of the alternative arrangements to my right hol. Friend.
  Following referral, in order that members of the public who oppose the proposals may have adequate opportunity to make their views known before a final decision is taken,

  733
  a period of one month must be allowed and publicly announced in which individuals or organisations may appeal and make representations against the proposals that have been put forward.
  The way in which Powys health authority has implemented this guidance is as follows. Comments on the proposals were invited in April 1986, and therefore the closing date for comments to be made on them would usually have been the end of June. It became clear, however, from early on in the discussions that these proposals would generate a great deal of comment. Powys health authority therefore decided, exceptionally, that in this case the usual timetable would be extended to allow a full discussion of the proposals with neighbouring community health councils and health authorities.
  Powys health authority's proposals on the future hospital provision in the Machynlleth area, together with copies of all representations received, and incorporating amendments made by the authority in the light of comments, were presented to my right hon. Friend under cover of a letter dated 17 December 1986. The next stage was then for the health authority to issue a press notice announcing that fact and giving one month from the date of the notice for any objections to its proposals to be sent to my right hon. Friend for consideration before the final decision is given.
  Once my right hon. Friend has reached a conclusion on the health authority's proposals, a letter giving his decision and the reasons for it will be sent to the health authority. Copies of the letter will be sent to other people or bodies who have expressed an interest in the matter, including the hon. and learned Gentleman, and these decisions will also be publicised by means of a press notice. I can also assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the points that he has made tonight will be carefully considered before any final decision is taken.

  Mold Bypass
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Keith Raffan: On 18, 19 and 20 February 1975, almost exactly 12 years ago to the day, a public inquiry was held into the proposed Mold bypass. On 25 July 1977 the then Secretary of State for Wales made the line order announcing his decision on the route. Between then and earlier this year the controversy concerning the road has focused entirely on the timing of its construction.
  I first raised the matter with the Welsh Office a month after I was elected, on 19 July 1983. I was told by the then Minister of State, Welsh Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Sir J. Stradling Thomas), that
  "preparation on the Mold bypass has been accelerated with a view to construction starting before the end of 1988".—[Official Report. 19 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 84.]
  I raised the matter again during Welsh questions on 24 March 1986. Two days later, during the Welsh Grand Committee debate on "The Roads Programme in Wales", my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales intervened to make the following statement:
  "I reassure my hon. Friend that we expect the scheme to start on the original schedule—at the beginning of the new period and not at the end of it. We do not anticipate any delay, because we understand the importance of the scheme."—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 26 March 1986; c. 31.]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Would my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Raffan: I help my hon. Friend by adding that "at the beginning of the new period" meant the beginning of the time band of January 1988 to December 1990.
  Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend will be aware that the debate in the Welsh Grand Committee took place on 26 March. He will also be aware that my right hon. Friend did not receive the consultants' report, which I am sure my hon. Friend will talk about, until the autumn of 1986.
  Mr. Raffan: That is not the point. My hon. Friend has the chronology out of order. Perhaps I can take the chronology, without my hon. Friend having to intervene again, through to the end of my speech. The vexed question which was at the centre of the consultants' report — the resiting of the A541 roundabout, otherwise referred to as the Buckley road roundabout — was a matter first raised by the Clwyd county council surveyor 12 years ago. If my right hon. Friend was not aware of that central problem when he intervened in my speech on 26 March 1986, one might ask why his officials had not informed him of it. That is one of the questions that I will put to my hon. Friend.
  In good faith, I passed on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's assurance to Mold town council. I heard nothing further until I led a deputation from the council to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on 1 December 1986. The purpose of that meeting was to deliver a petition that had been signed by more than 4,000 local people, pressing on my hon Friend the urgent need for the construction of the bypass to relieve the town of traffic congestion and provide improved access to the Bromfield park industrial estate and the Nercwys road industrial park. It was then for the first time, like the proverbial bolt fom the blue, that my hon. Friend said that there was a problem over the siting of the proposed

  735
  roundabout on the A541 otherwise known as the Buckley road. That was confirmed in a letter that my hon. Friend wrote to me three days later on 4 December 1986. It says:
  "I can confirm that we are pressing on with the preparation of the by-pass proposals but, as I mentioned to you, the Clwyd County Surveyor has expressed very serious reservations about the location of a new roundabout which it is proposed to provide as part of these proposals where the new by-pass crosses the Buckley Road. The County Surveyor fears that the present location will cause traffic leaving the town in the peak hours to back-up into the town centre. I am sure that you would agree with me that if this were to happen when the new by-pass is open to traffic it would indeed have serious consequences for town traffic which must be avoided. To this end, our consultants were asked to investigate the matter and we received their report a few weeks ago. This recommends the relocation of the Buckley Road roundabout further to the east of the present proposed position."
  I and other members of the deputation from Mold town council understandably inferred from what the Minister said to us, and subsequently confirmed in writing, that the problem over the new roundabout had emerged suddenly, that the county surveyor had only recently expressed his reservations and that consultants had subsequently, even more recently, been appointed to look at the problem.
  The truth is somewhat different. The county surveyor, Mr. Alastair Donaldson, has sent me copies of correspondence relating to the matter. He expressed his concern about the siting of the new roundabout not last year, not even the year before, but on 16 June 1975 in a letter to the then director of highways at the Welsh Office, Mr. Dennis Hall. On 28 February 1978, when work on the design of the scheme was resumed, Mr. Hall wrote to the Clwyd county surveyor to inform him that consulting engineers, Ward Ashcroft and Parkman, were being directed to look again at the siting of the roundabout and to consult him on the subject.
  Let the county surveyor take up the story. I quote from his letter to me dated 9 February 1987:
  "I did put forward one or two ideas to the Consultants, but no detailed design was done by my staff and at no time have I ever seen any plan produced by the Consultants which either incorporated any of the ideas which I put forward or any of their own ideas for improving the traffic flow at the new roundabout and A549/A541 Junction. Bearing in mind that the County Council are the Local Highway Authority for no less than four roads which are affected by the new Mold Bypass, you might think that rather extraordinary. Indeed, I had to personally attend the Exhibition in Mold to see the larger scale plans of the new proposals since I do not have copies, with the result that I have been unable to consult Members of the County Council to obtain their views."
  He eventually received copies of the larger scale plans on Friday 6 February.
  All this raises many questions, the detailed answers to which I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Minister. As the problem over the new roundabout was first highlighted 12 years ago, why did the Welsh Office highways department not resolve the problem long ago? Why did officials wait until after the last minute, knowing that this would delay construction of the road and so render worthless my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's public commitment?
  When was my hon. Friend aware that the Clwyd county council surveyor had expressed reservations about the new roundabout not a few months ago but 12 years ago? When was my hon. Friend aware that consultants had been directed to look at the roundabout problem nine years ago? Are the consultants directed to look at the roundabout problem in 1978 the same as those mentioned in my hon. Friend's letter of 4 December? If so, why did
  736
  they take so long to report? And why was the Clwyd county surveyor never consulted in advance either on the consultants' report or subsequently on the Welsh Office highways department suggested changes in the alignment of the Mold bypass? If the county surveyor had been consulted, he could have told the present director of highways, Mr. George Mercer, what he told me in his letter of 9 February. He said:
  "Whilst the roundabout which is in close proximity to the A549/A541 junction has been moved southward to the other side of the junction, the new proposals do not show how the Y junction of the A549 and the A541 is to tied into the new roundabout … Although the Consultants at the exhibition did give me an indication of one or two of the ideas which they have in mind, the fact remains that even with the new line of the Bypass, the original problem to which I drew attention in my letter of 16 June, 1975 has still not been properly tackled."
  It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Buckley road roundabout problem was raised 12 years ago, then again nine years ago, and then promptly forgotten. When the then Minister of State told me in July 1983 that
  "preparation work on the Mold bypass has been accelerated"
  that was presumably "Yes, Minister" jargon for, "We had better dig out the plans and files and have a look at them." Somebody apparently even forgot to do that and it took my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's fulsome commitment in the middle of my Welsh Grand Committee speech last year to flash the amber alert and set the alarm bells ringing.
  Then the Welsh Office highways department did a very un-Sir Humphrey-like thing. It flew into a panic. What other conclusion can we draw? After all, when I went with the Mold town council deputation to meet my hon. Friend on 1 December, he said that he had received the consultants' report recommending the relocation of the roundabout only a few weeks ago. He only fleetingly, in passing, mentioned that it would be necessary, as a result, to amend the route. We were shown no detailed large scale plans or elevations. Why? Presumably because they had not been drawn up. It was only at the public exhibition in Mold at the beginning of this month that I or anybody else realised just how substantial and unacceptable would be the realignment resulting from the resiting of the roundabout.
  I cannot believe that the suggested realignment was not drawn up after a full survey or considerable thought. As the Clwyd county surveyor has said, it does not effectively tackle the original roundabout problem. It swings unacceptably close to the communities of Mynydd Isa and Bryn-y-Baal. It runs in part through a deep gulley, where it will have a very steep gradient. It severs the two main sewer pipes serving Mynydd Isa which will have to be relaid. It passes through an area where there are uncapped mine shafts. It destroys the only wooded area between Mynydd Isa and Mold. It is based on no traffic survey.
  I was told by the director of highways that a traffic survey is to be carried out in April, because that is "an average month", but summer is when congestion is at its worst. We want not a road that is adequate for an average month but a road that is satisfactory in the worst traffic months of the year.
  If adopted, the realignment would lead to a delay in construction not of months but of years. My hon. Friend will remember that he assured me and the Mold town council deputation on 1 December that the delay would be only months, and only a few months at that.

  737
  The town of Mold needs a bypass to relieve traffic congestion in the town, which is almost impossible to get through in the summer months. It needs it to divert heavy quarry traffic away from the town centre. It needs it to give improved access to, and so increase the attraction of, the Bromfield park industrial estate and the Nercwys road industrial park. That means additional access from the Nercwys road, which is not at present shown on the plans.
  Mold needs the bypass where it will do least environmental damage to the town and the neighbouring communities of Mynydd Isa and Bryn-y-Baal. Mold needs a bypass along the lines of the originally proposed route certainly modifying and possibly dispensing altogether with the Buckley road roundabout, which I am told by the Minister's officials is a practical possibility. The new link design criteria should be incorporated as far as possible. We need that bypass to be started, as promised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as near as possible to the beginning of the period 1988–90.
  "Mold forgotten by not bypassed" was the understandable slogan used by members of Mold town council when they led the campaign for an early start on the original bypass scheme. We now look to my hon. Friend and the Welsh Office to change that to "Mold not forgotten but bypassed."
  9.5 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) on securing this debate and the eloquent way in which he has presented his case. He has been assiduous in pursuing the interests of his constituents and I recognise the real concern he has about the need for a bypass of Mold. In pursuing that concern I am sure that he has had to confront the problem which Ministers so frequently face in these matters, that is, the need to undertake large projects which are in the public interest but which have quite dramatic and disturbing effects on the lives of individuals. The prescribed statutory procedures are designed, of course, to ensure that full account is taken of all the different interests and views.
  My hon. Friend has raised a number of pertinent issues and has posed some searching questions and I hope that I shall be able to satisfy him on those matters. But first, I think that it might be helpful to set my remarks in a more general context — indeed, it is essential that I do so. When the Government assumed office in 1979 we inherited the road construction programme of our predecessors. It was an early priority for the Government to review that in the context of our overall economic objectives. Our first review of "Roads in Wales 1980" made clear the overriding importance of tailoring our major capital investment programmes to suit those objectives. We have sustained a substantial road improvement programme and have since continued to place great emphasis on those important infrastructural improvements as a key factor in our programme for economic recovery. That has been re-emphasised in our subsequent "Roads in Wales" publications in 1983 and 1985.
  I make no apologies for setting on record again the fact that since 1979 we have spent over £700 million on improving the road infrastructure. Schemes costing £260 million are currently in progress. New schemes costing £80 million should start in the next financial year and further
  738
  investment of £280 million is planned to start before the end of 1990. Much of that investment has been and will be in the county of Clwyd, which embraces my hon. Friend's constituency, and will bring undoubted benefit to its people. Major bypasses were completed east of Abergele in 1981, at Hawarden in 1984, Colwyn Bay in 1985, and Holywell and Bodelwyddan in 1986. Work is in progress on bypasses at Ruabon and Gresford-Pulford and that for Newbridge should be completed later this year. My hon. Friend will not deny the high priority accorded to those schemes.
  My hon. Friend knows that in constructing our programme we placed emphasis first on the M4 in south Wales and, more recently, on the enormous task of dualling the A55 across north Wales which will bring undoubted benefits. These massive schemes have, of course, taken the lion's share of our financial and staff resources and this has inevitably meant that other very worthwhile improvements have not been able to progress as quickly as we would have liked. However, the "Roads in Wales" programme continues as our forward commitment and we can look forward to a large number of projects starting within the next three or four years.
  Not surprisingly, my hon. Friend has expressed concern about the time taken to progress with the Mold scheme in particular. He will recall from earlier debates, and from correspondence that I have exchanged with him, that the estimated start date for any scheme must be regarded as provisional. There are many factors which affect progress and last year I specifically drew his attention to the important qualification in "Roads in Wales 1985" that the timing of schemes will depend on such things as public reaction to proposals, the ease or difficulty of acquiring land, the complexity of engineering problems, the time needed to complete essential statutory procedures and the availability of resources. Nonetheless, we still expect that the Mold bypass will be started in the time band indicated in "Roads in Wales".
  My hon. Friend referred to the fact that a line for the Mold bypass was fixed as long ago as 1977 but, even before the decision letter announcing that was published, our predecessors had announced—on 11 February 1976 — that work on preparing this scheme, along with several others, was being deferred in order to concentrate resources on higher priority projects. Indeed, the decision letter issued in September 1977—about two years after the inquiry — deferred the Mold bypass proposals "indefinitely". However, work was reactivated in 1978, hut, as I mentioned earlier, there were many competing priorities with which to contend. There were other complications.
  Mr. Raffan: My hon. Friend rightly says that work on preparing the scheme was resumed in 1978. I said earlier that the consultants were directed by the then director of highways at the Welsh Office to examine the problem of the roundabout then. I know how long preparing road works takes. The gestation period is long. But the central part of my speech was about the roundabout. The county surveyor did not get in touch with the Welsh Office about it last year, but in 1975, and the consultants were directed to look at the problem in 1978. Why has there been deathly silence since then?
  Mr. Roberts: I am coming to that. I shall deal with all the points in sequence.

  739
  The 1977 decision letter mentioned that new design standards for roundabouts required fresh examination of the junctions included in the planned route for the bypass. But perhaps more significantly, shortly after his appointment as Clwyd county surveyor, Mr. Alastair Donaldson had twice written to the Department—as early as 1975—expressing his concern at the proposed location of the Pont Pentre roundabout on the A549. It was his view that the suggested location for this roundabout would cause serious traffic difficulties and he suggested that the Department should reconsider the location. I understand that he recognised then that his intervention between the date of the public inquiry, but before the announcement of a decision, was difficult and that the statutory process would have to continue, but he made it clear that, as the scheme progressed, he would at every stage be pressing for a reassessment of this proposed roundabout in order that the construction of the trunk road did not impose county road problems on the county. As my hon. Friend knows only too well, the A549 and the A541 are county roads.
  These issues inevitably meant complete reappraisal of the scheme and, unfortunately, this coincided with a period when design and other resources were fully stretched in progressing the other elements of the very substantial road programme that I have already described. It was, I understand, not easy to find a solution which would satisfy the surveyor's concerns and provide a bypass which would meet new highway design standards introduced in 1981. These were further to the criteria spoken about earlier as being required to be dealt with in 1978. A further complication to all this arose as a result of the changing traffic patterns resulting from the significant development which occurred in that area, not least at Mynydd Isa and at the Bryn Coch estate.
  Mr. Raffan: My hon. Friend says that there was a significant change in traffic patterns. Why was a traffic survey not undertaken at that time? I have been told by the present director of highways that no traffic survey has been undertaken and that one will be carried out over a couple of days in April. Despite the changes in the built-up area at Mynydd Isa, Bryn-y-Baal and the surrounding area, no traffic survey was undertaken.
  Mr. Roberts: We had some traffic figures and were content to work on the basis of those at that time. The developments in that area were quite considerable. First, the railway closed on 1 January 1984. My hon. Friend has already spoken about the Mynydd Isa residential development. There was a development on the Bromfield industrial estate. The Bryn Coch residential estate was being developed and industrial development was proposed near Nercwys road. Many of these developments resulted in expansion and, of course, there were changes in the highway network and traffic flows as a result of the Hawarden bypass.
  Change has been a continuing factor in the story of the bypass and so too have changes in the criteria for roundabouts and for road alignment. As I said, it was not at all easy to find a solution to these problems. For the moment it must suffice for me to say that, because of these complications and the competing priorities, the revised proposals were not brought forward until the autumn of last year. When he spoke at the Welsh Grand Committee my right hon. Friend was speaking with the best
  740
  knowledge that was available to him at the time. My hon. Friend asks when I became aware of various factors. I did not know that changes were recommended until the consultants reported in the autumn of last year.
  Mr. Raffan: My hon. Friend has not yet answered the question that I put to him. The consultants were directed to look at this problem as far back as 1978. I presume the consultants were not changed and must have looked at the problem. My hon. Friend's officials must have been aware of the problem and surely they should have made him aware of it before last autumn. Even if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales cannot be expected to be aware of a detail like this, my hon. Friend ought to have been. I do not understand why the consultants' report came as such a surprise to him when they had been specifically asked to look at the roundabout problem. I do not understand either why the Clwyd county surveyor was not directly consulted at that point, especially as the suggested changes affected four local roads for which he has direct responsibility.
  Mr. Roberts: The consultants were given various directions at different times from 1978. They were asked to take into account changes in the criteria for roundabouts, road alignments, and so on. Of course, they had to take into account as well all those developments in the area to which I have referred.
  Mr. Raffan: Will my hon. Friend answer the point about the county surveyor?
  Mr. Roberts: The county surveyor also has his problems with the county roads, but our main interest has obviously been in that road which is the responsibility of the Welsh Office.
  My hon. Friend will recall that I outlined the revised proposals to him when he brought a deputation from Mold to see me last December. Although I acknowledge that I was not able to give him details of the new line, at least I was able to tell him that a new line was proposed.
  I turn now to the suggestion that the recent consultation had no real purpose because our minds are firmly set on the revised line. My hon. Friend will recognise that I must be careful not to prejudge later decisions, but I can assure him that the consultation is real and that we shall give the most careful consideration to the points being put to us. If the consultation leaflet gave the impression that all is already decided, that was certainly not the intention.
  It will be realised, I am sure, that there can be only a limited range of options available in finding a cost-effective solution in this location. The Department's latest proposals have attracted criticism because the line of the bypass is too close to housing at Mynydd Isa, even though it would be in deep cutting in that area, partly for the benefit of residents there. I know that my hon. Friend is keen that we should adhere to the original route, but I am told that this could be done only if there was a radical reappraisal of the Pont Pentre junction, perhaps involving grade separation. That would undoubtedly add greatly to the cost of the scheme and we should have to undertake a fresh economic evaluation of the whole project. Nevertheless, in view of the comments that we have received, I have asked officials to look at the possibilities. An important prerequisite would be an up-to-date origin and destination survey of traffic on roads leading into

  741
  Mold better to assess predicted changes in traffic patterns and, as my hon. Friend knows, this is being commissioned in April.
  I have seen it suggested recently in some quarters that we have introduced these revised proposals—I emphasise again that they are just proposals—to delay matters. I shall not waste any time on that bizarre suggestion but just say that that simply is not the case.
  I have tried to explain why progress on this scheme has not been as quick as my hon. Friend and his constituents would like, but let me reassure him that we do not wish to incur unnecessary delay and, indeed, we would wish to press on as quickly as we can consonant with finding a solution which would be cost-effective and would provide the best answer to all the problems involved. The first priority must be to agree the line for the bypass so that soil surveys and detailed design can proceed. A great deal of work remains to be done, including probably the preparation of amended highway orders, and we have yet precisely to identify the land requirement and secure compulsory purchase powers.
  Whichever route we eventually decide to adopt, some of my hon. Friend's constituents will be affected. That is inescapable. Therefore, we can anticipate objections and another public inquiry before final decisions can be reached. It would be unwise of me to speculate on the timetable because there are so many uncertainties, as I mentioned earlier. However, I confirm again that there will be no needless delay on our part. We would hope to meet the timetable indicated in "Roads in Wales 1985."
  I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern for early progress on this scheme—we all wish to see that—but I put it to him that, important though rapid progress is, it is far more important that we should achieve a road improvement which will provide the best possible solution at Mold. We should be failing in our duty if we sought to do anything less and I trust that my hon. Friend can accept this.

  BBC Scotland (Police Raid)
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that Mr. Speaker deprecates Adjournment debates of which notice has not been given, but before I open on the subject of the police raid—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman has not given notice—he has just stated that—and in view of that—
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In view of that, I must remind the hon. Gentleman of what is stated on page 371 of "Erskine May", which I wish to read to him so that he can reflect on it:
  "For many years successive Speakers have deprecated the introduction of subjects in an adjournment debate unless due notice had been given to the Minister concerned; and on occasion the Chair has expressed this view in forceful terms".
  Mr. Speaker has also ruled that it is unreasonable, after 8 o'clock in the evening, to call on Ministers and their advisers to be ready to answer that day an Adjournment debate of which no prior notice has been given to the House. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is now seeking to do something that is contrary to the rulings of previous Speakers. Therefore, I hope that, in the light of what I have read out to him, he will not pursue the matter further.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Part of the difficulty is that I am conscious that successive Speakers have deprecated that. Normally, the rules and manners of the House of Commons are important, but the truth is that those who want to raise Adjournment debates on delicate subjects find, lo and behold, that even if they give the proper notice as they would have wished, and as I would have wished to give this morning, the Government Whips, especially in this Government—I do not exclude the Government of my choice, the Labour Government—make it clear that, somehow or another, debates will be extended. I know perfectly well that if I had given the courteous notice that I would have wished about the police raid on the BBC offices in Queen Margaret drive in Glasgow, I would have found that, by some alchemy, the previous debates would have been extended. Had I given such notice, doubtless the debate on the railway would have gone on and on and on. Once bitten, twice shy, because I have had that happen to me before.
  The time of the House of Commons is extremely precious and I am conscious that we have few opportunities. Therefore, I understand that there is deprecation, and the force of it. Nevertheless, although it may be awkward, I insist on my right, and although it may be deprecated by the Chair, my right is at 9.25 pm to raise a subject which is important to many people in Scotland. It is important to put many questions on the record,so—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman what successive Speakers have ruled in this regard. I must repeat that this sort of conduct has been deprecated in strong terms by the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman insists on speaking, I shall have to hear him, but before he rises again I ask him to reflect that he is going clean contrary to successive rulings by successive occupants of the Chair.
  Mr. Keith Raffan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I, as a much more junior, less experienced Member of Parliament, can anticipate that business may end early and that there may be room for a further Adjournment debate, surely the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) can also do so? That is a grave abuse of the House and it is an indirect boomeranged insult at himself that he did not anticipate this opportunity. His excuse is clearly spurious.
  Mr. Dalyell rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) saw the opportunity for a second Adjournment debate and applied for one through the appropriate procedure. He made it clear that his debate would be in order and that a Minister would be on hand to answer it and he got clearance for it from Mr. Speaker. Therefore, I can confirm that he saw his opportunity and followed it up in the conventional way.
  Mr. Dalyell rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) insists on addressing the House I will listen to him, but before he rises again I ask him to reflect on what successive Speakers have said about this type of conduct. I ask him to observe the normal procedures and courtesies of the House. If he persists, I shall have to listen to him, but I ask him to reflect on that and not to rise again.
  Mr. Dalyell: Further to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Parliament exists to be used and procedures are surely the servant either of political objectives or what hon. Members believe to be important. If the matter were some trivial issue, I would not behave in this way. The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) said that he was a new Member of the House and I must say with complete courtesy that he is being a little naive about the way Whips of both parties work. As soon as they know that a subject will be raised which they do not want raised, to and behold, they wheel in many hon. Members to talk at length—I shall not say "filibuster"—on a particular subject. That has happened to me. Therefore, although this may be a great black mark with Mr. Speaker, I want to put on the record certain important questions about a happening which is having reverberations in Scotland. For two hours tomorrow, for example, Scottish journalists will go on strike, for the first time in many cases, about a matter of principle.
  Mr. Raffan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is replying on a point of order to what you said or embarking on a speech. He is being a little naive if he thinks that Government Whips can prolong debates endlessly on the obscure but important question of the Mold bypass. There are only so many Members on the Government Benches side, one and myself, who know enough to prolong a debate on it. I was certainly not prevailed on by Government Whips to prolong the debate in any way. I can only think that the hon. Gentleman is being extremely naive if he also thinks that Opposition Whips can prevail on hon. Members to prolong the first Adjournment debate on a hospital at Machynlleth for any length of time. The hon. Gentleman is using a spurious, unfounded excuse to justify an abuse of our procedures. He has no justification for it. He could easily have submitted his Adjournment
  744
  debate and the subject of it in time and followed the procedures as I, a much more junior and less experienced Member, did. He has bypassed—I have been talking about bypasses all night—those procedures totally. It is offensive to Mr. Speaker and to all hon. Members that he cannot follow procedures when everybody else does.
  Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member or Delyn talks about bypassing. The truth is that if I had not bypassed the procedures there would be no such Adjournment debate and I shall, therefore, get on with it.
  The first question is, did the Scottish Office official who was informed by the Strathclyde police about the raid tell the Secretary of State for Scotland at the first opportunity? If he did not, why not? Did he or she take the view that such a matter as a weekend search of the BBC could wait until Monday morning and routine business? As the police search, at moderated level, was the first item on the 1 o'clock news on Saturday 31 January—
  Mr. Raffan: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow is embarking on a detailed discussion about the raids, may I ask whether he has given notice to the Minister responsible, presumably my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, that he was going to raise the subject? It is not just offensive to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the Chair but to all hon. Members that the hon. Gentleman should be embarking upon this debate in this way. It is a gross abuse and discourtesy and the total antithesis of our democracy and of parliamentary debate that he should not have informed my right hon. and learned Friend. He clearly has not because my right hon. and learned Friend, who is an assiduous Minister and Member of the Cabinet and a highly proficient member of the Government, would have been in his place at the Dispatch Box ready to reply to the hon. Gentleman. Not only has he bypassed the procedures of the House and gone behind the Chair's back in this devious and offensive way but he has not even had the courtesy to inform my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that he was going to embark upon this speech.
  The hon. Gentleman has claimed this evening to be talking about parliamentary debate and democracy. Surely, if he wants to air the issues, he should have ensured that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was present in the Chamber to be able to reply to his points so that those reading Hansard tomorrow, I and many of my unfortunate colleagues who are not present in the Chamber could have a balanced view of the subject and a full opportunity to see the different points. My hon. Friends would have been present if they had known that the hon. Gentleman was going to make a speech. He is a powerful orator and we would all have turned up to hear him. Surely the hon. Gentleman wants them to have an opportunity to see the different points and he should have ensured that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was here to reply and put the other point of view. Why did he not do that because—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is raising a point of order with me but this must be brief.
  All I can say again to the hon. Member for Linlithgow is that I have expressed clearly the views of successive Speakers about these matters. I have reminded him of the

  745
  normal courtesies with regard to Adjournment debates. He will recognise full well that one of the key aspects of our procedures in this place is that if Ministers are to have a reasonable opportunity to answer they must be given notice. The hon. Gentleman has already admitted that he has not gone through the normal procedures. He has not applied for an Adjournment debate to Mr. Speaker, he has not informed a Minister that he wished to raise these matters and I merely repeat that successive Speakers have deprecated such conduct in the strongest terms. I hope, in view of that, that the hon. Gentleman will not persist.
  Mr. Dalyell: If we are on the subject of normal courtesies— —
  Mr. Raffan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Dalyell: We had better understand that the normal courtesies were not observed in relation to Mr. Pat Chandler and other senior staff of BBC Scotland at Queen Margaret drive.
  Mr. Raffan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Dalyell: It is precisely because the normal courtesies have broken down in our society that I am raising these matters on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. William Cash: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was only a short time ago—the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will remember this well—that the hon. Gentleman attempted to raise the same matter in another Adjournment debate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was present on that occasion. It was another Deputy Speaker who said that I needed to have the leave of both the hon. Member for Linlithgow—
  Mr. Dalyell: Which I gave.
  Mr. Cash: —and that of my right hon. and learned Friend to speak on that occasion. That leave was graciously given, but it seems that the hon. Gentleman, as I accused him on the occasion to which I have referred, is abusing the procedures of the House yet again. He is attempting to raise matters in a most disgraceful manner.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He has raised a further point of order on which I can make no comment. I have made the view of the Chair entirely clear. I appeal again to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) not to persist.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Raffan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham rose——
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: Further to that point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened to point of order after point of order and I say to the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) that manners becometh man. It might help occasionally if words such as "devious" and goodness knows what else were not used.
  Mr. Raffan: They are accurate.
  Mr. Bermingham: I look to you, Mr. Speaker, to protect a Member who has a point about which he feels strongly and a principle that he holds dear. I notice that the Chair—I say this with great respect—has not sought to protect that Member's right to speak, even though his intervention is said to be an abuse of the processes of the House. The House would be a poorer place—I say this to the hon. Member for Delyn—
  Mr. Raffan rose——
  Mr. Bermingham: Please remain seated for a moment. Thou hast spoken enough tonight, dear boy. This House would be a poorer place if the rights of ordinary Members to express a grievance were not allowed to be put into effect.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These are not points of order. We cannot have a debate on points of order or on my rulings.
  Mr. Dalyell rose——
  Mr. Raffan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Cash: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Forsyth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth).
  Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you can offer some guidance on the rights of Back Benchers. It seems that if the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is to persist in defying your clear guidance, second Adjournment debates in future might be threatened. This is a matter of considerable concern. Adjournment debates are one of the few vehicles that are open to Back Benchers who observe the normal courtesies to raise matters of great constituency importance. Perhaps you will guide us on the likely effect of the hon. Gentleman's discourtesy should he persist in going ahead despite your clear guidance and rulings.
  Mr. Dalyell rose— —
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Adjournment debates are highly prized. They take place every day at the end of our parliamentary day and they are private Members' time. There are rules and conventions that have been laid down. An hon. Member who has the good fortune to have an Adjournment debate as a result of the ballot, or because of Mr. Speaker's selection, expects a Minister to be present to answer the debate. Ministers cannot be present to answer debates unless notice has been given. It is for that reason that the first Adjournment debate is arranged in the traditional way with which the House is familiar. There are well-established procedures and courtesies laid down for any further Adjournment debate. If those courtesies are not observed—I merely repeat this for the hon. Gentleman once more—successive Speakers have strongly deprecated the sort of conduct in which he is persisting. I appeal to him again not to pursue it. If he insists on pursuing it, I shall of course have to hear him.
  Mr. Dalyell: The difficulty is that we are talking about conduct. The conduct and standards of the House have gone down. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) mentioned that there had been a previous debate. During

  747
  the previous debate we thought that no Minister had heard about the BBC raid until he heard about it on the news at 1 o'clock on Saturday. As between 2 February, when he made his first statement, and 13 February, somehow, in the middle of a Friday, my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) heard that the Secretary of State for Scotland was indeed told that this was a breakdown of trust—
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall listen to points of order if they are points of order. I do not think we need to go around the course yet again. If there is a different point of order, I shall listen to it.
  Mr. Raffan: I seek your guidance, once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) rose, he said, to protect the rights of hon. Members. I ask you to protect the right of an hon. Member— my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who, if he had been given notice of the debate, would have been here to reply to it. How can we possibly have an Adjournment debate, as opposed to an Adjournment monologue, if my right hon. and learned Friend is not here to reply to it? It clearly is an abuse of the House.
  There is nothing democratic about the lack of procedure upon which the hon. Member for Linlithgow has embarked. He is trying to grab a few cheap headlines by ensuring that a balanced view is not presented both to the House and the country as a whole by ensuring that my right hon. and learned Friend is not here to reply to his speech point by point. What the hon. Member for Linlithgow cannot stand and dislikes more than anything else is a rebuttal of the spurious points that he makes in debates such as this.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All that I can do is to repeat the point that I have already made on several occasions about the strong views that have been expressed by successive Speakers, but I have no power to prevent the hon. Gentleman from addressing the House if, in spite of what I have said, he intends to do so.
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Michael Forsyth rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall hear the hon. Member for Linlithgow.
  Mr. Dalyell: It will be of benefit to the House if I ask some questions. Did the official still think, throughout the Saturday and Sunday, that there was no need to contact his or her Secretary of State?
  Mr. Forsyth rose——
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am listening to a point of order.
  Mr. Forsyth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have already raised with you the rights of Back Benchers. As I understand it, if any hon. Member makes an application to Mr. Speaker for an Adjournment debate which has already been applied for by another hon. Member he is refused. The hon. Gentleman has not only not had the courtesy to inform the Secretary of State that
  748
  he planned to raise this matter but has ignored Mr. Speaker. What will be the position—I do not know whether any hon. Member will be in this position—of an hon. Member who may have asked for an Adjournment debate on this subject in the normal way? Surely these procedures have been ignored, and this could create considerable embarrassment and difficulty. Where do we stand on this matter?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that I can deal with a hypothetical situation. I understand the point that the hon. Member has made, the difficulties that could easily arise and the possible threat to the high value that the House places on Adjourment debates. As I have said, I have no power to refuse to listen to the hon. Gentleman if he persists in addressing the House.
  Mr. Dalyell: The only likely explanation—
  Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I have been reading "Erskine May", for reasons that may become apparent. On page 290 it deals with motions for the Adjournment of the House. Following the point that you made with regard to the importance of these questions, it states unequivocally that
  "The motion 'That this House do now adjourn', moved when there is no question before the House, is a form of substantive motion, but is more conveniently treated apart. The substantive motion for the Adjournment may be used for discussing many subjects other than the termination of a sitting. Once such a motion has been agreed to, a sitting is necessarily terminated; but it frequently happens that an adjournment motion is moved without any intention of pressing it to a conclusion, and it is consequently withdrawn when its purpose has been served".
  My point is that questions relating to the Adjournment of the House are frequently governed by motions. It may be that on this occasion no motion is being moved. On the other hand, this is an example of an hon. Member quite clearly, without regard for the rules of the House, trying—as I accused him the other day—to grab the headlines to raise a question that he knows perfectly well he would be unable to raise in the normal course of events, and without a Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), being present. The embarrassment that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is seeking to inflict upon the House, and that we have every intention of preventing him from inflicting, is a filibuster of its own kind. It is an abuse of the procedures of this House and we have absolutely no intention of allowing the hon. Gentleman to drag the procedures of this House through the mire of his own speculations and groundless allegations.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but I have to point out to him and to the House that we are on the Adjournment motion. That is one of the dificulties that we are facing.Mr. Dalyell.
  Mr. Dalyell: It was all part of the preordained plan—
  Mr. Raffan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of what you have just said and in view of the valid point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), I wonder whether I may ask you to ask Mr. Speaker to make a ruling on this particular event. The position is not clear. The Chair has made it quite clear that it deprecates the kind of behaviour upon which the hon. Member for Linlithgow has embarked—a total bypass of the procedures of this

  749
  House, going behind the Chair's back and not ensuring that a member of the Cabinet is present to reply to the debate. As this is such a grave abuse of our procedures and such an offence to the Chair and to hon. Members, surely I am right in asking that tonight's disgraceful events should be brought directly to the attention of Mr. Speaker so that he can make a clear ruling to the House and we are not faced once again with such an appalling, disgraceful and embarrassing situation.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall certainly report to Mr. Speaker what has happened tonight. I cannot comment further on that, but again I remind the House that the Chair and all hon. Members are bound by the rules and conventions of this House. If they are not correctly observed, it will be a very poor day for the House of Commons.
  Mr. Dalyell: Was there perhaps some misunderstanding between the civil servants of the kind with which we became so familiar—
  Notice being taken that Strangers were present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of Strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—
  The House divided: Ayes 0, Noes 8.

  Division No. 92]

  [9.54 pm

  AYES

  Nil

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mr. Michael Forsyth and

  Mr. Keith Raffan.

  NOES

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

  Dalyell, Tam

  Wallace, James

  Faulds, Andrew

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Mr. John Maxton and

  Robertson, George

  Mr. Gerald Bermingham.

  It appearing from the report of the Division that 40 Members were not present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided.
  And it being after Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Whereupon MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, it being then four minutes past Ten o'clock, till tomorrow.
  Adjourned at four minutes past Ten o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER
  EXPO 88 (Brisbane)
  EXPO 88 (Brisbane)
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Cabinet Office
  Cabinet Office
  House Building Fraud (Northern Ireland)
  House Building Fraud (Northern Ireland)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Bail
  Bail
  Plastic Bullets
  Plastic Bullets
  Crown Prosecution Service
  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mrs. Cynthia Payne
  Mrs. Cynthia Payne
  State Security
  State Security
  Industrial Tribunals (Birmingham)
  Industrial Tribunals (Birmingham)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Africa (Food Production)
  Africa (Food Production)
  Aid Agencies (Co-ordination)
  Aid Agencies (Co-ordination)
  EEC (Food Aid)
  EEC (Food Aid)
  Bourj el Barajneh
  Bourj el Barajneh
  Third World
  Third World
  Humber Bridge
  Humber Bridge
  M25
  M25
TRANSPORT
  Road Safety
  Road Safety
  Lorry Parks
  Lorry Parks
  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  A34 (Newbury)
  A34 (Newbury)
  Greater London
  Greater London
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
ENVIRONMENT
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Urban Trees
  Urban Trees
  Litter
  Litter
  Houses (Radon Levels)
  Houses (Radon Levels)
  Radiation
  Radiation
  Water Pollution
  Water Pollution
  Smallholdings
  Smallholdings
  Heveningham Hall
  Heveningham Hall
  Radiochemical Inspectorate
  Radiochemical Inspectorate
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Rates
  Rates
  Local Authority Flats
  Local Authority Flats
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
  Homesteading
  Homesteading
  GLC Heritage Collection
  GLC Heritage Collection
  County Hall, London
  County Hall, London
  Insulation
  Insulation
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Dog Licences
  Dog Licences
  Capacitors (Health Hazards)
  Capacitors (Health Hazards)
  Conservation Areas
  Conservation Areas
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Surplus Food (Disposal)
  Surplus Food (Disposal)
  Tobacco Duty
  Tobacco Duty
  Payroll Giving
  Payroll Giving
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  VAT
  VAT
  Premium Bonds
  Premium Bonds
  Share Dealings
  Share Dealings
EMPLOYMENT
  European Social Fund
  European Social Fund
  Radiation
  Radiation
  YTS Students
  YTS Students
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  YTS
  YTS
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Gas Workers
  Gas Workers
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Job Training Scheme
  Job Training Scheme
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Liverpool Heritage Developments Ltd.
  Liverpool Heritage Developments Ltd.
  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Deportation
  Deportation
  Shops Act 1950
  Shops Act 1950
  High Street, Kensington (Bomb Explosion)
  High Street, Kensington (Bomb Explosion)
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Prisoners (Transfer)
  Prisoners (Transfer)
  Fire and Civil Defence Authorities
  Fire and Civil Defence Authorities
  Special Hospitals
  Special Hospitals
  Burglary (Greater London)
  Burglary (Greater London)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Greater London
  Greater London
  Television and Radio Broadcasting
  Television and Radio Broadcasting
  BBC Scotland (Police Raid)
  BBC Scotland (Police Raid)
  Road Traffic Offences
  Road Traffic Offences
  Prisoners (Mental Illness)
  Prisoners (Mental Illness)
  Prisoners (Psychiatric Treatment)
  Prisoners (Psychiatric Treatment)
  Regina v. Allen
  Regina v. Allen
  News International, Wapping
  News International, Wapping
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Financial Products (Salesmen)
  Financial Products (Salesmen)
  Banks and Building Societies (Polarisation)
  Banks and Building Societies (Polarisation)
  Heavy Vehicles
  Heavy Vehicles
  Rolls-Royce plc
  Rolls-Royce plc
  Helicopter Industry
  Helicopter Industry
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  British National Space Centre
  British National Space Centre
  Consumer Credit Act
  Consumer Credit Act
  Exports
  Exports
  Manchester Ship Canal Company
  Manchester Ship Canal Company
  Soya
  Soya
  British Shipbuilders and British Steel
  British Shipbuilders and British Steel
  Science and Technology Grants
  Science and Technology Grants
  Orbital Slots
  Orbital Slots
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Museum Charges
  Museum Charges
  GCSE (Staffordshire)
  GCSE (Staffordshire)
  Youth Service
  Youth Service
  Capital Allocations
  Capital Allocations
  Saltby Church of England School
  Saltby Church of England School
  Schools
  Schools
  School Closures
  School Closures
  Sex Education
  Sex Education
  Overseas Development
  Overseas Development
  UGC Review
  UGC Review
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  BBC Scotland (Police Raid)
  BBC Scotland (Police Raid)
WALES
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Mental Hospitals
  Mental Hospitals
  Hospital and Health Services
  Hospital and Health Services
  NHS (Staff)
  NHS (Staff)
  Darren Colliery
  Darren Colliery
  Garngoch Colliery
  Garngoch Colliery
  Rights of Way
  Rights of Way
  Hazard Signals (M4)
  Hazard Signals (M4)
  Photographic Museum
  Photographic Museum
  River Dee Crossing
  River Dee Crossing
  School Books
  School Books
  Milk Quota
  Milk Quota
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Doctors' Surgeries
  Doctors' Surgeries
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Doctors' Lists
  Doctors' Lists
  Legislation
  Legislation
SCOTLAND
  Torness
  Torness
  Paramilitaries
  Paramilitaries
  Prisoners (Northern Ireland)
  Prisoners (Northern Ireland)
  Hospital and Community Health Services
  Hospital and Community Health Services
  Community Programme (Fraud)
  Community Programme (Fraud)
  BBC Scotland (Police Raid)
  BBC Scotland (Police Raid)
  Northern College Board of Governors
  Northern College Board of Governors
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Cash Limits
  Cash Limits
  Severe Weather Payments
  Severe Weather Payments
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Lebanon
  Lebanon
  Miss Yasmin Chothia
  Miss Yasmin Chothia
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Angola
  Angola
  Mr. J. Rajiah
  Mr. J. Rajiah
  Zircon Project
  Zircon Project
  Turks and Caicos Islands
  Turks and Caicos Islands
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Remands
  Remands
  Evidence (Accomplices)
  Evidence (Accomplices)
  Emergency Provisions
  Emergency Provisions
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Security
  Security
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Plastic Bullets
  Plastic Bullets
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Strip Searches
  Strip Searches
  Teachers (Recognition)
  Teachers (Recognition)
  Security Forces (Offences)
  Security Forces (Offences)
ENERGY
  North-West Leicestershire Coalfield
  North-West Leicestershire Coalfield
  Energy Efficiency
  Energy Efficiency
  Nuclear Power (North-West)
  Nuclear Power (North-West)
  Helium Gas-Cooled Reactor
  Helium Gas-Cooled Reactor
  Neighbourhood Energy Action Groups (Essex)
  Neighbourhood Energy Action Groups (Essex)
  Pit Visits
  Pit Visits
  CBI (Energy Committee)
  CBI (Energy Committee)
  Home Insulation
  Home Insulation
  British Coal Enterprise Ltd
  British Coal Enterprise Ltd
  Tidal Power
  Tidal Power
  Power Generation
  Power Generation
  Budget Payment Schemes
  Budget Payment Schemes
  Disconnections
  Disconnections
  Electricity Demand
  Electricity Demand
  Sizewell B
  Sizewell B
  Layfield Report
  Layfield Report
  British Coal (Productivity)
  British Coal (Productivity)
  Coal Sales
  Coal Sales
  Electricity Supplies (France)
  Electricity Supplies (France)
  Central Electricity Generating Board
  Central Electricity Generating Board
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
  Radiation Monitoring
  Radiation Monitoring
  Sellafield (FACET)
  Sellafield (FACET)
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Energy Managers
  Energy Managers
  Coal Imports
  Coal Imports
  Energy Requirements
  Energy Requirements
  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
CIVIL SERVICE
  Official Forms
  Official Forms
  Departmental Telephone Numbers
  Departmental Telephone Numbers
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Parliamentary Papers (Availability)
  Parliamentary Papers (Availability)
  Norman Shaw, North Building (Photocopying Machines)
  Norman Shaw, North Building (Photocopying Machines)
  Parliamentary Pension Scheme
  Parliamentary Pension Scheme
THE ARTS
  Museums (Visits)
  Museums (Visits)
  Arts Council Education Department
  Arts Council Education Department
  Library Authorities (Funding)
  Library Authorities (Funding)
  Public Library Service
  Public Library Service
  North-West
  North-West
  Charitable Giving
  Charitable Giving
  Leadmill, Sheffield
  Leadmill, Sheffield
  Arts Marketing Scheme
  Arts Marketing Scheme
  Employment
  Employment
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Association of Metropolitan Authorities
  Association of Metropolitan Authorities
  National Collections
  National Collections
  Sherman Theatre, Cardiff
  Sherman Theatre, Cardiff
  Regional Orchestras
  Regional Orchestras
  Regional Arts Strategies
  Regional Arts Strategies
  Local Authority Theatres
  Local Authority Theatres
  Works of Art (Storage)
  Works of Art (Storage)
  Sponsorship
  Sponsorship
  Scottish Arts Council
  Scottish Arts Council
  News International
  News International
  Economic Impact
  Economic Impact
  Films
  Films
  Sponsorship
  Sponsorship
  Young Musicians
  Young Musicians
  Acceptances in Lieu
  Acceptances in Lieu
  Public Libraries (Political Material)
  Public Libraries (Political Material)
  Loans (Indemnity)
  Loans (Indemnity)
  Area Museum Councils
  Area Museum Councils
  Association of County Councils
  Association of County Councils
  Greater London Council
  Greater London Council
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Commodity Prices
  Commodity Prices
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
  Beef
  Beef
  Quantity Measurement
  Quantity Measurement
  Milk (Inspection Charges)
  Milk (Inspection Charges)
  CAP
  CAP
  Surplus Butter
  Surplus Butter
  Improvement Scheme Applications
  Improvement Scheme Applications
  Field Drainage Design Service
  Field Drainage Design Service
  Greater London
  Greater London
  Food Aid
  Food Aid
  Low-input Farming
  Low-input Farming
  Botulism
  Botulism
  Forestry
  Forestry
  Suckler Cow Premium
  Suckler Cow Premium
  Green Pound
  Green Pound
  Beef
  Beef
  Pork
  Pork
  Quotas
  Quotas
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
  Grey Seals
  Grey Seals
DEFENCE
  DROPS
  DROPS
  NATO-Warsaw Pact (Conventional Forces)
  NATO-Warsaw Pact (Conventional Forces)
  Chief Fire Officer, South Yorkshire
  Chief Fire Officer, South Yorkshire
  Bofors Gun
  Bofors Gun
  Tigerfish Torpedo
  Tigerfish Torpedo
  Spearfish Torpedo
  Spearfish Torpedo
  Pilots
  Pilots
  Self-propelled Howitzer
  Self-propelled Howitzer
  Experimental Aircraft
  Experimental Aircraft
  ALARM
  ALARM
  Defence Projects
  Defence Projects
  Procurement Policy
  Procurement Policy
  Orbital Slots
  Orbital Slots
  Blackburn ROF
  Blackburn ROF
  RAF Mount Batten
  RAF Mount Batten
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Departmental Initiatives (Women)
  Departmental Initiatives (Women)
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Psychiatric Patients (Guidelines)
  Psychiatric Patients (Guidelines)
  Residential Homes
  Residential Homes
  General Practitioners (Computers)
  General Practitioners (Computers)
  Hospital Closures
  Hospital Closures
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Patient Statistics
  Patient Statistics
  Hospital and Community Health Services
  Hospital and Community Health Services
  Principal General Medical Practitioners
  Principal General Medical Practitioners
  Health Centres
  Health Centres
  North Western Regional Health Authority
  North Western Regional Health Authority
  Acute Beds
  Acute Beds
  Nuclear Installations (Cancer)
  Nuclear Installations (Cancer)
  Hospital Complaints Procedure Act
  Hospital Complaints Procedure Act
  Severe Weather Payments
  Severe Weather Payments
  Allowances
  Allowances
  Pension Schemes
  Pension Schemes
  Liable Relative Officers
  Liable Relative Officers
  Family Forum
  Family Forum
  Royal Liverpool Hospital
  Royal Liverpool Hospital
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Blood Products
  Blood Products
  Meningitis
  Meningitis
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Maternity Payments
  Maternity Payments
  Benefits
  Benefits

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

European Television: Effect of Proposals
Lord Graham of Edmonton: 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 make a Statement on the regulation of transnational broadcasting in Europe in the light of the EC draft directive proposing minimum quotas for EC programming and the convention issued by the Council of Europe proposing no quotas whatsoever.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Government recognise that there should be a special place for programmes of European origin in our television schedules, but regard this as a domestic issue for each country to decide according to the prevailing circumstances within its borders. We believe that the proposed Council of Europe convention on broadcasting, the detail of which has yet to be discussed, is likely to follow a more sensible and flexible approach than the EC draft directive on this question as on others.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he recall that when the Cable and Broadcasting Bill and the Films Bill went through this House concern was expressed on all sides about the need to protect the British film-making industry? Without some form of quota, British cultural and artistic identity will be damaged. How does the Minister reconcile the fact that although we have a regulatory framework in this country, we shall be unable to control the input into this country from Europe? Does the Minister also accept that without a quota there is a possibility of great damage being caused to the jobs and work of those who are engaged in film making in this country?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is of course control at present through the Broadcasting Act 1981. Also, the BBC has followed the example of the independent network. There is control too by the cable authority. The Government are at the moment looking to the time when we shall be able to receive programmes directly through dishes without cable.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I noticed that the Minister said that the Government favour the Council of Europe convention rather than the EC draft directive. How do they intend to protect the high proportion of British-made programmes, which I think runs at 86 per cent., in the light of the fact that even the convention would drastically reduce our
854
national control of broadcasting? With regard to direct broadcasting by satellite, how will the Government respond to the signals which will be available from other member states, for instance, from Luxembourg and France, which cannot be controlled by regulation? Will not a high proportion of DBS programming be of American origin which must therefore be injurious to British programmes in this country?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the 86 per cent. to which the noble Baroness referred is of European Community origin at the moment. Naturally enough, the great majority of that in this country is British. It will be up to the viewers whether that amount changes because they will be able to switch off if they receive a programme which is not to their liking. As to the future, we believe that the Council of Europe offers greater scope because it involves many more countries than the European Community.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, while there is something to be said for that point of view, the viewers' power to switch off is not sufficient? Is he aware that the cultural integrity of the British broadcasting system has been under heavy pressure and will come under increasing pressure in the future with the technological developments to which he has referred? In all those circumstances, are the Government fully aware of the need to resist those pressures and to retain what I have already referred to as the cultural integrity of the British broadcasting system?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is why we have the Broadcasting Act 1981 and the cable authority.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is not protectionism in the arts, the media and communications as dangerous as it is in other fields?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as my noble friend will be aware, within the Broadcasting Act 1981 and the BBC's charter, we have set down the terms under which broadcasters should manage their businesses.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Sub-Committee B of the EC Select Committee has recently been looking into the whole subject of the draft directive, including quotas, and that its report will probably be published within the next few days?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am indeed aware of the work done by my noble friend and all the other noble Lords on the committee. The Government are extremely grateful to them for the hard work which they have put into studying this matter and look forward to receiving the report.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind the parlous state of this country's film-making industry? Will he tell the House what consultations he and his colleagues had with British film makers and those who work in the industry before reaching their point of view? Will he also give some assurance to those who make films in

855
this country that the Government have their best interests, which are the nation's best interests, at heart?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me three supplementary questions. Yes, we have everyone's best interests at heart.

Railways: Extent of Electrification
2.42 p.m.
Lord Gainford: 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 proportion of railway track will be electrified when all schemes so far approved are completed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, once the present schemes have been completed, British Rail will have a total of 7,049 electrified track miles, excluding sidings. This represents 36 per cent. of the total network.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, my noble friend has given an impressive figure. Has he any information as to when travellers will be able to enjoy the electrification of the east coast line between London and Edinburgh?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, yes. Work on the east coast main line between London and Edinburgh is ahead of schedule at the moment. There should be no problem in meeting our target of the London to Leeds service in 1989 and the London to Edinburgh service in 1991. Full electric services to Huntingdon and Peterborough will start in May.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, those figures are very good. However, may we have an assurance that the moment we have a fall of snow and frost all that will not stop?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the chances of the trains stopping will be a great deal less when the electrification scheme has progressed further than was the case before.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, will the Minister agree that if it were not for the commitments and the expenditure already incurred by British Rail over the Channel Tunnel, there might be a possibility of infinitely more electrification?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, no, I would not agree with my noble friend, as I shall attempt to explain later on this afternoon. All proposals put forward by British Rail must meet the investment criteria laid down, and they are all judged on their merits.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, will the Minister say whether or not any schemes put forward by British Rail have been rejected, and whether or not any schemes are still awaiting approval?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in the past three years no proposals submitted to Ministers have been turned down. As regards schemes awaiting consideration, there is the Royston to Cambridge section, which has recently been received by my right honourable friend, and he will be making a decision on that as soon as possible. I believe that that scheme is the only one at present before us.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, will the Minister take on board the importance of keeping together the gangs and teams who are involved in electrification work? I ask this, bearing in mind the potential export value involved. If teams are broken up it is also difficult to get them back together again. If it is possible, will the Government encourage British Rail always to keep some electrification, however small, in progress? This would be of great benefit.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is mainly a matter for British Rail. There are a considerable number of projects in train at the moment; and, as I have said, the east coast main line project will be carrying on until 1991. However, British Rail may put forward other proposals before that date.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, will the Minister say whether and when it is proposed to electrify the line from Edinburgh to Aberdeen?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not aware that a proposal for that line has been put forward. However, I shall certainly look into that matter.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind that in the event of war, any Channel tunnel will make a very easy target for an enemy?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that question is very far wide of the Question on the Order Paper, and no doubt it is one which will be raised later on today.
Lord Somers: My Lords, is there any possibility that the whole of the electrified scheme will have the same voltage? Also, is there any possibility that the Southern Region will be converted to the overhead system instead of having the system using a third rail? As no doubt the noble Lord is aware, the third rail is put out of action the moment that there is the slightest fall of snow or frost.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as regards converting the Southern Region to overhead cable, that would be a major project which would not only be extremely expensive but would also cause a good deal of inconvenience and difficulty while it was taking place.

York: Unemployment Figures
2.46 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will confirm the recent statement made by the

857
Secretary of State for Employment on BBC Radio York that unemployment in York has now reached single figures in percentage terms.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the unemployment rate for the York travel-to-work area published by my department on 15th January was 10.1 per cent. However, the rate is calculated using a denominator which does not take into account those members of the working population who were self-employed or in the armed forces, because the data are not available for small areas. For the Yorkshire and Humberside region as a whole, the inclusion of those people in the denominator reduces the regional unemployment rate from 15·1 per cent. to 13·5 per cent., a fall of 1·6 percentage points. Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that the rate for York, if the full information were available, would be less than 10 per cent.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving those details. Is it not quite dangerous for any Minister, especially a Minister in an important position like the Secretary of State, to assume any such thing? Is the Minister aware that, since the date when those figures were collated, unemployment in the York travel-to-work area has risen by nearly 300? Bearing in mind that over the past 12 months 130,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing industry, and 10,000 to 13,000 of those in the past month, will the Secretary of State say how many of those 300 jobs were manufacturing jobs, and is it not a fact that the situation is not as he has tried to describe it?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I would gladly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. However, I should be failing in my responsibilities if I did not take into account the 2,800,000 of our citizens who work for themselves. In any of our calculations we cannot ignore the self-employed; nor is there any reason why we should do so. In answer to the noble Lord's second supplementary question, I accept that during the normal increase in January the unemployment rate in the York travel-to-work area went up to 10·4 per cent. However, assuming that York citizens are just as enterprising as the average of those in Yorkshire and Humberside, in terms of those who are looking for work, that would still make unemployment in the region well under 10 per cent. I believe that it is important that we look unemployment fairly and squarely in the face, recognise the advances that have been made and not, for sheer political advantage, try to exaggerate the position.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, in relation to his last statement with which I am sure the whole of your Lordships' House will agree—namely, that we should not make a political football of these statistics—can the Minister say what earthly relevance there is in producing a proportion of people who are seeking work by reference to people who are not seeking work—to wit, the self-employed?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Lord's agreement that we should
858
not make political football out of this matter. Then he immediately proceeds to try and score a goal! It is important that we should look at those who are looking for work in relation to the entire population of this country of working age. It is no use excluding the self-employed, just as it is no good including, for example, those concerned in tourism or those with red hair or those in any other category. We should look at the whole problem in proportion. Since 1979 we have seen the number of self-employed rise from 1·9 million to over 2·8 million. I suspect that before the end of the 1990s we shall see the number of self-employed increase to 3 million, and maybe many more. We cannot continue to ignore a sector of the population which has grown that large; a sector not looking for work, and which is gainfully employed and also which demands to be treated with the same respect as any employee in the land.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is correct that the self-employed should not be included in the unemployment figures? With reference to making employment figures the target for political controversy, is the Minister aware that he is the biggest subscriber to that element in calculating the unemployed in Britain? He does not seem at all concerned with the emotional and social aspects of unemployment.
Noble Lords:Oh!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Minister can answer. With reference to the various schemes that he has introduced to reduce the number of unemployed by putting them on training schemes for six or seven months, can the Minister answer the following question? Can he say whether or not there is a follow-up after training to enable the people on the scheme to get proper jobs and not return to the ranks of the unemployed?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, in answer to that question, I can do no more than say that I am quite content to stand by my record.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, how on earth can the Secretary of State count the self-employed, who by definition are employed, along with the unemployed who by definition do not have jobs? How does he equate these two matters? Is it not the case that recently the calculation by his own department of the number of self-employed (which is always a loose calculation) has risen steeply? Can the Minister say why this is so? Is it not in order to reduce the number of unemployed that he is calculating? Is it not a gross misuse of his office that in order to take part in a general election campaign a statement of this kind is made in a city such as York where the employment rate, as my noble friend has said, is over 10 per cent.?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am glad to say that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, was as near the mark as he generally is. Let me assure your Lordships' House of the self-evident truth. The calculations we are discussing do not affect by one the number of unemployed in the land. What we are talking about is the proportion of the working

859
population formed by those who are out of work and looking for work. It is simply that. In considering the working population it is ludicrous to ignore the 2.8 million people who work for themselves. They would claim that they are working just as hard as any employee in the land. Therefore, we take the proportion of those looking for work and compare it with those who are employees and the self-employed. This has nothing whatever to do with politics or with an election. If there is any matter which would satisfy your Lordships' House, I should like to say that recently the OECD, which is not particularly interested in elections in the United Kingdom, have revised the published figures for the United Kingdom and show an unemployment rate of 11.2 per cent. in December as compared to the national figures of 11.3 per cent. These figures were calculated on the basis that I have just explained.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in answer to that point, perhaps I may say that the question from my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick, concerns the unemployed. It does not ask about those seeking jobs.
Noble Lords:Speech!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, a statement was made in York referring to the proportion of unemployed, not to those seeking work.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the question refers to a statement which I confirm I made on BBC Radio York, that unemployment in York has now reached single figures in percentage terms. It has done so and unemployment in York must be in single figures whichever way it is calculated.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he has not produced one shred of hard, factual evidence to back up that statement? When the Minister introduced the fact that there may be political undertones in this question, can it be that the statement was made on the basis of the forthcoming general election in one of the most highly marginal constituencies in the country?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the House will have the opportunity to debate this matter later on this week. However, I should like to confirm that unemployment is a quite serious matter. It is a problem which exists not only in this country but throughout Europe. It is serious enough that we should not seek to exaggerate it. It does not help the unemployed to be told continually, as indeed they are told by Members on the opposite side all too often, that there is no hope. There is considerable hope and I believe there is a considerable future for all in our country.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the allusion of the noble Lord to the necessity for keeping this matter out of party politics, will the noble Lord agree that it is just as important that the position of the unemployed should not be understated either? As is very well known, there is already a considerable difference between the registered unemployed which is
860
continually diminishing owing to manipulation of the figures, and those actually unemployed which are many, many more.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I must confess that I have lived a somewhat sheltered life and it is only within the past two or three years that I have entered your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, it comes as some surprise to me—and why it should be a surprise I am not too sure—that it is only since last summer that this obsession of those who sit opposite with "fiddling the figures" (if I can quote their favourite phrase) has come about. Can it be anything to do with the current direction of the unemployment figures?

Electricity: Tidal Energy Research
3 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: 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 plans exist for exploring the possibilities of generating electricity economically in the United Kingdom from tides.
Viscount Davidson: The Department of Energy is sponsoring a research programme into United Kingdom resources. This includes: a £4.2 million study on the Severn jointly funded with the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Severn Tidal Power Group; secondly, a £400,000 contribution towards studies of the Mersey Barrage; thirdly, a programme of supporting studies including environmental issues, construction techniques and the resource available from small sites. Copies of the proposed work programme on the Severn have been placed in the Library today.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply and for the welcome information that further research is being sponsored. I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether or not it is the Government's intention, as has been reported, that the research should reach a stage within two years where it will be possible to take a definite decision on a Severn Barrage?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, tidal energy is one of the most promising of our renewable energy resources. The programme which we have announced is therefore comprehensive and wide-ranging. It is intended to define so far as possible the potential for economic tidal power regeneration in the United Kingdom. I can confirm to my noble friend that this operation is due to take two years.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in regard to the Mersey barrage project, is the noble Viscount aware that it is very largely supported by local private interests, and that it is a project which will cost considerably less than the Severn barrage scheme and be completed sooner, and therefore be able to demonstrate more quickly the feasibility of such tidal schemes? In those

861
circumstances, what is the Government's attitude towards the Mersey project?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has said. The Mersey barrage study has three primary objectives: to identify whether there is any fundamental impediment to a barrage on the Mersey; to determine the most favourable line for construction; and to reappraise and confirm the economic viability of the scheme. Phase 1 of the study is expected to be finished late this year.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that as part of the Severn barrage scheme a new trunk road may also be constructed across the Severn Estuary?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend may like to read the actual project, a copy of which I have here and which, as I said, is in the Library.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, would the noble Viscount confirm that administrative circles in Brussels are taking an active and lively interest in the possibility of bringing European finance to bear on the construction of the Severn barrage? In view of the liveliness of this approach, are Her Majesty's Government making an equally lively response?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Earl's question; but I shall find out and write to him.

London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Business of the House
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Mayhew and the Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge set down for Wednesday 25th February shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to each debate.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill
3.2 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 3 [Power of Secretary of State to make provision by order]:
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 43, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment solely to elicit a reply from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to the questions raised by myself and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in Committee on Clause 3(3). The questions, so far as I can remember, were two. The first was whether it is desirable that provisions in an order may be valid in a document published by the Stationery Office quite separately from the order in itself. Should that separate document published by the Stationery Office have effect separate from the order? It is a simple question. I believe there are only two precedents: one in the previous teachers' pay Act and the other in the board and lodgings regulations.
Secondly, if it is considered desirable that that should happen is this subsection necessary in view of the ruling given by the High Court in relation to the board and lodgings regulations? I gather that the Minister has sent a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and I wonder whether he would kindly share the contents of that letter with me and the House. It is for the purposes of getting that on the record that I now beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, since the 1965 Act it has proved convenient for the extensive provisions relating to teachers' pay to be found in a document published by HMSO and updated by order as necessary. As we have said before, the current document contains 64 pages, covering such detailed matters as incremental credit for qualifications and experience and rules about a variety of special allowances, among other provisions. While some pruning may be possible in the future, additions on conditions of service may be needed. The total length of the material may prove much the same.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, having accepted the case for referring to a document, raised two further questions in Committee, as he said. The first was to suggest that a document could be referred to in the order even if this were not specified on the face of the Bill. We undertook to look at this suggestion, although it seemed to me preferable to retain the provision on the face of the Bill. Having examined it, it seems to us better practice when this procedure is contemplated to spell it out as an express provision in the enabling Act, so that there can be no doubt about the effect of an order. I am sure noble Lords would not want to see a situation in which teachers' pay increases were delayed because of lack of clarity in the Act on this point.
A second concern of the noble Lord and other noble Lords was that the provisions referred to by orders should normally be in one place for ease of reference. It is the Government's intention that a new document will be produced before October 1987 embodying all the new and retained statutory provisions. Copies of the document will be placed in the Library.
We will however be retaining the power to make amending orders. This has always been the practice and it has been demonstrated to work. It has the advantage for the reader that he does not have to buy a new document every year to ascertain what changes have been made. The bulk of the provisions are likely to remain unchanged from year to year. For instance—and this is a particularly good

863
example—London weighting has often been settled at a different time from the generality of teachers' pay. New rates of London weighting would entail changing just three figures in the document and it is really not worth producing a whole new document just for that.
I hope that I have met the noble Lord's concerns. On the specific question about the possibility of his receiving a copy of the letter sent to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I think that this should not present any difficulty. We shall of course be able to furnish him with that. I hope that in this instance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I have no objection whatever if the noble Baroness sends a copy of the letter sent to me to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. If it is so sent the noble Lord will see that it does not wholly answer the difficulty raised at an earlier stage of the Bill. I think that I raised it, among others.
If you provide first of all an enormous document—and the argument for using this procedure is that the document is likely to be large and massive—what happens when these innumerable amendments come along? They will presumably be embodied in amending orders. In that situation it seems inconvenient that someone who is trying to find out what the exact provisions as to pay are will, first of all, have to study this large Stationery Office document and then take a number of orders individually and pin them on to it, as it were, to try to find out what the current position is. That seems a quite extraordinarily inconvenient procedure.
I seem to recall that at the previous stage the Minister who replied thought that this was a rather good idea as it would save reissuing—as I think the noble Baroness has just said—the whole document. But it is going to be difficult if we are to have the important and obviously, as we know from these debates, contentious matter of teachers' pay set out in a document which ceases to be up to date and which can only be properly read and construed if you turn up a series of amending orders.
This is a serious point. I rather regret that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, has raised on Third Reading a matter which was fully debated at an earlier stage. I do not think myself that that is a good practice. But the noble Lord having raised it, one has to admit that the noble Baroness's answer is not a complete answer to the real problem that has been created.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that since the Government have taken it upon themselves to deal with all these details centrally, it at least behoves them to put out the information in a form which is manageable for the large numbers of people throughout the country who have to apply it?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, my noble friend has a serious point. I remember after the war the Butterworth emergency legislation which was amended, amended and amended. At the Bar the only thing one could do was to ring up the department to ask what was the state of the law now. The department
864
was always very helpful. It told you what it was and you went off to the magistrate's court and did your best. But my noble friend makes a good, valid point.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I think we are all aware of the problems caused by a surfeit of paper and of amending changes. We hope and expect that the system as provided by the Bill will prove to be the most convenient and the most manageable. The safeguard for Parliament is that all orders must pass through the process of Parliament so that everybody will be well aware of changes. It has worked to have a separate document in the past, as we have said, since the 1965 Act. We believe that will be the most manageable way of dealing with this problem. The document will be revised from time to time. There will be no excessive period before a new edition is published and there is no need to publish a new full document each time a minor amendment is made. That is the purpose of the provision in the Bill.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I do not feel that I need to apologise for raising this matter; otherwise the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, would have been the sole recipient of the valuable information that has just been vouchsafed to us by the noble Baroness. Thus the House has benefited.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene?
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Most certainly. Would the noble Lord care to assist me further in my speech? I should be very happy if he would do so.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I assist only by saying that the information, with great respect to the noble Baroness, is not of the high value that the noble Lord seems to attribute to it.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: But the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has just said that it is a serious point. Therefore, it is sufficiently serious for me to put down an amendment to elicit a government reply. I just wish to establish that there is nothing wrong with that; indeed, it has been a service to the House. I see the Minister nodding and I am very glad to have his confirmation.
I have two comments. First, I gather from what the noble Baroness has said that it is not necessary to make this provision in the Bill. But I agree with her that it is better practice to do so. I believe that is the correct position, in view of the High Court judgment in the case of board and lodging payments. Secondly, I think the noble Baroness said that there will be a measure of consolidation. This is what we really care about. If we have an assurance from the noble Baroness, as I think we have had, that there will be consolidation—and the inconveniences pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will not last very long because the document will be consolidated—then we shall be very happy. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Method of remuneration of teachers.
(". Nothing in this Act shall permit the Secretary of State to change the existing arrangements whereby the remuneration of teachers is paid to them by local education authorities.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is fundamentally simple. It reads:
"Nothing in this Act shall permit the Secretary of State to change the existing arrangements whereby the remuneration of teachers is paid to them by local education authorities".
The amendment is intended to give expression to fears expressed at Second Reading and at other stages of the Bill that when it becomes an Act it could also become the vehicle for carrying out far-reaching structural changes in the education system without primary legislation.
In Clause 1 existing provisions are to be superseded by
"provisions having effect under this Act".
Under Clause 3(1) the Secretary of State is obliged to consult only such bodies as appear to him to be most concerned before he can,
"make provision by order made by statutory instrument giving effect to the recommendations of the Committee, with or without modification, or making such other provision with respect to that matter as he thinks fit".
This would seen to suggest that after consultations, which the Secretary of State can disregard, he could, either on the advice of his advisory committee (and in that case by negative instrument) or on his own initiative (and in that case by affirmative instrument) totally alter the present system of financial arrangements of the education system. I am not saying that that is what he intends to do. But I cannot see anything in the Bill which would prevent him from so doing. That would equally apply to the Secretary of State in a government formed by any other party or parties.
Anxiety on this score is increased by Clause 3(5)(d) which enables the Secretary of State to,
"provide for the designation of schools in relation to which special provisions apply".
This is no doubt intended to allow for the establishment of Crown schools, or CITs, as I think they have been called, outside the maintained system for which the Government have been canvassing for some time now. But there is no specific limit on the number or type of schools to which this might apply and there is no guarantee in the Bill as drafted that these special provisions could not be much more widely extended throughout the whole system.
There has been considerable press speculation about the Secretary of State's desire for a more centralised system of public education in this country, rather more on Continental lines. Some support for this idea has been expressed in your Lordships' House. There is no doubt a case to be made for it, just as there is a case to be made against it. The main object of this amendment is to ensure that that debate is not preempted by this Bill. It is my contention, on which I hope I shall secure general agreement, that it would be quite improper for any really far-reaching change of the nature I have described to be carried out under a temporary provisions Bill. If any change of such
866
magnitude is contemplated, it should be preceded by a White Paper and fresh primary legislation.
I do not know at this stage whether I shall want to divide the House on this issue. I shall listen very carefully to what the noble Lord or the noble Baroness say. If he, or perhaps she, can assure me from the Dispatch Box that should the Government, in the event of their re-election, wish to bring about a fundamental change in the relationship between teachers and local educational authorities, they will bring out a White Paper and consult widely in advance of new primary legislation, that would weigh very heavily in my decision. In the meantime I beg to move the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Opposition support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and the reasons for it that he has given. We should be prepared to support him if he proposed to take the matter further, failing a satisfactory reply from the Government. But it must be said that this amendment raises a very important anomaly to which inadequate attention has been given in the lengthy consideration of this Bill. That is that the system of determination of pay and conditions of service proposed by the Government between now and 1990, and possibly further on than that, is a classic example of taxation without representation. The local education authorities, which, if this amendment is accepted or if adequate assurances are given, will be responsibile for the actual employment of the teachers, will have no say in the way in which their pay and conditions of service are determined. Of course the ratepayers, who are responsible for 55 per cent. of the cost of teachers' pay, will have no say either. It is central government, which is responsible only for 45 per cent. of the pay, which has a complete power of determination both of pay and of conditions of service.
Noble Lords may answer that central government, which was paying 45 per cent., did not have an adequate influence on the pay and conditions of service in the past, and that is, I accept, a partial answer, although the response to that was given in amendments which we moved at Committee. But it is quite clear, first, that, whatever long-term solution is found for the teachers' pay and conditions, it must adequately represent that part of teachers' pay which is met by the ratepayer as well as that part which is met by the taxpayer, and, secondly, that a dictatorship of the conditions by the Secretary of State in the meantime is not an acceptable solution. The noble Lord's amendment does seek to secure that in the long term the role of local education authorities should not be undermined, and should not be undermined tacitly by an Act such as this which is not supposed to have that effect. We support the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord's fears are unfounded, and that this amendment is in fact entirely redundant. I believe there is a short answer to the concerns expressed, and that is that the result that the amendment seeks to achieve is already in fact embodied on the face of the Bill. If I may, I should like to remind noble Lords of the words of subsection 3(6), which appears on page 3, line 22 of the Bill and which refers to the fact that remuneration

867
of teachers to whom the order applies shall be determined and paid to teachers by local education authorities. I believe that makes it perfectly clear that no order made under the Act could provide for teachers to be paid by anyone other than local education authorities. In fact there is nothing in the Bill that would in any way enable the Government to do this without primary legislation, and I hope that this short answer will enable noble Lords, if this amendment is not withdrawn, to reject the amendment as unnecessary.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am always anxious to be persuaded by the noble Baroness. She is in her nature so persuasive. But I am afraid I must tell her that on this occasion in fact she has not persuaded me. It is quite true, as she says, that subsection (6) reads,
"The effect of an order is
(a) so far as it relates to remuneration, that the remuneration to teachers to whom the order applies"—
I stress that phrase—
"shall be determined, and paid to teachers by local education authorities".
In subsection (5)(d) above, which I have already quoted we have an escape clause from that, and the escape clause says that an order may,
"provide for the designation of schools in relation to which special provisions apply".
In such a case, if special provisions were to apply, then, as a matter of plain logic, the provisions under (6)(a) could not apply. As the provisions under subsection (5)(d) providing,
"for the designation of schools in relation to which special provisions apply",
is open-ended, it could, as far as I can see from the way the Bill is written, be extended right across the whole education system. So I am afraid I have to tell the noble Baroness the Bill is not quite as watertight in this respect as she, I am sure quite honestly, believes, and I do not in fact think we can quite accept her interpretation. If, in view of that, she would like to give me some further assurance, I shall be happy to listen to her.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, perhaps I may try to reassure the noble Lord further with regard to Clause 3(5)(d), which allows schools currently designated as social priority schools to continue to be designated as such, and for any other special designations that may be required in the future. That is the primary purpose of Clause 3(5)(d). It does not, and cannot, refer to taking out of local education authorities' control in any way, since the scope of the Bill is confined to teachers in schools maintained by local education authorities, or teachers otherwise employed by local education authorities. So I think that the fears as to the open-endedness of Clause 3(5)(d) to which he refers are in fact unfounded.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, that is a nice point of interpretation, but I do not think it can be said that the matter is in fact 100 per cent. clear. It is possible that the subsection (5)(d) might be interpreted in the way that the noble Baroness has said, but it seems to me to be equally clear that it could be interpreted very much
868
more widely, and I think frankly, my Lords, on those grounds—
Lord Elton: My Lords, before the noble Lord divides the House, I should like to make a comment. I know that there is a limited number of times anyone may intervene in a debate. Perhaps therefore I may put an idea into his mind before he sits down, in theory if not in practice, and suggest to him that subsection (3)(d) does refer to special provisions but nowhere does the Act provide for the Secretary of State to act other than by order. Therefore any special provision would still be by order and there would be no escape hatch in the Bill for the Secretary of State if he were minded to take one, two or a dozen schools, or the whole system, out of the effect of the Bill. My noble friend on the Front Bench will correct me or interject as she thinks fit, but it does seem to me on a layman's interpretation that, although there may be, as it were, on the wall a little finger pointing to "Emergency Exit", in fact there is no exit when you get there; the Secretary of State simply has to use another order to provide the special provisions for the schools in question. I think therefore that the noble Lord's fears are groundless.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to follow my noble friend here, if I may so describe him. I am afraid that, whichever way one tries to explain this away from the Government's side, it is an open-ended clause. Clause 3(4) reads:
"An order may make different provision for different cases, including different provision for different areas".
I cannot think of anything more open-ended or wider than that. So whatever is said in subsequent clauses, the order provision is a very open-ended check upon the Minister.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness accept that all of this is subject to subsection (6), which clearly says that whatever the order, whatever the area, however special the provisions,
"the remuneration of teachers to whom the order applies shall be determined, and paid to teachers by local education authorities"?
It does not matter what the variety is; it is already subject to the condition that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, seeks superfluously to write into the Bill.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we seem to have come to a ground of interpretation which is causing the House a little difficulty. I hesitate to cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who always brings such a lively and accurate intelligence to all the proceedings in which he is involved. However, subsection (5) opens with the words,
"An order may, in particular, as regards remuneration",
and then proceeds to sub-paragraph (d) where it says:
"provide for the designation of schools in relation to which special provisions apply".
I should have thought that those special provisions could well take the arrangements outside the scope of the order provided for under subsection (6). My amendment seems to have brought us into this area of doubt, and I do not think we ought to have this area of doubt in the Bill. If the matter is as the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, say, then certainly the addition of this amendment will

869
simply act as an additional safeguard. My feeling is that we ought to have it in the Bill. On those grounds, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, before the noble Lord presses the amendment to a Division I should say that there is nothing in the Bill that would in any way enable the Government to bypass the local education authorities without primary legislation. Therefore there is no doubt.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, if the noble Baroness is giving me an absolute assurance, I remind your Lordships that in my opening remarks I said that if I was given an absolute assurance I would not press the amendment. On the basis of what the noble Baroness has just said, I am bound to accept that she has given me an absolute assurance.
However, I very much hope that we shall not find different interpretations coming from different quarters because I point out that this is an area of the Bill which has caused some doubt in your Lordships' House. Therefore I hope that I am able to interpret the last intervention of the noble Baroness as meaning that, in the event of any far-reaching change in the arrangements between teachers and local education authorities, the Government would definitely feel themselves obliged to come forward with new primary legislation. I see that the noble Baroness is nodding at me. That is entirely sufficient. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Duration of Act]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 27, at end insert
(", in which case the Secretary of State shall, before laying a draft resolution under this section, lay before Parliament a statement as to the reasons for its continuation for a further year in preference to the making of proposals for new provisions in primary legislation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3, and I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. We made a modicum of progress in Committee on this matter when the Government agreed to amendments which changed the responsibility for the continuation of the provisions of the Act from a negative resolution to an affirmative resolution. It was not a very large concession, but it was one which we welcomed and which was generally welcomed by the Committee, and which will now be welcomed by the House.
The amendments arise from further consideration in the light of the debate in Committee and in the light of many comments that were made on Second Reading about the way in which the public interest may best be protected when the issue of continuation of the Act comes up for consideration by the public and Parliament. The amendments do not propose any fundamental change in the provisions of the Bill. We propose that there shall be a little more by way of public consultation before draft orders are laid before Parliament.
There is no reason whatever why this should cause any delay. Orders for the continuation of the Bill must, in any case, be laid on or before a fixed date in order to be considered by Parliament. Therefore the provision proposed in Amendment No. 3 for,
"a statement as to the reasons for the continuation for a further year in preference to the making of proposals for new provisions in primary legislation",
could well be organised in advance, and the date of continuation—which could not be changed anyway—need not be affected at all.
The amendments, first, by requiring a statement to be made; secondly, by saying that the continuation of the existing practice should be for not more than one year; and, thirdly, by providing in Amendment No. 5 that the continuation shall be after a statement or after agreement with the teachers and the employers, are saying that it is incumbent upon the Government, in a situation where there is clearly great objection to the taking away of negotiating rights from teachers and their employers, to make every effort that they can to ensure that the public as a whole understands the reasons for the continuation. The purpose of moving that there should be a statement before a draft order is made is so that there can be the greatest possible public discussion of the issue concerned. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I must say that I find an inconsistency between Amendment No. 3 and an amendment which was accepted in Committee. In Committee arguments were put forward very cogently that if there was a need for any extension of the provisions of the Bill it should require the affirmative resolution procedure and not the negative resolution procedure. The Government were persuaded by those arguments and we readily accepted an amendment which had been put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, to require the affirmative resolution procedure. At the Report stage amendments which would have overturned that decision were not carried and thus the provision for extension only by affirmative resolution remains in the Bill.
However, this amendment would now build in another requirement—that of laying before Parliament a statement as to the reasons for the Act's continuation before laying a draft resolution. I must say that I find that a little strange. As we all know, the value of the affirmative resolution procedure is that the resolution has to be voted on by both Houses and it requires a government spokesman to give a clear statement of the reasons why any draft resolution is before the House.
In addition, I have no doubt at all that those with an interest in whether the provisions in the Act should be extended would make their views clear to any noble Lords or Members of another place who would be participating in the relevant debates. Therefore the noble Lord is simply asking for the Government to lay two statements in order to achieve the same thing in the event of the Bill needing to be extended.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are, with respect to the noble Lord, defective. I shall briefly explain why. If we have an order setting out conditions of service, such an order may well be in effect for longer than a year when

871
the Act expires, because I do not think one would visualise that orders on conditions of service would keep on being changed. Therefore the period of one year from the date of an order on conditions of service could well have passed when the Act expires. New provisions may not have been agreed and the teaching profession would suddenly be left, under the terms of these amendments, with no rules at all on conditions of service.
As regards pay, an order might well not have been in force for a year. However, it might have been in force for many months and would, under the terms of the amendment, expire soon after the year was up. If at that time there was no agreement on new pay rates—and we know the difficulties that there have been in that respect—no provisions on pay would be in force and there would be potential chaos. I do not think that that is desirable. Therefore in essence I am suggesting that if these two amendments were agreed they could create a vacuum on both pay and conditions when the Act comes to an end. For those reasons I consider them defective and I hope that the noble Lord will take the view that he should not press them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as regards Amendment No. 3, I am not at all convinced by the Minister's arguments. It is certainly true that the affirmative resolution procedure provides that a draft resolution shall be laid before Parliament and that a government Minister shall have to stand up and defend it. I was making the point that that was not necessarily the best way for the general public, who have shown a great deal of interest, let alone the education service itself, to be fully informed about the issues, to be given the Government's arguments and reasoning in writing before the debate takes place and therefore to take an informed view on the matters before both Houses of Parliament.
The whole issue of the continuation of the enforcement of the Act has proved, in the course of deliberations in your Lordships' House, to be the most controversial of all the issues which we have considered. It seems reasonable for the general public to have the greatest possible opportunity to take an informed view and to influence their representatives and friends in Parliament to ensure that the right conclusion is reached.
However, this is not a matter which affects fundamentally the provisions of the Bill. I believe it was a proper matter to have raised on Third Reading but I do not believe it is a proper matter on which to seek to divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
("Negotiations
(". On or before the expiry of this Act, the Secretary of State shall make proposals, whether by legislative provisions or otherwise, for the determination of the remuneration and conditions of service of teachers in England and Wales, which
872
shall have the effect so far as practicable of promoting determination of these matters in a manner agreed in negotiation between teachers and their employers.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, I believe, adequately reflects the Opposition's recognition that our previous attempts to write into the Bill negotiating rights for teachers and employers throughout the period of operation of this Bill, and indeed thereafter, have not been acceptable to your Lordships.
In this amendment we are not making any attempt to change the provision for the advisory committee appointed by the Secretary of State to report to the Secretary of State or for the Secretary of State to have the power to overturn the views of the advisory committee if he wishes. Between now and 1990, and perhaps thereafter, we accept that the House has taken the view that there should be no negotiation.
What we are saying in this amendment—and this again is why I believe it is a proper amendment to put on Third Reading, because it recognises the force of the decisions that have been taken but seeks to make some provision in the longer term for negotiating rights—is that the Government ought not to come out of the interim period, whether it is in 1990 or at some later stage, without a system which provides for negotiating rights. The Government ought not to have an interim dictatorship succeeded by a permanent dictatorship.
We have had assurances from the Government on many occasions that that is not their intention. They have frequently said that the purpose of the Bill is to sort out teachers and employers who have not been able to get their act together and to provide a breathing space in which new pay and conditions can be laid down for teachers and in which a longer-term solution can be found. But that would be totally ineffectual unless it was provided also that the longer-term solution must meet the legitimate demands from teachers and employers for proper negotiating rights. We cannot have it succeeded in the end by an indefinite or permanent continuation of dictatorial rights by the Secretary of State or by any other solution which does not involve proper negotiation.
That would be totally at variance with the history of industrial relations in our country, whether in the public sector or in the private sector. It would be a gross imposition on the rights of teachers. It would be treating 10 per cent. of public sector employees in a way which is totally different from the other 90 per cent. It would be very badly thought of by the teaching profession if at the end of the day we allowed the Government to have the possibility of imposing an undemocratic long-term solution. This is a matter on which we must continue to fight and on which we must continue to press the Government about the reimposition of negotiating rights. This is not a matter of form; nor a matter of gloss on the wording of the Bill. It is a very important amendment indeed, and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I find it a little difficult to understand exactly what this amendment means, particularly with reference to the position of the Government. As your Lordships know, central government find 45 or 46 per cent. of the costs of the remuneration of teachers. There is no specific

873
reference in this amendment to the position of the Government who after all were represented, however inadequately, in the old Burnham scheme under the Burnham Committee.
The only possible intended reference could be found in these strange words, "so far as is practicable". The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, did not explain what was meant by that phrase. Does it mean subject to the Government's veto? Does it mean subject to the Government's view being put into force if necessary? Or does it mean merely that it is quite possible that the employers and teachers might work out a scheme which was wholly unworkable and therefore you have to put in "so far as is practicable" in order to deal with that, no doubt, distinct possibility?
If it is intended that the employers, who are the local authorities, and the teachers should have the final say without any say by the Government, that seems to me wholly untenable in view of the responsibility of the Government both for finding a large proportion of the total pay and for the management of the economy, which can very well be affected by the very large sums of money involved.
If the Government were to be excluded under this amendment, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that would seem to be a very powerful argument against his amendment. He would seem to be going back on even the earlier arrangements, which have been much criticised, and leaving it entirely to local authorities, who may be of one political persuasion or another, and to teachers to mulct the taxpayer and the ratepayer to their hearts' content. I hope therefore that your Lordships will reject the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, the amendment refers to action which may be taken on or before the expiry of the Act. Its purpose is not only to keep alive a necessary little spark of hope in the minds of teachers that one day their free rights of negotiation will be restored but, further than that, actively to encourage teachers and employers to address their minds to the preparation and creation of machinery which is sensible and practicable. We hope that its practicability and common sense will persuade the Secretary of State to review the way in which he is proposing to impose settlements on teachers himself.
In short, its purpose is to restore as soon as may be responsibility to teachers and their employers. It will not do for noble Lords opposite to spend half their time denouncing teachers for being irresponsible and to spend the other half of their time denying to teachers the proper responsibility of being involved in the shaping of their own terms and conditions of employment. Therefore I would hope that the House would agree that we should hold out some small hope to teachers in this modest way.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I find it very hard to understand how the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has been able to suggest that the Secretary of State and the Government are actually marginalised in this amendment, in which it is stated very firmly that it is incumbent on the Secretary of State to bring
874
forward proposals which are presumably his proposals. An additional virtue I can see is that if he has not made any such proposals by 1990, which is the initial expiry date of the Act on the face of the Bill, then he is almost bound to be coming back to Parliament for extensions ad infinitum. That is the other aspect of the Bill to which we take great exception and it is something to which many of us on this side of the House have been objecting.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, by leave, the noble Lord quite rightly said that the amendment lays on the Secretary of State the duty of bringing forward proposals but it lays down what they shall be. They are proposals which leave no room whatever for determination by the central government.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, by leave of the House, I should have thought that the phrase "so far as is practicable" could well be expanded to include such a proposal as an independent review body, which has been put forward from these Benches, on which the Secretary of State would have an input at various stages.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with the greatest respect, these words are not mere words of exhortation: they impose a mandatory duty on the Secretary of State. One must see the problem through. Surely, if one is devising the words of a statute one must look at what is involved. The only recourse is to the Divisional Court on a matter of judicial review. If for one moment the noble Lord would consider himself as a judge in the Divisional Court having to enforce breach of a mandatory duty in the terms of the last three lines of the amendment, I would suggest, with the greatest respect, that even his mind might boggle.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word in support of this amendment, and in doing so, I wish to put a question to the Minister. It does not appear anywhere in the Bill that the advisory committee is going to be responsible for making proposals for new machinery for setting teachers' pay and conditions. In that case, who is going to be responsible for this?
Part of the object of this amendment is to ensure that when the three years have flown by—and three years go by very quickly, my Lords, like a puff of wind—something will have happened. It is part of the misgivings of local education authorities and their unions that nothing at all may have happened, especially in view of the fact that presumably the Secretary of State will already have laid down pay and conditions for something like the next two years as promised by him. It seems to me that discussions might be indefinitely postponed while it is decided who is going to sit on the body which is going to make the decisions about the new machinery; that there might be long discussions about the agenda which it is going to consider in the manner of disarmament conferences; and that vital people might be away on holiday or sick. The three years might have gone by and nothing had happened at all.
Some such proposal as is put forward in this amendment would ensure that something had

875
happened, and of course it would be an additional assurance to teachers that that something would involve negotiation. For those reasons, I support the amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, has drawn attention to—which is very important—is that the date of expiry of this Act will be 1990. That is the date of expiry. Otherwise, there is no discipline imposed upon the Secretary of State by the amendment or this Bill. The Bill does not say a single word about new proposals for the regulation of the pay and conditions of teachers. It says nothing at all about machinery to replace the Burnham system. It leaves the future absolutely open and positively blank.
Therefore, this amendment attempts to impose the only discipline upon the Secretary of State to do something about finding an alternative to the existing Burnham system. If there is not that time limit put on to discipline the Secretary of State, he is under no obligation to produce any proposals. It cannot expire until he does. He goes on extending the present authoritarian regime year after year until he does find some proposals.
We must read this amendment as meaning absolutely literally that the time limit imposed upon the Secretary of State is 1990. That is three years in which he is required to produce these proposals. Never before have such unconditional powers been given to a Secretary of State which enable him keep them so extensively on renewal by both Houses of Parliament. He might have good reason for doing that with no obligation to see an end to any unsatisfactory conditions. Therefore this amendment is really vital. It is the only one that comes near to putting any discipline on the Secretary of State.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment and to point out that those who have objected to it say it does not protect the position of the Secretary of State. It is surely to be assumed that the Government in putting forward proposals which would in effect restore negotiation rights, would incorporate into those proposals the proper position and power of the Secretary of State as was included in the amendments that were put forward at Report stage in order to see that the Secretary of State's position was included when negotiating rights were restored. It is perfectly within the power of the Government to accept the amendment and to protect the rights—and we accept that these are rights—of the Secretary of State.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment because surely it is in the interest of all of us to consider the morale of men and women in the teaching profession at the present time. Whatever our opinions may be about the Bill itself—and it is now at an advanced stage—it has undoubtedly caused a great deal of disquiet in the teaching profession. If this amendment were passed, it would be a concession towards those who feel very upset by what they regard as an interference with their negotiating rights. It is surely in the interests of all of us
876
here, and of the country as a whole, that morale should be restored. This would go some small way towards doing that.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I intervene merely to point out that, with the exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, the difference between the two sides is that noble Lords opposite have been telling us what are the intentions of this amendment, and noble Lords on this side have been saying what would be its effects. They are not the same. We all wish to reassure teachers of our goodwill towards them when they do the splendid job that they were appointed to do. That commitment does not turn on your Lordships' answer to this amendment. This amendment is not designed to attract the friendship of teachers, or to repel it. The Bill at present gives the Secretary of State a statutory position in the negotiations because he pays nearly half of the money. It is your Lordships' money and mine and that of every other taxpayer.
This amendment requires the Secretary of State, whatever the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, says, to produce a solution that has the right effect so far as is practicable. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, was so eloquent a moment ago about not putting anything in the Bill with the faintest suspicion of doubt as to its interpretation. I was amused to hear him say that he thought you could extend this to have that interpretation if you wished. I do not think you can proceed on that basis. It requires the Secretary of State, subject to that reservation, to produce a solution which promotes determination of these matters in a manner agreed in negotiation between teachers and their employers. That is only two parties; the third party who pays nearly half the bill is excluded by statute. If it is not contradictory to the Bill, then the Bill is wrong. It must be nonsense. Your Lordships cannot put it in.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have understood from the speeches made in support of this amendment that noble Lords want to set a course before this Bill is passed for the future determination of the process for teacher's pay. With respect, this amendment really is not the way to do it. It is not clear in this amendment whether primary legislation is desirable in dealing with pay determination of teachers; nor, despite speeches which have been made to the contrary, is it clear what the role of the Secretary of State in all this ought to be.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, said that he could not make out from the Bill who is finally to decide and bring forward proposals as to what the new pay machinery ought to be. I had understood for the past few weeks that, because they acknowledged the importance of a role for Parliament, all noble Lords on the Benches opposite envisaged that any long-term arrangements would have a statutory basis and therefore Parliament would be involved. This latest amendment means that even that assumption, which I had based on clear statements by noble Lords opposite, is not well founded because "Parliament" does not appear in this amendment.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was right as to the position of the Government on teachers' pay. It seems to me in this amendment that noble Lords opposite have given up trying to fit that

877
part of the jigsaw in because in this amendment the Secretary of State is simply told to make proposals on pay machinery which will have been agreed by the local authorities and the teachers.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in his speech said that some discipline is needed so far as concerns the Secretary of State. It was because the Government accepted that philosophy that at previous stages of the Bill, on behalf of my right honourable friend, I had given him an assurance that if in a new and more settled climate an agreement could be reached between the Government, local education authorities and the teacher associations by early 1989 on the form of future permanent machinery, new legislation could be introduced which would set up that machinery in good time for the 1990 settlement. I have made clear that the Government are entirely sympathetic to that prospect and would not unreasonably delay legislation to bring forward new machinery once conclusions have been reached.
Coming back to this amendment, I must remind the House of what my noble friend Lady Hooper said at the very start of this Bill on Second Reading, when my noble friend made the point that there are advocates of different ways in which teachers' pay ought to be decided, whether by an independent review body or a joint negotiating council, but that the variety of views expressed and the continuing dissent among the teacher unions means that we are inevitably some way from getting permanent machinery. It is too early to say what will be the right long-term machinery—that is why we have a breathing space in this Bill—and certainly this is not the way to try to reach that objective, without recourse to Parliament and using the Secretary of State simply as a cipher.
4 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I have not spoken during the whole proceedings on this Bill in your Lordships' House. I have sat here from Second Reading right until the present time when we are getting towards the end of this Bill. There are certain points where I agree with the Government and there are certain points where I agree with Members on this side, of all parties. But one of the things that worries me now is: where do we go from here? That is most important. I think that the majority of us in this House and in the other place want to see peace, want to see stability in the education profession, want to see administrators administrating, want to see teachers teaching and want to see policymakers making their policies.
But the difficulty I find is that at this moment I do not see that happening. I find what is happening in the teaching profession at the present time, when both the NUT and the NAS are balloting their members for strike action again, extremely sad, because I was hoping that during the three years all bodies would get together and find some solution as to which machinery should go forward for the next 20 or 30 years. What we are doing is trying to get the Government to say that they will make every effort that they possibly can to get this machinery working during this breathing space. I hope most sincerely—and I am speaking most sincerely when I say this—that confrontation does not
878
continue and that we have this period of peace so that we can get down to the details.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, noble Lords opposite have made some play with what they describe as the distinction between the intentions of the amendment and the effects of the amendment. I have listened carefully to all they have said and I accept that there ought not be a lack of congruity between intentions and effects. But I wonder whether they have not misread the amendment. These are proposals made by the Secretary of State and all that is required is that they should involve,
"determination of these matters in a manner agreed in negotiation between teachers and their employers."
They do not say what else may be in the proposals of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State would be very foolish if he brought forward proposals involving negotiation which could not stand up in court and which a learned judge would not be able to interpret clearly, if I may refer to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. He would be very foolish if he made proposals which allowed for negotiations but did not allow any role for the Secretary of State. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was saying that it is not possible to devise a machinery which does not provide both for negotiations between teachers and employers and for a role for the Secretary of State.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as the noble Lord referred to me, may I ask him to look at his own amendment and see that it specifically and definitely provides for,
"promoting determination of these matters in a manner agreed in negotiation between teachers and their employers?"
Where is the Secretary of State? If this amendment is accepted the Secretary of State is being ordered to introduce such a provison.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall be glad to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, if I may first deal with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carptenter. It is not our intention in this amendment to spell out every detail of the negotiating machinery. We would not be thanked by the House if we tried to do that again. We have been through that hoop and I suggest to your Lordships that it would be inappropriate to do it now. It is possible to combine the negotiations required by this amendment with a proper role for the Secretary of State, and if that is the case there is no reason on those grounds to oppose this amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the problem the noble Lord will not face is that in this amendment there is the mandatory "shall". That is a mandatory duty imposed upon a Secretary of State. The noble Lord must face up to it. It is not a legal trick. It is on the face of his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no difficulty in facing up to it. The word was chosen deliberately. It is our intention to secure by this amendment that there shall be no long-term solution

879
to the determination of pay and conditions of teachers which shall not involve negotiation between teachers and their employers. That is absolutely fundamental.
It is possible to give the Government the benefit of the doubt in some of the past discussions. It is possible to say, as men of good will might have said in the time of Lenin, "Right, we have to have dictatorship now in order that democracy and socialism shall come at some time in the future". It would be possible to give them the benefit of the doubt and think that this is only a Leninist Bill. What we have now is a Stalinist Bill. We have a Bill which is quite clearly saying—and this is the only interpretion of the Government's response to this amendment—not only will there be no negotiating rights now but the Government will not even give a glimmer of an indication that we may return to negotiating rights when this Bill expires. That is the fundamental point and that is why we must pursue this amendment.
4.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 148.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Amherst, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Attlee, E.

Lawrence, L.

Aylestone, L.

Leatherland, L.

Banks, L.

Listowel, E.

Beswick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Birk, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Birmingham, Bp.

Lockwood, B.

Blyton, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Briginshaw, L.

McNair, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Brockway, L.

Manchester, D.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mayhew, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Milford, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Mulley, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Denington, B.

Ogmore, L.

Diamond, L.

Phillips, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Ennals, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ezra, L.

Rochester, L.

Fitt, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Seebohm, L.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Grimond, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Hampton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hayter, L.

Tordoff, L.

Henniker, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kennet, L.

White, B.

880

Williams of Elvel, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Killeam, L.

Aldington, L.

Kimball, L.

Allerton, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Ampthill, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Atholl, D.

Lane-Fox, B.

Auckland, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Layton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long, V.

Beloff, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Bessborough, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blyth, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Margadale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Butterworth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Mersey, V.

Byron, L.

Molson, L.

Caithness, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Morris, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Munster, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnock, L.

Newall, L.

Cathcart, E.

Norrie, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Northbourne, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cottesloe, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Cowley, E.

Orkney, E.

Craigavon, V.

Pender, L.

Cross, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Darnley, E.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Porritt, L.

De Freyne, L.

Portland, D.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Quinton, L.

Denning, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Derwent, L.

Rollo, L.

Donegall, M.

Romney, E.

Dormer, L.

St. Davids, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Dundee, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ebbisham, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Sandford, L.

Effingham, E.

Selborne, E.

Elibank, E.

Selkirk, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Shannon, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elton, L.

Somers, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Strange, B.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Faithfull, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Ferrier, L.

Fortescue, E.

Strathspey, L.

Fortescue, E.

Swansea, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Swinton, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Teviot, L.

Gormanston, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Teynham, L.

Gridley, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hanson, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vivian, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hood, V.

Westbury, L.

Hooper, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Windlesham, L.

Ironside, L.

Young, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Kearton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.16 p.m.
In the Title:
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 7:
Line 2, leave out ("temporary").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move, in the Title, line 2, to leave out the word "temporary". In a sense, this is a consequential amendment in that it is consequential upon the decision of the House on Report not to set a three-year or indeed any time limit to the duration of the Act. I should explain that I fully intended to offer the House alternative time limits on Third Reading—namely, three years plus one, or three years plus perhaps two—which would have given the time limit of the lifetime of a Parliament. However, by what I shall politely call force majeure I was persuaded otherwise on the ground (which I most emphatically do not agree with) that by doing so I would be reopening an issue which had already been decided at another stage of the Bill.
The issue decided on Report was whether or not the Bill should expire in three years from the date of the passing of the Act. That is not at all the same issue as the proposal that the Bill should last until 31st March 1990 and then be subject to a single year's extension or to two years' extension. All of those amendments could well have been moved on Report and voted upon. However, they were not and therefore I am perfectly free to raise this issue on Third Reading.
I do not propose to argue this issue at any length because I withdrew those amendments on Third Reading on the grounds that we do not waste time on procedural matters on the Floor of the House. However, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is a member of the group which the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has asked to advise him on procedure and I hope that he will invite the group to consider whether such a restrictive interpretation of the conventions on Third Reading amendments is really in the best interests of the House or of the statute book.
I am afraid that the necessity to move this amendment merely proves that point because the two principal purposes of the amendment are two of the three principal reasons for moving amendments on Third Reading. The reasons are, and I quote from the Companion:
"to clarify any remaining uncertainties, to improve the drafting".
The remaining uncertainty in this Bill is due to the conflict between the words "temporary provision" in the Long Title and the indefinite provisions of Clause 6 as to the duration of the Act. As the Government have refused to limit the duration to three years and have effectively denied the opportunity to propose alternative limits on Third Reading, the only way to clarify the uncertainty is to leave out the word "temporary" in the Long Title.
I do not wish to go into any further detail because it seems to be absolutely obvious that what I am doing is logically correct. I do not believe that any self-respecting draftsman could willingly make provision for an Act to be expressed in the Long Title to be temporary when he knows that in the duration provision there is no time limit to the duration of the Act. This is an amendment both for clarification and
882
to improve the drafting of the Bill. For those two reasons, I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I think that the Bill is a con job because we have "temporary" in the Title and "interim" for the advisory committee and yet there is no time limit for either of them. The Bill does not say temporary before what or interim between what and what. It shows the facade of the temporary nature of the Act, which has no restraints on its duration. It is only the process of renewal that stands in the way of its going on for ever. In those circumstances it may be temporarily to make provision, but even that is scarcely acceptable in view of the fact that it may be almost permanently to make provision in respect of the remuneration of teachers.
I think that the Government have to make up their minds what they are about, and before the Bill finally passes this afternoon I hope to ask quite a few questions about what the Government's intentions really are.
Lord Monson: My Lords, in general terms I support the Bill. Nonetheless, my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton is surely right in asserting that the Title of the Bill is misleading as to its content, given that all amendments designed to limit the duration of the Bill have been unsuccessful. This seems to me to be wrong. Therefore I should certainly be prepared to follow the noble Lord into the Division Lobby if need be.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, we have to be sensible on these matters. There is no question about the meaning of the word "temporary". "Temporary" has the meaning that everybody puts upon it according to how they feel about the general matter being discussed. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is being quite pedantic on this point.
There is no doubt about what the House requires. If there was any doubt about its being an interim measure it would have been cleared by the two debates that, by his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, initiated upon it. But it does not mean that we have to ignore the practicalities. It has to be renewed, and if something has to be renewed it means that you are recognising the end of what it is renewing. I believe that if one applies reasonable interpretation to the whole of this Bill it will be seen that there is no real conflict if the debate and the meaning of words are taken into account, and there is no conflict between the word "temporary" being in the Title and the fact that it is possible for it to be renewed.
It can be renewed if the practical circumstances surrounding it at a certain period justify that being done. We should approach this in a practical manner but we also want to be verbally correct. It may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has done a service in drawing attention to the fact that it is intended to be an interim measure. The two debates that we have had on the amendments have shown that. But to waste any more time on arguing that point is in a way an abuse of the freedom that we are allowed in this House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I ask your Lordships briefly to consider whether there really is any confusion and conflict in the drafting. "Temporary" in the Long Title only serves to indicate that unless the Bill is extended under Clause 6 there is a terminal date in about three years' time. The use of this term draws the distinction between a Bill such as this which has a terminal date, albeit provisional, and the ordinary Bills with which your Lordships are accustomed which have no terminal date at all.
Surely there is no conflict between the Long Title and Clause 6; and even if there were, as a matter of legal construction that is of absolutely no consequence because one would not have regard to the Title if there were a conflict. That is settled law, a matter of construction. Furthermore, the decision of the Secretary of State under Clause 6(2) is not in any way affected by the provisions of the preamble; neither indeed are the matters before your Lordships' House and the other place for approval under Clause 6(4).
Surely the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in a sense let the cat out of the bag just now when he referred to the interim period, to the breathing space, to the longer-term solution. Surely these are the sort of terms in ordinary English which tend to mean "temporary". The justification for the Government has been made over and over again by my noble friend the Minister and the justification is that this is temporary in the sense that it is hoped to achieve a settlement. So although as a rule I defer to the expertise and helpful and valuable advice of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, on this occasion I cannot see the conflict as a matter of drafting and I cannot see the confusion. It seems to me, broadly speaking, that the use of the word is correct in plain English.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was kind enough to refer to me. He has taught me a lesson. He has taught me not to be so generous in my interpretation of the motives of government as I am naturally inclined to be. I used the words "interim", "temporary" and "breathing space" because those are the words the Government use. The Government persist in claiming that this is to be done only for a limited and fixed period of time during which the Government will somehow come to an inspired longer-term solution for settling the pay and conditions of teachers.
The vote on the previous amendment has made it clear that the Government have no such intention. The Government intend the denial of negotiating rights not only for a three-year period but for longer if they can get away with it. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, is making—and I do not expect him to subscribe to my views on this matter—is that the conflict now is between the wording of the Title and the wording of the Bill. The Bill is able to go on forever if the Government so wish it. But the Title still says that it is temporary. That is a contradiction which ought not to be allowed to survive on the face of the Bill. I support the amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, does less than justice to the powers of your Lordships' House. Clause 6 provides that the Bill, when it is an Act, shall be extinguished in
884
1990 unless the Secretary of State is given a particular power. That power cannot be given without your Lordships according it to him.
Your Lordships have heard the Secretary of State's undertakings elsewhere, and in this Chamber through the mouth of my noble friend, as to the temporary intentions. Your Lordships are in a position, as you have proved over 100 times since this Government came into power, to overturn the intentions of the Government if you do not think that they are consistent with proper policy or previous undertakings. Your Lordships intend that it shall be a temporary measure and that is why it is so called in the Long Title.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, bases this amendment on two premises. The first is that the Bill, as drafted, creates uncertainty. I was a little surprised at that because the noble Lord may remember that in Committee he moved an amendment to insert the word "temporary" into the Short Title of the Bill. Now he wants to take the same word out of the Long Title.
The Government would be very reluctant to delete the word "temporary" from the Long Title. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls was absolutely right in his intervention when he emphasised the interim nature of the provisions of this Bill. We have been very willing to agree to the inclusion of that word "interim" in the title of the advisory body to show that we mean what we say. We have also readily agreed to any extension of the Bill to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Certainly, there is common concern that permanent arrangements should be in place for 1990. I say that in order to correct any impression that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may have given during his remarks. However, such have been the disagreements over recent years that it would be folly to rule out the possibility of the provisions in this Bill being extended beyond 1990 if the absence of agreement on permanent machinery necessitates an extension of the interim arrangements.
The second ground on which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, based the case for this amendment is that no self-respecting draftsman would draft a Bill in this way. However, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has very shrewdly analysed the effect of Clause 6. My advice is that my noble friend, as usual, is right. It is by no means unprecedented for a Bill described as a temporary enactment to have a fixed terminal date but to include provisions whereby its duration may be continued, provided the Government bring forward the necessary orders and they are approved by Parliament.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, may I ask one question about which the Minister has received ample notice because I raised it on Report? Is it well precedented for a Bill to be expressed as temporary in the Long Title and to have an indefinite prolongation of its life as a possibillity in the duration clause? Of course, I know that it has happened—not often, and rarely in time of peace—that a Bill has been expressed to last for the duration of an emergency and then to be extended by a year or two by affirmative resolution.

885
But has it been the case that a Bill expressed to be temporary in the Long Title has been allowed to be continued indefinitely in the duration clause?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the answer is that the precedents I have, and there are several of them, show that the expression "temporary" has appeared generally in the Short Title of Bills. Is the noble Lord saying that it should not be in the Long Title because, generally, precedents have been in the Short Title and those Bills, being of a temporary nature, have no fixed final date? If the noble Lord is saying that there is a crucial distinction between having the word in the Long Title and having it in the Short Title, all I can say is that my advice is to the contrary.
My advice is also to the contrary as to the effect of this amendment. I say that because this is a Bill which, in Clause 6, provides for its own expiry. It establishes an advisory committee which is described as interim. I suggest that to leave the word "temporary" out of the Long Title—and it would therefore be left out completely because it is not in the Short Title—would be inconsistent with the obvious intentions of the Bill.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I think I have discovered from what the noble Lord the Minister has just said that there is, in fact, no precedent for a temporary provisions Bill to have an indefinite duration in its duration clause.
Lord Belstead: With respect, that is not what I said.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Perhaps my hearing was impaired because I thought I heard the Minister say that temporary provisions Bills have contained the word "temporary" in the Short Title but not in the Long Title. I do not think he answered my question, the implication of which was that no Bill which had the word "temporary" in the Short Title or the Long Title has, so far as I know, contained indefinite provisions in its duration clause. If the noble Lord wishes to give me a precedent for this Bill in that sense, I will gladly give way.
I gave notice of this question to the noble Lord the Minister when I spoke on Report. If he has not found a precedent since then, I suggest that it is highly undesirable that this new precedent should be created by a moderate government as I am sure the Government would like to describe themselves. If a moderate government, which is a Conservative Government, put wording into a Bill of this sort which purports to be temporary and they then give an indefinite length of time for its duration, I suggest that they are holding a hostage to fortune. If an extreme government came to Parliament and said they were making temporary provisions to abrogate certain rights of one sort or another which they found convenient and in the duration clause they put an indefinite time limit—in fact, no time limit at all, but annual renewal—what would be the reaction of the Conservative Party in opposition? There would be uproar. The fact is that this is being done by a Conservative Government when there is no precedent for it.
I said on Report, and I repeat now, that this goes against the spirit of Standing Order No. 62 in the
886
House of Commons which states that the precise duration of every temporary law or enactment shall be expressed in a distinct clause or subsection of the Bill. I repeat that because the implication of that Standing Order is that a temporary law or enactment has a precise duration, but this Bill does not have a precise duration.
I am sure that it is within the knowledge of every schoolboy that "temporary" and "permanent" are exact opposites. According to the dictionary the word "permanent" means lasting indefinitely, as opposed to temporary. I submit that we ought to have the goodness to put this right in an Act of Parliament. We have a duty to ensure that parliamentary language in a Bill is exact. We should not commit a parliamentary solecism such as this. For those very good reasons the House should agree to this amendment.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps the House will allow me to intervene once more. I am not sure that I have made myself clear to the noble Lord. There are plenty of precedents for Acts which are described as being temporary in the Short Title and having a fixed terminal date, as this Bill has, but including provisions whereby the duration may be continued provided the government bring forward the necessary orders and obtain the approval of Parliament. The only point of disagreement between the noble Lord and the Government is whether the word "temporary" appears in the Long Title or the Short Title. The noble Lord seeks to solve that argument by extracting the word "temporary". That is not acceptable to the Government.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I do not think that that is the argument between us. The noble Lord has repeated the fact that there have been Bills with the word "temporary" in the Long Title or the Short Title. That does not seem to me to matter. I think it should be in both, but let us leave that point there.
Those Bills have also contained provision for the Act to be extended, perhaps annually, beyond the term of three years or whatever the original term is. I am saying that those Bills have had a fixed term. That is the question which the noble Lord has not answered. He says that there are plenty of precedents. I agree that there are precedents for a fixed-term Bill to be extended for one, two, three or four Sessions, but not indefinitely. That is the sole point at issue, not the completely artificial point as between the Long Title or the Short Title which the noble Lord has raised.
It is because the Bill sets a precedent which I think is highly undesirable and dangerous that I would ask the House to agree with me.
4.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 151.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Aylestone, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Bancroft, L.

Amherst, E.

Banks, L.

Attlee, E.

Beswick, L.

887

Birk, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blyton, L.

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Briginshaw, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brockway, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Manchester, D.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Milford, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Craigavon, V.

Monson, L.

David, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Mulley, L.

Denington, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Diamond, L.

Nicol, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ogmore, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Ennals, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ezra, L.

Porritt, L.

Fitt, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Fletcher, L.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Seebohm, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Serota, B.

Grimond, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hampton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hanworth, V.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stallard, L.

Hayter, L.

Stedman, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L. [Teller.]

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hooson, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jeger, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Underhill, L.

Kennet, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Kilbracken, L.

White, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lawrence, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Leatherland, L.

Listowel, E.

Winstanley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Cowley, E.

Aldington, L.

Cross, V.

Allerton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Arran, E.

Darnley, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Atholl, D.

De Freyne, L.

Auckland, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Beaverbrook, L.

Denning, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Derwent, L.

Beloff, L.

Donegall, M.

Belstead, L.

Dormer, L.

Bessborough, E.

Dundee, E.

Boardman, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elibank, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Butterworth, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Elton, L.

Byron, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Caithness, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Faithfull, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ferrier, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Fortescue, E.

Carnock, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Cathcart, E.

Gainford, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Geddes, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gormanston, V.

Cornwallis, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Gridley, L.

888

Hailsham of Saint

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Marylebone, L.

Orkney, E.

Hanson, L.

Pender, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Henley, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hesketh, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Hives, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Portland, D.

Hood, V.

Quinton, L.

Hooper, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Renwick, L.

Ironside, L.

Rollo, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Romney, E.

Kearton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Killearn, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Kimball, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Kinloss, Ly.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Sandford, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Selborne, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Selkirk, E.

Layton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Long, V.

Somers, L.

Lyell, L.

Strange, B.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Strathcarron, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Strathspey, L.

Margadale, L.

Swansea, L.

Marley, L.

Swinton, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Terrington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Teviot, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Teynham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Mersey, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Molson, L.

Trenchard, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Morris, L.

Vivian, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Munster, E.

Westbury, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Newall, L.

Windlesham, L.

Norfolk, D.

Wolfson, L.

Northbourne, L.

Young, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton had given notice of his intention to move as an amendment to the Motion, That the Bill do now pass, at end insert ("but this House regrets that while the Long Title is expressed to make temporary provision", Clause 6 contains provisions for the Act to be continued after 31st March 1990 for a further year indefinitely").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I fully intended to ask the House to divide on this Motion. Of course it does not have the effect of killing the Bill, but it is a way of expressing on the Order Paper a view that one is thoroughly discontented with the role which the Government have played in this House on this important subject.
It is a very important subject because temporary provisions Bills should be embarked upon only in emergencies, and then they should be heavily circumscribed. In this case I regret to say that the

889
historically approved circumscription of temporary provisions Bills have not been carried through into this particular Bill.
This has had the most unfortunate effect of aggravating the discontent which has already been only too manifest in the teaching profession. I believe that if the Government could only have had the generosity to give that inch they would have gained an ell. In parliamentary terms, it is a monstrosity for an emergency provisions Bill to have no finite date. Of course it is an emergency provisions Bill in that it has written into it a three-year expiry date. However, beyond that the Bill can be infinitely extended. It is this precedent which I find so unattractive. I find it particularly unattractive coming from the Conservative Party, which prides itself on its respect for parliamentary traditions and the constitution.
I shall say no more about the matter except that I have made my view clear. Very nearly 100 Members of the House have made their views clear that this is a practice which is deprecated and ought not to be followed. The fact that it is unprecedented ought to make the Conservative Party and its members who follow it in this House ashamed. I propose not to move my amendment in view of the overwhelming vote which has already been recorded against my amendment to leave out the word "temporary".
Having said that, I do not propose to move my amendment.
[Amendment to the Motion not moved.]
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, that brings us back to the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. Regarding that matter, I should like to ask my noble friend a question which, as I understand it, has already been ventilated at the other end of the corridor. It has been mentioned several times today that two of the teachers' unions—predictably the two which are affiliated to the TUC—have announced that they proposed to ballot their members on the question whether or not to organise disruption or some form of strike action. The point has been raised at the other end of the corridor—and I do not think it should be passed sub silentio—as to what the Governments' attitude is towards the whole of the very generous deal which they have done with the teachers if that action is authorised by their membership and disruption is continued.
As your Lordships will recall, very substantial pay increases are part of the current deal. It would be interesting to know whether or not, like some of us, the Government regard the package as a whole, including the provisions for co-operation and for carrying out the duties which decent teachers have done without any agreement for a great many years. This of course immediately raises the very important question as to whether, if this disruption takes place, the substantial pay increases due to take effect from 1st January and 1st October this year will or can be put into effect. I think that it is only fair to the members of the teaching profession to let them know exactly what the effect of their ballot may be before they vote on the these matters.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, the ballot is already in progress and the closing date for the receipt
890
of ballot papers is next week. Therefore we are asked to pass the Bill in very grave circumstances indeed. It will require all the skill and understanding of the Government and the Secretary of State to avoid the Bill being a prescription for more trouble. Along with other people I should deplore that because we all want to see something more constructive and acceptable to all concerned coming out of this situation than recent arrangements have shown.
This is the third time that a dispute over the pay of the teaching profession has been resolved by an Act of Parliament. The first occasion was in 1963 under a Conservative Government. On that occasion, after the Government and the Burnham Committee failed to reach agreement Parliament decided that the Government should resolve the dispute, and the pay fixed under that Act was for two years. Then in 1965, under a Labour Government, fresh difficulties arose. An Act of Parliament then fixed the pay for that year but strengthened the representation of the Secretary of State on the management side of the Burnham Committee. That was intended to give the Secretary of State a direct voice in the proceedings of the Burnham Committee. An understanding reached with the management side and the local authorities at the time gave the Secretary of State a weighted vote on the employers' panel.
Here we are doing far more than that. We are fixing the pay for this year and for such future occasions as may be necessary to be fixed by the Secretary of State under the provisions of this Bill. The difficulties which have arisen so far have not been between the unions and the Government and have not been between the unions and their so-called employers. They have been between the Burnham Committee as a whole and the Government. There have been agreed schemes on the Burnham Committee which the Secretary of State has been unable to accept.
Under the original Burnham conditions written into the 1944 Act, the Secretary of State was excluded from Burnham deliberations. He sat in the corridor to await the outcome of the deliberations of the Burnham Committee and he was then empowered by the 1944 Act to accept or reject the agreement that may have been reached. There were numerous occasions on which difficulties arose between the Government and the Burnham Committee. They erupted on the two previous occasions I have mentioned and they were resolved by an Act of Parliament. Here we are for the third time.
What then of the future? I rang the office of the Secretary of State this morning to say that I thought that as this was the last opportunity for the Government to state their immediate intentions it would be useful to have a statement on behalf of the Government as to what they propose to do immediately the Bill is passed. Clearly the first thing that the Secretary of State must do is settle the pay. That has now been pending for weeks. The arrears of pay are already accumulating and the teachers and public are awaiting the pronouncement of the Secretary of State on the dispute over pay.
The Bill requires the Secretary of State, before doing that, to consult with the teachers' organisations, with the local authority organisations and others who may be concerned. I think we are all entitled to ask when

891
those consultations will begin. By consultations I do not mean that they will appear before the Secretary of State to be told what he is proposing to do, unless at the same time he is willing to listen to their observations on what it is he has in mind to do. These are not pronouncements to be made by a dictator to subjects. Consultation implies exchanges, hearing views and revealing one's mind and coming to terms with each other. There must be some connection in the thinking on both sides in order that an agreement can be reached informally, even though the authority to implement the agreement rests with the Secretary of State.
Another matter we wish to know about is whether or not the contracts of service of the teachng profession are to be amended without the teachers' consent. I stress this point because, under the Bill, between now and next October the Secretary of State has no obligation to consult his advisory committee. He is on his own until October and can do as he thinks fit. He has to lay an order before both Houses concerning what he does, but he is not required to come to an agreement with a body beforehand. It will be a very grave matter if the Minister, on his own responsibility and without the advice of the advisory committee, is going to change the terms and conditions of service of teachers between now and October. He may wish to do this in order to link conditions of service with pay. This is the dilemma that the Secretary of State will have. He must proceed with great care.
If the conditions and contract of service of teachers are to be changed, is this going to be done under the authority of an Act of Parliament? If so, what are the consequences of the teachers refusing to accept them? Will it require the formality of determining the existing contracts before they are replaced by others? There are important technical questions of legality and form which have to be considered in this connection. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will be able to offer some reassurance to the House, which has had much uneasiness about this Bill, that the Secretary of State will proceed to use his new powers quickly, with great understanding and all the time with the aim of avoiding the precipitation of fresh trouble with the teaching profession. That is an important matter.
I should like to conclude by saying that the period between now and next October will be the crucial period. The disruption which is being voted upon is disruption at the passing of the Bill, which is always a futile form of protest. When an Act of Parliament has been passed the obligation rests upon all citizens to observe it. In observing the fact that the Bill has been passed, the teachers will want to know what use is going to be made of it and how far their interests are going to be taken into account in the exercise of ministerial powers. It is not a happy moment for any of us and it is difficult to predict what mood the teachers will be in. But there is no doubt that they feel that they are being downgraded the whole time.
In my long experience no section of the public service has ever had to submit indefinitely to the rule of the Secretary of State or any government regarding the machinery for discussing its conditions of service. The formulation of fresh statutory machinery is not a necessary condition of bringing this Act to an end. On
892
balance, it is better that the machinery for negotiation of industrial relations is not made in detail statutory. There should be plenty of room left for flexibility and adjustment.
The Civil Service national Whitley Council has lasted since 1919. Nothing was written in any statute law about it. This show that given the conditions under which two sides understand their respective obligations and when they are unhampered by the bureaucracy of a Act of Parliament they can usually solve thier own affairs. It may be that in the end it will be possible to do this by a voluntary rather than a statutory system.
I conclude on a note which I have mentioned before; namely, there will be no peace, no satisfaction and no machinery which will succeed unless the management side is concentrated and the authority of the management side is established. Managers must have the authority to reach agreement with their employees; otherwise difficulties are bound to occur. How is it possible to negotiate with employers who are not employers, or with the Secretary of State who is the boss but is not an employer? How is it possible to reach agreement with the Secretary of State who is in the offing all the time to disrupt the negotiations which have taken place up to that point? The Government must setttle how the management side is going to operate as a coherent party to the negotiations. The teachers can then sort themselves out and get the necessary cohesion and authority on their side. Then and only then shall we have negotiating machinery which will succeed.
That is the message, if I may say so, that has to go to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and members of the Government. I sincerely hope that we can overcome these difficulties and reach some accord long before the end of three years. A period of three years gives the impression, especially with the facilities for an extension, that somebody is going to dawdle or be difficult. We do not want dawdle or difficulty to be put in the way of reaching agreement on this matter. It may require fundamental change in the attitude of the Government towards the education service and the position of teachers within the public service. All options are open so long as we can get conditions under which teachers can feel they can help to negotiate their terms of employment with recourse to suitable arbitrament if negotiations fail and can be placed in that regard on a par with the rest of the Civil Service.
Lord Elton: My Lords, somebody who is not sitting on the Front Bench on this side of the House has to remind your Lordships that the reason we have this Bill is that the existing machinery for delivering salaries to teachers had broken down completely. This occurred before a committee set up nearly six years ago to replace it with other machinery had produced an alternative. A Bill is essential if the teachers are to get any of the money now due to them in the way of increases at all. There is no question of not passing this Bill. Nor is it a question, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that there was a firm or lasting agreement between the employers and the teachers. My noble friend Lord Belstead shall correct me if I am wrong, but I think it was fewer than

893
three weeks that that agreement lasted and it was abrogated. Therefore, there was no way forward for the Government except to introduce a Bill. That Bill contains a clause limiting its life to three years unless your Lordships accord to the Government the power to extend it. Whatever has been said, it is a temporary measure, and your Lordships are in a position to see that it is—and so is another place.
The final point which needs to be made from this side of the House is that it is not a Bill against the teachers as is repeatedly represented from the other side of the Floor. It is a Bill to enable them to have an opportunity to work out a fair system for deciding within what the Government says is possible, how the money should be paid; and to agree with the Government and their employers what the proper structures should be for a forward-looking and flexible profession. As an ex-teacher, as an ex-teacher of teachers, and as an ex-Minister responsible in some part for education in these islands, I say this. The profession are doing themselves immense harm if they still allow a minority to threaten to take it out of the children in the pursuit of what they see as a quicker method. I beg them not to do so.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I share the lack of enthusiasm of my noble friend Lord Houghton for short strikes of this nature. I do not believe that they achieve very much. Having said that, none of us can be surprised if teachers take the only means left open to them of expressing their concern and their anger at being deprived of basic rights.
Noble Lords opposite are second only to myself in commending workers in eastern European countries who protest against the abrogation of their basic rights. I hope that they will join me in recognising that it is not a mark of British citizenship to submit, without even a whimper, to what they regard as unfair and unreasonable acts by the Government, tempered by not a jot of a concession to the concern so widely expressed not only here but elsewhere about the feelings of the teachers themselves.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I want to raise one specific point with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, of which I have given his office notice. It is the interpretation to be put on the new Clause 4 moved, as the noble Lord will recall, at the Committee stage by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I supported the noble Baroness on that occasion. I have had a number of letters, as probably have other noble Lords, from the various teacher associations in further education—because this is the clause which refers to further education—in which they express considerable doubt as to how they will stand under the clause as it is now written into the Bill.
The Association of Polytechnic Teachers is of course happy that it is now to be involved in the negotiations after the winding-up of the Burnham machinery, but the Association of the Principals of Colleges is worried about further fragmentation in negotiations, while the Professional Association of Teachers is deeply concerned because it believes that there is no guarantee, in the clause as written, that it will be involved at all. That, I am bound to say, is my interpretation of the debate that we had on this subject
894
at the Committee stage on the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 54, as it then was.
The Question that the Bill do now pass is a time at which any outstanding matters of doubt should be clarified so that we know where we stand when the Bill becomes law. I should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, if he would give the Government's view of how this clause is to be interpreted; exactly who is going to be involved; and when the new arrangements are likely to be in place. That would be of great assistance to all parties who are likely to be concerned under that clause.
Finally, it is unfortunate to have to say goodbye to a Bill with the Cassandra warnings of what is likely to happen. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has already expressed doubts and fears which I am bound to say are largely shared on these Benches. We very much regret that the Government are not able to see their way to accepting our constructive proposals for the next framework to fill the vacuum left by this Bill. Your Lordships will recall that we said at the time that our proposals had received a great deal of support in the outside world. Those who offered support included a number of the more responsible education interests and parents through the National Federation of Parent Teacher Associations.
It is clear that there was, and remains, great anxiety in the country as to how this Bill is going to work in practice. If the Government had accepted the need for a framework—if you like, an interim framework—to fill the vacuum, there would have been a great deal more chance of the teaching professions implementing the conditions which have been so painstakingly agreed and on which there was such a remarkable convergence between the teachers and the local authority associations on the one hand and the Government view on the other.
Obviously, we shall have to see how this works out in practice. I reiterate what has been said on a number of amendments. It is vital that we have something proper and respectable in place again before 1990, which is the expiry date on the face of the Bill.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall have something to say about the intransigence and authoritarianism of the Government in bringing forward and promoting this Bill, but it would be wrong for me not to preface my remarks with a tribute to the unfailing courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in their presentation of the case, however defective that case may have been. It would also be wrong to deal with the issues in the Bill without making reference to the ballots taking place in the major teacher unions. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter has expressed the hope that the Government might take these ballots and possible strikes into account when considering what to do about the current pay round. I hope that they will not. In my view—and here I echo the views of my noble friend Lord Murray—the actions of the teachers in this matter (which I do not support) are the actions of those who are desperate to make their voices heard.
I have written personally to the general secretaries of the two major teaching unions. While not wishing in

895
any way to intervene in the control and running of their own unions—it would be quite wrong for me to do so—I have expressed the view that it is unhelpful, while a Bill is going through Parliament, for them to take action of this kind. But I well understand the reasons why they are doing it, and I understand the desperation in their hearts as they go to this next step. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, ought to know that it is not just the two major unions but the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association which is also going to ballot on the same issues.
These teachers are not Left-wing zealots. Many of these teachers are strong supporters of the Government. They are certainly not in any way radicals or revolutionaries. These letters come to us from all parts of the country and from Conservative seats as much as from, if not more so, Labour seats. They express the view that Parliament is perpetrating an outrage on their rights. That, in my view, is the fundamental issue which has been before us during discussion on this Bill.
Whatever interpretation we may make of the progress of negotiations over the past year, since perhaps May 1986 when disruption in our schools actually came to an end, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton. However, I think it would be fruitless to go through all the detail again. Whatever interpretation we choose to put on those negotiations, at the end of the day there was an agreement on teachers' conditions of service; there was an agreement on the structure of a pay settlement; and there was agreement, to within a reasonable amount of money which could easily have been adjusted by changing the starting dates, on the total budget.
It has been the intervention of the Government which has prevented that agreement ever since the Secretary of State's statement on 30th October last. It has been the progress of this Bill which has made it more and more difficult for the self-respecting teachers of this country and their employers to come to a rational conclusion about what should be the solution.
We have tried every means in the book at every stage, within the limits of order and propriety in this House, to say again and again that, in the short term, and in the long term, there must be a machinery for negotiating pay and conditions which involves negotiations between teachers and their employers. I do not apologise for saying that again because it is the most fundamental point before the House. I cannot say that we have had success of any significance in putting that view over to the noble Lords opposite, but I believe not only that the country has come to recognise that this point is just, but that the experience of the next few months and years will prove that we were right in our opposition to this Bill.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, although some of the issues in this Bill have been hard fought, there has been agreement on several issues. There is agreement that the existing Burnham machinery must be brought to an end, that pay and conditions must be considered together and that the Secretary of State has an important role in the pay determination process. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Elton for reminding us that we need to recognise that after a long period of
896
discord and disruption, something had to be done. We have differed in this House on the interim arrangements reached in the Bill; but we shall all watch with care how the Bill operates and we shall all hope that after a breathing space and experience of the advisory committee approach, permanent machinery can be agreed for the future.
The noble Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, both asked me, in somewhat different ways, what happens next. When this Bill receives Royal Assent, my right honourable friend will be empowered to consult on the basis of draft orders, and following that consultation to make orders dealing with pay and conditions of employment. The time taken will depend on such factors as the date of Royal Assent and the length of time that consultation takes. But my right honourable friend will proceed to consultation on draft orders very quickly after Royal Assent. In addition, the time taken by different local education authorities to implement pay increases may vary.
Noble Lords specifically raised the question of conditions of employment. So far as concerns these, the Secretary of State has made clear that the ACAS proposals on teachers' duties and hours of work represent useful progress. Orders on which consultation will take place after Royal Assent will cover both pay and conditions of employment and this must be right as Members of your Lordships' House on all sides have agreed that pay and conditions of service should be considered together. Linking a definition of duties to a substantial pay increase should not, I suggest, cause any difficulties.
Local authorities have been saying for years that a contract containing a clear definition of teachers' duties would be an important step forward; but teachers who do not carry out their duties will not be entitled to any money at all for the time that they are on strike. I express the hope that teachers will accept the explicit writing into their contracts of responsibilities, which the great majority carry out anyway. Industrial action is certainly unjustified.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked me one question about Clause 4. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I do not think at this stage I can go into the details of a clause that we have traversed three or four times, except to say that we are indebted to my noble friends Lady Cox and Lord Beloff for Clause 4 being in the Bill, which preserves the rights of those unions that now have a place on the Burnham further education committee. It means that any future arrangements for national negotiations for pay and conditions of service for further education teachers must afford those unions a reasonable opportunity of participating in the process.
That leaves me with the dog which did not bark: the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, which is on the Order Paper and to which the noble Lord spoke, but does not intend to move. With great respect, I wonder whether at this stage of the Bill the noble Lord was taking the right point. A number of Acts that are on the statute book provide that the Act, or its substantive provisions, will expire on a stated date. Such Acts frequently include a provision, such as that to be found in Clause 6 of this Bill, which permits that date to be extended by order if Parliament

897
approves without limit of time. Such Acts are often called temporary provision Acts and they tend to be enacted to deal with particular difficulties, although that is not always the case. For once, because it is very rare, not only do I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, but surely the key issue that we have to address at this last moment on this short but difficult Bill is whether the Bill represents the right approach to the problems of teachers' pay. I put it to your Lordships that with the encouragement of a major pay increase and the discipline which this Bill provides of a breathing space during which much thinking has to take place, my right honourable friend has found that to be the only practicable way forward.
With the news last week that the two biggest teachers' unions are again advocating strike action, I believe that all who are concerned for our schools, particularly parents of children whose education would again be imperilled, will support the need for the breathing space that the Bill provides and will feel strongly that the time has now come when the local authority employers and the teachers' unions need to show a willingness to think carefully and radically about the pay determination process for the future. It will be a willingness to seek new pay machinery which eventually will bring the need for this Bill to an end. The impending balance for yet more industrial action by teachers underlines the need for the breathing space which the Bill provides and I therefore have no hesitation in commending the Motion that the Bill do now pass.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Channel Tunnel Bill
5.26 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Channel Tunnel Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, as far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
We have waited a long time for this debate. By "a long time" I do not just mean the 10 months since the present Channel Tunnel Bill was introduced in another place, I mean 12 years, because in January 1975 a similar tunnel scheme to the one we shall consider today was abandoned just at the point when an earlier Channel Tunnel Bill was about to come before your Lordships' House.
There are many similarities between the present scheme and the one which was proposed and on which work started in the 1970s. There are also some similarities between the earlier Bill and the measure I bring before you today. But there is one crucial difference between then and now which cannot be over-emphasised. Under Article 1 of the Anglo-French Treaty signed in February last year—in accordance with the concession agreement with the companies concluded last March, and in line with the
898
provisions of the Bill now before the House—this project will be financed wholly by the private sector with no recourse whatever to government funds or financial guarantees.
Knowing the enthusiasm which many noble Lords have for a fixed cross-Channel link, I am sure that the main elements of the projects are familiar to many Members of this House. The tunnel system will have two running tunnels for both freight and passenger trains and vehicle shuttles. The shuttle terminals will be at Cheriton near Folkestone and Frethun near Calais. There will be a separate smaller service tunnel between, and connected to, the main running tunnels. The journey through the 50 kilometre tunnel will take about 35 minutes. There will be an inland clearance depot at Ashford and, also at Ashford, an international passenger station for through trains; a London passenger terminal at Waterloo and improvements to the West London line at Kensington Olympia and at the North Pole depot near Wormwood Scrubs.
Once the present Bill receives Royal Assent the treaty will be ratified. The governments will continue to look after important matters affecting the public interest (such as safety, security and frontier matters) through an Anglo-French Inter-Governmental Commission and a safety authority, but their main task of facilitating the project will be done. It will then be for the concessionaires to finance, design, construct and operate the tunnel system unaided. The tunnel is expected to open to traffic in 1993 but the 55 year concession period will begin soon after Royal Assent when the concession agreement comes into effect.
Your Lordships will know that the project has caused some anxiety in Kent about the effect on the environment and employment. I shall return to these matters shortly. But I also want to underline the national significance of the project and explain why the Government have decided that the backers of this project should be allowed to carry it forward. Some people have suggested that the tunnel will benefit only the already prosperous South-East and will further widen the so-called North-South divide. Nothing could be further from the truth, During construction the tunnel will generate orders for £1 billion-worth of goods and services from suppliers throughout the United Kingdom. The industries to benefit in the first instance will be the construction equipment and railway equipment supplies. With one or two exceptions, these tend to be located in and around cities such as Birmingham, Newcastle, Manchester and Glasgow. It is no coincidence that the two major orders placed by the consortium for tunnelling machines and electric locomotives have gone to firms in Glasgow and Leeds. The tunnel will create about 10,000 jobs at peak during construction. Half of these will be outside Kent.
When the tunnel is operational, British industry will be able to benefit from a completely new, fast, reliable and direct rail freight service to the hinterland of Europe. This will enable industries in Scotland, Wales and the north of England to compete more effectively with their Continental counterparts. About 60 per cent. of United Kingdom trade is now with Europe, and we need this link to compete.

899
The tunnel will present British Rail with its most exciting opportunity this century. Once we are joined to the European rail network, British Rail will be able to carry much more freight for the kind of distances over which rail once again becomes competitive with road. This will reduce the number of heavy lorries which would otherwise use our roads. Properly exploited, city-centre to city-centre passenger services, from London and from regional cities, will offer a very attractive alternative to air travel.
Turning to Kent, I should like to pay tribute to the work done by my honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. David Mitchell, in his Joint Consultative Committee. In that forum, which he has chaired over the past 11 months, representatives of Kenty County, district and parish councils directly affected by the tunnel project, have had the opportunity to discuss the environmental and economic consequences of the tunnel in their area with representatives of Eurotunnel, British Rail and the Government. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale is also a member of that committee.
The planning provisions now in the Bill give the local authorities considerable powers to influence the final design of the project and to protect the environment and the amenities of Kent. In addition, these arrangements provide for the Government's advisers on environmental matters—the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council and English Heritage—to be consulted by the local planning authorities on all requests for approval of detail made by Eurotunnel during design and construction stages of the project. The authorities concerned have also given an undertaking that local groups such as CPRE will have the opportunity to contribute their local knowledge before decisions are taken, and Eurotunnel have concluded with the statutory environmental agencies and the Southern Water Authority a Memorandum of Agreement on measures to be taken to mitigate environmental damage during construction of the tunnel.
As your Lordships will know, this Bill is hybrid, which means that following Second Reading there will be an opportunity for those whose private interests are affected by the proposals to petition a Select Committee of this House. The committee will have the power to amend the Bill to protect private rights where it sees fit. That stage will be followed by the normal Committee stage when the House as a whole will examine the Bill in detail.
The purpose of this debate is quite simply to establish the principle; the principle that there should be a tunnel, provided that private finance is forthcoming; the principle that the tunnel should, in essence, be the Eurotunnel scheme; the principle that the tunnel should carry both shuttle traffic and through passenger and freight trains; the principle that there should be juxtaposed frontier controls so that passengers should enjoy "free exit" from the tunnel; the principle that there should be an international passenger station at Waterloo; and the principle that there should be an improvement of the A.20 trunk road in the form of a new road from the southerly end of the present M.20 to Court Wood by-passing the village of Capel-Le-Ferne.
900
Part I of the Bill is largely introductory, but it defines the tunnel system and includes the important provision, inserted by the Select Committee in another place, precluding the use of government funds or guarantees for the tunnel. Part II authorises the acquisition of land and the construction of the scheduled works and includes the agreed planning provisions.
Part III deals with matters such as frontier controls, jurisdiction and the application of law for this binational project. It also gives the inter-governmental commission and the safety authority the powers they need in their relations with the concessionaires. Part IV deals with the A.20 road improvement, while Part V contains a number of minor and miscellaneous provisions.
In the White Paper published just a year ago the Government said that they had high hopes of seeing the link built and of it becoming a valuable national asset, serving the interests of the nation for many years to come. The fact that the Bill has reached this House means that such hopes may soon be realised. If your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading today, the project will, in fact, be nearer to realisation than at any time during this century. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
5.35 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, perhaps I may first express thanks to the Minister for so briefly outlining the provisions of the Bill and say that it is not my intention to deal in detail with the various clauses of the Bill. First of all, they are too many and also too complex, but this is a very important debate, as the Minister has said. It has attracted some 34 speakers and three Peers who will be making their maiden speeches.
When this Bill was introduced in the other place as far back as 5th June last year, the Opposition moved what was a critical amendment—critical of the lack of government action on various issues that were involved. But the Opposition did not vote against the Third Reading.
As at Second Reading consideration is given to the general principles of a Bill, I thought that it would be useful to reread what I said in a debate on the Channel fixed link which took place in your Lordships' House on 13th December 1985—some 14 months ago, I think.
I find I can stand by everything that I said during that debate. If anybody wants to check it, it is to be found in cols. 475 to 480, but at the start of my speech I said the following:
"I want to make it absolutely clear that I have an open mind on the question of a fixed link. Personally speaking, I want to see the best solution that will ensure the maximum relationship with Europe—but that will also secure the best possible national wellbeing."
I went on to say that the proposal before the House had great implications for our transport system and for economic development, particularly regional development, and great implications for the environment. That remains my position and that is in full accord with the recently stated Labour party policy also on the Channel Tunnel.

901
We must first look at the Channel Tunnel in the context of overall transport needs. We said then, and still hold the view, that it would have been much preferable if there had been an inquiry into the possible benefits and possible disdvantages of fixed link proposals. Account has to be taken of regional economic policies. We must not overlook that there is to be massive investment both in tunnel contruction and in infrastructure. We must ensure that that is not confined to the South-East and does not disadvantage other regions.
There has been no inquiry or real public debate upon the economic and regional implications of a fixed link. It is argued by some that an inquiry would have created an impossible delay, yet we had repeated in your Lordships' House a Statement made in the other place on the initial agreement with the French Ministers, and indicating that invitations for projects had been issued. That was on 2nd April 1985. There would have been an opportunity for an inquiry to ascertain the benefits and the disadvantages of this scheme.
Should the general proposals of the Bill go ahead, then Labour will seek to ensure that the maximum benefits are derived and that damage to the environment is minimised. It has been said that the Select Committee which your Lordships will appoint will not be able to go into national and regional considerations. I have before me the advertisement which has appeared in the last few days. It is directed to:
"People directly or materially affected by the proposals contained in the Channel Tunnel Bill"
"Materially affected" seems to go far beyond pure local interest. I shall mention some of the people who may be affected. I ask the Minister to interpret exactly what is meant by "materially affected". To my mind it does not mean just those in the South-East region or in the county of Kent.
Incidentally, the debate will be wound up for the Labour Opposition by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I remind the House that he has great experience of dealing with Channel Tunnel affairs as he was a Member of the Select Committee on Transport in the other place which went into the matter of the Channel Tunnel and presented a report way back in 1981.
The Select Committee will have a most important task. Therefore, in advance, I and, I am certain, all noble Lords, would wish to thank those Members who have agreed to undertake that task. As one who was a member of the long-running Select Committee on London Docklands, I appreciate the task that they have so readily accepted. I have in mind that the Select Committee of the other place made some 70 amendments to the Bill. The Minister has reminded us that our Select Committee will have the power to make amendments to the Bill. The 70 amendments made by the other place are in Appendix 43 of its report.
When the Statement announcing the selection of the project of the Channel Tunnel Group—now called Eurotunnel—was made on 20th January last year, I asked for an assurance from the Government that the British share of construction costs will be spent on British materials and spread over as many regions as
902
practical and possible. I was disappointed with the reply of the then Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. At col. 26 of Hansard of that day, he said:
"That is something in which the Government would not seek to intervene. It is a matter for the concessionaires themselves".
I hope that noble Lords will insist that the Government intervene and bring pressure to bear to ensure that the United Kingdom receives its full share and that the work goes particularly to the areas where there is unemployment and where our important manufacturing industries have declined.
As I have said in previous debates and as the Minister has explained today, the main advantage of the proposals is that there will be a rail tunnel and in particular that it will provide for fast freight trains. Like the Minister, I believe that this will provide a great opportunity for British Rail, bearing in mind, as the noble Lord has reminded us, that 60 per cent. of our exports are to the countries of Western Europe. It will be to the benefit of manufacturers in Scotland, the North, the North-West, the Midlands and Wales.
However, we must not overlook the fact that if our exports can get into Europe 48 hours quicker, then imports coming the other way can reach us 48 hours quicker. Therefore, something must be done by our manufacturers to ensure that they can meet that situation. That is a further reason why there should have been an inquiry. It is not enough just to talk about what might be possible benefits, hopes and expectations; we need facts. A number of transhipment centres will be required—depots linked to the rail network. It would be useful to know what progress is being made in that direction. Why, at this stage, has British Rail decided to close down eight of its freightliner depots? It seems an unfortunate time to do that in the light of the possible developments.
I also recognise that the work associated with tunnel construction and infrastructure will be for only a few years. However, surely there must be a multiplier effect in respect of the regions that have the greater part of the manufacture. The Minister has referred to some orders that have been placed. British Rail has stated that some 70 per cent. of its essential manufactures for rolling stock and equipment will be north of Watford.
I should have liked an inquiry to assess the future of our ferries. I believe that there will still be a need for ferries. Frankly, we need facts. It is not sufficient to have statements by competing interests. We need facts. Ships using United Kingdom ports are required to pay light dues, whereas lighthouse services in continental countries are generally provided free of charge by the state. That matter is referred to in paragraph 177 of the Commons Select Committee report, but it goes on to state that the Government objected as the matter was an issue of public policy outside the scope of the Bill. However, Chapter 7 of that report is headed "Matters of public policy raised during the Committee's sittings", and a number of issues of public policy are listed.
What are the real facts about the possible future of our ferries? It has been argued by some that with the fixed link and express freight trains, some container ships may find it more economic go to Liverpool and the Clyde and for containers then to go by fast rail

903
service through the fixed link-tunnel instead of taking a possible extra two and a half days through to Rotterdam. I hope that may be so, but where are the sound facts to justify my optimism in that direction? I believe that there would be great concern if ferries showed a considerable decline. That would add still further to the very serious decline in our merchant fleet. Incidentally, those shipping interests who complain of a possible decline may like to take a careful look at their own policy of flagging-out which is increasing to the detriment of our merchant fleet.
The British Ports Association has expressed concern not only for the future of ports in east Kent but also further afield. During our debate in December 1985, I questioned what might be the effect on the East coast ports—not just on the ports themselves, but on the economic development that is taking place, because the ports are there and are being developed. Again, I have no sound facts. There has been no sound inquiry into the matter. An inquiry was resisted.
Chapter 5 of the Commons report concerns competition between the tunnel and the ferries. We must look very carefully at the provisions in the Bill for fair trading to ensure that there is no predatory pricing. We must keep in mind that the tunnel project will be a commercial enterprise and that the purpose of people investing in it is to make profits. We must keep that in mind when we are looking at some of the questions as regards fair trading and competition. We must look carefully at the relevant clauses. The Opposition urge that a "Channel Tunnel Office of Fair Trading" should be set up to operate within the EC competition laws.
We must not overlook the important questions of safety. That is dealt with in Chapter 7 of the Commons Select Committee report at paragraphs 217 and 219 and in Clauses 16 to 17 of the Bill. We must give the matter careful consideration. We must not minimise the great public concern about safety. The Fire Brigades Union recently held a symposium on the matter. I regret that I was unable to attend, but I have read the papers which were considered. As a member of the National Fire Service during the war and as one who held offices in the Fire Brigades Union, I can fully appreciate its case. The union raises the important question of whether it is desirable that the refusal to segregate passengers and cars should be reviewed.
I notice that the Commons Select Committee states in paragraph 218 that it was assured that the non-segregation of passengers and vehicles would be disallowed if the safety authority was not convinced that practical solutions to avoid risks had been found. Are we satisfied that practical solutions to avoid risk have been found? We know, of course, that segregation is compulsory on the ferries. I note that in the Standing Committee on the Bill in the other place an amendment to deal with segregation was defeated by only one vote: eight votes to nine. That indicates the widespread concern that exists on the issue.
The Fire Brigades Union states that Home Office fire statistics show that 23,000 car fires took place in 1973 whereas in 1983 the number had risen to well over 40,000. Safety is a very serious matter which cannot be glossed over. It is dealt with in two
904
appendices in the Commons report: one in the shape of the Railway Inspectorate memorandum in Appendix 39 and the other in Appendix 40, the memorandum by Eurotunnel itself.
The Fire Brigades Union has questioned who will operate the fire and emergency services. If the duty is to fall on the Kent County Council fire service, will there be adequate men and equipment always on call? Will there be satisfactory adjustments in the rate support grant in order to cope with what might be increased costs? Will it, instead, be the responsibility of tunnel staff! Will that be regarded as adequate and sufficient? If so, up to what standard will the training be, and who will do the training?
I think it is good that the Fire Brigades Union should be dealing with this serious issue. It is also heartening to know that the National Union of Railwaymen has always campaigned for guarantees that no new practices will be introduced on railways which put the public and their members at risk. They have made it clear that they will not deviate from that attitude as regards the Channel Tunnel.
Another important matter, for which the responsibility will fall to a great extent on our Select Committee, will be to ensure that any environmental damage is kept to the utmost minimum. Of course, we shall examine the relevant clauses when we reach our Committee stage. I recognise that, without the fixed link, ferry traffic would be certain to increase in future years, and that this would make a considerable impact in respect of the increased numbers of cars and heavy vehicles in that area. It is also clear that through-freight rail trains from various parts of the country will lessen the heavy haulage traffic on roads in various parts. Having mentioned roads, I find it somewhat inexplicable that the A20 improvements have been brought into this Bill under the hybrid procedure instead of by the normal road inquiry process.
We also have the position of the London terminus. Speaking for myself, it would appear that Waterloo is the sensible place for it, but I hope that our Select Committee will give the most careful attention to the siting of Waterloo as a London terminus and to the problems associated with it.
I have been able to deal with only a very few proposals in the Bill. Many of them will be dealt with by the Select Committee and others will be dealt with when the Bill returns to your Lordships' House. The Channel link presents opportunities for economic development and for rail, but it needs to be closely integrated with economic and regional policies. There is much public concern about the Channel Tunnel. We should not shirk our responsibilities in facing that concern. There is much concern on safety and other grounds. That must be recognised and, if possible, allayed.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I also should like to thank the Minister for being able to get through his introduction of this Bill in eight minutes. With the number of speakers and the time of night, I shall do my best to be brief; but this is an important Bill and I may take a little longer than eight minutes. I should also like to take the opportunity of saying that I look forward very much to the three maiden speeches that

905
we are going to have on this Bill—a difficult Bill, I should have thought, to be non-controversial about; but we shall see.
Let me say at the outset that from these Benches we welcome the principle of a fixed link. We have long been advocates of a Channel tunnel. In so far as our Whig ancestry goes, I think that perhaps Lord Palmerston was the first to try to start a tunnel from this side. However, I do not necessarily rely on Lord Palmerston for most of my politics. We should have preferred a rail-only tunnel and, as I shall suggest later, I think that would have given us fewer environmental problems. Certainly it would have overcome some of the problems that still remain. However, we wish to see a tunnel constructed, and we have to bat on the wicket that is provided for us.
I think that many of the problems that exist arise from the Government's insistence on making this entirely a private capital venture. From their strictly non-interventionist approach I believe there are a number of areas where they should be massaging the problems between the different participants. We do not believe that a national asset of this sort should be entirely in private hands. In spite of the efforts of the Select Committee in another place—and I must congratulate them on the work they did, because many long hours went into their deliberations and there was a lot of cross-party support for the principle of the Bill as well as a lot of cross-party criticism—there are still unresolved problems and many of them, in my view, will not be solved without government intervention.
Before I turn to the problems, let me try to make sure it is understood that the reason we wish to have this fixed link is basically to be able to move freight from the industrial heartlands of this country into the markets of Europe. It is very nice for people to be able to go on their holidays in France, but that is not really the basic purpose of this Bill. Its basic purpose is to put our industry into a competitive position with Continental industry, and the ability to put goods into a container in Manchester, Newcastle or Glasgow and ship them straight through to Paris, the Ruhr or Milan must put us in a better competitive position than we are in at the moment. When your Lordships' Select Committee was—
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, would the noble Lord permit me? On that sort of point, why does he say that they cannot already do that? You can put your containers on to a lorry; you can put your lorry on to a hovercraft; you can go from one shore to the other in a matter of 40 minutes and be on your way to anywhere you want on the Continent. I cannot see how a tunnel will improve the situation.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if the noble Lord will look at the economics he will find that when one is talking about distances over about 200 to 250 miles the economics of rail are preferable to the economics of road transport, from both a time point of view and a cost point of view. That, as I understand it, is the view of the specialists in this market, but perhaps the noble Lord knows better.
Perhaps I may also underline what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said about our ports. When our Select Committee was looking at the question of science and
906
technology in surface transport, we went to look at the container port at Hamburg—a very impressive piece of machinery. It is very well organised and highly computerised, but the message that came out of there was that they were extremely worried about losing business to Rotterdam. The reason was that they were 300 miles away and those extra 300 miles of sailing made a tremendous difference to the economics. If that is true of the distance between Rotterdam and Hamburg, how much more true is it of the distance between Liverpool, Cardiff and even Falmouth and the Continent?
Provided that we gear ourselves up properly it is possible that we can have goods put on to trains driving into central Europe before the ships have docked in Hamburg. Again, I think this is an important asset that we must try to develop. Are we prepared for these developments? I am afraid the answer is no. This is where the Government's "hands off" approach is wrong. There does not seem to be any coherent strategy. Nobody is really getting down to building up the infrastructure to deal with these developments.
As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, British Rail are at the moment closing down freight terminals. One does not blame British Rail; they have to run a commercial enterprise. In the short term it may well be in their commercial interest to close down those terminals, but somebody should be saying that in a few years' time we are going to need those terminals. It should surely be up to the Government to make sure that the finance is available for British Rail to look to the future. I do not detect that the Government are looking that way.
Again, when your Lordships' Committee was questioning the Secretary of State on 25th November —I refer to the Science and Technology Select Committee—in reply to a question dealing with this very problem Mr. Moore said:
"I think many have not realised the extraordinary opportunities to British manufacturing and industry beyond Watford because of the Channel Tunnel's improvement of the economics of freight transport."
Then he went on:
"I am expecting British Rail to be in the lead in trying to assess what that will mean for their freight business as a consequence. I regard this as a very important future which they must see through their commerical eyes in terms of their commerical opportunities at the time."
What I am saying is that it is not a question British Rail's opportunities at the time, several years ahead; it is the opportunities for the nation that we ought to be planning for now.
Similarly, there seems to be inadequate thought being put into the question of Customs clearance for freight. The Germans, I understand, have something like 240 separate Customs clearance posts inside their country. We have always looked upon Customs clearance as something that happens at the coast. We really must have a change of attitude. Again, the Government have to make sure that these clearance centres are available. There is no indication at the moment that very much thought is being put into that. Indeed, the suggestion in debates in the other place was that a throughput of the order of 1 million tonnes a year would be necessary to make one of these Customs clearance areas viable. That is simply not good

907
enough. If industry does not have the facilities to which it can take its goods, then this enterprise will not succeed.
A year ago the Town and Country Planning Association said:
"It is vital that there should be a full evaluation of the implications for Britain as a whole."
I must say that I agree with that sentiment. These factors must be used not as a roadblock to progress but to enable us to see the opportunities and to grasp them in time. They cannot be left entirely to market forces acting in an unco-ordinated way. The great investment in the South-East will be divisive if the benefits are not shared by the country as a whole. I believe that they can be shared by the country as a whole, but it is necessary for the Government to intervene.
My next concern broadly is environmental. We cannot, one realises, have a major engineering enterprise of this size without considerable impact on the community and on the environment. The first criticism that I have is that the Government were very slow to consider the views of the people of Kent. They have gone some way to repairing that damage but unfortunately a very sour taste was left among the people of Kent or Kentish people—I never know which. The Select Committee of your Lordships' House must therefore take this matter very seriously and do what it can to repair that damage and to ensure that the genuine views of genuine people from real communities are taken very carefully into consideration, even if that means doing things which are not necessarily of themselves commercially viable. This applies both in terms of the land take up at Cheriton and of the road traffic approaches to the terminal. Again, of course, if one did not have the shuttle then it would not be necessary to have that enormous land take. That is one of the reasons we on these Benches should have preferred to have a rail-only tunnel.
The Select Committee has a mammoth task and I wish it well. Every possible objection to this tunnel is going to be resurrected by all sorts of interest groups. Many of those have, in my view, been dealt with already. For instance, I feel that rabies is much more likely to be brought in on a private boat by somebody with a Chihuahua in their pocket than by foxes running the 50 kilometres between trains. I believe that the safety aspect needs to be looked at, but on the whole I am quite convinced it is possible to make this tunnel as safe as the London Underground or indeed as safe as the ferries themselves.
In regard to terrorists, I believe that there is as much danger on the ferries as there is likely to be in the tunnel, although there is just one question that worries me slightly. When we come to the Waterloo terminal, there are going to be elaborate arrangements as there are at airports, I understand, for looking at baggage and making sure that people do not have concealed weapons about their person. But I have not yet heard what similar arrangements will be made for trains going from Edinburgh, Manchester and other places outside London. I should be grateful if the Minister could give us some idea of what is proposed.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that it is inadequate to draw a parallel between terrorism in regard to single ferry boats and the Channel Tunnel, which could be a prime target of a very different order?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, with respect to the right reverend Prelate, I do not agree with him. The aim of terrorists is to cause confusion and mayhem. It is just as easy to do that on a ferry boat as it is in the Channel Tunnel. If you are talking about the strategic position of the Channel Tunnel, that is a different matter. It is a question of an enemy wishing to blow up the tunnel for whatever reason. It seems to me that a terrorist who sank a ferry boat would have as much impact on world opinion as somebody who blew up a train in a tunnel. Perhaps the right reverend Prelate disagrees.
A lot of these objections will come from vested interests which cut right across party lines. I have been interested to have representations from trade unionists. They certainly cannot be divided between the Left and the Right of the trade union movement when I get letters from the Transport and General Workers' Union and the National Union of Seamen violently against the tunnel, and from the NUR and ASLEF violently in favour of it. That does not mean to say that the objections that are raised by these people should not be taken seriously and considered, and where they are genuine should not be dealt with.
The two major environmental questions which it seems to me are still somewhat unresolved are the question of the deposition of spoil from the tunnel. It is interesting to see that our share of the spoil gets nearer and nearer to France as the weeks go by. I think it has moved about four kilometres in the direction of France. There are some things that the French will let you have free, and spoil from the tunnel apparently is one of them.
There is then the question of whether or not this spoil should be put on Shakespeare Cliff. I hope that someone in the Select Committee will advise us as to whether Shakespeare Cliff is really a national heritage or whether it is a derelict coal mine. The evidence so far seems to be contradictory and I have an awful vision of King Lear, looking rather like the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, accompanied by the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent, standing up on the Cross-Benches and talking to us about our national heritage.
Again, it is in the interests of the private investor to take the cheapest way out of this problem. The question we have to ask is: is the cheapest way out—which is to dump the spoil by extending the platform at Shakespeare Cliff—the best answer environmentally? I realise that the cost of doing anything else either by rail or by barge is either difficult or expensive, but if something other than dumping on Shakespeare Cliff has lo be done the Government must intervene.
Finally, I come to Waterloo. There has been considerable perturbation in the area of Waterloo and I am not convinced as yet that the single terminal is in the public interest. There are obvious advantages at Waterloo in relation to tube and rail lines to the City, but the impact on the road system there seems to me to be something that needs to be considered rather

909
more in depth. I know that studies have been made and that British Rail are going to take up a considerable amount of the traffic within their own internal network. A considerable amount of thought has gone into that.
However, I cannot believe that with the number of passengers we are talking about, even if they are outside peak commuter hours—although peak commuter hours stretch longer and longer as the years go by, and as people work flexitime and so on—the congestion on York Road or Westminster Bridge Road or down into Borough Road will be acceptable to the local community. I hope that the Select Committee, when it comes to look at this matter, will take it very seriously indeed. My preferred solution would be to put part of the trains at Victoria and part at Waterloo on a destination basis. I know that there are difficulties and that that is likely to be more expensive, but again, if it is to be more expensive, the Government should be doing something about funding it in the environmental interest.
I must say that I reject the alternative of Olympia and I certainly also reject the Bricklayers Arms solution. I am not new in that, because the Bricklayers Arms was rejected as a major London terminal about 140 years ago. So the Select Committee has a very big job to do. There is little else we can say until it reports, save only that I found some confirmation of what I had been saying about the Government needing to intervene, and perhaps to put some money up front for some of the environmental considerations and some of the interface considerations, when I saw that Sir Ian MacGregor had apparently turned down the job of chairman of Eurotunnel, begging the pardon of the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, because no government money was involved. I thought that that was a significant statement that appeared in the papers yesterday.
I reiterate that from these Benches we welcome the idea of a fixed link Channel Tunnel, but there is much work to do before we can finally rest on the Bill as it presently stands.
6.13 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, towards the end of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned his unease about the proposed terminus at Waterloo Station, and it is about that that I particularly wish to speak tonight. Waterloo Station lies within the diocese of Southwark and, as a consequence, I have been approached by local residents and local clergy to ask this House to look very carefully indeed at the likely consequences of bringing around 70 per cent. of the estimated passenger traffic to a single terminal in London. In view of the very long list of speakers tonight, I know that I must be as brief as possible. Much of the detail ought therefore to wait for the Select Committee stage, provided that those responsible for the actual decisions, and British Rail in particular, are there to answer questions.
One of the more surprising features about the debate so far is that British Rail were not required to appear before the Select Committee in another place, and yet the Minister has often parried questions directed to
910
him in consequence of that by saying that those were commercial decisions and not the business of government.
I have three main points to make which I shall put briefly in the form of questions and then explain more fully. First, how do you measure community cost in any proposed development? How important is it to preserve balanced and vigorous residential communities in our city centres and do we yet understand that there may be considerable financial and human costs in allowing commercial decisions to ride supreme? Secondly, British Rail has decided that Waterloo is the best option for a London terminus for Channel Tunnel passenger trains. What is the reasoning behind this? Is it operational, in that it would be difficult or impossible to fit the trains in anywhere else? Is it financial because a lot of building work has to be done to create facilities for customs and immigration as well as new track and this happens to be the cheapest place to do it? British Rail, after all, has to foot the bill and recover the cost in competition with other forms of travel. Is it for the sake of the passengers who would find it easier to go to one station for all the available trains? Or is it because someone has decided in advance that customs and imigration facilities must be on ground, not on train, and therefore it becomes much more difficult to disperse London-bound traffic?
Thirdly, what will be the consequences of bringing all these extra people into one station—for them, for other travellers and for local residents? In particular, will the proposed traffic arrangements at the station actually work when traffic is heavy, and what will happen in and around the station if they do not, because the margin for error, breakdown and obstinacy seems all too small?
On the first point, I make the general observation that cities and towns need to keep at least three things in some sort of balance; the provision of housing, the provision of employment and the provision of leisure and service for those living and working in that place. When these things go out of balance, then you may get, for instance, large housing estates with few shops, long distances to travel to work and no local places for people to gather and enjoy themselves. Or, on the other hand, you may get a city centre more or less denuded of residents but full of offices and so a dead, and often indeed dangerous, place to be at night or at week-ends.
Despite its size, many parts of London have remained reasonably balanced. Many people still live in mixed communities quite near your Lordships' House and it is important that they do so for all kinds of reasons. But the pressures are always there and it is a fragile balance, especially when there are high land values. Local people, local government and planners have had to work very hard to preserve this balance, and this can be very difficult when you do not have, say, the powers of central government or very much money with which to fight your cause.
The community around Waterloo Station is rather exceptional. After war bombing and slum clearance, the population sank to about 5,000; now it is climbing up again with more children and more young people in the area. There has been, or will soon be, a lot of new

911
building and rehabilitation, especially in the Coin Street development just beside the station. While the churches are not full, I detect a more hopeful attitude.
This is the background. What will be the effect—yes, the cost, both human and financial, in more hidden ways—of producing a marked increase in the volume of traffic in the area with the possibility of considerable and extensive congestion at certain times? The report by Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners, commissioned by British Rail, is optimistic that this should not happen or not very often; but the case rests on estimates and calculations which others have already challenged and which must be somewhat tentative. It seems all too likely that there will soon be a demand for more bus and car parks, more hotels and guest houses, more tourist shops and that we shall then reverse the development of the last 10 years and sound the death knell of community life in Waterloo.
This leads to the second point, which raises the most fundamental question: why does there have to be a single London terminus, anyway? Is it for operational reasons, financial reasons, passenger benefit, customs and immigration reasons or is it a mixture of all four? If all inspections and checks could be on board the trains, instead of just those going to destinations beyond London—I understand it is likely that they will have on board inspections—would that make it possible to disperse at least some trains to a number of other stations in London? Are there still operational and financial obstacles to that? If so, what are they? According to the Joint Customs Committee paper No. (86) 24, there are
"technical problems concerning the effectiveness of [on-board] controls and considerable resources implications".
That is good bureaucraticese, but why? What makes a journey between London and Paris so different from a journey between, say, Milan and Paris or Brussels and Paris? Did we not hope that the EC would gradually phase out inter-state customs and simplify immigration procedures?
Supposing that there does have to be one terminus, that the reasons for it are compelling and that it is either too late or simply too expensive now to disperse the trains to a number of different stations, what will be the effect on Waterloo station and its environs? That is my third point. We are talking about an estimated 10 million to 13 million passengers per annum, and some sources put the figure higher. Many of those passengers will be travelling with heavy luggage; they are not business commuters. There will be peak periods during the year. Tunnel trains are to be kept out of the station during the morning rush hour and between 1700 and 1800 hours—if they all run punctually. Even so there will be a lot of people generating a lot of road traffic—coaches, taxis and cars—and foot passengers will be heading for the Underground.
It would take far too long to itemise the details in the proposed traffic management plan which give cause for alarm. However, here are two examples. First, the present traffic flow in the station is one way along the main concourse. In future, it will be two way with mini-roundabouts to reverse the flow at two different points. It is a most complicated layout with little room for mistake or for selfish behaviour.
912
Secondly, space is to be provided for just seven taxis and two coaches to wait at any one time. The comparable figures for Victoria are space for 10 taxis with additional waiting space for 30 taxis on the nearby road, and similar additional space for coaches. Imagine what will happen if three or four coaches happen to arrive at once, as could easily occur, and displace the taxis or private cars from the limited space. Shall we not need more than seven taxis waiting at a major station of this kind?
We all know what happens in many parts of London when the traffic lights go wrong or when a car breaks down at a junction. Within minutes, lanes of waiting traffic back up in all directions. It happens constantly in Streatham, where I live, and it results from illegal parking. The resultant fumes and the noise of hundreds of vehicles is bad enough. The danger to pedestrians also increases as people try to escape down any possible rat run. It has all been set out in the recent report concerning South London traffic.
These are consequences which will affect not only the streets around the station and the local community. They will also affect the people on foot who are inside the station and who are trying to move about. As long ago as June, British Rail stated that 11 sites for a terminus were rejected before Waterloo was chosen. According to a report in the Daily Telegraph, cost was the major factor in reaching that decision. Cost to whom and over what span of time? We need to know first whether and why a single terminus is the only option before us and, if it is and Waterloo is the most feasible, then there are serious and urgent questions about the effect on the environment which surely must not be left simply to the management of British Rail, constrained as it is by purely commercial considerations. It is not fair to British Rail and it is socially irresponsible to push these sensitive and complex decisions on to British Rail alone.
As I said earlier, costs include human costs to health and safety. There are also financial costs in terms of traffic delay, damage to businesses and so on—the costs which we so often do not quantify. Perhaps I may therefore plead that that clause of the Bill be given a most rigorous study by our Select Committee and indeed later by the Committee of the Whole House before final decisions are made on that part of the Bill.
6.25 p.m.
Earl Cowley: My Lords, major single-purpose engineering projects dedicated to transportation of a magnitude of the Channel Tunnel are comparatively rare. They represent historic projects because of their impact on social, commercial and political structures. There are many examples of perhaps more sweepingly important technological developments which, over time, have had a greater impact on civilisation than large construction projects. These include the steam engine, electricity, the telephone, the aeroplane and computers. However, these and other far-reaching technological developments evolve comparatively slowly, allowing populations and governments to adjust to their gradual, if inexorable and far-reaching, impact on people's lives.
A few major engineering projects differed from these more scientific developments not so much in their effect on society as in the comparative immediacy of

913
their impact. They were usually single-purpose transportation projects which overcame geographical barriers instantly upon completion. They led to immediate shortening of lines of communication, as well as producing instant economies. Because of their physical size and cost, these projects, as well as their unique and sometimes geophysical and physical engineering considerations, were somewhat speculative. However, the projects were completed: in time people forgot the monetary aspect and, with more time, tended even to forget the far-reaching social and political changes that resulted.
History has generally looked back approvingly on such projects. Large-scale transportation projects relate to man's inherent need to expand and communicate more efficiently in commercial and human terms. Such needs gave rise to the construction of the North American trans-continental railroads which opened the Canadian and American west to millions of settlers and foretold the end of ancient Indian civilisations. The Suez Canal reduced the transportation time from Britain to India from six months to one month and led to revolutionary changes in both European and Indian civilisation and commerce.
The Panama Canal opened Far Eastern markets to trade from North America, leading to equally deep changes in trade and cross-fertilisation of Far Eastern and Western ideas. As preludes to air transportation, these historic projects were of major importance.
The Channel Tunnel, while not of the epic proportions of the great railway and canal projects, is still a trail-blazing endeavour with many similar characteristics and implications. It will provide a faster and more efficient method of communication between Britain and the Continent at competitive costs. With completion, it will break an age-old psychological barrier, along with overcoming a physical barrier.
The social and political implications are difficult to calculate. However, a convenient economic stimulus to inter-country passenger travel will provide a great increase in the potential for human interactions. Europe will instantly become a slightly smaller place.
The tunnel will also produce greatly improved efficiency to rail freight, which will increase competition for markets between Britain, the EC and the balance of Europe. The statistics in this respect are on Britain's side. While the rest of Europe will be able to compete more efficiently for the British market of 55 million people, Britain will be able to compete equally efficiently for a European market of over 200 million. The opportunity is there if British industry is willing to take it. The Channel Tunnel, like the Aswan high dam, represents a major engineering project in the latter half of the 20th century. Although the technical and engineering aspects are interesting, the social and political implications of its realisation extend far beyond into the world of commercial and human opportunity.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will join me in welcoming the well informed and reflective contribution made by the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, who brings with him great
914
experience of the world of finance and investment. The noble Earl did a service to the subject and I think to the House by putting the debate into its historical and, if I may say so, its geo-political context. The sweep of his argument was of a level that the subject demands. He has made not only a welcome contribution to the debate but has also given a foretaste of future contributions to which we shall all look forward.
I have long been persuaded by the case for a fixed link across the Channel on both economic and political grounds. I believe that the project will help create jobs which are badly needed in our economy. This is true not only of the construction period when, over a number of years, several thousand jobs will be generated (jobs which will not be confined to the South-East but should help the North-East and Scotland by stimulating steel production and fabrication) but also in the long term when, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has underlined, the project will make a contribution—on the conditions he has spelled out—in the context of an industrial strategy. A fixed link across the Channel is not an alternative to an industrial strategy but it is a very necessary component of such a strategy. Politically, in committing ourselves to strengthening the infrastructure of Europe, we shall underline our commitment to Europe although that does not betoken on my part any undue adulation of all of the institutions in the vicinity of Brussels.
The noble Lord the Minister referred in his most helpful introduction to the Government's responsibility for safety. In the limited time at my disposal I want to concentrate on that one point. My noble friend Lord Underhill rightly drew attention to the implications for safety of the present proposals. This quite unprecedented project poses quite new problems of safety. My noble friend referred to the symposium promoted by the Fire Brigades Union on 12th February, the report of which I read with great interest. It helped to concentrate my own mind and I warmly commend it to your Lordships. In the course of the symposium Dr. Eisner, formerly director of the Explosion and Flame Laboratory of the Health and Safety Executive, editor of the Journal of Occupational Accidents and a mine safety consultant, no mean qualifications for making a contribution to the subject, drew attention to the fact that,
"What distinguishes the Channel Tunnel from other tunnels is its great length and that fresh air can only be brought in and poisonous fumes extracted at the two tunnel entries in England and France. In this it resembles mining rather than railway tunnel systems".
That is a point of which we need to be especially aware. There has been far too little discussion and examination of the subject. The Select Committee of another place drew attention to certain aspects but I hope that your Lordships' House and the Select Committee which is to examine the matter will give particular attention to these problems. I refer not only to the question of whether and on what conditions, if at all, chemicals and dangerous substances should be carried through the tunnel, but also to what action should be taken to avoid derailment, and what action in regard to electrical and fire hazards. There is, in particular, the question of the highly dangerous substances that will be carried by every vehicle going through the tunnel. I refer to petrol, diesel, liquid

915
petroleum gas and calor gas. Every caravan that goes through will presumably carry a fridge and cooking facilities; above all it will carry the most dangerous hazard of all—people.
The right reverend Prelate rightly drew attention to the problem of terrorists. We might be even more concerned about the problem of the drunken football fan who decides to have a quick "drag" or the father or mother of a family who decides, against all the regulations, to have a brew-up in the course of travelling through the tunnel.
I believe that it is possible to devise rules and regulations to cover at least an acceptable degree of risk; I acknowledge that one will never eliminate risk completely. I believe that the basic principle underlying the regulations has to be separation of people and vehicles. If that is necessary on Channel ferries, it is much more necessary in a confined tunnel of this kind. It ought to be possible for vehicles to be carried in fire-resistant carriages with automatic fire extinguishers and smoke-sealed doors and have special carriages at the front to carry passengers. I believe that it is essential to separate people from their vehicles if there is not to be an unacceptable degree of risk in this great project.
6.37 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, my intervention will be very brief. We have a long list of speakers but I should like to say just one thing before starting my main remark. I regret that the Government were not able to put this Bill down for discussion as first business on one day. I think it is very unfortunate that we had to start as late as we did today. Following on from that, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, for recognising that fact and not only for the succinct way in which he moved the Bill but also for the brevity of his speech. Other speakers have tried to be equally brief, as I certainly shall.
Probably in common with many others who support the Channel Tunnel I thought that, as there had been a good deal of adverse publicity lately, it was necessary for those of us who believe in it to stand up and say so. But I have been very cheered—I know that we have not got very far into today's list—by the fact that everyone who has spoken today has spoken in support of the tunnel. It may be that as we get to the end of the debate there will be others who will not but I hope that there will be a majority for it.
I should also like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, for his maiden speech. We are very glad that he was able to make it today and to set some of the historical background of the subject. We shall look forward to hearing him again in the very near future.
I have always believed in the Channel Tunnel. In the 1950s in another place I was a member of the executive committee of the all-party Channel Tunnel committee. I have waited 30 years to see the project revived with some hope of success. I know that 30 years may not seem a long time. I read in the newspapers that the idea of a tunnel project was mooted some 180 years ago, but I maintain that 30 years is quite a slice out of parliamentary life and I
916
hope that I shall not have to wait much longer to see the project come into being.
Today I do not propose to deal with—and obviously I am not competent to deal with—the problem of who should or should not be chairman of Eurotunnel. We are fortunate that we have the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, with us today and particularly that he will be speaking in the debate, because he will probably lay to rest much of what we have read in the newspapers. However, as a supporter of Eurotunnel from the beginning, and in common with others, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, for the burden he has carried until now. I regret, if what I read is correct, that he feels he will have to lay down that burden; but not, I gather, until someone else is prepared to step into his place.
I have felt all along that a scheme such as the Channel Tunnel should have aroused the enthusiasm of the whole nation. I think that we have allowed ourselves to be outmanoeuvred. We have allowed ourselves to be squeezed out, or constrained, by a strong and effective propaganda campaign from a small group of anti-tunnel parliamentarians, plus the environment lobby. That may be the viewpoint of an enthusiast, but this project has so much going for it, and so much imagination to it, that it is a great pity that we have not managed to get that view across. I should have liked to see it embellished with the fervour of an all-party agreement. I believe that the parties are united on this but I should have liked public all-party support throughout the country so that everyone, wherever they live and in whatever region, could realise that this is truly a national endeavour—an endeavour which I believe will bring employment and opportunities to all parts of the country and certainly not just to the South-East. My noble friend Lord Tordoff referred to that aspect, as did the Minister.
I should like to turn for a moment to the environmental problem. Of course there are environmental objections. In some cases they are very genuine and very serious objections. We come up against that aspect every time industrial development impinges on non-industrial land. We have seen it with the development of civil aviation. We are now seeing it with the development of the Channel Tunnel. Whether we are thinking of the beautiful countryside of Kent or the environmental aspect relating to Waterloo—so well explained to us by the right reverend Prelate and where I am, for one, now very much the wiser—we all agree that these are problems that must be considered.
However, whatever we may think about a specific matter, and however strongly we may feel about it, we cannot have the entire future development of the country run by an environment lobby; it just has to be argued out case by case. I think that most fair-minded people agree with that.
Moving on from that, I believe that reasoned objection is one thing but I noted with great regret the opening paragraph of the introduction to the Channel Tunnel brief prepared by the Transport and General Workers Union which was circulated to many members of this House. My immediate reaction, apart from the regret, was that this did no good at all to the union's cause. I quote that paragraph.

917
"The Channel Tunnel meets no real need; it will create only temporary jobs during construction and once in operation will destroy permanent jobs; it will not be in the interests of passengers or of the freight transport industry and its customers; it is highly likely to be unsafe; it will despoil a part of the British landscape valued both for its beauty and its history."
Such a paragraph is far too destructive to be helpful. It is no way to make converts to its cause.
In conjunction with other members of your Lordships' House I, too, have studied what British Rail hope to achieve and the advantages they believe the tunnel will bring to railway passengers, manufacturers and people in commerce and industry who have goods to send or receive. The economic benefits have been stated many times and it seems to me that the research underlying this positive approach is every bit as worthy of consideration as that of the Transport and General Workers Union which I have quoted.
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to quote from The Times of 11th February:
"The major argument for the tunnel is that it will provide important economic and political benefits, particularly jobs. John Moore, Secretary of State for Transport, has estimated that during construction, due to begin next autumn and to continue for five years, 100,000 man/years of work will be directly or indirectly stimulated in Britain alone.
Much of this work will be in Kent, in the general area where the tunnel and its associated facilities are to be built, but much of the equipment will come from the heavy engineering industries in Scotland, the North and the Midlands, where unemployment is most acute.
So far contracts worth about £40 million have been placed, or are about to be placed, by Trans Manche Link, the company which will build the tunnel for Eurotunnel. Roughly half the value of that work is in Scotland and in the next six months contracts worth another £40 million are expected to be placed in Britain, about £20 million-worth in the Midlands and the North."
I want to emphasise that, because a great many people really believe what they have read or have been told: that this project will benefit the South-East to the detriment of other parts of the country. One of the reasons why I want this project to be accepted nationally is I believe it has a very great future for the whole country and it would be disastrous if we did not bring it home to people throughout the country.
Those are the messages that we who believe in the Channel Tunnel should be spreading with enthusiasm. I am sure that the success of the Eurotunnel and the financial affairs affecting Eurotunnel hang on its image. I want to regain the excitement of that image. I am sure that it can be sold if enough of us take a positive view—and I hope that I am preaching to the converted in this House.
I cannot do better than end by quoting a short paragraph from the leader in the Financial Times on 21st January:
"The decision to build the fixed link—and the fact that amicable agreement was reached between London and Paris—has a symbolic importance which goes far beyond the short-term political gains for the two governments. Its practicable value will be the greater if it helps to accelerate the removal of all the other barriers which hinder the movement of people and goods between the countries of Europe".
That is my belief, too. That is why I join with others, including the management of British Rail and the trade unions in that industry, to urge that we in our House speed the Bill on its way so that it becomes law before any general election is held. My Lords, we have waited long enough.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Hayter: My Lords, I appear before the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, as one of the unconverted. I am sorry, but I must explain my reasons. I take the House 10 years ahead when at last I have screwed up the courage to take my car through the Channel Tunnel. Having driven to the ominously named terminal park, I find there a mass of vehicles. Your Lordships will remember, if you have seen the literature in this context, that initially 1,000 vehicles every hour are expected to be using the tunnel each way. As I sit there I am reminded of when I was in Dunedin several years ago at the biggest slaughterhouse in the world, where 15,000 sheep are slaughtered each day. However, there had to be 45,000 sheep in the surrounding countryside to make sure that a three-day supply of sheep was available.
As I sat there in my car contemplating those matters, there was an IRA bomb warning. What else could the authorities do but evacuate the car park? It was a false alarm, of course. In the same way, if the IRA said that it had planted a bomb in one of the trains going through the tunnel, it would be a brave man who did not think twice before letting the trains proceed. So, back again to the station. Then I found that my efforts had been in vain because there was a strike.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is listening, but I would point out that if there are 30 different routes, as I believe there are at this moment, with ferries going across the Channel, a strike on one of those routes is not insuperable. But once all energies are concentrated on the one tunnel, the consequences may be serious. They were not, because the strike was settled straight away. The unions won. They had to. There was no alternative.
Into the tunnel I went. Then I thought about this debate and this Bill. There are government regulations for buildings, Customs, immigration and policing but there is not one word about fire in the Bill. A safety authority is mentioned four or five times but we do not know who its members will be, what qualifications they will have, what staff it will have and what training and equipment they will have. Above all, its hands are tied behind its back because the whole concept consists of having people in the cars, as the noble Lord, Lord Murray, pointed out. I cannot emphasise that point too much.
If the Government want to know some of the answers, they should listen to the experts. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, talked about some of the experts at the seminar. The curious thing is that passengers are barred from cars on ferries but the reverse is true on trains. As I know from my business experience, fires are usually started by people. I thought of the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Bill, which we discussed not so long ago, another place in which the Government had to lay down the law. I shall quote just two sentences from that debate. The first comes from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who said:
"We are in the habit of looking at legislation in regard to fire risk after some national disaster has occurred."
That was true. The Minister of State, Home Office, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, correctly said:
"however hard we may try to predict the future, it has a nasty habit of causing to happen the one thing which, with the best will in the world, we did not foresee."—[Official Report, 3/2/87; cols. 137–8]

919
This time the Government have every opportunity, if only they will listen, to foresee what may happen with regard to security. I am almost certain that it will happen. Let us hope that something can be done during one of the Bill's stages to ensure that passengers in the tunnel can go to the Continent in safety.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, since this is the first time that I have had the honour to address your Lordships, I hope that the substance of my speech, its brevity and uncontroversial nature, will demonstrate my respect for this House. First, I must declare an interest. I am a resident of Kent, as were my grandfather and father. I have what I consider to be hereditary feelings towards the environmental beauty of my county; nevertheless, I should like to support the Bill, mindful that it has been the dream of first class minds for the past 150 years.
I am well aware that for many centuries the Channel has been a great defence for these islands; but the reasons which made invasions difficult equally make crossings to the Continent, at times, painful, tiring and frustrating. Having worked in France for the past 11 years and made countless crossings, often with my children, I am in favour of any healthy competition that will help increase comfort and efficiency, and reduce costs for passengers and freight.
I understand that British Rail believe that 45 per cent. of the potential passenger market exists to the north and west of London. I hope therefore that the relevant authorities will co-operate to make entry to and exit from all regions of Britain as quick and painless as possible, anticipating the removal of border controls with the Common Market.
I look forward to the day when, once again, trains will be the quickest and most comfortable way to travel directly from our major provincial city centres to the Continental capitals, bypassing London, taking traffic off the already crowded Kent roads and bringing our outlying regions closer to Europe. Logically, the motor-rail service should also be extended. The ultimate prospects held out by this enterprise are so beneficial to Britain that I hope that it has the wholehearted support not only of your Lordships' House but of the City and of the banking world.
It remains only for me to thank your Lordships for your indulgence to a maiden speaker.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Pennock: My Lords, I have the happy responsibility of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, on the occasion of his maiden speech. I admired the moderation and breadth of his vision and the balance of his outlook. I have found that has not always been shared by the fellows and colleagues of his own county. I was tremendously impressed by his recognition of the value of the project to the whole of Britain. That augurs well for his future contributions in this House. I hope that he will continue to express them with the same balance, fluency and articulacy of expression.
In accordance with Standing Orders, I have a responsibility, possibly known to some of your
920
Lordships, to declare my interest as the current chairman of Eurotunnel. I acknowledge that responsibility with alacrity because, like the noble Baroness, I am excited by the project. I was excited by it when I took it on 12 months ago, as economically, geographically and historically, the most significant, crucial and uplifting project that we shall have for the rest of the century. Having worked most of my waking hours for the past 12 months on this project, that has become more and more my firm conviction.
One or two of my noble colleagues have referred to publicity and press reports. There have been reports of boardroom squabbles. Like the premature report of Mark Twain's death, they deserve a similar answer. If I am honest, it has not been the press statements which have appalled me, because I was able to recognise that some of those bore little veracity; it was the photographs. A far from ingratiating habit and custom is growing in our national press: to produce photographs to reflect the mood in some photogenic way of the alleged perpetrators of whatever outrage they expect us to be committing.
The consequencies of that are innumerable. Many of my closest friends rang up my wife to say, "Is he dying?" Three of my grandchildren wrote to me from school to say: "Grandfather, when we saw you at Christmas you were in very good health. Has something terrible happened meanwhile?".
Having listened to the debate so far, I have been left in no doubt of something which I knew already: that because this project is of such national importance, it requires the most penetrating searchlight at national level, at the place where issues of national importance should be debated, which is in these two Houses. We who are involved in the project require this testing. I believe that many of the intelligent comments and suggestions made today will be taken up by the Select Committee. I think that the project will emerge as a much stronger, a much more practical, and a much more well-recognised project throughout the nation as a result of this exercise.
It occurs to me that if I seek to give you my opinions, I should be demanding a response which echoes that historic phrase: "He would say that, wouldn't he?" I believe my task tonight should not be to give opinions but to give facts—facts as I know them, because I have been involved. I shall leave your Lordships to make your own judgments. I put those facts under some headings: the importance to Great Britain Ltd.; the splendid service which this operation, when complete, will give to people of all ages. I would say here in parenthesis that from many of the surveys we have carried out we have noticed that almost universally our young people under the age of 25 welcome the project with open arms. However, regrettably some of our older and, from today's debate, less intelligent members of our community over the age of 55 feel equally strongly the other way.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that all our forecasts and all our beliefs for the future are not that we should replace the ferries, the hovercraft and obviously the air services, but that we should augment the services which they have to offer. We know that in the past 10 years passengers from our shores to Europe have doubled and freight has increased almost two and a half times. We believe that by the end of the century

921
those figures will at least have doubled on both fronts. All our profitability is based upon a recognition that there will be room for everyone. We shall certainly compete in order to improve all the services, but I have little doubt that we shall not be replacing any of those that exist at the present time.
The facts that I should like to give your Lordships concern the worries about defence, safety and the environment which have been raised by a number of noble Lords today. I hope to come to those matters later.
I should like to deal first with Great Britain Ltd. Many noble Lords have referred to jobs. The jobs are already occurring. We calculate that since last October, when we first raised the money for this great project, between 2,500 and 3,000 people have been employed. They are employed at places like the Howden engineering company in Glasgow which is building the boring machines, and the Hounslet engineering company in Leeds which is producing the drag locomotives to help us bring out the spoil. We are already discussing specifications with Foster and Yeoman to provide the aggregate for the cement that we need, and the factory is north of Oban. Jobs are already being created and your Lordships have heard the figures: 5,000 jobs will be created in building the tunnel; we calculate that there will be at least 10,000 jobs, perhaps over five years; and at the peak period up to 50,000 jobs will be created in supplying the equipment. From the figures that we have, we have no doubt that at least 3,000 to 3,500 people will be employed operating the tunnel. Noble Lords should remember that those figures will be exactly replicated on the other side of the Channel.
As some of those who do not agree with us have suggested, it is not enough to provide jobs in the short-term in order to justify a project of this immensity and longevity. As many noble Lords have already said, in the long-term 60 per cent, of our exports already go into the Community. They have steadily increased year by year since we joined the Community over 10 years ago. I recall very clearly that the figures before we joined the Community were round about 40 per cent. Therefore our exports have grown steadily and relentlessly in the world's single biggest market of 320 million people. To have an open gateway 24 hours a day to that single biggest market must surely put us in the strongest possible position to supply continually and much more cheaply than is the case at present.
It has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that this will be a two-way traffic, and so it will. All our arguments, because we live in a free-market economy, are based upon the premise that we must be competitive and that we must be able to compete in this market. The tunnel will give us a greater opportunity to compete, and possibly for the first time to compete on similar terms to our competitors who are already there.
I remind the House that for a nation of 54 million people to have this tremendous opportunity to move into a market of 320 million people should put the balance on our side. I conclude on this particular point by saying that recent figures published by the Government show that our productivity is now increasing quite steadily and quite consistently. That puts us in a very strong position to be able to compete
922
in the world's single biggest market, especially when we have an open gateway to it. So much, then, for Great Britain Ltd.
My Lords what are the services that this great opportunity will offer us? We have heard comments about driving one's car down to the terminal park, and about all sorts of uncomfortable things which might happen. Let me give you the other side of the penny. For the first time one will be able to drive down to Folkestone without having to book a passage three months ahead. We shall have trains taking 250 vehicles at a time from 10 or 12 different platforms, and all our figures show that one will not have to wait. The total time taken from arriving in Folkestone to arriving on the other side will be less than one hour.
Moreover, not only will one not have to wait, but upon finally getting on board one will have a comfortable passage. One can either sit in the car and be served, we hope, by air hostess-type young ladies who will provide coffee; or, if one prefers, one can get out of the car, walk around with the children and have coffee served at the bar. There will be television screens showing what the weather is like in France. One will not have to worry about the weather going across, and whether the traffic is delayed because of fog, winds or the various inclemencies which may occur at the time. On arrival at the other side after approximately 35 minutes, one will be able to drive straight off onto the motorway. There will be no worry about Customs because that will have been taken care of by both countries at this end.
On present-day prices we expect to be able to offer that service at 5 to 10 per cent. lower than the prices which are offered today. I have little doubt that our competitors will equal our prices. My contention will be that everyone will then get a better service. They can have their choice, and our convenience will supply a very great service to our nation.
Concerning the passengers for London, (Victoria). I regret to say that there are difficulties there which will be explained by the railway authorities when we come to the Select Committee. But, from Waterloo the businessman will be able to catch the 7 o'clock train to Paris or Brussels. He will be able to read his papers on the train and arrive in time for a meeting which can take all day. He can then catch the 6 o'clock train back. Perhaps he will have dinner on the train, and he can be back in time to have discussions with his wife before he goes to bed. If his wife wishes, she can go shopping in Paris or Brussels for the day in the same way that today she can travel to Birmingham or Manchester.
Finally, I come to the most important matter, and here I echo noble Lords who have already made this point. I took this job as a businessman for the advantages of freight and the advantages to our nation of the exports which will be created. The figures already put forward by British Rail (which I believe to be conservative) will increase the present 2 million tonnes of traffic to something approaching 8 million tonnes of traffic in a comparatively short time. They also calculate that that 8 million tonnes of traffic will take between 1,200 and 1,500 juggernauts off our motorways every day. So much then for the services which we offer.

923
Now I should like to come to the difficulty and the concerns which I know are shared by other noble Lords. I assure the House that we are already giving every attention to this matter because we recognise the importance of the problems which are shown. Many of such matters are related to our deep down atavistic instincts which have something to do with Hitler and Dunkirk; with Napoleon and Martello Towers; even something to do with Phillip II of Spain and the Spanish Armada. My wife has said to me that in a thousand years we have never been walked over by a foreign conqueror and it is all to do with that little bit of water. This is a point that I understand. However, to be frank, in defence terms this point now has no validity for the simple reason—as those of us who have been involved in the Community, as I have for the past 10 years, know—that it is probably the single greatest achievement of the Community that the nations of Europe will never go to war again. Such an occurrence is not quite inconceivable. If noble Lords say "What about the Eastern bloc or some other horrible story?" I regret to say that Nagaski or Hiroshima has proved that living on an island will not really make any difference. It is difficult to understand the validity of that concerning defence point. I understand the rationalisations of that deep down worry which raises itself in terms of safety and of the environment; and also in terms of rabies, and in terms of defence.
To deal first of all very briefly with safety, we are leaning over backwards to make sure that this is the safest form of travel that has ever existed. We already know from statistics that rail is a much safer form of traffic than any other known to man. We also know that the two tunnels which carry shuttles through the Alps, one of which has been in operation for 30 years and one for five or six years, have a not dissimilar system to ours except that ours will be much more modern and much more efficient. To date there have been 30 million cars through those tunnels. Each tunnel takes at least 2½ million cars per annum. There has never been a fire, or a collision or major accident on any of those shuttles so far. Ours will be more efficient and more up to date. We hope that it will be more able to satisfy noble Lords on what to us is a really crucial matter.
So far as concerns the environment, at the outset when I took on this great responsibility I said that we shall lean over backwards in order to satisfy and understand the worries of the local communities in the areas of Shepway and the Cheriton terminal. I can give many examples of how we are seeking to honour that undertaking. We had great problems about what is called the exit/entrance. Under our original plan this was to be in the North-West, and was to go straight on to a major motorway which then went to London. The local Shepway Council was very concerned about the matter. We debated the point with them in great depth. We have finally agreed to have a South-West and not a North-West entrance/exit in order that people coming from the shuttle will come close to Folkestone and will have the opportunity of seeing the charms and joys of Folkestone if they so wish. That alteration will cost many millions of pounds, but it is an example of how we are leaning over backwards.
924
Six months ago there were objections from the villages of Kent, quite understandably because we were taking shale from some of the disused collieries in order to provide the foundation for the Cheriton terminal. We were transporting the shale in heavy lorries through many villages which was causing great concern. Immediately we were informed of this matter we changed the method of transport to rail at a considerable increase in expense. We hope that the citizens in the villages of Kent were thereby satisfied. I can multiply these examples. I point them out as the simple truths which exist of our determination to continue to understand the worries of the local people.
I should like to dismiss the point concerning rabies very quickly. Last year I went to Japan and went into eight of the 18 tunnels that the Japanese have. Every engineer in charge of every tunnel independently said to me "no rats, no rodents, no dogs, no cats, no foxes, no animals of any kind ever come into a tunnel, for the simple reason there is no food there and they know it. They never never come near it" However, because of the sensibilities of the great British public, noble Lords can rest assured that we shall have deep pits, electrified fences, electronic sensor devices and everything known to man to make sure that there are no foxes running through the 50 kilometres at whatever miles per hour they care to make it.
Finally, there are the questions concerning defence, security and terrorism. We have already taken on board as our chief of security, the Air Commodore who was in charge of security in the RAF. He is already involved in supplying security services and is expressly there to make sure that in the design the protection of the tunnel is important. Terrorism and security are of enormous importance, but they are not reasons for not having the tunnel. If we believe that this tunnel is good for Great Britain Ltd., we cannot possibly put terrorism forward as a reason for not having it. We would be playing into the hands of the terrorists if we were to do that. We have recognised this problem from the outset, and we are going to do everything in our power to show you, as we shall show you, that this is a problem with which we can deal. In saying this, I hope that the fears shared by noble Lords and the nation can be easily stilled.
There have been a number of comments about sitting in cars. Information from our safety experts—and we have a significant array—is that if you are sitting in your car it is a better form of safety than if you are away from it. The figure of 45,000 fires concern cars that were either being driven or had switches turned on and the fires occurred on them. They bear no relation to the facts as we know them.
My understanding concerning ferries is that passengers have to leave cars for the simple reason that if there is a major accident they have to be near the lifeboats. That is a problem which does not occur with us. I repeat what I said earlier: the facts and figures as we know them are that this will be a very safe form of travel indeed; but believe me we are doing everything in our power to make it ever safer and safer.
I conclude with the final question, which is the question of finance. This is going to be a major exercise, a major operation, with us in the next few months. When I was originally involved in this

925
problem I said firmly that it was the technological excitement—the thought of trains at 100 miles an hour, with 250 cars 40 metres under the sea bed, travelling in a tunnel for 50 kilometres—that was absolutely electrifying. What I have also found is that for a company to form itself with no resources, no staff, no proven track record, and to raise £5 billion in markets across the world in both equity and loans in a period of 18 months, starting from scratch, is a great tribute to private enterprise.
It has never happened before in history, and we have already come a long way. First, 40 banks across the world—the Japanese being particularly in evidence here, as they are planning to provide almost one-third of the finance—have given us confirmatory letters that, having read our project, they support it. Bankers are like bookies, and they are now proceeding to lay off. They are now seeking to syndicate to another 120 banks across the world to get them to participate in the loan. That is an exercise which gives us tremendous challenges, and we are busily employed meeting them.
As your Lordships know, we raised £250 million in October last year. I would remind your Lordships that 110 institutions are already supporting us in that £250 million, and that was no mean achievement. Finally, we then have to raise the £750 million to provide the £1 billion of equity along with the £4 billion of loans. That is an exercise which will take place within the next few months.
It will be challenging. I am convinced that our nation begins to understand this project more and more, and that because it is so exciting, because it is so good for our nation, we are going to win through. For myself, after a period of some adversity I am immensely heartened by the way in which this House so far, regardless of party, has expressed its firm resolve to support this great project. Our foreign contributors, our foreign lenders, will be exceedingly impressed by the debate which has gone on so far in this House. I thank your Lordships for it and hope that it will continue.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, was attempting to be humorous when he described people with reservations about the Channel Tunnel Bill as less intelligent members of our community, and over the age of 55. But referring to people in that way smacks somewhat of the arrogance of the City of London. The tragedy about this Bill is that that is where it originated. It originated from the private sector. It should not really be called the Channel Tunnel Bill, if I may quote from the last speaker. He said that because of the national importance of this scheme a searchlight of penetration must be put upon it by this House. That is its national importance. But one would think, looking at the Government ranks, that it was not of so much importance.
The Select Committee in another place said that it did not consider that the overall implications of the Channel Tunnel should be looked at by it from the point of view of the national interest. That is what it said. The Government have consistently refused a public inquiry. I make no apologies for the fact that
926
during my speech I may mention the regions. I have had a lot of that experience lately. We had the situation where Canary Wharf would have been approved just like that if I had not thought of suggesting to the committee that perhaps there were other considerations to bear in mind when undertaking that kind of development.
To hear the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, and Eurotunnel—they are the experts; they know all about it—anybody who does not agree with them is less intelligent, and over 55. There is nothing wrong with being less intelligent and over 55 if you are a plumber from Liverpool. I consider it a downright insult to refer to the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, or anyone else in that way. The noble Lord says no.
Let me say how I think this matter ought to have been handled. There ought to have been a proposal to improve the external links of this island with the rest of the world. I am sorry that the noble Baroness has gone, because I too would like to see a proposal of this sort looked at from a national point of view and agreed from a national point of view. Unfortunately I am unable to do that, because this nation does not consider itself as one nation. The North-South divide that has been mentioned is real, and it will get worse because of the way this tunnel has been planned.
Let me give your Lordships some examples of the intelligence of Eurotunnel. I should have thought, after all the academic circles that I have read and listened to over 40-odd years in local government and in planning circles, that you could not rightly condemn the academic world in Great Britain as unintelligent, or less intelligent than anyone else. They have just as much intelligence. Yet when Eurotunnel referred to the question of opposition because of the regions, and to the benefits being concentrated in south-east England, they said:
"On reflection, the rationale for this concern is not clear."
All I say to Eurotunnel is that it is just about time that they forgot their own immediate interests and started looking at the development of this nation as an economic force and in other ways, because the rationale for the objection to the concentration in the South-East—and not just the tunnel, but including the tunnel—is quite clear to anybody with eyes who wants to see.
The noble Lord, Lord Pennock, and I have no doubt members of his board and other Members concerned in this matter, blinded by the prospect of developments that they will carry out, just do not want to see the other side of the story. I should have liked to see a Bill to improve the external transport relationships with the rest of the world.
Is anybody who is supporting this Bill prepared to tell me that they have examined the consequences on the North-East of England of establishing such a useful link across the Channel? More important, if the consequences are adverse how do they propose to rectify those adverse circumstances? Exactly the same thing happens to the part I am concerned about, and that is the North-West, and Merseyside.
Eurotunnel, with their wonderful appreciation of all the issues involved, wrote to me today. They must have done it today, because they said that they

927
believed that my name was down on the list to speak in the debate. They said:
"Perhaps you would be interested"—
listen to this from intelligent people—
"in our paper that deals with the consequences on the North-West."
Of course I was interested. I was very interested. What do I find when I read their paper? First of all, the nearest I can get to any jobs being created is £40,000, out of millions, for buying some electricity cables. That is the nearest I can get to the North-West. Unfortunately, it is in Wrexham. I do not know what the people of Wrexham would say if these Welsh people are now being transported to the North-West of England. But that is the level of intelligence of Eurotunnel. There are many more.
Last week I wrote to the Advertising Standards Authority and pointed out that some public money would be spent—I address this point to the Minister—on schemes that are made necessary for the Channel Tunnel. There will be £390 million from British Rail which can only be used on the tunnel. There will be £40-odd million through transport supplementary grant to roads. I quote from the Kent County Council.
"a grant for roads made necessary for the tunnel".
If that is not public money being spent for the benefit of the Channel Tunnel, then I do not know what the English language is about.
The Minister opened his speech by referring to Clause 1 of the Bill. It cannot be over-emphasised, he said, that there would be no recourse whatever to public funds. That was Clause 1 when the Bill was first drafted, I suppose by the Government draftsman. Certainly the Opposition would not have drafted it.
Halfway through the Committee stage in another place an amendment was introduced to Clause 2. Clause 2, as I read it—I may be wrong, being less intelligent—allows the Government to make payments in relation to the tunnel for the benefit of the concessionaires. The Minister is busy looking at it now, but what does that mean? Will he spell it out in these terms? Will he today, before going to the box and consulting other colleagues, tell the House when he winds up that no public money will be spent on infrastructures that will be employed by or built only for the sole purposes of the tunnel? I accept the Minister's argument, in a letter in response to my request, that the Department of Transport expects to spend £131 million on improvements to the A.20 and M.20 which will become the prime routes between London and the Channel ports. Of course we all accept that. That infrastructure is needed for other things than the tunnel and it is very necessary.
But the Minister goes to say that Kent County Council has published plans to spend £46 million at early 1986 prices—perhaps the Government think inflation will go down, but it will not—on improvements to local roads which they see as necessary to cope with the traffic generated by the tunnel. That is a specific requirement for the tunnel and it is being paid for. When I wrote to the Advertising Standards Authority on the seventh of this month I asked whether this was not a misleading advertisement by Euroroute because it says:
928
"Don't be alarmed, not one penny of public money will be involved in our project".
They might say that the project starts right at the portal, but it does not, does it? There are the marshalling yards and something else that link them to the motorway. It would be absolutely ridiculous to have a project that started just at the portal or just at the marshalling yards and was not connected to the national road link.
I want from the Government an assurance that any money spent only for the use of the tunnel will not be funded from public money. I pointed out in an exchange only a fortnight ago with the Secretary of State for Employment, or unemployment, that more public money was being spent on the Channel Tunnel than on the whole of regional aid in the North of England. He disputed that, but here it is. I do not see how on earth the Government can deny it. If we do not have this understood in the Bill as a principle—I am not dealing with amendments—then it will mean that less money will go to the more deserving and more deprived areas of this land. That is not good for the nation.
Rationale is a wonderful word to describe the fears of people. When I first addressed this House on regional planning policy nine years ago, I pointed out two things. The first was that we, in Merseyside had been concerned for a long time—over 40 years—about the drift to the South. Secondly, we believed that it would accelerate and that some business men, with interests in France and in the South-East of England, would ultimately finish up on the north coast of France, for several obvious reasons. It is handier to get to the south of France, for one.
We were concerned, each time the situation worsened, that something should be done to redress the balance. For over 40 years nothing has been done. Certainly nothing has been done in the last nine years. The rationale is not that a tunnel will damage anyone in the North-West of England, not that building a tunnel will damage anyone here; the rationale is that free enterprise, the businessmen that the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, was boasting about, will follow and concentrate near the tunnel.
Let me make a forecast. Let us see whether I am right five years after the tunnel is built. The drift from Merseyside will be worse. What has Eurotunnel done to convince some of the business men in Merseyside that they have no fears? According to my reading of a chamber of commerce report this morning, people have been assured that Eurotunnel is looking at the possibility of freight services straight from Merseyside into the tunnel. I am being honest about this because I have not seen the full draft of the report. I do not know whether Eurotunnel has also told business men on Merseyside that the service is subject to Customs and Excise providing the facilities on the trains. That is another question for the Minister. Will he tell us what the Government's attitude is to the provision of customs facilities on trains, say, from Liverpool? That is the area in respect of which Eurotunnel was speaking; the same is true of Manchester, Edinburgh or Glasgow. How many people are the Government prepared to provide? According to my reading of the Select Committee report on the matter, it looks very clear to me that the Government will not increase

929
customs staff or move any around; so those people in Merseyside who have been listening to Eurotunnel had better start asking questions. They should not believe everthing they see or hear. They had better start asking serious questions about whether the implication of a promise to provide through services from Merseyside is realistic. I do not believe it is.
It would be unfair, although in some ways it would be quite fair. As the noble Baroness has already told us, there are only two less intelligent people over 55 who are having reservations about the tunnel. So perhaps if I have taken a little longer than some of those supporting it, that would be fair. I have with me today the Select Committee report from another place and I am not sure whether we are in order in discussing that; I am not sure whether they would be offended.
Let me turn to paragraph 222. I can recommend it to the Minister if he has not yet found time to go through all the report. It took me a week. It reads:
"In our view regional, industrial and economic policy is a matter for the House as a whole to consider."
That is the other place. I do not know whether it did or not. I have not managed to get through the whole of the reading material relating to the other place.
"While we understand the reason for the Government establishing a joint consultative committee to consider the impact of the tunnel on Kent, we have our doubts about the wisdom of considering economic policy in relation solely to the immediate areas affected in Kent."
Another question to the Minister; does the Minister agree with that? Are the Government prepared to undertake that kind of an inquiry? After all, it was a Select Committee with a majority of Conservatives on it, so perhaps they had sufficient intelligence to see a problem, and to recognise a problem, and to realise in fact that they should look at it.
Appendix 38 refers back to the question of money; whether or not we are going to give our money to Eurotunnel. In paragraph 4 it says:
"The Government has therefore, considered the matter afresh, and has concluded that the most satisfactory way of ensuring evenhandedness is to provide that the Concessionaires shall not be disadvantaged by being prevented from receiving assistance which would be available",
to the other modes of operation. In other words, they should not be disadvantaged by having refused to them assistance that would be given to the ferry operators. That is fair enough. But, as I pointed out before, there are certain things that are going to be paid for, according to my reading, by the Government solely for the benefit of the concessionaires of the tunnel, and in fact the new amendment that the Government brought in allows them to do that. So before we can get into Committee, can we please have an answer to those questions?
I have taken 18 minutes. I will not abuse my time, but as I said, there are other angles, and I do plead with Eurotunnel to look at the other reasons, to look at the reservations, because it will not do Eurotunnel any good at all if because of the divisions in our society we finish off as the poor relations of Europe. If anybody wants a rationale for that, then they can look at Ireland and see the difference between the North and South. They can look at Italy and compare Milan with Sicily. Need I say more? Need I tell the Eurotunnel experts that one of the major problems faced by the Common Market is described as the "peripheral areas
930
problem"? Is it not an indication that relates to economic activities such as are going on in the South- East—Canary Wharf, the new London airport, and all the others? A noble Lord is now saying: "He's trotting it out again", but he is forgetting that I promised to trot it out again.
Is it not a fact that free enterprise without restriction will move to where the money is, and to hell with the hindmost? I first had my lesson of regional "undevelopment", if I may use that word, when I was serving my time to a plumber at the age of 17. I have told the House this before, but it stands repeating. I was 17, and the White Star Line decided for their economic reasons that it was better to have shipping going through the Channel than going to Liverpool. That was my first experience of the move of economic forces from the North to the South—and I am not going to tell you how old I am, but it is a long time ago—and it has gone on ever since.
Let me finish with one procedural point. If I understand rightly what the Minister said, this Bill after we have finished with it—and it looks to me as though it is going to get plenty of support—is going to go to a Select Committee. The responsibility of that Select Committee will be to look at the hybrid part of the Bill, as I understand it. If I am wrong, I will thank the Minister to tell me I am wrong. When they have finished looking at that and the consequences for all the individual petitioners, it will come back here, and then I understand from my colleague on the Front Bench that a Motion will have to be passed committing the Bill to the Committee of the Whole House. The Chief Whip nods, so I assume I am right up to now. It is marvellous how one can assume the technicalities of this House if one tries hard enough.
The question I want to ask is this. If it does go to a Committee of the Whole House and I move an instruction to that Committee, as I intend to, in line with certain things that were said in this Select Committee report, to discuss possible consequences of adverse effects upon the regions arising from this Bill—will I be in order in doing that? If the House agrees, it will be in order for the Committee to do that. The difficulty will be that if it is a Committee of the Whole House we shall not be able to have the experts in, or will we? I do not think we will. If we cannot, may I suggest to the Minister that from a reasonable point of view it would be right for this House, not to deal with the matter in a Committee of the Whole House, but to send it to another committee, so that in fact it can look at some of the, as I consider them to be, urgent problems. I intend to move that Motion for an instruction, and I intend to move it on the grounds—I will not list them—that at least 40 people, Members of this House, including the Leader of the House, have over the years said that these problems I have been talking about need looking at. The noble Lord, Lord Pennock, himself said that this very important project should have a searchlight focused upon it so that we all know the real issues behind the question not just of building a tunnel, but of transforming completely our relationship with Europe.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, this is an exceptionally important debate. We have already had two excellent

931
maiden speeches, and we have listened to a very persuasive speech by the chairman of Eurotunnel, the noble Lord, Lord Pennock.
I saw yesterday in the paper, as I am sure many of your Lordships did, a full page advertisement by Eurotunnel, which I suppose was the first fruits of their 10 million public relations campaign, in which they said, "Our tunnel sees the light of day in 1993". Some other hand appeared to have put there a little star, and then in the margin, in the tiniest print that almost needs a magnifying glass to see, it read, "Subject to Parliamentary approval". That is what we are having to do. We are the fine print.
However, I must say that various aspects of this project make me a little uneasy. I suppose I must be one of the less intelligent people over 55 mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pennock. The first is I was a member of the sub-committee of your Lordships' Committee on the European Communities which reported last year on European Maritime Transport Policy, and we were all immensely struck by the headlong decline in the British merchant fleet from 1,600 ships 12 years ago to some 500 today, and by the catastrophic fall in the number of seafarers from over 100,000 ten years ago to 30,000 today. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, said, many good authorities think that the Channel Tunnel may make this much worse; it may have a damaging effect on our national ferry fleet and many of our ports may follow the port of Liverpool into disuse and dereliction. As a maritime nation, we cannot be indifferent to that.
I read very carefully the debates in another place and I was struck by what was said by Mr. Jonathan Aitken about our national interests in relation to those of France. He pointed out that at present 72 per cent. of the revenue from cross-Channel traffic comes to Britain; 12 per cent. goes to France and the rest is Belgian. When the tunnel comes into operation the revenues will be split 50–50, so he pointed out that in one leap France gains 38 per cent. and we lose 22 per cent., which does not seem much of a bargain.
I am also concerned about the environmental issues and the absence of a public inquiry. However, I wish to concentrate today on one aspect; namely, safety, which has already been spoken about by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest. I heard the other day on the radio an intervew with my distinguished former colleague Sir Nicholas Henderson, who was being asked about the problems of the board of Eurotunnel, on which of course he sits, and about the prospects for raising further sums of money. He said that he thought it was essential for Eurotunnel to present a plausible project. In my view he was right.
However, it seems to me that in one important aspect the project in its present form is not plausible, and that aspect is safety. I do not think that so far that matter has been fully enough considered. I have the impression that it has been skimped. I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, said a short while ago. However, I am afraid that I was not wholly persuaded. I do not think that the parallel with the Swiss tunnels is wholly valid. Those tunnels are of course far shorter than the proposed Channel Tunnel.
932
Last October I, like many of your Lordships, received a letter from Eurotunnel about the progress of the project. In that letter Eurotunnel said that they had undertaken a comprehensive safety review of the tunnel design and operation. I wrote back and asked if they would send me details of that and their comments on the concerns that had been expressed about (a) fire risks; (b) differences between the safety precautions required on ferries and those to be required in the tunnel; and (c) terrorist attacks and whether security precautions against those could be adequate without affecting the speed of loading the trains. If I had received a reply to that letter I might not have needed to make a speech this evening. However, I cannot remember or trace any reply and I am sorry that I did not receive one.
There are two safety risks that seem to me particularly worrying. The first is that of terrorism. I listened to the exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the right reverend Prelate. When I began my professional life no one thought anything about terrorism; it was not a question on the agenda at all. When I ended my professional life, like many of my colleagues I had to have a bodyguard whereever I went. Terrorism is now a problem with which we are all familiar. Even the most stringent precautions are not always effective. You will remember that last April the effort to put a bomb on an El Al aircraft by the terrorist Hindawi very nearly succeeded. The bomb was taken through all the security measures at Heathrow and was only discovered by the vigilance of an El Al guard.
We have our own terrorist problems in this country and it is the same in France. In France there were 13 bombs in 1986, resulting in 10 deaths and 243 injured. As we all know, terrorists seek publicity and they look for spectacular targets—for example, Harrods, the Household Cavalry and the Cabinet at a party conference. What more spectacular than the Channel Tunnel? It will be an obvious target for them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, has explained, the promoters seek rapid, hassle-free transit. I have been told by Eurotunnel that they expect the total time between leaving the motorway in England and getting to the start of the motorway in France to be about an hour and quarter. That would be very fast, very convenient and helpful to travellers. However, I cannot see how that can be compatible with thorough security measures. Therefore, I believe that the tunnel would be wide open to terrorist attack and that such an attack is all too likely to take place. The director of the British Safety Council is reported as saying:
"From a terrorist's point of view it's a soft target. There's no way you can can check out a train every few minutes accurately".
The second real hazard, as I am sure everyone will agree, is fire. There are between 40,000 and 50,000 car fires a year in the United Kingdom. There were 191 train fires in the United Kingdom in 1985, and 168 in 1984. Therefore, fires happen. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, has told us of some of the aspects that worry him, and they worry me too.
I think that the tunnel regulations should be even stricter than those that are enforced at present on ferries. We must remember that there is ventilation only at each end of the tunnel, that there will be up to 10 trains in the tunnel at once travelling at speeds up

933
to 100 miles per hour and leaving at intervals of as little as three minutes. Apparently the car doors cannot be fully opened in the shuttle. Therefore, if there is a fire or an explosion and people try to move along the sides of cars, they will find it extremely difficult. There is the problem of smoke and toxic fumes, and we saw what they can do when some of our warships were hit during the Falklands War. Therefore, the prospect of a serious accident is grim.
The Government said in another place (at col. 615 of the Commons Hansard):
"The Anglo-French bodies concerned with safety in the Channel tunnel will consider whether the arrangements that Eurotunnel have proposed are acceptable, rather than analysing variations which have not been proposed".
In my view that is the wrong way round. It is hard to conceive that these safety bodies will in practice call for a radical redesign of the tunnel. What seems to me to be needed is, first, a comprehensive safety study and, then, consequential arrangements.
The fact that it is becoming clear that safety has not been fully enough considered may account for the problems that Eurotunnel are evidently encountering—for example, the difficulty they had in raising £200 million last November which needed, as the Financial Times points out today, some arm-twisting by the Bank of England, and their much publicised efforts to find a successor to the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, as chairman, which do not appear so far to have been successful.
It is clear that sober and cautious fund managers are perhaps beginning to look on the project in its present form as somewhat rash and speculative and realise that one major disaster could cause it to founder and all the money to be lost. Our business in this House is to ensure that anything that is built is as safe as it is humanly possible to make it. We have a responsibility to those who may travel through it. We can fulfil that responsibility by amending the Bill to ensure that there is an unprejudiced, thorough, comprehensive and authoritative study of safety requirements before Eurotunnel goes any further in working out the transit arrangements. I am convinced that we ought to do no less. Safety considerations cannot just be tacked on as a cosmetic afterthought. An underground accident in an enclosed tunnel can be particularly horrible. We must ensure that considerations of safety come first.
7.58 p.m.
The Earl of Darnley: My Lords, I venture to speak on the Second Reading of the Channel Tunnel Bill as a Kentish man who worked for many years in the cross-Channel industry and who has a certain knowledge of the likely impact of a tunnel in Kent. I am chiefly concerned about three aspects of the proposal: first, that the tunnel should be seen as a means of strengthening the ties between this country and Europe, rather than as an alternative mode of crossing the stretch of water that divides us; secondly, that the principle of fair competition between the tunnel and existing sea and air operators is maintained; and, thirdly, that the local environmental and economic consequences of a fixed link are properly resolved before it is built.
The construction of a tunnel between the United Kingdom and France has always been accepted as a
934
potential competitor to the cross-Channel ferries but the impact of previous schemes would have been almost entirely on rail-linked traffic. In the 1970s version a new line was to have been built from Cheriton to London, which would have bypassed the congested South Eastern railway system and permitted direct access from the Continent to the main rail network of this country, allowing the benefits of a fixed link to be felt in every part of the land.
The other important difference between this project and its predecessors is that the 1993 tunnel will have been entirely funded by privately-raised capital. These two factors together would seem to have concentrated attention on the tunnel as a means of crossing the Channel rather than focusing on the greater economic benefits that should stem from improved communications between the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe.
Since the mid- 1970s cross-Channel ferries have become much more efficient, and the terminals in Calais and Dover have vied with each other to provide bigger and better facilities to handle the increased volumes of traffic. So successful have they become that it is now only the minority who make bookings in advance, and delays have been reduced to a minimum. Ships have become faster and larger. This means that they are more reliable and their owners can afford to carry passengers, cars and freight vehicles at much lower fares than was ever possible with the older generation of ferry.
If the tunnel is to compete with the ferry of today in this highly price-sensitive business it must obviously adopt a similar fare structure or fail to achieve its market share, let alone contribute to the increase of that market. The fact is that an enormous additional capacity will become available on the market all at once, and the potential investor will have to be convinced that the volume of available traffic will show a corresponding increase. If this is not to be the case the existing traffic will have to be shared between the new shuttle and the established operators. This can only lead to lower fares and lower rates of return on investment.
Once the tunnel has been built there is no doubt that it will immediately become a proud national asset, even if the funding does come entirely from the private sector. The shareholders will obviously have their own investment criteria, and I am concerned as to what will happen to the tunnel if the original concession fails to reach its financial objectives. It is hardly conceivable that such a massive and prestigious international project will be allowed to lapse into disuse or be closed down until another concessionaire can be found to take on the financing under the original conditions.
In spite of assurances given in the Bill that fair competition will always be maintained, there must nevertheless be the underlying worry that the sponsoring governments would be tempted to mount a rescue operation to allow the tunnel to continue to operate should it get into financial difficulties. Were such special funding to be made available to the tunnel both the airlines and the ferry operators would find themselves severely disadvantaged.
Finally, I would like to mention three points of concern relating to the impact of the tunnel on Kent.

935
The road network can and does already cope with significant volumes of cross-Channel traffic, and should be even more effective once the planned improvements to the M.20 and other access roads have been completed. Traffic will flow westwards as far as the M.25 with ease, but thereafter the A.2 and A.20 routes into London are already severely congested and urgently in need of modernisation.
Secondly, Kent is the garden of England and is proud and jealous of its unspoilt areas of natural beauty. The proposed Cheriton terminal with its associated works will virtually eliminate one such area, and every effort must be made to reduce the visual impact and environmental damage caused by it. Thirdly, East Kent is an area of high unemployment. There is little or no industry and such employment opportunities as there are depend largely on the cross-Channel industry and tourism.
If the advent of the tunnel has the effect of reducing dramatically the number of ferry-related jobs and the passengers using them the effect on both will be severe. It is certainly true that the arrival of a massive civil engineering project will create a short-term availability of jobs for people with the required skills. However, by 1993 the gangs will have been disbanded, leaving the tunnel in operation and every likelihood of a net loss of jobs in the industry. By moving the terminal inland local tourism will suffer, as potential visitors will be steered away from the coast and deeper into England or directly on to France through the tunnel.
I have tried to be constructive in my remarks today because I believe that it must be in our best interests to strengthen our physical and economic ties with the Continent of Europe. My concern is that the project we are discussing today does not go far enough and may fail to achieve the potential of what is essentially an exciting and imaginative idea.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, it is my privilege to congratulate another maiden speaker on a first-class speech. I am glad to say that I knew Adam Bligh when he was a young boy of nine years old. He has always been associated with Kent and he quite rightly chose, as one of his main subjects, the effect on Kent of this tremendous project we are debating. I hope we shall hear him on many a future occasion, because he brings with him a great deal of wisdom and a great deal of enthusiasm. He is an active farmer, and we do not have all that number of professional and practising farmers in this House and present as often as he is. I am sure that we all hope to hear him again very shortly.
I should like also to add my congratulations to those of others to the noble Lord, Lord Pennock. Much of what he has said was going to be said, though much less well, by myself and therefore it will enable me to shorten my speech.
Regarding the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that he would like to see the Treasury behind us, I think it was Hilaire Belloc—was it not?—who said:
"Always keep a hold of Nurse
For fear of getting something worse."
936
I think we would always wish to keep hold of the hand of nurse for fear of getting something worse. We would all like the Treasury to stand behind us—I wish that my overdraft had the Treasury standing behind it—but there is one grave disadvantage of having the Treasury behind you. It has happened in the past: the Treasury bring pressure on the government of the day to stop you, and so sometimes do the IMF. If the members of the Labour Party were here in greater numbers they could bear witness to the number of public undertakings which had to be stopped or throttled back as a result of Treasury pressure. So I am delighted that we have not got the Treasury standing behind us because I have a horrible feeling that at some time during the construction period they would say, "Throttle back; stop it; undermine it; do other things." So I am pleased that this is being financed by the private sector—and long may it continue.
I initiated a debate in 1973 and I am sorry that that tunnel was cancelled—again, I suspect, as a result of Treasury pressure—when it was going quite well. However, I ought first to declare an interest. I have had an interest ever since then in the Channel Tunnel. I confess that I am an enthusiast for it: it is a project which is good for Britain and good for every part of Britain, which is what is important. However, as I say, I ought to declare an interest. I am a director of a public relations company and I think we have 120 clients in this country, one of which is the Eurotunnel Group. So I have a very small interest, but it has not in any way financially affected my remuneration because the group is one of 120 clients.
I think the need to proceed now is even stronger than it was in the case of the last tunnel in 1974 and 1975. That is so for three reasons. First, there has been the growth of our exports and trade with the Common Market countries, which is expected to hit 70 per cent. within the next few years and before the Channel Tunnel is completed. Secondly, I value, as other speakers have, the connection between British Rail and the European railways. When you look at the ambitious plans that the Europeans have for speeding up and streamlining their rail service, you realise how desperately important it is that we should be connected with that and not insulated entirely from it. Thirdly, jobs will be created by this undertaking.
Of course there will be competition between the tunnel and trucks on the road and airline profits; but that is good. It is good for us and for others. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has had to leave her place because she has been saying, quite rightly, that the charges the airlines are making to places like Brussels, Paris and other capitals are outrageous. We want some competition to force them to come down, even if the European Community cannot achieve this. I enthusiastically support it, and I support it at this time because I think rail freight is an absolutely vital factor for Britain in the future. How nice it is to see—because sometimes there are differences of opinion—that on this issue, at this time, British Rail and its trade unions are solidly behind us. We have their backing. I picked on one small point of difference from the Liberal Party and I think we had the same support from the Opposition Front Bench. The Labour Party are basically behind it. They have reservations; every Opposition must have reservations.

937
No doubt they will try to improve the Bill during its course. The Alliance parties said they were basically behind it too. We in this part of the House, the Government, are basically behind it. Here is a moment when we need all three parties to be united.
It is sad that British Rail carries only 2 million tonnes of freight a year whereas 50 million tonnes go by other methods. Only 2 per cent. of freight moved around this country and exported goes by rail. Eurotunnel expects to jump this from 2 million to 7.2 million in the first year the tunnel is open, and thereafter it believes that 10 years later it will be carrying 11.6 million tonnes of freight by rail.
The French have been more imaginative, somehow. I do not know what it is, and we can find many reasons, but they have undertaken a lot of very, very ambitious projects since the end of the war. We must state that fact. I know it was a natural to go from Paris to Lyons but it is a pretty formidable effort to have trains running—and making tremendous profits—at 150 miles per hour.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, would the noble Lord acknowledge that the French Treasury actually put some money into that project?
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I have not looked behind the scenes; it is bad enough to unravel our own accounts in this country without having to try to unravel the French ones as well. The noble Lord may have a good point, but the fact is that they have undertaken projects and they are now aiming to have these fast trains going to the South-West, to Bordeaux. They are aiming to have one going north to Lille. If we go ahead they are going to make sure that there is a branch off to the north-west from Lille and another branch to the north-east from Lille which will go off through Belgium to Brussels—and that is one that many of us will take—and on to Cologne and Western Germany. This is an ambitious programme and we must be connected with it. I am sure that that is essential.
I now turn briefly to jobs. The noble Lord, Lord Pennock, has dealt with this point. I underline the fact that extra jobs—3,000 now, another 5,000 very shortly and then 10,000 indirect jobs—will be created. In fact, he mentioned 50,000 man-years of jobs at the peak point. I should like for a moment—because there has been a lot of knocking the Channel Tunnel—to draw attention to how this job creation prospect compares with the sea ferries. The employers have stated in public that their ferries are overmanned. They cannot come to agreement with their trades unions. They would like to get rid of 4,000 jobs. I cannot find a single sea ferry which has been built in this country in the past 10 years. The two big ferries which they are going to bring on next year or later this year were built in West Germany. I would put it to the House that here we are creating jobs and the sea ferries are not creating jobs of that stature, or that dimension, in this country.
What is good about the jobs we are creating is that they will occur all over the country. If you look at the investment of £700 million in material you will find that on precast tunnel linings, for example, there is £130 million to be spent in the Midlands and in
938
northern England; for the shuttle rolling stock, there is £120 million to be spent in the Midlands and North-West England, including electric locomotives in the same areas; in power, signalling, and lighting, £100 million is to be spent on jobs in the Midlands, in the North-East and the South-West of England. This is what is good, and I am sure that this is as welcome to the Labour Party as it is to the Government. This is creating jobs all over the United Kingdom. It is not concentrated in the South-East and it will bring benefits to Scotland and Clydeside. I hope that when my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, winds up he will acknowledge that this is good for Scotland from whence he comes. He still retains his accent, though I do not quite understand how after so many years this side of the Border! British Rail is going to invest £400 million. This is good again. It is a very substantial investment.
Who is opposing this? Why? At least it is no longer the defence people. In the last century it was always the defence people, and just before the World War I it was the defence argument which suddenly stopped the tunnel. That has been dropped and everyone recognises it. Environmentalists? It is not Kent County Council, as my noble friend Lord Darnley said. They approve of it and they are making tremendous efforts, as is Eurotunnel itself, to meet the points of the environmentalists. the Fire Brigades Union? To put not too fine a point on it, they have been under rather Left-wing control for about 20 years and the Left-wing always knocks anything that is good for Britain.
I should think that both road and rail are going to gain from this tunnel. A point has been made about danger. There are tunnels all over the world. I have a great list of them here. I do not want to take up too much time. Japan has 18 tunnels. Two alpine tunnels have been mentioned and I have been through two that carry cars. One has been operating for 34 years. I know it is shorter, but it has been going for 34 years; the other for 27 years. The first of those is now carrying 600,000 cars a year. Here we are saying, "Oh, but it might catch fire". Not one single fire, as far as I can find out, has actually started in either of those alpine tunnels over all that time.
Please give this project a chance. Please do not always knock, knock, knock at everything that Britain wants to do for the good of Britain. People have said that perhaps our civil engineering firms, which are so closely concerned, are not up to it. I have been looking into those figures and I find that 9 per cent. of the world's civil engineering projects are won by UK companies. France is high up with almost the same percentage; West Germany has less than half of that. We are the people with the knowledge and with the desire to get on with it. We want to invest in it.
I looked also at some of these projects, and you may say that this is a dual project between France and ourselves. You only have to look at the Tornado, which is the most complicated operation with four different companies putting together the most sophisticated aircraft; and you can look all over the world. In Egypt there is the Cairo waste water project. There are 12 different UK contractors cocerned in that, all working together on a total of £0.8 billion-worth of contracts. We have experience of this sort of work. I am sure we will do it well.

939
I come now to finance. It has been said that we are not going to raise the wind, that we are not going to raise the finance. I find that difficult to believe. After all, some very ambitious projects have been launched recently. There has been the privatisation of BT. That raised £3.9 billion. British Gas, in December alone, raised £5.4 billion. British Airways only last week—and I have applied for shares and none of us yet knows whether we have got them—raised £900 million. It should not be impossible, therefore, to raise the funds for a project as worthy and as necessary for Britain as this, particularly because the planners are taking such infinite trouble about fire, accident and dangers in general; all these are being attended to and we have a much, much improved technology in these fields over what we had in the past.
I would urge this House of course to look at the Bill, look at it carefully: revise it, that is our job; improve it, that is our job. Please, however, let us say that this is good for Britain and let us not give others a chance, because if we do not go ahead the French are perfectly prepared to finance the whole thing. Japan is anxious to come in and pay for it. Is this Britain at its best or can we allow other nations to come and carry out a project of these dimensions and this importance to our jobs and to our future?
8.20 p.m.
Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor: My Lords, I should first declare an interest in this important debate in that I have for some years been the president of the Channel Tunnel Association. Anticipating a few blank faces in the Chamber, I think I should explain that the association is a purely non-political and indeed noncommercial association, and that its members who are fairly small in number have existed purely to keep prodding government and private enterprise for many years to get this project under way. The only asset that the association has ever had is probably the largest collection of documents—in excess of 10,000—relating to the Channel Tunnel going back well into the last century. I am happy to say that this collection is now safely in the archive of Churchill! College, Cambridge.
My predecessor at this association was the late Lord Popplewell, whom some of your Lordships may remember not only as a good parliamentarian but as a devoted and dedicated railwayman all his life. In the 1973 debate, to which the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has just referred, Lord Popplewell said:
"if it will increase the standard of life of our people by making our products more competitive through providing a more efficient method of transport, then this House should give its blessing to the project". [Official Report, 2/5/73; col. 158]
That was 14 years ago. I think it was true then, and now that we are fully in Europe it is even more true today.
This great country of ours has given many things to the world and the railway must rank very high among them. And yet between our system and the rest of Europe there has, for nearly 200 years, existed this small gap of 22 miles. That, to me, has been the only disadvantage that we have suffered in the relationship with our trading partners. The key to this whole project—indeed the key to this debate—is our trade.
940
The noble Lord, Lord Pennock, has given us very realistic and compelling figures on how this trade will change. The current 4 per cent. of our total freight carried by British Rail will go up to between 12 and 15 per cent. That is a tremendous possible leap forward and it will bring us into comparability with the rest of Europe. Moreover, as again the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, said, it will have the dramatic effect of reducing the number of heavy duty lorries on our roads which must be a blessing.
I do not want to go over all the old arguments—the pros and cons. I believe that the Government have made absolutely the right decision on the method of crossing. I reflect only that when in 1973 we were debating this matter, many people were seriously worried about the possibility of foreign invaders coming through the tunnel at the double. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, is not in his place because that is the only matter on which I must take issue with him. He mentioned that for a thousand years we had never been invaded. In point of fact, it is very nearly 190 years ago that we were invaded, but the enemy made the cardinal error of landing in Pembrokeshire from where they were swiftly removed.
I believe that we are now a great deal further on. We have a draft treaty between France and ourselves; we have selected the method; and we have a consortium of builders on each side ready to start. I am confident that very soon the private equity capital will be in position. But it is a very complex piece of legislation and there are one or two points on which I want to touch briefly, because there are many more speakers to follow me.
The first is the issue of safety already touched upon by many speakers which I know is causing much public concern. I want to grasp this nettle again because it needs to be kept in proportion. First, there is nothing inherently dangerous in the tunnel itself. In fact, a single-track railway tunnel is probably one of the safest forms of locomotion ever devised. Let us consider the millions of miles that are covered annually by the London Underground system.
From a civil engineering point of view, the technique is proven. The conditions are ideal. In fact, if you had to travel the world you would be very hard put to it to find a more perfect medium than the lower chalk below the Channel. No, my Lords, I would say that if there is any danger at all it lies, as is so often the case, with the customers. I should like to discuss for the moment who those customers are. The range extends from the through freight trains, which may include container wagons often carrying volatile chemical cargoes or other liquids, to heavy duty lorries and trailers carried on rail shuttles, 70-seater buses and, of course, private motorists.
Part III of the Bill makes provision for by-laws regulating the operation and use of the tunnel system. The manner in which the concessionaires have approached their responsibilities is of crucial importance. But, as I understand it, they are not in every case being asked to devise new regulations but to see that existing rules are adhered to. An example is the existing RID document, the international regulation for dangerous cargoes. Annexe 1 operates right across Europe in respect of rail tank cars and containers and involves very close monitoring of these

941
vehicles and periodic testing. This regulation will be stringently applied to tunnel traffic of this nature.
Similarly, another EC document, known as ADR, governs the operation of all lorries and trailers currently borne on ferries. And this, I understand, will equally be the code for the tunnel. Therefore, the concessionaires will be governed by existing regulations. In the case of private cars and caravans, however, we are moving into new territory. It is not a similar concept to the trans-alpine tunnels.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has told us that an intergovernmental commission will eventually be set up before the tunnel is opened and that this will lay down rules for the tunnel, including safety. I understand that our own chief inspector of rail will serve on the safety committee. So, although it is absolutely vital that the public are reassured, I think it is true to say that a great many safeguards are already in position.
My second point is perhaps a different one, and that is the choice of Waterloo. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark have already mentioned, many people are not happy about this. It has always seemed to me a mistake that Waterloo should be chosen as the passenger terminal. It is the largest terminus in Great Britain, but it has a number of drawbacks. I think I am right in saying that it was never intended by the old London and South-Western to be the end of the line.
Waterloo has been constantly added to. It now has some 21 platform lines which reduce to a bottleneck of eight lines a few hundred yards outside the station and this is on a double curve. Any Members of your Lordships' House who have commuted regularly for as many years as I have will know what I mean. I went the other day to the British Rail information centre at Waterloo Station and studied the exhibits, but I did not see anything that made me change my mind on the issue.
Apart from being, in my view, on the wrong side of the river for onward journeys in the United Kingdom, Waterloo has a very difficult road access and the proposals only appear to provide for 135 short-term and 75 longer-term car parking spaces. That is a ridiculously small figure. As the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, has said, this service is going to be used by business men going to the Continent and taking their wives with them. They will want to be able to park their cars for one or two days as they do at Heathrow.
The passenger numbers forecast for Waterloo by the year 2003 are an additional 13 million a year as a result of use of the tunnel. We have all seen what happens to forecasts. The M.1 was constructed with two lanes and it had to be widened; and it has seven bridges which are already heavily overloaded. Heathrow has never ceased to expand. More recently, the M.25 is already carrying more traffic than was forecast. If there is a lesson to be learned about forecasts, surely it is to apply a multiple of at least two.
In the case of Waterloo, I urge the Government to ask British Rail to look again at some other options such as Kensington Olympia or West Brompton. If, for some reason which is beyond my comprehension, the terminus must be south of the river, what about making use of that splended building, the Battersea
942
power station, which has ample room for extensive car-parking facilities?
I have one final point which does not really involve the Bill itself. That point looks more to the distant future and concerns the possibility of a drive-through tunnel. The Government, rightly in my view, when they granted the concession last year to Eurotunnel laid down that by the year 2000 that additional facility should be examined and a feasibility study should be made. I do not believe that it would be technically possible or feasible to have a drive-through tunnel of 50 kilometres today. However, in 20 years' time it may a different matter.
Who would have imagined 20 years ago that we should have cars that spoke to us and told us to fasten our seat belts? Technology is moving very fast indeed, and I can well envisage the motorist, in the year 2010, being able to put his car in a drive-through tunnel, putting it on auto-pilot and being guided through such a tunnel with total safety. It may sound fanciful; I think it is a very real possbility. I think it was prudent to lay such a condition on the concessionaire.
In conclusion, I congratulate the Government for persevering with this project. It has my fullest support and I think that it will transform trade and tourism. When it is completed, I think that we shall wonder how we ever managed without it.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I find it difficult to follow the noble Earl, Lord Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, looking back as I do upon the speech of my noble friend Lord Pennock and the formidable advocacy which he applied to the tunnel. That advocacy, and the advocacy of my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, leads me to hesitate in saying what I firmly believe as a sort of gut feeling: I am against this proposal. I am against it on the grounds that I cannot justify in my own mind the expenditure of so large an amount of effort and treasure in constructing an artery which will be almost vital to the nation's life and which is exposed to interruption by elements beyond our control, whether they be industrial action, sabotage or act of God.
Incidentally, I protest at the fact that this debate was tabled for a Monday, when it is known that that day is particularly inconvenient to Peers who live at a distance. The debate was not even scheduled as first business. I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, has said in that respect. It is not that the Whips' Office was unaware of the substantial opposition to the scheme which exists on every side of the House.
We have seen this afternoon and this evening a very substantial support for the scheme in the House. At the same time, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, went a long way to speak in support of my view. Who has paid for all the bally-hoo? Is it proper that the costly machines mentioned by my noble friend Lord Pennock have been placed on order—at the expense of the investors, admittedly. If it all goes wrong, as I said, I am inclined to worry about the future. Although I am an ancient party and people may well say, "What are you worrying about, old boy?", I am worrying lest my executors have to bail this project out if it goes wrong. It ought not to go wrong; I am not against innovation and never have

943
been. However, there seem to me to be a lot of difficulties to overcome before we accept this proposal.
As regards accidents and the possibility of failure, one thing which I have been unable to find among the great mass of papers on my table is any view expressed by the insurance industry or by Lloyd's concerning the premiums which they would be inclined to charge for covering personnel, vehicles and freight for this particular journey. I should like to know more about that. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister will say something concerning that matter.
I have made no secret of my position, and I "drew a bow at a venture" the other day in a Question tabled for Written Answer. The Government replied to that Question on 5th November. The reply did not satisfy me and I regarded it as rather a rap on the knuckles. I asked the Government what the railways were spending out of their moneys for the tunnel. I asked, as the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, asked, to whom they were going to pay these sums.
I admit that I should perhaps not worry about the future at my age. However, I thought I should take the opportunity of consulting my own family. I consulted my son and a son-in-law, both of whom are in their fifties; and I consulted a grandson who is approaching 30. They are all actively engaged in different branches of the country's affairs. One agreed with me on environmental matters, which I have not mentioned. Another described the proposal as being irrelevant to the needs of the nation today. The third was of an open mind, pending the outcome of this parliamentary examination in which we are at present engaged.
I consulted other people. One prominent person was absolutely one hundred per cent. in favour of the tunnel. Another, a widow, of Central European origin who is highly intelligent and multi-lingual, was violently opposed to the idea of such a tunnel.
What is more, I am not quite happy about the position of Scotland. Will Scotland really benefit by the injection of concentrated activity in South-East Britain? I wonder; but we shall see. The present pressure by the promoters amounts in my view to rather a costly ballyhoo. British Rail will see a valuable increment if the tunnel works as there will obviously be increased demand for rail services. But is there not a tremendous opportunity for vast improvements in the railway system here and now? This could be engaged in by the country with advantage. Plenty could be done to improve the system.
I have tried to follow the many speakers in the debate and I turn again to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. She said that we had been out-manoeuvred by the opponents. I rather think that it is the other way round. We have been out-manoeuvred by the promoters. The shoe is on the other foot. Are we not being taken for a ride when we should be waiting for more examination and a more penetrating searchlight, as the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, said, on the matter?
Many of us believe that not enough research in depth has been carried out. It has been rather rushed. I support in many ways what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hayter. There are all kinds of difficulties which are not apparent today but which will inevitably
944
arise as time goes on. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, referred to separating people from vehicles. This is quite a problem and is perhaps affected by the insurance premiums that the insurance industry is prepared to quote when it comes to estimating freight, a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Pennock, referred to the vastly increased volume of our industrial traffic, all without a tunnel. Whether this tunnel, depending on the freight charges, depending on the insurance premium, and depending on a good deal of good fortune, will work, remains to be seen. I think that we must studiously examine the future in the Select Committee as proposed.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, like many of your Lordships I am in favour of the proposed tunnel. It could be a great and exciting project. I cannot, however, agree with the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, who said that it would be good for every part of Britain. There is a small corner of Kent where I live which will be severely disadvantaged. If I may, I should like to take a few moments of your Lordships' time to outline one or two of the problems and issues which concern us in north-east Kent. I refer to the districts of Dover and Thanet.
The unemployment level in north-east Kent in January was 15.3 per cent. as against 13 per cent. for the United Kingdom. In Thanet it was 21.4 per cent. In 1985, port-related jobs in Kent numbered 12,450. The projection for 1993 with the tunnel suggests somewhere between 6,000 and 9,000; in other words, a job loss of somewhere between 3,000 and 6,000. The tunnel will of course create jobs—probably about 3,000—but these will tend to be in a different place, in the Ashford area rather than in Dover or Thanet.
What the people of north-east Kent are asking is no more than a chance to compete on equal terms with the tunnel; and to me this seems entirely reasonable. What they want to be sure of is that there will be a parity of trading conditions between the ferries and the tunnel, and that they may have good access to the tunnel so that they can develop alternative employment opportunities and have access to the jobs which will be created by the tunnel in the Ashford and Cheriton area.
The particular improvement which is of vital importance to Dover is the completion, to motorway standards, of the A.20 between Folkstone and Dover. As your Lordships will know, the western section is already included in the Bill but there are I believe to be petitions before the Select Committee of your Lordships' House to remove this commitment in the Bill. I beg your Lordships not to allow it to be removed. The eastern section of the road is to be subject to normal planning procedures. In the case of that section I ask for an assurance from the Minister that he will use his utmost endeavours to ensure that it is completed by the time the tunnel opens. An extension to the north from the A.20 is the A.256 which will take the link with the Channel through to Thanet. The improvement of that road also is of fundamental importance to the people of Thanet.

945
Thanet is also a ferry port. One of the reasons that both Dover and Thanet must have equal access to the rest of Britain is the logic of fair trading and fair competition with the tunnel. Lorry traffic must be able to get equally easily to the Channel ports as it can to the entrance to the tunnel. The other reason is so that they can get the back flow to make use of the tunnel for goods and services provided in Thanet and Dover. The development of two other roads—the A.229 and the A.2—is also being pressed with good reason.
I should like to make one or two other points on the question of fair competition. There must be no unequal subsidy in any guise. It is difficult to see—and noble Lords have referred to this point—what would happen in the event of the bankruptcy of the tunnel. There is also the possibility of the bankruptcy of the ferries or even of the port of Dover. It is of the utmost importance that the Government give undertakings that any subsidy, open or overt, given to either party is matched to the other.
There is also a request, which I believe to be reasonable, for more expeditious remedies to possible unfair trading practices such as predatory pricing. Under the United Kingdom unfair trading Acts and Article 86 of the European Code it would take a long time effectively to bring restraint upon a party who had determined to destroy a competitor through competitive pricing. Then there is the question of parity or equivalent services. I should be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that Customs, immigration, port health and Special Branch services will be equally convenient and capacious at both terminals.
There is also the question of access equivalence. I have referred to the road traffic question. There is also the question of equivalence of rail traffic. Here I must turn for a moment to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, who is not at present in his place. I believe that he was wrong to suppose that the expenditure on the M.20 and on some of the road improvements which are envisaged represents an investment in the tunnel. The figures show that the traffic from this country to the Continent will grow whether or not we have the tunnel. Those road improvements would be essential in any case.
I should like to refer to one or two other points of local importance. The first is what I might call the shale by rail controversy in which I was myself involved. There was a threat that vast numbers of lorries carrying minestone would thunder down the roads of East Kent, destroying the roads and the environment. Assurances have now been given by the Channel Tunnel operators that minestone will be sent by rail. The county of Kent is now in the position that planning permission has to be given for the exploitation and transport by rail of bulk materials for the tunnel. The county of Kent asks that the Government will give it support in enforcing transport requirements that the county may wish to impose. I shall be grateful to have the Minister's assurance on that point.
Dover council is very concerned about the site of the proposed construction camp. It is concerned about the environmental consequences and what will happen to the camp after the construction period is over. I hope this problem can be given sympathetic attention.
946
Finally, there is a wider issue which has been brought to my attention by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, of which I am proud to be the president for Kent. It is concerned about the wider environmental effects of the scheme, particularly in West Kent and along the M.25 motorway. The CPRE is concerned at the pressure of planning applications likely to arise from the traffic generated by the scheme. It has asked if this House will be prepared to float an instruction to the Select Committee asking that it pay particular attention to the full environmental implications of the scheme. I shall be grateful if the Minister will comment on that suggestion.
8.51 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just spoken I too declare an interest in that I am a landowner and farmer in East Kent, albeit in a small way. The noble Lord who has just spoken will be more affected than I will be by the environmental aspects associated with the tunnel. However, before going on to that, I should like to say that I must also declare an interest in that for seven years I was associated with one of the consortia that fell out, if that is the right expression. That does not put me against the tunnel—in fact, I am all for it. Comparisons are odious, but it is rather like the Suez Canal. It will be a great achievement with a touch of romance.
If my noble friend Lord Pennock will for give me, I should like to speak about the question of safety. I do not refer to safety in regard to cars; there is no danger there. I refer to the problem of heat. I am not an engineer though I am interested in locomotives. I suppose that when a 4,000-horsepower locomotive goes through the tunnel it will not travel slower than 50 miles an hour and it may be as fast as 80 or 90 miles an hour, with coaches behind it. It will generate a tremendous amount of heat. If these trains are only five or ten minutes apart, the heat will be very great.
I am sure that the tunnellers will solve that problem. We did a lot of research on tunnels when we were researching the feasibility of a bridge. We had as many experts as we could obtain. I do not know how the tunnellers intend to solve that problem but one of my colleagues (I hate that word) in the group came up with what I think is a wonderful idea. I know this may sound absurd to people who are not engineers, but although I am not an engineer it does not sound absurd to me. If you have cast-iron radiators every half-mile or so with pipes leading from them rising a few feet above the tunnel, the sea water can enter the radiators, get hot and rise, like hot air, back into the sea. This therefore cools the tunnel. It is expensive to install but no power is required. The people building the rail tunnel may already have thought of that, but if not I offer that suggestion to them.
Lord Pennock: My Lords, perhaps I can help my noble friend on this question of ventilation. It is a fact that in addition to having two tunnels through which the trains pass there is a central ventilation tunnel—a service tunnel. At intervals of not more than 380 metres there will be doors between the central shaft and the main tunnel providing ventilation and allowing for the expansion of heat coming from the

947
trains in the way that my noble friend mentioned. We are confident that engineering-wise the problem can be solved with a central ventilation tunnel.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. However, I hope that the ventilation arrangement will not interfere with shipping.
Without being too lengthy I was going to refer to what my noble friend intended to say. I know he is on the Cross-Benches but I still refer to him as my noble friend. It is unfair on farmers and other people in Kent who own land. They can have their land compulsorily acquired at only the agricultural value, if it is a farm, or at existing use value. That gives the tunnellers a great financial advantage because they can acquire a farm for, say, £100,000 whereas as development land it could be worth £2 million. Although the Government have said that only private money is involved, if you take the value of the land to be developed then that is taxpayers' money because the owners of the land would lose that profit. Therefore to some extent the tunnel is being funded by taxpayers' money. I do not know whether that is a good point, but it seems to me a fair one to make.
My noble friend who sits behind me and who comes from Scotland has left the Chamber, but he was worried about the whole financial aspect. He wondered how this tunnel would help Scotland. Of course it will help Scotland greatly. If you are in Glasgow and load your freight there it can go straight through to Madrid, Vienna, or wherever, and that is a tremendous advantage. In fact, I think that freight will be more profitable than cars; but perhaps I am wrong.
My fear is that during bank holidays and so on there will be the most appalling blocks. If you are going off for Easter you may find delays of eight or ten hours. I think that is very likely. On the whole, however, I think the tunnel is a great idea. I wish it every success and I am sure it will have success. I should have liked to speak for much longer, but it is late and I am sure that your Lordships would prefer that I sat down now.
9 p.m.
Viscount Sidmouth: My Lords, the gratifying amount of support that the Bill has received in this House probably represents informed opinion rather accurately. However, I believe that if a significant part of the general public in this country were to be asked whether a cross-Channel fixed link would be a good thing, they would probably say, "Yes". If one then went on to ask, "Are you in favour of doing it?" they would either say, "No" or give a grudging reply.
I tried to think why that should be so. I felt that the position would be different in Denmark. Anyone travelling between east and west in that country cannot fail to notice the immense barrier that is presented by the Great Belt despite the fact that the ferry services across it are extremely well organised and a good deal cheaper than corresponding prices across the English Channel. I am certain that practically every Dane, except perhaps those involved with the ferries, would vote most enthusiastically for a tunnel if a private company came along and offered to build one.
948
Our Channel carries far more traffic than the Great Belt. A tunnel would benefit us correspondingly more than one would the Danes. The difference is that the Great Belt is an internal area within Denmark whereas to many of us the Channel is a historic frontier.
I am sure that that is why, as a nation, we have been dithering about this project for 100 years. If the political will had been there in 1883 it is probable that the technical problems would have all been successfully covercome. In 1987, there can hardly be any doubt that the tunnel can be built. I sincerely hope that it will be. I believe that those promoting the project have identified that equivocal attitude to the Channel and the European Community as one of the main obstacles to the scheme proceeding happily. They plan to launch an advertising campaign to deal with that point. I am sure that they are well advised to do so.
As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, the scheme depends on using venture capital on a large scale. It is therefore vulnerable to attempts to undermine its forecasts of commercial viability. I should have thought that the cost estimates, including contingencies, would be reliable, bearing in mind that the project uses so little new or untested technology. Because of the long lead time, however, the revenue forecasts are projected a long way into the future. They can therefore naturally be queried if one is minded to do so.
Some selective statistics have been used in that connection. We often find that inconsistent and contradictory arguments have been used. I shall give two examples which I think will illustrate what I mean. In one document, which many of your Lordships will have seen, we are asked to deplore the fact that,
"France will have 50 per cent. of the action".
Elsewhere in the same document, it is argued that the cost is too great, beyond our means and so on. The figure of £6 billion is always mentioned, although, as I understand it, that is the total cost of the scheme and presumably half of that will also fall on France.
Fears are raised about a cross-Channel monopoly seizing all the traffic, although in the same document doubts are cast on the tunnel's ability to attract the relatively modest share of the traffic which is forecast.
We have heard a good deal about safety. It should be said immediately, contrary to what was stated earlier, that Eurotunnel has paid a great deal of attention to safety and, in particular, to fire safety. Many of your Lordships will have seen the case which has been put for the methods which the company proposes to adopt. I have some experience of rail transport, and I find it extremely convincing, bearing in mind that in a matter like this one can never have 100 per cent. security.
The number of cars which are carried through tunnels worldwide has been mentioned. I do not think that the fire risk is any greater in a tunnel than on an open track. Cars have been transported for many millions of miles in open wagons on open tracks throughout the world, and as far as I know there have been no cases of fire. The Eurotunnel document quotes only one example given by British Rail of where an electric motor burnt out on a van which was damaged by fire. That was the extent of the damage that the company could find.

949
On the shuttle trains, vehicles will be carried in covered wagons. I want to say a word about segregation and the fire authorities' slogan, "People cause fires". We cannot quarrel with that. However attention must also he drawn to the position in an aircraft. Years ago, I was extremely worried that people were allowed to smoke in an aircraft because I knew how stringent was the need for safety. There, millions of people are allowed every opportunity to cause a fire but I do not think that the statistics show any case of a fire being caused. As I understand it, passengers in the shuttle will not be allowed to smoke.
More time has been spent discussing environmental matters than any other subject and it is not my intention to comment upon that. However, it is an area in which some sort of fantasy and suggestion tends at times to take over. I notice that the document that has been sent to me invites us to weep for,
"those white cliffs I never more must see".
It is true that if one elects to return to England by the tunnel, one will not have the traditional experience of seeing the white cliffs of Dover draw close as one approaches. However, it must be said that they will still be there and perhaps they will act as a counter-attraction to keep the ferries in service after the tunnel has been built.
9.9 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am very conscious of the fact that this is the biggest challenge of its kind in my lifetime. The treaty certainly lays down the gauntlet both to our European neighbours and to ourselves to accept the challenge.
From my experience in industry over the past few years, I am very conscious of the rise and rise of European business. I believe that we must be very well aware that not all United Kingdom industry is less effective, less efficient, or less capable of taking advantage of opportunities than its European counterparts. I for one believe in the slogan which British Rail has issued when it says that there is still a vast market to be tapped. As a trading nation, if the United Kingdom within Europe can produce quality, be efficient and deliver on time, it will have a market which can grow and grow. With 320 million people in that market with no trade barriers, if the price is right, if the quality is right and if the delivery is right, yes, we shall sell. We need to sell not only to create jobs but to hold on to the jobs which we have at the present time. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, it is a two-way traffic. Yes, we buy textile machinery from Germany and Italy because it happens to be better than what we are able to buy in this country. It is also true that we make fabrics which go to Italy and Germany and which are better than they can produce themselves. That must continue. I am delighted that this debate has focused on the positive developments in the United Kingdom afforded by a fixed link.
I am also delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, is in her seat, as she has championed the cause of cheaper European air fares. When one can go from Waterloo to Paris in 3 hours 15 minutes, and when it takes the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and me an hour to get to Heathrow, I have a feeling that, not only on price but also on the time taken, there will be a
950
radical change in the attitude of the cartel which exists to keep up European air fares.
I understand the difficulties of the ferry operators. I understand that the immediate effect in 1993 will be a reduction in the number of jobs. However, like myself, many of your Lordships may have been faced with a sudden takeover which places a factory for which you have some responsibility in great difficulties and orders are lost overnight. That will not happen in this case. We have until 1993 and I have confidence in the ability of the ferry operators of this country to think the matter out and to see how they will work in the future. I am sure that there are ways and means of making profits and of servicing those who wish to travel by sea rather than through the tunnel.
The biggest challenge comes for British Rail. As a Scot, noble Lords will understand that I am particularly interested in the longer distance freight travel. The farther one travels in carrying freight, the more attractive rail becomes. I was delighted to read recently in a Labour Party pamphlet of their intent to encourage freight back on to British Rail. This will only be achieved if industry believes that service and price are right. Therefore, having seen a Labour Party pamphlet, I find it hard to understand a campaign by, I think, Lambeth Council—I may be mistaken about that—which is opposed to the Channel Tunnel development and which is spending £48,000 of ratepayers' money in advocating that it does not go ahead.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, is not in his place because he asked about Scotland and the effects there. I can do no better than to quote the director of CBI in Scotland when he said that by providing a continuous route between the Clyde and the Continent, the tunnel could turn the west of Scotland's peripheral position in Europe into an asset capable of competing with the ports of Rotterdam, Bremerhaven and Le Havre.
There is another advantage which has not been mentioned so far in this debate. British Rail have still to prove that they can cope with the situation; but if they succeed there will be fewer juggernauts on the roads, and many people will be delighted about that. I am also delighted to say that the Sheffield City Council—not the bastion of the Conservative Party as I would understand—are very keen on developing a freight depot there specifically to help the trade that they hope to attract as the result of the tunnel coming into being.
Much has been said today in this debate about security and safety and I do not intend to elaborate on those matters. But as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, skated over the point rather quickly, I should just like to say why gaze at the crystal when you can read the book? Go and see what happens in other parts of the world with long tunnels and how safety is dealt with. Particularly, I commend you to look at the safety record of the Alpine tunnels, which may not be so long but the systems are similar.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. Does he recall that just after the war there was possibly one of the biggest train

951
disasters in history which occurred in those Alpine tunnels? Over 400 people were suffocated when a train broke town in a tunnel. People who were actually dying thought they were just falling asleep. I think the number of casualties was over 400. While I am not particularly anti-tunnel, the noble Lord should base his argument on the correct statistics.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for that intervention. He has the advantage of me in that I was at school at the end of the war and did not appreciate that that incident had occurred. My information has come from those who have been studying this matter, and it was not raised with me that that hazard had taken place. I shall be delighted to have a look at the matter and the reasons for the accident. But, in general terms over past years which we have been studying, the number of accidents in those tunnels has been very very few; but I stand corrected on that particular matter if the accident had taken place.
One point I wish to come to and which is very relevant, is a point which the right reverend Prelate who is to follow me will be particularly interested in—and that is the matter of jobs. We have had many debates in your Lordships' House concerning the manufacturing industry. We must look at the jobs which are to be created and preserved by the existence of this tunnel and also the immediate jobs which will be available by the construction of the tunnel. Coming from Scotland I, and all parties in Scotland, should like to see Ravenscraig, that big steel mill, continue in business. That is a very important matter. We are delighted to see the orders awarded to James Howden in Glasgow for £6.4 million for boring machines.
952
I understand there is also a letter of intent to Mulhauser of Strathclyde for £3·7 million in construction rolling stock for spoil extraction. These are orders which are desperately needed if we are to create and maintain jobs which are needed in Scotland and also in the North of England. I know for a fact that there are very many orders which are either placed or are going to be placed in that area. Those who place the orders must think British. I know that contracts have to be given out under EC rules. But if they think British, they must surely realise they are doing something for their country if they are able to place the orders here. I am not worried about the attitude of the City. I have faith in the City to do right. The noble Lord, Lord Pennock, made the point as he closed his speech that if there is cross-party agreement that this is a good scheme, as it appears to be in this House today, then that fact will give more confidence to the City than anything to put their money into the scheme.
I finish with a regret. I understand the anxieties and the problems of the people of Kent: those whose way of life is now affected. I applaud the work done by the Mitchell Joint Consultative Committee in that area which has addressed the practical problems which have arisen. But I am very concerned and believe very firmly that we have heard many more of the minuses and not enough of the pluses of this whole great venture. I feel—I think it was the Duke of Plaza Toro who said it to his Duchess in The Gondoliers—that we enjoy an interment. There may be some people who take that attitude. But I, for one, like the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, also asked my children, who will be major beneficiaries along with the next generation, what they thought of the tunnel. They were quite clear. They said, "We thought the cry was for jobs now and jobs in the future. We thought we were in Europe. To be in Europe. To stay in Europe, and to prosper in Europe. Get on with it as fast as possible."
9.21 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, in taking part in this debate I must say that I do not do so for any reasons that can be remotely called ecclesiastical. I speak because of my interest in matters of transport in this country ever since, in 1973, I was Chairman of the Independent Commission on Transport which issued its report, Changing Directions, in the following year. I mention that because I am independent still in this matter, and I do not represent any lobby of any kind.
Perhaps I may say at the outset that I am very much in favour of a fixed Channel link. I find the idea exciting, innovative, and inspiring. I have reservations about this Bill, and I must admit that I have some regrets that the treaty with the French was signed in the Chapter House of Canterbury Cathedral, but it was of course during an interregnum of the Dean.
I hope that noble Lords will have in mind that I am in favour of a fixed Channel link; but what I find hard to understand—and I hope that we may perhaps be told—is why the earlier plan of a simple railway tunnel has been dropped in favour of the present scheme which will transport, in two large-bore tunnels, not only passengers in trains but also motor cars, heavy transport, and container lorries loaded onto rail flats.
The earlier scheme of simple railway tunnels was backed by the House of Commons Transport Committee, the European Parliament, and by Sir Alec Cairncross, who was responsible for the last official studies on this matter in 1981–82. I very much hope that we may be told why this scheme was dropped in favour of the present scheme which, as I see it, has some real disadvantages; and since it is not wholly impossible that the present scheme could fail because of lack of public funding, I should like to enumerate some of them.
The present scheme will evidently require expensive so-called improvements to adjacent road systems, which are bound to increase traffic in Kent and do environmental damage to ancient villages and listed sites—as, for example, the village of Newington with its historic 12th century church. It would also require the building of expensive terminals with all the impact on the environment that that involves. But a simple rail tunnel would not do any of this, because everything would travel by rail.
Quite apart from intrusive terminals, the present scheme is bound to generate road traffic, because big lorries will travel down to be loaded onto rail flats down by the tunnel, and this will cause the deterioration of the environment. But way of contrast, a simple rail tunnel would relieve motor traffic because passengers and freight would go all the way by train. This, I am sure noble Lords would agree, would reduce road accidents, and it would mean that less was spent on road maintenance not only around the tunnel but for thousands of miles on both sides of the Channel.
Again, I feel that the present scheme is likely to mean that ferries are likely to disappear. Even if they can compete now with cars and lorries, I do not think that they are likely to do so in the long run because this Eurotunnel project will have far more capital available, and it will be quicker and cheaper to use the tunnel. I do not think that it is an advantage to users
954
if the ferries are withdrawn. Indeed, I even see a security danger here. With a simple rail tunnel if there was a rail strike the ferries would still be available. But if the ferries were withdrawn and the roads were blocked—we do not block the roads very much but the French are particularly good at it when it comes to demonstrations—then we should be isolated by sea from the Continent and we should have to rely only on an air link. That would be a serious matter. Furthermore, without competition from ferries and from ports the tunnel would have a monopoly and it could raise its charges, having first lowered them.
The proposed scheme is likely to cause unemployment at the ports. I have spoken to exporters in Birmingham and I do not see how the ports can continue to provide their present facilities if this scheme comes in. It is inevitable as I see it, if the present scheme goes through, that exporters will tend to send their goods to the Continent by heavy goods lorry on the railway flats of the proposed Channel fixed link rather than by using the present ports as they do at the moment.
The effect of the withdrawal of this traffic could hurt a large number of ports—Felixstowe, Immingham, Harwich, Dover, Newhaven, Great Yarmouth, Ipswich, Tilbury, Bristol, Folkestone, Hull, King's Lynn, Ramsgate, Portsmouth and Newport.
Furthermore, exporters find that it is cheaper today to send their goods by roll-on, roll-off ferry from a UK port to a Continental port such as Antwerp and then ship them from the port because the cost of shipping goods in deep sea vessels from UK ports is so frightfully high. But if we have this proposed scheme heavy lorries will head for that new Channel fixed link and there is great fear that business at the ports will dry up for our sadly depleted Merchant Navy.
There is a further point: how will all this heavy goods traffic get to the terminals on the south coast? Will the M.25 have to be increased not only to four lanes (as has been suggested) but to five? Will a fourth tunnel be needed from Purfleet to Dartford? And what on earth will happen to the M.1, which is a pretty impossible road to drive on at the moment? This suggestion seems to me likely to increase the North-South divide and I include the West Midlands in the North.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, does the right reverend Prelate realise that in Germany two thirds of the freight is carried by rail and in this country a very small amount is carried? Does he not think that rail will take a lot of that extra traffic that he is worried about?
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord said. However, I do not think that this is so likely, as he does, because we have seen such a terrible decline in rail freight traffic over the past 20 years. I think it is more likely that exporters will use heavy goods lorries and then this quick run through on rail flats under the Channel. I have formed that opinion through talking to exporters in my see city.

955
I was talking about the North-South divide. I have heard what people have been saying about the construction industry and it is very heartening for us in the Midlands to be given such a large amount of it. But in the long run if there is increased commercial activity in London and on the south coast it seems likely that there will be more jobs there, whereas a simple railway tunnel link would generate employment in the regions, precisely because of the use of rail freight and the depots in the regions, in the North and the Midlands.
Clearly the original scheme of a simple train link would have helped the rail system generally especially freight traffic, about which I have just been speaking. Increased freight by rail, especially to the Continent, would be economic, it would be necessary if there were no transport of lorries by rail flats and it would be cheaper for small shipments which make up less than a container load.
No one has mentioned the 44-tonne lorry. So far we have managed to avoid it with the 38-tonne lorry. It is ill-suited to our British environment. I am sure noble Lords will agree that it is out of scale in our villages and on our roads. Yet, if we had the scheme envisaged in the Bill with rail flats, I do not see how it will be possible to resist the introduction of larger lorries into this country with all the environmental degradation that would bring. The road lobby in this country is very strong indeed, as I found out when I chaired the Independent Commission on Transport. I have never been in favour of limitless cars, although I do think more cars should be bought from Austin Rover, but that is another matter. I wonder if perhaps the road lobby lies behind this? At the moment we have more and more lorries going faster and faster, and I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me that their speeds are now seldom checked. There are at present all sorts of concessions which favour the lorry and the motor car. If we had a simple train link such as was originally envisaged, this could be the beginning of an attempt to redress the balance in favour of the railways—something which many of us think is very badly needed.
I have spoken in general about the kind of fixed link we have; but whatever link we have I think that we must consider certain matters which are of great importance certainly in the Midlands. I do not represent the City of Birmingham, but the See of Birmingham. However, the City of Birmingham has considered this Bill and has passed certain resolutions in connection with it, and I am sure your Lordships' House will agree that it really is necessary to bear in mind the views of people who hold office in the industrial heartlands of our country.
We do need the expansion of regional customs clearance that was mentioned at the beginning of this debate rather than hold-ups over customs at southern terminals and in London, and if need be the city council of Birmingham has said that it would even be prepared to have charges made to counter Treasury pressure for closure of these facilities. It will be necessary for the Department of Transport and local authorities to plan positively for road-rail transfer depots throughout the country, because so many of
956
them have, alas, been closed. We were told of eight that are proposed to be closed now, but 20 or 30 have been closed in the past 15 to 20 years.
I believe the Secretary of State should report annually to Parliament on the regional impact of a Channel Tunnel. I think it would be desirable, and so does the Birmingham City Council, to have a one-system electrification of a direct line from Birmingham to Dover. I realise that your Lordships may not agree with that, but certainly it will be necessary to upgrade cross-London links to the Midlands.
I understand under the present plan that there are likely to be only three through trains a day from Birmingham to the South Coast, in contrast to the departure of trains from Waterloo every hour and at peak periods four times an hour. At other times Midlands customers will have to cross London by public transport as they do at present, thus putting the Midlands, so far as passenger transport is concerned, at a disadvantage. We must bear in mind that it is estimated that 25 per cent. of passenger traffic for this tunnel will come from north of London, as well as 70 per cent. of the freight traffic.
In speaking in this debate I should like to say that I hope that we may know the reasons why this scheme has been chosen over the other schemes. A simple rail tunnel, with a smaller bore and without the cost of expensive terminals, motorway enlargement and road maintenance costs, would be cheaper than what we have before us now. If the Government did not want to commit public money, and that is very understandable, could they not perhaps have outlined the best scheme and put it out to tender? I am very puzzled indeed that there has been no public inquiry about this scheme, and I am puzzled as to why these proposals are preferred to the more original ones.
Sir Alec Cairncross wrote in The Times on 8th December 1985,
"If one kind of fixed link is to be blessed in preference to others by the two governments immediately concerned, the basis of selection should be publicly available in some detail."
I believe it is a matter for regret that as yet we really have not had this basis of selection, and I must confess for my part that this Bill would be easier to support—and I should like to support it—if we had simple answers to those vital questions.
9.35 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has just made reference to the so-called North-South divide. I should like to pursue that matter from the point of view of the implications of the tunnel for Scotland—implications which have already been referred to by another noble Lord but about which I consider there is a little more to say.
It is not surprising that north of the Border there has so far been comparatively little debate about the Scottish dimension of this project. Historically, a Channel Tunnel has always been seen as somebody else's problem. Indeed, during the Second Reading debate in another place, reference was made to an erstwhile Member of Parliament for Aberdeen, North

957
who took the view that if a tunnel was needed it should not be under the Channel but should go from Aberdeen to Oslo. It is time that we in Scotland woke up to the fact that the tunnel could present us with the most enormous and much-needed opportunities if only we have the sense to exploit them.
Reference has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, and by my noble friend Lord Sanderson to orders that have already been placed in Scotland. I understand that £15 million of orders have been placed already and that there are considerably more to come. However, by far the biggest advantages will come once the tunnel is in action.
We know that 62 per cent. of Britain's exports go to Continental Europe. The problem for Scotland in competing with firms south of the Border, and indeed, with European firms nearer to the heartland of the markets, is of course distance. We are on the edge of the Community and there is a costly and time-consuming journey to the centre of Europe from Scotland. That disadvantage will be enormously reduced if Scottish exporters can load their wares at local rail depots on local sidings, whether owned by British Rail or privately. Indeed, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and with the right reverend Prelate that it would be immensely advantageous if there could be Customs facilities on the spot. It would be an enormous advantage if those goods could travel uninterrupted to any destination in Germany, Switzerland. Italy or wherever in, it is estimated, one-third of the time that it takes at present and at greatly reduced cost.
For example, at present in my part of the world and in the industry of which I have experience, we farmers send malting barley every year to Germany. This year we are sending feed barley to Spain by boat via Antwerp in the way in which the right reverend Prelate described. We do that because the cost, including loading, is £10 to £12 per tonne. By road that barley would cost £20 per tonne to send to the south coast of England and still there would be the Channel to cross. The tunnel may or may not offer a better way; at least one hopes that it will offer a viable choice.
We send beef, lamb, venison, hare and rabbit meat by road. The tunnel will speed up and reduce the cost; perhaps those exports will travel by rail. Our seed potatoes go by boat to northern Spain, Portugal and Italy. Rail or road may be an alternative. At present agricultural machinery manufactured in our part of the world is exported by sea from local ports. Surely rail will be able to compete with that. I understand that representatives of Eurotunnel and British Rail are now in Scotland conducting a survey of what investment is required to achieve maximum advantage through these local links. Of course one has to bear in mind—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made this point earlier on—that easier routes are two-way routes. They will help importers to Scotland as well as exporters, but that surely is an opportunity to be exploited and not a threat to be bemoaned.
Perhaps most important of all—my noble friend Lord Sanderson touched on this—may be the opportunity to develop a rail-sea link between Continental Europe and North America via Scotland. The Clyde offers a port with the greatest natural
958
advantages in Europe. It has deep water right up to the wharves' edge and needs little dredging. It is sheltered and it is not beset by the congestion of the English Channel. It is also 30 hours closer to North America than any of the Continental ports. The CBI have pointed out that if the cost of sending a full container from the Ruhr to New York could be reduced by £200 the Clyde would be in business and there would be a spin-off for the whole of Scotland.
And what about tourism? As with rail freight, motor-rail services are comparatively expensive in Britain. It is over the longer distances that rail travel comes into its own. When the tunnel allows Scotland's railway stations to become an integral part of Europe's long-distance rail network, competitively priced direct car-sleeper services between Europe's major cities and Edinburgh. Inverness, Aberdeen and the like would he immensely attractive to incoming tourists. For Scots who want to drive all the way but who, as many are, are frightened off by the high cost of driving to the south coast and then the cost of the ferries, the reduction in price that competition will bring will be most welcome, as will be the massive reduction in the numbers of juggernaut lorries. We are told that there will be something between 1,200 and 1,500 fewer on the roads and on the motorways at any given moment, en route to the South.
I believe that far from this project increasing the so-called North-South divide, in very many respects Scotland is going to gain an enormous advantage from it. I hope that the House will continue this debate in the vein that we have followed so far, talk positively and encouragingly and give a wholehearted Second Reading to the Bill.
9.43 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, after nearly 20 speakers I do not think one can really say anything that is new. All one can do is to make the points one was going to make and so possibly add emphasis to what other people have said. I have always been in favour of a rail tunnel between England and France but not in favour of either a road tunnel or a road bridge. However, I do not think I need give my reasons against the road link tonight. I believe that a rail link will give us several important advantages. Not everyone enjoys the sea crossing and the quicker rail route will provide a useful alternative.
Much more important, however, is the rail freight that will be carried to the benefit of the railways and those sending goods long distances from the North, as has been pointed out. This should reduce the number of juggernaut lorries on our roads and help the profitability of rail. Even if the expected increase in freight and tourist traffic is not as great as forecast, our existing facilities will not be adequate. Without a tunnel, much of the increased traffic would wish to use the short sea crossing from Dover or Folkestone, and the inevitable expansion of docks and roads in the area would have a devastating effect on those towns. I cannot, therefore, understand why there should be opposition to the tunnel from the residents.

959
The environmental effect of the tunnel will be very slight indeed. The terminal is a well concealed, out of town area. The local opposition has, I think, been promoted by the ship and ferry operators, sometimes by rather dubious methods. The tunnel would, of course, reduce the sea traffic to some extent, but with a good lead time before it came into use it should not put operators out of business. From the consumers' point of view another way of crossing the Channel should be welcome, and it is unlikely that industrial action would affect both routes at the same time.
The argument that there would be increased danger of rabies coming into this country because of the tunnel is, I believe, a complete red herring. Rats are very fond of boarding ships, probably because of the food in the kitchens and elsewhere. They are plentiful in port areas and easily climb ships' mooring ropes unless there are really effective preventors on the ropes. Not so with the tunnel itself where their access can easily be prevented by electric grids and other measures. The real danger lies with passengers illegally importing animals. I think this is much the same, whatever route is used. It is not therefore a valid argument against the tunnel itself.
The opponents of the tunnel are playing on the present concern with job losses. We are talking about a tunnel coming into operation I would think at the earliest in seven years' time. The overall job losses are really negligible in comparison with our quite appalling unemployment and must be recognised as offset by the job gains in building and operating the tunnel and in improvements to railway facilities.
I concede that it is right for specific interests to make their plea. But, in this changing world, we must accept that new departures and hardships occur all the time. The railways should benefit from the tunnel. By the law of checks and balances, some others may suffer. In this island we cannot, in the interests of its inhabitants, accept a philosophy where it would be best to go back to the pick and shovel instead of the mechanical excavator. Too much would be lost if we did. If the rail tunnel is more efficient, we cannot go on saying that we ought not to have it because it might affect our shipping.
Safety of the tunnel is obviously important, and I think more could be done. Nevertheless, we all have to accept risks in this life. Even staying at home is quite dangerous. The risk of a fatal accident at home for men between the ages of 16 and 65 is one-quarter of that in British industry as a whole, which is four deaths per thousand in a working lifetime.
On the roads 55,000 people are killed in Western Europe every year and some 12 times that amount seriously injured—some permanently so. With possibly increased safety precautions in a rail tunnel link, I dismiss this argument. The risk of fire is based on an extension of the fire services' normal standards and they have not yet done a more rigorous analysis of probabilities in the tunnel. The Swiss tunnels have recently proved extremely safe.
The other objections to the tunnel are rather more cogent and depend to a great extent on whether passengers and freight will increase even to, say, one-half of the Channel Tunnel promoters' estimates. I am
960
sure that unless Britain under a Labour Government has to adopt a siege economy, traffic with the Continent will continue to increase and the Channel Tunnel will become a valued asset. This, however, is not quite the same as saying that it will be an instant financial success, and one must concede that it might be at the expense of our other ports.
However, in supporting the Channel Tunnel project, I say that it is ridiculous that we should spend years talking to the French, getting in bids and most of the financial backing from several consortia and even seriously considering a larger road and rail project, if, at the eleventh hour, we back out. The French have considered the merits and economics of the tunnel and are all in favour of it. If we opt out now, "perfidious Albion" might well be a fair comment.
Yes, my Lords, we can still usefully consider some alterations to the plan in detail after hearing the objections in Committee. But the Government have led us forward on this project. For goodness sake, let us get on with it without constantly looking over our shoulders. Nothing much has changed since the Government decided that the project ought to go ahead. If they were to refuse to subsidise, if necessary, the small equity required, then I would say that they are guilty of leading us down the garden path. I sincerely hope that if this happens they will not once again inappropriately talk about "market forces" as a device to let themselves out of a moral commitment.
9.51 p.m.
Lord Pender: My Lords, the evening goes on and perhaps brevity has become the key word. I should like to say at the outset that I am in favour of the tunnel. I have no interest to declare, except that living locally in east Kent, eight miles from Dover and 14 miles from Folkestone, I lean naturally towards a parochial view.
A project of this magnitude could not possibly have unanimous approval. Let us look, however, at the economic benefits not just in Kent, which is the main beneficiary, but to the nation as a whole. First, local employment for 4,000 people, with a similar knock-on effect in the Midlands and Glasgow; then increased trade; faster travel; 1,500 juggernauts taken off the road around London daily; increased economic activity with the tunnel providing more reliable and more efficient transportation, enabling UK exporters to become more competitive in Europe, the world's largest market. The tourist industry will get a tremendous boost, in turn stimulating local business interests.
Of course, there are reservations and anxieties in some quarters. Will the ferries suffer, will there be adequate safeguards for the landscape, will there be fair compensation to farmers, and what about fire risk in the tunnel?—to name a few. But, looking to the 21st century, when the tunnel should have been operating for some seven years, there is no doubt in my mind that the economic and social benefits accruing from the tunnel far outweigh the negative factors.
Teething troubles there will be, but there exists a major opportunity to transform the economy in the South-East and to revitalise industry in many parts of the country. Eurotunnel has demonstrated its

961
flexibility and sensitivity to local issues. The two examples given by my noble friend Lord Pennock, who is not now in his place, of an assurance of shale by rail, and the alteration to the siting of the terminal at Cheriton, bear this out. Such actions bode well for harmony in the future.
The tunnel offers an alternative method of travel. It is not compulsory. For exporters who wish to ship freight swiftly and for businessmen and holidaymakers who can be in Paris in 3¼ hours, and in Brussels a quarter of an hour earlier, I suggest that, following their initial journey of 35 minutes through the tunnel they will be won over, perhaps like watching colour television for the first time as opposed to black and white.
However, at the end of the day, after all the feasibility studies, financial packages, environmental safeguards and other contingencies, there has to be the will to see the project through. Proposals were put forward in 1953 and cancelled in 1974 and the Government did their bit in 1986. It is now up to private enterprise to grasp this opportunity.
9.55 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I fully support this Bill, and I should like to make a few brief remarks about the carriage of bicycles. Some of your Lordships may know that the Government have already gracefully accepted a significant amendment relating to the carriage of bicycles moved in another place by the cycling fraternity, led by Sir George Young. I understand that that amendment was a good illustration of how a small change to the concession agreement has been possible.
While very welcome, that amendment went only part of the way to making sensible provision for cyclists wishing to use the tunnel. It wrote into the Bill the requirement that provision should be made for the carriage of pedal bicycles just within the tunnel. What is still missing is any provision for cycles outside the immediate confines of the tunnel. That problem becomes relevant to this Bill if some form of provision can be stipulated for bicycles on through passenger trains using the tunnel.
As it stands at present, the situation borders on the absurd. We have been told by the Minister about the brand new international terminal at Waterloo. And yet if one wanted to take a bicycle to Paris or Brussels one could not simply turn up with it and get a direct train at Waterloo. As the right honourable gentleman the Minister in another place described on 3rd February (at col. 961 of the Official Report, Commons) one would have to catch the train to Folkestone and cycle half a mile to the Cheriton depot before connecting up with the facility provided by the Eurotunnel shuttle. Think about having to do that at any time of the day or year, whatever the weather.
In another place, the Minister undertook to raise the matter with British Rail. I hope that discussions with them can bring some realism and understanding to the problems of cyclists before the Select Committee of this House examines the matter. If not, I trust this is just the sort of problem that the skilful minds of your Lordships' Select Committee can find an answer to. That answer can then be brought back to the floor of
962
this House, where there is a significant group of cyclists and friends of cyclists from all sides of the House who will be ready to welcome it.
This House should not seem to be elitist. We should remember that there are about 15 million cyclists in this country and that cycling looks like becoming an even more popular leisure activity. Although British Rail and Eurotunnel may initially look to the motorist in order to get the cash flowing, it would be tragic if at this stage development was allowed to proceed in the design of both trains and stations which precluded the easy, regular and (it is maintained) profitable carriage of bicycles.
The cyclist is indeed prepared to pay fairly for this service, even though at present the ferries carry cycles free. If we do not include proper provision for bicycles now, it could be difficult for them to be profitably incorporated later. I hope that the Select Committee will see it as part of its brief to take a slightly longer term view for a wider section of the public.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I follow my noble friend Lord Pender and others in believing that brevity is the correct attitude. I shall therefore quote almost nobody and I shall quote no statistics at all. I have a whole bundle of statistics under my arm. However, I do not care very much about them; I do not think that they help greatly. I wish only to speak about fire safety. I am not the first noble Lord to refer to this matter. However, I think that some noble Lords have referred to it in a cavalier and superficial fashion. They dismissed dangers of one kind or another as being too small to be taken seriously.
I should like to dispose straight away of the argument that long tunnels in the Swiss Alps have been running for years without any accidents at all. There is no question of comparison between those tunnels and the Channel Tunnel, which will be more than twice as long as any of them. The running systems and the ventilation problems in the Channel Tunnel will be quite out of comparison with anything found anywhere in Europe or, so far as I know, in Japan. The fact that there has never been a accident anywhere is totally irrelevant to the question of whether or not there will be an accident somewhere else. I think this is a highly fallacious argument which is trotted out far too often. After all, a large liner had never been sunk by an iceberg before the "Titanic" went down. I dare say that everyone was convinced that such a thing was impossible and was not worth bothering about.
The attitude of the concessionaires to fire is admirable. My noble friend Lord Pennock said that they were falling over backwards to make everything as safe as possible. He was not talking particularly about fire, I know, but this is not altogether borne out by some of the remarks made in their publicity. For instance, in a briefing paper put out by the Eurotunnel company there is this remark:
"There will be no smoking permitted in the trains. As has been shown on the London Underground the ban has been very effective through public participation and self-policing. It is a logical step to expect this policy to he effective in maintaining safety and security in the shuttle trains".
If anybody thinks that that is a logical argument I must suppose that he lives in some other country or is too rich to travel by the Underground.

963
Clearly it is not very difficult for the most ardent smoker to sit for a few minutes in an Underground train with the eyes of all his fellow passengers on him. But that is very different from somebody travelling for hours in a caravan or in a car, longing for a smoke, who cannot be seen because he is in the Channel Tunnel. So let us forget that kind of comparison. The idea of risk from fire should not be dismissed simply because it is unlikely. I do not suggest that fire is likely. Fire may be made almost impossible. The point is that if it breaks out the result would be perfectly terrifying, and probably worse than any other kind of accident that is likely or unlikely to occur anywhere else in the world—even worse than a crashing jumbo jet.
What will happen if a fire breaks out? Let us think in a moment about how it could break out; but let us suppose that it did. What is required among other things is the provision of fireproof doors or fireproof curtains. This has been under consideration since 1971 at the Fire Research Station and other places. No satisfactory solution to the problem has yet been found, as I discovered by means of some telephone calls this afternoon. The problem is this. A fire door has two functions. One is to keep the fire under control and the other is to keep the air away from it. Neither of these functions can be satisfactorily carried out if passengers want to get through the door.
What happens to the passengers who are on the wrong side of the door when it is shut in order to control the fire in the tunnel? The answer to that probably is to have an airlock—two doors—so that passengers can go through one, shut it and then come out through the other one.
Can noble Lords seriously imagine this? You are in a tunnel in a two-decker wagon with five cars above and five below. People are in them. One of those cars catches fire and everybody tries to get out. The wagon is so designed that a small car with two doors—a two-door car has doors that are wider than those of a four-door car—will effectively block the walkway on either side of the train. The people who get out—and no doubt several people will get out and will try to get away from the fire as quickly as possible—will find their way blocked by the doors of the cars ahead of them. Those doors may either be opening away from them, in which case they will force them away from themselves and prevent the other people from getting out, or they will be opening the other way and people will be prevented from passing. So there is a situation leading already to chaos and probably panic.
As soon as a fire takes hold it will produce vast quantities of what is known to firemen as hot smoke—black, oily stuff filled with flames, poisonous, deadly toxic and blinding. Poisonous gases will also be generated. That is the basic situation in which you or I might find ourselves if there were a fire in a car near to us. Some might be old ladies or invalids in wheelchairs who could not get out of the car in time. There could be a baby in arms and bundles of luggage. All that is being carried down through the smoke and the heat and with fear through a narrow tunnel blocked by doors.
The firemen trying to get at the fire to put it out will have to fight their way against those people going the
964
other way. It requires no great imagination to think of such a situation. It is not improbable if a fire should start. It is a far greater exercise of the imagination than has been performed by any of those involved in the Eurotunnel group, so far as I have been able to discover in the literature.
Let us suppose that those people get out of their train. I do not think it is necessary to go very far, but remember that the hot gases from the fire can travel down tunnels—and this is already known from the study of fires in mines—much more quickly than a person can walk or even run. Some of those people, if the fire is to be contained at all, are certain to find themselves on the wrong side of a fire door—it would be necessary to put them in that position—and they would be burnt to death.
Your Lordships may say that that is unlikely; and to that I reply that I do not care whether or not it is unlikely. The point is that it is possible. How likely is it? That is the question that may be asked. It is not as unlikely as all that. There are many ways in which fires can start. They cannot start in Alpine tunnels, which are comparatively open. Caravans carry Calor Gas cylinders, which can leak. We know very well that Calor Gas cylinders in confined situations in a house or boat often explode. If a Calor Gas cylinder explodes in a tunnel which contains a certain amount of petrol vapour there is a readymade bomb. Every time you switch off an electrical switch there is the risk of a spark. If there is petrol vapour about it can start a fire. All sorts of conjunctions of accidents can take place simultaneously and start a horrific event.
Several points arose from the accident in the nuclear power station at Three Mile Island in the United States. One point is that an explosion was narrowly averted but the causes were a complicated correlation of several more or less unlikely or impossible human errors. That situation can very well arise in a train. That is a possibility and if a possibility exists at all it is not to be dismissed; nor is it dismissed. The organisations of which I speak, the Fire Research Station and the British Safety Council, are working on this but they have not yet found an answer. The reason I raise the matter in this debate is that I believe it ought to be in the Bill. Some reference should be in the Bill. However, all that the Bill contains is a note in Clause 16 which gives the Secretary of State power to prohibit smoking. That does not take us very far.
The Secretary of State also has the power to make regulations on the design of the trains. I do not doubt that this is the proper safety precaution but my fear is that so much money is involved in this vast project I wonder whether, when the reports of these scientific research organisations are to hand saying that there must be segregation of the passengers from their cars—and that is what I think they will say—the Government will then say that the design of the trains must be changed. Or will the Government consider the effect on the concessionaires such that it is not fair to put this great new burden of organisation and expense upon them? I hope not, but it is just possible.
I conclude by quoting from experts in this field. Dr. Eisner, formerly a director of the Explosion and Flame Laboratory and a consultant on safety in mines, said:
"Under no circumstances should the passengers be allowed to travel in the same compartment as the vehicles."

965
Sir Kenneth Holland said that,
"to allow non-segregation in the rail-tunnel situation would, in my view, mean acceptance of a lower standard of safety than could be deemed acceptable regardless of any combination of automatic, manual and staff procedures intended to minimise the adverse effects of an unwanted incident."
Furthermore, he said:
"It would seem to be unlikely that any economic advantage of non-segregation would be acceptable to society as offsetting a much lower standard of safety from fire in such an arrangement."
One can go on. What I hope and pray will be decided in the end to be put to the concessionaires as an order is that no passengers shall ever be allowed to travel in the same compartments as their vehicles. It is not difficult to arrange that. That should be in the Bill now. I commit it to your Lordships for careful thought. If it is not done and someone is burnt to death (I believe that will happen) the blame will be fairly upon us.
10.10 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, in this debate I shall don my railway hat or perhaps I should more appropriately say the cloth cap of the railway lover, if railway lovers wear cloth caps. I am still somewhat ambivalent about the Bill as a whole. I shall speak from the railway angle. I have been swung over to general support for the Bill largely by the excellent presentation that British Rail have arranged at Waterloo. I looked through the visitors' book and saw that the Minister who will reply and myself are the only two noble Lords who have visited that exhibition, but I may be wrong.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I did.
Viscount Buckmaster: Forgive me, my Lords, I shall not speak about the environmental and safety aspects of this matter, because they have been dealt with in extenso by many speakers, except to say, with great respect to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and others, that I do not think the environmental damage to Waterloo will be all that great. From the technical railway point of view, the new layout with its five new 400 metre Continental platforms and minimal disturbance to existing traffic (an important consideration) seems adequate. The construction of those new platforms and the approach lines will entail the demolition of only four houses and one public house, the licence of which I understand is now running out.
There are two arguments against the tunnel, which I shall examine briefly. The first is what one might call the psychological or claustrophobic argument. A surprisingly large number of people to whom I have spoken say that an extra hour or two on their journey by ferry or hovercraft is preferable to 35 minutes in a tunnel. We must remember that a great many people (women perhaps more than men) do not even like going on the Underground.
The second argument is romantic, sentimental and unrealistic, perhaps, but it weighs heavily with me. It is that our history, culture, customs and, yes indeed, our past greatness, have all stemmed, to a greater or lesser extent from our insularity. Let me quote from
966
that glorious dying speech of John of Gaunt in Act I of Shakespeare's King Richard II:
"This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war."
Are not infection and the hand of war still spoken about today, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, as basic objections to any form of physical link with the Continent?
In essence, my attitude towards the tunnel, speaking as a student of railways, is that it makes sense for freight but not necessarily for passengers. That is an attitude which, I gather, many of your Lordships share.
Where passengers are concerned, surely speed is the most important consideration; in other words, unless the new tunnel can provide city-centre to city-centre times (let us say from the Victory Arch at Hyde Park Corner to the Arc de Triomphe in Paris) that are appreciably faster than the ferries and the hovercraft and comparable with air travel, I do not see the new tunnel attracting anything like the 15.6 million passengers in 1993 (that is, the year in which the tunnel is scheduled to open) that BR envisages, as against the 3 million or 4 million passengers who now use the existing trains and ferries.
British Rail's planning rests on the assumption that the trains will take 3 hours 15 minutes from Waterloo to the Gare du Nord in Paris, and 2 hours 55 minutes to Brussels. I have examined this estimate very carefully and I have serious reservations about it. In the first place, it would require the construction of an entirely new line designed to take the TGV trains—trains à grande vitesse—which are capable of 160 to 180 miles an hour, from the French terminal at Frethun to the Gare du Nord. Such a line, like those already constructed to Lyons and elsewhere, would begin on the outskirts of Paris with some 10 to 15 miles of much slower running to reach the terminus.
I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but so far as I could find out from British Rail and other sources we know nothing about that line. The French have plans which still seem to be largely in the air, but as yet there is nothing definite. I hope I am wrong about that because it is absolutely vital that such a line be constructed.
Secondly, as has been mentioned by other speakers, the timings envisaged would require customs inspections to be carried out on the trains, including those trains which start in Liverpool, Manchester or elsewhere. So long as the customs authorities procrastinate over this—as I understand they are procrastinating—these timings will be unobtainable.
Thirdly and lastly, there is the question of the speed over the English section of the route from the Cheriton terminal to Waterloo, which is a distance of 71½ miles. Here I must restrain myself from going into too much detail. However, starting from the terminal, the first part of the line from Cheriton through Ashford to Tonbridge—a distance of about 37 or 38 miles, including the 26 miles of almost perfect running from Ashford to Tonbridge—is a section over which British Rail envisage a speed of 100 miles an hour. That is less than the 125 miles an hour at which our high speed trains run.

967
After that one has all sorts of problems. There is a very sharp turn at Tonbridge; there is the climb up to the Sevenoaks tunnel; and there are the restrictions through the Sevenoaks tunnel and the Pollhill tunnel. When one reaches Orpington and enters the suburbs of London a greatly restricted running speed is required. I am doubtful whether a timing of 60 to 65 minutes or whatever it may be is realistic.
There is also the problem of traffic densities. This again is technical and I shall try to keep it as simple as I can. As some of your Lordships know, British Rail envisages a service of four Continental trains an hour. I am speaking of the trains from the London terminal to the Gare du Nord, and I am not talking about the shuttles. There will be four Continental trains an hour, one of which would go to Paris, one of which would go to Brussels and the other two will probably go to other destinations, although that is not certain.
We must remember that the British Rail line is largely the existing Continental main line from London to the Channel ports. On much of that line there is a density of 12 trains an hour: that is, one every five minutes. The ultimate target is a train every three minutes. That may be realisable and I hope that it is, but I am doubtful about it. I have discussed those timings in great detail with British Rail. As the Minister mentioned, it has extensive plans for track improvements, straightening out corners, improved signalling, and so on. Much work will be done on the stretch from the Channel terminal to Tonbridge to bring it up to the 100 mile an hour standard. With those brief considerations in mind, I have serious doubts about the possibility of British Rail and SNCF (French Rail) achieving a time of 3¼ hours from London to Paris.
I should like to conclude with a rather sentimental and highly subjective suggestion: could we not ask British Rail to construct at the Cheriton terminal a tunnel portal to match those great portals to be seen on the old LMS line running up to Scotland? It would be worthy of this great project, of which, in general, I am much in favour.
10.21 p.m.
Viscount Hood: My Lords, in supporting the project I should like to declare an interest. I am a director of George Wimpey which are one of the original participants in this venture, and hope to be one of the 10 contractors building the tunnel. My views cannot better be expressed than the conclusion of the railways which is that the Channel Tunnel project is the single biggest opportunity in the post-war period. I am convinced that it will increase trade. There will be speed and efficiency which will lead to more trade. It will provide an important facility for passengers, and the tourist trade is one of our most important invisible exports. Comments have been made on environmental issues. My only comment is that after hearing many words in this House and elsewhere I am impressed that so great a project can involve so little disruption of the environment.
At this late hour I should like briefly to say something about finance—a subject which has not played very much part in your Lordships' discussions.
968
It is nevertheless fundamental to the venture. The essential facts have already been stated with complete clarity by the noble Lord, Lord Pennock. They are very simple. There are £4 billion of debts superimposed on £1 billion of equity. Of the £1 billion equity, £250 million has already been subscribed, leaving £750 million. This issue is contemplated in the summer provided that the Bill becomes law and the Treaty is ratified. The issue is not simple. The difficulty lies in one very simple fact, namely; that the enterprise is new. There is not and cannot be the record of performance which we have seen with British Gas, British Telecom or British Airways. They are projections based upon the best opinions that can be devised. Provided that they are realised, the tunnel is built and all goes according to plan, in my judgment the profitability is splendid.
The problem brings to my mind an American novel called The Late George Apley, which many of your Lordships may have read. In the 1900s, the proper Bostonian invested some small part of a trust fund in the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, adding that it was obviously a speculation and that if it failed he would replace the money. There is a similarity here. We all know what has happened to the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, it has become a vast enterprise, so vast and so profitable that it has had to be split into six or more divisions. It had an advantage over the Channel Tunnel Company in that it had the opportunity of spreading its activities and thereby created one of the great electronic companies of the world—The Western Electric Company. The Channel Tunnel Company is inhibited—and I should like to make a quotation:
"no part of the Eurotunnel group shall without the written consent of the Intergovernmental Commission engage in any activity other than the development, financing, construction or operation of the tunnel."
That inhibition was not applied to the Suez Canal Company, which again has a certain similarity to the problems with which the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, is so ably dealing. It was a new enterprise and it dealt with transportation. Fortunately for the enterprise and its shareholders, over its 80-odd years of life it built up a great financial activity—investments, and otherwise—so that when the day came in 1956 when it was nationalised the enterprise continued, and is still continuing.
I think there are problems in this financing. Why? Because shareholders do not look only to dividends. The figures are impressive. I see from the prospectus of the smaller issue of £250 million that the Channel company expects to be able to declare dividends in the first 10 years of its activities in excess of £2 billion—twice the subscribed capital. I feel that it would be better if it were allowed to retain at least some of it for productive investment elsewhere.
Shareholders today look not only for dividends; they look for growth. They look for diversification. They may even look for a takeover, although that word is not one that we perhaps use currently. Nevertheless they look for an expansion based upon reinvestment of earnings. I would therefore ask the Government at least to consider looking favourably upon an indication, when the time comes, that written consent might be given to other activities.

969
Your Lordships may say that I am thinking too far ahead, that the Bill is not passed, that the tunnel is not started, and that the profits have not yet been generated. But any investor worth his salt is thinking 20 years ahead. I am not asking for any amendment of the concession. That would be ridiculous. But some indication of flexibility in the views of the two governments would, I should have thought, be helpful in the financing problem which the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, has to face. With these words, I should like to support the project in every way, and I hope that it will receive the blessing of this House.
10.28 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, like at least two noble Lords before me, I must declare an interest in that in five years' time I shall receive a small pension from British Rail. I should like to start by congratulating the noble Lord the Minister on speaking for only eight minutes. I have heard it said that that is unusual, and that Ministers normally speak for 20 minutes. The noble Lord could perhaps have spoken for at least 45 minutes. To encapsulate everything in eight minutes deserves our grateful thanks.
The noble Lord, Lord Pennock, surprised me when he said that young people, the under 25s, are all enthusiastically for the Channel Tunnel. It just happens that yesterday I conducted what I think is called a straw poll in my home among six people under the age of 25 who are studying at technical college or university, or working in hospitals or allied industries. I asked the simple question, "What do you think about the Channel Tunnel?" The first person said, "I don't know." I cannot tell you what the next one said. I shall put it this way; I think that he suffered from francophobia. The next one was not much help. He did not want the Channel Tunnel as he suffered from claustrophobia.
Of the other three, one was against it on defence grounds. Another cited the threat of rabies, and the last opposed it on safety grounds. I explained that one can forget about rabies. As many noble Lords have stated, what with electrical gadgets and digging deep pits, there is absolutely no danger that foxes, rabbits and so on will gallop along the tunnel. From the point of view of safety much has been made about the 50,000 cars each year that catch fire. No one has said how many of those 50,000 cars caught fire with the ignition turned off. I have a feeling that people concerned about this question of fire are raising red herrings.
I did find a difficulty with my young friend who talked about defence. Immediately one can say that there is no way that an enemy could attack this country through the tunnel; that it is the easiest thing in the world to defend a small tunnel against any kind of enemy. But if that is true, then it must also be true that an enemy could deny us the use of the self-same tunnel to reinforce our troops in Europe should the balloon go up.
In the same way that I am an ex-BR man, I am also an ex-merchant sailor. It is true that in the last few years our merchant fleet has been sadly depleted, partly due to overmanning and for various other reasons. I know that we rely today on our cross-
970
Channel ferries being there and being manned to ship reinforcements across to Europe. One of my worries is that if the Channel Tunnel is a success—I hope it will be—there is bound to be a decrease in the number of cross-Channel ferries. If that happens where will we get the ships and the ferries to transport our armaments, our troops and our ammunition across that water?
It is interesting to note that since the Channel Tunnel became a real possibility, for the first time we have seen competition between the ferry companies. They are giving a better service now; they are offering us inducements; and they are building bigger and better ferries.
There is also the worry—I have seen this mooted in the press—that if the Channel Tunnel is built and runs for, say, a year and the Channel Tunnel company decides that it is not economic and goes into liquidation, the possibility arises of another consortium buying up the assets at a greatly reduced price, having had to pay none of the millions of pounds of which we have been told, and then in a monopoly position charging exactly what it likes.
Having said that, as my noble friend Lord Tordoff said, we in the Alliance support the Channel Tunnel and, along with the Government and most people in your Lordships' House, we wish it every success.
10.35 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I wish to talk about East Sussex, and then I will go back to some other points. I do not think your Lordships have addressed the subject of East Sussex. There is a county west of Kent called Sussex, now East Sussex, and it will be affected in one way or another. Mr. Mitchell's committee has looked very seriously into Thanet. One does not want to be utterly parochial, but one has had, very properly, parochial subjects dealt with.
It is a fact that the demands of East Sussex are very modest. British Rail has tried to upgrade the railway between Ashford and Hastings, because Ashford is the town where everything is going to happen. As regards roads, in the North and in the Midlands the roads are excellent compared to the South, but East Sussex does not even want a motorway. I would personally support a motorway in the area but Sussex apparently does not want a motorway; it wants an upgraded road.
Continuing on the subject of East Sussex, we may talk about the town of Hastings. Everybody knows about the town of Hastings; of course every child in every school knows about Hastings because of 1066. It happens to suffer 20 per cent. unemployment. That is probably not quite as high as Thanet, but it is an important point. There are one or two very fascinating industries developing in the area but what they are thinking of in that part of East Sussex is more in terms of tourism. All they are asking is for the A.2070 or one or two of the roads between Ashford and Rye, particulary the part between either Ashford and Brenzett or Brenzett and Rye, to be upgraded. It will have to be done in stages. It must be looked at objectively, and a dual carriage road might go there. That part of Sussex needs a bit of credibility and should not be forgotten.
My last point about East Sussex is that E.V. Lucas, a Sussex writer, talked of Brighton as being an immoral town, Eastbourne being clinically healthy,

971
and dear old Hastings being rather run down. I am afraid nothing has changed. If the Archdeacon was here I am quite sure he would agree with every word I said.
The rest of my speech is in relation to your Lordships' responsibility on this Bill, which is very great, because all the country is looking to your Lordships. Quite unfairly they have said "the other place" and have been unable to get a word in edgeways. But the other place does not really have very much time, because it deals with a great many matters and it has been assessed rather unfairly. However, there are one or two items that will not run away; namely, the security aspect of the tunnel, and the fire aspect.
I am not utterly convinced. I do not think, if I was asked to divide on any of these aspects, that I would go this way or that. One does know the frailty of human beings; how easy it is to stub a cigarette out and burn something in somebody's house or do something antisocial, though I am quite sure there will be all sorts of inspectors. I have had consultations, and I think that the matter should be looked into between now and when we put this Bill to bed. That is really what the country is looking for.
When we put this Bill to bed there are going to be certain areas where people can sleep quietly; we can all sleep; we shall have done a very good job. There should be a punitive system in relation to security. Since 1974 when, unfortunately, there was a "red alert" as regards the IRA, we have had our bags searched. Anyone boarding a train could be subject to that sort of system. There must be a code of conduct if it is not written into the Bill.
I turn to customs and immigration and unfair competition in respect of the ferries. Unfair competition could be a real problem. One of the points about which the ferries are concerned is the untold delays at present as regards people travelling on the ferries. Immigration officers often ask questions about people. They shoulder great responsibilities, as do the customs people. However, the question of the ferries must be looked into as regards a code of conduct, or whatever, and we must also be satisfied that at the end of the day there will be suitable staffing.
Finally—and this matter has already been mentioned and was also evident in the other place—we must be utterly apolitical from start to finish. We must act so that our descendants cannot say that it was the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, the Liberal Party or the Social Democrats who pushed this Bill through. The Bill is a great step forward and we look forward to it passing all its stages.
10.42 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in listening to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, I felt tempted to redress the balance and speak about West Sussex, where I happen to live. However, I shall reserve that for another occasion.
As we bring this very important and wide-ranging debate to a conclusion, it is probably desirable to start drawing together a few threads which of course the succeeding speaker and the Minister will do to an even greater extent. From having listened carefully to
972
everything that has been said, my conclusion is that the majority opinion is very much in favour of going ahead with this project but that nonetheless a number of important points were mentioned on which there are quite justifiable reservations.
We must look at the issue from two points of view: first, from the point of view of broad support; and, secondly, from the point of view of the specific reservations. I shall deal first with the broad support. All who favour the project feel that it will bring us very much closer to the European Community, with which we are already so closely linked through our treaty and through the development of trade. The tunnel will provide us with a much more effective means of access than we have at present. As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said when introducing this Second Reading debate, the present level of trade to Western Europe represents about 60 per cent. of our total exports or £50 billion. It is quite clear that one of our most important objectives is to increase the quantity of manufactured goods going into the Continental markets. Anything which supports that endeavour must surely be in the interests of the country. That is the first main reason why we should support the project.
Secondly, it will massively improve the country's transport system. It is not just a question of building a tunnel, as has been made abundantly clear by many noble Lords who have spoken. There is all the supporting infrastructure of the rail and road networks which will have to be strengthened. Therefore, there will be a wide-ranging benefit.
The Eurotunnel group has made a special and very interesting study of the probable regional impact. I recommend that your Lordships read it. This has demonstrated very clearly the substantial advantages in the way of improved movement, both of passengers and freight traffic, towards the Continent from all parts of this country which undoubtedly will play a part in our future development. I personally believe that the opportunities this is going to provide for all regions are very considerable. I cannot see this resulting simply in a further development of the South-East.
The project itself is going to be one of the biggest infrastructure projects which we have tackled since the war, and we talk a great deal about the need for more infrastructure projects. Here we have one of exceptional size, and I should have thought that we would not have the slightest hesitation in supporting it.
I must say I should be very disturbed indeed if the next attempt to raise equity—the £750 million that the noble Lord, Lord Pennock, and his colleagues will be seeking to raise once this Bill has gone though Parliament—fails; because I am afraid that if that were to be the case and if the failure to raise the money were to be because of the reluctance of the institutional investors in this country, I should feel that the criticism which is often being voiced—that such bodies are only interested in short-term investment—is probably correct. Here we have something of very considerable long-term impact, and it is about time that we put some of our money—and all of us will have our money involved through the pension funds and other institutions—into long-term projects.

973
This has the advantage, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hood, said, of being potentially a very profitable project. It shows a return of over 16 per cent. before tax. That is considerable. When we consider other projects—new power station projects which we shall be talking about and even nuclear projects which will be coming up in due course—I believe we are talking in terms of about 5 per cent. rates of return justifying a massive investment. Here is one that is three times as profitable and we should have no hesitation in supporting it if we are satisfied with the prospectus, as I am sure we will be.
Then there is the question of employment. These additions to employment will be ongoing. First, there will be the construction, and then the operation. We are talking of anywhere between 4,000 and 7,000 or 8,000 persons being employed per annum. We are talking about a massive ordering of goods, services and equipment from British firms; over a billion pounds-worth is going to be put there. Therefore this one project is going to do a whole lot of things at the same time, so far as I can see. It is going to support our export trade; it is going to strengthen our links with the European Community; it is going to provide more employment; it is going to provide profitable investment. I would say it is very rare that one could think of a project which could do all those things at the same time.
Those are the positive points; but there are points that cause concern and it is going to be necessary at the Select Committee stage and when this Bill comes back to us that we look very carefully at the problems. I think your Lordships have identified them very clearly. Without any question, the first aspect of concern is safety; and many have referred to that. I think it is quite right that this aspect should be examined with the greatest of care at the Select Committee stage. And when the Bill comes back to us here we would have to be convinced that whatever is necessary to avoid some of the difficulties, dangers and risks that many noble Lords have mentioned has been done.
Secondly, there is the environmental impact: the environmental impact in Kent and the environmental impact at the Waterloo terminal. Both those aspects have been referred to. A great deal of work has been done on both. I believe a positive effort has been made to solve those problems. Nevertheless the issue was raised not least by my noble friend Lord Tordoff and by others, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, as to whether we need to have one terminal or could have more than one.
Then there is the question of the competitive impact on the ferries and how we can ensure that their interests are legitimately safeguarded. Reference was made to the fact that perhaps we should have gone for a rail-only tunnel. I think this needs to be further debated. We need to be convinced that what is now proposed is absolutely right. I think we would feel concerned if by putting so much money and effort into this project we were going to weaken the long-term prospects of the ferries, which are quite rightly, as my noble friend Lord Attlee mentioned, important not only in times of peace but in times of war. This is another matter that needs to be looked at.
974
Finally, there is the question of customs procedure to which again many noble Lords referred. It is going to be important that we adjust ourselves to this new system of transport, so far as concerns both passengers and freight.
Therefore I conclude by saying that I think the major arguments in favour of this project are overwhelming, but that there are some specific issues which still cause concern, which need to be looked at very carefully during the further stages of this Bill so that when it comes back to us we can then be wholeheartedly satisfied that it meets all possible requirements and enables us to derive from this project the maximum benefit.
10.53 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I think everyone will agree that we have had a very long but also a very interesting debate tonight. One of the things that we should all be very pleased about is that we have had no fewer than three maiden speeches. The noble Earl, Lord Cowley, made a most interesting point—he did so succinctly—when he spoke about the psychological barrier which is one of the things that affects the whole question of the Channel Tunnel.
Then we had the speeches of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Earl, Lord Darnley, who are both from Kent. I am from a long way from Kent, and I am never sure whether one is a Kentish man or a man of Kent, and where the border actually is. It is also interesting that they spoke because they are on the doorstep; they know the situation very well. Both of them are particularly concerned about the environment of the area that they live in and that they come from. Therefore, their speeches, together with that of Lord Cowley, are very important. I am sure the whole House will look forward, now that they have got over their maiden speeches, to hearing them contribute with the same succinctness and forcefulness that they did this evening.
I have always inclined towards the tunnel. I think the first time I spoke about it in another place was in about 1963. I would say—and it is much like the noble Earl, Lord Cowley—that it was a psychological decision that I took the other path as against those who had the psychological barrier. It is almost a hunch decision. The noble Earl, Lord Lloyd-George, referred to the enormous mountain of material that has been collected on the Channel Tunnel, and that is still going on. Every week and every month more material comes in. I think to a large extent on a project so enormous as the Channel Tunnel, having subconsciously perhaps looked at their best interests, people make a decision almost on a hunch. I think the Duke of Edinburgh called it a belly decision or a gut reaction to certain things that some people have.
Therefore I was sad about the fact that in some of the speeches tonight there was almost a ridiculing of those who disagreed, as though they were not intelligent enough to understand, or as though they had some very special interest. I have a great respect for those who disagree and for those who have the other point of view from that which I hold. In fact, it is amazing that in the past year, of all the different people who put in bids for different types of tunnel,

975
those who were not successful are not now so keen on a fixed link as they were. So people can change their minds on this subject.
People in Scotland are rather worried about the effect of the tunnel in the South-East, and this fact was dealt with by many speakers. Perhaps it is a little unfortunate that at this period British Rail has announced that it is closing 80 Freightliner depots. It is a depressing fact that it may be a long time before they will be reopened, and they may not be reopened in time for the Channel link, if and when it comes. So will British Rail keep the depots in mothballs till 1993, or will it merely abandon them in the hope that it can build more later?
This aspect also applies to some of our ports. I raised this point in the Committee on the Pilotage Bill when I asked the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, about the port of Greenock. Unless something serious happens to help Greenock—and all the Scots people should be aware of this—there will not be a Greenock by the time the Channel Tunnel opens. Therefore, the glorious vision we had, when we learned of the day-and-a-half or 30 hour journey, and the fact that the Clyde is closer in time to North America than any other port, will be of very little advantage to us.
The whole regional problem is not something that can be easily brushed away. There is great and understandable worry. My noble friend Lord Sefton made a very intelligent and powerful speech when he expressed some of his worries about the tunnel. People in Scotland are worried about whether the tunnel will help them. People in Liverpool are worried about whether the tunnel will help them—or whether it will even do them any harm. These questions have to be answered.
The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, is in a very fortunate position in that I understand he represents a very high quality woollen manufacturer with a world reputation. With an increasing standard of living in certain parts of the world, there is a great demand for its products, and I only wish that more of Scotland and the North-East was in the same happy position as the Border. There are real problems.
It is no use making a comparison between our attitude and that of the French. The French have a totally different position. They would give a great deal to have the Channel Tunnel because of the advantage it would give to the Pas de Calais. That is the equivalent of the industrial belt of Scotland in terms of needing new investment and new money. The attitude of the French is different from ours.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked: why not a rail-only tunnel? I happened to be on the Select Committee of the other place when the tunnel was considered very carefully. I heard the most professional and devastating arguments from Professor Cairncross, who is an exceptional man. I listened with great care, as did the whole committee. At the end of the day it was realised, if I am correct, that there would just not be enough money to build what became known as "the mousehole"—that was the tunnel that could take only trains. However, the only way that would have been viable was if it could
976
have provided for piggyback as well as purely rail traffic.
We were in a situation in which, while British Rail, the National Union of Railwaymen, ASLEF, the environmentalists and many other people wanted a rail-only link, the British Road Federation, the Transport and General Workers' Union and many other groups opposed that idea. I believe that the money market also gave fairly strong hints that they would not take the risk of a rail-only link. I shall go back and read the last section of the report again, but that is my memory of what might be called the "gossip" of the committee, whether or not it was actually put down. That was the final decision of the committee when I was on it and as I remember it.
One of the other great problems was raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. There must be genuine concern in realising that all this will be pushed upon a certain area relatively suddenly and that that area will never be the same again once the tunnel opens and the terminal is there.
I think that another thing the Select Committee might look at is the various options involved. I have never been convinced that, when a large concern such as British Rail comes to a conclusion, it does not spend a great deal of time proving that its conclusion is right, and that it does not occasionally become slightly impatient with people who introduce another idea which, if looked at closely, might prove more viable than was thought. I may be a romantic, but I rather like the idea of having a close look at Battersea Power Station.
Waterloo Station is already overloaded. British Rail has said that it can handle the traffic. I do not know enough about the south side of the river to know whether or not that is true. However, I certainly understand the people in the area who know that in 10 years' time that area will be no more as they remember it. I know that human traffic is quite high, particularly in the morning and the evening, through that area. Therefore there must be apprehension over the additional line.
One of the basic problems which was only slightly touched upon by many noble Lords tonight is the question of subsidy. We need assurances from the Minister concerning the British Ports Authority and other parts of the country that may be affected by subsidies going either direclty or indirectly to the tunnel so that other areas are adversely affected. For instance, will British Rail be asked to guarantee a particular throughput of traffic? Obviously, if it has to guarantee such a throughput, that would presumably come from the government grant to the railways. Perhaps the Minister can clear up that point.
Is there any guarantee required of the minimum traffic that British Rail will give to the tunnel? Will British Rail expenditure be diverted to building up the South-East network, as against the network in other parts of the country? Have the Government made any allowance for that in regard to British Rail? My concern is for other parts of the country and particularly for the ports. If British Rail spends too much money on the tunnel project in trying to make a success of it, obviously there will be less money for the ports.

977
I should like to ask the Minister a question which I hope he can answer now; but if he cannot I hope he will be able to answer it before we reach the Committee stage. Clause 2 of the Bill has already been mentioned in the debate. When I look at Clause 2(1) and then at Clause 2(2) I must admit that I become totally lost and cannot understand why they are both in the Bill. One seems to say that there will be no pick-up of expenditure by the Government and the other seems to suggest that in certain circumstances they can help towards payment to the company. This matter is too large just to be left to the Committee stage and I think we should have an answer now.
I have a number of other questions. Will Customs officials and Foreign Office officials looking at passports be taken away from the ports in order to look after the tunnel traffic or will there be new appointments and an increase in staff to cope with the traffic going through the tunnel? There is a feeling among the port authorities that they could be at a disadvantage if Customs clearance were faster there than at the ports. This would favour the tunnel company and would not be fair competition.
My last points concerns safety. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that practically all the safety matters—rabies and so on—have been well looked after. I have no great concern in that regard. I must say, however, that I have a genuine fear—and it has arisen quite recently—about fire. I happened to go to the fire brigade seminar. I think that a number of noble Lords were invited there but unfortunately it took place on one of the worst days, if not the worst day, of the winter. I left the seminar feeling very definitely concerned about the possibility of fire.
I was concerned in particular about the idea that people in a caravan could make their own tea or do their own catering while the train was going through the tunnel. I do not think that any other tunnel can be compared with this one. There could be a fire 15 miles from either end of the tunnel. The fire brigade would have to go in and try to cope with the fire. The Alpine tunnels—and I think that I have been through all of them several times—are not in the same class. The idea that people would be able to stay in caravans and motor caravans on the way through and perhaps cook is terrifying.
I did not get the impression that the Fire Brigades Union is by any means anti-tunnel, but it raised that point and it is a very genuine one. It also wanted to know whether an allowance will be made to Kent Fire Brigade for coping with the tunnel. Will there be any co-operation with the fire brigade on the French side or will there be a special fire force within the tunnel as the airports have? What will the common language between the fire brigades on both sides of the tunnel? If there was a fire it would have to be fought from both sides and there would need to be some understanding. This is not a small point. It is not insuperable but it certainly ought to be looked at.
We are all a little sad and unhappy that there was not a public inquiry. Such an inquiry would have cleared up many of the doubts and I am sorry that we did not have one. However, I can say that if the Bill gets through both Houses and the project goes ahead a Labour Government would certainly ensure that the
978
maximum benefits are derived from the tunnel for the nation as a whole and that damage to the environment would be minimised.
We all look forward to the Select Committee of this House reporting on the Bill. I know that the two Members concerned from this side of the House are very thorough and will be positive and helpful in the discussions. They will also insist on getting the right answers. We also look forward to the Committee stage where again I hope positive and constructive debate will take place in order to improve the Bill as it came from another place.
11.10 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I expected, this has been a constructive and well-informed debate and I am much encouraged by the overall mood of support both for the project and for the Bill; though I fully accept that there are still reservations about matters of detail and indeed more general reservations from a few noble Lords.
I shall try to deal with as many of the points as I can but in many cases matters are inevitably still under consideration or are the subject of continuing negotiations. If I am therefore unable for the moment to respond fully I will read most carefully what has been said and perhaps write to noble Lords; or no doubt we shall return to the subject at a later stage of the Bill. I fear that I shall not be able to complete this wind-up in eight minutes!
First, I congratulate my noble friends Lord Cowley, Lord Astor and Lord Darnley on their maiden speeches. I absolutely agree with the telling point made by my noble friend Lord Cowley about the commercial opportunity for United Kingdom exporters into the huge European market. How right he was to say that the Europeans only have the advantage of being able to come to a market of 55 million people more easily through this tunnel whereas we have easier access to a market of over 200 million people.
I agree wholeheartedly with what my noble friend Lord Astor said about the tunnel increasing competition across the Channel to the benefit of users. Instead of two modes of travel as at present there will be four ways of crossing the Channel—air, sea, car shuttle and through train.
My noble friend Lord Darnley was perhaps not so keen on the possibility of the fixed link. He spoke of course from the point of view of Kent. However, he missed the point of Clause 2 in that the Government cannot support the tunnel financially without bringing fresh primary legislation before Parliament. That legislation would be hybrid and the airlines and the ferry operators he is concerned about would be able to petition.
I suppose the issue which has exercised your Lordships more than any other is that of safety, and it is right that it should do so. The issue was raised by many noble Lords, notably the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery and the noble Lord, Lord Moran. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, was a little unfair in saying that it was becoming clear that safety has not been fully considered. Safety issues, in particular the risk of fire

979
and the non-segregation of passengers from their vehicles, were fully debated in the other place.
The Safety Authority, of whose competence and independence there can be no doubt, would not hesitate to reject any aspect of the scheme which was unsatisfactory from a safety point of view. Although in the first place the Safety Authority will proceed by examining Eurotunnel's proposals, it also has necessary powers to consider any relevant safety matter, including the implications of segregating occupants from their vehicles.
The concessionaires, in consultation with Kent Fire Brigade, will draw up plans for first-line firefighting to be undertaken by their own trained staff. The fire brigade, whose chief officer is a member of the Safety Authority, would be called in at once to deal with a serious fire. The noble Earl, Lord Lloyd-George, pointed out the great inherent safety of single track railway tunnels. He referred to the fact that the concessionaires must make bylaws for the safety of the tunnel and I can confirm that the Safety Authority will take a close interest in these requirements.
My noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery exaggerated the issue a little. He said that smokers will have to sit for hours in the tunnel without a cigarette. The journey time is only 35 minutes and even those of us who smoke—
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I think that I gave a false impression. I meant that these people would have been sitting in their cars or caravans for four hours, not only in the tunnel, but for the whole of their journey.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is only in the tunnel that people will not be allowed to smoke. Even those of us who smoke can probably manage 35 minutes without a cigarette.
The study of fire doors, to which my noble friend referred, has not been going on continuously since 1971. The work was suspended when the last scheme was abandoned. Furthermore, the cramped conditions described by my noble friend are a fantasy. There is plenty of room on the shuttles. He also overlooked the fact that there will be only five or six cars in each shuttle.
The United Kingdom Government have appointed to the authority the chief inspecting officer of railways as co-chairman, the chief highway engineer of the Department of Transport, the chief fire officer of Kent and a senior official of the Health and Safety Executive. The French Government are appointing members of equivalent standing to cover equivalent disciplines.
A point which not many noble Lords mentioned is that the concessionaires will be keen that the tunnel should be utterly safe. Nothing could be worse, from the commercial point of view, than an accident or a fire in the tunnel of the type that has been described this evening. If there were a serious fire like that, I doubt whether anybody would ever go near the tunnel again, and that would be the end of it.
Noble Lords opposite have asked why there has not been a public inquiry into the regional and environ-
980
mental effects of the project. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, pointed out that the two governments issued their guidelines to promoters as long ago as April, 1985. Would it have been realistic to have held a public inquiry before Eurotunnel had even submitted its proposal? Would it have been sensible to have held an inquiry while the Bill was under way in another place? Of course not. With a public inquiry under way the parliamentary process would have to stop and to hold fire. To what purpose? A hybrid Bill would still be needed. There would still, rightly, have to be Select Committees in both Houses so that Parliament, as is its duty, should take the final decision.
As many noble Lords have said, the Select Committee of another place did a fine job. There will soon be a Select Committee in this House. I submit that a public inquiry would add nothing but duplication and delay.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, referred to paragraph 222 of the report of the Select Committee of another place. That paragraph was not advocating a national economic study, as is made clear in the previous paragraph where just such a proposal is rejected. The point made was that special economic assistance for Kent was unjustified and would have a distorting effect on less prosperous areas. I am happy to confirm, as the noble Lord asked, that I agree with the Select Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about the locus standi of petitioners to your Lordships' Select Committee and about the department's advertisements inviting people directly and materially affected to petition. It is not easy to summarise the Standing Orders of this House in a few words, but the rules are there to be read. Petitioners must be privately affected by the works or they must legitimately represent groups, such as environmental groups, or companies or their employees, who are affected.
The other main issue raised during the debate has been about the benefits of the tunnel project to the whole country, put admirably by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, and other noble Lords. The Government agree that the benefit of the project must go to all parts of the country, particularly to regions of high unemployment. First, during the construction stage, Eurotunnel fully expects the great majority of the work generated on this side of the Channel on construction and the manufacture of equipment to go to places other than the South-East. The Department of Trade and Industry has set up a special unit to assist in that process.
Secondly, the Government have endorsed in principle the proposal of the Opposition in the other place that British Rail should produce a comprehensive plan to disperse through rail traffic using the tunnel.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, in his usual trenchant style, talked about the North-South issues, orders and employment. A large share of the employment generated by the tunnel will go outside Kent. Eurotunnel estimates that elsewhere in Britain some 50,000 man-years of employment will be generated by Eurotunnel's orders. It is anticipated that there will be 10,000 man-years of work on British

981
Rail's rolling stock alone. No investment has been taken away from the regions as the tunnel is being entirely privately financed and a large part of the money is being raised on the international market. Both the Anglo-French Treaty and Clause 2 of the Bill make this clear.
Turning to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, subsection (2) of Clause 2 simply provides that Eurotunnel may benefit from the sort of financial assistance which is available to all industries including their competitors—for example, tax relief on capital projects.
The whole country will benefit from having a fast, reliable, all-weather shuttle to the Continent as 60 per cent. of all our trade is now going to Europe. My noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden, who for so many years has been in an industry with an outstanding export record, told us the difference that the tunnel could make to his industry and of the benefits of taking heavy lorries off the road. My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour and several noble Lords mentioned the possibility of increased business not only for Scotland but for ports on the west coast of the UK. However, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, mentioned the problems associated with Greenock.
British Rail is planning to provide international passenger services to the major British cities. It also sees great potential for freight, 70 per cent. of which will originate from beyond London since the longer distances made possible by the tunnel will make rail freight a more attractive commercial proposition.
It is not right to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, indicated, that the Government will be spending up to £500 million on the tunnel. British Rail's investment of some £390 million will be funded on a commercial basis without recourse to government support. Almost all government expenditure on road improvements in Kent (not on the tunnel) would be needed to meet the growth of cross-Channel traffic even without a tunnel. There must be public expenditure on infrastructure made necessary by the tunnel. Any major development, public or private, has consequences for public services: roads, schools, hospitals, etc. As is always the case, the public authorities meet those costs and recover the expenditure through rates and taxes. It is quite wrong of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, to suggest that this is inconsistent with the Government's firm determination that there should be no public finance or guarantees for the construction of the tunnel system itself.
Many noble Lords referred to Customs facilities in the regions. Several noble Lords have drawn attention to the importance of the inland Customs clearance depots in making possible freight services beyond London. Customs facilities are very important but it is very expensive in terms of manpower to provide facilities where the traffic level does not warrant them. The advantage of the tunnel is that it will allow a very large increase in international rail services so that many more Customs depots will be justified. British Rail and Eurotunnel are already conducting a series of regional seminars to identify the opportunities, and the Government have already given their support in principle to the proposal put forward in the other place for British Rail to prepare a plan for the dispersal of
982
international rail traffic, including British Rail's proposals for the provision of freight depots.
I turn briefly to the question of Customs on the passenger trains. The Government accept the desirability of on-train controls, particularly for trains travelling beyond London. However, it is probable that airport-style terminal controls would provide a feasible alternative for trains terminating at Waterloo.
As regards Waterloo, which was the subject of the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, and which was also touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the noble Earl, Lord Lloyd-George, British Rail decided on Waterloo after careful consideration of 13 other sites. The decision was certainly not taken purely on cost grounds. Waterloo meets the best criteria identified by British Rail as essential for an international terminal in London: clear commercial value of single city centre terminals with good connections to other rail routes and other modes of internal transport. It can accommodate an international terminal and 400-metre long platforms with less impact on surrounding properties than, say, Victoria Station. British Rail says that a split terminal would cost substantially more and would reduce the marketability of the service. Non-city centre location would add to journey times and would reduce competitiveness with airlines. The Government have no reason to question British Rail's commercial judgment. The control of secondary development in the area is a matter for Lambeth Borough Council, which have all the powers that they need in this regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, rightly referred to the risks from terrorism, which are not unique to the tunnel. I can assure him that the responsible government agencies are fully involved in discussions with the concessionaires on the preventive measures. One point which the noble Lord might like to consider is whether or not it would be easier to plant a bomb in a car if the drivers are separated from their vehicles, as the noble Lord has advocated for safety reasons. It is arguable that requiring drivers to stay with their cars is a deterrent to terrorists, and it is also a deterrent to the hazards of fire.
My noble friend Lord Ferrier asked about insurance and said that he had been unable to find one word in all the documentation about insurance. I should like to refer him to Annex 3 of the concession agreement (which is Cmnd. 9769) which sets out in considerable detail the requirements of the two governments on this matter, in particular in relation to users' liabilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne and my noble friend Lord Pender quite rightly spoke about the effect of this matter on Kent, particularly with reference to the M.20 and A.20. The Government are firmly committed to the M.20 being the principal route to the Channel ports and improving the whole of the Folkestone to Dover section of the A.20. The department has given assurances to the local authorities that the eastern half of the A.20 scheme between Court Wood and Dover will be improved. The department demonstrated this commitment by publishing on January 30th the necessary statutory orders under the Highways Act procedures. On

983
timing, the aim is for completion of the Bill scheme in the second half of 1992. A viaduct has to be built over the completed Channel Tunnel in Holywell Coombe, so work on the road cannot be effectively started there until 1989. It is the department's expectation that, subject to statutory procedures, the eastern section from Court Wood to Dover will be completed by mid-1993. The other roads mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, are county roads; and the noble Lord will no doubt be reassured by the recent announcement concerning transport supplementary grant for the county's priority schemes.
The noble Lord also mentioned, as did other noble Lords including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, the competition between the tunnel and other modes of transport, notably the ferries. Noble Lords emphasised the vital importance that the Government should treat the ferries and the tunnel even-handedly. The ports and ferries have said that they are prepared to face the competition of the fixed link, provided that the basis of competition is fair. The Government have made it clear that they are equally committed to the principle of fair competition.
Assurances have been given that the tunnel and the surface operators will be treated even-handedly with regard to such matters as the application of competition legislation, the provision of frontier control services and inland road and rail investment. The Government have also gone so far as they reasonably can to amend the Bill to meet the surface operators' desire for additional safeguards, in particular by including Clauses 2 and 40 which explicitly prohibit the Government providing funds or guarantees to Eurotunnel.
My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard touched briefly on the subject of land compensation. I see that he is not here at the moment, but I am sure that this is a subject to which we shall return in due course, especially if the various interested parties continue their lobbying activities.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham asked why a single rail tunnel scheme was dropped. It is certainly the case that such a scheme was worked up by British Rail and SNCF some five or six years ago. However, when in April 1985 the Government issued their invitation to promoters, no conventional rail tunnel was submitted in response.
It must be remembered that this is a private sector scheme with private sector finance and it would not have been right for the Government to impose a solution regardless of the possibility of raising finance. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, spoke with personal recollection of the previous scheme of a rail-only tunnel and he gave us the reasons why that scheme fell through. The right reverend Prelate also asked about lorry weights, which is a very important point. We have unlimited derogation from the EC lorry weights directive. The construction of the tunnel will not alter the compelling reason for that derogation, which is the inability of many roads and bridges in the United Kingdom to carry vehicles above 38 tonnes. The present tunnel should, as many noble Lords have said, reduce the number of heavy lorries on our roads.
984
The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, spoke about the carriage of bicycles. Clause 18 of the Bill has been amended to require the concessionaires to carry bicycles on the shuttle trains. Whether the international through trains should also do so must be left to the commercial judgment of British Rail and their continental partners, but I can confirm that my honourable friend the Minister of State is taking up this question with British Rail.
The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, asked what was happening about the high speed train on the French side. There are proposals for a new high speed line from Paris to Lille and from Lille to the tunnel portal. The precise alignment of the new track is not finally settled especially in the vicinity of Lille, but I understand that the French Government expect to make an announcement on this investment by June. The noble Viscount also asked about the adequacy of the track and the timing of the train journeys. Those are of course matters for British Rail, but I have no reason to doubt its judgment in the figures it has given.
My noble friend Lord Hood said that the concession agreement does not preclude the concessionaires from investing in other ventures. The provision in clause 5.5 of the concession is intended to ensure that the concessionaires remain financially secure. It is not the intention that the inter-governmental commission should unreasonably inhibit the concessionaires' right to diversify.
My noble friend Lord Teviot asked about other road improvements on the south coast, particularly those concerning East Sussex. As well as the M.20/A.20 improvements, the department has examined the A.259/A.261 east-west coastal trunk road in Kent and East Sussex. Some rearrangement in the A class roads in the Hythe area may be made, along with any necessary improvements. The New Romney bypass has been restored to the active national programme, and possible improvements at Brookland and Hastings are being considered.
I turn lastly, but not least, to the speech of my noble friend Lord Pennock. I am sure that all noble Lords, whether they agreed with what he said or not, are grateful that he came and was able to speak this afternoon with his great experience and great knowledge of this subject. He set out with great eloquence and authority the facts about the project, the great and various benefits which the tunnel promises to bring to the nation, and the thorough and comprehensive approach that Eurotunnel is taking towards the threats of which the opponents of the tunnel have sought to make so much—sabotage, fire, and rabies. The Government recognise that to make the project as safe as it can be for the public will require very close and effective co-operation between the Government and the concessionaires, and that cooperation is already taking place.
I have tried to deal with as many of the questions asked of me as I can. I have listened carefully to the views of those noble Lords who have spoken during to-day's debate, and I have noted a number of points about which I intend to reflect and consult before the Bill returns to the Floor of the House. The Select Committee which your Lordships will appoint will have much work to do, and I am sure that we all wish it well over the coming weeks.

985
As I said when I opened the debate this afternoon, our main purpose today is to establish an historic principle. If the Bill is given a Second Reading then, for the first time, both Houses of Parliament will have approved the principle of a Channel Tunnel. Those who have the courage and determination to bring forward this great project will have the confidence they need to carry forward their design and development work and we shall have taken a major step in creating a physical link to Europe to match the commercial and political links which we already take for granted. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before midnight.

  SDI: US POLICY
  SDI: US POLICY
  MENTALLY HANDICAPPED PERSONS DISCHARGED FROM HOSPITAL: SERVICES
  MENTALLY HANDICAPPED PERSONS DISCHARGED FROM HOSPITAL: SERVICES
  LORDS MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS: NEW WRAPPERS
  LORDS MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS: NEW WRAPPERS
  DUTY FREE ALLOWANCES
  DUTY FREE ALLOWANCES
  MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE ALLEGATIONS: INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
  MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE ALLEGATIONS: INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
  CONVENTIONAL FORCE REDUCTION NEGOTIATIONS: SCOPE
  CONVENTIONAL FORCE REDUCTION NEGOTIATIONS: SCOPE
  SOUTH-WEST IRAN
  SOUTH-WEST IRAN