Sitting of 2 July 1987

Preamble
The House met at half pastTwo o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    BEXLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL
    Read the Third Time, and passed.
    BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL
    Considered; to be read the Third Time.
    LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL
    To be considered upon Thursday 9 July.
    LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (BECKTON) BILL
    To be read a Second Time upon Thursday 9 July.

    FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered upon Thursday 9 July.

    TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second Time upon Thursday 9 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Farm Buildings
    Mr. John Mark Taylorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to encourage farmers to notify Government sponsored enterprise agencies of unused farm buildings in their localities.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): While it may be useful in particular instances for farmers to notify enterprise agencies in rural areas of unused farm buildings. I am anxious that, whenever possible, they themselves should make use of such buildings for diversified enterprises.
    Mr. Taylor: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, but will he take note from me and from others who have been involved in enterprise agencies that the hardest commodity for a new-start business man to find is premises'? Whereas in any locality it is easy to find a list of good commercial premises, those are beyond the reach
    610
    of the new-start business man, who must needs make his commencement in irregular properties. That is where the agricultural community might have a valuable part to play —in identifying such properties from time to time.
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I hope that he will not refer to such properties as irregular, but they are suitable for the purposes that he has in mind. I shall make sure that if there are any ways of helping in this direction we shall do so.
    Sir Hector Monro: On the important issue of alternative use for buildings and land, has my right hon. Friend seen any greater flexibility among planning authorities in giving approval for this sort of development? Is he considering giving further guidance?
    Mr. Gummer: That is largely a matter for the Department of the Environment, but I have begun a series of meetings around the country in which I have put before planning officials, chairmen of planning committees and local farmers the various problems that are involved, and the advantages of being more flexible in this way. The reaction so far has been extremely good, and I hope that that will continue.
    Mr. John: Is the Minister aware that the chairman of the Development Commission says that there are many more inquiries for premises than there are premises available, and that if the Government were to allocate an extra £10 million to the Development Commission annually that could easily be taken up in providing premises for people moving to rural areas to create employment?
    Mr. Gummer: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. We are now doing a whole range of things. After the consultation period is over we shall be announcing a whole range of new ways in which we shall help in that direction. I am pleased to see that those moves have the general support of the hon. Gentleman's party.

    Wool
    Sir David Priceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's policy towards the production of wool, from British farms.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): Our policy is to encourage the production and improvement of British wool, which can form a valuable part of sheep producers' returns and is in demand on domestic and world markets.
    Sir David Price: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that Britain is the largest producer of raw wool in Europe, but that there is still a potential for further increase if it is rightly encouraged? Will he also accept that, environmentally, sheep are nature's best lawnmowers?
    Mr. Thompson: Original lawnmowers, I should imagine. I acknowledge that the British sheep and wool industry is the most important and most significant in Europe. Our exports of wool are increasing. For example we export £8 million of wool more a year to Japan than we did three or four years ago. I thank my hon. Friend for his question.
    Mr. Randall: Is the Minister aware that manufacturers of high quality woollen products are having difficulty in

    611
    obtaining raw materials, such as angora, cashmere and mohair, which come mainly from China? What steps will he take to encourage agricultural diversification in this area?
    Mr. Thompson: Some firms in my constituency use these fine wools, and I acknowledge that occasionally they have difficulty getting those wools, but there was diversification into these wools without encouragement from us. We are now encouraging it. At present there is a strategic plan on this matter at Reading university and we hope increasingly to supply our market for fine wools from this country.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Strangasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total cost in sterling of the common agricultural policy throughout the European Community in 1986.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): Expenditure on the common agricultural policy in 1986 was £13,800 million.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that he was right to acknowledge yesterday that this year's prices package represents a failure by the Council of Agriculture Ministers to tackle the problem of the costly food mountains in Europe? Will he assure the House that when he seeks to resolve that problem it will not be at the sacrifice of British livelihoods and jobs, and that there must be greater national responsibility within the Community for agricultural production?
    Mr. MacGregor: I certainly acknowledge that there is a long way to go, but I would not say that yesterday's agreement was a failure. It marked some significant improvements in dealing with CAP reforms, particularly in two areas where the costs have been rising substantially, namely, cereals and oilseeds. That followed from a more significant reform in dairy and beef in the December package and showed a change in direction. It was not a failure, but I acknowledge that there is a long way to go. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, while obviously everyone in agriculture will have to bear some part of the containment of the surpluses, it will be my determination to ensure that there is no undue sacrifice in any sense for British farmers and that they get a fair deal.
    Sir Richard Body: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is also a human cost attaching to the CAP and that, despite the vast sums being spent, the number of farmers in the original Six has fallen from 21 million to 7 million? In this country their number is still declining at the rate of 3,000 or 4,000 a year. Is it not time that we asked ourselves whether price support, in accordance with the CAP, has the effect of supporting farmers?
    Mr. MacGregor: I know of my hon. Friend's great interest in these matters. He has written interestingly about them. The decline in numbers is not just associated with the structure of the CAP. I am sure that he will acknowledge the substantial improvements in efficiency that have taken place within farming, which obviously have had an impact on the numbers involved.
    Mr. Livsey: Does the Minister recognise that sheep production is the ninth highest cost under the CAP? Will
    612
    he ensure that the future of the sheep industry in Britian, particularly in the less-favoured areas, is protected in the coming negotiations?
    Mr. MacGregor: Naturally, I am well aware of the importance of sheep production in the less-favoured areas. We have yet to see what the Commission's review of the sheepmeat regime will produce. I have already made it clear that I am not prepared to accept anything that involves unfair discrimination against the United Kingdom. That is why we managed successfully to get the proposal for a headage ceiling on the payments for ewe premium dropped from the discussions in the recently completed package.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no less than 20 per cent. of the FEOGA costs are related to the storage of surpluses? If he is successful in bringing production more into balance with needs, will he make strenuous efforts to make it clear to the Treasury that the United Kingdom farming industry could benefit by the use of such funds released, in part at least, for restructuring itself for the future?
    Mr. MacGregor: I understand exactly what my hon. Friend says. I have made it clear that we hope that some part of those funds could be used for alternative land use, diversification and so on, to enable structural adjustments in the countryside to take place. That would also provide alternative income for farmers and others in the rural economy. The cost of storage, let alone disposal, is so high at the present time that it is unrealistic to think that anything like that total proportion could be devoted to alternative schemes.
    Mr. Beggs: Will the Minister tell the House whether the Anglo-Irish Agreement has in any way reduced the extent of smuggling of livestock from Northern Ireland into the Irish Republic? Does he agree that the smuggling of livestock into the Republic from Northern Ireland threatens the viability of meat plants in Northern Ireland and also results in fraudulent claims for payments from EC funds and therefore abuses the common agricultural policy?
    Mr. MacGregor: The question of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and what is discussed under it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In terms of exports of beef from Ireland to Northern Ireland or elsewhere, the hon. Gentleman will have noted that in the current price fixing that has just been completed we obtained a higher devaluation of the green pound than of the Irish punt, and this has had a favourable impact on the trading position of the United Kingdom.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: As any sales of a surplus product reduce the cost of the common agricultural policy, can my right hon. Friend tell me why Live Aid's request to buy surplus butter to turn into, I understand, buttermilk—which sounds a bit unlikely—to send to Africa has been turned down?
    Mr. MacGregor: To some extent, any sales of the surpluses in intervention provide some reduction in the overall cost. However, as my hon. Friend knows, the costs of disposal out of intervention are still a very significant part of the CAP. I shall have to look into the other point that she has raised and I shall write to her.
    Mr. John: The Minister has been quoting 1986 figures. Will he admit to the House that since then the situation has deteriorated in that the CAP budget is now £16 billion, which is more than a £3·5 billion over-run? Therefore, we are talking about a cost to the Community of about £20 billion.
    Mr. MacGregor: I acknowledge that the cost of the CAP has risen. That is why the Government are devoting such strenuous efforts to trying to get further reforms in the CAP and to get the costs down.

    Green Pound
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been achieved in negotiating a substantial devaluation of the green pound.
    Mr. MacGregor: The Agriculuture Council earlier this week agreed devaluations to reduce MCAs by 5·5 points generally and by 7 points for beef, with no change in the green rate for sheepmeat.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that there is great disappointment at the continuing green pound gap? Is he aware that specialist beef producers in my constituency will be prejudiced to the tune of about 10 per cent. as opposed to their competitors in the EC? The Minister has said that United Kingdom producers should not bear a disproportionate and substantial competitive disadvantage compared to producers in the EC as a result of receiving lower prices. Why did he not hold out for a higher devaluation?
    Mr. MacGregor: I should like to put three points to the hon. Gentleman. First, since February the beef MCAs have fallen by almost 16 points, and that makes a big difference. Of course, that also takes into account the strengthening of sterling, but it takes account, too, of what has been achieved in the negotiations. Secondly, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that in this price fixing we obtained a better green pound change by a long way than the average for the Community. We obtained a change of plus 2·4 percentage points, compared with plus 0·5 percentage points average for the Ten—better than the Irish and the French. Thirdly, he will be aware that green rate devaluations, while they help farmers and raise support prices, also have other impacts that we had to take into account. On balance, I think that we got it absolutely right.
    Mr. Conway: Bearing in mind the importance of this devaluation of the green pound for farmers' incomes, will my right hon. Friend comment on the statement by the president of the National Farmers Union that, as a result of these negotiations and the statement yesterday, farm incomes will decrease by 15 per cent.? That is not the impression of many of us on this side of the House.
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. Let me make it clear again that, although there are still some calculations to be done, because we have only just completed the negotiations, the more accurate picture is that the overall result of the price package is about neutral for British farmers. Of course, other things affect farm incomes, many of which we cannot be certain about this year — for instance, the harvest. No doubt the president of the National Farmers Union examined some of those matters, and his figure is therefore very uncertain.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Does the Minister intend that trading in beef should take place on a fair basis between producers in the United Kingdom and Ireland and in other parts of the Community, and if so, when?
    Mr. MacGregor: Obviously, MCAs fluctuate. It will depend on realignments and on the strength of sterling. Over the past few months, however, we have made considerable improvements in the trading position for beef farmers.

    Dairy Industry
    Mr. Matthew Taylorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the dairy industry in England and Wales.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: I believe that the industry is now on a much sounder footing following last December's Council agreement on measures to improve the balance of the market. The next step will be to consider what measures should follow the current quota system when it expires in 1989.
    Mr. Taylor: Will the Minister assure the many dairy farmers in this country that the 1984 pledge to protect small farmers producing fewer than 200,000 litres will be honoured in any milk quotas or other cutbacks that might be instituted? Secondly, will he pursue the suggestion repeated by the EEC on many occasions that it will be sympathetic to preferential quotas to areas most suited to dairy production, such as Cornwall?
    Mr. Thompson: The areas most suited to dairy farming were in at the beginning with quotas, and have them, simply because of the very nature of the business. We are always aware of the small farmer, and the small family farmer, and I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Harris: Can my hon. Friend give any indication of the likely timetables on the discussions on milk quota leasing? Can he also say what is the position of people who wish to enter into such leasing arrangements here and now, while those discussions are proceeding?
    Mr. Thompson: We have the sort of answer that my hon. Friend seeks on quota leasing, and we are hastening to get the small print out of the way as soon as the price fixing is finished.
    Mr. Home Robertson: As the Minister has just said that the present quota system will technically disappear in 1989, will he tell us whether the Government intend to see the introduction of a new quota system to continue after 1989? Has any consideration been given to the idea of extending the quota principle to cover other commodities, as a means of regulating production and protecting the interests of producers, consumers and, indeed, taxpayers?
    Mr. Thompson: Discussions are continuing on whether quotas should be introduced into the farming of sheep, cereals and other products. Indeed, we constantly discuss, debate and argue about those matters on these Benches and upstairs. At present, however, I cannot and will not speculate on the future of quotas in 1989.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Hunterasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement giving details of his proposals to reform the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. MacGregor: I shall promote measures that are fundamental to the interests of British farmers. This must include the reduction of surpluses and their associated budgetary costs, and increased market influence in the operation of the CAP. I shall also support complementary measures widening the range of opportunities open to farmers and helping to develop the rural economy generally.
    Mr. Hunter: While awarding my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister 10 out of 10 for her performance in Brussels, rather than the eight out of 10 reluctantly conceded to her yesterday by an Opposition Member, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has seen an article in today's edition of The Times, headed
    "EEC package puts up UK food prices"?
    The article speaks of a costly package making nonsense of British attempts to control EC spending. Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to comment on the accuracy or otherwise of that report?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was somewhat surprised by the report in The Times, both because it gave prominence to one of the most insubstantial parts of the package and also because it gave a very inaccurate impression. The plain fact is that the effect of this package on food prices is minimal. It is less than one tenth of 1 per cent. on the retail prices index. It is interesting to reflect on the fact that the overall effect on food prices will be less for a family of four than the price of a small bar of chocolate per week. That puts it in context.
    Mr. Madden: Has the Minister seen the calculation that if surplus grain were to be placed in a plastic tube a foot wide it would go round the globe more than 600 times? Do not the CAP food surpluses represent a grotesque obscenity in a world where children are starving to death every second? Does it not also represent a major burden on both British consumers and other consumers? Is this not the time for dramatic action to deal with the waste of the CAP instead of making further empty gestures about reforming an archaic institution which the Minister, and others before him, have been trying in vain to reform for years and years?
    Mr. MacGregor: To answer all the hon. Gentleman's questions would require a lengthy debate. Yes, I agree that we have to deal with the grain surpluses, and important steps have been taken in this price package. The average support level for cereals will be reduced by about 10 per cent. It is not just a European problem; it is a worldwide problem. There are big surpluses elsewhere. India and China are now exporting cereals. Therefore, the problem must be dealt with on an international basis, hence the importance of the GATT talks. It would not be fair to British farmers to achieve complete containment when others continue to produce substantial surpluses and sell them on the world market.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, overall, the British farmer makes very little contribution to EEC surpluses and that if any surpluses
    616
    accrue from this country they accrue mainly from cereal farmers, not from dairy farmers? In any reform that he is envisaging for the CAP, will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to the position of the small dairy farmer, who is vital to so many parts of the rural community? Dairy farmers are a binding feature of the rural community. Without them, there would be nobody to manage our countryside.
    Mr. MacGregor: We have given serious consideration, and we shall continue to do so, to the position of the small farmer, including the small dairy farmer. However, my hon. Friend is deluding himself if he thinks that we are not contributing to the surpluses and to the costs. We have to accept that we are making a contribution to the cereals surplus and also to the substantial supplies of butter and skimmed milk powder that are held in intervention stores.
    Mr. John: The Minister has told us about his aims but not about his proposals for the reduction and the eventual disappearance of surpluses. Does he favour price reduction, set-aside, quotas or a two-tier price system? Will he consider setting out in a White Paper his proposals for the negotiation of the disappearance of these surpluses.
    Mr. MacGregor: Yesterday the hon. Gentleman called for a debate, and if there is to be a debate that might be the appropriate time to go into all these matters. Yes, I believe that there needs to be price restraint; yes, I believe that set aside, in some form or another, will have a part to play, and we are pursuing that aim; and no, I do not believe in two-tier pricing policies of the kind produced by the alliance, as they would be inimical to British farming interests. Earlier this year we published a major document that set out the broad outlines of our policy.

    Milk Quotas
    Mr. Ashdownasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received any recent representations about the allocation of milk quota between landlords and tenants.
    Mr. Gummer: From time to time I receive comments on the operation of the current arrangements, and some organisations have discussed landlord-tenant issues in response to this Department's recent request for views on the future of the quota system.
    Mr. Ashdown: Is the Minister aware of the deep concern that is felt in the National Farmers Union and other circles about the pressure that is being put on tenants by landlords who have received planning permission as a result of the relaxed regulations and who are seeking to remove tenants, either by making them offers that they cannot refuse, or, more worryingly, by putting down uncontestable eviction orders? What does the Minister intend to do to conserve and maintain milk quotas and also farmers' livelihoods?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to say that the Government are greatly concerned to conserve milk quotas and the livelihoods that depend on them. If he can give specific cases of the harassment to which he referred we shall, of course, examine them carefully. However, until this moment, that has not been one of the major concerns expressed to us. We have been anxious to get a reasonable balance between the natural interests of both tenants and landlords.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend also examine the position of landlords and tenants on the whole question of the sale of milk quotas? Does he not agree that the way in which milk quota is increasing in price is causing grave concern, and will he assure us that the Government will take measures to stop the sale of milk quotas?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend might remember that when we first introduced milk quotas a universal demand of the farming industry was that milk quotas should be transferable, both by leasing and by sale. It was because of that that we allowed the arrangements to work as they do. Indeed, we have sought more flexibility and I think that our demand for greater flexibility for leasing will go some way towards meeting my hon. Friend's anxiety. It must be remembered that the price of milk quotas is part of the market rather than something that can be determined by Government diktat.

    Beef
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the European Community about the structure of the proposed new European Community beef regime, due in 1987.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: The decisions on the reform of the beef regime were made during the United Kingdom presidency last December and came into effect in April. Our market prices have risen since then, while our producers benefit from the variable premium and suckler cow premium at increased rates.
    Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister accept that, notwith-standing the devaluation of the green pound and developments in the beef sector this week, the beef producers of this country still feel hard pressed and are still subject to unfair competition, particularly from the Irish Republic? Will he confirm that this most recent devaluation gives further scope for increases in the hill livestock compensatory allowances and in the suckler cow premium? If those increases were made would that not solve some of the problems to which the Minister referred and considerably benefit beef producers in my constituency and in other less-favoured areas?
    Mr. Thompson: The less-favoured areas are always on our minds primarily because I live in one. The suckler cow premium has increased by £8·60 and we shall, of course, examine that again. The variable premium returns about £51, which cannot be bad and the Irishman, who was collecting £63·70 on a side of beef is now collecting £22·60, and I am sure that he will not be pleased about that.
    Mr. Key: I think that my hon. Friend has particular expertise on the subject of the European meat trade. Will he examine urgently the problems facing a large number of slaughterhouses, which appear to be the subject of a positively Japanese-style campaign from Brussels to prevent the abattoirs from exporting meat to the European Community? That is having a consequential effect on the butchers in our high streets.
    Mr. Thompson: I do not think that butchers in our high streets and export slaughterhouses are all that closely connected. However, I would not countenance any meat being exported from this country that had not been
    618
    handled in the most hygienic of premises. The same inspectors tour the whole of Europe and America to inspect slaughterhouses. There is room for improvement in many of our slaughterhouses, although a large proportion of them are of the very highest quality.
    Mr. Rogers: For the past half hour we have heard about nothing but surpluses in beef, dairy and other agricultural produce and the Government's lack of ability to reform the common agricultural policy. May I suggest that one way of solving the problem would be for the Government to shut down some of the farms, just as they have shut down the pits and the factories?
    Mr. Thompson: We heard my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) say earlier that when the CAP started there were 22 million farmers and now there are 7 million. That is a significant reduction.

    Radioactive Contamination
    Mr. Altonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the latest levels of contamination resulting from the Chernobyl fall-out in grass in areas under restriction for movement of sheep, compared with June 1986.
    Mr. Gummer: The latest progress report on a survey of Cumbrian vegetation commissioned by the Ministry from the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology indicates a substantial decrease in contamination levels over the last 12 months. I have placed a copy of the report in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Alton: I am grateful for that reply, but may I ask how many hectares of land continue to be contaminated, and how much longer it will be before that land can again be used for grazing? Will the Minister continue to provide compensation this year? How much compensation has already been paid out? Does he not agree that his Department's initial response was extraordinarily complacent, given the events that have followed?
    Mr. Gummer: No, I certainly do not think that. We were very much faster off the mark than any other country in Europe, provided much more generous compensation than any other country in Europe, have done very well by the farmers in those circumstances and shall continue to do so. The hon. Gentleman ought to stop whingeing about an extremely well-run policy. It is not a question of the acres of land that are covered, but of the number of sheep that have been affected. Four hundred thousand sheep are still affected, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that up to now we have spent £4,347,097 on compensation and that there is still opportunity for compensation to be paid.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: What about this contamination getting into food? Is it not true that while Britain allows exports of food containing 1,000 Bq per kilo, it prevents imports of goods with more than 600 Bq? Is not the inconsistency in that position the reason why the Kuwaitis, the Egyptians, the Israelis, the Iranians, the Philippinos, the Malayans and the people of Hong Kong and Singapore have returned shipments of British food exports to the United Kingdom over the last month? Is that not an inconsistency in our position?
    Mr. Gummer: I hope that it will not be considered improper if I say that I would prefer to rely upon expertise in Britain than on expertise in many of the countries

    619
    mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. The standards imposed in this country are clearly advised by our scientists to make the food consumed here and for export entirely safe. We stand by that.
    Mr. Home Roberston: Does not the Minister's initial reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) indicate that the Government do not feel that it will be necessary to maintain the movement restrictions for much longer? Following the Prime Minister's written reply to the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) on 30 June, can the Minister say what staff and resources will be deployed by his Department on long-term contingency plans to deal with the ever-increasing risk of nuclear accidents, either in this country or further afield?
    Mr. Gummer: With respect, the hon. Gentleman's last comment was somewhat tendentious. Whether or not the risk is ever-increasing, we have said that will employ the staff and resources that are necessary. We are looking carefully at the way in which we will respond in the future and are trying to learn the lessons that we ought to learn from what has happened in the past.
    I do not want to prognosticate on when the movement restrictions will be lifted entirely. They will be lifted as and when it is entirely safe to do so, and we have a very high margin of safety, as this is a matter affecting food. That is why I can say with such confidence to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that this country puts the safety of people, both here and abroad, first.

    Green Pound
    Mr. Bruceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to press for a substantial devaluation of the green pound; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Spellerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress on the European Community negotiations on the proposed devaluations of the green pound.
    Mr. MacGregor: I refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier.
    Mr. Bruce: I acknowledge that the Minister secured a 7 per cent. devaluation for beef as against a 5·5 per cent. general devaluation, but does he not acknowledge that the Irish secured a 2·8 per cent. devaluation? Given that they are the major competitors in the beef regime, does that not mean that the gap is still too disadvantageous? The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has already said how important dairying is to underpin the rural economy in his area. Will the Minister acknowledge that that is also true of the beef industry in my constituency and many others, and what will he do to bring that industry into profit?
    Mr. MacGregor: Not only is our beef sector affected by the green rate devaluation that was secured—although it was well above that of the Irish—but, MCAs for beef will fall because the Commission will be reducing the percentage of the intervention price used to calculate MCAs from 85 to 80 per cent. —a significant move in the direction that we were seeking. We pressed for that, and it was another of the changes that we obtained in the price package, which was advantageous to Britain. That means that the net MCA payment on Irish sides will go
    620
    down from about £27·80 to £22·60, which is almost a cut of 19 per cent. That is a considerable improvement on December 1986, when the equivalent figure was £63.
    Mr. Speller: I take the point that my right hon. Friend has made, but will he accept that the British farmer, who is as patriotic as the next man, entirely accepts the need for reform and devaluations, but does not understand why it always seems that the minimum amount that he receives is not sufficient to restore him to a reasonable livelihood? He is looking to the Government for rather more help than he has received.
    Mr. MacGregor: Within the Community we have fought hard for legitimate British interests and we have been very successful. I entirely understand what my hon. Friend has said and I should like to see a satisfactory solution for farmers. We must face the fact that we have substantial surpluses. In some senses we are facing the penalties of the success that farmers have had in hugely increasing production. Therefore, that means that we shall have to reduce the costs of surpluses and face up to some agricultural land coming out of production, hence the importance of the other initiatives that we are now taking.
    Mr. Maclennan: What are the prospects of the Minister supporting the entry into the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system within the next financial year? It will give farmers some relief from the constant fluctuations, which are hitting our farmers harder than others.
    Mr. MacGregor: I think that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of our position on the EMS. Membership of the EMS has no automatic effect on green rates. It is the panacea that some people seem to be chasing all the time, but it does not exist. Green rates will still be reviewed on each price level, and exceptionally at other times, whether we are in or out of that system.

    Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance
    Mr. Gregoryasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the president of the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance; and what issues were discussed.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: Since his appointment my right hon. Friend has yet to meet the president of the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance, but they have agreed to meet as soon as mutually convenient.
    Mr. Gregory: Does my hon. Friend agree that the greatest help that the Government could give to the confectionery industry in important centres such as York would be to re-rate confectionery in line with foods, to boost employment?
    Mr. Thompson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his persistence in putting forward the confectionery industry's case. We had long discussions during the election—and they will continue — about VAT and its various impositions. All that I can do is repeat what my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said the other day, that the Prime Minister has said that we have no intention of imposing VAT on food, gas, electricity, young children's clothes and shoes.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Enough of all this sweet talk; it will not butter any parsnips. When do the Government intend

    621
    to introduce legislation that requires producers of these sticky comestibles to put a health warning on them so that people will know that they destroy their teeth and do their hearts in?
    Mr. Thompson: If the hon. Gentleman takes the trouble to read what is written on a packet of the sweets that he so liberally gives away to his family and friends he will see that a great deal of information appears on the packet. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that discussions are continuing on how that information can best be clarified so that people know exactly what they are purchasing and have freedom of choice.

    Milk Quotas
    Mr. Knoxasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to have discussions with the European Community Council of Ministers about the operation of milk quotas.
    Mr. Gummer: This item is not at present specifically on the agenda of any Council meeting, but in its discussion of price fixing this week the Council has been considering several issues relating to the quota system.
    Mr. Knox: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep resentment that is felt by many British dairy farmers that New Zealand imports are included in Britain's national quotas? How can he justify that, 14 years after we joined the Community?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish to mislead the House. In the fixing of the quotas between the countries of the Common Market, the fact that New Zealand had entry into our market was excluded from the arrangements and Britain received a smaller cut than about 40 per cent. of European producers, although we received a larger cut than another 40 per cent. However, New Zealand did not affect that at all.

    Food Surpluses
    Mr. Baldryasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present cost to the European Economic Community of the storing and disposing of agricultural surpluses.
    Mr. MacGregor: The 1987 Community budget provides for expenditure of 17,400 mecu— about £12,400 million — on the storage and disposal of agricultural products.
    Mr. Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that we started using resources to help farmers rather than simply wasting them on the storage and disposal of surpluses? Is it not time that we had a policy to reduce the Community budget and increase money for farmers?
    Mr. MacGregor: There is no doubt that quite a bit of the support helps farm incomes. My hon. Friend will agree that when we talk about the unjustifiable element in the cost of the common agricultural policy we must remember that we are storing and disposing of surpluses on such a scale that it costs 50 per cent. of the community budget. That is why we want to bring it down.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Tony Lloydasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Lloyd: I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. For eight years people in the inner cities have thought that she was the major part of the problem, so why should they believe her now when she says that she has changed?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that total expenditure on the urban programme in England increased from £93 million in 1978–79 to £324 million in 1987–88— a 73 per cent. increase in real terms. One of the difficulties about inner cities, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, is that some councils are positively hostile to the private sector, which could solve their problems.
    Mr. Lord: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fundamental problem in terms of agricultural surpluses, particularly cereal surpluses, is how to reduce them quickly without seriously damaging farming interests in Britain? Since farmers have to plan ahead, and bearing in mind the problems in leaving the sorting out of milk to the last minute, will my right hon. Friend please urge on our partners in Europe the need to act quickly on this most important issue?
    The Prime Minister: I have a feeling that my hon. Friend did not get in on questions that ended just before my own began, but I shall do my best to answer him. We have left a number of guidelines with the Commission. One of them involves how to reduce the amount of wheat that goes into intervention and reduce the surpluses, before we dispose of the surpluses. Instructions have been given to draw up guidelines in a regulation, but I am aware that farmers need some time to adjust to any new regime because of the inevitable time cycle involved in agricultural production.
    Mr. Kinnock: On another type of inner city question, the 1985 insider dealing legislation made provision for two-year prison sentences. Does the Prime Minister think that a £25,000 fine and a suspended sentence is a punishment that adequately fits the crime?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is aware, as he indicated, that we were the first to make insider dealing a crime. The maximum penalty is two years' imprisonment, but there is a measure before the House that puts up the penalty to seven years. The right hon. Gentleman is also aware that it is Parliaments duty to ensure that the maximum penalty is available, but he knows full well that one is not able to comment on any particular sentence.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My right hon. Friend will recall that during the general election we had high-minded sermons from the leaders of the Liberal and SDP parties talked about co-operation, goodwill and partnership. In view of their present behaviour towards each other——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to tell the hon. Member, and all new hon. Members, that questions to the Prime Minister must relate to her responsibilities and not to those of others.
    Mr. Bennett: I was wondering whether my right hon. Friend could refer the two right hon. Members to a good marriage guidance counsellor or divorce lawyer.
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that that is a matter for me.
    Mr. Haynesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Haynes: Does the Prime Minister agree with the statement that her Secretary of State for the Environment made last night in the debate on the Loyal Address? [HON. MEMBERS: "Which statement?"] If so, will she confirm that the worst off in our society will be far worse off with a vicious poll tax?
    The Prime Minister: I would not agree that the worst off will be adversely affected. Most single people in houses, single pensioners and widows will be far better off under the community charge. The worst off will be those on supplementary benefit. The less worst off will get up to 80 per cent. rebate of the community charge. The worst off, in addition to an 80 per cent. rebate, will be on supplementary benefit — [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked the question and I am giving him the courtesy of an answer. I ask that he do me the courtesy of listening. For the less well off there will be up to an 80 per cent. rebate of the community charge. For the worst off who are on supplementary benefit or income support, there will be an amount added to that income support or supplementary benefit equal to the average of the 20 per cent. that they would have to pay. So, they will not be adversely affected.
    Mr. Evennettasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the understandable concern of many in the community when people of ability leave to go abroad to work? Will she explain what steps are being taken by the Government to encourage people to stay and work here?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that it is important that our very able scientists stay and work in this country. As my hon. Friend is aware, the recent report of the Royal Society showed that there is not a brain drain, but that there is a movement of scientists both ways. Some of our best scientists go overseas, but some very good ones come here. We are anxious that scientists should have excellent facilities in which to work. Therefore, we must consider setting up centres of excellence and multi-disciplinary laboratories in universities. We must also ensure that those scientists who are on high pay do not pay such high taxation, so that there is an incentive to move overseas, where taxation is infinitely lower.
    Mr. Steel: Will the Prime Minister welcome efforts made by Business in the Community to encourage investment into inner city areas such as the London
    624
    borough of Tower Hamlets, which was visited by its president yesterday? Will she match its efforts and concerns by implementing the report of the Home Affairs Sub-Committee last year, which recommended that the Government should increase the housing allocation to that London borough?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot give a direction that housing allocations to any particular borough should be increased. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, it would be quite wrong if I could make arbitrary decisions of that kind. I join the right hon. Gentleman in welcoming the work of Business in the Community and the One Per Cent Club, the members of which give 1 per cent. of their profits to help the inner cities, particularly localities where factories are situated. It is a very good, enterprising set-up.
    Mr. Mills: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that our partners in the EEC still consider that London is the best possible location, and our country the best possible location, for the proposed EC trade mark office, and that that would be a great help in developing London's inner city, because the placing of that important European institution in Britain would result in 2,000 to 3,000 jobs?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, we think that London would be the best site for the Community trade mark office and we have put in a bid at a site which we think is most likely to receive favourable consideration— St. Katherine's dock—and we have been prepared to back our bid with generous financial support. There are bids from three other cities — Madrid, The Hague and Munich. The Foreign Affairs Council will have to make the final decision. Naturally, we think that London would be the best.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Prime Minister recall that on 24 March 1981 Mr. Speaker gave a ruling during the passage of a Bill to the effect that, if Members of Parliament had any doubts whatever about pecuniary interests arising out of the passage of a Bill, they should not vote on that matter? In view of all the publicity surrounding the poll tax and the fact that she will benefit to the tune of £37 a week, will she abide by Mr. Speaker's ruling of 24 March 1981? Will she call upon all other eembers of the Tory Cabinet who will line their pockets to do the same, and, as a result of that, bring a bit of decency into this poll tax legislation?
    The Prime Minister: Well, Mr. Speaker, in view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I wonder who he thinks will vote on Members' pay.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members welcome the Government's determination to try to resuscitate commercial life in the inner cities? Does she agree that that problem could partly be solved at the same time as dealing with the problem of over-development in areas such as mine if the Government would simply consider providing tax incentives to

    625
    developers to develop in the inner cities while at the same time considering tax penalties on developers who insist on trying to develop on green field sites in the prosperous south, where there are environmental problems?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, there are tax incentives on rates in the enterprise zones and planning incentives in the enterprise zones and in the urban development corporations. These are designed to act as incentives to people to set up there. It would not be right to put a tax penalty on businesses which choose to develop elsewhere. They must develop where it is commercially sound to do so, provided that they can obtain planning permission, which, I think, is one of the problems in my hon. Friend's area. That is a matter for the local area first and for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in an appeal instance.
    Mrs. Clwydasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Given the serious errors that have occurred in the reading of cervical cytology slides in the Liverpool area, where 487 women have had to be recalled for further treatment or tests, what assurances can the Prime Minister give to women all over the country that they can have faith in the screening procedures? Will she set up an independent inquiry into the cancer screening system?
    The Prime Minister: No. I do not think that it is necessary to set up an independent inquiry. I am aware of the accidents described by the hon. Lady. We should not condemn the whole system simply because there have been some mistakes,. We should consider the mistakes, which, of course, caused great distress. I understand that the matter is to be put right as soon as the incidents can be reconsidered and re-examined.
    Sir Peter Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the common agricultural policy represents a growing threat to the stability of the European Community, which many of us support? Does she also accept that the right approach to the matter is to adopt the good shopkeeping attitude suggested to us by Napoleon — who is rather better known than Monsieur Chirac—who called us a nation of good shopkeepers? Will she suggest that that attitude should be adopted more widely by our partners in the European Community?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I think that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Expenditure on the common agricultural policy totally unbalances the entire budget. Most of that expenditure goes, not to farmers, but to maintaining or disposing of surpluses. The whole Community budget is 33 billion ecu a year, of which 17 billion ecu go either to maintaining surpluses or to disposing of them. Because of that, we are trying to persuade our partners to our point of view, which is good shopkeeping and good housekeeping.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 6 JULY—Debate on a Government motion on the future of the Today newspaper until 7 o'clock, followed by

Second Reading of the Local Government Bill.

TUESDAY 7 JULY—Motion on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period of Extension) Order, followed by motion on the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order and motion on the Northern Ireland Electricity Supply (Amendment) Order.

Afterwards motion on the Jury Trial (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order.

WEDNESDAY 8 JULY—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

Motion on the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order.

Motion on the Channel Tunnel Bill.

At Ten o'clock the Question will be put on all outstanding Estimates.

THURSDAY 9 JULY— Second Reading of the British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Bill followed by Second Reading of the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill.

FRIDAY 10 JULY — Debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House entitled "The Importance of Quality in Manufacturing to International Competitiveness".

MONDAY 13 JULY— Motion for the Summer Adjournment.

Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

The House will wish to know, Mr. Speaker, that subject to the progress of business it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Summer Adjournment on Friday 24 July until Wednesday 21 October.
Mr. Kinnock: I know that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new position. We hope that he will show the same very original mode of thought— the description that the Prime Minister used — as that shown by his predecessor, regardless of the jeopardy which that imposes on his future career.
I also welcome the concession made by the Government to our call for a debate on the future of the Today newspaper. Does the right hon. Gentleman share the public concern about the fact that another takeover by Mr. Rupert Murdoch does nothing but further diminish choice and the freedom of the press in our country as well as showing the Government's contempt for the procedures that provide for the reference of newspaper purchases to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
The Leader of the House will be aware that an all-party early-day motion about televising the proceedings of the House has attracted a very large number of signatures. May we have the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that there will be an early debate not only on the principle of televising our proceedings but on the best method by
628
which that experiment can proceed? I know that the right hon. Gentleman's personal disagreement with the proposal to televise our proceedings will not in any way impede his anxiety to ensure that we have a fair debate on the subject.
Will the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement on the announcement yesterday that the Government intend to diminish the role of the National Economic Development Council? He will know that NEDC, which was established by a previous Conservative Government, provides the regular main opportunity for dialogue between the leaders of both sides of industry. In yesterday's announcement, was there not further evidence that we have a Government who hold such co-operation in contempt?
In view of the 52 per cent. increase in crime in the past eight years and the fact that yesterday's report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis showed that the Met is just one of the police forces in Britain suffering from what Commissioner Newman called the lack of "basic policy requirement", will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on police force staffing levels in Britain?
The right hon. Gentleman will know that it is now seven years since the Education Act 1981 relating to special needs was passed. Is he familiar with the recent Select Committee report on the operation of the Act and the conclusion that it reached that the working of the Act has been restricted, as the Select Committee put it, by the lack of resources and the absence of "clear coherent" policy by the Government? Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on that most important topic well before the Cabinet begin consideration of next year's public expenditure proposals?
The right hon. Gentleman will know that, for the past four years, some of the conventions and procedures in the House have been amended to take account of the rather special relationship that has existed between the Liberals and the Social Democratic party. In view of the apparent change that is taking place in that relationship, does the Leader of the House envisage any further amendments to our procedures and conventions to take account of the pending democratic diffusion?
Mr. Wakeham: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his kind words at the beginning of his remarks. Slow as my shorthand was, I think that I got the points about which he asked. I shall seek to answer them in the order in which he asked them.
I do not accept for a minute the right hon. Gentleman's strictures about the Today newspaper, but I recognise the Opposition's concern. I have arranged the debate on Monday so that the Opposition can express their fears and the Government can put what I believe to be a strong case for their position.
I am sure that we shall be able to arrange a debate on televising the proceedings of the House. Discussions will take place through the usual channels as to the best form in which we can arrange it. I certainly will not allow my views to dominate the issue, and they would not be allowed to do so even if I wanted them to.
Neddy is relevant to today's debate. No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have something to say about it. In any case, I shall refer the Leader of the Opposition's points to him.

629
We had a debate on crime earlier in the week when many of the issues were raised. I cannot promise the right hon. Gentleman that I can shortly arrange another debate.
On the matter of the SDP and the Liberals, we shall have to watch how the situation develops. No doubt the usual channels will be able to discuss matters as the situation changes.
Sir Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend's promotion will have been received with widespread approbation by the House. Will he give an assurance, which I imagine is sought on both sides of the House, that the six-month delay which preceded the setting up of Select Committees at the beginning of the last Parliament will not be matched by a similar delay on this occasion which would represent a serious and unnecessary waste of resources?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the concern on both sides of the House to get on with setting up the Select Committees as soon as possible. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he and many others have done on Select Committees. Discussions are taking place through the usual channels. The setting up of Select Committees takes a little time, but we shall do it as quickly as we can.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Can the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week on Manchester's applications for Government support for a light rapid transport system? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the crucial importance of that project for the regeneration of the inner city of Manchester?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking, but I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I ask my right hon. Friend for an early statement on the rights of tenants in council accommodation, bearing in mind Ealing council's decision to take away tenancies from anyone accused of racism, simply on the basis of the accusation, whether the person is guilty of not?
Mr. Wakeham: It seems to me that that is a suitable subject for my hon. Friend to raise in the Summer Adjournment debate next week.
Mr. David Alton: May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition in welcoming the Leader of the House to his new job? I also thank his predecessor, who showed characteristic generosity, courtesy and civility not just to us but to hon. Members throughout the House. We hope that that will be extended to everyone in future by the Leader of the House.
Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any guidance about when the new Select Committees will be established? Is it his intention to re-establish the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?
Mr. Wakeham: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks to me, and particularly his kind remarks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who held my post before me. I know that that feeling is shared by everybody in the House.
I cannot add anything further to what I have said to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd). We shall get on with setting up the Select Committees as soon as we can.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that, shortly before the previous Parliament terminated, the Select Committee on the Environment produced a report on historic buildings and ancient monuments? Has he noticed that the organisation called English Heritage has described it as one of the most important reports on the man-made environment for many years, and has said that it should provide debate for some years to come. Could that debate start with an early debate in the House.
Mr. Wakeham: That is a good subject for debate. I shall see what can be done, but I cannot promise a debate in the immediate future.
Miss Marjorie Mowlam: May I draw attention to early-day motion 8?
[That this House, in the light of recent reports of child sexual abuse issuing from Cleveland and elsewhere, recalls with acute concern the claims registered by Incest Crisis Line, supported by many other agencies both statutory and voluntary, that children subjected to sexual abuse are the source of 90 per cent. of all rapists, 30 per cent. of all rape victims, 40 per cent. of alcoholics, 40 per cent. of drug addicts, 30 per cent. of children in care, 75 per cent. of female and almost 100 per cent. of male prostitutes; notes with extreme anxiety the total lack of co-ordination between bodies charged with a statutory responsibility for providing safeguards and ensuring justice in these matters; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to fund the resourcing of agencies specialising in proper counter-measures and to establish, as a matter of urgency, a Royal Commission to receive evidence to establish the true scale of child sexual abuse and make proposals for legislative measures designed specifically to ensure a framework of true justice for everyone, genuine remedial provision for the culprit and, above all, protection and fairness for the child victims.]
The motion was submitted last Thursday by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). More than 100 hon. Members have signed it. In view of the importance of the issue and the fact that it has been announced to the House that the recess will begin on 24 July, will the Leader of the House consider giving time to discussing that most important matter?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the importance of the matter, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Health expects to receive reports early next week from the Northern regional health authority and from the social services inspectorate team, which at his request is examining the situation in Cleveland. In the light of those reports, the Government will decide what further action may be needed and what form it should take. I think that I had better not deal with anything in the House until I have received that information.
Mr. Tony Marlow: As we know, my right hon. Friend is a generous and charitable man, and, as he knows, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) is an exceedingly ambitious man. As the latter is now a captain without a ship, and as he now does not have the prospect of a hung Parliament before him, can my right hon. Friend do the decent thing and find a way for the right hon. Gentleman to join the Conservative Party?
Mr. Wakeham: I think that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport has work enough on his hands at the moment, and we will leave it to him.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is an urgent need for a complete Government boycott of all the products of Eli Lilly, the firm that manufactured Opren, because that firm has paid compensation to people in the United States who were damaged but has refused to pay one penny to the British people who were appallingly damaged by the same drug? As the British Government are involved in that great drug disaster as a result of accepting and agreeing to that drug by registering it, may we have an early debate, and will the Leader of the House look at early-day motion 16?
[That thiss House notes that United States citizens who were seriously damaged by the medical drug Opren have been paid compensation by the pharmaceutical firm Eli Lilly: further notes that British victims suffering the same dreadful injuries after taking the same drug are refused compensation by the same firm, which is hiding behind the inadequacies of British law; calls upon Eli Lilly to pay the same compensation to British victims as to those in the United States of America; urges Her Majesty's Government to support this request; and, if it is rejected, to refuse all further National Health Service contracts with Eli Lilly, and to boycott its products where alternative suppliers are available.]
Mr. Wakeham: As the right hon. Gentleman himself recognised, the Government are a party to legal proceedings that are before the courts and it would be wrong of me to say anything on the subject at this stage.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: My right hon. Friend will know that the Foreign Affairs Committee of this House today produced a most important, constructive and elegant report on Cyprus. May I ask him that the matter not be subsumed in a debate on foreign affairs but that a special debate be set aside so that this urgent matter, about which Britain has deep concerns, can be debated properly?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the importance of the subject and the report, but the first thing for me to do is to talk to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about the matter.
Ms. Joan Ruddock: Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that a debate will be held on the Defence Estimates before the House goes into recess?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise a debate on defence before the House goes into recess, but I promise that there will be a debate soon after we come back.
Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): Does my right hon. Friend accept that, following representations from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, there is great concern about the unfairnesses suffered by dairy farmers and others because of the iniquities in the compensation for coal mining subsidence? Is he aware that the Waddilove committee was set up some four years ago, and that that committee's recommendations languished within the Department of Energy? Will he use his best endeavours to ensure that the House debates the recommendations of the Waddilove committee at the earliest possible moment?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly refer that matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I wonder whether my hon. Friend might use the opportunity of the Summer Adjournment debate to raise it.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Before the House launches into yet another examination of the inadvisability of televising its proceedings——
Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend would be on every day.
Mr. Faulds: Some of us would be better stars than others. Will the hon. Gentleman——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman needs any prompting.
Mr. Faulds: I am relieved, Sir. Will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider providing an audio Green Paper containing recordings of some of the previous proceedings of the House to show how appallingly the media handle what happens here? They choose the punch-up and the rudery instead of the hours of serious debate.
Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. I cannot help recalling that some years ago he and I toured New Zealand together, and every night there appeared to be a repeat of "Lorna Doone" in which he starred regularly.
Sir Dudley Smith: May I reiterate the request that I made to my right hon. Friend's predecessor just before the election for a debate in prime time about AIDS in the not too distant future? I understand that it will be difficult because of the recess, but it is a serious and important matter which affects the whole country. It is important to have regular updating of the Government's position on the problem.
Mr. Wakeham: I fully recognise the importance of the matter, but I want a little time in which to think about when we can have a debate on it.
Mr. D. E. Thomas: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to study early-day motion 32 in the name of my hon. Friends and myself?
[That this House notes with dismay the absence of the Secretary of State for Wales, the Right honourable Member for Worcester, from the Chamber of the House for the debate on the Queen's Speech on Monday 29th June, particularly in view of the subject of that day's debate, namely, 'The Social and Economic Divisions of the Nations and Regions of Britain'; further notes that he only entered the Chamber to listen to the speech of the Right honourable Member for Henley on the inner cities' needs and that he preferred to spend time talking to Tory colleagues from English constituencies, rather than give attention to a major debate on disparities within Britain; and concludes that he has as little interest in Wales as had the Prime Minister in appointing him to his present post.]
If the right hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to study the motion, will he arrange time for an early debate on its contents in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has refused my request to discuss with her the nature of this ministerial appointment and the constitutional crisis that it provokes in this House and in Wales?
Mr. Wakeham: I know that representatives of the ministerial team from the Welsh Office were on the Bench for most of that debate. In my view, the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) can do nothing but good for the Principality of Wales. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that

633
what matters is not whether a person has this or that background but the way in which he does his job. I know that my right hon. Friend will do his job very well indeed.
Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West): In view of the many demands for debates in parliamentary time that my right hon. Friend receives, is he aware that some of us consider it a complete waste of parliamentary time to debate a clapped-out newspaper with a minor circulation? If the Opposition were so fussed, why did he not tell them to use a Supply day?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend would perhaps best make his trenchent points in the debate next Monday if he should catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate, preferably before the recess, on the cash crisis faced by Edinburgh university and other Edinburgh further education establishments? Is he aware of the plight of further education as a result of Government policy?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures, nor can I undertake to find Government time for a debate. However, there are other times in the parliamentary timetable between now and the recess when he should find an opportunity to make the points that he wishes to make.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Despite the past and personal misgivings of my right hon. Friend on the question of broadcasting, I hope that he will understand that some Conservative Members support representations from all parties for it and, indeed, that many hon. Members from all parties have signed the early-day motion standing in my name. Will he therefore consider favourably the question of a debate before the summer recess on the basis that it is wholly unreasonable that the proceedings of the House may be listened to, read and viewed, but may not be seen on television?
Mr. Wakeham: Those are powerful arguments, but I do not see a chance to have a proper structured debate before the summer recess. I hope that my hon. Friend will not get me a reputation for stubbornness too early in my term of office.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Leader of the House state when the next meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee will take place and give an assurance that there will be no changes in the membership of that Committee? Given that the Conservative party is a minority party in Scotland, will he accept the evidence of his predecessor that we cannot go on as before with a minority party governing Scottish affairs?
Mr. Wakeham: This is a United Kingdom Parliament, the Conservative party has a substantial majority and we shall proceed very much as before. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that he requests.
Mr. James Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the election campaign one of the most serious complaints was against the standing charges for telephones, gas, electricity and water? Certainly they are affecting elderly persons. Is it not time to have a debate on whether the standing charges are desirable or, indeed, can he sustained?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend should perhaps try his luck in the Summer Adjournment debate next week.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: In view of the serious public disquiet in Liverpool and elsewhere at the mistakes made in cervical cancer screening in that city, is it not time that we had a statement from the Secretary of State so that there could be both a short debate and some restoration of public confidence in this service which is vital to more than half the population?
Mr. Wakeham: Naturally, I share with the hon. Gentleman his deep understanding of the importance of these matters, but I cannot add anything to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in answer to questions this afternoon.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend give some further details about the surprise motion on the Channel tunnel which is to be debated next week? Is he aware that the opposition to this misguided, underwater white elephant has now been reinforced by the arrival of my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and other hon. Members and that we may therefore need more time to debate these issues, and particularly the question why the Department of Transport has suppressed all its traffic forecasts on the Channel tunnel — presumably to help Eurotunnel publicise its much more optimistic forecast?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend may not have got the situation quite right, because the motion asks that the Lords message of 7 May be considered. Therefore, there has been a little time.
Mr. Graham Allen: Given the Leader of the House's reservations about televising our proceedings in the Chamber, with which even ardent advocates of such a scheme who have been here just one week may begin to sympathise, will he consider the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting recommendations that, at least initially, Select Committees should be televised? Will he provide time for a debate on that matter?
Mr. Wakeham: That is one way in which the House may decide to proceed. It will be up to the House to decide when we have had a proper debate and have considered all the issues.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who want to see fresh investment in the north are becoming increasingly fed up with those who talk down the region? We would welcome an opportunity to debate the document "Regional Trends" and to draw attention to the real progress that has been made in the north-east in home ownership, new enterprise and self-employment.
Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that before too long it will be possible to have a debate.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that it is significant that in the debate on the Gracious Speech, while welcoming back Ulster Members, none of the Ministers who wound up the debate each day referred to any of the Ulster contributions? Although in the coming week there is a day for a debate on Northern Ireland issues, most of it is under Order in Council and, therefore, we cannot suggest amendments. Would it be possible to have a debate in the near future so that we can get off this siding into which we have been shunted and can become part of this Parliament and part of the nation? Will it be possible to have a debate

635
in the near future on the concept of federalism arising out of the way that the nation has now voted to give regions a greater say?
Mr. Wakeham: Of course I welcome the greater part that Ulster Members are playing in the House. However, I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman the debate that he wants in the near future.
Mr. Michael Brown: Will my right hon. Friend consider making Government time available to introduce legislation so that the people who voted Liberal and SDP at the general election can have a referendum about whether they might want to change their vote now that they have been sold what is clearly a false prospectus? They were told that there would be some great alliance, unity, coalition. They have been sold a pup and need to have an opportunity to change their minds so that they can see the sham for which they voted.
Mr. Wakeham: In my constituency people thought that the alliance was a building society! I am afraid that there is no chance of a debate next week.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early statement by the Home Secretary about the directions by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on peaceful demonstrations outside the South African embassy? This morning I and three of my hon. Friends, after negotiations with a senior police officer, were allowed peacefully to demonstrate on the pavement immediately adjacent to the South African embassy while other citizens were arrested for attempting to exercise the same right.
In order to avoid any allegations that there is one law for Members of Parliament and another law for everybody else, would it not be in the best interests of all concerned for the Home Secretary to use his position as the police authority for the Metropolitan police to ensure that all citizens are given equal rights of peaceful protest outside that embassy against the evil apartheid regime in South Africa?
Mr. Wakeham: Obviously, I am not able to comment on that. However, I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Will my right hon. Friend confirm that next Monday's debate on the effects of a merger of major publicity organs would be the appropriate moment for the House to debate the possible effects of a merger between the SDP and the Liberal party; or would my right hon. Friend be prepared to undertake in the public interest a reference of the possible merger of the SDP and the Liberal party to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
Mr. Wakeham: Their market share may be rather too low for such a reference. Whether the speech that my hon. Friend wishes to make on Monday will be in order is not a matter for me.
Mr. Roland Boyes: Does the Leader of the House accept that many of us in the Opposition do not agree with the Prime Minister's contention that London is the best location for the European trade mark office, and that a constituency with high unemployment such as mine ought to have been
636
considered for its location? Will he arrange for an early statement on this matter so that the outrage of my constituents can be given expression in this Chamber, because my constituents have once again been ignored by the Prime Minister, who does not give a damn about the north of England?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot accept the strictures of the hon. Gentleman on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I do not think that I can add anything to the statement that she made during Prime Minister's Question Time.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my right hon. Friend ensure, in the light of our neglect of our archaeological heritage—which is a most important part of our tourist trade — that a Minister from the Department of the Environment who is responsible for our archaeological heritage will be present for tomorrow's debate on tourism to answer points raised by Back Benchers?
Mr. Wakeham: I can confirm that the debate tomorrow will be on tourism, and I shall see that the appropriate Ministers are here to listen to the contributions of my hon. Friend and others.
Mr. Greville Janner: Is the Leader of the House aware how fortunate he is that all three Leicester seats are now represented by Labour Members, all of whom support the prodigious efforts of the excellent Labour-controlled council there? May I ask an uncontroversial question? Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an early debate on war crimes, and in particular on the refusal of the United Nations to open up the files that it recently discovered which show the personal complicity of Adolf Hitler in the holocaust, and which also reveal the activities of President Waldheim during the war?
Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. and learned Gentleman believes the substance of his first question, he will believe anything, but I do not think for a minute that he does. As for his second question, I agree that it is a serious matter. Although I cannot offer Government time, I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman could chance his luck in the Summer Adjournment debate on Monday.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the light of the recent election campaign, there is widespread concern about the regulations governing applications for postal votes, which seem to make it as hard as possible for anyone to exercise his democratic right. Will it be possible before the Summer Recess for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make a statement on his findings on how the new regulations worked at the last election?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Tony Banks: Notwithstanding the blighted thespian career of my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds)——
Mr. Faulds: A blighted parliamentarian now.
Mr. Banks: —and his refusal to accept the lifeline that the televising of Parliament would give him, does the Leader of the House accept that there is considerable support on both sides of the House for the televising of

637
Parliament? Would it not be most acceptable and advisable, if the Government cannot arrange a debate before the recess, for us to have some form of consultative paper so that, during their quiet and reflective moments during the three-month recess, hon. Members may think about coming back after the recess and voting in favour?
Mr. Wakeham: There is quite a lot of documentation about the issue. I have no doubt that it is a decisive issue on both sides of the House and within both parties, and I think that we shall need a proper structured debate, probably in the autumn.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to early-day motion 6 on the denial of war service credit to Overseas Civil Service pensioners?
[That this House deplores the fact that, alone among public service pensioners, those whose service was overseas cannot count pre-appointment war service towards their pensions; and culls upon Her Majesty's Government to remedy this injustice to a dwindling group of elderly people whose working lives were spent in adverse conditions while dedicated to the service of British interests overseas.]
Does he agree that this situation is disgraceful and ought to be remedied? Overseas Civil Service pensioners administered the Empire, but they are treated worse than the meanest little scribblers in the Home Civil Service. Should not the Government remedy this injustice immediately?
Mr. Wakeham: We recognise how strongly colonial service pensioners feel about the issue, and we are keeping it under careful review. However, there are many claims on public expenditure resources, and we have not so far been able to accommodate the extra commitment. I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a full day ahead of us, with a large number of maiden speeches. I shall endeavour to call every hon. Member, but I ask for brief questions.
Mr. Harry Ewing: May I return to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) about peaceful demonstration, not only in London but elsewhere? Will the Leader of the House examine the circumstances that prevail when petitions are presented at the door of No. 10 Downing street? My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and I went to extreme lengths to negotiate with Cannon Row police station and No. 10 to present a petition at 11 o'clock this morning, a time set by No. 10. However, when we arrived with the people who were petitioning the Prime Minister, the police —obviously acting on instructions from No. 10— kept us waiting for a very long time, and then told us that no one was to be allowed into Downing street. When they were telling us that, almost every representative of the press, both inside and outside——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman want a debate on the matter?
Mr. Ewing: No, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must stick to the convention, which is to ask for a debate next week.
Mr. Ewing: I am not asking for a debate next week. I am asking the Leader of the House to come back next
638
week and make a statement on the circumstances prevailing when arrangements have been made for the presentation of a petition. Petitioning is still part of the democratic process in this country, and No. 10 Downing street ought not to try to frustrate it in any way.
Mr. Wakeham: I shall see to it that the hon. Gentleman's representations, along with those of his hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West, (Mr. Canavan) are put to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. We shall see how we go from there.
Mr. Frank Cook: The Leader of the House has already listened graciously to my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam). Sadly, he found himself unable to give a firm commitment— although I can understand his caution— about a debate on the subject of child abuse until he has received the results of the inquiry now taking place. However, will he bear in mind that this is not just a Cleveland problem, but one that concerns the entire United Kingdom? Will he give the House an assurance today that, when he and his colleagues have received the results of the inquiry, those results will be made available to the House for consideration?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the importance of the matter, and that it does not relate only to Cleveland: there is concern about it in many parts of the country. However, I do not think that I should go any further than to discuss the matter with the Minister responsible before deciding what to do.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Did the Leader of the House hear the careful and legalistic words of the director of finance for Lothian region on "The World this Weekend" to the effect that, in his professional opinion, at least 90 statutory instruments would be needed for the implementation of the poll tax in Scotland? Next week, had we not better start on the 8,100 minutes of parliamentary time? My Scottish colleagues and I will go to the end of each separate statistic. Otherwise, would it not be better to have a quiet think over the summer and ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for example, how he will pay for the 70 full-time canvassers needed in Lothian region alone to keep an updated register? Should not the Government think about the mechanics of what they propose?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman always puts his points with great courtesy. However, I do not accept his strictures. We must see how we get along.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a statement next week from the Secretary of State for Transport on the axe that is currently hanging over the Settle to Carlisle railway? The railway is a very valuable facility, not only for the people of Bradford and west Yorkshire, but for those in a much wider area, but it has now been under threat of closure for four years. The Secretary of State says that it is a complicated case, but in fact it is very straightforward. The railway makes a profit, and it is an important trunk route and a valuable part of our heritage. The people want it to be saved. Will the Secretary of State come to the House next week and make a clear statement to the effect that this profitable service will be maintained for the people of Yorkshire?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. Robert Parry: The Leader of the House will have seen early-day motion 5.
[That this House condemns the repression of the democracy and human rights in South Korea; supports the Opposition leaders, church spokesmen and students in their opposition to the present discredited government; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make the strongest protest to the South Korean Government or else break off diplomatic relations until democracy and human rights are restored.]
It relates to democracy and human rights in South Korea. Matters have improved in the last few days, but will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to make representations to the Government of South Korea and ask for full democracy in South Korea and for the right of the opposition leaders, Kim Dae Jung and Kim Young Sam, to campaign freely for the release of all political prisoners in that Fascist régime?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall see that the hon. Gentleman's concern is conveyed to my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Energy to make a statement on the sale of National Coal Board houses at Calverley Creswell in my constituency several months ago, since many of the tenants are still unaware of who their landlords are, despite repeated requests in this House and elsewhere for the board to find out to whom it has sold those houses? Scores of tenants in that area are unable to find out who now owns their properties. Will he also bear in mind that it would show up the Government's legislation to sell off council estates in the light that we forecast many times: that if the board can sell off properties and six or nine months later people do not know who their landlords are, God knows what will happen when this Government get permission to sell off large council estates.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept for a moment the hon. Gentleman's strictures, or the points that he has made. However, I shall certainly refer his question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I assure the Leader of the House that the Labour party will not allow the Guinness affair to disappear during the summer recess. When will we have the interim report? Are we to get it? Is there to be a statement before the summer recess? In the light of the very lenient sentence that was imposed
640
yesterday on Mr. Collier, which was shameful and a disgrace to the British courts, may we have a debate before the recess on that matter?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise a debate before the summer recess. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not the practice for Members of the Government to comment on matters that are before the courts. Nevertheless, I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's points to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Is the Leader of the House prepared to extend the scope of Monday's debate on the Today newspaper to include the crisis at The Scotsman newspaper where management and owners seem intent on turning a national institution into a regional rag?
Mr. Wakeham: Monday's debate will take place on a Government motion whose terms will be discussed through the usual channels.
Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Carthcart): In view of the Government's crushing defeat in Scotland on 11 June, is it not a gross insult to the people of Scotland that the first piece of major Scottish legislation should be tagged on to the end of the Local Government Bill? Would it not be better that this legislation, for which the Government have no mandate in Scotland, should be taken out of that Bill and that a separate Bill for Scotland should be published and put before the House?
Mr. Wakeham: However many times the hon. Gentleman repeats those remarks, the fact is that the Labour party lost the general election and that the Conservative party won it. The legislation that we are bringing before the House is good legislation, and I hope that it will be passed by a large majority.
Mr. John Home Robertson: The Leader of the House will obviously have to be taught who won the election in Scotland. Will he expand on the reply that he gave to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) about the composition of Scottish Committees? Will he accept it from me that the people of Scotland who have just elected 62 Opposition Members of Parliament and only 10 Tory Members of Parliament, will not tolerate the packing of Scottish Committees with English Tory Members?
Mr. Wakeham: The composition of the Committees is a matter that will be discussed through the usual channels. I have no doubt that we shall find a satisfactory solution to all our difficulties.

Prime Minister's Questions
4.16 pm
Mr. Norman Tebbit: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising from Prime Minister's questions. During Prime Minister's questions you very rightly prevented one of my hon. Friends from raising a question concerning the problems in another political party, saying—quite correctly—that they were not of course within the responsibility of the Prime Minister. May I therefore take your advice on exactly how you see the Prime Minister's responsibility for a particular sentence passed by a particular judge in a particular court, because you did, after all, allow a question to be put on that matter?
Mr. Speaker: It is not unusual for questions of that kind to be put to the Front Bench. I listened carefully to the Prime Minister's reply, as I listened carefully to the reply of the Leader of the House on exactly the same matter.
Mr. Tebbit: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not ask for your advice on whether such questions were or were not usual. I asked for your advice on what was the responsibility of the Prime Minister, which was being questioned.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has been here for a long time. It is perfectly in order to criticise or to question a sentence; but it is not in order to criticise a judge. That has to be done by motion.
Mr. Tebbit rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that I can help the right hon. Gentleman further.
Mr. Tebbit: But I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will be able to help me because, as a Back Bencher, I would want to address questions to Ministers and I would want to be sure that, as I understand it, those questions might be addressed to a Minister, despite the fact that the Minister has no departmental responsibility and that there is no Government responsibility for the matter. Is that what you are telling me, Sir?
Mr. Speaker: I am telling the right hon. Gentleman what he knows very well: that in this Chamber, and in his presence when he was on the Front Bench, questions of this kind have been asked and have been answered.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that in the past 12 months the Prime Minister has replied to and commented upon penalties that have been imposed?
Mr. Speaker: I have no more to say on the matter. The whole House knows the rules. It is not in order to criticise a judge. That must be done by motion. However, it has always been in order to comment upon sentences.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It will delay the debate.
Mr. Skinner: My point of order relates to what has just happened. On leaving the Chamber the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who has just been questioning you, thinking that you were the BBC, muttered that he would deal with the matter in another way. I hope that you will be able to stand up to him in private as well as you have in public.
Mr. Speaker: It is a good thing that I do not hear everything that is said in this Chamber.
Mr. James Hill: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was sitting right next to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). When he left the Chamber, he made no such remark as has just been alleged.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about the arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment which will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill on Monday 13 July.
Hon. Members should submit their subjects to my office not later than 9 am on Wednesday 8 July. A list showing the subjects and times will be published later that day. Normally the time allotted will not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise discretion and to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer, up to a maximum of three hours. Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list. As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of Members to keep in touch with developments so that they do not lose their turn.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill

  WELSH AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That the matter of the Queen's Speech and its effects on Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Durant.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the draft Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Durant.]
  Question again proposed.

Orders of the Day

  Debate on the Address
  [SIXTH DAY]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [25 June]
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Mr. Churchill.]
  Question again proposed.

  Debate on the Address

    National Resources
    Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and that I have also selected for Division at the end of the debate the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) and his right hon. and hon. Friends.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recollect that we raised the question of the selection of amendments on the first day of the debate and again yesterday. What recourse do we now have as a minority group of six Members to try to ensure that the House has an opportunity to divide on our amendments?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that under Standing Order No. 32 I am authorised to select only one amendment in addition to the amendment moved at the beginning of the debate. Therefore, there will be no further opportunity of a separate Division on the amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman. He can, of course, exercise his vote in any way that he wishes at the end of the debate, but I am afraid that I cannot help him further.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order to ask for a 15 minutes' adjournment to allow the Leader of the Opposition to make a drafting amendment to his amendment to include a passage on whether the Government have a mandate to legislate for Scotland and Wales as, clearly, the fact that he did not include such a passage was an oversight on his part?
    Mr. Speaker: That would certainly not be in order.
    I must tell the House again today that a very large number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, including a large number of maiden speakers, wish to be called if time allows. Therefore, I again appeal to hon. Members for brief contributions.
    4.21 pm
    Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add :
    But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech consists of policies which, far from concentrating national resources on
    644
    the areas of greatest need and greatest potential economic growth, will further widen the divisions within society and neglect the services and industries which should be developed and expanded.
    It is only right to warn intellectually fastidious new hon. Members of what they are likely to face as the afternoon wears on. In about 30 minutes' time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will describe the state of the economy in language that makes St. John's revelation of the new Jerusalem sound like a confession of failure. I suppose that it is just possible that the Chancellor's normal style will be inhibited today by a sudden attack of integrity. However, assuming that, as usual, he is immune to that inconvenient virus, we know exactly what to expect. We shall be entertained by a series of carefully selected statistics, each one designed to give a false picture of the Government's records and the country's prospects.
    At this task, the Prime Minister's record is even worse. She attempts to create the impression that her Government came to power bit by bit, assuming responsibility for various aspects of the economy at statistically convenient dates: manufacturing output, 1983; manufacturing investment, 1985; manufacturing productivity, 1979; economic growth, 1981; and public spending, 1982. All those figures with their relative and conflicting dates appear in one of the Prime Minister's speeches on one page of Hansard. The trick is never to reveal the Government's full eight-year record.
    Among the statistics that the Chancellor will fail to quote as the afternoon proceeds are a number of indisputable facts. For example, we will not be told that since 1979 the British economy has expanded at the dismal annual average of 1·3 per cent. We will not be told that since 1979 capital investment in the British economy has increased by less than 1 per cent. a year. We will not be told that since 1979 there has been a fall in manufacturing output, which is still below the level at which the Government inherited it. We will not be told that since 1979 there has been a net reduction in manufacturing investment, which is still 25 per cent. below the level at which the Government inherited it or that since 1979 a surplus of £5 billion on manufactured trade has been converted into a forecast deficit of £8 billion.
    That is an honest and accurate account of the record of a Government who have presided over all those failures, despite the fact that they have enjoyed the unique benefit of North sea oil production—a benefit that they have wholly squandered. Every penny of oil revenue—an average of £8 billion a year—has gone towards paying the cost of increased unemployment. Indeed, that sum does not now even cover the costs of benefits paid and taxes lost because of increases in unemployment since 1979. That money should have been used and could have been used to put Britain back to work; it was used to keep Britain unemployed.
    In 25 minutes or so the Chancellor will tell us that, despite its record, the Conservative party won the general election. I doubt whether he will admit to all the ways in which that victory was brought about. The Spectator, which is not the natural vehicle for Socialist economic theory, this week described the position exactly:
    "Mr. Lawson set the scene for the largest boom in private credit this country has ever seen. It is this boom which more than anything else has been responsible for the recent upturn in the economy, for the sense of well-being undoubtedly felt by the majority of voters … and for the Government's reelection."

    645
    There can be no dispute about the existence of that credit boom. That credit boom is greater than the similar phenomena generated by Mr. Maudling in 1963 and Lord Barber 10 years later. The credit boom generated by Mr. Maudling was subsequently and continually derided by the school of economists to which the Chancellor subscribes.
    We have to establish two facts about the credit boom here and now. First, a credit boom does not and cannot act directly on the most urgent and desperate need of the economy—the moral and economic obligation to reduce unemployment. Secondly, an increase in economic activity stimulated by the credit boom cannot be sustained and nor can the improvements in the standard of living that are its temporary products.
    Mr. Michael Fallon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hattersley: In a moment.
    Sooner or later the Government will have to change course.
    Mr. Fallon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hattersley: When I have finished my point.
    In the financial statement and Budget reports for this year, published on 17 March 1987, the Government were absolutely explicit:
    "Private sector borrowing has been rising and is now over 10 per cent. of GDP. It has clearly contributed more than public borrowing to upward pressure on real interest rates".
    That was the Chancellor's opinion. By that frank admission, the Government conceded that private borrowing, and not public borrowing, was prejudicing the prospects of investment at a price that industry could afford. Yet the Government chose to prohibit and hold down public borrowing which finances investment in houses, roads, schools, hospitals and public services. At the same time they encourage private borrowing which finances the purchase of Japanese videos, German motor cars and Italian textiles.
    Mr. Fallon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hattersley: I have not forgotten the hon. Gentleman. I will give way if he will contain himself.
    The Government knew that private borrowing was having a major adverse effect on the economy, yet they allowed it to go ahead because they knew that it would have an immediate effect on their election prospects.
    Mr. Fallon: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that the boom in borrowing cannot be sustained. In every previous debate of this nature he has also said that an economic crisis is just around the corner. Why should we believe him now?
    Mr. Hattersley: At the moment I am asking the hon. Gentleman to believe the Chancellor, because it was the Chancellor whom I was quoting. I know that that strains credibility almost to breaking point, but the hon. Gentleman ought to accept what the Chancellor says. Just for the clarity of the hon. Gentleman's mind, on which I know he prides himself, I shall read the quotation again. It states:
    "Private sector borrowing has been rising and is now over 10 per cent. of GDP. It has clearly contributed more than public borrowing to upward pressure on real interest rates."
    If the hon. Gentleman wants to argue with that, he must argue with the Chancellor, not with me.
    646
    It is because of the Chancellor's judgment that I insist that, sooner or later, there will have to be some curbs on private spending, and on the evidence from Brussels we know what those curbs will be—higher VAT, increases in a tax that hits the lowest earners hardest and the highest earners least. There will be higher VAT on those goods and services that already attract VAT, and VAT will be imposed for the first time on those goods and services that have previously been exempted.
    As the Leader of the House would not make it clear yesterday, it is important that the House clearly understands today Lord Cockfield's proposals for VAT—proposals that he suggests that the Commission of the EEC should make obligatory on Britain and all EEC countries.
    Lord Cockfield proposes VAT of between 4 and 9 per cent. on items that are currently exempted—fuel, food, children's clothing and shoes, new building, books, periodicals and newspapers. He proposes changes in the standard rate from 15 per cent. to somewhere between 14 per cent. and 19 per cent. Knowing Lord Cockfield as I do, it is inconceivable to me that he made those proposals without receiving the Prime Minister's blessing — [Interruption.]
    Mr. Tony Marlow rose——
    Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose——
    Mr. Hattersley: The Chancellor says that I cannot know Lord Cockfield. That requires me to offer the one piece of evidence to support my point of view. When I was in the Cabinet Lord Cockfield worked for me. He ran the prices policy and was a desperate devotee of Government intervention in prices. As soon as the Prime Minister came to power he was converted overnight to a passionate devotee of the free market. I believed that he would become Lord Cockfield of Bray, but as it is I have absolutely no doubt that he does not operate in Brussels without obtaining clearance from No. 10 Downing street.
    Mr. Kellett-Bowman rose——
    Mr. Marlow rose——
    Mr. Hattersley: Yesterday the Prime Minister——
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to impugn the honour of a Member of the other House when he knows perfectly well that that person has taken an oath not to be influenced by his national Government?
    Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman impugn the honour of a Member of the other House, and the hon. Lady should not try to seek to put a question through me.
    Mr. Hattersley: I ought to make it clear that when I mentioned Bray I did not mean it as an invitation for the hon. Lady to address the House.
    Yesterday the Prime Minister refused absolutely to answer a straight question on the subject of VAT. She did so because we know the true position. The Government want to increase VAT, they intend to increase VAT, but they hope to do so by hiding behind the EEC.
    There is only one way in which the Chancellor can convince the House otherwise today, and that is by ending the equivocation displayed yesterday by the Prime Minister and giving a categoric assurance that at the EEC Finance Ministers meeting in July he will oppose all the

    647
    Cockfield proposals. It is no good the Prime Minister parading her toughness to the EEC two days a year. If she can take the publicly aggressive line over the CAP that she took yesterday, why cannot she take a publicly aggressive line today over EEC proposals to increase VAT? The only possible answer is that she wants to do it. She welcomes the proposals and intends to do it.
    The second criticism of and objection to the credit boom which the Government encouraged and promoted last year is that it did nothing to reduce unemployment.
    Mr. Marlow rose——
    Mr. John Redwood rose——
    Mr. Hattersley: Reducing unemployment was not—and on the evidence of the Gracious Speech and the statements that accompanied it is still not — a Government priority. Yet unemployment is the most corrosive and wasteful of all the forms of poverty. It damages whole families, disadvantages generation after generation and absorbs resources that could more profitably be used on production and expansion. After eight years of Conservative Government unemployment still stands at a level that is a disgrace to a civilised society. Indeed, it stands at a level which the Government themselves find so shaming that for three years Lord Young of Graffham has earned his ministerial salary for doing little more than massaging the unemployment figures. On the evidence of the Queen's Speech, little will change. The Government will continue their battle not against unemployment but against a truthful description of the unemployment figures.
    I confess that this Government have shown themselves admirably flexible when official statistics demonstrate the failure of Government policies. They always make changes, but unfortunately not in the policies in the statistics. Be it prices, trade, job creation and, above all, employment and unemployment, each set of figures has from time to time been massaged.
    Therefore, before we look to the future it is again necessary to remind the Chancellor of the record and the concealed facts. Since 1979, unemployment has increased by 1,812,000, even according to the Government's manipulated figures, and we are now supposed to rejoice that after 19 changes in the statistical record total unemployment stands at less than 3 million. Even if that was an honest figure it would be a disgrace. Even if it was the truth, it would be a truth of which the Prime Minister should be ashamed.
    Then the Prime Minister has the nerve to talk, as she did last Thursday, about hidden unemployment under Labour. No Government in British history have hidden unemployment with the cynical determination that has been shown by her and her colleagues.
    Mr. Marlow rose——
    Mr. Hattersley: I know that perception is not the hon. Gentleman's strong point, but I suspect that even he by now will have gathered that I shall not give way to him.
    Yet on the evidence of the Queen's Speech, the Government propose to go on in very much the same way. The election campaign promises to cut unemployment have been abandoned. There is no mention in the Queen's Speech of reducing or reductions in unemployment.
    648
    Instead we have an undertaking "further" to increase employment. The word "further" is itself a fraud. Since 1979, Great Britain has lost 1,422,000 jobs—more than the rest of the Common Market added together. Since 1979, 2 million jobs have been lost in British manufacturing industry. Even in the first half of this year jobs were still being lost at the rate of 9,000 a month. This Government's attitude to unemployment and the unemployed demonstrates more than their casual concern for the truth. It reveals the underlying principle of Government policies. This is a Government of some of the people masquerading as a Government of all of the people, for they ruthlessly write off those parts of Britain and those sections of society whose votes they cannot win.
    That was the central characteristic of Tory policy between 1979 and 1987, and that will clearly be the central characteristic of Tory policy during the next five years, with one new public relations addition. That addition is the lip service that is now being paid to the problems of the inner cities. The most hopeful interpretation of this sudden and belated conversion is that the Government have learnt a lesson that we have tried to teach them day after day since they were elected.
    But the problems of deprivation and under-privilege cannot be confined to the ghettos. If there is deprivation, homelessness, poverty and, above all, lack of hope in the inner cities, there can be no lasting peace or security in the prosperous suburbs.
    In parts of my constituency adult male unemployment now stands at over 50 per cent. Young men leave school with no chance of employment for the next four or five years. Money that was once promised for house improvement and renovation has been withdraw by the Government. The black and Asian British suffer the indignities of the Nationality Act and immigration regulations. The Gracious Speech proposes to extend those indignities. It is a miracle that areas such as Sparkbrook have remained tranquil for so long.
    I warn the Prime Minister that the inner cities will not accept a five-year public relations exercise that is intended only to convey the impression of Government activity and prime ministerial compassion. I tell her that the problems of the inner cities will be solved only by more Government resources being concentrated on them for new houses, schools, better homes and, above all, jobs. Those jobs will have to come from manufacturing industry. The new rich of the financial services industries will not drive their Porsches to inner-city wine bars. The inner cities need small manufacturing companies. Those companies will only move to grow in the inner cities if they are persuaded to do so by Government incentives that encourage them to employ local inner city labour.
    Mr. Marlow: If they are not inhibited by Labour local authorities.
    Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who tried to intervene earlier, now shouts from the Government Benches. I will tell the hon. Gentleman a story. The leader of Birmingham city council, who is moderate by most normal people's standards and is Right-wing by a few people's standard—but not those of the hon. Member for Northampton, North—told the Secretary of State for the Environment that in Birmingham, where we have much dereliction to overcome and many inner-city problems to solve, he was prepared

    649
    to work with the Government, and for municipal and private enterprise to work in co-operation if that was the best way of reducing unemployment and improving facilities. The Secretary of State said that there was not a hope. He said that the Government must operate an independent development agency and that they would not co-operate with the city council. If the hon. Member wants co-operation he should ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, not me.
    Councils all over the country have been waiting for years to develop their inner cities. They read Government public relations handouts about the Government proposing a blitz on the inner cities, but they know that we have had a Government blitz on the inner cities for the last eight years. That blitz has increased unemployment, closed down facilities, deteriorated the housing stock and caused half of the problems of the inner cities.
    The inner cities are the most obvious and desperate example of divisions in our society. Those divisions have been intentionally widened.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman's party revising its attitude to the private sector and wealth creation? Is not one of the problems that some Labour authorities are hostile to the private sector and have forced rates up, which will not attract job creation in the first instance?
    Mr. Hattersley: A number of local authorities have increased rates to preserve services. Most have been forced to do so because of the reduction in Government grant. When the CBI, in one of its pre-electoral moods of honest objectivity, listed the problems of companies opening and expanding in inner cities, high rates did not appear. The hon. Gentleman is creating spectres and excuses for the Government's failure. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the example of Birmingham city council—which is presently ruled by the Labour party and which wants to co-operate with the Government—he will find that the Government and the Secretary of State for the Environment stand in the way of a proper partnership. We in the Labour party believe that that is wrong.
    Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is the Prime Minister's latter-day conversion to care and concern about those in the inner cities not somewhat suspect? Is it not strange that that concern has been shown not during the last eight years but only in the realisation of her self-imposed task of destroying Socialism?
    Mr. Hattersley: I noticed the Prime Minister, in a moment of euphoria, mounting the stairs at 10 Downing street on election night and speaking about the inner cities. However, what she said was not about improving the inner cities: it was about getting the inner-city vote. The Prime Minister has no hope of doing that, and if in passing we get a little money for an area that needs it so desperately I shall regard her cynicism as being almost worth while.
    The inner cities are the most desperate example of divisions in our society, but other divisions are being intentionally widened by the Government and their policy. During her speech last Thursday the Prime Minister, particularly when forced away from the platitudes of her prepared text, proved time after time that Government policy is designed—I use that word with care—to widen further divisions within our society. That is the inevitable
    650
    outcome of their philosophy. They are the party of inequality and their support for that doctrine is repeated and reflected in the Gracious Speech.
    It is typified by the Government's mindless obsession with privatisation. They have a passion to turn public utilities into private monopolies which, if British Gas and British Telecom are any guide, will be unconcerned with the interests of the small consumer. That vacuous privatisation mania was personified by the Secretary of State for Energy in his first interview after his appointment. He said that he knew nothing about the privatisation of the electricity industry but that he was passionately in favour of it. If the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) had shown such blind faith he would still be on the Front Bench.
    The Government's belief in inequality is demonstrated in all their policies. The poll tax may reduce the burden of local government expenditure that is now carried by some prosperous ratepayers, but it will increase the burden on families at the bottom of the income scale. The reorganisation of secondary schools may enable a minority of self-confident and articulate parents to fashion their children's schools according to their own design, but it will create a two-tier education system in which the generality of children will attend schools that are believed to be, and may well become, second-best.
    The most significant passage in the Prime Minister's speech last Thursday was an aside that she made before replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). She said:
    "Yes, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who comes from Scotland, which, after London and the south-east, has the second highest income per head of any part of the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 25 June 1987; Vol. 118, c.54.]
    The second highest income per head in the United Kingdom after London and the south-east means the third highest income per head in the United Kingdom, but it is not the Prime Minister's usual misuse of statistics that is the most important part of that comment. Whether Scotland has the second, third or fourth highest income per head in the United Kingdom, the same point applies. That boast ignores the 350,000 Scottish men and women who are unemployed. It ignores the 318,000 Scottish families who are living below the poverty line. It ignores the 140,000 pensioners who have no independent income and who have been cheated by the Government.
    Pensioner couples have been cheated out of £11 a week and single pensioners have been cheated out of £7 a week. They do not enjoy the third highest income in the United Kingdom. That criterion of success ignores the shortage of decent housing in Scottish cities, the waiting lists for beds in Scottish hospitals and the need for more resources in Scottish schools.
    The Prime Minister devalues and disregards all those matters because she is contemptuous of public services and entirely remote from those who use them. On the other hand, Scotland—this is enormously to its credit—took a different view. Despite enjoying the third highest income per head in the United Kingdom it predominantly voted for the Labour party because, unlike the Prime Minister, it realised that income per head is only part of life.
    It was in that belief, at the time of the Budget and throughout the general election campaign, that the Labour party urged the concentration of available resources on

    651
    those areas of the economy most in need of real investment. We shall continue throughout this Parliament to advance the same argument.
    I believed in March, I believe now and I repeat, that the revenue available to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget would have been better used to increase the pension and child benefit.
    I shall put the position on the prospect of taxes exactly. The record shows that whenever the Chancellor played his "Will he, won't he?" games over income tax reductions, the Opposition always took the view that whenever he pretended to tantalise his weak-minded Back Benchers, when the time came taxes would be cut. Whatever the consequences, whatever the alternative use for resources and whatever the demands for investment in new jobs, improved services and higher benefits, when the time comes the Chancellor always makes the tax cuts with which he chooses to tease his colleagues. I make the same prediction today.
    The tax cuts which the Chancellor promises will be on income tax alone. The Gracious Speech promises further reductions in taxation, but once again the word "further" is wholly without justification.
    Apart from the very poor and the very rich, the total burden of taxation — income tax, VAT and national insurance contributions has—increased since 1979. The family with two adults on average earnings and two children paid 38·4 per cent. of its income in tax in 1978–79. This year, the same family will pay 41·2 per cent.
    The Government certainly intend to reduce income tax, but I have no doubt that they will compensate for that reduction by extending VAT — [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) worries about my judgment, let him be assured that the Chancellor said that he saw the extension of the VAT base as an essential part of the Budget strategy and a necessary counterpart to a reduction in income tax.
    That is the Chancellor's intention and strategy and that is what will happen in this Parliament. The switch in taxes to which the Government are committed is intended—again, I use my words with care — to move the tax burden away from the high paid and towards low-income families.
    The Government's eight-year record is undeniable. The Government have consistently taken from the poor and given to the rich. I make it clear now that had we won the election, we would have sought to reverse that process. Our defeat a month ago cannot and will not change our commitment to a genuine and substantial redistribution of national resources.
    I believe that it is possible to build a fair society without increasing the taxes — direct or indirect — paid by the majority of the working population. But we cannot accommodate I see no point in attempting to—those men and women who are opposed in principle to redistribution because they are emotionally and ideologically antagonistic to the notion of a more equal society.
    The Labour party's future lies not in less equality but in a clearer identification of that philosophy. I want to make my position absolutely clear today. Until men and women on low incomes are provided with the resources which make it possible for them to exercise the choices of a free society, all the talk about freedom of choice will, for
    652
    millions of British families, be a cruel joke. The real test of freedom is whether the freedoms which theoretically exist can be exercised in practice. That is the point and the philosophy which the Labour party will advocate in the next five years.
    Were the Prime Minister to do us the courtesy of being here today, I do not believe that she would deny that the Queen's Speech is intentionally wholly ideological. Gone are the days when the Tory party simply did what seemed to be best from hour to hour, day to day and from month to month. Now, it consistently and consciously attempts to create a society in which the philosophers of the new liberalism believe. That society neglects public services and reduces public provision, at least when no election is in the offing.
    We all noticed this week that after last year's boasts about increased public expenditure, the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury, with the election over and the votes counted, announced that he was about to descend on all the Departments which naively believe that the autumn statement represented a real change in Government philosophy. The autumn statement was a brief attempt to prove that the Conservative party cared about education and health. The election being over, the pretence was abandoned within days.
    The Government's basic philosophy has not changed. That philosophy requires a reduction, and sometimes an extinction, of public services. The Government will continue to justify the damage that they do and the pain that they cause by calling it freedom.
    The Government will argue that a free society is one in which those who can afford to pay the bill have the medical treatment of their choice, in the hospital of their choice and on the day of their choice. We argue that a free society is one which provides the same privilege for the largest possible number of men and women irrespective of their income. To provide that wider freedom——
    Mr. Marlow: The doctor will be busy.
    Mr. Hattersley: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?
    Mr. Marlow: The right hon. Gentleman makes the point made by the leader of the Labour party during the election campaign when he said that everyone should have the doctor of his choice, when he chooses and where he chooses. The doctor will be very busy under such a Socialist system.
    Mr. Hattersley: Since the hon. Gentleman believes that we can never meet the medical needs of all the people, he wants to meet the needs, however trivial, of those with the biggest bank balances. I wish that the Prime Minister had had the guts to say that during the election campaign rather than making excuses.
    The argument about freedom and liberating more and more of our people, of giving them the chances and resources that they do not now possess, will be the dominant argument during the next five years. It will be made clear that by providing the resources for ordinary people we are the freedom party and the Queen's Speech opening the next Parliament will be delivered by a Labour Government.
    4.57 pm
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): There can be no doubting the significance of today's

    653
    debate. Not only is it the House's first opportunity to debate the economy since a general election which delivered a resounding vote of confidence in the Government and their economic policy; it is also—or so we are led to believe—the last economic debate in which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) will be leading for the Opposition.
    We shall miss the right hon. Gentleman, and his crystal balls, but his colleagues may not, for the right hon. Gentleman has been made something of a scapegoat for his party's massive defeat. Last week at least two national newspapers reported that both the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the general secretary of the Labour party blamed Labour's election defeat on the failure of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook to present their taxation and economic policies effectively. It seems that this view was endorsed by the shadow Cabinet in its lengthy post-mortem last night. That is most unfair. It is true that I had to give the right hon. Gentleman a certain amount of assistance, but between us we were able to leave the electorate in no doubt that his economic policies would mean higher borrowing, higher inflation, and higher taxes for everyone.
    There was no failure of presentation at all. The voters understood all this perfectly, and drew their own conclusions. The position was summed up admirably by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), when he said on "Panorama" shortly after the Election:
    "presentation is necessary … but no amount of slick presentation could work if we didn't have something sensible to say. And it's getting the sensible things to say that's been the difficulty."
    It is perceptive and sapient remarks of that kind that no doubt make the hon. Member for Dagenham hot favourite, according to the press, to succeed the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook as the chief economic spokesman for the Opposition.
    I have no wish to refight the battles of the general election. They are concluded and we won them. Instead, today's debate gives us a chance to reflect on the lessons of our first eight years in government, on what has changed and why, and to look forward to the years ahead.
    The success of the British economy is now beyond doubt. Business men and investors, at home and abroad, all recognise that the British economy is now sounder than at any time since the war. So, indeed, does the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who, writing in The Guardian last week, attributed Labour's third defeat in a row chiefly to the sharp rise in living standards and steady economic growth that have occurred, according to him, since 1982—an economic assessment he somehow failed to make during the campaign itself; an oversight, no doubt.
    It is, however, a measure of the transformation that we have achieved over the past eight years that the whole tone and tenor of the economic debate have changed. In 1979 the questions were whether accelerating inflation was inevitable and whether the country had become ungovernable. Runaway price increases, balance of payments crises, and an appalling strike record seemed to be endemic features of British life. We were the sick man of Europe, and many thought that the illness was terminal.
    By 1983 we had demonstrated that the answer to both those questions was an emphatic no, and the questions themselves had changed. In 1983 the question was how
    654
    soon would the recovery peter out, or inflation take off again. It was thought that one or the other, if not both, must surely occur.
    By 1987 we had demonstrated, once more, that no such fate lay in store. The economic upswing that began a little over six years ago is today stronger than ever, while inflation remains low. Last week's figures showed a healthy rise in national output in the first three months of this year, to reach a level more than 4 per cent. higher than a year ago, with manufacturing and services contributing in equal measure, and exports up sharply, too.
    So now, at the start of our third term in office, the question has changed yet again. No longer do people ask whether Britain can have sustained growth without rising inflation. We have that, and everybody knows it. The question now is what is it that has brought about the remarkable transformation of our economic performance; and what is it that has brought about an unprecedented six years of steady growth and low inflation, with no sign of a let-up?
    It is a question that is being asked, not just in this country, but abroad as well, for despite the fact that last year's oil price collapse was a mixed blessing for us but an unalloyed gain for most of our industrial competitors, it is their growth forecasts that are being revised down at a time when our forecast is being revised up.
    Mr. Dick Douglas: Is it the intention of the Chancellor to refer to the extremely precarious nature of the international economy and to the fact that the recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report No. 41 points very definitely to those international concerns that he ought to refer to and advise on?
    Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman has always been a little impetuous. If he waits, he will hear me deal with the world economy later in my remarks.
    The answer to the question that I raised a moment ago about how we have achieved the transformation that we have brought about is clear. At the heart of our success has been a fundamental change of approach to economic policy. No longer do we rely on the failed nostrum that it is Governments who can stimulate faster growth by expanding budget deficits, and no longer do we attempt to tackle inflation by distorting controls on prices and incomes. Instead, we have used a firm monetary policy to control inflation, we have backed that up with a prudent fiscal policy that leaves room for the private sector to expand, and, just as important, we have reformed the supply side of the economy. We have liberated the private sector from unnecessary shackles that have held it back for far too long, we have restored incentives, and we have created the conditions in which enterprise can flourish—and it has.
    Throughout most of the '60s and '70s Governments sought to stimulate growth by expansionary monetary and fiscal policies. It is by now all too evident that, far from stimulating growth, all that did was to stimulate inflation, and that any short-term increase in output was very soon reversed. At the same time, the onset of inflation led to a panoply of restrictions being imposed on the private sector. It is clear that this, too, was completely misdirected. So far from reducing inflation, the restrictions reduced output as firms found the environment too restrictive, and the uncertainties too great, for them to be able to plan ahead with confidence.

    655
    The Government have therefore completely changed that misdirected approach to economic policy, and the result is clear. Inflation is now around its lowest levels for nearly 20 years. At the same time, output has been rising strongly and steadily, year in, year out — with unemployment now falling more rapidly than at any time since records began.
    We shall continue to pursue those policies in the new Parliament. For example, the Gracious Speech included proposals to reduce controls on private rented housing, so as to make it easier for people to move to jobs in a different part of the country. Alongside deregulation, we have also taken positive steps to improve the working of the economy. For example, the excessive rigidity of the pay system in this country has been a persistent problem. A wider spread of profit-related pay would make for greater flexibility, and to encourage this I shall be reintroducing my proposals for tax relief for profit-related pay in the Finance Bill to be published tomorrow.
    Each of those supply side reforms is important in itself, but together they have contributed to a more fundamental change in British industry. Once again managers are able to manage, and are doing so successfully. Those who make profits — and, leaving aside North sea companies, profitability is at its highest level for more than a decade—are no longer treated as pariahs. In short, the spirit of enterprise is once again flourishing in this country, the land of its birth, and with it has come a spirit of optimism, a transformation of our national morale which cannot be measured in the official statistics but without which a talented people can never become a successful nation.
    The task of revitalising our economic performance has involved a number of radical new policies. Two key examples are the privatisation programme and the reform of the trade unions. Both have been of central importance. The dismal performance of the nationalised industries had long been an albatross round the neck of taxpayers, businesses and consumers. And the damage done by the excessive power of trade unions — not just to the economy but to the social fabric as well—was evident for all to see.
    Certainly, reforming those areas involved some tough decisions and the determination to push them through in the face of opposition, but the success of the policies is now clear, and the British people have yet again shown their support for them. The privatised companies are flourishing, recording higher profits, and providing a better service to their customers. Governments around the world are now following our example and injecting vigour into sluggish state-run industries by returning them to private ownership. Similarly, the success of our trade union reforms in improving industrial relations, notably by giving more say to individual trade union members, is now welcomed by all except the Bourbons of the Left.
    The need for tough decisions does not arise only at the start of a Government's period of office. There is much more still to do if we are to consolidate and extend the changes that have taken place in the economy and society. The Gracious Speech set out our priorities, in particular more choice in housing for tenants and more choice for parents in the education of their children. In both those key areas we are again challenging long-held nostrums. And already the vested interests are marshalling their opposition. But just as we did not shrink from
    656
    privatisation and reforming the trade unions, so we shall not be deflected from these further reforms in housing and education.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Nevertheless, will the Chancellor acknowledge that a major privatisation programme diverts funds within the City from new growth and new investment? What measures does he propose to introduce that will ensure that small businesses, especially outside London and the south-east, obtain access to venture capital on a greater scale than has been the case in the past few years?
    Mr. Lawson: The venture capital industry, which was very small indeed — virtually non-existent — when we took office in 1979, is now higher, in proportion to our GDP, than the United States' venture capital industry is in relation to its GDP. The growth of the venture capital industry has been one of the Government's most remarkable success stories.
    However, let me return to education. The need to improve standards of education in Britain is as essential to our economic success in the world of tomorrow as it is to the quality of life in this country. The universities, and higher education generally, have on the whole reacted well in recent years to the need to become more responsive to their industrial hinterland, and it is up to an increasingly profitable industry to take greater advantage of what is now on offer, particularly in research and development.
    We have not seen a comparable improvement in our schools. That is essential. Indeed, as Mr. Corelli Barnett has devastatingly documented in his book "The Audit of War", it is long overdue. Inevitably, it will take time to put that right.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: How, then, does the right hon. Gentleman account for the cries of agony from serious organisations such as Save British Science and for the way in which many of our top scientists are leaving Britain?
    Mr. Lawson: In fact, the latest study shows that the number of PhDs who are emigrating is very small, and much smaller than it was when the previous study was made in 1963.
    There is a wider point here. Economic success cannot be achieved overnight. It depends on getting the right policies in place, and then sticking to them through thick and thin. One of the most significant aspects of the result of the general election was the way in which the electorate decisively rejected the blandishments of those parties which offered instant and painless solutions to problems—usually, but not inevitably, through the application of additional public spending. The unprecedentedly long period of continuity of policy that we have seen in Britain has brought about a maturity of judgment in the British people which the Opposition parties failed to comprehend.
    The Government will therefore continue with their economic policies based, as they are, on sound money and free markets. In 1979 those policies involved radical departures from the accepted way of doing things and were greeted with scepticism by many at home and abroad. Now, the world is following our lead. There is now an international consensus on the importance of firm fiscal and monetary policies, backed by economic freedom and lower taxes, and privatisation is one of our most successful

    657
    exports. These policies command the confidence of the world, and they crucially command the confidence of the British people.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: The Chancellor referred to higher education and the universities, and he then went on to talk about the result of the general election. Does he agree that Labour won Aberdeen, South and his right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) refused to join the Government because of the Government's appalling record on Aberdeen university? Will he take that point seriously?
    Mr. Lawson: I am a little old-fashioned. I have the greatest respect for Aberdeen university, and, indeed, for Scottish education generally, but I must observe that both the ancient universities of Oxford and Cambridge returned Conservative Members.
    The prospects before us are good, and the chief causes for concern lie not at home but abroad. I am now dealing with the international context, in which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) was interested.
    Mr. Dalyell: What about Oxford, East?
    Mr. Lawson: I was referring to the other Oxford seat, which we won.
    The chief causes for concern are, first, the threat of a slowdown in Germany, Japan and the United States; secondly, the risk of a slide into protectionism; and, thirdly, the continued difficulty of managing the international debt problem.
    I singled out the risk of an international slowdown in my Budget speech this year. Since then, while the risk is still there, I have been encouraged by the increasing degree of practical co-operation among the leading finance Ministers. The agreement that we reached in Paris in February to stabilise exchange rates has been an undoubted success, despite widespread initial scepticism in both the markets and the press. What we have to do now is to ensure the full and speedy implementation of the policy commitments which backed it up. That means, in particular. reducing the budget deficit in the United States, and reducing and reforming taxation in Germany and Japan.
    Meanwhile, we simply must not allow the world economy to be sidetracked into a retreat into protectionism. That would solve none of our problems, and aggravate many. There remains the problem of managing the huge debts that were accumulated by many developing countries in the 1970s, and here there have been a number of encouraging developments, all in the direction of greater realism.
    First, the commercial banks have used the five years since the debt crisis broke to strengthen their balance sheets considerably. The recent move by the NatWest bank has been the most striking further development in this country. I welcome unequivocally the steps that the banks have taken. I hope too that they will open the way to developing more market solutions—for example, an improved secondary market in some of the debts that are owed to the banking system. But we have to recognise that that process will not meet the needs of the poorest and most heavily indebted countries of sub-Saharan Africa. There is simply no way these countries can ever service their debts in full, and most of their debts are due to
    658
    Governments and official institutions, not to banks. That is why, for these countries, I put forward a three-point plan at the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund this year.
    First, I asked the creditor Governments to continue the process of converting old aid loans into grants. The United Kingdom has already done that on a substantial scale. I am glad to say that a number of others are now following suit.
    Secondly, I urged the creditor Governments to agree to reschedule the debts of sub-Saharan African countries over longer periods than before, with grace periods for the repayment of capital. Since I put that forward. I am glad to report to the House that the so-called Paris club of creditor Governments has agreed four such reschedulings. I look forward to more.
    Thirdly, and absolutely crucially, I argued that we have to consider reducing interest rates on official debt to well below market rates for those countries. That is the only way that we can permanently lighten the burden on the poorest countries, rather than just rearranging it. That costs money, but at the end of the day it amounts to little more than facing up to reality. I take considerable satisfaction in the fact that the idea was given a fair wind at the Venice summit last month, and is reflected in the communiqué from that summit. I look forward to progress before the end of the year.
    Finally, we are now beginning to look at ways of applying similar principles to the arrangements made by the poorest countries with the IMF. Here, too, the Venice summit promised work in the spirit of the ideas that I canvassed in Washington in the spring. There is still some way to go, but, step by step, we are demonstrating that the political will is there.
    The fact that Britain is once again able to look outwards, and play a leading part in discussions of world economic developments, is another measure of the transformation that we have achieved in this country. But that transformation goes beyond developments in the economy. It extends to more profound changes in the way society works.
    Not only have businesses and managers been given the freedom to pursue their own destinies, in their own way, without interference from the Government, but ordinary people, too, in all walks of life have been given more choice in the way they live their lives. This is reflected in the spread of ownership in society. Some 2·5 million more families now own the homes they live in than was the case in 1979. One in five of the adult population now directly owns shares in British industry, very nearly as many as are members of affiliated trade unions. We are now taking further steps to encourage the spread of private pension provision, and tomorrow's Finance Bill will include our proposals for tax changes to this end.
    The benefits of wider ownership go far beyond the fact that people will be better off as the price of their house appreciates and the value of their shares goes up. Much more important is the fact that it gives more people a direct stake in the economy and the society in which they live. Those who own their own home take pleasure in spending time and money in maintaining and improving it, so there is a benefit to them, to the housing stock, and to the wider community. They have something to pass on to their children, too, which is not only good in itself, but, will transform the attitudes of the next generation. Again., those who own shares have a keener interest in the

    659
    performance of British industry and in what makes it successful. The connection is obviously most immediate for employees who have acquired shares in the firms they work for and who are in a position to help those firms to thrive. People who have made their own provision for old age can look forward to retirement with a new sense of independence, without being wholly dependent on the state for their future income.
    This spread of ownership is helping to break down the barriers in our society between "them" and "us". For too long a class of tenants and workers appeared to be in direct conflict with a class of owners and shareholders. This mentality was a major cause of many of our past industrial relations difficulties, and it still lingers on long after its principal causes are behind us. It is time — and long overdue — that it came to an end. That is why the extension of choice, alongside the extension of ownership, is a key theme in our proposals for the new Parliament.
    More freedom, wider ownership and a spirit of self-reliance are becoming, at long last, the distinguishing characteristics of our society. The Opposition tried, and failed, in the election campaign to twist this truth into the malicious slander that a self-reliant society is one based on greed and materialsm. They should pause to reflect, for example, that recorded giving to charity has doubled, in real terms, since 1979. The tax concessions that we have given have helped, but the heart of the matter is that this is scarcely the symptom of a society dominated by selfishness.
    In their first eight years this Government have achieved many things that were once judged impossible. I have mentioned some of them—above all the strength of the economy, on which so much else, whether resources to assist the needy and deprived, or Britain's standing in the world, directly depends. Other achievements include privatisation, reform of the trade unions, and the spread of ownership. But so far from resting on our laurels, we are now embarking on a programme of further reform, containing measures every bit as radical as those that we have already taken. Both our achievements so far and our proposals for the future have won the unqualified endorsement of the British people. A key reason for that is that it is our policies and our proposals that are moving with the tide of ideas.
    That great historical turning point, the Conservative victory of 1979, was more than just another swing of the political pendulum. It was brought about by the conviction of the British people that a completely different approach to government was needed. The post-war consensus had been based on the idea that government was the principal agent of economic advance and of social progress. By 1979 the failure of that approach was obvious to all. Not only had Governments failed to deliver what had been expected of them, but their all-pervading role had had a thoroughly debilitating effect on the energies and ambitions of the British people.
    Our approach has been to concentrate on doing those jobs which only the Government can, and must do, and to release the spirit and talents of the British people. The significance of the election result is not only in the approval of what has been done so far, but lies equally in the outright rejection of those who sought to turn the clock back to the days when all problems were thought to be for the state to tackle and no room was left for individual
    660
    initiative and self-help. So far from seeking to go back to those days, the British people in June 1987 voted for more freedom and for more choice. That is our agenda for the future.
    5.24 pm
    Dr. David Owen: It would be churlish of me not to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on recognising that oldest of political adages that the jingle in the pocket is probably the most important background to an election. He certainly provided that. I hope that he will not think it a backhanded compliment if I say that I think that he had more to do with the Conservative victory than did his right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit).
    The issues that we face in the Queen's Speech are far more deep-seated than the contents of the legislative programme. In the legislative programme, the Government of course have the right to introduce most of the legislation, and that programme will be fairly crowded. However, behind the 1987 election there are some important lessons. It would be foolish for those of us in opposition not to recognise those lessons.
    I did not recognise the economy from some of the more extravagant tributes that the Chancellor paid to it. Broadly speaking, tributes to the economy are better coming from others than from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is no doubt that the economy is now stronger in many important and significant areas than it has been for many years, and we can all rejoice at that. However, the Chancellor would be wise to pay more attention to the uncompetitive nature of much of British manufacturing industry when that is compared with the costs of some of our major industrial competitors, not least the Federal Republic of Germany and many other European Community countries. The Chancellor would also be wise to cast his mind forward to the looming balance of payments problems, and especially to the problems that will occur when North sea oil revenues begin to recede.
    At this stage of the Parliament it would also be wise to consider the ingredients of the electoral successes in 1979, 1983 and 1987. I have no doubt that once again, as in 1983, so in 1987, the Government won the debate on the defence of this country hands down. I say that with no great joy. I hope that the lessons will be learnt and I look forward to the return to a bipartisanship on defence policy that was the hallmark of this country from 1940 to 1980 when the former Prime Minister, now Sir James Callaghan, left the leadership of the Labour party.
    The Government won some of the arguments on economic policy but not all of them. The area in which the Government lost the election was wisely drawn to our attention by the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) in a very thoughtful speech. He said that he thought that the Government had won on points. Conservatives have to say that. However, he was really saying that the Government lost on points —[Interruption.] I suggest that hon. Members who missed the right hon. Gentleman's speech should read it. Beneath his speech they will see a quite penetrating criticism of some of the social policies.
    The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) also made a fascinating and interesting speech in two important particulars. First, he drew attention to the problem that the House faces over the election result in

    661
    Scotland. As democrats, that presents us with major problems. It is wholly appropriate for those of us speaking from the alliance Benches to draw attention to another fact. Not only was Scotland disfranchised, but 7 million people are substantially under-represented. Hon. Members should reflect on that fact in all fairness and justice. In almost all other European Community countries, under their system there would now be 63 SDP and 83 Liberal Members of Parliament.
    It is no use our complaining. We must defeat the system that exists. It is perfectly clear to me that, unless we are able to learn the lessons of the three successive election defeats, there will be another Conservative victory in 1991. We intend to learn such lessons. Before Government Members cheer, let me say that we intend to learn such lessons, in particular in the most crucial linkage between social policy and the market economy. The market economy is here to stay—that is one of the other lessons of the last three elections—but the market economy as practised by the Conservatives is not here to stay in any sense at all. There is a growing recognition—indeed, one has to say that at least the Government recognise that there is a problem in inner cities—that what is on offer in terms of, as some purists might say, a pure, unadulterated market economy is insufficient to grapple with the social problems that are thrown up by our complex industrial society.
    Over the next four years, the real test of the political parties—particularly for the Opposition—is whether we can outflank the Government in winning people's confidence in what I have called the social market economy. I shall draw attention to some aspects of it.
    The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North, apart from mentioning Scotland, drew attention to education. That is the most crucial matter for the country. I say that as the father of three children who are going through the state education system. Nobody can deny that it is a hairy existence keeping one's children in the state education system that is operated under the ILEA. If I feel angry at what is happening, many more people must feel much more angry, but there are a number of things to learn. I do not quite share the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for all aspects of the proposed education reforms, but I cannot praise him on the one hand and, on the other hand, not recognise that. if he believes that in such proposals there is the kernel of something as momentous as the Education Act 1944, I must at least look at such education proposals and take them seriously.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science is one of the more thoughtful right hon. Members. His record should allow him to create legislation that is as constructive as the Education Act 1944. If he wishes to achieve that goal, he will have to learn a few lessons about presentation and acceptability. It is not a wise idea to launch a proposal for a city technology college from the Tory party conference. That does not have the characteristic quality of ensuring that it will be accepted enthusiastically by the substantial portions of local education authorities which are not controlled by Conservatives. I do not make a narrow point; it is an important one. How one presents such education reforms will be crucial.
    If the decision has been taken—I support it—to go for self-governing schools and to treat such schools as large enterprises with substantial budgets, they must have resources. That is one of the crucial points that the right
    662
    hon. Member for Shropshire, North made. It is no use having big structural changes unless there is the oil to encourage such changes to ride over some difficulties, and that means more money. In blunt terms, we all know that it is difficult to achieve major social changes and social reforms if we operate in an atmosphere of tight finance. It is also difficult to operate against the local education authorities.
    I have had some savage things to say about some of the conduct of the Left in local government. One of the tragedies of their behaviour is that they have tended to destroy the good in local government, and there is much good in local government. One of the things that I hope we shall be able to ram home to the Government is that, for centuries, local government has been one of the strengths of the British democratic system. If the Government want educational reforms, they must try to go with the grain of good local government. Of course they should make a change in local authority capital receipts. They are a sore, and a justified sore, for all good local authorities, but the matter is more important than that. There is a danger that the Government do not understand the positive merit of having another democratic source of power outside Westminster and Whitehall. It is a constitutional safeguard that, when power resides with the Government of the day in the House, power frequently resides in the council chambers of the country, in other hands, whether at this stage Labour or the alliance. Such countervailing balances have an important part in strengthening and deepening our democracy. An outright assault on local government will be resisted by both sides of the House.
    It is probably too late for the Government to draw back from the poll tax, but all the indications from Scotland are that it will not only be resented but will throw up immense problems for the good running of local government and for the support and sustaining of effective local government. It would be helpful if the Government would think again about the poll tax.
    There are other areas in which a partnership between local government and central Government is crucial, and in no way greater than in trying to revive inner cities. The Government have put forward some good ideas. I say without boasting that many of them have been openly advocated from these Benches for many years. It is not the first time that our ideas have been pinched, nor will it be the last.
    I recommend that the Chancellor look again at industrial bonds and a way of getting greater leverage on finance from tax concessions. They have been effectively used in the United States in the rebuilding of inner city development. A public-private partnership is every bit as important as a local government-central Government partnership if the inner cities are to be rebuilt. Let us not have hostility to local authorities. Let us have more imagination from local authorities, and particularly from Labour authorities, in dealing with the public-private partnership.
    Hon. Members should consider Glasgow—it is not a soft-centred, moderate, Labour-controlled council, yet it has understood the need to work a public-private partnership—and contrast the way in which the Labour Left in Glasgow has dealt with the public-private partnership and how the Labour Left in Liverpool has dealt with that partnership. It is as if the two cities were separated by an ocean, not by two nations.
    Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Owen: I prefer not to; time is short.
    Another important matter is the Health Service. There are probably few things closer to my heart than the effective running of the Health Service. It is totally true that we can basically go on spending money in an almost unlimited way and there will never be satisfaction, but the percentage of GDP that the country currently spends on the Health Service is inadequate when judged by any comparative standards all around the world. [Interruption.] It is inadequate. We can argue about how much needs to be done, but I suspect that the Health Service needs at least another 1 to 2 per cent. of GDP over the next 10 years before it can truly cope.
    Within the Health Service—that vast enterprise, as I found to my enjoyment when I was Minister for Health for two and a half years — there is immense scope for greater efficiency. I recommend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the alliance proposals for an internal market within the National Health Service. The proposals would give the right to the patient, if there is a waiting list in his health district, to go to another health district. Charging is done between health districts, and no cash is related to the patient. That patient, by his own choice, moving to another health district, puts a powerful financial incentive on his health district to put its house in order. It will not like having to pay out money to another health district.
    This is also a good opportunity to deal with the frontier between the private and public health sectors. It makes no sense to prevent somebody who can be dealt with in a private hospital more cheaply than in another part of the NHS from having treatment. There is no reason why treatment cannot be contracted out if a patient can have his inguinal hernia dealt with in that way. Good for him. He does not pay—the health district pays. We all know what happens to a docker who waits nine months for an inguinal hernia operation. If he is lucky, he can be kept at work. If he is kept at work he will be on very much reduced pay, because he is not able to lift anything. It is a great mistake to think that large waiting lists are not an economic disadvantage to the country. They also cause great hardship.
    This internal market concept for greater efficiency in the National Health Service does not breach any of the fundamental principles, which I would fight to the last to maintain, that care should be provided on the basis of health need, not on capacity to pay. However, that also puts much pressure on my profession, which is often the greatest single obstacle to efficient running of the Health Service and to greater efficiency in the management of large waiting lists. I recommend that proposal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    When the Chancellor is looking at the inner cities, I suggest that he would be wise to consider making a reduction in the national insurance contribution paid by the employer in areas of high unemployment or inner city deprivation. That is a powerful financial incentive to encourage jobs, which would not cost much. Again, that was an alliance proposal.
    I should like to refer again to education, in the light of what I said about the internal market for the Health Service. In their education proposals, when they are asking for a self-governing school, with the freedom to free itself from local government bureaucracy and run itself, why do
    664
    the Government not say that entry into that school will be on a non-selective basis, following the same selection criteria as those used by the local authority? [Interruption.] We shall probe that. We shall probe the Government's intentions. I might be joined in this by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North, who talked about the collective tradition of the maintained sector of education.
    If it is really greater choice without privilege, sign me up. I want that, but I do not want to see selection coming in through the back door. There is an aspect of the Prime Minister's presentation of the proposals that sees them as rescuing the grammar schools, so many of which she herself abolished. But the real question is: can one give choice in the inner-city areas for the parents who feel trapped in schools that are providing and have provided for many years an inadequate education system?
    We in the Social Democratic party will look at those educational reforms with great care. It is not immediate, instant opposition. If we can be convinced that the proposals are not introducing selection by the back door, and that they are introducing choice and variety into the education system, all credit to them.
    In a Maitland lecture to the Institution of Structural Engineers, I took the same view about the city technology colleges. The problem with them as they are currently presented is that, again, they have a selective intake. However, if that were done in partnership with the local authority and there was no selection, and the catchment area was much wider so that it did not scoop off people from the local sixth forms——
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Owen: I shall not give way. I should like to make my speech in my own way.
    At present the catchment area is narrowly confined. If adaptations are made in the process of legislation, we shall be delighted. That brings us back to how this Parliament will be conducted. Will the Government conduct themselves as they did in the previous Parliament, when there was gross insensitivity and ill-feeling created by having a majority of 144?
    I recognise that a considerable victory has been achieved. It is bigger than most people have estimated. I have always argued that the 1983 election result was phoney, that the Falklands factor gave the Conservatives a far bigger majority than was actually there. Their true majority was probably about 70 or 75. I thought that, because of that, in one go we could take that majority from the Conservatives in the 1987 election. Now that they have a majority of 101, I am hoist on my own petard. I admit that it is likely that this is in that sense a larger victory than in 1983—[Interruption.] I shall not ever join the Tory party. The Home Secretary is indulging in a blue joke when he says that I am going to join the Tory party. He will be in trouble with Mary Whitehouse if he goes on saying things like that. I shall keep probing the Government as a Social Democrat, and proud of it.
    In searching for a mechanism to restore the authority of local government—I have already looked at how it is financed — we must make changes. The poll tax is wrong. The Government should re-read the Layfield report and re-examine the case for a local income tax. With

    665
    the computerisation of the Inland Revenue, it provides a proper mechanism. The Government's fear is that they do not trust some of the extreme local authorities.
    I can almost hear the instinctive groans as I come back to this matter — proportional representation in local government is a different argument from that for the House. I believe that it should come for the House, but let us look at proportional representation for local government on its merits and examine its committee structure. We should recognise this. If it were introduced at one stroke, the extremism would be ended. At one stroke the authority of local government would he restored. We would have a decentralised system of democratic government. I implore the Government to re-examine that issue. Otherwise — this is the hidden message in the Queen's Speech — the Government are embarking, not just on a confrontation with local government, but on the dismantling of local government. If one systematically takes away the powers of local government, what happens? Good people leave local government. Indeed, the Labour party is packing them all in here now.
    Mr. Michael Latham: Not the good people.
    Dr. Owen: Perhaps not the good people, but the Left. I have never called such people the loony Left, incidentally. I have always believed that they are highly intelligent, completely dedicated, people who know exactly what they are after and what they are doing. They have decided that it is better to be in the House than in local government. There was a time 50 years ago when people's reputations were made in local government. People did not look to go into Parliament. We need to restore once again the authority of local government. The key to it lies in proportional representation and local income tax.
    Let the Government learn for the next four to four and a half years. They have the chance to make this country more prosperous than before. I do not deny that. They have a chance to consolidate. Perhaps there will be a fourth victory. I do not believe that they will achieve it, but they will have much more chance if they show a breadth of vision and a recognition of their role as being much wider than just a majority of 101. If the Government listen to arguments, we shall listen to their replies.
    5.47 pm
    Mr. Edward Heath: In congratulating my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, her colleagues and our party on their success in the election, I believe that it would be grossly unfair of me not to pay full tribute to the contribution by the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the alliance in that process. Their contribution was in all ways remarkable. With regard to the alliance, there never was a credible political arrangement, and it becomes less so now.
    As the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said, the leader of the Labour party went back on the policy of his predecessors since Mr. Attlee of having nuclear defence for this country. Although it is often said that no election has been won or lost on defence, there is no doubt that it played a major part in people's reactions all over the country. Therefore, I hope that there can be a return to consensus in defence policies because it will be even more necessary in future than now, for this reason.
    666
    We have moved close to the super-powers agreeing on the zero-zero option. If that procedure is carried out, the flexible response for nuclear weapons in the world is removed.
    There are those who have always found it difficult to understand the apparent contradiction, that we keep weapons to deter, believing that those weapons will never be used, but it is a fact of life and it has proved successful for the past 40 years. In no way should it be abandoned. If, as the previous commander of NATO said, we move further towards the removal of all nuclear weapons, including those in the field, we shall have returned to the position in 1939, when our conventional forces could not match those of a major European power.
    In an attempt by the Soviet Union to take even the smallest sector of Europe, the pressure put on the President of the United States not to use strategic nuclear weapons would be enormous. In fact, it would be irresistible. One can imagine the argument: "Well, it is only a small hit of Europe, a small sector, not really important. Are you prepared to take the risk of destroying so much just to defend those Europeans?" That is the real issue that arises out of the present negotiations. I have always strongly urged and worked for the reduction of nuclear and conventional weapons, and shall continue to do so, but to abandon them would be absolutely fatal.
    My right hon. Friend the former Leader of the House, speaking with the wisdom that comes to those who have been relegated to the Back benches, said that the Government would be wise, after this great success, to remember the position of Scotland and Wales; and that it poses a problem for any Government—as it does and will. He did not venture a solution other than that the Procedure Committee should look at it. I do not believe that that Committee will do much good for the problem.
    My right hon. Friend then said that there could be no question of looking at devolution again. On that he is absolutely wrong. It is commonly said that we must remain a united kingdom. However, the most successful country in Europe — West Germany — has devolution. We gave it to the West Germans and they have made a success of it. The parrot cry that we must just have a united kingdom bears no relationship to the reality of modern times.
    I want to comment on what the Chancellor said. I thought that his peroration was important. He is encouraged by what has been done about the debt of the developing world. It has taken a long time to bring that issue home to international opinion — ever since the Brandt report of — 1980 and particularly to the commercial banks. How much more sensible it would have been if the commercial banks had negotiated long-term arrangements for these developing countries rather than being forced now to put aside large amounts, either because they are a write-off or about to be written off, thereby reducing their capacity to help our indigenous industries here.
    It would have been much more sensible to reach a long-term arrangement with the developing countries, but I praise the Chancellor for extending still further the process of writing off the debts of the smaller developing countries, from which there is no hope of ever obtaining repayment. The fact remains that the flow in the past two years has been from developing countries into the developed world, and not vice versa as it has been since 1945. That cannot be justified morally, economically or politically. It remains

    667
    to be dealt with if the world economy is to maintain even its present level of growth, which, overall, is now comparatively small.
    In this debate it is only possible to put down markers to one or two items in the Queen's Speech, about which I hope debates will follow. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will bear in mind the need fully to debate some of those subjects.
    Little has been said about Northern Ireland. The situation there has existed for 18 ghastly years. No one there who is younger than 30 knows anything other than terrorism and the present condition of Northern Ireland. My view is that the Anglo-Irish Agreement should be activated to a far greater extent. We should not in any way be inhibited by the views of the Ulster Unionists. Lord Attlee's statement — that if one walks out, one has always got to walk back — has been proved right. They walked out; now they have to come back. The Government can press on and use the agreement to the utmost degree to take further action to deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland.
    I come now to crime in general. What has been done in the past eight years has failed. We have more crime than ever before and it is still increasing. Our prisons are more and more overcrowded, and crime is particularly a problem of the inner cities. I suggest that there should be an entirely fresh look at the problem of crime, its cause and how to deal with it. The eternal cry, "Send them to prison; send them to prison for longer terms; and for still longer terms," is doing nothing to reduce crime. We owe it to the community to take an entirely fresh look at that, as Rab Butler did when he was Home Secretary. That was many years ago, and it is time we did it again.
    Unlike the right hon. Member for Devonport, I am encouraged by the fact that the proposals in the Queen's Speech are all couched in terms that the Government could change, if persuaded to do so. They do not commit themselves to the poll tax: the speech states that fresh arrangements will be made. That gives the Government every opportunity. They are being wise and careful in their every statement. I hope that they will take advantage of every opportunity of accepting advice that we can give them.
    As well as taking heed of what has happened in Scotland and Wales, the Government will also be wise to take heed of the views of large numbers of people, including large numbers of our supporters up and down the country on, first, the issue of jobs; secondly, housing; thirdly, health; fourthly, education; and fifthly, the poll tax. I went over most of the country, from Scotland to Cornwall and across to east Kent, and I was able to talk to people unhindered. They told me what they thought. Our people are worried about all of those things, and they supported us despite them.
    We have heard a great deal about health. I respect what the right hon. Member for Devonport said, but it is not always quite as simple as he has made out — even though he has great knowledge. The London teaching hospitals do take patients from outside. Guy's takes them from Lincolnshire, with the result that it cannot take my constituents, who are put on the waiting list. Why does Guy's take them from Lincolnshire? They take them because Lincolnshire will pay Guy's for taking its people, and my constituency cannot. That is not a better result
    668
    from one of the alliance proposals. It points to what we all know must happen — a reform of the formula for allocating finances within the Health Service. That is vital, and everyone in London and the regional areas around it knows that well.
    The abolition of the rating system originated, if I may go so far back into history, in the Conservative manifesto of October 1974, which said:
    "within the normal lifetime of a Parliament we shall abolish the domestic rating system and replace it by taxes more broadly based and related to people's ability to pay."
    The characteristic of a poll tax is that it is not related to people's ability to pay, nor to the circumstances in different areas of the country. Those are two basic failings of the poll tax, quite apart from the administrative problems. The Secretary of State for the Environment last night said that he believed that it was right that tax should not be related to people's ability to pay. That is not a radical proposal; it is a reactionary, regressive proposal for the tax not be related to people's ability to pay.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment dismissed the issue of the register lightly with a flick of the finger last night, but he agreed that the register for the poll tax will, of course, be related to the register for electors, because the register for electors is open to public inspection. Therefore, any register for the poll tax can be compared by any official with the register of electors.
    Mr. Marlow: Why not?
    Mr. Heath: I shall tell my hon. Friend : because that will persuade people not to put themselves on the register of electors. I have heard my hon. Friend say before that it is a jolly good thing that they are not on the register of electors. I cannot accept that point of view, and I do not believe that the party will, either. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is not even prepared to shake his head.
    Those are the reasons why the poll tax is not acceptable. The Government would be wise to reconsider it in the light of the statement in the Queen's Speech. The 1974 manifesto statement pointed to a period — we thought then it was not far ahead — in which the whole of the Inland Revenue system would be computerised, and we could then work the two systems together. Thirteen years afterwards we must be close to the time when the systems can all be computerised and operated together. That is much the best way of dealing with what has been an intractable problem for a long time.
    We have heard a great deal about education. I beseech the Secretary of State for Education and Science to consider long and carefully the sketchy outlines of the proposals which he has so far put forward. We have heard a great deal from various sources in the House about Mr. Butler's reform of 1944. Anybody who knows the history of that period knows that years were spent on formulating the Act with both sides of the House involved and with consultation with local authorities, teachers and — the right hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) omitted to say this—with all the churches. They were all consulted and their views were used in formulating that Act.
    None of that has been done on this occasion. It may be that we have now reached the stage where, because of a lack of response to our industrial demands, we must have a national curriculum. But let us not justify it on the basis of choice. It will give not greater choice but more limited

    669
    choice. It will be fixed by the Secretary of State, and if a Labour Government come to power their Secretary of State will fix it, not ours. The domination of the Secretary of State for Education and Science is an important factor to consider. Hitherto we have always repudiated that.
    Has the proposal to devolve more powers, particularly financial powers, to headmasters been examined? Is it thought to be copying the private sector? Probably 70 per cent. of my colleagues went to public schools; I did not have to undergo that. I went to a state infant school, a church primary school, a grammar school and then won a scholarship to Oxford, so I have never had that experience. Does a headmaster of a public school run the finances of the school? Of course not. His job is to run the school. Yet we are telling state school headmasters that they must do a job which public school headmasters would never dream of doing. I know because I have discussed it with them.
    Dr. Owen: They have a bursar.
    Mr. Heath: Yes, that is what some colleagues have said to me. We have 31,500 state schools. Are we to have 31,500 bursars? That would be the greatest growth interest of the century. Is that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants in order to increase his productivity figures? Not for a moment.
    A headmaster will have to negotiate with the ladies who come in the morning to clean the school what their pay will be, when their holidays will be and all the other arrangements for them. This measure has not been thought through. That is not the job of a headmaster, and headmasters are not capable of doing it.
    What does the option out amount to? We must cast our minds back to the two years which Sir Keith Joseph wasted on vouchers. Various Right-wing organisations said, "Give parents vouchers and they can choose their school." That was impractical nonsense from beginning to end. Indeed, Sir Keith admitted it in a kind letter to me, saying how it was impracticable, but how nice it would have been if it had been practicable. What was the real purpose? It was to give cash vouchers to parents who were already paying for their children at public schools. The vouchers would have been a financial contribution to the cost of sending children to those schools. We all knew that to be the purpose of it. That is why the Government tried to find a way to sell it to the public.
    Then there is the argument of giving parents greater choice. In my constituency they have a choice of three schools. We know perfectly well that some schools are fashionable at one time and others at another time, and that parents cannot all get their children into the one school that happens to be fashionable at the time. Chislehurst and Sidcup grammar school is a fine school with a magnificent headmaster and parents want to send their children there, but places are limited. The Government say parents have a choice, but some of them cannot get their first choice. In Safeway we have a choice and whatever we choose we can buy; in education we cannot. Therefore, the comparison now being made in so many Right-wing quarters that education can be sold like goods in a supermarket is absolutely farcical.
    Getting schools to opt out is an attempt to open a side door to vouchers. When they opt out, they are responsible directly to the Secretary of State for Education and Science. What influence will a school have over him? In
    670
    some education authorities schools may have precious little influence over councillors, but they have some and they have Members of Parliament who can argue for them. These schools will have no influence over the Secretary of State or his Department, so when they do not receive the money they need, they will charge fees. That is what the Prime Minister has always had in mind. With that, fee-paying education will be extended and that is what I am strongly opposed to.
    The right hon. Member for Devonport says that he is opposed to selection. We have various types of selection and I do not object to them providing they are properly carried out. However, I object to forcing parents to pay fees for their children's education.
    Mr. Marlow: How does my right hon. Friend make that construction?
    Mr. Heath: Please do not interrupt. It is just too much to have the hon. Gentleman interrupting. The answer is the simple argument that I have advanced—that when such schools want more money, of which they are deprived by the Department of Education and Science, headmasters will have no alternative but to say to the parents, "Now you will pay fees." That is how it will begin, then it will build up and then we shall be told that fees should be paid in all schools and throughout our education system. To compare this as a great development with what Rab Butler did would make that great man turn in his grave. It is no comparison.
    A further worrying aspect is the attempt to make all parents pay for all extra-curricular activities. That is absolutely lamentable. To take as an example music. about which I know a certain amount. This country leads the world in music. That was due after the first world war to the BBC and the promenade concerts and after the second world war largely to the place of music in our education system. When I was president of the European Community youth orchestra, it had 126 members. In my last year after impartial auditions, 86 of them were British. Why? Because of the musical education at our schools, the teaching and the symphony orchestras in which our youth play. I have three symphony orchestras in Sidcup schools alone. Is all that to be wiped away just for a small pittance which the Chancellor will save? Is that why we want another penny off the rate of income tax? Is it to wipe out such culture, visits to foreign countries and so on from our schools?
    I must warn the Chancellor and the Secretary of State that many of us feel passionately about these matters and we will not stand idly by and let that happen. That is why I urge that we should have lengthy debates on this. The Government must hear our real views.
    Mr. Ian Gow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Heath: No, I am sorry.
    I want to say one word about Europe. I greatly regret that the recent Heads of Government meeting was brought to the conclusion that it was. I believe it was unnecessary because they were prepared to opt for regulations at the December meeting. The way forward would have been to get on with it and for the regulations to be accepted or rejected in December, not to postpone the work of the Community for a further six months. It has been postponed for too long in the past eight years.

    671
    We have agreed the agriculture price review. The cost is said to be the reason why we are challenging the Community's budget, yet we have accepted it. Why? Because we believe it is right. What is more, our farmers have benefited more than anybody in the Community since we joined. We complain about the Community's surpluses, but our farmers are contributing enormously to them. The Government must explain what they will do for our hon. Members who represent agricultural seats whose constituents are producing masses more wheat, beef, other cereals and oil than they ever produced previously. We are continuing to produce surpluses and we must tackle the problem.
    The Leader of the Opposition does not deal with the problem by saying that the surpluses must be wiped out. I pay tribute to Mr. Williams for what he did for agriculture in the first Labour Government after the war. He did an enormous amount to improve British agriculture and make it efficient. We went further by going into the Community. To wipe that out bears no relationship to our previous history.
    We hear about the reform of the CAP. What is this reform? It has never been proposed by the Labour party or the alliance. What we mean by reform is the adjustment, the rearrangement, of the price ranges for commodities inside the common agricultural policy. As soon as we talk about reform of the common agricultural policy every one of our colleagues in the Community bristles. They all say that Britain wants to wipe away what was an essential part of the foundation of the Community. Until we understand that, we shall not get their full co-operation in making a free market in services and manufactures, which is what we want and which will benefit us.
    We should now show constructive leadership in Europe and should not take any relish in saying that we held it up and that we stood alone. That is not a demonstration of strength; it is a demonstration of weakness and shows that we are not prepared to work with our colleagues in finding an answer to the problems. Our future lies in Europe and the challenge now is to Europe. Europe is not meeting it and one of the things that worries most of us is that budgetary control is just a back-door way of cutting back on scientific research in Europe. That is what is happening and it is the British who are obstructing such research and creating uncertainty in so many ventures.
    If we are to succeed in the world and outdo the Japanese instead of going protectionist on them and getting the Americans to do likewise, we must have common science and research in Europe and must provide the budget for it. I urge the Government to do that. I have put down a few markers.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who no doubt has now gone off to a meeting of the 1922 Committee, said that we are in for a lively Session. We are, and we can get the right results from that Session if the Chancellor and his colleagues will listen to the views of those who care deeply about these affairs and who want to see progress being made. But many of us are not prepared to go into a reactionary regressive policy of any kind.
    6.11 pm
    Mr. Doug Henderson: I rise to make my first contribution, and I thank you, Mr.
    672
    Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to do so on an issue which is of such great importance to my constituency. I know that in my first contribution my constituents would want me to pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Bob Brown, and I do so with real affection and respect.
    Bob Brown was first elected to this House in 1966 and represented Newcastle, West until 1983. Between 1983 and 1987 he represented the new Newcastle upon Tyne, North constituency that I now represent. He was a highly popular representative and was held in the highest regard, not only in the city of Newcastle but throughout the northern region. He has had a lifetime of service to the community as a city councillor and alderman and served the nation as Under-Secretary of State for Transport from 1968 to 1970, as Under-Secretary of State for Social Services in 1974 and as Under-Secretary of State for Defence between 1974 and 1979.
    As an Army Minister and an ex-sapper, Bob Brown was in a real sense fully equipped to supervise the training of recruits. I have it on good account that this pleased the recruits and surprised the non-commissioned officers. I am also told that the very idea that a Labour army Minister had handled an Enfield ·303 had the Army chiefs of staff quaking in their flak jackets.
    My constituency is in the north-west of the city and covers the older industrial communities of Newburn, Lemington and Westerhope and the post-war settlements of Denton, Chapel Park, Newbiggin Hall and Fawdon the villages north of the city, and the better-off areas which line the Great North road north of Gosforth.
    The constituency was a proud workshop community. The people there extracted coal from the banks of the Tyne and served not only local industry but industry in the south. That workshop community manufactured engineering and glass products and exported them all over the world. It processed steel at Spencers to serve local industry and gave George Stephenson his first chance as a plugman in Throckley pit. The job might now be known as that carried out by a foreman. The community constructed the first railway line in Britain between Colodge and Kenton even before George Stephenson's time and in the post-war era it established new engineering and allied industries.
    In his first speech in the House in 1966, Bob Brown spoke about the link between people's skills and economic well-being. He said:
    "As surely as the prosperity of the nation was built on the skills of the industrial workers of the North following the Industrial Revolution, we are again in the position of being able greatly to enhance the national prospects with the contribution which we can offer in the years ahead." —[Official Report, 26 April 1966; Vol. 727, c. 587.]
    It must be obvious not only to Bob Brown but to all of his former constituents that such hopes have not materialised. In the 1980s people in my constituency and in the north as a whole have not been allowed to make that contribution. Between 1979 and 1986, 171,000 jobs have been lost in the north. Unemployment has doubled, one in five of the people in my constituency is out of work and in areas like the New Biggin Hall estate, with a population approaching 8,000, 44 per cent. of the men have no work.
    Between 1979 and 1986, 140,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing in the north. In my constituency 600 have been lost at Lemington Glass, 800 at Ever-Ready and 600 at Tress Engineering. After eight years of Conservative Government, my constituency now has a workless community in which young people have very little prospect

    673
    of a real job and where everyone knows that there are people who are now in their late twenties who have never worked.
    In that workless community 32-year-olds are told by the local employment office that they are too old ever to work again. It is no surprise that they feel alienated and outlawed by our society. Even in the more prosperous areas like Chapel Park and Gosforth people are terrified that their children will not get the opportunity to work in the locale. That despair is aggravated by growing poverty, deteriorating housing and a neglect of the areas blighted by urban dereliction.
    People in my constituency and in the north of England are asking, "Can we take any comfort from the proposals in the Gracious Speech or from the idea that we should sell off schools, break up our water industry and dismantle local authority services?" Can they take any comfort from the prospect of paying higher rates through the poll tax? What comfort can people take from the inner-city proposals?
    Previous Labour Governments recognised that the problems that afflict the inner city cannot be tackled without intervention by both central and local government. I freely concede to Conservative Members and to the Secretary of State for the Environment that the Government have now rightly acknowledged that that is the case. Such intervention is necessary, even if it runs counter to their economic theories, and they recognise that the free market can make no real impact on inner city problems.
    The Government introduced a number of schemes designed to intervene and to assist the cities. They are the partnership scheme, the programme, areas in receipt of urban development grant, the task force and now the urban development corporations. Those schemes are fraudulent because they mask what is happening in our cities. They expose the hypocrisy of the Government's claim that they care and that they can do something.
    The Government claim that their approach can create jobs and begin the process of regeneration in our inner cities, but an examination of what is happening in the cities and of what is happening in Tyneside shows how false this is. Newcastle district council lost £187 million in cumulative block grant between 1981–82 and 1986–87 at 1986 prices, yet it received only £112 million in partnership finance over the same period and calculated on the same basis. Because of the impact of rate capping, that has meant that £75 million for city services has been lost including the possibility of urban renewal.
    In a report published this month, the Institution of Civil Engineers has estimated that a real job in the construction industry providing a real service to the community costs, in net terms, £12,870. That includes design costs, other overheads and profit. On that basis, the £75 million cut in real support has deprived the city of Newcastle of 1,000 jobs each year for the past five years. It has also meant the loss of the services and the potential redevelopment that could have been provided by those jobs. Parts of my constituency, such as Newburn and Lemington, are outside the designated partnership areas. They lose out doubly. Not only do they lose their share of the reduced block grant, but they do not qualify for any partnership money. We see the same picture in north and south Tyneside, which have lost £12 million and £5 million respectively in block grant over the same period.
    674
    What hope, then, can people have in Tyneside in the urban development corporations? Their projected funding, cumulatively over the next five years, is £52·4 million. That does not even compensate for the loss of block grant in Newcastle and north and south Tyneside. By 1989 or 1990, those areas will have fewer real resources to tackle the deep and severe problems that they face than they had in 1981–82, when the Government began their various partnership schemes.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment wrote to me on 9 April confirming that Newcastle's application for derelict land grant to clear the Percy pit site in my constituency had been rejected. I wanted to ask the Secretary of State about that today, but as he is not here, I am prepared to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I know will be back later. In the light of the proposals in the Gracious Speech, will the Government let my constituents know whether they will now provide the funding to include Newburn in Lemington and the territory covered by the urban development corporation on Tyne and Wear? If not, are the Government prepared to provide additional funding to tackle the problem of the Percy pit site?
    A telling view on the urban development corporations is expressed in Chartered Surveyors Weekly. It says that the idea that an urban development corporation should have undiluted power to flatten buildings and override unco-operative local authorities is clearly undemocratic, and that making plans in London to deal with the problems of Manchester, Leeds or wherever is misguided and ignores the clear lesson of the general election that people north of Birmingham see their problems differently from the Government. They should be given the resources to sort out those problems for themselves. That is solid advice from the real practitioners of urban renewal.
    The people of the north are practical and down-to-earth people, who can distinguish false claim from reality. They know that, however special assistance is dressed up, if the net result is less available funding, less redevelopment will take place. The people of the north know that, if fewer resources are available, fewer jobs will be on offer to the 25,000 without work in the city of Newcastle. Like the Institution of Chartered Surveyors, they know that whatever misgivings they may have about their local authority, that council is more likely to understand local needs and respond to them. They know that, unless the manufacturing base of our city is rebuilt and we begin to attract and create new high-tech jobs, no amount of special assistance will tackle the real problems that our cities face. They know that everyone cannot work at the now famous Metro centre, because they know that some of us have actually got to make the things that we sell and consume. They know that it is sheer hypocrisy for the Government to claim that they can stimulate an enterprise culture when they give so little money to the northern development company set up by all parties in the north, and when they reject the establishment of a northern development agency.
    The people of the north know that the Government have no record of support for them, and that only a sustained fight for jobs and for our cities by the whole northern community can hope to extract — however grudgingly — any assistance. The people of the north know in their hearts that they must permanently campaign

    675
    and fight for real change in Government policy. I know that too, and I am with them 100 per cent., in the House and in the wider community.
    6.25 pm
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech. First, may I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) on his maiden speech, which was made with great passion. I hope that I shall be able to follow it with some thoughts of my own.
    Let me make an observation about my past. In the general elections of 1979 and 1983 when I stood unsuccessfully as Conservative candidate in Stepney and Poplar and then in Southwark and Bermondsey, I wondered whether I should ever stand here to make my maiden speech. Therefore, as well as thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me, I thank the electors of Harrow, West for allowing me to stand here.
    Sir John Betjeman described part of my constituency as
    "the serried avenues of Harrow's garden villages".
    I think that aptly describes a beautiful part of greater London. My eminent predecessor, Sir John Page, used a similar line in many speeches, describing Harrow, West as being truly the garden of England. Jack Page, as everyone knew him, represented Harrow, West for 27 years, having won the seat in a by-election in 1960 after the tragic death of his predecessor, and successfully defended it in seven elections. It is my firm belief that he will be missed here, as he will be in Harrow, West because of his generosity of spirit. He was generous to his colleagues and to me as his successor, and he was kind and thoughtful in his advice. He was generous in the help, advice and care that he gave to his constituents, and assiduous in his work for the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which became the centre of his political efforts in his last few years in the House.
    Harrow, West represents the London suburbs at their best. It is Metroland as described by Sir John Betjeman, although I am not sure whether it is Metroland as described by Evelyn Waugh. The different parts of the constituency have their different characters. The village of Pinner—and it retains its village character, despite the developers and despite too many office blocks and supermarkets — is characterised by the annual Pinner fair, granted under royal charter by Henry III in 1336 and kept going bravely by the people of Pinner throughout the war. It is still a thriving and successful fair today.
    Probably the most famous part of my constituency is Harrow on the Hill. At the top of the hill is the famous Harrow school, which has sent so many of its famous sons to this House; at the bottom is the much less famous Harrow college of technology where I was educated, if "educated" is the word. That too has a proud record. I do not include myself, but I do include the many successful designers and film makers who went there. Excellence in education in Harrow is not confined just to Harrow on the Hill. Harrow's maintained schools provide an education of proven excellence. I freely pay tribute to my political friends who run Harrow council for the excellent work that they have done to ensure that Harrow has the proven best examination results in the country. Even if one discounts the prevailing social pressures in the London borough of Harrow, they are still the best examination results in the country.
    676
    One reason for that success is that in 1977 Harrow council led the way in giving parents, headmasters and governing bodies a real voice and real power. It is a model of what can be achieved if we trust parents. Running through the opposition to the education proposals in the Gracious Speech is a lack of trust in parents who live in the inner cities. It is a very negative and a deeply insulting approach to those parents who care desperately about the future of their children and the education that they receive. However, they are powerless against the education authorities in the inner cities, particularly in inner London and in Brent, which is next door to my constituency. The proposals in the Gracious Speech will lead to those parents having the power to do something to help their children.
    I welcome in particular the inner-city initiatives that are contained in the Gracious Speech, especially those that relate to housing. I wish to say a few words about housing, particularly about housing in greater London. The Opposition say that we have broken the old consensus on housing. That is true. I thoroughly welcome the fact that we have broken the consensus. The old consensus on housing—competition to see how many council houses could be built, how quickly and how cheaply, never mind the quality — has been dead for a long time in most people's eyes, apart from those of a few politicians. The reality is that mass solutions, or a mass approach to housing, does not work.
    We have to conclude, sadly, that much of the money that was poured into housing in the 1950s and the 1960s has been badly spent and wasted. Consequently, bad housing has been provided. Tenants had no control over their future. They were powerless. They have been unable to help their sons and daughters to live in the same area. They have also been powerless to do anything about the terrible backlog of repairs, and it has led to pitifully unbalanced communities. Many of the young and the able have voted with their feet. They have moved out of the inner cities, even though all that they wanted to do was to stay near their families who had lived there for generations.
    A new consensus has been created. Central to that consensus has been the sale of council houses and council flats, and it has changed permanently the face of housing for many families. I do not take the view that people's ability to own their own homes has reached saturation level. Many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people could be helped to own their own homes. I very much hope that the Government will provide them with that opportunity during the lifetime of this Parliament.
    It is particularly important that the old council estate monopolies should be broken up. Many council estates provide bad housing. People are trapped in those estates and want to move out of them, or they want variety to be provided. Why should a council tenant not live next door to somebody who rents his home privately, or who owns his own home? That provides variety, and people then stop saying, "It is only a council estate." It is not only Conservative Members who say that; I have heard Opposition Members say it, too. We need to be proud of each part of our localities.
    Part of the answer would be to use a large number of small solutions. Local authorities should free their land banks, recognise that young people want to buy their own homes, bring in private developers and the building societies and help council tenants to buy collectively their estates. We have no right to deny to people what most, if

    677
    not all, hon. Members regard as proper for themselves: that they should have the opportunity to buy their own homes.
    I ask the Government to consider three areas that should receive attention. The first is the private rented sector. That is the only way that mobility of labour can be achieved. It was a terrible own goal when we virtually got rid of the private rented sector. Of course there were problems. I read in the history books about the problems of Rachmanism, but I do not believe that this Government would do anything that would lead to the return of the terrible problems that faced powerless private tenants. Those people can be and must be protected by law.
    Secondly, I had the privilege to serve on the Greater London council in the days when it was led by my good friend Sir Horace Cutler, also from Harrow, West, who pioneered homesteading. Why is it that in our inner cities, where so much use is made of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, there are so many empty council flats? Why is it that so many blocks of flats are boarded up and unused? Many young people would like to move into those flats and use their money, time, energy and drive to make them into wonderful places in which to live. That happened during the years of the Conservative-led Greater London council. The Government could give a lead now and ensure that that happened nationally. I am certain that those who have so restricted choice for the people who live in the inner cities will never provide them with choice, unless the Government make them do so.
    Thirdly, we must seek a new role for local authorities. The main problem is that too often local authorities have regarded themselves as the only providers of housing, as the only people who can reach solutions. Their job is to ensure that each individual on their waiting list who wants a home receives the help that he needs. They must ensure that the land banks are used to build new housing. The local authorities cannot provide all the solutions themselves. A huge shift in perception by local authorities will be needed, but it can be done—if a lead is given by the Government.
    A decent home is at the core of proper family life, but mass, quick, all-embracing solutions have had their day. They have failed the people of this country. The Government's great success over council house sales is only the start, if we are to create one nation in housing and one nation of well-housed people. That is what I look for and that is what I believe the Government will go a long way towards providing in this Parliament.
    6.39 pm
    Mr. James Molyneaux: I pay a sincere tribute to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) on his maiden speech, and I join my hon. Friends on this Bench in paying tribute to his predecessor, Bob Brown, who was a Defence Minister at a fairly critical time in the affairs of Northern Ireland. We were impressed by the case that the hon. Member made for the constituency that he has inherited and we wish him all the best as a Member of Parliament.
    I congratulate also the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on his speech. The picture that he presented was of a very different constituency, with a different social status and conditions, different levels of unemployment and so on. We can all share in his praise for his
    678
    predecessor, Jack Page, and from what we have heard from the hon. Gentleman today we can be confident that he will prove to be a worthy successor.
    I hope that there will be no irritation at the intervention of an Ulster Unionist Member in a debate on the use of national resources. I had intended to qualify that by saying that irritation would be felt by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). He is the exception. He launched an unprovoked attack on the members of my party and, with the bitterness that he customarily displays towards the members of his own party, he finds it impossible to forget or forgive the ballot box rejection by the people of Northern Ireland of an even more ludicrous initiative that he brought forward — the Sunningdale agreement of 1974. But we all know what makes the right hon. Gentleman tick. We understand all about that, so we will not judge him too harshly.
    On the first day of the debate on the Loyal Address the Prime Minister refuted claims that she had no mandate to govern Scotland and Wales. She declared:
    "That is absurd. We are the United Kingdom, and I hope we shall remain a United Kingdom".—[Official Report, 25 June 1987; Vol. 118, c. 61.]
    I shall not challenge the right of the Prime Minister to govern all the component parts of the United Kingdom so long as she retains the confidence of this House, and this House alone. In fact, my party would go even further and say that she and her Government have the exclusive right, under the authority of the Crown, to govern the United Kingdom and all the parts thereof. If the Prime Minister's claim to the exclusive right to govern the United Kingdom is to be convincing, and if it is to be sustained, it must logically rule out the right of any foreign Government to assist or participate in governing any part of the United Kingdom.
    The designers of the Anglo-Irish Agreement used to argue that there was no joint authority, that the ministerial conference merely considered and discussed matters. However, it is now clear that it does far more than that. It actually makes decisions. It is interesting that that is no longer denied, nor can it he denied, in the light of the disclosure of the then Minister of State, the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), who, on 10 August 1986, while Parliament was in recess, announced in a United Kingdom radio interview a list of matters that "have been agreed". Those were the words. They were not proposals that were to be considered; they were matters that had been decided and agreed. It was only on the following day, perhaps after he had received a gentle slap on the wrist, that he grudgingly conceded that Parliament had some role in the matter after all. It was not until some seven months later that Parliament was informed—not consulted—and the items agreed with the Irish Government while Parliament was in recess were slapped on the Table of the House in the form of Orders in Council.
    In earlier debates I have tried to be more charitable than others towards the Prime Minister. I never asserted that she was allowed fully to comprehend what lay behind all the bland phrases of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Had the agreement been drafted as a legal document, she, as a competent lawyer, would have been able to judge the significance of what she was signing. But, as we know, the Anglo-Irish Agreement was drafted in political language, which has the great beauty and benefit of enabling politicians to interpret its meaning to suit their own aspirations and preferences.

    679
    I suspect that the Prime Minister has learnt much from that experience, and my instinct is confirmed by an article by Richard Owen, writing from Brussels, in The Times today. He says:
    "Mrs. Thatcher adamantly refused to be 'bounced'. Mr. Charles Haughey, the Irish Prime Minister—also on cool terms with Mrs. Thatcher—joined the attack, remarking that if she did not sign 'we will be here all night.'"
    The article continues:
    "Mrs. Thatcher, faced with this sudden pressure, angrily refused to cave in, and the summit headed downhill into a bad-tempered impasse."
    The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup deplored that state of affairs. He was in favour of caving in and compromise, but, to her eternal credit, the Prime Minister flatly refused to have anything to do with it.
    The heading of that article in The Times was rather striking. It reads,
    "How Thatcher avoided being bounced."
    That heading comes two years after the right hon. Lady was bounced into signing the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I suppose that history will reveal who did the bouncing, but now, in an unassailable position, and confidently entering into her third term, the Prime Minister is clearly not going to be bounced again.
    By way of light relief, I refer to a comical little passage in the article in The Times. Referring to the mood of bitterness in Brussels on Tuesday, Richard Owen records:
    "Even Sir Geoffrey Howe, the Foreign Secretary, was said to be dismayed ('shaking with anger' was one observation)."
    The cause of the Foreign Secretary's dismay is not made very clear. I wonder whether he was dismayed by the attitude of the 11, or by the Prime Minister's refusal to compromise, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup would have liked her to do, but the fact remains that the Foreign Secretary shaking with anger must have been worth seeing. I suppose that if the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) had been in the Chamber he would have improved on an earlier joke and drawn an analogy with jellied mutton.
    This is the day of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On occasions, he has had the support of right hon. and hon. Members on this Bench, notably that of my friend and colleague the right hon. Enoch Powell, who fearlessly spoke up for what he judged to be right, be it popular or unpopular. His absence from the parliamentary scene is a cause of deep regret—a regret that is felt in all parts of the House, but most keenly by those who were privileged to work with him in good times and in bad times.
    The Chancellor and his colleagues, with their trusteeship of our national resources, and those who assist them in the Treasury, rightly set great store by accountability. Before I came to Parliament I often led deputations to various spending Ministers. Invariably, their response was, "Yes. You have put a very good case for increased funds, but I shall have great difficulty getting it past the Treasury." That implies no criticism of Treasury Ministers—they are only doing their job—but it leads me to wonder why there is so little success in enlisting the support of Irish Prime Ministers in battles fought by the First Lord of the Treasury herself and the Chancellor and his Treasury colleagues against extravagance and waste of resources by the EEC. If Her Majesty's Government concede to Dublin Governments the right to interfere in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom in a manner for
    680
    which there is no precedent or model anywhere in the Western world, why is the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic allowed to gang up with our opponents in Europe and, indeed, in the United Nations? Surely the present situation is nothing short of a scandal, and is not the claim to a "unique relationship" and talk about "the totality of relationships" something of a fraud?
    Finally, I draw the attention of Treasury Ministers to another unnecessary drain on our national resources—the maintenance of the joint authority, or Dublin diktat, apparatus. First, there are the ludicrous arrangements for meetings of the joint chairmen in Northern Ireland. There is the winching down from helicopters of Dublin Ministers to the Stormont compound behind the barbed wire and the excessive use of police and Army personnel to ensure that our foreign governors are not exposed to any irritation or annoyance from those who bitterly resent their presence. Secondly, there is the round-the-clock protection of the bunker that houses the joint secretariat at Maryfield, in which the joint rule mechanism is sheltered and isolated from those whose destinies they shape.
    Let me be so bold as to suggest that at the end of this final day of the debate on the Loyal Address the Chancellor, as guardian of the national financial resources, might send a minute to the Foreign Office, copied to the Northern Ireland Office, simply asking whether expenditure on this unwanted and unloved regime is really necessary.
    6.52 pm
    Mr. Terence Higgins: I am glad to congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) on his maiden speech. He spoke with feeling about his predecessor, Mr. Bob Brown, who was a good friend of many in the House, and with considerable passion about the problems of his constituency. The hon. Gentleman may have gone close to breaching the convention that maiden speeches should not be controversial, but perhaps that is because that convention is increasingly breached.
    I particularly congratulate and welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) who made an excellent maiden speech. He has arrived here the hard way, in view of the previous elections he has fought. Given the constituency that he represents, he spoke relevantly about education and with considerable expertise on the subject of housing. As a graduate of the Harrow college of technology he will undoubtedly bring to the House, on matters technological, expertise that perhaps is not as widespread on the Benches as it should be. My hon. Friend spoke with a convincing and cogent style, and I have no doubt that in the future we shall listen to him with great pleasure, as I am sure the entire House did this evening.
    The subject of the debate is the allocation of resources. I congratulate the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who has been on the Government Bench throughout much of the debate. He has an extremely difficult task ahead of him. Over time, the Government policy has changed from one of reducing public expenditure in real terms, to maintaining it in real terms, to simply reducing it as a percentage of GNP. Given the tremendous claims on public resources that are now before us, after the election and contained in the Gracious Speech, the Chief

    681
    Secretary's task will not be easy. However, it is vitally important that we maintain control over public expenditure.
    Within the total determined, the allocation between Departments is in many ways the real battleground. In that context, the changes made to our parliamentary procedures since 1979 have done something to redress the balance between the Executive and Parliament with the establishment of the Estimates Day procedure and the departmentally related Select Committees. Those innovations are helpful in assessing the priorities between different spending Departments, because the departmental Committees have the task of monitoring Departments and assessing what their claims on the Treasury ought to be.
    I therefore hope that those Committees will be established with the least possible delay. In its first report in the 1984–85 Session, the Liaison Committee drew attention to the delay that occurred after the last general election. It pointed out that between 15 June 1983 and the time when the Committees were established, there was a considerable delay. In fact, those Committees were not set up until mid-December. The Liaison Committee believed that that delay was excessive, because for some six months the House was deprived of the valuable imput that those Committees can make. I therefore very much welcome the statement by the Leader of the House during business questions today that he intends to help in the establishment of those Committees at the earliest possible moment.
    Of course I understand that there may be problems about appointment to those Committees, but I am glad that the Committee of Selection has already been established. It is clearly difficult to go ahead with such selection until we know what happens within the Labour party, but I understand that elections to the Shadow Cabinet will take place soon. It should therefore be possible to reach a decision on the composition of those Committees and get them into operation before the summer recess. It is important to do so, since otherwise the delay will be considerable and the Committees will be unable to work out their programmes and complete some of the important reports that were initiated in the last Parliament. I hope that every effort will he made to establish them as quickly as possible. Certainly as many as possible should he established before the recess. Any problem that may arise with the minor parties about composition ought not to delay that. No doubt difficult negotiations will take place, but it is important that they should be quick.
    There is a clear case where the establishment of a Select Committee is necessary. I refer to the events of the last 48 hours. The Treasury and Civil Service Committee, which I had the honour of chairing in the last Parliament, produced a series of reports on the way in which the financial arrangements between this country and the European Community were developing. Those reports were not only helpful to the House but to the Government as well, because these matters are extremely complex and it is not possible to ascertain precisely what is going on by questioning across the Floor of the Chamber.
    On this subject, perhaps above all, it is necessary for Select Committees to have the opportunity of cross-examining Ministers in depth to discover the exact position. In the last Parliament the report on the Fontainebleau agreement and a series of others highlighted the real problems that arise in relation to
    682
    budgetary discipline. Yesterday the Prime Minister recognised that the arrangements that have been made were not sufficiently watertight to ensure that effective budgetary discipline was imposed.
    Having said that, two aspects of what the Prime Minister said give considerable cause for concern. She seemed to be saying that she would contemplate a further increase in the EEC's resources if there were a guarantee of budgetary discipline. The House should recall that it was persuaded to agree to the increase in own resources from 1 per cent. of the VAT to 1·4 per cent. on the grounds that there would be effective budgetary discipline. It would be quite wrong to pay the price twice to achieve the same objective simply because the agreement was not watertight in the first place and was not made legally enforceable, as the Select Committee at the time said it ought to be. That is a very important aspect of the allocation of our resources.
    No case has been made for any increase in agricultural support through the CAP. No such case has been put to us. This should be looked at carefully, and that is an important reason why these Committees should be established as soon as possible.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has taken a sensible and realistic line on the EEC, but it is extremely difficult for her, with complete justification, to continue saying no meeting after meeting. The danger is that — this happened when the Fontainebleau agreement was set out—sooner or later the issue is fudged. Anything that the House can do to reinforce my right hon. Friend in sticking to her guns and ensuring a sensible outcome to the negotiations is of considerable importance.
    I welcome the point that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made with regard to Third world debt. In the election campaign, those people who told church meetings and meetings of those who were concerned with Third world problems that the Conservative party did not care should have listened more carefully to what was being said before and during the election. Particularly, they should have listened this afternoon to the Chancellor's attitude to the Third world debt problem. The Treasury Committee reported in depth on this matter, not least with regard to the provision that should be made by commercial banks. That report was prescient in many ways, but it did not receive sufficient attention.
    Therefore, I stress to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the importance of looking at some of the detailed arguments that we put forward, particularly with regard to the way in which, and the extent to which, the additional provisions that are taken by the commercial banks can be used against tax allowances. It seems that there is a random, arbitary way in which those provisions are allowed for tax and the scope of the allowances. I think that he will need to look at that matter.
    Local government finance and expenditure accounts for about a quarter of total Government expenditure and is a matter of great importance. In the course of the election campaign I sought to spell out the community charge in considerable detail to my constituents. Subsequently, this matter has generated an increasing amount of controversy.
    My view has long been that the rating system is incapable of reform. It is fundamentally flawed and I believe that we were right in previous elections to say that we would get rid of it. We are right to say that we shall get rid of it now. It is worth remembering that about half of

    683
    the total of local government expenditure comes from the central Exchequer, and of the remainder about half—some 25 per cent.—comes from industry. The domestic rate covers about a quarter of total expenditure. One could argue that one should simply abolish the rating system and transfer the cost to the central Exchequer. It may be said that that is removing the basis of local democracy, but that has already been eroded to the extent of some 75 per cent., and many of the measures that have been necessary to prevent the profligate expenditure of some local authorities have eroded local government autonomy.
    The main argument against that might be the amount of unemployment that it would create with regard to the valuation, collection and rebating of rates. But that is not the solution that the Government have come up with. They have come up with a proposal for a community charge, which is a sensible development.
    The Leader of the Opposition, in opening the debate, stressed the importance of no taxation without representation. I think that the House would unanimously go along with that view. One must recognise that at a local level there are considerable dangers in representation without taxation. At the moment, many people are voting for policies and candidates that will involve vast increases in local expenditure, knowing full well that it will not cost them a penny. That is not sensible, it is a recipe for gross extravagance. We must recall that of the 35 million people who form the local electorate about 17 million do not pay rates.
    Mr. Tony Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman moving to the conclusion that we should reverse the expansion of the franchise which, for over 150 years, has been based on the right to vote regardless of one's financial position?
    Mr. Higgins: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am not suggesting that. I am saying that it is unreasonable that a substantial number of people, not necessarily those who are poor but those who live in households with a large number of members, should pay nothing towards the cost of local garbage collection, street lighting or whatever. Why should they get those services free? It is perfectly sensible that they should not. I am not arguing for what the right hon. Gentleman suggested, but it is reasonable that those who make use of and place a burden on public services should make some contribution towards their cost. That would not involve paying the full amount because we are only talking about a quarter of the total expenditure.
    I do not believe that a local income tax would improve accountability. The idea that power to impose income tax should be given to some of the local authorities that have been so profligate is not something that I would view with great equanimity.
    It has been suggested that the community charge would be phased in over a period of three to 10 years. That is likely to be wasteful because there would be a vast duplication of the bureaucracy that is involved in collecting the tax. Therefore, it seems that the argument for phasing should be regarded with considerable suspicion. I believe that it would be right to make the change as straightforward as possible, having agreed on the arguments about it.
    684
    Two of the most central matters in the election campaign were local government finance and education. We should recognise that the cost of education, particularly teachers' salaries, is increasingly becoming a national matter. In the negotiations on teachers' salaries that has increasingly become so. It is an important component of local government expenditure and it accounts for about 25 per cent. of local government expenditure.
    The transition from rates to a community charge will impose a burden on some people who previously have not paid rates and who will pay for services that previously they have been receiving free. If we are to ameliorate that transition there may be a case for transferring the cost from the local authorities to the central Exchequer. To that extent there may be an amelioration of what would otherwise be a difficult transitional period and it may result in a more sensible allocation of our resources.
    The allocation of resources will become increasingly important in this new Parliament. The Treasury Committee, to which I have referred, has collected a lot of evidence from virtually all Departments on how they see their plans developing over the next 10 years. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, in his immensely difficult task, will take account of that evidence. As yet the Committee has not had a chance to report on it, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will not necessarily assume that, as to the spending of individual Departments, it is right to make marginal adjustments and that the super-tanker in each Department floats onwards with little deviation.
    At this stage of the Parliament we should make a fundamental review of the priorities that need to be reassessed. If a particular Department finds that it needs more or that it justifies an increase in the public expenditure that should not necessarily be met by a cut in the same Department. The problem is that matters have come to departmentalised and if there is to be an increase in the Department it must find a saving. That is not necessarily the right way to allocate resources.
    I believe that, overall, the Queen's Speech contains a constructive programme which forms a firm basis for a third term of Conservative Government and which I believe will prove a success.
    7.10 pm
    Mr. John McFall: I appreciate the opportunity to deliver my maiden speech on the Loyal Address. I am privileged to stand here on behalf of the people of Dumbarton, where I was born and raised and in which I have lived all my life. The constituency has been well served by its representatives in this Chamber, not least by my predecessor, Ian Campbell, a most courteous and considerate man who was an excellent constituency Member for 17 years. My opinion of my predecessor is reinforced by contact with hon. Members.
    In many ways the Dumbarton constituency forms a transitional zone between the essentially urban districts of industrial Clydeside and the Highland district of Argyll. Situated in the main communication arteries between the river Clyde and Loch Lomond, the constituency has a unique location as the gateway to the Highlands. It contains a wealth of different landscapes with features including mountains, moorlands, hills and fresh water lochs. Not least is the world renowned bonnie banks of Loch Lomond, which by itself is an incalculable asset for both constituents and visitors alike.

    685
    The town of Dumbarton was made a royal borough by Alexander II in 1222. Several other charters were granted to the borough by succeeding sovereigns and they were confirmed by a charter under James VI dated 13 December 1609. At about that time the town was much damaged by floods, so much so that application was made to this Parliament for a sum of money to enable magistrates to do something to prevent the town being entirely destroyed. Today it is on a similar venture that the people of Dumbarton have sent me to Parliament.
    There is much to be done for a constituency which over the past seven or eight years has seen unemployment levels double and poverty levels treble—a constituency where the indices of socio-economic disparity between the three main conurbations prove to me that the north-south divide exists, as the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) reminded us earlier in the week in his maiden speech.
    But in my area the divide is burnished in the mind. There is a daily reminder of the reality of life in an area which is increasingly neglected by national policies. It is a constituency where within a few miles of each other grotesque comparison can be made between Loch Lomond, one of nature's most beautiful spectacles, and the Trident submarines at the Clyde submarine base at Gairloch. This is a testimony to man's potential depravity and a witness to man's possible inhumanity to man. Over £10 million has been invested in the project, which is commonly referred to as a weapon of last resort. At the same time, there is nothing on offer to the 6,000 or so unemployed people in my area. These are the people of primary resort who are offered no hope of a job or a future by present Government policies.
    I could become overawed by the history of this House by invoking the names of the many great people who have graced this Chamber and by dwelling on the life and death dramas conducted within these very walls. However, I shall not allow myself such indulgence. Today I am here to discern the relevance of the Queen's Speech for the constituents of Dumbarton.
    I am reminded that the Conservative party claims to be the party of the family. What do the Government plan to do to support the family? What do they offer to the grandparents in Dumbarton who, as pensioners, are £11 a week worse off as a result of breaking the link between earnings and pensions in 1980? It was said by Government spokespersons at the time that it would not happen, but it is merely another example of the hidden agenda pursued since 1979.
    What do the Government intend to do to support parents when the housing stock is deteriorating before their very eyes because of the cumulative withdrawal of £650 million from the housing revenue account in Scotland? What will they do to support the young persons who leave school and are faced with conscription to the YTS or else begin their journey into adulthood in abject poverty?
    Will the Government undertake to finance and give sound support to the parents, teachers and pupils of our state schools instead of promulgating a "pay as you learn" philosophy as implied in the Gracious Speech? Will they support the family which has to pay the impending poll tax—a system rejected universally by all democracies and, even this week, by former Ministers such as the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and a former Prime
    686
    Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) who uttered these very sentiments this evening?
    Whom does the poll tax benefit? It certainly does not benefit a substantial majority of my constituents. It will not even benefit the fledgling share-owning democracy. It will benefit Government supporters because they do not see their future as being tied up in the public services. To such individuals, state schools, National Health Service facilities and local authority provision such as social work and libraries are of secondary importance. To those people I say, "Go on a train, go to the local hospital, send your children to state schools, because then you will have a stake in the nation's public services."
    The hidden message of the Gracious Speech is that the dismantling of the public services and the bludgeoning of collective provision are the measures which face us over the life of this Parliament. To people who do not rely on these services, private affluence is the only reality because they steadfastly refuse to recognise the public squalor which many people in Britain must now endure.
    The debate on the use of national resources should signal that the time for pious statements has passed. Now is the time for action. A heavy burden lies on this legislative body to ensure that Government rhetoric about the family and about choice, freedom and people's needs is indeed translated into action.
    7.19 pm
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) on his powerful and forceful maiden speech. I am sure that when we cross swords in future we shall have a lot to say. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), whom I have known for very many years, on his very powerful and forceful speech. He spoke from the heart on issues about which he knows a lot.
    As a Conservative, I am a strong believer in traditions, especially traditions that are useful and valuable I am especially grateful today for those traditions connected with maiden speeches. I am told that they should be relatively non-controversial and heard without interruption. As a former history teacher, I recall what happened to Benjamin Disraeli in 1837 when he did not follow that injunction and was forced to sit down. I hope that on this occasion I shall be heard in silence.
    Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: What did he say?
    Mr. Bennett: My mentioning Disraeli is not a coded message meaning that I am on that wing of the party.
    For all of us who are fresh from the hustings and by nature political animals, it is difficult to follow any injunction that tells us that we ought to be uncontroversial. However, I shall do my best to follow that practice, although it is especially difficult for a Member who represents Pembroke. The constituency has a long tradition of independent spirit. Both the last two Mernbeirs of Parliament, Nicholas Edwards, and Desmond Donnelly before him, showed considerable determination in defending constituency interests. That is a tradition that I intend to follow.
    I am especially grateful for the opportunity to pay tribute to Nicholas Edwards. Although a member of the Cabinet and extremely busy right up until polling day, he

    687
    gave me a great deal of personal help and showed me great personal kindness. Together with his wife, Ann, he lent me his home in Pembrokeshire throughout my time as the prospective parliamentary candidate. As a constituency Member, Nick was able to help many thousands of people through his constituency surgeries.
    Nicholas Edwards quickly made his mark in the House with a maiden speech on the Health Service. His long concern on the subject bore fruit in the shape of the Withybush hospital in Haverfordwest. In 1982, as Secretary of State for Wales, he established the Pembrokeshire district health authority and I, in turn, as the new Member of Parliament for Pembroke, will be looking to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to bring that hospital's and that health authority's funding up to the figures that the Welsh Office says is necessary for them to operate at the right level.
    Another powerful battle that Nick Edwards fought was over re-establishing an air base at Brawdy. It had been a naval base and had been closed down. He was able to re-establish it as an RAF base, which is how it now operates, together with a United States naval facility. We in Pembrokeshire look forward to that base continuing in operation for many years and playing a vital role in our national defence.
    Nicholas was also greatly concerned to bring jobs to west Wales, and he recognised the need for a new road system. The considerable number of new roads in Pembrokeshire, including the Stepaside bypass and the Fishguard road, are permanent legacies to his work.
    Nick was also the Secretary of State for Wales for eight years—the longest serving Secretary of State that Wales has had. He had considerable vision, and I believe that he served Wales very well. I hope that my right hon. Friend who has succeeded him will be able to follow on with the good work that Nicholas did. I am sure that it will not be long before we see Nicholas Edwards in another place taking part in parliamentary debates again.
    It is also traditional to refer to the beauties of one's constituency. That is more difficult for some Members than for others. In my case it is an extremely easy task. Pembrokeshire will be very well known to many hon. Members as an area of outstanding natural beauty. Over half the area is in a national park. I recommend hon. Members who have not had a chance to visit the county to make an early visit and to stay on holiday there to help our hotel industry.
    Although not born in the county, it did not take me long to appreciate the "Pembrokeshire experience". It is a unique part of the United Kingdom. Popularly known as "Little England beyond Wales", it is an area where the people are very proud to live. To this day there is considerable resentment that Pembrokeshire was abolished as a county in 1974 by my right hon. Friend who is the new Secretary of State. I hope that he will recognise the error of his ways and allow Pembrokeshire to secede from Dyfed and once again become a proud county.
    Mr. Donald Dewar: Take him there. Show him where it is.
    Mr. Bennett: I intend to do that very quickly. I intend to take my right hon. Friend to Pembrokeshire shortly to see some of the problems that we have there.
    688
    The county is steeped in history. There are more than 20 castles in the constituency, and that is a reminder of the Norman settlements that there were in Pembrokeshire. Around Mathry in the north of the constituency one could believe that one was in France if one were to visit some of the villages there. There is a distinct air of Frenchness about some of the villages, even 900 years later.
    In the south we have the holiday towns of Saundersfoot and Tenby. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that from time to time I shall catch your eye to speak on matters of tourism, which provides a major source of jobs for my constituents. Along the coast is the historic town of Pembroke, and adjacent to that is the town of Pembroke Dock. As one crosses over the Cleddau bridge one comes to Milford Haven, and in recent years that has been the centre of the Welsh oil industry. With the recession in that industry there has been considerable unemployment in the town and in Pembroke Dock. It will not surprise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if from time to time I try to catch your eye so that I might speak on jobs and enterprise, because I am concerned at the high levels of unemployment that we still have in west Wales.
    As I said to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), my right hon. Friend will be getting a very early invitation to visit the county. The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food visited the constituency on Tuesday to look at the fishing industry. I can tell Labour Members that we have had an increase in the trawler fleet in recent months and that we are very optimistic about a continuing increase in that industry.
    There is a less glorious record in recent years in respect of the docks company in Milford Haven. I shall be watching with interest new plans that are to be announced tomorrow for the dock company in that area. Unless it is able very quickly to put its house in order. it may be necessary for the Government to intervene to make sure that that company is run properly. Haverfordwest is our county town and, with its market, is the centre of the farming industry in west Wales. Our main agricultural concerns are dairy farming, beef and the famous Pembrokeshire early potato. I am delighted that the first words that I was able to say in the House were in an intervention to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday about the family farms in Pembrokeshire, many of which have had tragic bankruptcies in the last few months.
    In the north of the constituency we have the holiday town of Solva and the city of St. David's which I believe to be the prettiest as well as the smallest city in Britain.
    The Queen's Speech is always an opportunity for new Members—and for old Members, too—to say a few words about the issues that they believe ought to be tackled by the Government. I am delighted tonight to be able to say a few words about what I see as the role and purpose of the Government and how we should judge Government policies. What should be our vision of society? I shall judge my right hon. Friends on their policies as to whether they give individual citizens more freedom or less freedom. The freedom of the individual and of choice is the cornerstone for the continuing regeneration of our nation.
    I spent my early years in what is now popularly called the "inner city". I saw, as a pupil at a comprehensive school, and later as a teacher and as a councillor in inner London, the effects of 40 years of municipal Socialism—a society in which people were given no choice, not

    689
    even in the colour of the front door of their council house. Other effects were poor hospitals, poor public transport and a poor education system. No wonder that in the bus queues one used to hear people say: "Why don't they do something about it?" It never occurred to them that they might try to do something about it themselves. The local state did not give them the choice and, therefore, did not give them the responsibility. One cannot demand of people that they be responsible for what happens if one does not give them the choice in the first place.
    As a schoolteacher in an inner London school in Bermondsey, I asked a parent why so few parents had turned up at a parents' evening. I was told: "We did not choose this school, did we?" That, at heart, is the crux of the problem that we face in the inner cities—giving back to our people in the inner cities the choice, the responsibility and the opportunity to grow, to own things and to look after their families without the continuing intervention and support of the state. Therefore, I shall judge Government policies on whether they help those people to be able to do that.
    It is in those areas where there is substantial home ownership, share and pension ownership that one finds the lowest crime levels, the least vandalism and the greatest sense of real community and concern, because people have something that is theirs and that they can believe in, look after and protect. I want to see that extended to everybody who lives in the inner city.
    In 1951 the Conservative slogan was "Set the people free". I believe very much in the innate common sense of our countrymen. I believe that we should continue to extend choice, to cut taxes and to get the Government's hands out of the pockets of the citizen. I support the measures in the Queen's Speech that give greater choice and freedom and that shift power to the consumer from the producer. I believe that the market system is the best way in which that can be done. Such a system is morally superior to Socialism and I look forward to playing a small part in the passing of those measures for the benefit of the nation and my constituents.
    7.29 pm
    Mr. Tony Benn: It is a great pleasure to congratulate the two maiden speakers who have just spoken. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) made a most passionate speech. I am glad that he broke the old tradition of being uncontroversial. Two things that he said will strike a responsive chord. The first was his point about the criminal waste of money on Trident when so many essential services are short of money. Millions of people in Britain would like the sort of choice about whether to pay for Trident or for the National Health Service. The second was my hon. Friend's point about the industrial conscription now introduced in the youth training scheme. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend speak again.
    The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) made a model of a maiden speech. He paid a warm tribute to his predecessor, whom everyone in the House knew, and took us on a tourist's view of his constituency, which I hope will be reprinted in Hansard tomorrow when we debate tourism; and, except for a note of controversy when he mentioned Disraeli and then decoded his own message, I should have thought that he could quickly have been promoted to the Government Front Bench. Perhaps the Disraeli reference could be concealed again. He got very
    690
    near to that at the end of his speech by referring to freedom, which reminded me of an old slogan that I heard in the 1945 election—
    "F stands for freedom? What Britain brags about.
    If you can't afford your dinner, you are free to go without"
    That is another view of his freedom which many Opposition Members would share.
    I have found this the most political economics debate for many years, and I welcome it. We have begun to open up in the discussion, including in the speeches that we have just heard, some very real choices. For my part, I have long become utterly fed up with economics debates that were statistical, where people talked about efficiency, productivity and competitiveness or charged each other with being uncaring or incompetent.
    I have never thought of the Prime Minister as being uncaring. She just does not care for the people whom I represent. I have never thought that she was incompetent. She is one of the most competent Prime Ministers, but competent in pursuing policies that I regard as destructive. Nor have I ever found much in the banana-skin theory of politics. I have read and re-read "Das Kapital" by Karl Marx and nowhere do I find a reference to banana skins as a factor in the decline of capitalism. When one gets down to the real questions that we have been discussing today, the House is at its best. I might add that I do not like extremist, hard Left, loony Left and so on.
    Let us get down to what it is all about. Society is not about who is a better hand at dealing with the PSBR. I have no doubt that any hon. Member with an elementary capacity to cope with a calculator could try his hand at the PSBR, and we would all watch with anxiety. But it is not about that. What came out tonight was another stage towards realignment. Different opinions may be held on whether Devonport would join Bexley, Sidcup or Bexley, Sidcup would join Devonport. But there are more choices than have emerged from the speeches that we have heard. It is not just a matter of whether one is a monetarist or a supporter of Disraeli; whether one believes in caring and sharing and competence or in paternalism. [Interruption.] I hope that the House will listen to me as if I were a maiden speaker, because I shall be non-controversial, as is my wont. I want to put before the House another analysis which, although it may not find favour with Fleet street or the BBC, is a Socialist analysis of why we are in these difficulties.
    My years of experience—I have been at it a long time—have convinced me, somewhat to my surprise, that neither the monetarists nor the wets, the carers nor the sharers, the more competent or the less competent are turning their minds to the real questions. If it is not a breach of some other rule of the House to mention serious matters, let me turn to that for a moment.
    Every society ultimately reflects in its institutions and policies the basic principles upon which it is founded. Are we to be a jungle or a community? That is the basic question. When that has been settled, one can have any number of policies, White Papers, Green Papers, Neddies and Nickies, CBIs, or TUCs, but that is the basic question. Over the past few years, it has emerged that more people have come to see that. Are we about need or profit? Many things that are profitable are not needed and many things that are needed are not profitable. Until the House, in some economics debate, turns its mind to those questions, we shall not get far.

    691
    I look back over history because there are cycles that go beyond tomorrow's headlines, the next by-election or Budget. There are cycles going over centuries. When I heard the Queen's Speech I was interested to find out where it came from. It came, as I might have guessed, from my predecessor, a previous Member of Parliament for Bristol — Edmund Burke. The Government would espouse every word of what he said in 1795. He said:
    "Labour is a commodity like every other, and rises or falls according to the demand. This is in the nature of things … labour is … a commodity, and, as such, an article of trade. If I am right in this notion, then labour must be subject to all the laws and principles of trade, and not to regulations foreign to them … The impossibility of the subsistence of a man who carries his labour to a market is totally beside the question … The only question is, What is it worth to the buyer?"
    Yesterday, when the Today newspaper was bought and sold and the journalists were bought and sold like chattels, it took us straight back to Edmund Burke. Until we address our minds to whether that is what we want, we shall never make progress.
    Burke also said:
    "To provide for us in our necessities is not in the power of government."
    That is exactly what the Government say. Then he went on to say something else that the Government would be ill-advised to forget. He said that the rich
    "are the pensioners of the poor, and are maintained by their superfluity. They are under an absolute, hereditary, and indefeasible dependence on those who labour and are miscalled the poor."
    If anyone thinks that Karl Marx invented arguments about class, they had better go back to Edmund Burke. Adam Smith and Edmund Burke both understood the heart of the Socialist analysis, which is that there is a difference of interest between those who create the wealth and those who own it.
    If I go back to Burke for one side, I must also go back to find the origins of the "loony Left" councils, so much beloved by all the media correspondents and the leader of the Liberal party. The reality is — I do not say it to persuade the Conservative party, because I do not suppose that I will—that early on, when Burke's analysis became understood, working people said that they would not wait for a good king to act for them, for a better Prime Minister, for a caring and sharing leader, but would band together and do it themselves.
    The origin of the idea of a collective society is that those who could not, out of their own resources—the poor of whom Burke spoke. who could not afford—who can?—be sure that they could pay for their own home, their own children's education, their own health, however ill they might be, and their own pension, decided to band themselves together and buy those services collectively through the ballot box. It is not Socialist rhetoric that is a threat to the Conservative party, any more than archbishops making sermons about brotherhood have ever threatened society, because society goes on. It is the fact that people do band themselves politically to buy collectively what they cannot afford personally that is the threat to the Government Front Bench. That is the real argument, and the trade unions were a part of it.
    Again, to find a non-controversial example of what that really meant, I went to Birmingham under the Liberals. Let me cite quickly the headings of what happened after
    692
    that lesson was learned — 1838: the municipal charter institutes an elected council in Birmingham; 1842: establishment of police force; 1850: first city asylum at Winson Green opened; 1861: public library started; 1867: art gallery opened; 1870: school board started; 1872: first medical officer of health appointed; 1875: city takes over the supply of gas; 1875: corporation street clearance begins; 1875: city fire brigade started; 1876: city takes over water supply; 1890: first municipal houses; 1898: city takes over supply of electricity; and so on, until in 1939 the municipal airport opened and I served there myself in the Royal Air Force some years later.
    Anybody who thinks that that can be reversed when each of those developments gave more, not less, choice to the people of Birmingham must think again. Every development of municipal Socialism—what they used to call "gas and water Socialism"—widened choice so that, for example, people did not have to live in a slum without proper medical care.
    To present the functions of the community expressed through the ballot box as a threat to liberty is a lie which will not, in my opinion, survive experience. The Government are now trying to reverse all those gains. The result is a widening gap. I do not believe in the north versus south gap. I believe that north versus south is a new way of dividing people. The truth is that there is hideous poverty in London, unemployment in the inner cities and great prosperity in parts of the north. For some reason the Duke of Devonshire owns Derbyshire. I have not gone into the history of that. However, let no one tell me that there is not great poverty everywhere. The dukes in Scotland own a lot of land. It is a matter of those who own the wealth being against those who create the wealth.
    I was amazed to read today that the Prince of Wales had gone to east London and was appalled at what he saw. Yet that is within a mile or two of where he lives. Should we not sack the BBC for not broadcasting programmes to tell people what conditions are like in this city? The last people to speak out on these questions, well ahead of the Prince of Wales, were councillors in Liverpool and Lambeth and they were disqualified for fighting to correct those very evils that now offend the sensibilities of the heir to the throne.
    I do not want to sound like Enoch Powell. but if the Government proceed in this way, they face an explosive situation. That point has been hinted at and it must be stated clearly. We cannot dismantle collective housing, state education, state health, we cannot destroy trade unionism—which was, after all, the collective strength against the employer — and undermine democracy without, at a certain point, finding people like those in South Africa and other parts of the world who will die for the right to vote and for that vote to be effective.
    I have put it in strong language because we are often told that we are the mother of Parliaments and that we are marvellous. We are told that everyone has copied us since 1295. We sometimes forget that the struggle for democracy was bitter and bloody in many parts of the world. Indeed, it was a bitter struggle in this country and I refer, in particular, to the struggle of the suffragettes that happened a year or two before I was born. Women did not want the vote for fun. They wanted it as a political route to economic power. If we try to take that away, there will be serious problems.
    The argument is not about paternalism from the top. Although I am not trying to convince the House, perhaps

    693
    I may be allowed to allude to the Socialists' analysis of what happened after the first industrial revolution. Britain preserved its prosperity through huge imperialist expansion. We then began to decline, but returned to full employment during the last world war. There was a post-war boom which financed welfare capitalism. When we claim that consensus is over—as, of course, it is—it is the welfare capitalist option that is over.
    I do not agree with the Prime Minister's analysis. She has taken the wrong course and is trying to return to Edmund Burke. However, we can never return to the policies so beloved of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) because that option is not open. As a serious body, this House must consider the choices open to it.
    I do not want to enter into a statistical argument with the Chancellor because he has more civil servants at his disposal than I. However, I confess that I detect a worsening world economic situation. The oil revenue which it was my privilege to look forward to as Energy Minister when it came ashore has all gone on dole money and is now declining. Manufacturing industry has been allowed to decline when we should have used some of the oil money to rebuild it. Privatisation gains are running out and the world recession is widely forecast. The world debt crisis is around the corner and there is little doubt that international financiers now want back the money that the Chancellor gave in his pre-election boom before they will restore full confidence in him. When those factors are added to what is inherently weak in our economy, there will be growing divisions and bitter struggles.
    We must be prepared to discuss some of those fundamental questions about right and wrong rather than profit and loss. It is wrong to let old people die of hypothermia and close pits where miners are prepared to dig the coal at lower cost to keep them alive. It is wrong to buy nuclear weapons from the United States and deny people the treatment that they need for AIDS or other illnesses which could be provided for within the Health Service. We should return to other ideas from the 19th century. The 19th century was a story of an expanding franchise. That is why I cross-examined the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who referred to the link between payment and representation. That was a dangerous route for him to follow, although I know that he did not mean the full logic of his argument. What we need now is the extension of democratic control into economic and industrial areas which is the 20th century version of the expansion of the franchise in the 19th century.
    We need the kind of self-management that would have at least given the journalists and printers on the Today newspaper the right to veto Murdoch's purchase of their paper. We hear so much about ballots, but there is never a ballot when an employer buys and sells employees like cattle at a market. Until we accept the idea of an industrial and economic franchise, there is no hope for tackling those problems.
    We are not writing a Queen's Speech because there is not a Shadow Queen yet on the Opposition Benches. However, we must explain as best we can what is happening without personal abuse. We should support the people whom we were elected to represent. I believe that the proper answer to the poll tax is the common ownership of land — an old Liberal theory that goes back to the
    694
    peasants' revolt. I also believe in giving the unions the right to defend their members and the restoration of democracy. Far from being some strange, new, threatening creature in the Labour party, I am one member of a large body of people identifying with a philosophy of society that goes back beyond Burke and perhaps goes back to a certain passage in the Bible where Cain was asked by the Lord what he had done to Abel and he replied:
    "Am I my brother's keeper?"
    Until that principle somehow finds its way into society —until it finds a moral place—we will not make much progress.
    The argument that I have put forward imperfectly is one in which I profoundly believe. I should like to feel that it will be seen as an argument meriting respect, even if only because so many millions of people believe that argument here and abroad and it is such an ancient part of our tradition.
    7.47 pm
    Mr. Ray Whitney: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has performed a service by setting out very clearly—possibly more clearly than he has ever done before— the differences between himself and the Labour party, the Socialists he represents and virtually the whole of the rest of the country. As he said, he holds those ancient views clearly. He took us through the 18th and 19th centuries, through Burke, Adam Smith and, above all, Marx. He took us through a view of society that is no longer valid. He should ask the million or so people who now own their own homes whether they believe in the principles of Marxism which the right hon. Gentleman so loves. He should ask the people who now enjoy the increased expenditure on the Health Service which has been generated by the economy that has been made strong by the free market principle whether they accept the Socialist view of society. The right hon. Gentleman has shown why we are clearly in a post-Socialist phase in Britain.
    I want to share the praise that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield offered to my hon. Friends and Opposition Members who have contributed their maiden speeches in this debate. In particular I refer to the recent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). I entirely endorse the comments made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield about the eloquence and efficiency of that speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke should not be nervous about showing his historical knowledge of Disraeli, whichever side of that particular debate the penny happens to fall. I endorse the tributes that were paid to our very good friend Nick Edwards. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and join him in his comments about the splendid character who preceded him, Mr. Ian Campbell, whose puckish twinkle was much loved by so many of us.
    The Gracious Speech continues optimistically with the great work that the Conservative party and the country have achieved in setting Britain free and successfully revitalising the British economy and society. In particularly, we have brought back to the nation the sense of realism that it lost—the realistic understanding that the spending that we want, be it on the Health Service, education, research or social affairs generally, cannot be achieved until we create a healthy economy and that, in turn, a healthy economy depends on trade, commerce and

    695
    industry, which produce goods and services for which other people are prepared to pay. They may sound like obvious truths, but to a large degree, they were forgotten for too long and are still not comprehended by Opposition Members. That is the reality that the Government and the country have grasped, as the results of the general election showed.
    There is one reality about national resources that the Government have not yet grasped, and it relates to the concern that we should have about the provision of health care. We suffer from a national failing in resolutely refusing to look at the enormous problem of funding health care. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) touched upon that matter, but, in fairly typical SDP-Liberal fashion, having tiptoed up to the problem, he failed to deal with it, and then tiptoed away.
    The fog, myth, illusion and miasma that surround health care and the National Health Service, thick though they were and intensifying though they have been over 40 years, were thickened even more by the extraordinary campaign conducted by the Labour party during the three or four weeks of the general election campaign. Listening to the Leader of the Opposition speak no one would have believed that he was a member of a party—admittedly not a member of a Government; he does not have that experience — which ran the economy so badly that hospital building programmes were cut by one third, and in three years out of four, nurses suffered losses of pay in real terms. That is the record of the Labour party. The Labour party's contribution, as in many other matters, has been entirely negative. It has reinforced the lessons of the election campaign. It has also reinforced the point that one of the major weaknesses from which we suffer is that health care has become a political football. If we do nothing else during the next four or five years, we must ensure that that ceases. We must find a new system and a new organisation.
    I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services on his appointment. We need a clear mind, together with intelligence and courage in tackling the problem. Certainly, throughout his political career, my right hon. Friend has demonstrated such qualities, and he will certainly need them in applying his capabilities to the issue. It is extremely difficult. I speak as someone who had a brief tenure in the DHSS. My right hon. Friend will not find it easy to obtain help from the insiders in the National Health Service. Too many of them have vested interests. Many who have the necessary knowledge have too many interests to protect and do not give Ministers or, indeed, the country the leadership and advice that they have a right to expect.
    We continue with the myth that our National Health Service is the envy of the world. Sadly, it is a myth. If it were not a myth, our Health Service, or some of it, would have been copied by the rest of the world. It is copied by virtually no one because there are too many flaws in its structure.
    It seems almost sacrilegious to say so, but it is time that we as a party recognised that fact. For example, Health Ministers may make the ultimate in political mistakes, in the sense that they have total responsibility in political terms. Whatever may happen in the hospital in Upper Puddlecombe is the responsibility of the Health Minister.
    696
    But Ministers do not have actual day-to-day power. It is vested in about 200 health authorities, and hundreds of hospitals, consultants or professions in the Service. I do not say that that is a recipe for disaster, but it is one for serious trouble.
    The Health Service must confront an even more serious problem. Many have recognised it. Indeed, there is Powell's law. I join in the tributes that have been paid to the former right hon. Member for South Down. After many years of extraordinary and uniquely distinguished service to politics and the House, his disappearance from the House is much to be regretted. After his tenure as Minister for Health more than 20 years ago, Enoch Powell identified the sort of problems about which I am speaking. He said that demand for "free" medical care quickly outgrows any possible provision for it. Of course, that was true 25 years ago, and it is also true today.
    Many people talk about resources. The fact is that, year by year, since it was created, the NHS has quite rightly absorbed ever more of our national wealth. For example, in 1955, it used about 3·5 per cent. of our gross national product. When the right hon. Member for Devonport was Minister for Health, it probably absorbed just under 5 per cent. of our gross national product. Now, under the Conservative Government, the figure is about 6·2 per cent. That is a huge increase. But the faster we pedal, the further we seem to fall behind.
    Recently, the Institute of Health Services Management joined the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing to produce another document stating that we must keep spending on Health Services in line with the growth in national income, allowing for demographic change and special problems such as AIDS. The Institute of Health Services Management understands that since the Government have been in office we have achieved significantly more than that. When the Conservative Government came to office in 1979, 5·37 per cent. of our gross national product was spent on health. The figure is now about 6·2 per cent., so we have done significantly better. Of course, it is far from right. No one—least of all myself, having had the responsibilities that I enjoyed —would say that we are spending a lot. On that point, I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman.
    The position will get worse. We have an aging problem. I do not deplore the fact. I rejoice in the fact that we are living longer. But if one goes, as I have, to dozens of hospitals, one will see that, in general ward after general ward—not geriatric wards—the average age of patients is about 70. One will find a few young men who have broken their legs on their motorbikes, but most patients are in their mid-70s or older, having their second hip replacements. That is splendid — it is an excellent development—but goodness me, it costs.
    A further element in geometrically increasing costs is medical high technology, which may cost £1 million or whatever. Tomorrow, there will be something else. That cost is bound to increase at a geometric rate. The other factor that we cannot escape concerns the rising aspirations of our people. A slogan during the election campaign referred to a patient being treated where he likes, by whom he likes and all the rest of it. That is an impossible aspiration, as any serious person knows. People have genuine and new aspirations to health care. They may smoke 50 cigarettes and drink a bottle of whisky a day. If they are ill, it is wrong because someone has not paid

    697
    enough in National Health Insurance contributions to get them right again. That is a social, medical and political factor. That is the problem.
    A great deal has been done. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said. The administrative costs in our Health Service are extraordinarily low by international standards. All those concerned with the National Health Service should be proud of that. By any international criterion, we compare extremely well. There is not a quick fix or a quick solution in improving administration. In a service that employs 1 million people, and treats many millions of patients every year, mistakes are made. Everyone will know of something that can be improved in a certain hospital, but basically, by international standards, our administrative levels are extremely fine.
    The Government's record is also excellent. What we have done with the Griffiths reforms in improving general management has already had significant results, which will work through in future. What we have done in competitive tendering has had a significant impact and will continue. What we have done in the sale of real estate, using the NHS estate more effectively, has also had an impact.
    Those are all extremely laudable measures, but we are talking about only £400 million or £500 million a year at the most in generating new resources for health care. If we look at international levels, which is where the right hon. Member for Devonport wanted to take us and which is a fair comparison, a different story is told. We spend about 6 per cent. of our gross national product. More is spent by our Government than any other western Government, but I am now talking about national spending. As a nation, we spend 6 per cent. As a nation, the United States spends nearly 11 per cent. of a much higher gross national product. The average for most western nations is about 9 per cent.
    If we moved to the western average, which we should and which is the right of our people, that would represent an increase of about 3 per cent. of our gross national product, not 1 per cent., as the right hon. Member for Devonport said. That is about £10 billion. In other words, we are talking about a requirement to increase health spending by 50 per cent., not by a few hundred million here or there through sound administrative improvements. No Government could contemplate that.
    Therefore, we must look for a new or changed system. This is not a new point, but it has not been accepted by the nation before. In 1967, the British Medical Association — it must have been of a different complexion from the BMA now — set up an inquiry under Dr. Ivor Jones, which lasted for two years. It reported in April 1970. It proposed a system that I would commend as well worth studying by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. A member of that committee was a rising young politician and barrister, who is currently the Foreign Secretary.
    The committee suggested that important elements of health care— chronic care, invalid care and certain other things— should be taken out and dealt with nationally, and the rest should be dealt with on an insurance basis. That is one possibility. However, in terms of continuing to improve the health care of all our people, and ensuring the proper use of national resources, it is crucial that now, not in three years' time as we move into a pre-election period, the nation, the Government and the Conservative party face up to the dilemma that I have outlined. If we can achieve at least the recognition that there is a problem,
    698
    that would be my first ambition. My second ambition would be to find a solution to the problem. We are a very long way from it now, but I hope very much that my right hon. Friends in the Government will understand that that is a problem that we must now address.
    8.5 pm
    Mr. Dennis Turner: I felt a little diffident about speaking after the comment by the leader of the Social Democratic party, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), about people coming from local government, but then I composed myself, on the basis that as I have come from local government I might have more contemporary experience to bring to the House on some of the major issues that are being debated today and have been raised during the debates on the Loyal Address over the past five days.
    I sincerely thank hon. Members on both sides of the House, and all the workers in the House—the people who serve us our food, the Whips' Office, Mr. Speaker's Office, and the Fees Office, which I must not forget—for the warm welcome that I have received and for the courteous and helpful way in which I have been treated. Every hon. Member has helped me in settling into an awesome place. It is an experience that one has to live through to fully appreciate it. I say that in all humility. I am grateful for the help that has been shown to me.
    I come to the House following a legend—the legend of Bob Edwards, who was a fine parliamentarian, and who devoted all his life to the interests of the people. If I can serve the people of my constituency one quarter as well as he did, I shall be very pleased.
    Bob Edwards made a wider contribution than that, from the days when he sat with Trotsky as a young man, and with Mao Tse Tung. He fought in the Spanish civil war. All that is known to the House. He is such a modest man. He served through the years with such humility. It is a great privilege to follow him. To have had him as a mentor over the past 20 years has been of great value to me.
    Bob represented a black country constituency. Many of my constituents expected me to use words such as yow, bay or thear, and wanted me to talk in good black country dialect. However, I shall not do so, only because I have respect and regard for the Hansard writers. The dialect orginated from the language of Chaucer, but I understand the difficulties of writing down all that I have been saying in black country dialect, so I shall stick to the Queen's English as we debate the Queen's Speech.
    Bob represented the black country towns of Bilston, Coseley and Sedgley. I now represent, as he did before his retirement, the constituency of Wolverhampton, South-East, which still takes in a large part of the black country. I am a black country man and proud of it. I come here with the spirit of the black country with all that has happened to us over the past few years, some of which has been debated in the past few days.
    Many of my black country men would not comprehend what has been said in the speeches over the past few days, I think that they would have difficulty in identifying some of the things that have been said by the Government about the community in which we live in the black country today. Unemployment is 25 per cent. in my constituency. In Wolverhampton, 25,000 good men and women do not

    699
    have the opportunity to make a useful contribution to society and cannot receive the rewards that would arise from that.
    When we talk of unemployment, we must take into account the indignity that comes with it. Independence and freedom have been mentioned often in the past few days. The people whom I represent no longer have the freedom and independence given by the wage packet. A wage packet is important to them, and their dignity, standards and independence are based on that. So I must reconcile that freedom and independence with the difficulties and impoverishment in which many of our people have been placed by being out of work and finding it difficult to cope in present circumstances.
    I wonder what I am supposed to say to the lady who came to see me and told me that she was existing on £39·50 a week. Although she received housing benefit, she had to pay for gas and electricity and keep herself on that amount of money. I reflect on that, and on the fact that there must be days in the week on which people, inside and outside the House, spend that much on one meal, yet that person and many thousands of others have to exist week by week on amounts such as that coming into their homes.
    It is said that there is investment in housing, but in Wolverhampton we are starved of investment in housing. Year by year, since the Conservative Government came to power—my objective is not to make a political point—we have seen our capital programmes reduced to the extent that our ability to do what we want to in the inner areas has been taken away from us and we are not in a position to make a contribution.
    Two thousand five hundred senior citizens and disabled people in Wolverhampton are seeking bungalows or purpose-built sheltered accommodation. We have not been in a position to build a bungalow for the past four or five years. We have estimated that it will take some of the people on that list who are 70 years old now until they are 120 to qualify for the bungalows or sheltered accommodation that they need, because of our lack of ability to provide it.
    In Wolverhampton, 74 per cent. of the people are on housing benefit. Is that the freedom and independence that we are told about? What opportunities are afforded them to buy their own homes? Without any ideological hang-up, we— a Labour-controlled council—were selling houses in the 1960s and 1970s, and that is true of many authorities up and down the land. So the idea that tenants were somehow liberated purely by the advent of the Conservative Government is quite erroneous.
    If we talk of health, 85 people have been turned away from our hospitals in the past three weeks—people who were seriously ill and could not be provided with a bed when they desperately needed one for emergency treatment. There has been a cut of £3·9 million in our district health authority funding since 1983 — which is not the increase about which we have heard. Recently, because of pressures of finance, we have cut back by 50 per cent. on the incontinence pads that our elderly and disabled people need to be able to live in some kind of decency and comfort. That has happened in the past month.
    Will the education that we hear about be education that is uplifting for all, or occasional schools that will be identified and can be moved into the private sector? In the
    700
    schools in Wolverhampton, there has been a reduction, year after year, in the capital programmes that are needed to improve those schools. There has been chaos in the legislation dealing with teachers, and we know that we cannot now give an education service to our children because of the turmoil that exists. Are we really intending to improve the lot of all our children in all our schools, or that of only a few? We shall see the test of that in the months ahead.
    Across all these issues—and there are many more—the reality of people's lives in my community is different from what is portrayed in the speeches that we have had from Conservative Members. The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) spoke a couple of days ago about the new licensing laws, but Omar Khayyam, that philosopher of old, would not have subscribed to his views on them:
    "Ah love! could thou and I with Fate conspire
    To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,
    Would we not shatter it to bits—and then
    Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's Desire!"
    That is what we want in our community. We want fresh thinking and application from this House for the real needs of our people. If we do that, we will give people hope where it does not now exist. We can give people the opportunity to believe that they can grow and build.
    In our lives, we have infinitesimal time to do what is necessary. Would it not be better now if, together, we were to start building something better, not only for some of the people, but for all of them? That would make a tremendous contribution to the people whom I represent.
    8.17 pm
    Mr. Matthew Carrington: As one new boy to another, I want to start by complimenting the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) on his excellent maiden speech, which was eloquent and passionately felt. It took me back, as well, because some years ago I worked for a year in one of the major factories in his constituency, and I recognised a lot of the problems from those times in what he said. He and I would differ on the solutions to those problems, but I recognise the honesty and eloquence of what he said.
    It is with great humility that I rise to make my maiden speech, because Fulham has a tradition of sending to this House hon. Members who excel in their devotion to their constituency. The noble Lord Stewart, who represented Fulham for a great many years, was a man who was devoted to the constituency and a great servant of it, just as he continues to be a great servant of the country, as witness the views on defence that he expressed last year. He was followed by Martin Stevens, who spent more time looking after his constituency than, I suspect, did most hon. Members at that time. He was devoted to it and worked extremely hard for it and wore the title of Mr. Fulham with pride right until his untimely death last year. I can testify that he is well remembered and much loved in the constituency. I am sure that the House sorely misses his presence, too.
    My predecessor, Nick Raynsford, was also a devoted constituency Member and, in the short time allotted to him, worked for the constituency in a way that was gratefully received by it.
    I understand that it is right not to be controversial in a maiden speech, and I shall not be so, although, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins)

    701
    said, that seems to be recognised more in the breach than in the observance these days. 1 do not want to be controversial, and hope that my remarks will not be taken as such. They certainly would not be taken as controversial if I made them in Fulham.
    Fulham is an inner-city constituency and has many of the problems of inner-city constituencies. It is as well to remember that some inner-city constituencies, especially in London, are represented, not by Labour Members, but by Conservatives. Fulham is one of those. It has tasted Socialism and rejected it convincingly. Fulham has a long tradition of being a mixed area. All manner of people live there from those who are relatively well off to those who are not, and from those who have high levels of skill and training to those who have low levels. All types of people live in the same street and neighbourhood, and that is the great strength of Fulham. The strength of an inner-city area comes, not from its natural resources, but from the people who live there, and Fulham is no exception.
    Fulham has a tremendous reputation for and tradition of small businesses which have existed there since it expanded westwards. It is often said that if one wants anything made or done the place to go is Fulham, particularly if one wants it done properly. We have small businesses to serve most of the needs which anybody could have. At present they are under serious threat, which is causing grave concern. Their ability to survive in Fulham is being threatened by the changes that are taking place in west London.
    Many of the proposals in the Gracious Speech address the causes of that decline. As I have said, the great strength of an area such as Fulham is its people and the greatest strength of those people is their children and the education those children receive. For a long time educational standards have been declining and the attainment that children have achieved at school has not been at the level required for them to become the new employees of the businesses that already exist.
    The Government's proposals on education provide a chance to remedy that. We have some excellent schools in Fulham which are greatly over-subscribed. They need the opportunity to expand and to get themselves out from under the dead hand of the ILEA. They need to be able to organise themselves, with parents and teachers participating, so that the best interests of the community and children are served. I am convinced that the proposals in the Gracious Speech will go a long way towards rectifying the problems in our local schools.
    We have traditionally had a good youth training scheme in Fulham. Many children leave school without the skills they need to take on jobs and acquire training. One of our YTS workshops, run by Stan Marsh, is one of the best in London. He takes pre-school leavers and school leavers and trains them with the skills that they need to get jobs. He trains the children who have been failed by the education system to the extent that they leave school unable to read and write adequately. He teaches them to read and write and then finds them a job. A measure of his success is the number of children who leave his training and are placed in permanent jobs in the local community. Indeed, the need for the training that he provides is testified by the demand for his trainees in local businesses.
    A major problem in Fulham — this is perhaps the most controversial element of my speech—has been the council, which has increased rates dramatically—by 49·6 per cent. this year. I am convinced that the proposals on
    702
    the community charge in the Gracious Speech will meet many of the problems caused by the rate rise. One reason why the council increased the rates so high was that less than half the people who vote in the borough pay either the full rates or any rates. It must be wrong that an elected body can raise rates and spend that money when less than half the people who vote pay for the services that it provides. There must be a better system whereby those who pay for the services vote for those who spend the money that is contributed. The community charge goes a long way towards doing that. it does not go the whole way and stop spendthrift councils, but it stops councils being elected by people who have no responsibility for paying for the increase in services that they want.
    The damage of the rate rise is clear. We have seen jobs lost and damage done to the elderly and less well off. We need a reform of the rating system. I am convinced that the community charge will provide at least the framework for that necessary reform and produce a fair local basis for taxation. We all recognise that there are many problems with it as it stands. Many difficulties must be ironed out and questions answered about how it will apply in detail. However, the principle is incontestable; people should pay in one form or another for the services for which they vote. The community charge will achieve that. It is the solution to many of the problems in our inner-city areas.
    That is not the only problem. Although we have had a rate rise, we may face another rate rise and the community charge may also be raised to levels which are equally damaging to the community. I urge my right hon. and hon. friends on the Treasury Bench not to lose sight of the fact that any reform of the rating system must go hand in hand with proper control of council spending. Too often, councils spend money in a way which is not in the interests of the local community, but which is furthering wider, national, political ends which the council was not necessarily elected to serve.
    We need a reform of local government to ensure that it is much more accountable to the people who elect it. The community charge goes a long way towards doing that, but it must go hand in hand with a reform to achieve local democracy and control which will provide a basis for the local accountability of councils. I believe that the Government will introduce this major reform.
    The proposals on housing in the Gracious Speech are important for inner-city constituencies such as Fulham. One of the major areas of dereliction in Fulham is the privately rented sector and I am sure that my predecessor spoke eloquently about that in the House. Fulham has a high level of privately rented accommodation and it needs to be revitalised. My predecessor and I would differ considerably about how that should be done. The proposal in the Gracious Speech to revitalise the private rented sector is the right way forward and will bring back into the housing stock about 8,000 empty homes in the borough. Those homes are currently being wasted, largely because it is impossible to rent homes in the private sector on a just basis as between landlord and tenant.
    I strongly support the inner city proposals contained in the Gracious Speech. They are the solution to many of the problems that I see in Fulham and I commend them to the House.
    Several Hon. Members rose ——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I renew Mr. Speaker's appeal for brief contributions. Many hon.

    703
    Members still wish to speak, including two who wish to make their maiden speeches, before the winding-up speeches which are expected to begin at 10 minutes past 9.
    8.31 pm
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: My first duty is to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) and the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) on their maiden speeches. They were excellent speeches. They were lucid and eloquent and carried the controlled power of passion that is becoming one of the features of maiden speeches in this Parliament. They both have experience of inner cities.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East spoke for his local council, which he supports, while the hon. Member for Fulham spoke against his council. They obviously have great affection for the areas that they represent, and it is quite right that they should have. Theirs were the authentic voices of local authorities, especially that of my hon. Friend. The Government will have to take that into account much more fully than they have done up to now.
    Not only do my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Fulham love their towns, but they work in them and see anything that goes wrong while they are going to and from their work, or to and from home. We must remember the words of John Banham, who was the chairman and director, the head, of the Audit Commission. He said that local authorities were more efficient than central Governments. That is true, because they have the close immediacy to see problems. They feel deeply about those problems and seek ways to put them right.
    Select Committees were mentioned by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), and in that context I should like to make a personal plea to the Leader of the House. He should get the Public Accounts Committee set up as soon as possible, because there is a large backlog of work to be done. We are concerned about value for money, and that is the way to get it. If there are problems about the composition of Committees, the membership can subsequently be changed by a resolution of the House. I urge the Leader of the House to set the Committees up at the earliest possible date.
    The Government have won three elections in a row. The question that we all have to ask ourselves is how this came about. I know that there are a number of subsidiary reasons, such as the state of the Labour party and the consumer boom. However, the main reason why the Government have been elected again and again is that they had the benefit of the oil from the North sea. That is what it is all about, and we should not fool ourselves.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer's predecessor had a balance of payments deficit of £8·8 billion, and this Government have had up to £7 billion surplus on the balance of payments. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite right to say that it is not revenue, but revenue does not matter that much. It can be raised by taxation, and although that is a bit awkward, it can be done. However, one cannot do much about the balance of payments.
    Let us look at the problems that previous Chancellors have had. The 1945–50 Government were bedevilled with problems, and we had the retrenchment of Mr. Butler in 1955. The 1956 Suez adventure came to an end because of
    704
    a balance of payments problem. In 1964, Maudling's dash for growth came to an end because of balance of payments problems. It was a deficit of only £300 million, and we are talking about a turn around as a result of North sea oil from a deficit of £8·8 billion to a surplus of £7 billion. That was a turn around of over £15 billion and suddenly, at a stroke, all the problems that bedevilled both Conservative and Labour Administrations for 40 years came to an end.
    We must ask ourselves what we did with this astonishing stroke of fortune. We should not fool ourselves. The Government have not been so brilliantly led. It is not a case of a clever Government who did everything that was right that enabled the Conservatives to win election after election. It was this stroke of gigantic fortune. What did they do with this fortune? Did they carry out a fundamental reconstruction of our nation? Not at all; it went into consumption and overseas investment. Some people say that that is fine, that overseas investment will come back in due course with added interest. That is what people said in the years before the first world war and when we were sending vast sums of money to North America and to the rest of the world to expand industries and economies. That is when Germany, the United States and Japan were industrialising. We sent our money abroad, and manufacturing investment here declined.
    How did we lose our lead in world manufacturing? We moved from being the supreme industrially based economy to an economy in which the rentiers and the City of London were accorded an over-dominant status that inflicted great damage on our nation. That was exemplified by the comments made by Sir Winston Churchill during his great days. Our supreme industrial economy, which had been admired by everyone from Disraeli downwards, bitterly declined.
    Rarely in economic life or in any aspect of life is one accorded the chance of righting the wrongs inflicted by a previous generation. That chance came with devilish coincidence in the 1979 general election. The Conservatives could have done much then to right the wrongs, but what happened to the balance of payments benefit with which we could have changed so much? Our industrial competitors abroad have seen their industries advance, and although we had the oil surplus we were not as successful.
    In a number of respects oil is no different from any other commodity. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not very happy about introducing any restraints on our exports of oil. He must understand that his enormous advantage lies in a high world price for oil. —[Interruption.] The Chancellor expresses his doubt. If Britain was a big wool producer like Australia, our interest would lie in a high world price for wool. If we were a coffee producer like Brazil, our interest would lie in a high world price for coffee. As I have said before, everybody knows that a potato farmer likes high prices for potatoes.
    Why does the Chancellor not like a high price for oil? He can do something about oil prices. We know that we cannot be part of OPEC, but if we move in the direction in which our interests lie we could do something about it. If we were not so clever, we would be able to recognise our interests staring us in the force and rejoice in a high world price for oil. The advantage of a high world price is that some of the money could be used to finance some of the industrial expansion that I hope the Chancellor has in mind.

    705
    As the decline in North sea oil approaches, it will lead to greater need for our manufacturing industry. I regret that the capital allowances for investment are only 25 per cent. That is failing even to recompense those who have invested and who see the value of their assets depreciating. In many areas assets depreciate much faster than 25 per cent. Hon. Members will know that if one has a computer that cost £1,000, one could not sell it for £750. The selling price will be much less than that. If the allowance for depreciation is not accelerated, it should at least be in proportion to the actual rate of depreciation of the equipment.
    We should have a tax incentive to invest, but we have a tax disincentive. The Chancellor of the Exchequer believes in tax incentives. He believes. in performance-related pay, share options and reductions in income tax. He understands and accepts the need for incentives. Why should there not be incentives for manufacturing industry? If it is so important for us, we must get it to invest more, and more must be expected from manufacturing in the future than in the past, first because we need it more.
    It is not a distortion of the economy to give tax incentives for that purpose, but it is such a distortion to undertake, as the Chancellor is now doing, to provide tax incentives that serve no economic or social purpose— and here I believe that I am carrying the Chancellor with me. When I speak of distortion of the economy, I refer, as the Chancellor will know, to tax relief on mortgage interest and on pensions for the self-employed. About £5 billion was thrown away on mortgage interest relief, but the Chancellor needs money for inner cities and for schools. The Government say so, and the Chancellor must provide some of that money.
    Surely the Chancellor can now ask for something from the Prime Minister, although we know that she has been against this. The Chancellor will not remain in his post for ever. His management of the economy, although I differ from him, won the election—there is no question about that. It was very well organised, and I pay tribute to the technical skill that brought about circumstances in which, over a long period, an election could have been called at any time without any particular economic problems. The Chancellor prepared the ground to enable the Prime Minister to call the election. No Chancellor of the Exchequer could do more for his Prime Minister.
    Jock Bruce-Gardyne has commented that the right hon. Gentleman is not a great reforming Chancellor, but I think that he still has a chance to redeem himself. He wishes to be a reforming Chancellor—I detected that in many of his comments. If he does not want that, for what does he want to be remembered? Does he want to be remembered as one who embraced monetary nonsense, formulated it, implemented it and finally obliterated it? Does he want to be remembered as one who, to win one election, kept the show on the road — although I do not belittle that? Surely, if there is a time when the Chancellor can ask the Prime Minister for something, it is now. He should not ask for honours, but for something that will mark his record as a tax reformer, and that is how he would dearly wish to be remembered.
    Surely the Chancellor has the right to ask for a reduction in taxes that distort the economy to no benefit. The particular problem about mortgage interest relief is that houses are too often regarded as investments rather than as homes. There is the enormous advantage of not having to pay schedule A tax or, in many cases, capital
    706
    gains tax. Mortgage interest relief represents an enormous amount, and the poll tax will he a further addition to the incentive to treat a home as an investment. We know that the poll tax is nonsense, in this as in many other respects. Nearly every country has some form of property tax. Property is eminently taxable, and to remove it from that area of taxation cannot be very sensible. The Chancellor prides himself, with justification, on the improvements in inflation under his administration, but he must remember that inflation also applies to houses, although house inflation does not appear in the retail prices index.
    Self-employed pension funds are not taxed on their income. That is such an extreme amount of assistance that clearly there is money there. If the Chancellor is serious —I believe that he is; the Government have said so, and the Prime Minister has made herself chairman of some important committees—about spending money, and if there is to be fundamental change, there must be some movement of money. It cannot just be diverted from one area to another. The Chancellor must know that, and if he does not, the Chief Secretary does. If the Chancellor is serious, and if he is to find the money that is needed for cities and for schools, he must at least start to end some of those abuses pretty quickly.
    8.44 pm
    Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: It is a privilege to follow in debate the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who had a distinguished career at the Treasury. However, I must say that I misunderstood a good deal of what he said. First, he appeared to claim that the misfortunes of Socialist policy were entirely a matter of chance, and that the good fortunes of our economic policy were entirely a matter of good fortune. He then said of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that it was his manipulation of good fortune that enabled us to deceive the electorate into wisely rejecting the policies of what he calls "distortion".
    If the plea of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) were answered, and we once again had a unified defence policy, I cannot imagine any other plank off which the Labour party could walk out into the deep ocean of sharks than to say that mortgage tax relief is a wicked distortion and should be abolished.
    What has happened in this country is simple. It is the distortion of Socialism, the distortion of cellophane, the distortion of the English roses that Labour party members all had to wear—a fresh one every day. I was delighted that Buster Edwards, the train robber, had the intelligence to say, "I wish that my little flower cart was outside the Labour party headquarters."
    I want to discuss a concept which I believe is important, and which underlines the Gracious Speech. It may be lost on some hon. Members that the Sovereign wears the badge of the most ancient order of England, while her consort wears the badge of the most ancient order of Scotland, the thistle. It is 500 years old, and that is being celebrated in Scotland tonight. We were made one nation not, I regret to say, by the kindness of the Scots to one another, but by their indiscipline, which in 1745 — I say this as a Jacobite Episcopalian—enabled General Wade, followed by the romance of Sir Walter Scott, to unite the nation. We are a united nation in Great Britain, but we are different in all the little parts of Scotland, of England, of Ireland and of Wales. It is false and wrong to say that any political party should try to claim that we are divided into nesting

    707
    boxes. Socialism now says that it has triumphed in the smallest one left, and can eventually rule by a tax-raising assembly.
    The shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscaden (Mr. Dewar), said that Scotland was a country crying out for change. But change to what? Are we asking to change to a nation that is more taxed than the rest of Britain? Let us take the difference between Gretna Green and Cumbria. For every £127 that the man in Gretna Green gets, the person over the border receives £80.
    Are we prepared to change from a nation with one eleventh of the population of Great Britain which gets a third of the regional grant? Are we prepared to change from a nation in which the Locate in Scotland bureau has identified that 80 per cent. of inward investment from northern America into Europe wishes to come, provided that there is no change in our economic policies, and provided that we do not have some separatist fantasy tax-raising assembly?
    The figures for Scotland show that the same number of people voted for the Conservatives as voted in the previous election. There was a loss of only 348 votes per constituency. There was tactical voting.
    The concept was put forward that Scotland is deprived. The term "north-south divide" was previously applied to the Watford gap and above it. The media have now moved it to Hadrian's wall. I have the good fortune to live above the north-south divide. Yesterday I spent a great deal of my time in Northamptonshire, Leicestershire and Rutland. If any Scot imagines that that is a preferable way of life, he cannot comprehend Scotland's good fortune. Scotland has the majority of the new industries. The industrial revolution gave us coal and steel and the Irish potato famine gave us cheap labour. Then we suffered the misfortune of Socialism, which kept out-of-date industries in being long after they had become irrelevant.
    Scotland is not in favour of Socialism. It is against the despair of Socialism. To what did Socialism appeal in this election, if it appealed to anything? It appealed to despair. Socialism even got hold of a little boy who needed a heart operation and said, "Isn't it awful?" [Interruption.] Yes, he has had his operation now, but how did he get it? He got it privately. He jumped the queue—just what the Leader of the Opposition accused my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of doing. All Socialism is hypocrisy. It is an appeal to despair.
    Socialists in Scotland cannot claim that the Conservatives do not have a mandate to govern. If we want to create another Irish problem, all that we need to do is to repeat it on the mainland. One can imagine the trauma and the anxiety and the divisions between Glasgow, Edinburgh, the Highlands and the Lowlands and the middle parts of Scotland. Let not those who have lived in Scotland for only a few generations preach to those who have lived there for much longer.
    A Labour Scottish assembly would be determined to support every extravagant form of industrial dinosaur. The people of Great Britain voted in this Government by a huge majority. Socialists cannot explain that away, unless they object to democracy. The people of this country want prosperity, dignity, decent houses, decent
    708
    schools and good hospitals. A Scottish assembly would divide the nation and cause the very conflicts that we cannot solve in Ireland.
    I have more in common with most of those Opposition Members who are English than I have with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton).
    Mr. John Maxton: That is the best compliment the hon. and learned Gentleman has ever paid me.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Let us never forget that we are one nation. Of all parts of the kingdom, Scotland is probably the most cosmopolitan. It objects to the fact that the Prime Minister is from the south of England. It never objected to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), or to Mr. Callaghan, or to Lord Wilson of Rievaulx on the basis that they were English. It objects to the fact that the Prime Minister is English because she did something of which people ar either jealous or proud. I am thankful that the huge majority of people, and an increased number of people in my constituency, appreciate the excellence of the economic opportunities that she has provided for them.
    I do not wish to hear that, having lost England, Socialists are now retreating to Scotland and that if they lose Scotland they will retreat to Glasgow, or elsewhere. Between Eyemouth and the Mull of Galloway there are 24,000 Socialist votes and between the Black Isle and Mull there are 34,000 Socialist votes.
    Mr. Maxton: How many Tory votes are there in Glasgow?
    Mr. Fairbairn: There are very many Tory votes in Glasgow. Socialism seeks to disfranchise the Scottish people and to hold them in its own horrible grip.
    8.57 pm
    Mr. Alun Michael: It is salutary for a new Member to have to respond in a non-controversial manner. I feel rather like the hors d'oeuvre when the diners are queueing for the main course.
    I take great personal pleasure in paying tribute to my predecessor, James Callaghan. It is difficult to find anything new to say about a man who held three great offices of state and whose last role, in a parliamentary career that spanned more than 42 years, was to serve with distinction as the Father of the House, He will be remembered by my constituents as a superb constituency Member of Parliament. He never allowed the burden of high office to interfere with the task of representing individuals. He never failed to listen to the most mundane of problems, to attend party meetings each month and to seek to improve the quality of life of his constituents.
    I have seen the respect in which Jim was held by so many ordinary people, spanning three generations, as I have worked and campaigned with him over recent years. I can only commend the help and encouragement that he has given me in preparing to take his place in this House as a model of continuity. If I fail to live up to his high standards of service to the constituency, it will not be for lack of his example or support.
    The recent months have been marred by the illness of Lady Callaghan, and I know that many of my constituents will want me to pay tribute to her 42 years of service to the constituency and to express the hope that she will continue to make speedy progress towards full recovery.

    709
    During the debate on the Gracious Speech right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the conventions of this House to be observed by hon. Members making maiden speeches. To prove that perceptions change little over the years, I refer to the first words of the then James Callaghan as the new Member for what was then Cardiff, South. He said that listening during the first few days it seemed to him that a new tradition was growing up. He said:
    "you get up and ask for indulgence, and then proceed to lay about you with all you have got, tormenting everybody on the other side, and hoping to get away with it. I hope I shall not trespass too deeply on the indulgence of Members on the other side of the House". —[Official Report, 20 August 1945; Vol. 413, c. 351.]
    His next word was "but".
    In following another tradition of the House, that of referring to my constituency, I express a similar hope before coming to my "buts". During the past 15 years I have served parts of my constituency as a city councillor and worked with its young people in the community in other localities in my daily work. My constituency is a series of individual communities, each with its own distinctive character, following the coast of Cardiff and clustering around the docks area of the city. Those communities range from the older working class areas of the city with their sense of community and pride to the newest areas of private house building. My constituency includes the most cosmopolitan parts of the docks area of Cardiff and the seaside town of Penarth, with its reputation for prosperity as well as its rich variety of small communities. My constituency includes pre-war and new council estates and older private housing in desperate need of renovation. In short, it is a microcosm from which the Government could learn many lessons.
    My constituency also includes the Cardiff docklands area which offers such tremendous opportunities for the future which in turn offer a challenge to the Government to demonstrate a trait that has been absent from a great deal of the rhetoric that I have heard in the past few days —the ability to co-operate.
    Having listened with interest to the wise advice of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in echoing the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) and in support of the contentions made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), may I offer Cardiff as an example of the value of co-operation? The city is beautiful and warm-hearted —characteristics that can take the unsuspecting visitor by surprise. It is also a thriving city because of the success of redevelopment in the centre over the past 15 years.
    That success has not been achieved overnight, nor has it been achieved by the course of calculated neglect known as "leaving everything to market forces". It came as a result of careful planning. It followed from public investment by responsible local councillors. It is based on a partnership between public enterprise and private enterprise in which commercial interest was balanced carefully by public interest and the interests of the citizens of Cardiff came first.
    As someone who in recent years has been a properly accountable local representative, I am proud to have played a small part in that process and to be able to point to continuity over the years, despite the switches of political control within the local authorities from election to election. The model that I offer is enterprising local government, well rooted in its community, maintaining
    710
    creative tension between commercial and community interests and co-operating with central Government initiatives. There are plenty of other examples. The way in which tourism has developed is based on similar public enterprise, with the city council taking the lead and then working in partnership with the private sector.
    As the gateway to south Wales, Cardiff is important to the whole region and local authorities in neighbouring areas have taken similar initiatives in trying to restore the prosperity of their own economies. We have one of Britain's most successful enterprise agencies, established following initiatives by Labour councillors and based on firm foundations of close co-operation between local authorities, local businessmen and agencies of national Government.
    It is difficult for one who comes from that background to comprehend the comments about local government made by Conservative Members, except as an expression of bigotry founded on political ideology rather than experience, and fuelled by the type of journalism that knows little and cares less about local communities and their future.
    If Cardiff's recent history offers such positive lessons about co-operation — and it does—let me come to my two "buts". The redevelopment of Cardiff docklands has started with public investment by a Labour county council and a positive initiative from a Conservative Secretary of State. The development board recently established has started to benefit from the positive co-operation of the local authorities and, indeed, from the wider community—residents, business people, the enterprise agency. and so on.
    The establishment of the board included reserve powers to ride roughshod over local interests. Let me state categorically that if those reserve powers have to be exercised, the board, its chairman and its members of staff will have failed in their duty.
    The existence of such powers may be thought of as an incentive to co-operation, although Cardiff has demonstrated that it does not need that sort of outside stimulus. It has demonstrated its ability to resolve conflicts of interest from within rather than without. But the exercise of such powers would be a different matter.
    I earnestly hope that the new board will live up to its early expressions of intent, and I also hope that the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), the Secretary of State for Wales, will in turn demonstrate the commitment to creating a "spirit of partnership" with local government, employers and the trade unions that he expressed in his speech to the Association of District Councils in Cardiff last week. If he and the board understand clearly that they must work at co-operation with the other parties — and not just demand co-operation by the other parties — we will have a foundation on which to build.
    My second "but" relates to the face of Cardiff. I could give many examples, but on this occasion I choose only two. The first is unemployment. Despite all the success of our initiatives locally to bring jobs to Cardiff, despite the effectiveness of local government initiatives, and despite all the growth helped by the Cardiff and Vale enterprise, we see devastating unemployment laying waste our communities. The majorities by which new Members arrived in this House from south Wales demonstrate that people know where the blame lies and who will look after their interests.

    711
    Government unemployment statistics are so open to doubt that I turn to a more dependable source—how people described themselves in the local census last year. To put it bluntly, a person may not know whether or not he is a Government statistic, but if someone asks, "Are you unemployed?" that person sure as eggs knows the answer. In the Butetown estate—that cosmopolitan community which forms a residential island in a commercial sea and which borders right on to the docklands development—male unemployment has reached more than 50 per cent. On the Tremorfa estate, another well-established community on the borders of the docklands development area, the unemployment rate has gone up from 20 per cent. in 1981 to 34 per cent. in 1987. Unless these communities share in the prosperity that is coming to the city, we shall be building trouble, division, strife and despair for the future.
    My second example is housing. After 14 years of representing local people, I resent the theorising and posturing on housing from the Government Benches. Conservative Members should visit Labour ward surgeries and they will learn the realities of families in desperately cramped conditions, of old people desperate for a little place near the shops and their children and of young couples being pushed to separation by the strain of living with in-laws. The Chancellor's speech today offered little choice of freedom for them and less hope of ownership than a trip to the moon.
    Those are the realities behind the lengthening waiting lists and record homelessness. We do not want to neglect people in real need, and we do not want to level down our communities. We want these people to share in the minimum facilities of a decent home with a chance of a secure, peaceful and creative life. The ability and will to achieve this exists locally. We need matching determination from central Government, and that is what I seek on behalf of my constituents. That is why I extend a plea to the Secretary of State for Wales to give local government in Wales the money and the freedom to get on with the job that it can do so well — that of building homes and communities as well as offering co-operation in the task of economic recovery.
    To the right hon. Gentleman I say, "Given the opportunity, ignore the extremists on your own Benches and concentrate instead on what has worked in the past and which can work for the future." That requires a positive spirit of co-operation to tackle the real problem of our people, which is the proper use of national resources by investing in the future.
    9.8 pm
    Mr. Peter Shore: I begin with two agreeable duties. The first is to congratulate the exceptionally large number of new hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches during the Queen's Speech debate. Today, a further seven have taken the plunge, and all have come to the surface in very good order. All have made excellent contributions and have paid tribute — which the House welcomes — to their predecessors, often in the most generous terms.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) gave us a vivid picture of his constituency. He eloquently described it as a workless community. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton
    712
    (Mr. McFall) used a memorable phrase when he described the Government's policy as, "the bludgeoning of collective provision" and referred to what is becoming an all-too common feature in our cities, "public squalor."
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) spoke eloquently and in the Queen's English, to use his phrase, about the needs of ordinary people in his constituency and, above all, the great privations that inadequate housing and investment are inflicting on them. It was good to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that Cardiff is a city where there has been successful urban renewal. In many ways it offers a good model for the sort of partnership and co-operation that is essential between the public and private sectors if we are to succeed.
    The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) made an interesting speech and I had a feeling that he was in love with his constituency. He described it most graphically and almost invited the rest of us to go down there and visit him. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington), who rather disarmingly told us that he would follow the tradition of making a non-political maiden speech, defended the Government's most controversial policies with great vigour. I know that his intentions were entirely as he stated them. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) made an interesting speech and highlighted an interesting change in the composition of the Conservative party. For the hon. Member to have been educated at the Harrow college of technology rather than Harrow school is an interesting insight into the processes of change that are affecting even the Conservative party.
    I welcome the Leader of the House and wish him well in his new duties. It is a great and traumatic change from being head of the Trappist order in the Whips Office to the demands for instant articulation, which is the lot of the Leader of the House. His task is not made any easier because the right hon. Gentleman must follow in the steps of the former Leader who, by general agreement, was an outstanding Leader in this House. It was not only the wit of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) but his independence of mind that won him the respect and affection of the House.
    Mr. David Winnick: It also lost him his job.
    Mr. Shore: It was almost certainly those qualities, particularly the latter, that lost him his job.
    The Leader of the House has a difficult path to pursue. It will help the right hon. Gentleman if he remembers throughout his period of office, as I am sure he will, that he is not only a senior Minister of the Government but that he holds a special position in relation to the House. He must uphold its traditions, ensure that the Government's majority is not used oppressively and that the rights of the Opposition, the smaller parties and Back Benchers are respected.
    I have a word of warning for the Prime Minister. She has won a famous victory, but she would do well to remember two points. First, she owes her great majority in this House not to massive, let alone growing, support for her policies in the country, but to the grievous and continuing divisions that are being created in the anti-Tory vote. No Conservative Prime Minister since the war has won a general election with so low a share of the popular

    713
    vote—43 per cent.—as that that was obtained by the right hon. Lady in all three of her general election victories.
    The great service and assistance that has been afforded to the Conservative party by those who deserted the Labour cause some six years ago will not continue. The results of the election on 11 June and the subsequent break-up of the alliance, before our eyes, have ended all pretence that the alliance was or could be a credible alternative. That event will radically change the prospects for and the outcome of the next election.
    The Prime Minister might also remember that it was Lord Liverpool who last won three elections in a row. History has not been kind to him. He presided over one of the most oppressive and repressive regimes in British history. He faced massive unrest and unemployment in Britain. He met that by suspending habeus corpus and by imposing the infamous six Acts of 1819. His political obituary is worth recalling. Lord Liverpool was destitute of wide sympathies and of true political insight. His resignation of office was followed almost immediately by the complete and permanent reversal of his domestic policy. This is the fate that I believe awaits the right hon. Lady and her Government.
    I gave one more preliminary point to make. I hope that this will he the last Queen's Speech recorded only by sound radio. It is more than time, as my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party said this afternoon, that the House of Commons emulated the established practice of the other place and agreed to allow in the television cameras.
    In the last Parliament, we came very near to making the change. Only a last-minute change of mind, or a failure of nerve, by the Prime Minister, led to its rejection. I can well understand the Prime Minister's reluctance to be exposed at least twice a week to the nation's gaze. However, I hope that the wider interests of political democracy will prevail. The issue should be put to the House on a free vote at an early date.
    I turn to the use—or misuse—of national resources and the failure to concentrate them on the areas of greatest need and potential economic growth. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a typically complacent and self-congratulatory speech but uttered not a word about unemployment or our manufacturing industry. Yet the neglect of manufacturing industry still poses the greatest threat to our mid-term economic prosperity. It is not just a question of the effects of unemployment, appalling though those are, but of the ever-growing threat to our balance of payments as foreign manufactures continue to flood in.
    In the last Parliament, our historic surplus in manufacturing trade disappeared. In 1985 our visible balance was in deficit to the tune of £3,000 million. In 1986, that deficit had grown to £5,400 million. The trend is all too clear. If it continues in this Parliament, as it did in the last two, we shall face the 1990s, as our oil exports decline, with an ever-widening balance of payments deficit.
    Three factors are especially worrying. First, our trade imbalance is not confined to the older manufacturing industries. It is especially marked in the new industries, including the whole range of information technology. Secondly, today we are investing less than we were eight years ago. As the NEDC office pointed out in its paper reported in the newspapers today, we have not the capacity now to sustain even a modest 3·5 per cent. per annum
    714
    growth in industrial output. If we cannot achieve that in manufacturing industry, we shall never catch up in the 1990s with the level of manufacturing output that the Government inherited in 1979.
    Thirdly, in research and development, we are outstripped by our major competitors and, at the more fundamental research level, we are not carrying out. the basic research in physics and engineering that we need. Two days ago the Royal Society published its report on the migration of scientists and engineers from the United Kingdom. The Times summed up its main features as follows:
    "Almost a quarter of the total fellowship of the Royal Society, widely regarded as the cream of British science, is now permanently living abroad. The report also draws attention to an internal brain drain in which talented science graduates are being tempted away from research into lucrative positions in commerce and the City."
    Professor Sir George Porter, the Nobel Prize winning president of the Royal Society, said yesterday:
    "I cannot stress enough how serious the situation is. So many of our best people are going overseas."
    Mr. Whitney: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House, if the country had inflicted on it the taxation policies of the right hon. Gentleman's party, what effect that would have on the brain drain?
    Mr. Shore: There is no convincing evidence that the movement of people of this type from Britain to overseas universities and research institutes is governed by the levels of taxation in the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] I suggest that sceptical Conservative Members read the report because there the principal causes are enumerated as a result of the survey of the Royal Society's membership. By far the greatest factor is the lack of facilities and career opportunities. Those are the points that the society stressed, and I believe those to be true.
    The Government's response is characteristically perverse. For years they have been cutting grants to research councils and to universities, with a minor relief announced just before the recent general election. Only yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the downgrading of Neddy, both in terms of its staff and the frequency of its meetings.
    I turn now to the second of the major threats, as I see it, that we face, and that is the slowdown in economic growth among the industrialised countries. The OECD's latest projections are for a 2·5 per cent. growth in 1987, and the same figure for 1988. This is well below the productive potential of the OECD countries. Therefore, we shall see a corresponding rise in unemployment. Just as bad, the slowdown in economic growth in the industrial countries will lead to a fall-off in demand for the raw materials and other products of the developing world. How, in those conditions—and the point was made very well by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—the debt-laden Third world countries can continue to service their debts out of export earnings no one is able to see.
    The dangers of major default, with all the implications that that would have for the western banking system, are greater now than they have been for the past five years. That is not just my judgment, but the judgment of people best qualified to give such an opinion. Those were the main items on the agenda at the summit of the Seven at Venice on 9 and 10 June. They deserved from the British

    715
    Government much more than an election photo call visit by the Prime Minister and much more urgency than the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed in his speech today.
    I turn now to the use of our resources to help, as our amendment puts it, the "areas of greatest need". The Prime Minister announced on the morrow of polling day that it was the inner cities that were now to be the main focus of Government policy. Heaven knows, they need to be. Ten years ago the last Labour Government made their priority the launching of a new inner-city policy involving the creation of the so-called partnership and programme authorities. Those areas were identified from objective indices of social and economic need. Those were the areas where cumulative disadvantage in terms of high unemployment, bad housing, environmental decay, population imbalances, single-parent families, unskilled labour, low education attainment and concentrations of New Commonwealth immigrants were to be found.
    In the partnership areas, we identified the rotting cores of our great conurbations — inner Liverpool, inner Manchester Salford, inner Birmingham, inner Newcastle, Gateshead, and inner London — Lambeth, Islington, Hackney and the five dockland boroughs.
    The Government have not disputed our judgment about those priority areas. Each of the conurbation areas has been accepted by them as an area of special need, and so have all the programme authorities as well. Because those were the areas of the greatest need, the Labour Government's policy was based upon targeting Government resources to assist them. Greater needs inevitably involve greater expenditure.
    During the past eight years the Prime Minister has taken exactly the opposite view. Higher expenditure has been taken, not as evidence of need, but as evidence of gross extravagance and incompetence. They have been fined, abused and pilloried as a consequence. It is an astonishing fact that it is exactly those areas of greatest need—that point is not in dispute—that have had the most harsh reductions in rate support grant, with no fewer than 11 of those 14 local authorities rate-capped to make sure that they cannot meet the needs of their own people. It is here, too, in those 14 local authority partnership areas, that the Government have imposed the most catastrophic cuts in housing investment programmes. Let me illustrate what that means.
    In the seven partnership areas to which I have referred, 14,000 new local authority homes were built on average in each year from 1975 to 1980. In the last five years, from 1982 to 1986, no more than 4,000 new homes were completed on average each year. Thus, in the las five years alone, these inner city areas have lost some 50,000 new homes which could have been provided if the Labour Government's rate of completions had been sustained. Is there any surprise that there should be a housing crisis in our inner cities today, and can there be any reasonable doubt about why the number of homeless people has doubled in the past eight years? It is no good the Government saying that the private sector completions have made good the loss; they have not.
    Yesterday, the Prince of Wales visited my borough of Tower Hamlets and he was appalled by what he saw. In his words, the people of the area
    "are working and living in conditions almost as bad as those on the Indian Sub-continent. It really is not acceptable."
    716
    In Tower Hamlets alone, not a single new local authority home for rent has been completed in the past two years. Over 1,000 families are living in bed and breakfast accommodation and more than 10,000 urgent cases are on the housing waiting list.
    There is something indecent, as well as unacceptable, in the fact that in that same borough, where some of the worst housing conditions in Britain prevail, homes in its dockland area, with a starting price of over £90,000, are freely available. Freely for whom? Not for my constituents, but for people who have the wealth and the savings that enable them to buy those new dockland houses. That, apparently, is what the Prime Minister means by freedom of choice. It is a bogus, spurious freedom of choice. So much for the past eight years.
    What new initiatives are the Government now proposing for the inner cities? As the Prime Minister put it in a television interview on 12 June,
    "the whole of the point about the housing and education was to bring increasing prosperity to some of those very people in inner cities who feel they are trapped and that is why I want to bring it forward as fast as possible."
    Does the right hon. Lady really think that permitting tenants on council estates to choose a different landlord will in itself lead to improvement in the conditions they face? Of course not. She must have in mind precisely the provision of extra funds for improvement and modernisation of those old estates—the very funds which she has denied the local councils through her cuts in housing investment programmes.
    Again, does the Prime Minister really believe that by allowing the most favoured schools to opt out of the local education authorities she will be doing anything to improve the conditions of the great majority of schools in the local authority areas? Does the Prime Minister think that by allowing individual London boroughs to opt out she will do anything other than wreck the ILEA? If Wandsworth, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster and the City pull out of the ILEA as they have clearly said that they will, they will take 21 per cent. of the school population with them and more than 60 per cent. of ILEA's funds.
    Mr. Toby Jessel: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Shore: No, I will not give way.
    Does the Prime Minister intend to restore money with increased grant aid to ILEA, or will she leave the rump authority with the impossible task of providing decent education for the most deprived boroughs in inner London?
    Then we have the poll tax. The Prime Minister must be aware, as a result of exemplifications published by the Department of the Environment, that by fixing a standard business rate and confining local authority taxation to a nearly universal poll tax on adult citizens, the principal losers will once again be the most deprived inner city areas.
    The awful truth that I believe that the debate on the Queen's Speech has gradually revealed about the Prime Minister's new initiatives in the inner city, is that they are not designed to assist. They are designed only to create small enclaves of prosperity and educational escape routes for small minorities while leaving the main areas of our inner cities to face increasing deprivation, vastly reduced community services, gross overcrowding, Dickensian slums, growing violence, vandalism, racial tension and increasing alienation and despair.

    717
    That is the nightmare emerging in that large part of Britain which so few Conservative Members are now able to represent. That is part of the divisiveness of the past eight years of Conservative Government. It will become even worse in future unless the House can, in the process of debate and discussion, and with the help of people outside the House, bring about some change of mind in the Government. That is what we will certainly seek to do. Tonight we will vote for our amendment to the Loyal Address.
    9.32 pm
    The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I thank the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) for his kind words at the beginning of his speech. We have had an excellent debate. We have heard some excellent maiden speeches today, and they bring the total over the six days of this debate to 38. That compares with the 31 maiden speeches in the debate on the Loyal Address in 1983. I am sure that Laurie Pavitt would be pleased to know how many new Members have taken the advice that he gave to the new hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) to "get it over with".
    We have heard maiden speeches from the Opposition Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). All those hon. Members made excellent speeches. We heard maiden speeches from the Conservative Benches from my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) and for Fulham (Mr. Carrington). I am happy to join the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney in congratulating all those Members who made maiden speeches today. I look forward to hearing all the maiden speakers taking part in our debates.
    The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North was anxious to take up a specific constituency point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend and he will consider the hon. Gentleman's comments carefully and write to him. I am sure that all hon. Members who have spoken today made effective speeches. I recall my maiden speech 13 years ago. Afterwards, I was congratulated by Mr. Jeffrey Archer, who was then an hon. Member. He said to me, "At least it will read well." I say to all those hon. Members who made their maiden speeches and perhaps did not think that they did their best—although I am bound to say that I did not hear any of those—that at least Mr. Archer is an expert on the written word.
    I join hon. and right hon. Members in congratulating those new Members who have come through their baptism of fire with such credit during the past week. One of the features of the class of '87 has been the number of them who have made reputations for themselves before coming to this place — in the European Parliament, in local government and in other activities. The House has a tradition, however, of forming its own judgments and of not necessarily accepting the evaluation of others. On their performances so far, the new Members stand to be judged favourably by the House, and we look forward to hearing more from them and from their colleagues.
    718
    In accordance with the best spirit of the House, maiden speakers consistently paid tribute to their predecessors. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) spoke for many of us when he commented so generously on his predecessor, Roy Jenkins, whose contribution both to the Government and to Parliament was outstanding. I join also the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and the Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) in their tributes to Enoch Powell, as a great parliamentarian, whose absence from this place will be keenly felt.
    As well as giving us an opportunity to welcome new Members, the debate has afforded us the chance to welcome back some old friends and adversaries. In particular, I mention the hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), for Eccles (Miss Lestor), for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) and for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). All of them spoke most effectively in the debate.
    The debate has also been the occasion for some notable speeches from more experienced Members. I was particularly struck by the thoughtful words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) when he spoke last Thursday about regional issues and the need to ensure that all parts of the country can participate in the success of our economic policies.
    On Friday the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) made his final speech from the Front Bench with characteristic style. He spoke of moving to a higher perch from which to select a wider range of quarry. It is one of the great qualities of the right hon. Gentleman that, when he says that, his colleagues on his own Benches know that his sights will not be set solely on the Government.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), in a forceful speech today, called for the fullest possible debate, and I have taken careful note of his call.
    I congratulate also my hon. Friends the Members for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) on the way in which they began the proceedings last Thursday. The good humour and the good sense with which they spoke was apparent. They are two distinguished representatives of industrial areas, and I pay tribute to them for their worthwhile contributions to our debate. Their reward has been swift. One of them has won the ballot for private Members' motions on 17 July, and the other was sixth in the ballot for private Members' Bills.
    I am pleased also to have this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). As Leader of the House, he showed a deep understanding of the House and its moods, which was based on his experience as a Member for over 25 years. My right hon. Friend remains a "House of Commons man" in the best sense of the term, and I am pleased to have had the opportunity to work with him throughout the last Parliament in managing the Government's business. I cannot hope to equal his wit or eloquence—qualities which he demonstrated again in his speech on Tuesday—but I shall try to emulate his courtesy, patience and willingness to learn.
    In my previous incarnation I was, as I am in my present role, concerned with business management, but I recognise that the Leader of the House is not simply the Patronage Secretary with a voice. Herbert Morrison, one of my predecessors, outlined five responsibilities that fall on the Leader of the House: to the Government; to individual

    719
    Ministers concerned with business; to the Government's own supporters on the Back Benches; to the Opposition; and, as importantly, to the House as a whole. He believed that the Leader of the House must regard himself not only as a member of the Government, but as one of the principal guardians of the rights of the House of Commons as a whole. Like my predecessors, I shall try to discharge all those responsibilities as fully and as faithfully as I can.
    The House may be beginning to feel, however, that I am taking the vocal aspects of my job too seriously. This is the third occasion on which I have been at the Dispatch Box in as many days. None the less, this is my first speech in the House for some years, because the life in the Whips' Office has precluded my speaking in the Chamber. Looking back, I find that my last speech in the Chamber was over four years ago on an Opposition amendment to the Finance Bill. On that occasion we had a relatively short debate, which was marked by some measures of agreement. At the end of it the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) withdrew his amendment. I hope that it will prove a model for the debates in the future to which I shall contribute.
    It is a tradition on these occasions for the Leader of the House to say a few words about House of Commons issues before going on to consider the legislative programme as outlined last week, and the specific theme of today's debate, the use of national resources. Certain issues, of course, arise not only at the beginning of a Parliament. I am aware that there is some interest in the early reestablishment of the Select Committees. That is a recognition of the way in which the Select Committees contributed to the work of the last Parliament, as was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to him in his role as Chairman of the Liaison Committee during the last Parliament. He fulfilled that role with both effectiveness and distinction.
    Mr. Dalyell: Might there not be a case for a Select Committee on the mechanics and implementation of any community charge? Does the Leader of the House not recognise that there are grave difficulties in collection? The matter has not been thought through and the House of Commons should have its say on the mechanics of the poll tax.
    Mr. Wakeham: The information and the way in which we arrange Select Committees in the House is always the result of, first, discussion through the usual channels, and, secondly, the matter being brought before the House. The departmental Select Committees were set up so that the workings of individual Departments could be monitored by the House. I see no necessity to have an additional Select Committee to deal with an aspect of Government policy that will be much discussed in the House, and which can perfectly reasonably be discussed by the Select Committees already established for dealing with matters connected either with the Scottish Office or with the Department of the Environment.
    Mr. David Alton: My question is not so much about the establishment of new Select Committees, but I should like to press the Leader
    720
    of the House further on the question that I asked him this afternoon. Is it the Government's intention in principle to re-establish a Scottish Select Committee?
    Mr. Wakeham: I have no reason to think that we will not establish that, along with all the others, but I do not want to be firm about that until we have had proper discussions through the usual channels to see whether that is the general will of the House.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman now address himself to the democratic issue of whether the Select Committees of the territorial Departments—the Scottish and Welsh Offices —will represent the result of the election in both those countries, or whether they will reflect the balance of power in the House?
    Mr. Wakeham: I find that a distorted view of the British constitution. This is a United Kingdom Parliament—a Parliament of the whole of the United Kingdom. The Select Committees are Committees of the House of Commons and should represent its views.
    Mr. John David Taylor: I agree entirely with the Leader of the House that this is the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Will he therefore give Northern Ireland the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as Scotland and Wales?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am delighted to see the hon. Members from Northern Ireland in their places, playing a full part in the House. Let us see how we go on from there.
    I am sure the House will appreciate, however, that the re-establishment of these Committees can take a little time, not least because we wish to proceed on the basis of as much agreement as possible. Aside from the question of membership of the Committees, which itself can be the subject of much discussion, there are proposals for revised arrangements to consider. I have noted for example, the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale) with regard to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
    I am also aware of the considerable interest that has been shown, not least by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North, in the arrangements for the Scottish Affairs Committee and other aspects of Scottish and Welsh business which have been mentioned in some of the interventions. I also take note of the suggestions from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). These arrangements will, of course, be for discussion through the usual channels. However, I say now that I would be happy to see Members from the parties most concerned in these issues if they would find that helpful. I believe that, with an amount of tolerance and understanding on all parts, we can find a practical way through. I assure the whole House that we will use our best endeavours to find an early and generally satisfactory resolution to these questions.
    Another matter requiring early resolution is Members' pay. As Members may recall, the resolution passed by the House in July 1983 provided a link between a Member's salary and a particular point on the Civil Service pay scale, but for that to take effect confirmation of the resolution was required within three months of a new Parliament. My intention is, therefore, to provide the House with an opportunity to express a view on this before we rise for the summer recess. Such matters have traditionally been for

    721
    the House, rather than the Government, to determine, and I am pleased to have this chance to stress that we have no intention of departing from that tradition on this occasion.
    On a similar subject, Members will be aware that not long before Parliament was dissolved we received a report from the Top Salaries Review Body on the secretarial, research and office equipment allowance. Its recommendations, of course, require consultation and discussion with Members on both sides of the House. I shall be setting those consultations in hand soon and will put proposals before the House in the light of them.
    It is also clear that the House will wish to have a relatively early debate on the possibility of televising our proceedings. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney raised this subject and it was clear from business questions today that many hon. Gentlemen are interested in this matter. You, Mr. Speaker, in your speech last week showed some concern about the distorted impressions that could be given by the sound broadcast of selected extracts from proceedings. I also note that my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe) hoped that we should have an early opportunity to consider and vote on the question of televising.
    Early-clay motion 15, about the appointment of a Select Committee to consider and make recommendations on the implementation of an experiment in televising proceedings, has already attracted some distinguished signatories. This was, however, the approach which the House rejected by a majority of 12 when we debated the issue in November 1985. The House may recall also an early-day motion in the last Parliament, which attracted 90 signatories, for a different approach to the question of televising. That motion favoured televising Select Committee proceedings. In the light of these expressions of opinion I shall consider most carefully how to present the House with an opportunity for decision.
    I should like at this point to say a few words about the role that Parliament can and should play in our affairs. During the election campaign, and indeed afterwards, we heard calls for extra-parliamentary activity from, among others, the hon. Members for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown). Naturally, it is entirely a matter for individual Members how they choose to carry out the responsibilities for which they have been elected, but I hope that the whole House will recognise that this Chamber has a unique function in the national debate. Without going quite as far as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), when in the course of congratulating you, Mr. Speaker, on your re-election he called for more emergency debates, I can join him in stressing the need to discuss in this House matters that are of prime concern.
    These issues naturally include the legislation contained in the Queen's Speech. So comprehensive and radical is its nature that it has entirely borne comparison with the programme of the 1945 Government. Some people criticised us—a little unfairly I think—after the 1983 election for not having a clear enough thought through strategy and for not having a bold programme. No one could make either of those charges today. One only has to look, for example, at our proposals on education, housing and trade union reform.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: The Government claim that they want to provide more choice in housing and that
    722
    people should be able to choose their landlords. Why are the Government not allowing tenants of private landlords to opt for councils to become their landlords? If the Government genuinely believe in freedom, they should let those people choose. If the Government believe in the right to buy, why are they not allowing the tenants of private landlords the right to buy?
    Mr. Wakeham: That just shows how little the hon. Gentleman understands the problem. The problem in the private sector is to find any landlords prepared to let any property. The proposals in our manifesto will go a substantial way towards bringing about 500,000 dwellings into use which no landlord is at present prepared to let to any tenant and which are greatly needed to increase the opportunities for rented accommodation for many of our people.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) urged us not to let our enthusiasm run away with us. I take note of what he said, and I am sure he will appreciate that, as a business manager, enthusiasm is only one of the feelings with which I approach this ambitious legislative programme.
    Undoubtedly, the measure that has dominated the debate has been our proposal to abolish the present discredited rating system and replace it with a community charge. As a business manager, I hope that this level of interest will be reflected in the competition to go on the Standing Committee of the Bill.
    I recognise that some of my hon. Friends may have misgivings about the detail of our proposals. There are two points that I should make here. In speaking about the community charge my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said that he would listen to the arguments that have led us to our proposals. I trust that hon. Members in all parts of the House will do so also. At the outset, however, I hope that we can all agree that the present system is in need of reform and that we should replace it with a fairer and more accountable system. Continuing with the present system is not an option. Rates charged on a revaluation of the present 1973 values do not bear thinking about.
    The debate will not, of course, focus solely on the legislation that is brought forward. It will range much more widely than that, as this debate has already shown. In the course of today's debate and, indeed, over the last few weeks, Opposition Members have sought to persuade the public that the British economy is in terminal decline and that depression, deprivation and misery are the common lot. The public do not believe it. People know that the rate of inflation has slowed, not just because they read that the inflation rate has dropped from over 10 per cent. in 1979 to 4 per cent. today, but because they see it when they look at the prices in the shops.
    People know that our manufacturing industry is much more productive, not just because the figures published by the international institutions show that the United Kingdom's productivity growth has outstripped that of every other major country during the 1980s, but because they see it in their own factories. People know that unemployment is on the way down, not just because the unemployment count has fallen for 11 months in a row—in the last month by a record amount—but because local newspapers are stuffed full of job advertisements.
    Hon. Members should look at the forecast made earlier this week by the London Business School. There is the

    723
    evidence of the latest CBI survey, which is based on how manufacturing companies see the future. The balance of firms expecting an increase in output is at record levels, and so is the balance of firms reporting above normal export order books. This is no flash in the pan. For many months the CBI surveys have produced a similarly positive picture. People overseas understand that perfectly well. The OECD and the IMF both forecast that the United Kingdom will grow faster in 1987 than any other industrial country.
    The success of our privatisation programme has helped to bring about a dramatic change in the spread of ownership. The number of shareholders has roughly trebled under this Government and is currently about 8·5 million. Our aim of increasing the spread of ownership is reflected also in the proportion of householders who now own their own homes. It is 63 per cent., the highest ever level. We shall continue to pursue these policies, which have created our economic success. They provide the sound financial background against which we see unemployment falling. Since June 1986 it has gone down by 250,000. Though one would not know it if one listened to the Opposition, it is falling fastest in Wales, the north-west, the west midlands and the north. Since 1983 employment has grown in every region.
    Our task is to ensure that all the country participates fully in our economic success. The key is to encourage enterprise, to improve skills, and to target resources carefully on the areas, such as inner cities, with the greatest problems. Urban development corporations have now begun in Tyne and Wear, Teesside, the Black Country and Trafford Park. These follow the Merseyside Development Corporation and the London Docklands Development Corporation. We heard earlier in the debate about their success.
    In short, our philosophy is to set the people free, to establish the widest possible spread of property and ownership.
    When we came into office in 1979 inflation was running riot. Hardest hit were the pensioners, whose savings collapsed, the skilled workers, who lost out in the wages scramble and the young couples, who longed for a home of their own. Britain was a laughing stock of the world for its strikes. Many key industries were outdated, overmanned and subsidised to keep phoney jobs going.
    Mr. Derek Foster rose in this place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 353.

    Division No. 2]

    [10.00 pm

    AYES

    Allen, Graham

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Alton, David

    Barron, Kevin

    Anderson, Donald

    Battle, John

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Beckett, Margaret

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Beggs, Roy

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Beith, A. J.

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Bell, Stuart

    Ashton, Joe

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    724

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Blair, Tony

    Grocott, Bruce

    Blunkett, David

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Boateng, Paul

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Haynes, Frank

    Boyes, Roland

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Bradley, Keith

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Henderson, Douglas

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Holland, Stuart

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Home Robertson, John

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Hood, James

    Buchan, Norman

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Buckley, George

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Caborn, Richard

    Howells, Geraint

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hoyle, Doug

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Hume, John

    Cartwright, John

    Illsley, Eric

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Ingram, Adam

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Janner, Greville

    Clay, Bob

    John, Brynmor

    Clelland, David

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Cohen, Harry

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Coleman, Donald

    Kennedy, Charles

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Kilfedder, James

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Corbett, Robin

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Lambie, David

    Cousins, Jim

    Lamond, James

    Crowther, Stan

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Cryer, Bob

    Leighton, Ron

    Cummings, J.

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Lewis, Terry

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Litherland, Robert

    Dalyell, Tam

    Livingstone, Ken

    Darling, Alastair

    Livsey, Richard

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lanelli)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Dewar, Donald

    Loyden, Eddie

    Dixon, Don

    McAllion, John

    Dobson, Frank

    McAvoy, Tom

    Doran, Frank

    McCartney, Ian

    Douglas, Dick

    McCrea, Rev William

    Dunnachie, James

    McCusker, Harold

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Macdonald, Calum

    Eastham, Ken

    McFall, John

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    McKelvey, William

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    McLeish, Henry

    Fatchett, Derek

    Maclennan, Robert

    Faulds, Andrew

    McNamara, Kevin

    Fearn, Ronald

    McTaggart, Bob

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    McWilliam, John

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

    Madden, Max

    Fisher, Mark

    Maginnis, Ken

    Flannery, Martin

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Flynn, Paul

    Mallon, Seamus

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Marek, Dr John

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Foster, Derek

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Foulkes, George

    Martin, Michael (Springburn)

    Fraser, John

    Martlew, Eric

    Fyfe, Mrs Maria

    Maxton, John

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Meacher, Michael

    Galloway, George

    Meale, Alan

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Michael, Alun

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    George, Bruce

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Gordon, Ms Mildred

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Gould, Bryan

    Morley, Elliott

    Graham, Thomas

    Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

    Grant Bernie (Tottenham)

    Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

    725

    Mullin, Chris

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Murphy, Paul

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

    Nellist, Dave

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

    Oakes. Rt Hon Gordon

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    O'Brien, William

    Snape, Peter

    O'Neill, Martin

    Soley, Clive

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Spearing, Nigel

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Steinberg, Gerald

    Parry, Robert

    Stott, Roger

    Patchett, Terry

    Strang, Gavin

    Pendry, Tom

    Straw, Jack

    Pike, Peter

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

    Prescott, John

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Primarolo, Ms Dawn

    Thomas, Dafydd Elis

    Quin, Miss Joyce

    Turner, Dennis

    Radice, Giles

    Vaz, Keith

    Randall, Stuart

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Redmond, Martin

    Wall, Pat

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Wallace, James

    Reid, John

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Richardson, Ms Jo

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Robertson, George

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Rogers, Allan

    Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

    Rooker, Jeff

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Wilson, Brian

    Ross, William (Londonderry E)

    Winnick, David

    Rowlands, Ted

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Worthington, Anthony

    Salmond, Alex

    Wray, James

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Mr. Ron Davies and

    Short, Clare

    Mr. Allen McKay.

    Skinner, Dennis

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Alexander, Richard

    Brazier, Julian

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Bright, Graham

    Allason, Rupert

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

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

    Amess, David

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Amos, Alan

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Ashby, David

    Burns, Simon

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Burt, Alistair

    Atkins, Robert

    Butcher, John

    Atkinson, David

    Butler, Chris

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Butterfill, John

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Baldry, Tony

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Batiste, Spencer

    Carttiss, Michael

    Bellingham, Henry

    Cash, William

    Bendall, Vivian

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Benyon, W.

    Chapman, Sydney

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Chope, Christopher

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Churchill, Mr

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

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

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Body, Sir Richard

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Colvin, Michael

    Boswell, Tim

    Conway, Derek

    Bottomley, Peter

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Cope, John

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Bowis, John

    Couchman, James

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Cran, James

    726

    Critchley, Julian

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Curry, David

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

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

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Day, Stephen

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Devlin, Tim

    Hunter, Andrew

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Dicks, Terry

    Irvine, Michael

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Irving, Charles

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Jack, Michael

    Dover, Den

    Jackson, Robert

    Dunn, Bob

    Janman, Timothy

    Durant, Tony

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Dykes, Hugh

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Eggar, Tim

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Evennett, David

    Key, Robert

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Fallon, Michael

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Farr, Sir John

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Favell, Tony

    Knapman, Roger

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Knowles, Michael

    Forman, Nigel

    Knox, David

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Forth, Eric

    Lang, Ian

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Latham, Michael

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Franks, Cecil

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Freeman, Roger

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    French, Douglas

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Fry, Peter

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Gale, Roger

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Gardiner, George

    Lightbown, David

    Gill, Christopher

    Lilley, Peter

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Lord, Michael

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    McCrindle, Robert

    Gorst, John

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Gow, Ian

    MacGregor, John

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Maclean, David

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Greenway, John (Rydale)

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Gregory, Conal

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Madel, David

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Grist, Ian

    Malins, Humfrey

    Ground, Patrick

    Mans, Keith

    Grylls, Michael

    Maples, John

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Marlow, Tony

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Mates, Michael

    Hannam, John

    Maude, Hon Francis

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

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Harris, David

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Mellor, David

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Hayes, Jerry

    Miller, Hal

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Mills, Iain

    Hayward, Robert

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Heddle, John

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Moate, Roger

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hill, James

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Hind, Kenneth

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Holt, Richard

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

    Howard, Michael

    Moss, Malcolm

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

    Moynihan, Hon C

    727

    Mudd, David

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Neale, Gerrard

    Squire, Robin

    Needham, Richard

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Nelson, Anthony

    Steen, Anthony

    Neubert, Michael

    Stern, Michael

    Newton, Tony

    Stevens, Lewis

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

    Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Sumberg, David

    Page, Richard

    Summerson, Hugo

    Paice, James

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Patten, Chris (Bath)

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Pawsey, James

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Thorne, Neil

    Portillo, Michael

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Price, Sir David

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Raffan, Keith

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Tracey, Richard

    Rathbone, Tim

    Tredinnick, David

    Redwood, John

    Trippier, David

    Renton, Tim

    Trotter, Neville

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Riddick, Graham

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Walden, George

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

    Rost, Peter

    Waller, Gary

    Rowe, Andrew

    Walters, Dennis

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Ward, John

    Ryder, Richard

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Warren, Kenneth

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Watts, John

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Wells, Bowen

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Wheeler, John

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Whitney, Ray

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Widdecombe, Miss Ann

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Wilshire, David

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Shersby, Michael

    Wolfson, Mark

    Sims, Roger

    Wood, Timothy

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Woodcock, Mike

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Speed, Keith

    Mr. Robert Boscawen and

    Speller, Tony

    Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

    Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Amendment proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Calling of amendments at end of debate), at the end of the Question add:
    but humbly regret that the proposals set out in the Gracious Speech do not deal with the problems of a nation that is socially divided and politically over-centralised; believe that the Gracious Speech should have contained proposals for the regeneration of manufacturing industry through a partnership between central government, local government and private enterprise, for the promotion of worker participation in the management of their companies, for measures to devolve power to the Scottish and Welsh people through a directly elected Scottish parliament and a directly elected Welsh Senedd, and for membership of the exchange rate mechanism of the European Monetary System; regret that instead of enhancing the authority and accountability of local
    728
    government through the introduction of proportional representation and a local income tax, the Gracious Speech contains proposals for an unfair and unworkable poll tax; and further regret that the proposals in the Gracious Speech will place excessive powers in the hands of the Secretary of State for Education and Science without increasing the resources available for education and training. — [Mr. Steel.]
    Question put, That the amendent be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 26, Noes 351.

    Division No. 3]

    [10.15 pm

    AYES

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Maclennan, Robert

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Mallon, Seamus

    Beith, A. J.

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Salmond, Alex

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Fearn, Ronald

    Thomas, Dafydd Elis

    Howells, Geraint

    Wallace, James

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Hume, John

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Kennedy, Charles

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Mr. David Alton and

    Livsey, Richard

    Mr. John Cartwright.

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Burt, Alistair

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Butcher, John

    Alexander, Richard

    Butler, Chris

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Butterfill, John

    Allason, Rupert

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Amess, David

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Amos, Alan

    Carrington, Matthew

    Arbuthnot, James

    Carttiss, Michael

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Cash, William

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Ashby, David

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Chapman, Sydney

    Atkins, Robert

    Chope, Christopher

    Atkinson, David

    Churchill, Mr

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

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

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Baldry, Tony

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Colvin, Michael

    Bellingham, Henry

    Conway, Derek

    Bendall, Vivian

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Benyon, W.

    Cope, John

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Cormack, Patrick

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Couchman, James

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Cran, James

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Curry, David

    Body, Sir Richard

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

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Boswell, Tim

    Day, Stephen

    Bottomley, Peter

    Devlin, Tim

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Dicks, Terry

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Bowis, John

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Dover, Den

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Dunn, Bob

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Durant, Tony

    Brazier, Julian

    Dykes, Hugh

    Bright, Graham

    Eggar, Tim

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Emery, Sir Peter

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

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Evennett, David

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Fallon, Michael

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Farr, Sir John

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Favell, Tony

    Burns, Simon

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    729

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Knowles, Michael

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Knox, David

    Forman, Nigel

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lang, Ian

    Forth, Eric

    Latham, Michael

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Franks, Cecil

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Freeman, Roger

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    French, Douglas

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Fry, Peter

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Gale, Roger

    Lightbown, David

    Gardiner, George

    Lilley, Peter

    Gill, Christopher

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Lord, Michael

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    McCrindle, Robert

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Gorst, John

    MacGregor, John

    Gow, Ian

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Maclean, David

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Greenway, John (Rydale)

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Gregory, Conal

    Madel, David

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Grist, Ian

    Malins, Humfrey

    Ground, Patrick

    Mans, Keith

    Grylls, Michael

    Maples, John

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Marlow, Tony

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Mates, Michael

    Hannam, John

    Maude, Hon Francis

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

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Harris, David

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Mellor, David

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Hayes, Jerry

    Miller, Hal

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Mills, Iain

    Hayward, Robert

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Heddle, John

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Moate, Roger

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hill, James

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Hind, Kenneth

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Holt, Richard

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

    Howard, Michael

    Moss, Malcolm

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

    Moynihan, Hon C.

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Mudd, David

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Neale, Gerrard

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Needham, Richard

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Neubert, Michael

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Newton, Tony

    Hunter, Andrew

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Irvine, Michael

    Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

    Irving, Charles

    Onslow, Cranley

    Jack, Michael

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Jackson, Robert

    Page, Richard

    Janman, Timothy

    Paice, James

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Patten, Chris (Bath)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Key, Robert

    Pawsey, James

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Knapman, Roger

    Portillo, Michael

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Price, Sir David

    730

    Raffan, Keith

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Redwood, John

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Renton, Tim

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Riddick, Graham

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Thorne, Neil

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Rost, Peter

    Tracey, Richard

    Rowe, Andrew

    Tredinnick, David

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Trippier, David

    Ryder, Richard

    Trotter, Neville

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Walden, George

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Waller, Gary

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Walters, Dennis

    Shersby, Michael

    Ward, John

    Sims, Roger

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Warren, Kenneth

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Watts, John

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Wells, Bowen

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Wheeler, John

    Speed, Keith

    Whitney, Ray

    Speller, Tony

    Widdecombe, Miss Ann

    Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Wilshire, David

    Squire, Robin

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Steen, Anthony

    Wolfson, Mark

    Stern, Michael

    Wood, Timothy

    Stevens, Lewis

    Woodcock, Mike

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Yeo, Tim

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

    Stradling, Thomas, Sir John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Sumberg, David

    Mr. Robert Boscawen and

    Summerson, Hugo

    Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Main Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 347, Noes 247.

    Division No. 4]

    [10.25 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Alexander, Richard

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Allason, Rupert

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Amess, David

    Body, Sir Richard

    Amos, Alan

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Arbuthnot, James

    Boswell, Tim

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bottomley, Peter

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Ashby, David

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Atkins, Robert

    Bowis, John

    Atkinson, David

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Baldry, Tony

    Brazier, Julian

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Bright, Graham

    Batiste, Spencer

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Bellingham, Henry

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

    Bendall, Vivian

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Benyon, W.

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    731

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Ground, Patrick

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Grylls, Michael

    Burns, Simon

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Burt, Alistair

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Butcher, John

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Butler, Chris

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Butterfill, John

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Hannam, John

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

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

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Harris, David

    Cash, William

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hayes, Jerry

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Chope, Christopher

    Hayward, Robert

    Churchill, Mr

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

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

    Heddle, John

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Colvin, Michael

    Hill, James

    Conway, Derek

    Hind, Kenneth

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Holt, Richard

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Cope, John

    Howard, Michael

    Cormack, Patrick

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

    Couchman, James

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Cran, James

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Curry, David

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

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

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Day, Stephen

    Hunter, Andrew

    Devlin, Tim

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Irvine, Michael

    Dicks, Terry

    Jack, Michael

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Jackson, Robert

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Janman, Timothy

    Dover, Den

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Dunn, Bob

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Durant, Tony

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Eggar, Tim

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Key, Robert

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Evennett, David

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Fallon, Michael

    Knapman, Roger

    Farr, Sir John

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Favell, Tony

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Knowles, Michael

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Knox, David

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Forman, Nigel

    Lang, Ian

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Latham, Michael

    Forth, Eric

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Franks, Cecil

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Freeman, Roger

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    French, Douglas

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Fry, Peter

    Lightbown, David

    Gale, Roger

    Lilley, Peter

    Gardiner, George

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Gill, Christopher

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Lord, Michael

    Glyn, Dr Alan

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    McCrindle, Robert

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    MacGregor, John

    Gorst, John

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Gow, Ian

    Maclean, David

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Greenway, John (Rydale)

    Madel, David

    Gregory, Conal

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Grist, Ian

    Mans, Keith

    732

    Maples, John

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Marlow, Tony

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Shersby, Michael

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Sims, Roger

    Mates, Michael

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Speed, Keith

    Mellor, David

    Speller, Tony

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

    Miller, Hal

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Mills, Iain

    Squire, Robin

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Steen, Anthony

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Stern, Michael

    Moate, Roger

    Stevens, Lewis

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Stradling, Thomas, Sir John

    Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

    Sumberg, David

    Moss, Malcolm

    Summerson, Hugo

    Moynihan, Hon C.

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Mudd, David

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Neale, Gerrard

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Needham, Richard

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Neubert, Michael

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Newton, Tony

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

    Thorne, Neil

    Onslow, Cranley

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Thurnham, Peter

    Page, Richard

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Paice, James

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Tracey, Richard

    Patnick, Irvine

    Tredinnick, David

    Patten, Chris (Bath)

    Trippier, David

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Trotter, Neville

    Pawsey, James

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Portillo, Michael

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Walden, George

    Price, Sir David

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Raffan, Keith

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Waller, Gary

    Rathbone, Tim

    Walters, Dennis

    Redwood, John

    Ward, John

    Renton, Tim

    Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Warren, Kenneth

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Watts, John

    Riddick, Graham

    Wells, Bowen

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Wheeler, John

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Whitney, Ray

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Widdecombe, Miss Ann

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Wilshire, David

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Rost, Peter

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Rowe, Andrew

    Wolfson, Mark

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Wood, Timothy

    Ryder, Richard

    Woodcock, Mike

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Yeo, Tim

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Mr. Robert Boscawen and

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    NOES

    Allen, Graham

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Alton, David

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Anderson, Donald

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Barron, Kevin

    733

    Battle, John

    George, Bruce

    Beckett, Margaret

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Beggs, Roy

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Beith, A. J.

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Bell, Stuart

    Gordon, Ms Mildred

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Gould, Bryan

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

    Graham, Thomas

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Grant Bernie (Tottenham)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Blair, Tony

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Blunkett, David

    Grocott, Bruce

    Boateng, Paul

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Boyes, Roland

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Bradley, Keith

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Henderson, Douglas

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Holland, Stuart

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Home Robertson, John

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Hood, James

    Buchan, Norman

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Buckley, George

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Caborn, Richard

    Howells, Geraint

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hoyle, Doug

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Illsley, Eric

    Cartwright, John

    Ingram, Adam

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Janner, Greville

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    John, Brynmor

    Clay, Bob

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Clelland, David

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Cohen, Harry

    Kennedy, Charles

    Coleman, Donald

    Kilfedder, James

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Corbett, Robin

    Lambie, David

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Lamond, James

    Cousins, Jim

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Crowther, Stan

    Leighton, Ron

    Cryer, Bob

    Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

    Cummings, J.

    Lewis, Terry

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Litherland, Robert

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Livingstone, Ken

    Dalyell, Tam

    Livsey, Richard

    Darling, Alastair

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lanelli)

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Loyden, Eddie

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

    McAllion, John

    Dewar, Donald

    McAvoy, Tom

    Dixon, Don

    McCartney, Ian

    Dobson, Frank

    McCrea, Rev William

    Doran, Frank

    McCusker, Harold

    Douglas, Dick

    Macdonald, Calum

    Dunnachie, James

    McFall, John

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    McKelvey, William

    Eastham, Ken

    McLeish, Henry

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Fatchett, Derek

    McTaggart, Bob

    Faulds, Andrew

    McWilliam, John

    Fearn, Ronald

    Madden, Max

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Maginnis, Ken

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

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Fisher, Mark

    Marek, Dr John

    Flannery, Martin

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Flynn, Paul

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Martin, Michael (Springburn)

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Martlew, Eric

    Foster, Derek

    Maxton, John

    Foulkes, George

    Meacher, Michael

    Fraser, John

    Meale, Alan

    Fyfe, Mrs Maria

    Michael, Alun

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Galloway, George

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    734

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Short, Clare

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Skinner, Dennis

    Morley, Elliott

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

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

    Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

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

    Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Mullin, Chris

    Snape, Peter

    Murphy, Paul

    Soley, Clive

    Nellist. Dave

    Spearing, Nigel

    O'Brien, William

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    O'Neill, Martin

    Steinberg, Gerald

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Stott, Roger

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Strang, Gavin

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Straw, Jack

    Parry, Robert

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Patchett, Terry

    Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

    Pendry, Tom

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Pike, Peter

    Thomas, Dafydd Elis

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Turner, Dennis

    Prescott, John

    Vaz, Keith

    Primarolo, Ms Dawn

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Quin, Miss Joyce

    Wall, Pat

    Radice, Giles

    Wallace, James

    Randall, Stuart

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Redmond, Martin

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Reid, John

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Richardson, Ms Jo

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Robertson, George

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Wilson, Brian

    Rooker, Jeff

    Winnick, David

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Ross, William (Londonderry E)

    Worthington, Anthony

    Rowlands, Ted

    Wray, James

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Salmond, Alex

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Sheerman, Barry

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Mr. Allen McKay.

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:—
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
    To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

    National Resources

      STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
      Ordered,
      That so much of the Lords Message of 29th June as relates to a Joint Committee of both Houses to scrutinise delegated legislation be now considered.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
      Lords Message considered accordingly.
      Resolved,
      That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

      WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
      Ordered,
      That during the proceedings on the matter of the Queen's Speech and its effects on Wales, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet, and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before Four o'clock nor continue after the Committee has considered the matter for two hours at that sitting.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

  Liverpool
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
  10.43 pm
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I am sure that the House is most interested to know that at last the Prime Minister recognises that our cities have very real problems. Some of us have been concerned with those problems for a long time.
  In this Adjournment debate, I am raising not just the inner city problems of Liverpool, I am raising the problems of the city as a whole. We cannot divorce one from the other. There cannot be a solution to the inner city problems of Liverpool without a solution to the problems of the whole city. I want to make that absolutely clear.
  I am not raising the problems of Liverpool purely for propaganda purposes. The needs of the people of Liverpool are very serious. The city needs much more genuine assistance than it has received, despite what Lord Young and others have said about the support given to Liverpool.
  Our city is a victim of its history. It was a great port, handling a quarter of Britain's imports and exports. Until after the second world war, its industries related to the port. To that extent, the economy was unbalanced. With the decline of the port through the growth of air traffic, Britain's entry into the Common Market, and the change in the patterns of world trade, the port and its related industries were badly hit. Instead of new industries being introduced, especially in the past eight years, there has been a further deindustrialisation of the area. Unemployment, poverty and allied problems have grown.
  Liverpool has some of the worst levels of unemployment in the country. We have the highest number of people receiving supplementary benefit. Despite what the Liverpool city council has achieved, we still have bad housing and a serious drug problem, and petty crime is on the increase. Those problems occur not only in the inner city but in the entire city.
  With regard to unemployment, in April of this year, there were 52,572 claimants resident in the city. About 19,288, 35 per cent., were under 25 years of age, and 20,955, 55 per cent., had been unemployed for over one year. That figure is well above the national average, which is 42 per cent. In February of this year, the average rate of unemployment for the six Liverpool constituencies was 24 per cent., compared with a national average of 12·6 per cent. On 10 February, those receiving supplementary benefit from the 11 offices in the city numbered 138,287. In contrast, in February 1979, the number, although still too high, was 90,550.
  In April 1986, although there has been some reduction because of the Liverpool city council's efforts, the housing waiting list was 19,696. One does not need too great an imagination to realise just how serious the problems are. In 1983, the Liverpool city council began to tackle some of the problems. It built 4,900 houses, pulled down slums such as Sir Thomas White gardens in my constituency, built six sports centres, built nursery schools, kept council house rents down—it did not increase them—and also kept down other local authority charges. It did a good job, but it was at a disadvantage because of the cut in rate support and other grants. It began the regeneration of the
  736
  city with its hands tied behind its back, but it tried, and its members have suffered for it through surcharges and disqualification from office.
  Liverpool needs jobs, new industry and the resuscitation of existing industry where that is possible. Tourism can play a part, but only a minor one, in the redevelopment of our city. The new developments along the line of the old docks can help, but much more is required. The festival gardens were great while they lasted, but they have not produced too many permanent jobs, which are what is required. The maritime museum and the Albert dock complex are very nice, but they cannot begin to be the answer to Liverpool's needs.
  The Minister who is to reply recently visited the city and is reported in the Liverpool papers as having said that the way forward is for Liverpool to encourage small local companies to employ local people. I and, I am sure, my colleagues from Liverpool do not oppose that, but I have to tell the Minister that that is only the minor part of the answer. In 1984, more than half of the 45,455 people employed in manufacturing were employed by just seven firms.
  The fragility of manufacturing industry is underlined by the City of Liverpool's study of the Liverpool economy which says:
  "The de-industrialisation' of Liverpool is nowhere more evident than in the City's manufacturing industries. Traditional industries like sugar refining, soap making, ship repairing, marine engineering and rope and twine manufacture have ended or are nearing the end of their long-standing role as sources of employment. Other industries transplanted in the early post-war period — rubber and synthetic fibre manufacturing—have also disappeared to become part of the area's economic history."
  We have unemployment and deindustrialisation, and because of that we have low pay on a massive scale. The Low Pay Unit on Merseyside says in a pamphlet:
  "A total of a a quarter of million Merseysiders—nearly a third of the full-time workforce and three-quarters of part-timers — work for wages that fall below the Council of Europe's minimum threshold for a 'decent' standard of living. Added to the widespread unemployment problem the extent of low pay has left around two-fifths of the Merseyside population living in or on the margins of poverty."
  The House should take note of that. The Government must be far more responsive to the needs of our area. When beginning to concern themselves with the inner cities, they should not start by threatening or by-passing the elected local authority. The Government should help the local authority, and back it up by giving assistance and restoring some of the rate support grant—I would say all of the rate support grant—that has been taken away from Liverpool city council.
  An editorial in the Liverpool Daily Post of 17 June stated:
  "It must be very disappointing to new Trade and Industry Secretary Lord Young that the sticking plaster applied by the Government to the gaping wounds of Merseyside have not produced an instant cure.
  But how much more disappointing to all those working in the region and for the region to have the rug suddenly pulled from beneath their feet by the man who is supposed to lead their efforts.
  The fundamental facts that lie behind Merseyside's decline as a trading, commercial and manufacturing area are historic and geopolitical forces and not some deficiency of its people."
  That is absolutely right. So often we hear that if only the workers had not done certain things, there would not have been a decline in the area. That is definitely untrue.

  737
  I rarely quote the chairman of the chamber of commerce, but he said of Merseyside development corporation:
  "Its success in the docklands is due to the fact that it makes all the planning decisions, it has the right to acquire land and it has no human problems to contend with since all its operations are confined to the redundant part of the waterfront up river from the Pier Head. It is the Chamber's view that a critical factor in the success of the Development Corporation is that there is no human factor in its area of operations. But, were a development corporation to be superimposed on an area where people live, then the problem is likely to become acute and the active co-operation of the local authority essential."
  Even the chamber of commerce, which has mainly backed the Government, has made it clear that it wants the local authorities to be properly involved in this matter.
  "Housing Policies and the Inner City" issued by the Archdiocese of Liverpool Justice and Peace Commission 1987 states:
  "the implicit philosophy which it involves — public investment as the important element—comes up against the government view that the role of the public sector should be reduced. But this will cut off the funds needed to achieve the necessary regeneration. For instance, between 1979 and 1985, the Rate Support Grant for Liverpool was reduced from 62 per cent. to 44 per cent. Agenda for Merseyside has calculated that while in the past six years, government spending in Merseyside has pumped in £200 million."—
  we keep hearing that more money is being pumped into Liverpool than into any other area—
  "with the other hand it has withdrawn a total of £590 million, through reductions in rate support grants etc."
  We hear about the aid that has been pumped in, but very little, if anything, has been said by the Government about the money that has been taken out. Everyone understands what the position is.
  I have made the point clearly. The first needs of Merseyside and Liverpool are jobs through public investment and private initiatives—we are not arguing against that. The continuing regeneration of the city through Government support to the local authority's housing programme, through co-operative housing — I am not arguing against that—and other public works is required.
  Liverpool city council has taken on 1,000 additional workers over four years and 10,000 private-sector workers to man the housing programme. That programme needs to be assisted and further developed. There are one or two other problems. For example, there is the problem of the continuation of the tolls on the Mersey tunnel. Those tolls should be removed and the Government should look carefully at ways of assisting the port of Liverpool with such things as dredging charges, because the port needs help.
  My final point is vital. It is about drugs and the need to deal with the environment that creates and encourages the problem. I received a letter yesterday that shook me to the foundation. I had been to see a block of flats and thought that I had managed to get the police, who acted positively, to remove the youngsters with drugs who were occupying the stairs of the block of flats. The police got them out, but God only knows where they went. They may settle somewhere else. I thought that I had managed to solve the problem, but the writer of that letter, a young women of 25 with two children, said it was as bad as ever. She said:
  "If it goes on much longer I cannot see myself continuing. I will have to do away with myself."
  738
  That really shook me, but I understand the problem and the terrible frustration of that woman.
  I have here a police report from CI division. It is a depressing report because of the enormous problems that it outlines. In relation to drugs the report says:
  "The problem is spread throughout the Sub-Division but there is a preponderance in Croxteth and Norris Green. The times of the offences are recorded throughout the 24 hour period. The problem is exacerbated by the nature of the offence in that minute portions of drugs are exchanged for large amounts of money, plus the physical dependence of addicts leads to great secrecy and self-protection. The problem is so closely linked to a multitude of social problems in the area that no single causal definition is possible."
  The next page of the report outlines the problems of increased burglary in the area. The drugs problem, the increase in petty crime and in other forms of crime is related to the high levels of unemployment in the area. Liverpool would like to get rid of those flats and build two-storey houses. We have done that elsewhere, but it requires money and, of course, we are now hearing talk about a community charge. God knows where people in my area will find the money to pay such charges. The Government should help the community and we should not have to listen to this nonsense about a community charge.
  Mr. Robert Parry: I congratulate my hon. Friend on instigating this important debate. When the Minister visited Liverpool he appeared on Granada Television, and in the Liverpool Echo he was reported as saying that he had come to build bridges with the city council. On television he said that more than two thirds of the citizens of Liverpool did not pay any rates. That is an outrageous slur on the people of Liverpool and I hope that when he is winding up the debate he will withdraw that statement and apologise.
  Mr. Heffer: I shall listen carefully to the Minister. I have not made many propaganda points. I am concerned about our people in Liverpool and about the conditions under which they have to live. They have awesome problems and need government assistance. The Minister cannot translate what has been done in London along the line of docks, where all sorts of nice houses have been built for yuppies, to an area like ours, where even the yuppies are out of work, never mind the rest of the people. We cannot think in those terms. If it is also suggested that the idea is to build Conservatives enclaves in Liverpool to restore the Conservative vote, I say : "Forget it. Don't come up with ideas and prejudices like that." What is required is real assistance.
  I am proud of our people in Liverpool. They are the most vibrant, vital and alive people that you could meet. It is interesting to note that if employers approach the work force in Liverpool in a sensible, co-operative manner, the problems are ironed out very quickly. But if they come with a mailed fist, they get a reaction, arid that has led to many disputes and arguments in the past.
  I am asking the Government to be serious about the matter, because we are serious about it. We are concerned. We want the Government to approach this on the basis of seriousness and co-operation, rather than trying to score cheap political points. We do not have to worry about cheap political points in relation to the Conservative party in Liverpool; that has been settled by the people of Liverpool in the recent vote. Let us get away from the argument on the hustings, and talk seriously about what can be done to begin to solve the problems. Inner-city

  739
  problems are marginally more difficult than outer-city ones, but both are part of the terrible problems of our city. I want us to start working to solve them sensibly and intelligently.
  11.6 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) for the opportunity to discuss the problems of the city of Liverpool. I hope that he will appreciate that I visited the city within days of being appointed to the Department of the Environment with special responsibilities for inner cities. It was appropriate that I should visit Liverpool, for, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I come from the north-west. I was born and brought up in Rochdale, Lancashire. I am also very familiar with Liverpool, although I would not profess to be more familiar with it than the hon. Gentleman. Until I became a Member of Parliament, I visited Liverpool on a weekly basis for the best part of 15 years, and in the past four years, during which I have been privileged to be a Minister in both the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment, I have also visited it regularly.
  During my visit to Liverpool a week ago, I made it clear that I wished wherever possible to work in partnership. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the words "partnership" and co-operation" on a number of occasions, and I am grateful to him for the tenor of his speech this evening. My visit received wide publicity—the hon. Gentleman touched on that to a degree—and The Times quoted me accurately as saying:
  "We are very anxious to work in partnership with the local authorities".
  The reply from Liverpool's Councillor Harry Rimmer that same day was:
  "We would hope to meet Mr. Trippier as soon as possible to discuss regeneration in the inner city."
  I welcome that response. As there is now some hope that we can avoid confrontation and promote co-operation, I am anxious not to dash those hopes this evening in a half-hour debate on the Floor of the House.
  I have only a few minutes in which to reply to the debate. However, I want to give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that I am perfectly willing to visit Liverpool again in the near future; indeed, I hope to visit it again and again. I am also happy to see what has been achieved in any area of that city. I shall reserve my judgment about what I consider to be an achievement, but I shall look and I shall listen. I give another undertaking: that I shall always listen, particularly if it will lead to the regeneration of the local economy of the city of Liverpool.
  If the hon. Gentleman is willing to approach these matters in the same spirit, as he seems to have suggested this evening, I hope that he will acknowledge that this
  740
  Government — as did their predecessor — view the problems of cities such as Liverpool with deep concern. No individual or any collection of individuals has a monopoly of concern about Liverpool.
  Changing patterns of world trade, technical innovations, and structural shifts in both manufacturing and service industries have adversely affected the economy and the social fabric of many of the older industrial cities, not only in Britain but in Western Europe and North America. Liverpool is not unique, but I would be the first to acknowledge that its problems are deeper seated and that, rightly, they require the special attention of central Government. Although the hon. Gentleman does not agree with me, I believe that the Government have not shirked that responsibility. Nobody seriously believes that Liverpool's problems started in 1979 when a Conservative Government were elected. For most of this decade we have focused our attention on a wide range of measures that are aimed at halting the spiral of decline. Our efforts have been concentrated on finding new ways of improving the quality of the physical environment.
  In the remaining minute of this debate, I have to try to convince the hon. Gentleman that most of the inner city schemes to which he referred could not have got off the ground had it not been for the assistance of central Government, and in particular for the assistance of the Department in which I now serve. He accurately quoted me in his local newspaper with regard to small firms, but I have to convince him that the days when very large companies set up large subsidiaries in the centre of Liverpool simply because somebody had asked them to do so are gone.
  Because of modern technology and higher productivity per man, the large companies are shedding labour rather than increasing it. Therefore, we have to look to the smaller firms to generate new jobs. In my new role I have a significant part to play in helping with the infrastructure that the hon. Gentleman and I know is vital to Liverpool. I hope to talk to him about that on many occasions and to deal in greater detail with some of the matters to which he drew my attention, particularly those that relate to housing. I shall be happy to discuss them, inside or outside the Chamber, on any occasion.
  The financial problems that were created by the last Labour council cannot be resolved by me. The problems that the present council now faces were caused by its predecessor, and it cannot expect any special help from this Government. We are more than ready to work with the council if it is willing to work with us, but if it will not work with us we shall not abandon the people—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the Debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at thirteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Manchester Airport (Railway Extension)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are for the southern link railway extension to Manchester airport.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The local authorities and British Rail have made proposals for an electrified single track spur from the styal line to the airport. I am currently considering an application for grant towards its cost.

  BR (Inter-City Services)
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if British Rail has any plans to reduce the inter city services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I am not aware of any plans for alterations to Inter-City services apart from normal adjustments to meet changed demand.

  Needles Lighthouse
  Mr. Barry Field
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consult inshore fishermen and yachting interests before reaching a decision on the recommendation of the report to the Lights Advisory Committee to make the Needles lighthouse redundant.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The Lights Advisory Committee has proposed that there should be a review of the traditional navigational aids provided by the lighthouse authorities, with a view to reducing numbers and saving costs. In support of this proposal it has submitted to my noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for aviation and shipping a report which contains an illustrative list of aids which it is suggested arc not needed by commercial ships carrying electronic navigation equipment. The Needles lighthouse is included in that list. The lighthouse is the responsibility of Trinity House, as lighthouse authority for England and Wales, and any question of its closure would be a matter for it. Representatives of the users are always consulted by the lighthouse authority if the withdrawal of a navigational aid is being contemplated.

  Merchant Shipping (Defence Role)
  Mr. Strang
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each of the last 10 years the number of merchant ships that were available from the merchant navy for use in the event of a war; and what is the number of such ships that are expected to be available in each of the next five years.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The number of ships of 500 GRT or over in the United Kingdom registered merchant fleet including the Isle of Man and Channel islands, was as follows:124

  End Year

  Number of ships

  1977

  1,545

  1978

  1,421

  1979

  1,305

  1980

  1,275

  1981

  1,118

  1982

  985

  1983

  866

  1984

  777

  1985

  693

  1986

  546

  These ships would have been available for use in the event of war. They would have been supplemented by ships registered in the dependent territories, those made available through the operation of the NATO pool, and other ships open to charter.

  The Government do not make forecasts of the size of the merchant fleet, but availability of shipping for defence purposes is closely monitored and a number of initiatives are being taken to help to ensure the future adequacy of these resources.

  EC (Air Fares)
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  asked the Secretary of State For Transport why the European Community Council of Transport Ministers on 30 June failed to agree an aviation package.

  Mr. Channon
  When the Transport Council met on 30 June it was not able to adopt a package liberalising air transport in the Community because Spain refused to allow the package to apply to Gibraltar. I was not prepared to compromise Gibraltar's legitimate rights in this way. Despite the fact that every other member state supported the package, the Spanish Government blocked it when they found they could not secure Gibraltar's exclusion.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Voting
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the operation of the new statutory arrangements for (a) postal and proxy voting and (b) overseas voting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received a number of suggestions for ways in which the law governing applications for absent votes, and the registration of overseas electors, might be changed.

  We are consulting the political parties and electoral registration officers and will review the arrangements in the light of suggestions received.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Ashdown
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his policy towards seeking assurances on the imposition of the death penalty from the People's Republic of China on behalf of fugitives returned to Hong Kong, on the warrant of the Secretary of State, who may be surrendered to the People's Republic of China on 30 June 1997; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is his policy towards seeking assurances on the imposition of the death penalty from the Governor of

  125
  Hong Kong on behalf of fugitives returned to Hong Kong on the warrant of the Secretary of State, who may be surrendered to the People's Republic of China on 30 June 1997; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if, in the exercise of his discretion under section 9(4) of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967, he takes account of the sentencing policies of any state to whom it is likely a fugitive may be surrendered by a requesting state; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Section 9(4) of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 provides discretion not to order the surrender of a fugitive accused or convicted of an offence not punishable with the death penalty in Great Britain, if the death penalty could be imposed on that person in the requesting Commonwealth country or dependency. It is the practice in such cases to seek an assurance, before surrendering the fugitive, that the death penalty will not be carried out. In the case of the return of a fugitive to Hong Kong such an assurance would be sought from the Governor. Extradition arrangements after 1997 must be the subject of consultation with the Chinese Government. The United Kingdom has no extradition treaty with China and therefore it is not possible to extradite a fugitive to that country.

  Extradition
  Mr. Ashdown
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the United Kingdom has an extradition treaty with the People's Republic of China; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The United Kingdom has no extradition treaty with the People's Republic of China.

  Mr. Ashdown
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards surrendering fugitives to countries with whom the United Kingdom does not have an extradition treaty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  There is at present no power to extradite fugitives to foreign countries with which the United Kingdom has no extradition treaty. Clause 11 of the Criminal Justice Bill, recently introduced in another place, would, if enacted, enable the United Kingdom to extradite fugitives in the absence of a treaty, provided that the requesting state established a prima facie case against the fugitive.

  Mr. Ashdown
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his policy towards delaying the signing of extradition warrants until relevant applications lying before the European Commission on Human Rights are decided; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is his policy towards delaying the signing of extradition warrants where there are allegations of likely ill-treatment in the requesting country, until relevant applications lying before the European Commission on Human Rights are decided; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The United Kingdom accepts the right of individual petition to the Commission, but is under no obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights to defer the surrender of a fugitive pending consideration of a petition. I understand that it is not the practice of the Commission to ask for surrender to be 126
  delayed except where, for example, there are allegations of likely ill-treatment in the requesting state. It is the practice to defer surrender where this is requested by the Commission.

  Criminal Records and Car Registration Numbers
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) charges and (b) convictions relating to abuse of (i) criminal records and (ii) car registration numbers there have been in each year since 1983; and if he will give details of such cases.

  Mr. John Patten
  This information is not available centrally.

  Motorways (Traffic Offences)
  Mr. Marlow
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce photographic machines on the M1 for recording vehicles that overtake on the inside or exceed the speed limit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The scope for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of road traffic law enforcement through the further use of technology, and any necessary legislative changes, are being considered by the Road Traffic Law Review under the chairmanship of Dr. Peter North. The review's report is expected later this year, and it would be premature to contemplate the introduction of piecemeal change before that report has been received.

  Passports
  Mr. Wiggin
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why unusual delays are being experienced by applicants for United Kingdom passports; what arrangements he is making to overcome these delays; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Continuing heavy demand added to severe disruption to the passport-issuing process by industrial action has led to the delays currently experienced. These vary across the regional offices with current delay times in dealing with non-urgent applications as follows:

  Weeks

  London

  12

  Newport

  10

  Glasgow

  8

  Liverpool

  6

  Peterborough

  5

  At the small Belfast office, which caters for Northern Ireland residents, the normal turnround time of one week is being maintained.

  Special measures have been taken to help those with an urgent need to travel where applications are locked in the system. These include:

  (1) the recruitment of additional casual staff (for the hardest pressed offices virtually doubling 1986 levels);

  (2) overtime working by non-striking staff;

  (3) giving priority to personal callers with an urgent need to travel;

  (4) the grant of short-term extensions to expired passports, free of charge, for personal callers;

  (5) issuing emergency travel documents to personal callers whose postal applications cannot readily be traced.

  In addition, Governments of countries to which British citizens travel most frequently have been approached and

  127
  invited exceptionally to accept travellers using out-of-date passports. To date the following countries have agreed to accept uncancelled United Kingdom passports which expired within the last five years:

  United States of America

  until 29 September 1987

  New Zealand

  until 31 August 1987

  Hong Kong

  until further notice

  They have also agreed, exceptionally and for the same periods, to accept travellers using British Visitors Passports. These passports, which are available from the 1,500 main post offices throughout Britain, are of course already accepted by all countries in Western Europe.

  Information about these developments is being made available through the travel trade, on Prestel, through the media and through recorded telephone messages at the London passport office.

  People whose applications for 10-year passports have been delayed and who have therefore to obtain a BVP from a post office shortly before they are due to travel will be able to obtain a refund of the BVP fee later if the following criteria arc met:

  (1) the standard passport application must have been properly completed and accompanied by the necessary documents, fee and photograhs;

  (ii) it must have been lodged in good time and at least four weeks before the stated travel date as requested in passport application forms;

  (iii) the application for the British visitor's passport was made not more than a week before the date of travel indicated on the standard passport application.

  Inquiries about refunds should be addressed to the passport office which handled the standard passport application and should be accompanied by the British visitor's passport and the number and date of issue of the standard passport or the date on which the application was submitted if the standard passport has still not been received. It is unlikely that passport offices will be able to deal with requests for refunds before the end of September.

  In the longer term, arrangements are in hand to disperse work on postal applications now done in London to an enlarged office in Glasgow. This will enable the London passport office to concentrate its attention on applications lodged at the public counter for which the demand is heavy. Computerisation of the entire passport-issuing and record-keeping operation in the United Kingdom is due to begin in 1988 and over the next three years each of the six passport offices will be computerised. By enabling the passport department to give a faster service to all its customers computerisation should help to reduce substantially the problems currently being experienced during periods of peak demand.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action he has taken on information so far received from the inspector appointed by him to inquire into insider dealing in the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Maude
  Inspectors were appointed last December to investigate possible unlawful insider dealing involving information relating to the exercise of functions under the 128
  Fair Trading Act 1973 of the Secretary of State, the Director General of Fair Trading or the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  My Department is keeping the Director of Public Prosecutions, who would be responsible for any prosecution in this case, informed of its progress, but has not taken any other action on information received from the inspectors.

  Yorkshire Woollen Textile Industry
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the number of employees in the Yorkshire woollen textile industry for 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 to the most recent practicable date.

  Mr. Atkins
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 June 1987, c. 58]: Data are not yet available for 1986 and 1987. Employment in Yorkshire for establishments classified to the woollen and worsted industry1 from 1978 to 1985 is as follows:

  Year

  Employment (thousands)

  1978

  54·0

  1979

  50·4

  1980

  40·3

  1981

  33·7

  1982

  31·7

  1983

  29·0

  1984

  28·1

  1985

  27·9

  1 Minimum List Heading 414 of the Standard Industrial Classification, Revised 1968, for the years 1978 and 1979. Activity heading 4310 of the Standard Industrial Classification, Revised 1980 for later years.

  Source: Annual Census of Production.

ENERGY

  Magnox Reactors
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will update to 31 March 1967 the information on thermal energy generated and spent fuel discharged by each of the Central Electricity Generating Board magnox reactors given in reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy on 26 June 1986, Official Report, column 269;

  (2) if he will update to 31 March 1987 the information on thermal energy generated and spent fuel discharged by the Hunterston A station in the reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy on 10 July 1986, Official Report, column 238; and if he will revise the figure for fuel discharged in 1985–86 given in that answer;

  (3) if he will update to 31 March the information on the allocation of plutonium produced in the Central Electricity Generating Board and South of Scotland Electricity Board magnox reactors given in reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy on 21 July 1986, Official Report, columns 10–11.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Nuclear Power Stations (Emergencies)
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy (1) when he expects to receive the results of the post-Chernobyl review of emergency plans and procedures for nuclear power stations; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether the Government's post-Chernobyl review of emergency plans and procedures for nuclear power stations will examine the size of emergency planning and evacuation zones; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 22 April at columns 547–51, by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad). Work on the review is continuing.

EMPLOYMENT

  Top-Tier Sites
  Mr. Bill Michie
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many large inventory top-tier sites were known to the Health and Safety Executive in (a) December 1986, and (b) December 1987; and for how many of these sites the plans required by CIMAH regulation 11 have been prepared.

  Mr. Cope
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, at 31 March 1987, the Health and Safety Executive was aware of 210 large inventory top-tier sites and 66 small inventory top-tier sites and plans required by regulation 11 of the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazard Regulations 1984 were known to have been prepared for 173 sites. Local authorities are not required to inform the HSE when such plans are completed.

  Average Earnings
  Mr. Forth
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the latest average earnings figures for each region of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lee
  The latest information relates to April 1986 and is published, for males and females respectively, in tables 9.3 and 9.4 of 1987 "Regional Trends", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Manpower Services Commission Schemes
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment why the rules of the Manpower Services Commission schemes are not published.

  Mr. Lee
  The Manpower Services Commission publishes leaflets for all its schemes. These contain information about the scheme and the main eligibility criteria, and advise on where further information may be obtained. Leaflets for schemes which are open to members of the public are freely available at jobcentres and careers offices. Additionally the "Action for Jobs" leaflet which has been issued to just over 6 million people includes a summary of the eligibility conditions which apply to each scheme run by the Department of Employment and the MSC.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment why people in receipt of housing benefit supplement are not eligible to receive enterprise allowance.
  130
  Mr. Cope
  The Manpower Services Commission is currently considering whether housing benefit supplement should be treated as a qualifying benefit for the enterprise allowance scheme. I shall write to my hon. Friend when that consideration is complete.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. On 14 May 1987 the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 2,986,453. This was 284,000 lower than a year ago, the largest 12-month fall since similar records began in 1948.

  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what plans he has to reduce unemployment on (a) Merseyside and (b) Liverpool; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans he has to reduce unemployment in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The Government will continue to pursue policies of sound financial management designed further to reduce inflation and to promote investment, enterprise and increased employment in Liverpool, Merseyside and throughout England and Wales. These policies have so far produced more than one million new jobs since 1983.

  Merseyside and Liverpool attract very high levels of Government assistance which helps support and create employment. The whole of Merseyside has development area status, and local authorities in Merseyside also benefit under the urban programme. A city action team and a development corporation operate in the county; and there is an enterprise zone in Speke. Liverpool is an inner city partnership area, and also has a freeport. Unemployment in Merseyside was 128,167 in May 1987 as against 139,502 in May 1986; corresponding figures for Liverpool were 96,974 and 105,684.

  My Department and the Manpower Services Commission operate over 30 employment, enterprise and training measures described in the "Action for Jobs" booklet, all of which are available in Merseyside and Liverpool.

  My Department is also consulting the Manpower Services Commission with a view to providing a comprehensive employment service for unemployed people and there will be a guaranteed place on YTS for every 16 or 17-year-old unemployed school leaver.

  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the level of unemployment in all constituencies in England and Wales at the latest date.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library:

  Constituency

  Unemployed claimants

  14 May 1987

  Luton South

  6,306

  Mid Bedfordshire

  2,556

  North Bedfordshire

  3,953

  North Luton

  4,053

  South West Bedfordshire

  3,383

  East Berkshire

  2,848

  131

  Constituency

  Unemployed claimants

  14 May 1987

  Newbury

  1,828

  Reading East

  3,206

  Reading West

  2,786

  Slough

  4,068

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  2,062

  Wokingham

  1,563

  Aylesbury

  2,157

  Beaconsfield

  1,468

  Buckingham

  2,257

  Chesham and Amersham

  1,334

  Milton Keynes

  6,055

  Wycombe

  2,477

  Bexhill and Battle

  1,775

  Brighton Kemptown

  4,453

  Brighton Pavilion

  4,423

  Eastbourne

  3,063

  Hastings and Rye

  4,190

  Hove

  3,962

  Lewes

  2,191

  Wealden

  1,523

  Basildon

  5,516

  Billericay

  3,290

  Braintree

  2,675

  Brentwood and Ongar

  1,964

  Castle Point

  2,801

  Chelmsford

  2,601

  Epping Forest

  2,597

  Harlow

  3,718

  Harwich

  4,360

  North Colchester

  3,541

  Rochford

  2,426

  Saffron Walden

  1,923

  South Colchester and Maldon

  3,686

  Southend East

  4,070

  Southend West

  2,994

  Thurrock

  5,170

  Aldershot

  2,440

  Basingstoke

  2,395

  East Hampshire

  2,065

  Eastleigh

  3,841

  Fareham

  2,984

  Gosport

  3,559

  Havant

  4,795

  Isle of Wight

  5,901

  New Forest

  2,177

  North West Hampshire

  1,882

  Portsmouth North

  4,423

  Portsmouth South

  7,222

  Romsey and Waterside

  3,081

  Southampton Itchen

  6,438

  Southampton Test

  5,480

  Winchester

  1,917

  Broxbourne

  2,622

  Hertford and Stortford

  1,760

  Hertsmere

  2,441

  North Hertfordshire

  2,794

  South West Herfordshire

  1,934

  St. Albans

  2,076

  Stevenage

  3,476

  Watford

  2,874

  Welwyn Hatfield

  2,467

  West Hertfordshire

  2,826

  Ashford

  3,191

  Canterbury

  3,704

  Dartford

  2,959

  Dover

  4,145

  Faversham

  4,819

  Folkestone and Hythe

  4,267

  Gillingham

  4,126

  Gravesham

  4,355

  Maidstone

  2,809

  Medway

  4,138

  Mid Kent

  3,943

  North Thanet

  4.998

  Sevenoaks

  1,937

  132

  Constituency

  Unemployed claimants

  14 May 1987

  South Thanet

  4,262

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  2,339

  Tunbridge Wells

  1,942

  Banbury

  2,641

  Henley

  1,420

  Oxford East

  3,267

  Oxford West and Abingdon

  2,205

  Wantage

  1,575

  Witney

  1,889

  Chertsey and Walton

  1,708

  East Surrey

  1,336

  Epsom and Ewell

  1,659

  Esher

  1,171

  Guildford

  1,611

  Mole Valley

  1,240

  North West Surrey

  1,756

  Reigate

  1,701

  South West Surrey

  1,343

  Spelthorne

  1,900

  Woking

  1,927

  Arundel

  2,763

  Chichester

  2,003

  Crawley

  2,047

  Horsham

  1,753

  Mid Sussex

  1,592

  Shoreham

  2,007

  Worthing

  2,411

  Cambridge

  3,092

  Huntingdon

  3,122

  North East Cambridgeshire

  4,026

  Peterborough

  7,290

  South East Cambridgeshire

  1,648

  South West Cambridgeshire

  2,151

  Great Yarmouth

  6,716

  Mid Norfolk

  2,923

  North Norfolk

  3,106

  North West Norfolk

  4,428

  Norwich North

  3,599

  Norwich South

  5,596

  South Norfolk

  2,722

  South West Norfolk

  3,758

  Bury St. Edmunds

  2,818

  Central Suffolk

  2,804

  Ipswich

  3,935

  South Suffolk

  3,059

  Suffolk Coastal

  2,414

  Waveney

  5,847

  Barking

  3,386

  Battersea

  6,101

  Beckenham

  2,788

  Bethnal Green and Stepney

  7,779

  Bexley Heath

  2,166

  Bow and Poplar

  7,769

  Brent East

  6,903

  Brent North

  3,012

  Brent South

  6,350

  Brentford and Isleworth

  3,596

  Carshalton and Wallington

  2,524

  Chelsea

  3,576

  Chingford

  2,454

  Chipping Barnet

  1,900

  Chislehurst

  1,999

  Croydon Central

  2,991

  Croydon North East

  3,454

  Croydon North West

  3,609

  Croydon South

  1,726

  Dagenham

  3,585

  Dulwich

  4,359

  Ealing North

  3,586

  Ealing Acton

  4,391

  Ealing Southall

  5,224

  Edmonton

  3,827

  Eltham

  3,268

  Enfield North

  3,360

  Enfield Southgate

  2,630

  133

  Constituency

  Unemployed claimants

  14 May 1987

  Erith and Crayford

  3,650

  Feltham and Heston

  4,364

  Finchley

  2,632

  Fulham

  5,010

  Greenwich

  4,426

  Hackney North and Stoke Newington

  9,402

  Hackney South and Shoreditch

  10,365

  Hammersmith

  6,461

  Hampstead and Highgate

  5,541

  Harrow East

  3,320

  Harrow West

  2,368

  Hayes and Harlington

  2,702

  Hendon North

  2,592

  Hendon South

  2,562

  Holborn and St. Pancras

  8,100

  Hornchurch

  2,513

  Hornsey and Wood Green

  6,976

  Ilford North

  2,625

  Ilford South

  3,926

  Islington North

  9,034

  Islington South and Finsbury

  7,034

  Kensington

  4,975

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  2,174

  Lewisham East

  4,238

  Lewisham West

  4,978

  Lewisham Deptford

  7,730

  Leyton

  5,151

  Mitcham and Morden

  3,513

  Newham North East

  5,440

  Newham North West

  5,325

  Newham South

  5,388

  Norwood

  7,989

  Old Bexley and Sidcup

  1,669

  Orpington

  2,070

  Peckham

  8,647

  Putney

  3,493

  Ravensbourne

  1,833

  Richmond-upon-Thames and Barnes

  2,188

  Romford

  2,577

  Ruislip-Northwood

  1,381

  Southwark and Bermondsey

  7,043

  Streatham

  6,061

  Surbiton

  1,328

  Sutton and Cheam

  1,808

  The City of London and Westminster

  4,827

  Tooting

  5,181

  Tottenham

  9,307

  Twickenham

  2,010

  Upminster

  2,590

  Uxbridge

  2,273

  Vauxhall

  9,929

  Walthamstow

  3,671

  Wanstead and Woodford

  1,953

  Westminster North

  8,003

  Wimbledon

  2,378

  Woolwich

  5,863

  Bath

  3,220

  Bristol East

  4,487

  Bristol North West

  4,365

  Bristol South

  6,461

  Bristol West

  6,033

  Kingswood

  3,471

  Northavon

  2,987

  Wansdyke

  2,526

  Weston-Super-Mare

  3,643

  Woodspring

  2,410

  Falmouth and Camborne

  5,616

  North Cornwall

  4,732

  South East Cornwall

  3,590

  St. Ives

  5,222

  Truro

  4,511

  Exeter

  4,370

  Honiton

  2,669

  North Devon

  3,576

  Plymouth Devonport

  4,965

  134

  Constituency

  Unemployed claimants

  14 May 1987

  Plymouth Drake

  5,738

  Plymouth Sutton

  3,568

  South Hams

  3,622

  Teignbridge

  3,453

  Tiverton

  2,619

  Torbay

  5,319

  Torridge and West Devon

  3,698

  Bournemouth East

  4,508

  Bournemouth West

  3,671

  Christchurch

  2,013

  North Dorset

  2,042

  Poole

  3,534

  South Dorset

  3,600

  West Dorset

  1,815

  Cheltenham

  3,732

  Cirencester and Tewkesbury

  2,467

  Gloucester

  4,341

  Stroud

  3,091

  West Gloucestershire

  4,049

  Bridgwater

  3,648

  Somerton and Frome

  2,428

  Taunton

  3,399

  Wells

  2,782

  Yeovil

  2,723

  Devizes

  3,061

  North Wiltshire

  2,948

  Salisbury

  2,718

  Swindon

  5,833

  Westbury

  3,308

  Bromsgrove

  3,726

  Hereford

  3,606

  Leominster

  2,936

  Mid Worcestershire

  5,288

  South Worcestershire

  3,133

  Worcester

  4,206

  Wyre Forest

  4,596

  Ludlow

  3,263

  North Shropshire

  3,861

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  3,628

  The Wrekin

  8,507

  Burton

  4,411

  Cannock and Burntwood

  4,819

  Mid Staffordshire

  3,814

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  3,772

  South East Staffordshire

  5,395

  South Staffordshire

  4,788

  Stafford

  3,759

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  2,939

  Stoke-on-Trent Central

  5,348

  Stoke-on-Trent North

  5,296

  Stoke-on-Trent South

  4,522

  North Warwickshire

  4,822

  Nuneaton

  4,599

  Rugby and Kenilworth

  3,859

  Stratford-on-Avon

  2,877

  Warwick and Leamington

  4,054

  Aldridge-Brownhills

  3,776

  Birmingham Edgbaston

  5,090

  Birmingham Erdington

  7,632

  Birmingham Hall Green

  5,494

  Birmingham Hodge Hill

  7,211

  Birmingham Ladywood

  8,973

  Birmingham Northfield

  7,747

  Birmingham Perry Barr

  7,536

  Birmingham Small Heath

  9,733

  Birmingham Sparkbrook

  8,701

  Birmingham Yardley

  4,871

  Birmingham Selly Oak

  5,905

  Coventry North East

  7,964

  Coventry North West

  4,623

  Coventry South East

  6,215

  Coventry South West

  4,139

  Dudley East

  7,531

  Dudley West

  5,898

  Halesowen and Stourbridge

  4,534

  135

  Constituency

  Unemployed claimants

  14 May 1987

  Meriden

  6,641

  Solihull

  3,191

  Sutton Coldfield

  3,279

  Walsall North

  7,347

  Walsall South

  6,712

  Warley East

  6,165

  Warley West

  5,260

  West Bromwich East

  5,592

  West Bromwich West

  6,553

  Wolverhampton North East

  7,912

  Wolverhampton South East

  6,531

  Wolverhampton South West

  5,951

  Amber Valley

  4,010

  Bolsover

  5,394

  Chesterfield

  5,665

  Erewash

  4,688

  Derby North

  5,002

  Derby South

  7,508

  High Peak

  3,574

  North East Derbyshire

  5,159

  South Derbyshire

  4,063

  West Derbyshire

  2,673

  Blaby

  2,399

  Bosworth

  3,051

  Harborough

  2,116

  Leicester East

  4,953

  Leicester South

  6,501

  Leicester West

  6,104

  Loughborough

  3,007

  North West Leicestershire

  3,980

  Rutland and Melton

  2,577

  East Lindsey

  5,204

  Gainsborough and Horncastle

  3,885

  Grantham

  4,129

  Holland with Boston

  3,579

  Lincoln

  6,539

  Stamford and Spalding

  3,001

  Corby

  4,133

  Daventry

  2,305

  Kettering

  2,725

  Northampton North

  4,226

  Northampton South

  3,663

  Wellingborough

  3,325

  Ashfield

  5,042

  Bassetlaw

  5,500

  Broxtowe

  3,606

  Gedling

  3,724

  Mansfield

  3,303

  Newark

  4,173

  Nottingham East

  9,044

  Nottingham North

  6,995

  Nottingham South

  6,126

  Rushcliffe

  3,329

  Sherwood

  5,121

  Beverley

  3,171

  Booth Ferry

  4,062

  Bridlington

  4,551

  Brigg and Cleethorpes

  5,976

  Glanford and Scunthorpe

  5,903

  Great Grimsby

  6,937

  Kingston-upon-Hull East

  7,180

  Kingston-upon-Hull North

  8,239

  Kingston-upon-Hull West

  7,345

  Harrogate

  2,950

  Richmond

  3,392

  Ryedale

  2,765

  Scarborough

  4,626

  Selby

  3,317

  Skipton and Ripon

  2,380

  York

  5,752

  Barnsley Central

  5,841

  Barnsley East

  5,456

  Barnsley West and Penistone

  5,626

  Don Valley

  7,077

  Doncaster Central

  7,712

  136

  Constituency

  Unemployed claimants

  14 May 1987

  Doncaster North

  8,195

  Rother Valley

  5,719

  Rotherham

  6,480

  Sheffield Central

  9,817

  Sheffield Attercliffe

  5,926

  Sheffield Brightside

  7,693

  Sheffield Hallam

  4,483

  Sheffield Heeley

  7,154

  Sheffield Hillsborough

  5,615

  Wentworth

  6,228

  Batley and Spen

  4,714

  Bradford North

  7,324

  Bradford South

  5,700

  Bradford West

  8,135

  Calder Valley

  3,840

  Colne Valley

  3,570

  Dewsbury

  4,832

  Elmet

  3,219

  Halifax

  5,147

  Hemsworth

  5,442

  Huddersfield

  5,191

  Keighly

  3,708

  Leeds Central

  6,989

  Leeds East

  6,755

  Leeds North East

  4,283

  Leeds North West

  3,643

  Leeds West

  5,273

  Morley and Leeds South

  4,178

  Normanton

  3,560

  Pontefract and Castleford

  5,879

  Pudsey

  2,784

  Shipley

  3,113

  Wakefield

  4,939

  City of Chester

  5,200

  Congleton

  2,624

  Crewe and Nantwich

  4,451

  Eddisbury

  4,373

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  5,856

  Halton

  7,091

  Macclesfield

  2,822

  Tatton

  3,380

  Warrington North

  5,981

  Warrington South

  5,745

  Altrincham and Sale

  2,748

  Ashton-under-Lyne

  4,697

  Bolton North East

  4,963

  Bolton South East

  6,043

  Bolton West

  4,551

  Bury North

  3,922

  Bury South

  4,081

  Cheadle

  2,198

  Davyhulme

  4,146

  Denton and Reddish

  5,427

  Eccles

  5,126

  Hazel Grove

  3,157

  Hey wood and Middleton

  5,382

  Leigh

  5,608

  Littleborough and Saddleworth

  3,369

  Makerfield

  5,889

  Manchester Central

  10,796

  Manchester Blackley

  6,477

  Manchester Gorton

  6,817

  Manchester Withington

  6,602

  Manchester Wythenshawe

  6,121

  Oldham Central and Royton

  5,652

  Oldham West

  4,206

  Rochdale

  5,904

  Salford East

  7,944

  Stalybridge and Hyde

  5,498

  Stockport

  4,237

  Stretford

  8,476

  Wigan

  6,590

  Worsley

  5,509

  Blackburn

  7,090

  Blackpool North

  5,190

  137

  Constituency

  Unemployed claimants

  14 May 1987

  Blackpool South

  5,524

  Burnley

  5,103

  Chorley

  4,076

  Fylde

  2,586

  Hyndburn

  3,372

  Lancaster

  3,098

  Morecambe and Lunesdale

  4,150

  Pendle

  3,763

  Preston

  6,802

  Ribble Valley

  1,799

  Rossendale and Darwen

  3,822

  South Ribble

  3,741

  West Lancashire

  6,455

  Wyre

  3,483

  Birkenhead

  9,200

  Bootle

  10,168

  Crosby

  4,957

  Knowsley North

  8,824

  Knowsley South

  9,044

  Liverpool Broadgreen

  8,206

  Liverpool Garston

  7,532

  Liverpool Mossley Hill

  7,150

  Liverpool Riverside

  10,818

  Liverpool Walton

  10,498

  Liverpool West Derby

  8,995

  Southport

  4,307

  St. Helens North

  6,253

  St. Helens South

  7,222

  Wallasey

  7,235

  Wirral South

  3,683

  Wirral West

  4,075

  Barrow and Furness

  4,126

  Carlisle

  3,802

  Copeland

  3,495

  Penrith and the Borders

  2,851

  Westmorland and Lonsdale

  1,960

  Workington

  3,787

  Hartlepool

  8,504

  Langbaurgh

  7,233

  Middlesbrough

  9,884

  Redcar

  7,957

  Stockton North

  8,118

  Stockton South

  7,019

  Bishop Auckland

  5,999

  City of Durham

  4,105

  Darlington

  5,500

  Easington

  5,841

  North Durham

  6,137

  North West Durham

  5,241

  Sedgefield

  4,647

  Berwick-upon-Tweed

  3,697

  Blyth Valley

  4,832

  Hexham

  2,163

  Wansbeck

  5,523

  Blaydon

  4,831

  Gateshead East

  6,494

  Houghton and Washington

  7,836

  Jarrow

  7,279

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne Central

  5,508

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne East

  7,145

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne North

  6,097

  South Shields

  7,171

  Sunderland North

  10,397

  Sunderland South

  8,221

  Tyne Bridge

  9,009

  Tynemouth

  6,340

  Wallsend

  7,845

  Alyn and Deeside

  3,805

  Clwyd North West

  5,027

  Clwyd South West

  3,671

  Delyn

  4,318

  Wrexham

  4,431

  Carmarthen

  3,696

  Ceredigion and Pembroke North

  3,884

  Llanelli

  4,319

  138

  Constituency

  Unemployed claimants

  14 May 1987

  Pembroke

  6,146

  Blaenau Gwent

  4,953

  Islwyn

  3,666

  Monmouth

  2,875

  Newport East

  4,553

  Newport West

  5,134

  Torfaen

  4,903

  Caernarfon

  3,227

  Conwy

  3,474

  Meirionnydd nant Conwy

  1,692

  Ynys Mon

  4,566

  Bridgend

  3,381

  Caerphilly

  5,116

  Cynon Valley

  4,158

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  4,737

  Ogmore

  4,316

  Pontypridd

  4,428

  Rhondda

  4,801

  Brecon and Radnor

  2,299

  Montgomery

  1,921

  Cardiff Central

  5,786

  Cardiff North

  2,379

  Cardiff South and Penarth

  5,078

  Cardiff West

  5,566

  Vale of Glamorgan

  4,428

  Aberavon

  3,791

  Gower

  3,132

  Neath

  3,783

  Swansea East

  4,999

  Swansea West

  5,340

  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Offical Report the latest unemployment figures in the regions of England and Wales at the latest available date.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the
  Library.

  Unemployed Claimants

  Region

  14 May 1987

  South-East

  690,901

  (including Greater London)

  (368,900)

  East Anglia

  75,054

  South-West

  178,582

  West Midlands

  310,531

  East Midlands

  187,101

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  289,786

  North-West

  407,880

  North

  216,594

  Wales

  157,779

  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of unemployment in the Liverpool travel-to-work area at the latest date; and what were the figures in June 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. On 14 May 1987 the number of unemployed claimants in the Liverpool travel-to-work area was 96,974. Comparisons with June 1979 are difficult to make because of changes in the coverage of the data. However, in June 1979, the number of unemployed registrants in jobcentre areas closely corresponding to the Liverpool travel-towork area, as defined in 1978, was 59,399.

  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the latest level of youth unemployment in (a) Liverpool and (b) Merseyside.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. On 9 April 1987, the latest date for which an analysis of
  139
  unemployment by age is available, the number of unemployed claimants aged under 18 years in the Liverpool local authority area was 2,130 and in the Merseyside metropolitan area was 5,070.

  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the latest level of unemployment on Merseyside at the latest date.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. On 14 May 1987 the number of unemployed claimants in the Merseyside metropolitan area was 128,167.

  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the level of youth unemployment in England and Wales at the latest date.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. On 9 April 1987, the latest date for which an analysis of unemployment by age is available, the number of unemployed claimants aged under 18 years in England was 93,324 and Wales was 6,348.

  British Shipbuilders Ltd.
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many former employees of British Shipbuilders Ltd. have had their claims for unemployment benefits met in light of the decision made by Mr. M. J. Goodman, social security commissioner, in Southampton on 23 September 1986; and if he will now authorise similar payments to other redundant British Shipbuilders' employees.

  Mr. Lee
  Some 25,000 claims for arrears of unemployment benefit have been made following the commissioner's decision. These are being examined individually. Many claims have been met, but a precise figure is not available from benefit statistics. The law requires each benefit claim to be determined individually by independent adjudicating authorities who take account of case law laid down in commissioners' decisions. Individual claimants will be informed about the outcome of their claim as soon as possible.

  Mrs. Pamela Simmons (Member's Correspondence)
  Mr. John MarkTaylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment when the hon. Member for Solihull can expect a reply to his letter of 5 May concerning his constituent Mrs. Pamela Simmons.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I shall be writing to my hon. Friend shortly.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  AIDS
  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action his Department is taking to alert young people to the risk of AIDS; and what advice is being given about its avoidance.

  Mr. Dunn
  In June last year my Department published "Children at school and problems related to AIDS". This booklet addressed primarily the care of HIV infected pupils at school.

  To help teachers in introducing AIDS education into their teaching programmes and to help them answer
  140
  pupils' questions authoritatively, "AIDS: Some Questions and Answers" containing factual information about AIDS, was published in March. The BBC has been commissioned to produce a video resource package for use in schools with pupils in the 13 to 16 age range. The package will seek to inform pupils of the facts about AIDS and will encourage them to behave responsibly. Pupils will be warned of the risks of casual or promiscuous sexual behaviour, whether heterosexual or homosexual, and of sharing equipment for intravenous drug misuse.

  My right hon. Friend will continue to consider ways of supporting and promoting AIDS education.

  Veterinary Colleges, Scotland
  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for the future development of the two veterinary colleges in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  There is a recognised need to rationalise provision for veterinary education. The Government welcome the initiative of the Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow in discussing arrangements for closer co-operation, and the establishment, announced today, of a UGC working party to begin work in November 1987 under the chairmanship of Sir Ralph Riley FRS. If by then the Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow have made significant progress with their plans, the UGC's review will be confined to the four English universities with veterinary schools.

  Interim Advisory Committee on Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science who has been appointed to the interim advisory committee on teachers' pay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No appointments have yet been made to the interim advisory committee. We hope shortly to be in a position to announce appointments to the committee.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Magistrates
  Mr. Greg Knight
  asked the Attorney-General what is the number of stipendiary magistrates currently holding office in England and Wales; and if he will identify each petty sessional area served by the same.

  The Attorney-General
  A stipendiary magistrate is appointed to a commission area and may serve in each petty sessional area within that commission area. In the inner London commission area there are 48 stipendiary magistrates. Outside this area there are 14 stipendiary magistrates in the following commission areas:West Midlands (3), Greater Manchester (2), Mid- Glamorgan (2), South Yorkshire (2), West Yorkshire (2), Humberside, Merseyside and South Glamorgan (1 each).

  Mr. Greg Knight
  asked the Attorney-General what action he has taken or proposes to take to encourage the increased use of stipendiary magistrates.

  The Attorney-General
  A consultation paper, issued jointly by the Lord Chancellor's Department and by the Home Office, on the numbers of magistrates allocated to petty sessional areas has been published and comments on
  141
  it are presently being considered. The paper, which contains suggested criteria for the appointment of more stipendiary magistrates, has been placed in the Library.

  Even in areas where stipendiary magistrates are not currently appointed, they are used to hearing long or complex cases where a request for a stipendiary magistrate has been made by the clerk to the justices.

  Scheduled Offences
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  asked the Attorney-General what representations have been received by him concerning current arrangements for trying scheduled offences in the courts in Northern Ireland; what changes have been called for; and if he will list the individuals and organisations concerned.

  Mr. Tom King
  [pursuant to his reply, 29 June 1987, c. 14]: The various debates which led up to the enactment of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987 enabled those right hon. and hon. Members who contributed to raise a very wide range of proposals for changing the arrangements for the trial of scheduled offences in Northern Ireland. Over the years, and particularly during the passage of the Act, a number of bodies and individuals, including the Irish Government, have made many different representations for changing the current arrangements.

  It would require disproportionate effort to list all the representations which have been made and the organisations and individuals concerned.

WALES

  Lambs and Sheep
  Mr. Ray Powell
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many lambs and sheep are still under restriction for sale in north Wales as a result of the Chernobyl fall-out.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  About 200,000 sheep are within the areas subject to movement and slaughter restrictions. However, arrangements for these sheep to be marketed following live monitoring, and where necessary marking to prevent slaughter, are available to affected farmers.

  Women's Needs
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the main needs of women in the policy areas within the sphere of his Department's activities; what has been done to identify and quantify these needs and to monitor services delivery; what consultation is carried out with women to ensure their views are adequately represented; and what training is given to his staff to raise their appreciation of the needs of women.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The relevant activities in my Department primarily relate to education, employment opportunities, health and social services. The specific needs of women, both as providers and consumers of services, are identified, quantified and monitored on a continuing basis by my Department and bodies with direct responsibilities for services. In particular, emphasis is placed on primary and secondary education in ensuring that boys and girls benefit equally from measures designed to improve the quality and relevance of the school curriculum and to raise standards.
  142
  My Department is funding a research project involving the study of girls' knowledge of and attitudes towards training and employment following the Cardiff Women's Training Roadshow. In the further education sector my Department is committed to improving the provision of guidance and information about the increasing range of opportunities available to women, including those in traditionally male-dominated areas such as engineering and technology. In the autumn the introduction of the Open College in Wales, with courses that aim to meet the needs and circumstances of individual students, will be of especial interest to women with domestic responsibilities. More generally the Department seeks to encourage a growing consensus within the Welsh education system on the importance of continuing and adult education, particularly part-time and using modern methods such as distance and open learning, that will benefit women.

  In so far as employment is concerned, the main need is to create jobs. Employment measures include the full involvement of girls in training, award and work shadow schemes which are operated to attract young people into industry. A number of MSC initiatives are designed specifically for women. The Development Board for Rural Wales is undertaking courses for women interested in establishing their own businesses. In health, particular attention is being given to improve women's health by enhancing cervical cancer screening facilities, making preparations for the establishment of a national breast cancer screening service, addressing women's needs in the Government's anti-smoking and drug education programme and in implementing recommendations from an expert survey group to stimulate improvements in maternity and neo-natal care. The majority of informal carers are women and my Department has consistently encouraged social services departments and voluntary organisations to develop policies to assist both men and women carers. The particular problems faced by informal carers of mentally handicapped people are recognised by the introduction of the all-Wales mental handicap strategy. Finally, the Department funded a seminar to enable Welsh Women's Aid and the police to consider their roles in matters relating to domestic violence.

  My Department collects and analyses a comprehensive range of data which differentiates between men and women across the range of my responsibilities particularly in relation to agriculture, education, health and social services and housing. These data highlight differences which assist in the formulation of policy options.

  Consultation on policy developments take place with a large number of bodies and the views of women are reflected in responses. The Minister of State is represented on the inter-departmental ministerial group on women's issues. My Department is seeking to develop improved links with the Wales Assembly of Women. Finally, my Department's staff training programme includes sessions on a range of courses, designed to raise the level of appreciation by staff of the needs of women.

  Nuclear Waste Disposal
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those parts of Wales which are being investigated by the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive as possible dumping sites for nuclear waste.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made clear in his
  143
  statement on 1 May, at column 504, NIREX is still some way from identifying suitable locations for a deep multipurpose facility for the disposal of low and intermediate level waste.

  At this stage, it is not possible to rule out any part of the United Kingdom.

PRIME MINISTER

  Greenock and Port Glasgow
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Prime Minister if she has any plans to pay an official visit to Greenock and Port Glasgow in the near future.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  "List of Ministerial Responsibilities"
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  asked the Prime Minister when an up-to-date version of the document, "List of Ministerial Responsibilities" will be published.

  The Prime Minister
  The new edition of the "List of Ministerial Responsibilities", which in non-election years would be published at the end of the summer recess, has been brought forward to reflect ministerial appointments following the general election; it will be published tomorrow afternoon.

  Auchmithie
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  asked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Auchmithie.

  The Prime Ministers
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the outcome of the European Economic Community Council of Ministers' meeting held on 29 June.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made on Wednesday 1 July, at columns 493–501.

  Scotland
  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Prime Minister when she next intends to visit Scotland.

  The Prime Minister
  I make official visits to Scotland from time to time.

  Engagements
  Mr. Stern
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 July.

  Mr. John Mark Taylor
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagemants for Thursday 2 July.

  Mr. Atkinson
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 July.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

  St. Helenians ( Student Grants)
  Dr. Marek
  asked the Prime Minister if she will make it her policy to treat St. Helenians as United Kingdom nationals with regard to study and grant awards at United Kingdom polytechnics or universities; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Eligibility for student awards depends on residence, not nationality. To qualify for an award students must have been ordinarily resident in the British islands for three years before the start of their course, for purposes other than that of receiving full-time education. The Government also have a number of scholarships, offered through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which are open to students from St. Helena.

  Non-Government Organisations (Grants)
  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Prime Minister (1) if she will give the total amount of grants made to tax-receiving independent non-government organisations in 1986–87 and the likely amount in 1987–88;

  (2) what are the criteria used in awarding grants to tax-receiving independent non-government organisations; and if she is satisfied that the taxpayer gets value for money.

  The Prime Minister
  I shall reply to my hon. Friend shortly.

  British Nuclear Fuels plc
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Prime Minister to which Government Department British Nuclear Fuels plc is responsible for the operational cycle of its reactors at Calder Hall and Chapel Cross for the production of nuclear materials for defence uses.

  The Prime Minister
  The operation of these reactors is a matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Prime Minister what current contacts exist between Her Majesty's Government and the Afghan resistance movement; what use Her Majesty's Government make of these contacts in formulating their policy towards Afghanistan and, in particular, towards the provision of military assistance to the Afghan resistance; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  We have regular contacts with leaders of the Afghan resistance movement and take their views into account when formulating our policy on Afghanistan.

  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Prime Minister what information Her Majesty's Government have about the use of Blowpipe missiles in Afghanistan and as to the sources of supply direct or indirect of those weapons.

  The Prime Minister
  It has been the practice of successive Administrations not to comment on matters of this kind.

  Wales
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Prime Minister when she next plans to pay an official visit to Wales.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

ENVIRONMENT

  Conservation
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether mention was made in the United Kingdom report to the conference of the parties to the Ramsar convention of the threat to important wetlands and peatlands in Caithness and Sutherland; and if he will reproduce in the Official Report that section of the United Kingdom report which deals with Caithness and Sutherland.

  Mr. Ridley
  The United Kingdom report to the conference of the parties to the Ramsar convention referred to Caithness and Sutherland in the following terms:"The blanket mire areas of Britain and Ireland and the landscape of Sutherland and Caithness, in the Flow Country of Scotland, in particular have recently been identified by the International Mires Conservation Group and others as being of global importance and one of the world's outstanding ecosystems. A study in Wales has shown that 35 per cent. of the mires examined have been completely lost since 1900. Lowland raised mires in Scotland and northern England have been reduced by 87 per cent. since 1940 mainly due to afforestation but prior to this agricultual reclamation and peat extraction have taken place. In 1986 the Nature Conservancy Council published a major policy document which reviewed the effects of afforestation on nature conservation in Great Britain, and the Government is considering the recommendations it contains. Of the 192,000 ha of the Flow Country, 35,000 ha have either been planted or approved for planting. Some areas are safeguarded as Sites of Special Scientific Interest and the Government is considering possible ways of ensuring that an appropriate balance betwen conservation and other land uses is achieved."

  Community Charge
  Ms. Harman
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the likely level of the community charge, without safety nets, in the London borough of Southwark.

  Mr. Howard
  Since the new system will not come into effect until 1990, it is not possible to say what the level of the community charge in the London borough of Southwark will be when it is introduced. However, I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on 29 June, at column 45.

  Mr. Barry Field
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the effect on the community charge calculations of the reduction in the rate of grant payable for approved coast protection schemes; and what steps he intends to take to mitigate these effects.

  Mr. Howard
  The reduction in the maximum rate of grant for approved coast protection schemes will not necessarily have any impact on the community charges levied in particular areas. Under the proposals set out in the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714), all areas will be compensated, through the general grant system, for variations in their need to spend on local services. That compensation will be calculated so as to include the cost of financing approved coast protection schemes, to the extent that these costs are not already met by specific grant.
  146
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he expects to publish Green or White Papers in respect of his proposed legislation for the introduction of a community charge.

  Mr. Howard
  The Government's proposals for changes to the local finance system were set out in the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714) published on 28 January 1986. Consultation on the proposals ran until 31 October 1986 and the Government published a further document "Paying for Local Government, the Community Charge" confirming that they intended to proceed and setting out the proposed administrative arrangements on 15 December 1986, at column 392. The commitment subsequently appeared in the manifesto on which the Government were convincingly re-elected.

  County Court, Birmingham
  Mr. John Mark Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of the Property Services Agency in assessing, in relation to the proposed new county court in Birmingham, the relative merits of (a) preserving the existing Citadel and Central hall site in Corporation street and (b) erecting a new building on a separate site; and what representations the Property Services Agency has received on this matter from Birmingham city council.

  Mr. Chope
  The Property Services Agency (PSA) is considering various options, including the two referred to, for a new county court complex in Birmingham. The Lord Chancellor's Department is fully involved in an appraisal of the various options and a decision is expected shortly.

  Apart from normal negotiations, no other representations have been received from Birmingham city council by the PSA.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  State Retirement Pension
  Mr. Speller
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the basic state retirement pension as a percentage of the average manual worker's wage in the years 1957, 1961, 1971 and the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  The table shows the rate of basic pension expressed as a percentage of the net average income' of male manual workers at uprating dates in the years specified or the nearest to them. No uprating took place in 1957.

  Single person

  Married couple

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  January 1958

  23·9

  36·0

  April 1961

  23·9

  36·2

  September 1971

  27·3

  42·0

  April 19872

  29·8

  45·3

  1 Net average income is gross average earnings less tax and national insurance contributions at the non-contracted out rate.

  2 Estimated figures. Provisional earnings figures available only for April 1987.

  Cervical Cancer Tests (Liverpool)
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will set up a public inquiry into the errors

  147
  made by the Liverpool area health authority concerning cervical cancer smear tests; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  An extensive review is already being carried out under the chairmanship of Mr. James Fitzpatrick, chairman of Liverpool health authority. Any further corrective action must await the report of the review team.

  Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening (Private Clinics)
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether he will ask private clinics offering laboratory services for breast and cervical cancer screening facilities for details of any cases of mistakes which have been made and notified to them;

  (2) what steps he takes to monitor the effectiveness of the laboratory services for breast and cervical cancer screening offered by private clinics;

  (3) whether he will introduce controls on the effectiveness and accuracy of the laboratory services for breast and cancer screening offered by private clinics before licensing their operation;

  (4) whether he is satisfied with the standard of quality control provided by private clinics offering laboratory services for breast and cervical cancer screening.

  Mrs. Currie
  My right hon. Friend has at present no statutory powers enabling him to monitor or control private screening clinics or the laboratory or other services they use.

  Breast cancer screening clinics using mammographic x-rayss, whether private or National Health Service, will be covered by regulations on the protection of patients from ionising radiation whcih will be laid before the House later this year. These will require that all medical exposures to ionising radiation conform to accepted medical practice, and that those directing and effecting the exposures are adequately trained in radiation protection and the techniques appropriate to their work.

  No licensing system could ensure absolute diagnostic accuracy. Screening techniques are not infallible. There will always be a few false negative and false positive results. The objective must be to keep these to an absolute minimum.

  We are however, considering whether statutory control for private breast or cervical cancer screening clinics and the laboratories they use would help to meet this objective. Such control would, however, require primary legislation.

  The rules of professional conduct enforced by the General Medical Council apply to all doctors working in NHS or private cancer screening.

  Speech Therapists (Upper Waiting Hall)
  Mr. Hoyle
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to speech therapists to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 13 July to Friday 17 July.

  Mr. Newton
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 13 to 17 July 1987.

  Board and Lodgings Regulations
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many staff hours and what costs are incurred in administering the board and lodgings regulations with particular reference to the time limits imposed on young people.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Squire
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what arrangements the Government are making to monitor the operation of the social fund.

  Mr. Scott
  Responsibility for monitoring the quality of individual decisions will rest in the first instance with local office management assisted by specialist regional teams. The fund will also be monitored at all levels of management on the basis of extensive statistical evidence, which it is planned to gather through the social fund microcomputer system.

  Leighton Hospital, Crewe (Waiting Lists)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will specify the waiting list for Leighton hospital, Crewe, in the following specialties (a) surgery, (b) geriatrics and (c) orthopaedics.

  Mr. Newton
  The latest information centrally available is given in the table. The hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of the Crewe district health authority for current information.

  Leighton Hospital, Crewe

  Cases on in-patient waiting list at 31 December 1985

  Specialty

  Number

  Traumatic and Orthopaedic

  Surgery

  402

  All other surgical

  5,947

  Geriatric Medicine

  nil

  Psychogeriatric

  2

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has for the future of the mobility allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We intend to continue to improve the framework of benefits for disabled people. We have significantly increased the value of the mobility allowance and taken it out of tax. It would be premature to consider further major changes in advance of the results of the current Government survey of disabled people, due to be published next year. We have said that we will consider nearer the time what should be done about the age 75 limit for the allowance, which will not affect any current recipients until November 1989.

  NHS (Agency Staff)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list how many operating department assistants now working in the National Health Service have been supplied by outside agencies; and what payment has been made to them in fees over the last 12 months.
  149
  Mr. Newton
  Information on the numbers of operating department assistants supplied to the National Health Service by outside agencies, and on any payments in fees made to such agencies over the last 12 months, is not collected centrally.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the cost to the Health Service in the Crew health authority for staff who have been employed through agencies of (a) nurses, (b) operating department assistants, (c) ancillary and (d) other staff.

  Mr. Newton
  The 1985–86 annual accounts of the Crewe health authority show the following expenditure for non-National Health Service (agency, etc) staff:

  £

  Medical

  59,142

  Nursing

  4,257

  Total

  63,399

  AIDS
  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what funding is available to responsible bodies for counselling on matters relating to AIDS.

  Mr. Newton
  This year we have allocated the following money for counselling:

  — £ 200,000 for counselling training. This is double last year's allocation. There are currently two training centres, at Bolton and St. Mary's hosptial, Paddington. Another centre is to open at Birmingham.

  — £1 million to drug misuse centres to help them provide, among other things, counselling on AIDS for drug misusers.

  — a total of £280,000 to the six haemophilia reference centres, to counsel haemophiliacs and their families.

  A number of voluntary bodies in the AIDS field are involved in counselling. Last year we allocated £469,000 to such bodies, though it is not possible to identify how much of this has been spent in counselling. We are making available increased resources to voluntary bodies for the current financial year and we are now considering their allocations. We will also be providing up to £800,000 over the next year for the new National AIDS Trust, which will co-ordinate voluntary effort on AIDS.

  We are currently considering the future role of telephone services, including the National Advisory Service on AIDS, in the light of evaluation of the service during the first phase of our public education campaign.

  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total funding his Department is making available for research into AIDS; and what plans he has for 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Newton
  The Department has so far made available £2 million for research into AIDS in 1987–88. No decision has yet been taken on the level of funding for 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Research on AIDS in the United Kingdom is coordinated by the Medical Research Council which receives its grant-in-aid from the science budget of the Department of Education and Science. This has been increased by £14·5 million over the next three years to support a
  150
  directed research programme aimed at developing a vaccine and anti-viral drugs. An extra £3 million has also been made available for general AIDS research.

  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his Department's latest estimate of the number of AIDS sufferers in the United Kingdom in 1990.

  Mr. Newton
  The Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, which collects information about persons suffering from AIDS, has predicted that the numbers of new cases of AIDS will be 1,300 in 1987 and 3,000 in 1988. As yet there are insufficient data for reliable forecasts beyond 1988 to be made.

  Pharmaceutical Research
  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if his Department has any part to play in coordinating the research efforts of pharmaceutical companies operating in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Newton
  Individual companies decide their own research programmes in the light of their areas of special interest and their commercial judgments. We include a significant element of support for research and development in the prices paid for medicines by the National Health Service, but do not seek to interfere in the decisions by companies operating in the United Kingdom which have an excellent record in medicines discovery and development.

  Childhood Leukaemias
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment will take account of the incidence of childhood leukaemias in West Berkshire and North Hampshire district health authority areas and specifically study and investigate any possible link between these leukaemias and the nuclear processes, discharges and emissions from the Aldermaston and Burghfield atomic weapons plants.

  Mr. Newton
  Evidence on the incidence of childhood leukaemia in west Berkshire and north Hampshire districts is already under consideration by the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment.

  Cancer Screening
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many health authorities use their own pathology laboratories for dealing with cervical smears; and how many put them out to private contractors.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 30 June 1987, c. 70]: All health authorities have pathology laboratory facilities suitable for the examination of cervical smears. Some health authorities sent smears to private laboratories, particularly where backlogs arose following the sharp increase in the number of cervical smears taken in the last two years. Detailed information on the use of private laboratories is not collected centrally.

  Hospitals (Dorset)
  Mr. Butterfill
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the hospital building programme in Dorset.
  151
  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 30 June 1987, c. 78]: Dorset is benefiting from the largest ever sustained National Health Service capital building programme. Current hospital building schemes in Dorset include the first phase of the West Dorset district general hospital costing £10·5 million, which is due to take its first patients in September 1987, and the first phase of the Bournemouth district general hospital costing £14·1 million, which is due for completion in December 1987. At Poole general hospital an extension to the maternity unit costing £1·5 million will soon become fully operational, and work is scheduled to commence on 6 July on an assessment/day unit for elderly people, costing £3·6 million. Work is also scheduled to start in July on a mental illness unit at St. Ann's hospital, Canford Cliffs, at a cost of £2 million. The second phase of the Bournemouth district general hospital is approved at a cost of £13·7 million and is scheduled to follow immediately upon completion of the first phase.

SCOTLAND

  Forestry
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans for a comprehensive revision of forestry policy.

  Mr. Rifkind
  A comprehensive review of forestry policy took place in 1979–80. Since then a number of modifications have been made to reflect changing circumstances. Forestry policy will continue to be kept under review and appropriate changes introduced as and when they are considered necessary.

  Councillors (Travel and Subsistence)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now undertake a fundamental review of the level of travel and subsistence allowances paid to councillors; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. The level of travel and subsistence allowances for councillors is reviewed each year as a matter of routine. The views of the local authority associations, as expressed from time to time, are taken into account in these reviews.

  Farmers (Subscriptions and Charges)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many farmers had access to free advice from the Scottish agricultural colleges before the introduction of subscriptions and charges; and how many farmers have now paid subscriptions in order to participate in the new system.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Prior to the introduction of subscriptions and charges all farmers in the agricultural industry in Scotland had access to free advice from the Scottish agricultural colleges. Since 1 April 1987 some 3,100 farmers have contracted to purchase services from the SAC. Advice specifically on conservation, diversification and animal welfare continues to be available without charge.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate how many electors who should have been qualified to vote in the recent general election
  152
  were not able to do so because of errors or omissions from the electoral register; and if he will take any steps to improve the accuracy of the register in future.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A study by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys of electoral registration in Great Britain in 1981 estimated that almost 95 per cent. of the eligible people in Scotland were included in the electoral register. A more up-to-date figure is not available. Steps taken to improve the accuracy of the register include an annual publicity campaign to encourage those eligible, especially young people, to make sure that they are included in the draft register, arid to check the draft register when it is published at the end of November each year.

  Housing (Waiting Lists)
  Mr. Dewar
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the numbers of people on Scottish local authority housing waiting lists in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Reliable information on a consistent basis is not available centrally.

  Contaminated Food
  Mr. Ron Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received representations about contaminated food found in Safeways' Edinburgh stores; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received no representations about this matter other than the private notice question from the hon. Member himself on 30 June.

  The Lothian and Borders police force is continuing its investigation in close consultation with the director of environmental health of Edinburgh district council and it is important that that investigation should proceed unhampered.

  Voluntary Bodies
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the financial assistance given to voluntary bodies under section 16B of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, as amended, in 1985–86 and 1986–87., respectively.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The amounts of grant paid by the Scottish Home and Health Department to voluntary organisations in respect of their national activities, under section 16B of the National Health Service (Scotland) ) Act 1978 as amended, in the financial years 1985–86 and 1986–87 were £567,000 and £686,0001 respectively.

  1Provisional figure.

  Health Boards
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial resources he has made available in the present financial year to (a) Orkney health board and (b) Shetland health board to enable them to give financial assistance to voluntary organisations under section 16B of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, as amended; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend, in terms of the National Health Service (Functions
  153
  of Health Boards) (Scotland) Order 1983, delegated to health boards the power under section 16B of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 to give financial assistance to voluntary organisations in respect of their local activities. Health boards may, from within their general revenue allocations, make grants of up to £5,000 to voluntary organisations for such local activities within the boards' areas which are complementary to the health services required by statute. It is for the boards concerned to decide what organisations they wish to assist.

  Fisheries Protection (Fokker Aircraft)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the delay in commissioning his Department's recently acquired Fokker aircraft for offshore fishery protection patrols; how long he expects this duty to have to be covered by Cessna Titans from the inshore patrol service or other temporary arrangements; and what will be the cost of this delay.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The provisional date for the acceptance trials of the Fokker F27–200 being acquired to undertake fisheries surveillance is 8 July 1987. The tender specification called for an aircraft to be delivered by 31 July 1987 and the acquisition contract indicated a delivery date of 1 June 1987. In order to have the endurance of the selected aircraft enhanced by the installation of extra fuel tanks a revised delivery date of early July was agreed. The introduction of the aircraft is therefore on programme. The interim surveillance Dornier 228 ceased operations on 26 June 1987 and the Cessna Titan will operate temporarily in the offshore role until mid/late-August when the Fokker F27 and aircrew have completed their pre-operational training. No additional costs are involved.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Farming Policy
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to introduce controls to prevent farming areas which have been traditionally dependent on cereals from moving into sheep and beef production to the detriment of upland areas currently dependent on sheep and beef rearing.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government will continue to provide support for livestock through compensatory allowances to meet the special need of the uplands. We will not allow grain producers to use any future set aside scheme to move into sheep or beef production.

  Agricultural Land
  Mr. Chapman
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the criteria for classifying the grades of agricultural land.

  Mr. Gummer
  This Department is undertaking work which will improve the objectivity of agricultural land classifications. We plan to consult external practitioners later this year with a view to introducing the revised system early in 1988.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Marlow
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he anticipates major reforms in the common agricultural policy.
  154
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the progress of reform of the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Major reforms have been achieved in the dairy and beef sectors, and significant further progress has just been achieved in the cereals and oilseeds sectors at the price fixing concluded yesterday. I shall continue to work for further reforms.

  Mr. Favell
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on recent discussions with fellow European Economic Community Ministers on the funding of the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I shall reply to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Agriculture Policy (White Paper)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a White Paper on agriculture policy.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Government set out their approach to agricultural policy on 10 March 1987 in the publication "Farming UK", which was part of the "Farming and Rural Enterprise" package.

  Cereals
  Mr. John Carlile
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to curb cereal production; and what measures he proposes to introduce to reduce cereal surpluses.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I shall continue to pursue a policy of bringing cereals production more into line with demand by continuing price restraint, supporting measures to make intervention a safety net rather than an alternative market outlet and promoting the diversion of land out of cereals.

  Mr. Conway
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to convey to his European Community colleagues the support of British farmers for the Government's rejection of the two-tier cereals pricing policy.

  Mr. Gummer
  I welcome the support of British farmers for the Government's rejection of a two-tier pricing policy for cereals and have made clear to my European Community colleagues that I am not prepared to accept policies of this kind which discriminate against British farmers.

  Mr. Yeo
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received regarding cereal surpluses.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Over recent months we have continued to receive representations about the overproduction of cereals, including from Members of Parliament, representatives of the farming community and the cereals trade, and members of the general public. It remains our policy to bring production of cereals more into line with demand.

  Sheepmeat
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he

  155
  will be making to the European Community Council of Ministers in the negotiations on the sheepmeat regime at the forthcoming meeting.

  Mr. Livsey
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he is putting forward to the European Community on the sheepmeat regime.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Our sheepmeat sector is buoyant and expanding, and the Community sheepmeat regime has been an important factor underlying this.

  Dairy Industry
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the dairy sector of the agriculture industry.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have already met the president of the National Farmers Union and intend to have further meetings at which current issues in the agricultural sector—including milk—will be discussed.

  Green Pound
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he hopes to make an announcement regarding the revaluation of the green pound; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received on food labelling.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I regularly receive comments and inquiries from many sources on a wide range of labelling matters. The most recent representations I have received have been on various aspects of the EC proposals to amend the food labelling directive (and on the EC proposals to protect the designations used for dairy products.)

  Food Surpluses
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the sums which will be spent per week in the current calendar year by the European Economic Community on the disposal and storage of food surpluses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The 1987 Community budget provides for expenditure of about 335 mecu (£240 million) a week on the storage and disposal of agricultural products.

  Mr. Madden
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to reduce surpluses in production arising in the United Kingdom from the operation of the European Economic Community common agricultural policy.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter).

  Compassion in World Farming (Exhibition)
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Compassion in World Farming organisation to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 6 July to Friday 10 July.

  Coast Protection
  Mr. Barry Field
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the effect on the finances of South Wight borough council of the reduction in the rate of grant payable for approved coast protection schemes; and what steps he intends to take to mitigate these effects.

  Mr. Gummer
  The revised maximum grant rate will come into operation only for coast protection schemes submitted after 30 September. There will therefore be no effect on schemes already approved.

  As for future schemes, I can make no estimate of the effect the new maximum rate may have, since consideration of the particular schemes to be submitted from its area is a matter for the South Wight borough council, not for my Department.

  Light Dues
  Mr. Salmon
  d asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the total cost to the fishing fleet in (a) Scotland and (b) England and Wales of the Government's decision to extend to fishing vessels liability for light dues.

  Mr. Gummer
  The estimated annual yield of £1 million for light dues would be split fairly evenly between various sectors of the fishing fleet.

  A fishing boat will now save more than 50 per cent. on the cost of a United Kingdom navigation transmitter and this therefore prepresents a significant reduction in its costs.

  EC Payments
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek clarification from the European Economic Community Commission on whether the 19 million lire paid by the Italian authorities to organisations linked to the Mafia organisation, for the alleged delivery of non-existent fruit juice to bodies including North Atlantic Treaty Organisation headquarters in Sicily, qualified for reimbursement by the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [pursuant to his reply, 1 July 1987, c. 121]: This is a matter solely for the Commission and the Italian authorities. My officials have, however, established that the Commission is aware of the allegations.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Disarmament
  Mr. Strang
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what preparations Her Majesty's Government are making to participate in the United Nations conference on disarmament and development to be held in New York from 24 August to 11 September; and whether documents detailing Her Majesty's Government's proposals to the conference will be made available to the public.

  Mr. Mellor
  The United Kingdom has played an active and constructive role throughout the preparations for this conference in particular during the four meetings of its preparatory committee.

  Texts of United Kingdom statements at the conference will be made available to the public and subsequently reproduced in the "Quarterly Review" published by the FCO's arms control and disarmament research unit.

  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what considerations have been given to the Soviet Union's proposals on the verification of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty as tabled at the United Nations disarmament conference in Geneva in June; and when he expects to respond formally to this initiative.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Soviet text gives welcome recognition to the importance of verification, and suggests a willingness on the part of the Soviet Union to take matters forward on a co-operative basis. However, there is still no agreement at the Geneva conference on disarmament on the terms for a mandate for an ad hoc committee on nuclear testing issues. Such a committee would be one method of taking forward discussion of the Soviet proposal, to which no formal response is required.

  Iran-Iraq War
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent measures Her Majesty's Government have initiated concerning the ending of the Iran-Iraq war; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are active at both the United Nations and EC in seeking an end to the conflict. We have refused to sell any lethal equipment to either side since the conflict began and would support a United Nations-sponsored arms embargo. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs set out our position more fully in his speech in the House on 26 June.

  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will now ban any sale of arms to Iran or Iraq forthwith.

  Mr. Mellor
  Our policy is well known. As a direct result of our impartiality in the conflict, we prohibit the export to either Iran or Iraq of defence-related equipment that could significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the conflict.

  The detailed guidelines were set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 29 October 1985, at column
  158
  454, in his answer to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), and they remain in force.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Ashdown
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, after 30 June 1997, the laws of Hong Kong will be varied to conform to the criminal law of the People's Republic of China by the introduction of the death penalty for economic crimes such as bribery, theft, speculation and embezzlement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Under the joint declaration, such matters fall within the high degree of automony to be enjoyed by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

  Mr. Ashdown
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, during the transitional period before 30 June 1997 the laws of Hong Kong will be varied, to conform to the criminal law of the People's Republic of China, by the introduction of the death penalty for economic crimes such as bribery, theft, speculation and embezzlement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  No.

  Mr. Ashdown
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether safeguards embodied in the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967; and in particular those guaranteeing the post custodial treatment of any person extradited under provisions of this Act, will be continued in force in Hong Kong after 30 June 1997; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if the basic law of the Hong Kong special administrative region will prohibit the removal of prisoners detained in Hong Kong to other parts of the People's Republic of China after 30 June 1997; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if the basic law of the People's Republic of China will prohibit the removal of prisoners detained in Hong Kong to other parts of the People's Republic of China after 30 June 1997; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) whether current United Kingdom extradition treaties to and from Hong Kong are to be renegotiated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  As my hon. Friend, the then Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) told the then hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) on 14 May, at column 292, the arrangements currently in force in respect of Hong Kong as regards the return of fugitive offenders to and from the territory cannot subsist in their present form, beyond the resumption by China of sovereignty over Hong Kong in 1997. We have been considering what action would be appropriate to ensure that suitable arrangements can continue in force for Hong Kong after that date. The continuity after 1997 of such arrangements affecting Hong Kong must be the subject of consultation with the Chinese Government. Any such consultation would be confidential.

  Mr. Ashdown
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Governor of Hong Kong has authority to make any arrangements with

  159
  foreign states, including the United Kingdom, guaranteeing the policies of the Hong Kong special administrative region after 30 June 1997; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The future Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government will determine their own policies within the limits of the high degree of autonomy which they will enjoy under the terms of the Sino-British joint declaration, a legally binding international agreement. Under its terms we and the Chinese Government have also agreed to consider in the period before 1 July 1997 the action necessary to ensure the continued application after that date of international rights and obligations affecting Hong Kong.

  Mr. Ashdown
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the basic law of the special administrative region of Hong Kong will contain any constitutional prohibition on the retroactive application of legislation by the People's Republic of China; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The drafting of the basic law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is a matter for the Chinese Government. The policies of the Chinese Government towards Hong Kong, as set out in the joint declaration, will be stipulated in the basic law. The joint declaration provides that the laws of the Special Administrative Region will be the basic law, the laws previously in force in Hong Kong, and laws enacted by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region legislature. The joint declaration contains no reference to the retroactive application of legislation by the People's Republic of China.

  Mr. Ashdown
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the right and power to interpret the basic law of the Hong Kong special region will be vested with the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China or with the special administrative region of Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Under the Chinese constitution, the basic law, like other Chinese statutes, is subject to interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. The joint declaration provides that judicial power, including the power of final judgment, will be vested in the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

  Mr. Ashdown
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if death sentences passed in Hong Kong prior to 1997, but commuted to life imprisonment by the Governor of Hong Kong, may be carried out after 30 June 1997 by the authorities of the special administrative region of Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The joint declaration provides that the laws currently in force in Hong Kong will remain basically unchanged. In Hong Kong the commutation of a death sentence is irrevocable.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much was spent on conserving the endemic plants of St. Helena for each of the last five years for which figures are available.
  160
  Mr. Chris Patten
  The approximate figures are:

  £

  1982–83

  2,500

  1983–84

  2,500

  1984–85

  5,000

  1985–86

  23,000

  1986–87

  27,000

  In addition, the World Wildlife Fund gave a grant of £7,000 in 1984, which has been used to provide new equipment for the St. Helena Government's special nursery.

  Dr. Marek
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what attempts are being made, and with what success, to stop the St. Helena olive from becoming extinct.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  A number of attempts have been made to propagate from the single surviving specimen of the St. Helena olive discovered on the island in 1977. Ninety five cuttings were taken in 1986, of which five rooted and two survived. These are being nurtured carefully in St. Helena's special nursery. Two more seeds germinated earlier this year and recent cuttings are showing promise. The parent tree is healthy and is visited regularly by Agriculture and Forestry Department personnel. A number of legal and practical measures have been taken to protect the endemic flora of St. Helena, including the St. Helena olive.

  Iran
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's current relations with Iran; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs set out the position fully in his answer to my hon. Friend, the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) on 1 July, at columns 478–79.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Hayes
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to make a response to the third report from the Foreign Affairs Committee on Cyprus, HC 23, Session 1986–87.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We shall study the report with the greatest care; we shall respond in due course by the publication of a Command Paper. It is well understood by all concerned that the Committee's report and recommendations represent its own views, not those of the Government.

  EC Research Programme
  Sir Russell Johnston
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United Kingdom will remove its objection to the European Community 1987–91 framework research programme.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [pursuant to her reply, 1 July 1987, c. 108]: The following is a corrected answer.

  The European Council agreed that the appropriations in the budget for the 1987 financial year should he used for

  161
  current programmes pending the definitive adoption of the multiannual framework programme. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear our agreement that spending could continue at this year's level over the five years of the framework programme.

  Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the cost so far to public funds of the secretariat of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference; how many civil servants are employed there; what functions they perform; and on which Vote this expenditure falls.

  Mr. Torn King
  [pursuant to the reply, 29 June 1987, c. 281]: The cost to United Kingdom public funds of the salaries and running expenses of the secretariat up to 31 May 1987 has been approximately £313,000. This expenditure falls to the Law, Order, Protective and Miscellaneous Services, Northern Ireland Vote. The function of the secretariat is to act as a channel of communication between the United Kingdom and Irish Governments, and to service the Intergovernmental Conference. This work is undertaken on the United Kingdom side by three officials, along with support staff.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what ways the Anglo-Irish Agreement has contributed to peace, stability and reconciliation in Northern Ireland since 15 November 1985.

  Mr. Tom King
  [pursuant to the reply, 29 June 1987, c. 28]: We believe that the agreement respects the proper interests of all sections of the community in Northern Ireland and does not diminish the rights of any; it, for example, offers a further reassurance on the rights of the majority in Northern Ireland, it has contributed to the bringing forward of measures to recognise the rights and identities of both traditions, and it has opened the way to intensified cross-border co-operation. In doing so, it has pointed the way towards peace, stability and reconciliation; further progress can be made which will, in part depend on the willingness of constitutional politicians to engage, irrespective of their attitudes to the agreement, in renewed dialogue.

DEFENCE

  Women's Needs
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the main needs of women in the policy areas within the sphere of his Department's activities; what has been done to identify and quantify these needs and to monitor services delivery; what consultation is carried out with women to ensure their views are adequately represented; and what training is given to his staff to raise their appreciation of the needs of women.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry of Defence is not responsible for any policy areas relating specifically to the needs of women. The recruitment and management of civilian staff in the Ministry of Defence is conducted in accordance with the equal opportunities policies of the Civil Service; and equal opportunities issues are addressed on appropriate supervision and management training courses.

  RTM 322 Engine
  Mr. Page
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to evaluate the effectiveness of the RTM 322 helicopter engine in the EH 101; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The RTM 322 engine is a possible option for the EH 101 helicopter. The implications of introducing it into this programme are being evaluated but no decision has yet been taken.

  Mr. Page
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what results have emerged from the evaluation of the RTM 322 engine in the SH 60B

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The United States Navy's evaluation of the RTM 322 engine in an SH 60B helicopter is a matter for the United States authorities. I understand that it did not begin until 6 June.

  Trident Submarines
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence when contracts for the third Trident submarine will be tendered.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The invitation to tender for the third Trident submarine is likely to he issued within the next year.

  Soviet Submarines
  Mr. Strang
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether current North Atlantic Treaty Organisation plans involve attacks against Soviet submarines north of the Greenland-Iceland-Norway gap in the early stages of a future war; and whether any such plans detail the use of Royal Navy forces for the task of attacking Soviet submarines.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The wartime tasks of the Royal Navy in support of NATO are described in paragraph 404 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1987". In accordance with the practice of successive Governments, I am not generally prepared to disclose details of operational plans.

  United States Maritime Strategy
  Mr. Strang
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Royal Navy has adopted any part of the maritime strategy of the United States; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The maritime strategy to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a United States national strategy. The United States Navy have kept us fully in touch with their thinking. There have been no recent changes in the basic maritime strategy of either NATO or the Royal Navy.

  Royal Navy Exercises
  Mr. Strang
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list for each of the last 10 years (a) the naval exercises in which Royal Navy vessels have taken part, (b) the naval exercises in which Royal Navy vessels have taken part which have mainly involved ship manoeuvres north of the Greenland-Iceland-Norway gap, (c) the naval exercises in which Royal Navy vessels have taken part

  163
  which have partially involved ship manoeuvres north of the Greenland-Iceland-Norway gap and (d) the naval exercises in which Royal Navy ships have taken part which have mainly involved vessel manoeuvres in the Norwegian sea;

  (2) if he will list for each of the last 10 years (a) the naval exercises in which Royal Navy vessels have taken part which have partially involved ship manoeuvres in the Norwegian sea, (b) the naval exercises in which Royal Navy vessels have taken part which have involved any ship manoeuvres in the Barents sea, (c) the Royal Navy forces assigned to the east Atlantic region and (d) naval exercises that have included simulated air strikes against targets in the north of the USSR that the Royal Navy has taken part in.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The major exercises, and their approximate location, in which Royal Navy vessels have taken part are described in the annual "Statement on the Defence Estimates". It is not our general practice to give details of the operational manoeuvres of Royal Navy surface ships and submarines, or details of exercise scenarios. The vast majority of Royal Navy major surface ships and submarines are committed to the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic and the Commander-in-Chief Channel. Of these vessels, the numbers committed to SACLANT are significantly greater, and in practice a high proportion of these vessels has been maintained in the eastern Atlantic.

  Naval Expenditure
  Mr. Strang
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each of the next five years the current projected total anti-submarine warfare expenditure and total naval expenditure.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to publish detailed information about the Department's internal expenditure projections. We do, however, plan to maintain a substantial investment in naval expenditure, including anti-submarine warfare.

  Mr. Strang
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each of the next five years the current projected expenditures for (a) nuclear hunter-killer submarines, (b) non-nuclear submarines, (c) frigates, (d) minesweepers and (e) anti-submarine warfare capable aircraft.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to publish detailed information about the Departments' internal expenditure projections.

  Mr. Strang
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether he will list for each of the last 10 years the total anti-submarine warfare expenditure and the total naval expenditure by Her Majesty's Government;

  (2) whether he will list for each of the last 10 years Her Majesty's Government's expenditure on (a) nuclear hunter-killer submarines, (b) non-nuclear submarines, (c) frigates, (d)minesweepers and (e) anti-submarine warfare capable aircraft.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information is not available in precisely the form requested. However, I refer the hon. Member to the functional analysis of the defence budget which has appeared in volume 2 of successive Statements on the Defence Estimates since 1980.

  Vessel and Aircraft Statistics
  Mr. Strang
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will list for each of the past 10 years the number of (a) nuclear attack submarines, (b) non-nuclear submarines, (c) frigates, (d) minesweepers and (el antisubmarine warfare capable aircraft in service with the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the Annex entitled "Strength of the Fleet" which has appeared in successive Statements on the Defence Estimates over this period. It contains the information requested, with the exception of the numbers of operational aircraft which it is not our practice to reveal.

  Anti-tank Operations
  Mr. Marlow
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the findings of the investigation comparing attack helicopters with tanks in the anti-tank rôle.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Project Foresight, which commenced in 1981, is part of a continuing series of studies aimed at maintaining the most effective balance of weapons systems within the central region of Europe. The most recent study examined the relative cost-effectiveness of a number of anti-armour weapon systems. It concluded that the future mix of weapons should be derived from a broad-based investment strategy, in which a place should he found both for a light attack helicopter equipped with a long range anti-tank weapon, and for a main battle tank: the details of the study are classified. Its conclusions will be taken into account in our future decision-making in the normal way.

  Radioactive Discharges
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make available to the committee on the medical aspects of radiation in the environment a complete and unabridged record of all known radioactive discharges, both intentional and otherwise, at the Aldermaston and Burghfield atomic weapons plants to assist the committee on the medical aspects of radiation in the environment in its investigations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  During the last year my Department provided to the National Radiological Protection Board a complete record on an annual basis of the airborne and liquid radioactive discharges from the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston and the Royal Ordnance Factory at Burghfield, since their inception NRPB have used this information to estimate doses and risks to members of the public from the discharges. These have been made available to the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the environment and were recently published in NRPB R-202.

  Research Contracts
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list Ministry of Defence research contracts currently placed with United Kingdom universities and other institutions of higher education.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The defence research establishments have currently 742 research agreements and 68 contracts
  165
  with a wide range of United Kingdom universities and other institutions. It is not our policy to publish details of these arrangements.

  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Royal Aircraft Establishment has any research agreements or contracts with any universities or other institutes of higher education in the United Kingdom or abroad.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Royal Aircraft Establishment has currently 226 research agreements or contracts with United Kingdom universities and other institutes of higher education. There are currently no such agreements or contracts with institutions abroad.

  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment has any research agreements or contracts with any universities or other institutions of higher education in the United Kingdom or abroad.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Royal Signals and Radar Establishment has currently 77 research agreements or contracts with United Kingdom universities and other institutes of higher education. There are currently no such agreements with institutions abroad.

  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston has any research contracts or agreements with any universities or other institutions of higher education in the United Kingdom or abroad.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Atomic Weapons Research Establishment has currently 30 research contracts or agreements with universities and other institutions of higher education in the United Kingdom. There are currently no such contracts or agreements with institutions abroad.

  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether (a) the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Aircraft Establishment at Boscombe Down, (b) The Royal Armament Research Development Establishment, (c) the Admiralty Research Establishment, (d) the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down, (e) the Royal Ordnance factory at Burghfield and (f) the Royal Ordnance factory at Llanishen have any research contracts or agreements with universities or other institutions of higher education in the United Kingdom or overseas.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The establishments concerned currently have the following research agreements or contracts:

  Number

  A& AEE

  Nil

  RARDE

  123

  ARE

  115

  CDE

  73

  ROF Burghfield

  Nil

  ROF Cardiff

  Nil

  There are currently no such agreements or contracts with institutions abroad.

  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many research projects in universities and other institutions of higher education have been funded under the Joint Research Council — Ministry of Defence research grants scheme in each year since the inception of the scheme.
  166
  Mr. Sainsbury
  Numbers of research agreements approved for funding under the joint Research Council/MOD research grants scheme, by financial year, are as follows:

  Number

  1986–87

  63

  1987–88 (April-June)

  19

  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence which United Kingdom universities or other institutions of higher education have received research contracts under the United States strategic defence initiative programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is for those universities or other institutions of higher education who hold such contracts to decide whether to divulge such information publicly.

  Defence Scientific Advisory Council
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will name all the chairmen of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council since 1979.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Chairman of the DSAC in 1979 was Professor Sir Sam Edwards, PhD, FInstP, FIMA, FRS. He was succeeded in 1981 by Mr. P. E. Trier, CBE, DTech, FEng, FIEE, FInstP, FIMA. The current Chairman is Dr. J. I. G. Cadogan, CBE, DSc, CChem, FRSC, FRSE, FRS, who was appointed in 1985.

  Defence Scientific Advisory Group
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the technology boards of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council and the function of each inidividual board.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The function of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council is to advise the Secretary of State for Defence on scientific and technological aspects of research and development work in the Ministry of Defence. The boards provide specialised inputs in aerospace technology, marine technology, military technology and the technologies associated with systems and electronics, chemical and biological defence, information processing and assessment.

  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many academics from universities or other institutions of higher education sit on the Defence Scientific Advisory Council.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Currently 13 academics, from universities or other institutions of higher education, sit on the Defence Scientific Advisory Council.

  Defence Lectureship Scheme
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many academics are at present sponsored under the defence lectureship scheme; and at which universities or other institutions of higher education.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry of Defence currently sponsors a total of five defence lectureships in British academic institutions. These are at the University of Aberdeen; the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth; Kings College, London; and two posts at the University of Cambridge. A sixth defence lecturer will take up his post
  167
  at the University of Birmingham on 1 October 1987. A former defence lecturer, at the University of Leeds, will continue to receive support funds from the Ministry of Defence until the end of the 1987–88 academic year.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. John Greenway
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are being made, during the current industrial action by Customs and Excise staff, to ensure that value added tax repayments are expedited; and if businesses receiving their repayments late will automatically receive the late payment supplement.

  Mr. Brooke
  Industrial action at the VAT computer system at Shoeburyness ceased on Monday 29 June. The system is currently being restored to normal working and repayments of VAT will be given a high priority during this period of recovery. Repayments unreasonably delayed more than 30 days will automatically receive an additional payment of 5 per cent. of the repayment claimed.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the effect on retailers of the delay arising from the breakdown of the value added tax computer at Shoeburyness in the repayments of moneys due to them; if he will take steps to ensure the earliest possible repayment of such moneys; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lawson
  [pursuant to his reply, 1 July 1987, c. 95]: No detailed information is available but I understand that temporary cash flow difficulties have been reported by a number of traders. The computer system at Shoeburyness is currently being restored to normal working and repayments of VAT will be given a high priority during this period of recovery. Repayments unreasonably delayed more than 30 days will receive an additional payment of 5 per cent. of the repayment claimed.

  EC Budget (United Kingdom Contribution)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total net contribution made by the United Kingdom to the European Economic Community in each of the previous five years; and if these figures take account of the transfer from European Economic Community to national responsibility of expenditure on agricultural policies like the disposal of butter surpluses.

  Mr. Brooke
  [pursuant to his reply, 1 July 1987, c. 95.]: Details of the United Kingdom's net payments to European Community institutions for the past five financial years are contained in the last public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 56-II, table 3.3, page 68). These figures take account only of payments actually made to or received from the institutions concerned. During this period there was nothig analogous to the scheme for the deferred reimbursement of expenditure on the disposal of butter stocks which was agreed by the Agriculture Council this year.

  Civil Servants (Local Government Service)
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the likely level of requests
  168
  for special leave by civil servants who are also elected councillors serving on police authorities or residuary bodies, following the abolition of the metropolitan counties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  None. It is a matter for individual employing Departments. The rules covering special leave for voluntary public service are laid down in paragraphs 870–873 of the "Civil Service Pay and Conditions of Service Code", a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

  Group of Five
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next intends to meet his G5 partners.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Finance Ministers of the major industrial nations meet from time to time to discuss a range of international economic issues.

  R v Taylor and Muller Butcher (Costs)
  Mr. Ashdown
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the overall charge on public funds including an estimate of expenditure in time and money by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, arising from the outcome of the case of Regina v Taylor and Muller Butcher in Reading Crown court on 23 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  Some administrative costs cannot be ascertained but the estimated overall charge on public funds is £11,437; of which the estimated expenditure by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is 105 man days and £11,017.

  Queen's Speech
  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about proposals in the Queen's Speech for which he is responsible; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The proposals have been widely welcomed.

  Widows' Pensions
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates are available to him of the cost of introducing the payment of a widow's pension to the widows of post-retirement marriages to public servants.

  Mr. Brooke
  In accordance with the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, public service pension schemes already provide pensions for the widows of post-retirement marriages in respect of their husband's service since 6 April 1978. The act did not require occupational pension schemes to make similar provision for those retiring before 6 April 1978, and it has been the practice of successive Governments not to make retrospective changes in public service pensions schemes. Estimates of the cost of extending the provision for those retiring before 6 April 1978 are not readily available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Liverpool Freeport
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the working of the Liverpool freeport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  [pursuant to his reply, 1 July 1987, c. 95]: The free zone experiment was initiated for a fixed five-year period. Liverpool has reported a steady growth in business since it commenced operations, and I hope that this trend will continue.
  170
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has assessed what effects the Manx freeport will have on the Liverpool freeport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  [pursuant to his reply, 1 July 1987, c. 95]: The Manx freeport is not yet operational and so has had no effect on trade through Liverpool. But we will continue to monitor the free zone experiment during its five-year life.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle): The LORD CHANCELLOR OH the Woolsack.
Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

Air Transport: EC Liberalisation Proposals
Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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, following the meetings of the European Community Transport Ministers Council held on 9th June and 24th/25th June, agreement was reached on a total package covering capacity sharing and market access; and whether they will make a statement on the progress made in the liberalisation of air transport in Europe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Transport Council met on the 9th, 24th–25th and 30th June, but was not able to adopt a package liberalising air transport in the Community because Spain refused to allow the package to apply to Gibraltar. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport was not prepared to compromise Gibraltar's legitimate rights in this way. Despite the fact that every other member state supported the package, the Spanish Government blocked it when they found they could not secure Gibraltar's exclusion.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, in wishing the Minister well in his publicly designated position as aviation Minister, although I have always regarded him as such in this House, may I ask him whether he is aware how very much I regret the position in Europe, where at last, after all these months and years of effort, we have succeeded in getting nowhere? May I also ask him whether it is possible to help us to get a step further? Does he recall that on 2nd April he told the House:
"The Commission has in effect set a deadline of 30th June for agreement in the Council. After that it will withdraw its offer of some exemptions from the competition rules".—[Official Report, col. 692.]
May I ask the Minister whether these exemptions have now been automatically withdrawn and whether it is the intention of the Commission to proceed now, at last, in this affair?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her kind remarks. I cannot say that my office has got off to a good start, this particular package having collapsed. As to the noble Baroness's question about whether the Commission would withdraw the exemption, we would expect the
342
Commission to continue its action to apply the competition rules under Article 89 of the treaty. We shall be discussing urgently with it how this might be done in conjunction with action by member states under Article 88, for which we are in the process of making arrangements.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, may I also congratulate my noble friend on his appointment? Is he aware that some of us are delighted by the fact that the agreement broke down a few days ago? We believe that cheaper European air travel will be more easily and quickly brought about as a result of legal action and pursuance of such activities as those referred to by my noble friend. Will he confirm that the Government will now immediately take action under Article 88 to set rules to enforce the competition articles of the treaty? Will he also undertake to co-operate in every legal step which is taken to pursue those airlines which still fix fares and pool revenue in contravention of the treaty, and make sure that they are not allowed to practice and to do business in this country anymore?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I have already said, we expect the Commission to continue its action under Article 89. We shall be discussing with it urgently how we might help in this matter and whether we should take action ourselves under Article 88. At this stage I cannot give my noble friend any timetable for that. It is worth pointing out that all the member states having agreed to the package, it might easily be possible to get it brought back up again at the Council in September. I would not agree with my noble friend that it is necessarily quicker to go through the legal route than by agreement, and I certainly would not agree with him that the package was not worth having anyway. Indeed, certainly, the competition commissioner fully supported it.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the whole House regrets that this package has not turned out in the way that all of us would have expected and that we appreciate the efforts that the Government are making? But will he agree that this may now be something which is beyond the transport Ministers, and that the Foreign Secretary might be brought into this discussion?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right that most of us, except perhaps my noble friend, would have liked to see this package go through. As regards the negotiations with Spain over the issue of Gibraltar, that is of course a matter for my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary to pursue. But I think it worth pointing out that these negotiations on air transport have been going on for two years now and it was only on 9th June that the Spanish first raised the issue of Gibraltar.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I think that the Government have done their best, although they have been unsuccessful, but it has not been enough. Does the Minister feel that now, at last, he will ask his right honourable friend in another place to bring the attention of the Prime Minister herself to

343
this matter in the hope that we might get some additional pressure to get things moving at the highest level?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall certainly take the noble Baroness's point. I am quite certain though that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is only too well aware of these issues. Indeed, there was of course a meeting of heads of state in Europe at which I suspect this issue may well have come up.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, is my noble friend not aware though that his department has in the recent past undertaken, I believe, in public to take action under Article 88 in the eventuality of a breakdown of this agreement by the end of June this year? Am I to understand that the Government are now reconsidering the question and may in the event not take action under Article 88?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords. I said that we were talking to the Commission about whether it was going to take action under Article 89 and whether we should take action under Article 88. It is a little premature to decide immediately how we go about this, but we must find the quickest way possible of reaching an agreement. That may well of course be it.

Passport Office: Standard of Service
3.11 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: 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 reorganise the Passport Office with a view to its giving better service to the public.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government are acutely conscious that the standard of service at some of the regional passport offices is unsatisfactory due to industrial action. However, work is well advanced on a computerised passport-issuing system, intended to provide a faster and more efficient service to the public. The system is due for introduction in Glasgow in July 1988, extending to all passport offices hopefully by the end of 1989. As a part of the process, work on postal applications now done in London is to be dispersed to Glasgow, following which the London office will deal with personal callers only.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, may I congratulate my noble friend both on his very well merited appointment and the admirable manner in which he has answered his first Question in this House. His manner was all the more admirable because of the difficulty of the subject. Is my noble friend aware of the present situation in which it takes nine times as long to obtain a passport issued in London as to obtain one issued in Belfast? That is really a masterpiece of disorganisation. Apart from the introduction of computers to which my noble friend
344
referred in his Answer, would not a more immediate remedy, alleviating the wrongs caused to the public, be to put two or three competent people—whether from inside or outside the public service—into the Passport Office in order to run it properly?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for his kind remarks. This is an occasion not lacking in some anxiety for me. As regards his question everything is being done to facilitate the service as it stands and to improve it, in particular through computerisation.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I do not usually quote the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, with approval, but may I, too, congratulate the Minister on the excellent way in which he answered his first Question? Would he please promise not to do as well in future? Whatever else may be delayed in the Passport Office, will the noble Lord agree to instruct his staff there to be as dilatory as possible in issuing European Community passports in the place of our good old United Kingdom passsport?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his kind remarks. I cannot guarantee that I shall continue to do in the future as much as I have done today but I shall do my best. Of course I shall pass on his remarks concerning the European passport situation and see that matters improve.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I also congratulate the Minister on his appointment. May I ask him to be careful about placing too much faith in the introduction of computers? My experience is that the introduction of computers usually—at first, at any rate—makes confusion worse. Would the Minister not be well advised to put in a few sensible human beings before he places all his faith in machinery?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, for his question. It is hoped that computerisation will streamline the passport issuing and record-keeping processes by eliminating many tedious and repetitive tasks. The main advantage will be automation of the issuing process and improved facilities for monitoring the progress of applications through the system.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations and also to ask my noble friend to pass thanks to his noble friend Lord Caithness for the long letter which he sent to me on this subject following a recent Question of mine. A copy of the letter is in the Library. What now is the Government's advice to someone who applied by post for renewal of a passport in April and is still waiting for a response?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, may I once again thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks. Frequent situation reports are being provided to the Association of British Travel Agents for the information of its members and clients. The passport department has its own entry on Prestel which gives delay times and other information which is repeated in recorded telephone messages from the London

345
Passport Office. Obviously, at the same time, the press and the media are being kept fully informed of the situation as it develops and hopefully improves.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, while also congratulating my noble friend, is he aware that a great number of the public do not seem to be aware that one can easily, very easily indeed, get a temporary passport?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her kind remarks. I hope that the public are aware of that possibility. Every step is being taken to make them fully aware of how to go about the procedure.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Earl and I hope that in a moment he will congratulate me. This is the first time that I have dared to get to my feet to take part in Question Time. Will the noble Lord tell me something which I do not fully understand? Why we need to have passport renewal at all? Why, having made an application for a passport, do we not, as it were, get one for life? Is it not a total waste of resources that one does not have a once-for-all passport?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question. He is quite correct. Each passport has to be reissued—every 10 years, I believe. Obviously, passports have to be reissued as a form of identification for people travelling abroad.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, while congratulating everybody in all directions, might I ask the noble Earl whether the effect of his original reply, as regards my own application, which has now been lying in Petty France for some two months, is that he is undertaking that my passport will be issued by the end of 1989?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, obviously I hope very much that that will be the case and that, for all our Lordships' sakes, the noble Lord's passport will be issued well before the end of 1989.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this morning I visited the Passport Office at Petty France with my wife's passport which had expired? I was sent to a special desk where a number of the public who had passports which had run out were able, without any difficulty, to obtain a stamp on their passports which extended the passport for six months to 1st January 1988. I and a number of others received every courtesy from the passport authorities.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question. I cannot regrettably answer the technicalities on the point that he makes. I apologise for being negative but perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to write to him.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I also congratulate the Minister. Does he agree that it is not by chance that the Passport Office is situated in Petty France? Sometimes there is such a queue that that is the nearest that anyone can get to France?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and I take note of her comments.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, in the light of the comments made by several noble Lords, is there not a good case for privatising the Passport Office?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that question. A passport is a uniquely important document providing evidence of a person's identity and national status and it must be internationally acceptable. There is reason to believe that other countries would be reluctant to accept such a document issued other than by a government agency. There are also objections on security grounds.

Lead and Nitrates in Tap Water
3.20 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 action is being taken to reduce the amount of lead and nitrates present in tap water on domestic premises in parts of the United Kingdom where the proportions constitute a danger to health.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, no public water supplies contain nitrate concentrations which are a danger to health. In those parts of the country where some lead concentrations may be too high, major programmes of water treatment to reduce the concentrations have been under way over the last few years. Most will easily meet the Government's target date for completion of December 1989.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reassuring reply. Is he aware that the television programme, "World in Action", on 22nd June presented a well-supported case that dangers to health exist in certain parts of the country due to lead and nitrates? Is he aware that that programme, other programmes of a similar nature and press reports must all have added to public anxieties?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am well aware of the "World in Action" programme to which the noble Lord refers and also the article in The Listener which followed it up. The Edinburgh lead study is being examined by a Medical Research Council advisory group and the Government will give serious consideration to the group's conclusions as soon as they are available.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am disturbed by the rather complacent reply which the Minister has given. Is he not aware that the Department of the Environment produced a report called Nitrates in Water only last year in which some anxiety was expressed about the level of nitrates? It is, after all, in excess of the World Health Organisation permitted

347
limits. It is not enough to say that the levels are not a hazard to health in this country. Can the Minister reassure us that the Government will take action, perhaps to the extent of having water protection zones in appropriate places? In those zones, farmers would be required to reduce the use of nitrates and to take other measures to meet the trouble before it gets worse.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the words which I used did not express my complacency. They were the words of the Chief Medical Officer, in whom I have the greatest faith. With regard to the question of the noble Baroness concerning water protection zones, those are possible under Section 31(5) of the Control of Pollution Act. An area around a borehole could be designated, and prescribed activities such as arable farming would need the permission of water authorities. The initiative lies with the water authorities. However, we are encouraging them to look seriously at the matter.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that the Water Authorities Association said last year that it would like to introduce such zones but needed co-operation and help from the Government in order to do so?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am aware of that. However, I was endeavouring to answer the noble Baroness on behalf of the department concerning the encouragement we are willing to provide for the aforesaid protection zones.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that unhappily this problem is not going to go away? Is he also aware that there has been a progressive increase in the amount of nitrogen gathering in aquifers, especially in the eastern counties, and that the present practice of heavy use of nitrogen on arable land is increasing it all the time? is he further aware that it will be necessary for the Government to take a positive view of the problem and decide one way or another how they propose to check the progressive deterioration?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Lord's question. I consider myself among the many Members of your Lordships' House who are aware of the problem. The Nitrate Co-ordination Group published its report last December making a number of recommendations on how to prevent rising nitrogen concentrations in water. We are looking at those recommendations with the Ministry of Agriculture and we have also had discussions with water, agriculture and fertilizer manufacturing interests. Changes in farming practices and water treatment both have a role. The merits of all the options need to be carefully assessed.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, if the Government are unable to control this serious problem now, how will they do so after they have privatised the water industry? At the present time there is accountability. There will be no accountability then.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, drinking water quality standards will be maintained. The legal basis for those standards will be clarified and strengthened.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some water authorities are finding such difficulty in keeping nitrates within the EC limits that they have increasingly used borehole water rather than surface water? In certain circumstances that practice will lower the water table, with appalling results for buildings and other structures. As has been said, the sitution is getting worse. The problem must be tackled if we are to keep within EC limits.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am aware of the problem which the noble Viscount has mentioned and I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, will my noble friend consider encouraging the Community to accept a tax on nitrogen fertilizers to be applied across the Community? Does he agree that if that were to happen it would help to deal with the nitrate problem to which he referred and it would also reduce the supluses in the Community?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at the present time it is felt that a fertilizer tax would not help to reduce nitrate levels. Even if the price of fertilizer were doubled, in the eastern counties the same level of application would continue.

Richmond Terrace, Whitehall
3.25 p.m.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made towards the completion of the restoration of Richmond Terrace, Whitehall.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, rebuilding of the terrace forms part of a larger development, which also comprises the construction of a major new building on the Richmond Yard site immediately behind the terrace and work to restore the adjacent buildings facing on to Parliament Street. The development as a whole is expected to be completed later this year.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, may I take this opportunity of thanking my noble friend for that encouraging answer and congratulating the Government on concluding what has been a long-term and long-standing conservation project? Can he say why it has taken such a very long time? Has the reason been budgetary or some other consideration?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, initially the decision to proceed was taken but unfortunately financial constraints prevented the project going ahead at the time. Subsequently, the size of the project was increased. However, I am glad to say that it is soon to be completed.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that on 2nd August 1978 my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment announced that the Government had decided to go ahead with plans prepared by William Whitfield, the consultant architect, for restoration of the fine interiors of Richmond Terrace to make the most effective use of an attractive listed building and to preserve the existing character and appearance of Whitehall, at a cost of £8½ million? Why then have only five of the fine rooms that were put in store been reinstated, against the advice of the consultant architect? As a result, the buildings have lost their historic integrity and are no longer buildings from which one can learn about that period.
Secondly, can the Minister tell the House what the present estimate of the cost is? On 9th November 1982 Sir George Young in another place announced that the development was expected to be completed at a cost of £28 million in 1986. Does the Minister have the latest estimate of cost?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in answer to the question by the noble Baroness concerning the cost, the current estimate of the cost of construction and the fitting out of the whole development is £36 million.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, can my noble friend say why the restoration of Richmond Terrace could not have been achieved earlier, before the development of the yard on the other side?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the terrace is an integral part of the development. It is joined to the new Richmond Yard building. Services for the restored rooms of the terrace—for example, heating and lifts—are now in the new building. There would have been a risk of deterioration and damage to the interiors if they had been restored before they could be put into proper use and while the major building operations were still under way elsewhere on the site.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, may I declare an interest, in that I was born in Richmond Terrace? Can the noble Lord tell me whether when the work is completed it will be possible for those of us who are interested in the result to be invited to come to have a look at it? I should like to see the old home again.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I should consider it an honour to return to the department to inquire whether that request can be carried out as soon as possible.

Business
3.30 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will adjourn for the Summer Recess on Thursday 23rd July and return on Tuesday 20th October. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday 23rd July.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Channel Tunnel Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m.
350
for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Jury Trial Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 will be taken.

University College London Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Channel Tunnel Bill
3.32 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
Lord Sefton of Garston Lord Sefton of Garston rose to move as an amendment to the Motion "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill" to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "the order of recommitment of Monday last be discharged and that the Bill be recommitted to Select Committee".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the last time that the question of examining the Bill in detail was mentioned was during the Second Reading debate. On that occasion I put to the Minister the point that because of the important consequences of the Bill he should perhaps give some consideration to the possibility of the Bill going to an upstairs committee instead of the House taking this matter on the Floor in Committee. That way it would be possible to examine the Bill in detail, to interview people, to examine witnesses and even bring forward special advice. Therefore before the final decision was taken on the Bill we would at least have some knowledge upon which to make up our minds. I assume because the Minister heard my suggestion and will have read the Hansard report that he does not think that idea was worthwhile.
The next step that was taken was when my noble friend Lord Taylor of Blackburn (who expresses his regrets at being unable to be here today) tabled an Instruction. The Instruction was that the hybrid Select Committee should give consideration to the regional impact of building the tunnel. That suggestion was turned down by the Minister and thereupon my noble friend withdrew the Instruction. At that time some of the implications of the tunnel Bill were raised. Some matters mentioned in the Instruction were of the greatest importance. The potential effect of the tunnel upon the rest of the economy should be monitored. If the Instruction went to the Select Committee it would mean that a major area of public policy would be examining the regional impact—a major area of public policy.
It was said that a committee may well need specialist advice and may even want to hear evidence in support of some of the contentions made by the promoters of the Bill. I did not say that and neither did my noble friend Lord Taylor of Blackburn. It was the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, who said that in this

351
House. Therefore, I assume that the case that there are tremendous potential problems arising from the construction of the tunnel is made and accepted by the Government.
The whole tenor of my argument is that whether or not we like it, if economic steps are taken in the life of a nation a free enterprise society will follow these economic steps. As surely as night follows day they will follow the movement to where the money is. If one wants further proof of that one should go to Newcastle-upon-Tyne. My Lords, Newcastle-upon-Tyne of all places! There we have a housing association and the man in charge is seriously suggesting that we should promote a new town in Essex which would be constructed by the private sector. One of the motives is said to be that it would be easy for Northerners to come down here and find jobs in the South-East. If ever that was a betrayal of a deprived area of this country that certainly is. Of course the man is suffering from bias. His interests are not in the welfare of the nation as a whole, but in making a quick buck to build a new town in Essex.
If I am right—and I believe I am, and the politicians who claimed the largest majority of votes in this country at the last general election think the same—and we allow our kind of society to develop wherever, whenever, and in whatever way they want, then the situation will be worse for the peripheral areas of this land. It must be a contention well worth arguing and well worth looking at with the best advice we can get. We can then cross-examine and discuss with experts and particularly cross-examine the people who want to build the tunnel and the people who initiated it, as to the truth of it.
What point is there in the Government spending money on the infrastructure of a place such as the Albert Dock in Liverpool if all the time as is contained in a report in the Independent newspaper this morning, there is a drift of people away from that place? What is the point of investing huge amounts of social investment in places like Liverpool if, at the end of the day people have drifted away from there? The population of Liverpool has already dropped from 850,000 to just over 500,000.
What is the point of providing such investment out of public money if people are not going to stay there? Are they going to stay there? I say that 45 years of experience in Liverpool in politics has told me that they are not and they are moving with their feet. Worse still, the people who are moving from places such as Liverpool and Newcastle-upon-Tyne—a situation which will be further exacerbated if some people have their way—to the South-East of England are the go-getters, the young people leaving behind the problems of deprivation which are becoming worse and worse. Such problems then fall upon the shoulders of those people in our community who are least able to bear them.
Such are the consequences of the developments that are taking place down here. Of course, there are others, but in the time I should reasonably take in this Chamber I cannot dream of going through all the aspects of where we are falling down on the question of national planning, from the stage when it was
352
commonly accepted across the spectrum of political parties in this country that following the last war we needed consensus. We needed to agree what was good for the nation. We needed to look very carefully upon vested interests and how they decided to spend the money.
The Government say that they are going to encourage entrepreneurs by urban development corporations—good luck to them! Then they say "Look at London dockland!" Well, my Lords, London's East end has some worse deprived areas in area than Liverpool. In places it has an environment which would frighten anyone away. However, it has not stopped entrepreneurs from moving into the dockland—of course not.
If the Minister does not think that there is anything else which encourages this development, he should answer this question or perhaps I should say that he should ask this question because it does not seem that many people on those Benches are asking the right question. Why is it that the Merseyside Dockland Development Corporation, set up with almost an unlimited purse, like the London Dockland Development Corporation, has not encouraged the entrepreneurs? Where are the jobs in the London dockland and where are the jobs on Merseyside? What are the costs of the jobs on Merseyside as compared with those in London? The answer lies in the simple fact that there are other things which are persuading people to develop in London's dockland. It is because the centre of gravity of our economic development has moved there.
This tunnel is another step along that road. British Rail says it will benefit the rest of the nation. In fact one man even took the trouble to go to the Merseyside Chamber of Commerce and say, "We intend to have through trains from Liverpool". There was no qualification about that statement and no ifs or buts. He thought there was some unease on Merseyside concerning the tunnel so he went there to rectify it.
I received a letter from Mr. Bob Reid, who is the Chairman of British Railways, in which he says, in effect, "Oh, yes" —and it is a different story—"for freight we fully expect to run through services from those locations where there are substantial volumes of traffic". Let me give him some information. It may well be that by the time this tunnel is completed the volume of traffic going through the Port of Liverpool will be considerably less than it is today.
I am quite sure that British Rail, especially under pressure from this Government, is not going to chance putting in the infrastructure to persuade more traffic to go through the Port of Liverpool. It will take the easiest way out, and the easiest way out is to say to the people of Liverpool, "Oh no, if you want to send anything through the tunnel get it over to Manchester or get it to a place down in the South-East where it can be rapidly transhipped between domestic and international services at Willesden in North London". That is what it will say.
If anybody ever played a con trick, British Rail played a con trick on the Merseyside Chamber of Commerce and it fell for it, because there is very little opposition to the tunnel now from Merseyside. There is very little demand now from Merseyside to

353
examine the real problems arising out of the concentration of economic activity in the South-East.
When I mentioned to a respected Member of this House that I was about to move this amendment a noble Lord whom I have known all my life—he said to me, "You are a Liverpool lad; what are you bothering about the tunnel for?". I said, "I am bothering about the tunnel because, unless something is done properly and rationally to ease the congestion in the South-East that is slowly strangling that area and to expand into the peripheral parts of the country, Liverpool is doomed".
I am not guessing the future. I am not guessing about what is going to happen in 10 years. I have no need to forecast because I have read the book. I have lived in Liverpool and I was born there. The common sight was the flood of traffic that went from the United States to markets in Europe through Liverpool and back the other way. I have watched it go and I have watched it retreat.
The reason is not that there are bad, deprived areas in Liverpool, because I have shown that about London. It is not that Liverpool people are any worse than others. Liverpool people have a better reputation in certain industries than people anywhere else in the world, let alone in this country. The only time many people see Liverpool is in a television programme, and so they would say something else. Nevertheless, that is true. In spite of that, trade has moved away from Liverpool over the past 50 years and that movement is continuing. While we keep building up the cancerous South-East, which is growing and growing and very shortly will need lancing in order to relieve the pressure and the congestion, the fate of Liverpool is getting even worse.
I mention Liverpool only because I happen to come from there. There are of course other places and we have seen them. For example, in north-east Lancashire 30 years ago anybody could get a house because that area was being depopulated by the movement of the cotton trade. When the iron ran out in Barrow-in-Furness, then Barrow-in-Furness ran out. If it were not for the manufacture of certain submarines, that town would be off the map. Liverpool existed because of the shipping between America and Great Britain. That has gone. We can leave it at that and write it off. Let those people who now live in Liverpool, having lost all the younger element, stay there to wrestle with the problem. Of course we can do that. There is nothing to stop us.
However, if we do that we must accept the consequences, which will be pretty grim, as Mr. Heseltine found out when he went to Liverpool. When he came back he said that those people wanted warming; that people in places like Liverpool needed to be warmed with the glow of the economic progress being made throughout the country. In other words, we want to move some of the prosperity in the South and the South-East—because that is the only damned place where it is—into places like Liverpool.
It is no use throwing money at the problem, Mr. Heseltine said. It is not money that we want. So what do we want? I said nine years ago, in the first speech I made in the House, that we do not need money. It will not take much money to cure Liverpool's
354
problems if you take one example. All we need to do is to shift one government department from London—and it can well afford to lose it because of the congestion down here—and site it right in the Albert Dock. But the powers that be down here will not have that. Nevertheless, that is a solution and all I suggest is that it is worth examining. It is worth having a Select Committee to look at the problem and to ask whether this is an answer to the problems that may arise. The Government set their face against it and said that it was not going to be.
I shall let Members of this House into a secret. Once again I am in the situation of having been told, and supported in my contentions, that the case I am putting forward is a fairly reasonable one; but once again I shall be lucky if I get a Teller. We have been told, and there are Members on the other side of the House who agree, that something ought to be done to equalise the prosperity throughout the country. There must surely still be some supporters there of Michael Heseltine, although I doubt it.
I have taken 14 minutes and I promised myself less than 20. 1 have ventured to put forward a few of the problems that may arise, but nobody knows because nobody is looking at the situation properly. We have not had a Select Committee and we have not gone into these very important matters which the Minister has stated are worth looking at.
Let me come nearer home, if I can describe this part of Great Britain as home in any sense of the word. Milton Keynes, Stevenage, Peterborough and all those new towns north of London—and now I am on familiar ground—were the result of very careful, intensive planning across party lines, following the last world war, when the whole problem of congestion was staring this nation in the face. What is going to happen to those places when the tunnel is built? "Oh!", I suppose somebody will say, "We shall have railway lines or services going around London to get to the tunnel so that those places can share in this wonderful benefit that the tunnel is going to bring". They forget something. Across the Channel, three-quarters of an hour away, is the French coast, which is ready and ripe for development. Sitting behind it in Paris, are a government who have no scruples about playing the game, as witnessed by the incidents involving Welsh lamb and the fears that arose in this country over a little trickle of French milk that it was thought might destroy our milkmen's livelihoods. The House will remember that.
Open this tunnel and in no time that French Government will be subsidising the manufacture of consumer goods that will move through the tunnel into the largest consumer market in Europe, which happens to be London and the South-East. Then what will they say in Milton Keynes? Then what will they say about this wonderful national plan which was designed on the basis that we were an island?
This Government, all those who share their view and all the private interests, only want to build the tunnel because it is a damned good contract. That is how it started. That is why they are having such a hell of a fight to build it. Most of the money-men know damned well that that is how it started. When they finish it, it will be no use saying to the people of Milton Keynes, "We are sorry. We had to build the

355
tunnel because it was an economic necessity". It will be no good telling people that when the area of deprivation—which became so obvious during the recent election—starts to move further down and affect those new towns which until now have had a fairly good record.
I am coming to my last point. I am still below my 20 minutes. What are British Rail doing? They say that they intend to run services to Liverpool. There is a user agreement. That is a good one! If one tries to obtain a reply from the Minister or British Rail as to what is meant by the user agreement they say that its provisions are commercially confidential. Why? How many tunnels are they building? Where is the competition? Why should the information be commercially confidential? Should not the Government and this place know the estimates of the tolls to be received from the use of the tunnel? Should we not know to how much British Rail will commit the Government before we pass the Bill? We are told by British Rail that the information is commercially confidential. I do not know whether they have told us all the facts.
The user agreement states:
"The detailed provisions of the agreement are commercially confidential. The fact that BR is a public undertaking does not alter the situation".
Have they told the Government? Will they express their satisfaction?
British Rail issued a press release. When one reads it one can hardly believe that they are talking to politicians. They must have been talking to the media and no one else. It must have been a public relations man who produced it. It states:
"The level of tolls is not increased but the formula negotiated on the one hand assures Eurotunnel of more basic revenue over the years".
How the hell is it going to get it?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords—
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, does the noble Lord want me to give way? He is concerned about the time. I am sorry about that. The Committee will spend a great deal of time on amendments that will be defeated, because the Government have decided that they are to be defeated. Surely we can spend a couple more minutes discussing the fundamental nature of the problem. No doubt the noble Lord wants to hurry up so that he can be a Teller, because his party agreed that we should have had a public inquiry. His party thought that we should have looked at the proposal more closely.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I only pointed at the clock because the noble Lord assured us that he would take less than 20 minutes.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I am sorry about that. I humbly tender my apologies. Then the document continues:
"In return for the concessions"—
What are the concessions? It continues:
"The railways only have an entitlement to use 50 per cent. of the capacity of the tunnel"—
356
that does not mean a thing—
"as varied from time to time".
It does not tell us what the variation is, but no doubt the Minister can tell us. Then there is the most enlightening remark:
"This agreement is the equivalent in railway terms to giving a green signal to the Channel Tunnel project".
That, of course, is what it does. That is why it was signed. That is why it was designed. Are we to buy a pig in a poke? Are we to buy something without knowing what it is just because British Rail say so?
As I have been told my 20 minutes is up, I had better conclude. I conclude on this note: I do not claim to have put the case against the tunnel. I claim merely to say that there are voices in this country which have doubts about certain matters. There are elements of what British Rail are doing which should be exposed to the public glare. They should be examined quietly. They should be examined by experts. Before this place takes a decision on such an important and fundamental step in the reshaping of our nation's economy, it should at least have the opportunity to hear the experts and witnesses, and to cross-examine the people who are promoting this scheme about the general public policy issue.
If the House does not vote for a Select Committee today, this will be the last chance we will have. I insist on saying right up to the very end that I do not agree with the Bill. Everyone else can do so, but no one in the North will be able to say that I voted in favour of the Bill when we have not had a proper examination of all the consequences of building the tunnel. I do not think that any Member of the House should vote for it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, whether the Motion is carried and whether the matter is examined now by a Select Committee, what has been said by the noble Lord will be of great value to us when we consider the Bill and the amendments. He has emphasised the important question of the regional implications of the measure. That must be constantly borne in mind. There are already signs in the South and South-East of some dangerous overheating of the economy. For example, there is the familiar sign of a shortage of skilled labour.
The noble Lord mentioned that skilled labour was being drawn down to the South-East, some of it permanently, because young people are moving down here. There are also signs of skilled workers commuting from North to South. This measure injects vast sums of money, some private and a great deal public, into an area where there are signs of the economy overheating. That is bound to exacerbate the situation.
Yesterday, this place debated the economy. Attention was drawn to the absence, as it was alleged, of an acceptable government regional policy. When the noble Viscount the Leader of the House replied, he did so in his invariably delightful way. It was discourteous to complain about his reply. But he dealt not at all with that aspect.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, has performed a valuable task, and we are obliged to him for drawing

357
our attention so forcibly to the regional applications and implications of the measure.
4 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am certain that the House would consider it remiss if a view was not expressed from the official Opposition. I agree completely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that my noble friend has performed a useful task in drawing attention to some important factors that I am certain we will consider when we proceed with the Bill.
It is generally known, I think, that what we do not want this afternoon is another Second Reading debate. But the noble Lord will surely recognise that throughout all the discussions on the Channel Tunnel Bill I have emphasised the need for facts and for a proper inquiry not purely into the economic consequences of South versus North but into the economic effects throughout the United Kingdom. That said, we made it clear that if the Labour Party were to win the election, we would halt the Bill and conduct a national economic inquiry into the possibility of a Channel Tunnel. But we lost the election.
Both Houses on Second Reading have declared on the principle of a fixed tunnel link. We have the opportunity now in Committee to keep in mind the very things that my noble friend mentioned and the points that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, emphasised. There are amendments that will give my noble friend and others the opportunity to bring forward some of the points that he raises and to insist that the Minister give us the information. If we do not get it the first time, we can come back another time. But both Houses have declared on the principle.
In our view it would be wrong for this House alone to set up a Committee to defer consideration of the Bill while going into the matters to which my noble friend refers. Therefore, from the Opposition Front Bench, we cannot recommend noble friends on the Benches behind us to support the Motion if my noble friend presses it to a Division. We leave it entirely to noble friends on the Benches behind us to decide whether they support the Motion if it is pressed to a Division. From the Opposition Front Bench we feel that we ought now to proceed with the Bill, consider it in Committee and keep in mind the important matters that my noble friend has raised.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, conscious as I am of the support that the Government offer to the Bill, and agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that we do not want another Second Reading debate, I must express the view that I have a good deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, said in proposing the amendment.
We are going too quickly. I believe that there has been a mistake, if I may take the liberty of saying so. I think that the usual channels began on the wrong foot by tabling the Second Reading debate on a Monday and then not even putting it as first business on the Order Paper so that we began to debate it at 6.15 p.m. Third Reading is again proposed to take place on a Monday.
358
There is sympathy with what the noble Lord has said. Real doubts exist in the minds of people who are anxious to proceed with the development of this country. This is not the right way to do it—spending vast quantities of money on transportation through the tunnel when we in this country require every bit of that money to refurbish and put on the right track our own railways. Anyone who sees the crowds at termini, the absence of luggage trolleys and the shortage of staff at ticket offices will realise that. My InterCity express was two hours late on Tuesday. Today is not an occasion for a debate of this nature, but I suggest that the matter is worth considering.
I hold no brief for Liverpool. I remember the day that I sailed from the Mersey in 1920 when the river was a "sicht for sare enn" with the traffic on it. I feel that we are entitled to support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said. This needs a great deal of looking at, more than it has had.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, did not mention the matter of money. Enormous sums have already been committed to this mechanical structure for the tunnel without the Bill having been passed by Paliament. After all, it was only this morning that we had a sight of Lord Sefton's amendment. I believe that there is a great deal in what he said and that a great deal more consideration should be given to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, mentioned, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, the real difficulty of this divide, which does indeed exist. One cannot get away from it. The tunnel is a promotion of the rift that is making such a problem in our nation's life. Scotland, I do not believe, will benefit by this. Although huge contracts will go for steelwork and the like, every bit as much steelwork is required for our own railways. The problem is a serious one, and I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, noble Lords will not be surprised when I say that I do not of course accept the contention that the Bill needs to be recommitted to a Select Committee. Some noble Lords suggest that it has received too little attention so far. The Bill, introduced in another place in April 1986, received its Second Reading in June last year and was then committed to a Select Committee, which received almost 5,000 petitions and sat for 34 days. That committee gave the most careful consideration to the effects of the Bill on private interests and published a thorough and impressive report, to which the Government responded in February this year. The wider issues of public policy raised by the Bill were subsequently considered in full at both Committee and Report stages in the other place.
In February this year the Bill was brought to this House. We had a wide-ranging debate on Second Reading and the Bill was given an unopposed Second Reading and then committed to a Select Committee of this House. At that stage we considered a Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, but tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, that the committee should be empowered to consider the regional impact of the project. I said then—and repeat now—that these are considerations

359
which the Government believe to be of the greatest importance. But the Government are convinced that the Channel Tunnel project is capable of bringing great benefit to all the regions of the United Kingdom, both while it is being constructed and when it is operating.
I said in February that it would be imprudent to add to the burden of the Select Committee, which had already received 1,460 petitions, by asking it to consider the specific regional consequences of the project. But it did in its wisdom hear evidence from local authorities in the North of England and in Scotland and gave consideration in its report to the points that were made. The committee records in the final paragraphs of its report that it heard evidence on the £700 million-worth of major orders expected to generate some 25,000 man-years of work, and that over half would be located outside the South-East of England. In its introduction, the committee stated that it was firmly convinced that the Eurotunnel project offers immense opportunities for the generation of industrial and commercial development throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. The Government fully acknowledge the need to exploit this potential. They fully support British Rail's intention to seek a significant transfer of freight from road to rail and to run through services from points throughout Britain.
We welcome the insertion into the Bill by the Select Committee of Clause 39, which requires British Rail to draw up a plan for cross-Channel services across the country. I am sure that noble Lords will have realised, when reading the Select Committee's report, the importance they attached to these matters. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Select Committee for the hard work and long hours that they spent hearing petitions against the Bill. Their work has been much appreciated. I do not believe that we stand to gain anything by recommitting the Bill to another Select Committee for further consideration.
The Motion standing before the House in my name, That the Bill be recommitted, gives the House a full opportunity to debate matters of concern both in areas covered by the Select Committee and in areas of public policy which were outside that committee's remit. I believe that we should proceed in that way to allow the House proper opportunity for consideration of the Bill.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I understand that I have the right of reply. I shall try to be as brief as possible.
Let me deal at once with the last point that the Minister made; namely, that when the House was in Committee it would have an opportunity to deal with some of the problems that I raised. One of the difficulties is that nobody in this House has the expertise to doubt what I said about the threat to the service industries that serve London and the South-East from the French coast. We would need to examine the times, what kind of investment has gone into the north coast of France, the intentions, and the timetable.
360
I remember going to one of the new towns north of London where there was a factory which produced meat pies. They were turned out in massive quantities. What was happening to them was quite evident: they were coming off the factory production belt and being loaded into lorries, which conveyed them down the M.1 to the mouths of thousands of Londoners every day. We do not have the expertise to properly examine that kind of problem. We could not examine just what British Rail are doing.
Three noble Lords have said that they have a great deal of sympathy with what I have said. I thank those three noble Lords. It seems to me that once again the House is faced with a situation in respect of which we are told that there is an awful hurry. There was an awful hurry yesterday to get something approved with regard to the press. There is always a hurry whenever a vested interest is involved.
This tunnel is as important to the economic life of this nation as a power station. I have just been reminded that it took a public inquiry two and a half years to look at Sizewell B. We cannot even afford the time for the witnesses to go before a Select Committee. Why not? I shall tell your Lordships: because if there is any further delay to this Bill the promoters—who in the main are construction companies—will not be able to persuade people to give them the money to build the flaming tunnel; and at the end of the day, when the tunnel is built and does not become economic, they could not care less because they know that the Government of this country will have to pick up the tab. That is the real reason behind the excessive urge to get the decision through.
I am faced once again with the question of what to do. Do I withdraw the amendment? Not on your life, my Lords! If my amendment is to be withdrawn it will be because of a decision of this House. I shall go down to the Floor of the House and I shall stand there for three minutes. I want another Teller if I can get one. If I cannot it is just too bad; I am not withdrawing my amendment.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Havers): My Lords, the original Question was that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee upon the Bill, since when an amendment has been moved in the terms set out on the Order Paper. The Question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content".
4.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 165.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Alanbrook, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Basnett, L.

Hampton, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Carter, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ferrier, L. [Teller.]

Kirkhill, L.

Foot, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

361

Molloy, L.

Sefton of Garston, L. [Teller.]

Peston, L.

Stallard, L.

Phillips, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Wheatley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Harlech, L.

Airedale, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Alport, L.

Harvington, L.

Amherst, E.

Havers, L.

Annan, L.

Hayter, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hemphill, L.

Arran, E.

Henley, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hesketh, L.

Auckland, L.

Hives, L.

Aylestone, L.

Holderness, L.

Banks, L.

Hood, V.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hooper, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Beloff, L.

Ironside, L.

Bessborough. E.

Jessel, L.

Bethell, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blake, L.

Killearn, L.

Blyth, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lawrence, L.

Borthwick, L.

Layton, L.

Bottomley, L.

Leathers, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bramall, L.

Lurgan, L.

Brookes, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marley, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Marsh, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Caccia, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Milverton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carnock, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cathcart, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chapple, L.

Munster, E.

Coleraine, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Nelson, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Newall, L.

Craigavon, V.

Norfolk, D.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Norrie, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

De Freyne, L.

Pender, L.

De La Warr, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denning, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Diamond, L.

Porritt, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Radnor, E.

Donegall, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Dowding, L.

Reay, L.

Drogheda, E.

Reigate, L.

Dundee, E.

Renton, L.

Eccles, V.

Richardson, L.

Elibank, L.

Rochester, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Romney, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Erne, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Ezra, L.

St. Davids, V.

Faithfull, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sandford, L.

Fortescue, E.

Sandys, L.

Gainford, L.

Scarman, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Seebohm, L.

Gisborough, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Glanusk, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Greenway, L.

Somers, L.

Gridley, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Stedman, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strange, B.

Hanworth, V.

Sudeley, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Swansea, L.

362

Terrington, L.

Vickers, B.

Teviot, L.

Walston, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Wigoder, L.

Tordoff, L.

Willis, L.

Trafford, L.

Windlesham, L.

Tranmire, L.

Wise, L.

Trumpington, B.

Young, B.

Underhill, L.

Ypres, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.20 p.m.
On Question, Motion agreed to; House in Committee (on recommitment) accordingly.
[The LORD AYLESTONE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Construction and operation of a tunnel rail link between the United Kingdom and France]:
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, after ("link") insert ("for rail traffic only").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we also discuss Amendments Nos. 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 61, 65, 67, 76, 78, 91, 101, 111 and 134.
Before I start to move this amendment, let me add my congratulations to the members of the Select Committee who spent so much time and effort in producing their special report. Their dedication to this cause is quite remarkable. Perhaps the Birthday or New Year's Honours Lists should acknowledge them in some way and special medals should be struck for work beyond the call of duty in your Lordships' House.
Amendment No. 1 and the linked amendments are on the face of it rather curious, because they seem to do severe damage to the Bill. They would do severe damage to the scheme which Eurotunnel has put forward. Nevertheless, I feel that it is appropriate that this subject should be given an airing in this Chamber since, other than brief references at Second Reading, we have not had a chance to discuss the matter in any great detail.
It has been the contention of the Liberal Party for many years that we should have a Channel Tunnel, a fixed link to the Continent. There is no way that today or at any other stage in the proceedings of this Bill I shall do anything to delay the building of that tunnel. I shall be supporting a number of amendments as we go along which I hope will improve the tunnel, particularly in aspects of safety and in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, was speaking about. Although I opposed his method of dealing with the matter, I too have great sympathy with what he was saying about the regional aspects and the regional impact of a fixed link.
If a Mancunian can join in the argument with a Liverpudlian, I must admit that one of the aspects that worries me intensely about the Bill is that there is not sufficient emphasis at the moment on rail links with industry in the North connecting in to central Europe. As I said at Second Reading, the most important thing about the fixed link is not people going on holiday to France but the ability to shift

363
freight from industries in the industrial heartlands of this country to their markets in Europe. That is why the shuttle system conflicts with the tunnel that I should like to see.
The Government have got themselves into this position because of their refusal to put public money up front. I am sure that later in the debate Members of the Committee will suggest that the Government are putting money into the project by indirect routes, by putting money through British Rail and so on. We shall come to that argument in due course. I believe that we should be better served if we were to forget the holiday traffic and concentrate our minds on providing a rail link into central Europe for freight traffic. We shall come later to the infrastructure that is necessary to support that freight traffic, in which I believe the Government should be encouraging British Rail to invest, if not immediately then at a specified time within the near future.
I hope that there will be some support for the principle of a rail traffic link only and I hope that the Government will not dismiss it out of hand. In the worst instance I believe that it provides them with a safety net. Eurotunnel gives every indication at the moment that it will be succcessful in raising the finance in the third phase of its operation. I hope that that will be the case if that is the scheme that is to go ahead. I would want to encourage investment in the scheme if that is the scheme we are going to have. But if it were to fail I hope that the Government would not rule out the possibility of falling back on the kind of scheme which I have suggested in what I have been saying today and which would be provided if the amendments which I have put down on the Marshalled List were to be agreed to. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Mulley: I should like to join the noble Lord in his appreciation of the work of the Select Committee. Even though one may not in every instance endorse its findings, one must at least recognise the tremendous work that was carried out by all members of the Select Committee during what I think was a thorough examination within the scope that they were properly allowed in dealing with the hybridity of the Bill.
As the Committee says in its report, the question which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, put was outside its terms of reference, because the principle of the Bill assumed that it would be the Eurotunnel scheme based on the shuttle train service. In speaking for the first time on the Bill perhaps I should declare a minor interest. Having had a previous concern with tunnel matters before the scheme was adopted I was asked recently to advise the ferry companies in their organisation of their current proceedings before the House. I very much support the concept of a fixed link but I feel that the Eurotunnel scheme will give the worst of both worlds.
The previous tunnel, which unfortunately had to be abandoned, was, as the noble Lord suggested, to be publicly funded and to carry rail traffic only. It would make very much more sense if we concentrate on the freight aspects and leave open that question. I was disappointed that it was not thought fit at this
364
stage to have a rail tunnel along the lines of the noble Lord's proposal, along with a separate motorway, so that people who wanted to take their cars to the Continent could drive them there. It may be that technological arguments at that stage raised doubts as to its feasibility. But looking towards the 21st century—we shall be almost there when the tunnel is ready—we should not, as we have done, embrace the technology of the 19th century, which is what is involved. The shuttle trains will get in the way of the free flow of freight and through-passenger trains, which in essence is what I have always thought the tunnel should be about.
If certain categories of goods are to be turned down by the Eurotunnel because they are dangerous and so on, one wonders how the ferry companies will be kept going on the limited business that will then be available to them. On the rail traffic only tunnel, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, proposes, there would be a role—perhaps a reduced role—for the ferry companies. That has wider implications, which we shall be discussing in other amendments, for employment and for the Merchant Navy, which in a sense is an essential reserve for our Royal Navy in the event of difficulties. We know the role that it played in the Falklands.
There are many considerations which attract me to the group of amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has proposed. He went so fast that I confess that I did not take a note of all the amendments involved, but I take it that they are all consequential to permit the conversion of the tunnel scheme, as proposed by Eurotunnel and opposed by the Bill, for the shuttle trains to be rail traffic only. I hope that the noble Lord will press the amendment. I shall not be surprised if the Government show some reservations about it, but if it is not accepted I hope very much that he will press it and I shall be happy to support it.
Lord Somers: I quite understand that the primary importance of the tunnel is for freight traffic, but that surely would have to be a shuttle service, because the only efficient way of transporting freight would be a shuttle service so that there would be no delay at either end. If one is going to have a shuttle service for lorries, it is perfectly logical also to have a shuttle service for cars, with enough passenger coaches to accommodate the drivers of the cars. Therefore I cannot see that it need necessarily be limited only to freight.
The Earl of Radnor: I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, means by his amendment, but it is already written in the Bill that rail traffic only is provided for. The shuttle is a railway train that goes round and round. There will be provision for through trains. There is only a service tunnel in the middle, and it seems to be entirely immaterial that the shuttle service should be carrying motor cars, lorries or what have you. It is in point of fact a rail only tunnel.
Lord Underhill: I very much regret that on this one occasion I cannot see eye to eye with my noble friend Lord Tordoff. I say "my noble friend Lord Tordoff" because he and I usually look upon transport matters with somewhat the same view. His series of

365
amendments will eliminate all question of shuttle movements. What he wants is through passenger trains and through freight trains but no shuttles. This would remove from haulage operators their opportunity of choice. We know that over a distance of more than 200 miles it is more viable to send goods by rail than by road. We want to encourage the maximum possible use of rail and this is one way to assist it. If we do not have the shuttle for freight, what will be the position of freight operators and haulage operators who may find it more viable not to use the ferry system and may like to use a shuttle service? One would be removing from them the opportunity of choice. I agree with my noble friend Lord Mulley that we want to see a role for the ferries. Whatever we may be saying in the course of the debates on the Channel Tunnel, we in no way wish to eliminate the position of the ferries.
The position of passengers, in my view, is not the most important consideration. But, again, surely we should not take away the opportunity of choice from passengers who wish to travel with their cars and who wish to to take the short route. Instead of being compelled to use a sea ferry crossing, they may prefer to use the shuttle service. Therefore, we are taking away both from frieght operators and passengers with cars their freedom of choice.
I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that the important consideration is the question of BR fast freight trains. That is why throughout our discussions, in my support for a fixed link, I have emphasised that unless it had fast freight train arrangements I would find the proposal difficult to support. If we removed the shuttle service for freight and other cars there is a grave danger that the Eurotunnel project would not be viable. If it is not viable, then the opportunity of BR to seize the position and to assist in the fast movement of freight from the North, from Scotland and other areas, would obviously fall to the ground.
I believe that that is the main consideration for the fixed link. The amendments to eliminate the shuttle could make the position almost impossible for fast freight to continue because of lack of viability of the Eurotunnel scheme.
Lord Scarman: I reluctantly find myself having to disagree with this amendment. I declare an interest. I live in East Kent. I know the unemployment anxieties arising from the shuttle service and the possibility of a substantial curtailment of ferry services. I am also aware of real fears in the county of Kent as to the growth of lorry traffic on the main roads—the M.20 and others—which will feed the lorries across the county into Folkestone or Ashford.
However, I am persuaded that the shuttle service is necessary because the right of choice must be there. It might be a serious matter to deny road users the possibility of the Channel service. All I implore of the Government is that if, as I suspect, this amendment fails, real attention is paid to the unemployment problems of East Kent and to the road traffic problems of central and western Kent.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I find myself in agreement with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill,
366
which does not happen all that often. It was a pleasure when it happened this afternoon. These amendments strike at the very heart of the project. The British and French Governments, back in 1985, invited proposals for a Channel fixed link to be financed by the private sector without recourse to government funds or government guarantees. It was on this basis that the Eurotunnel project was selected and on this basis that the Anglo-French treaty was signed in February 1986. It was also on the basis that Eurotunnel would be seeking private finance for its twin tunnel shuttle project that the concession agreement between the two Governments and the British and French concessionaires was signed in March 1986.
Moreover, at Second Reading of the Bill in this House on 16th February I said that the purpose of the debate was to establish the principle of the Bill, that principle being,
"that there should be a tunnel provided that private finance is forthcoming"
and
"that the tunnel should, in essence, be the Eurotunnel scheme".
These amendments frustrate that principle.
The amendments seek to remove authority for the shuttle service element of the tunnel project and to confine operation of the tunnel to through trains. It is not clear from the amendments whether the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, intends that the concessionaires should remain in place and should simply construct and operate the tunnel itself, raising revenue only from tolls paid by British Rail and French railways. But I must make it clear that this would not be the effect. Rather, the effect would be to take the whole project back to the drawing-board.
The concessionaires have signed the concession agreement undertaking to construct and operate the project which they put forward to the Government, not to operate a totally different system imposed on them. I would not expect them to accept such a proposal; nor is there any reason why they should. The Committee should be aware that these amendments would put the Government back in the position of inviting totally fresh proposals for a Channel Tunnel. Moreover, I very much doubt that proposals for a through rail-only tunnel could be financed entirely privately.
The noble Lord, Lord Mulley, reminded us of the 1975 scheme with which I know he was associated as, I think, Minister of Transport at that time. But I should point out that even that scheme was not a rail-only tunnel. It too involved a vehicle shuttle and was very little different in fact from the Eurotunnel scheme put forward at the moment.
The Government remain resolutely opposed to any form of government funding of the project either by funding of the concessionaires or by funding of British Rail. The main purpose of Clause 41 of the Bill, which was inserted at Report stage in another place and welcomed by many concerned about the back-door funding of the Eurotunnel, is to put beyond doubt that BR's involvement in the project must be a commercial decision. That is how it should be. This is a privately-financed project.
We should not throw out the Channel Tunnel project in this indirect way. British Rail's

367
contribution to the Channel Tunnel project, on the basis of their own commercial decisions will be a very substantial one. It will provide for services to Paris and Brussels from London and beyond. And British Rail expect to see a major increase in their freight business as a result of the longer journeys which make rail freight more commercial. This will result in a significant transfer of freight from road to rail.
This will happen only as a result of the project we are now considering—and I would expect benefits such as these to be welcomed by noble Lords. Added to this, the proposed shuttle service will also provide a fast, all-weather means of crossing the Channel for traffic which inevitably will not be carried by through trains. The speedier access this will provide to Europe, already our partners in 60 per cent. of our overseas trade, will help businesses and private travellers alike, and as a result the economy of the whole country will benefit. These amendments would throw all these benefits to the wind, and I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, to withdraw them.
4.45 p.m
Lord Ezra: The noble Lord has reiterated yet again the Government's firm opposition to any public funding of this project either directly or indirectly. May I ask him, however, whether that restatement of a well-known position would inhibit the railways from making the necessary investment to realise the full potential?
My reason for asking that is that in the report from the Select Committee on page 4, paragraph 13, this same concern was expressed by the committee. They state:
"The key to spreading the benefits which could flow from the project will mostly lie in the hands of British Rail, at present totally dependent on Government for its resources. The restraints which the Government has accepted … could possibly inhibit the capacity of British Rail to invest in the infrastructure to exploit the potential."
May I ask the Minister whether the fear expressed by the Select Committee is a groundless fear and that the necessary investment will in fact be put in by British Rail to secure all the benefits of this project?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I was wondering whether the Minister was proposing to deal with the questions he was asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, concerned the road infrastructure in Kent. We shall be coming in due course to amendments which affect that, so I was not proposing to deal with it at the moment as it is not particularly relevant to this amendment.
As regards the noble Lord, Lord Ezra's point about British Rail investments, I read what was stated in the report of the Select Committee. The position is clear so far as concerns British Rail investment. If they put forward to the Government commercial proposals, the Government will look at them in the way that they normaly do so. If they are sound proposals, permission will be given for them to go ahead.
Lord Tordoff: It seemed to me that, as usual, the remarks of the noble and learned Lord were extremely relevant. I have rarely heard the noble and learned Lord make an irrelevant comment and I am surprised that the Government Front Bench consider them to be irrelevant. These amendments touch precisely on matters referred to by the noble and learned Lord.
One of the benefits of having a rail-only tunnel —that is to say a tunnel without a shuttle—is that the impact of this fixed link on the ferry services would be much less. Those travelling to France by car would continue to go by ferry and we should be able to maintain a minimum level of ferry service against the problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, referred.
The environmental impact on Kent would be greatly reduced. There would be nothing like the same need for land-take in order for the assembly of vehicles to board the shuttle. There would not be the same volume of road haulage traffic going through Kent because the pressure would be on manufacturers to put their goods into containers and to ship them on railway trains direct to Europe. There would be fewer worries about fire hazards. All the debates that we are likely to have on the question of segregation of passengers from their vehicles become irrelevant if the shuttle is not in place. As regards the passengers' lack of choice, it is true that they would not be able to take their cars on trains to France. However, it may well be that a new form of holidaying will take place; a rail-drive holiday, comparing it with the fly-drive holiday which exists and which is increasing.
There is no doubt in my mind that, as has been pointed out, the stumbling block here is not the question of the shuttle or otherwise but of the Government's refusal to fund this important national project and to leave it entirely to private funding. I believe that that is where they have made a fundamental mistake.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that in putting down this series of amendments I have been unable to produce an economic justification for them. I have no idea what precisely would happen to the economics of the tunnel. It is interesting that the Minister says that the concessionaires might not like it. The concessionaires have gone ahead and signed the concessions while the Bill is passing through Parliament. Perhaps it may have made sense for the Committee to have made up its mind before those things were signed. Nevertheless, they are signed and the project is under way.
At this moment I shall not press these amendments to a division: it would be foolish to do so. I hope that we on these Benches have had the opportunity, first, of spelling out the position that we should like to have seen, and also of re-emphasising some of the issues which will arise over and over again in Committee. They relate to issues which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, have raised, and also to matters about which the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, was speaking in our ealier debate.

369
I hope that the Government are taking these matters on board and are prepared to give more positive answers when welcome to the detailed examination of the Eurotunnel scheme as it exists at present. With that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("and its supplementary protocols and arrangements").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2 and, with the leave of the Committee, speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 4 and 100. These amendments are drafting improvements to clarify the meaning of "the treaty". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 12, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) "The Treaty" means the Treaty mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above, including its supplementary protocols and arrangements, and "the Concession" means the Concession mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 15, after second ("agreement") insert ("or arrangement").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 5 and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 35. The amendment to Clause 1 is a drafting improvement. It makes line 15 consistent with the next line which envisages that a concession agreement may be either an agreement or an arrangement. The term "arrangement" is used in the treaty, the concession agreement of 14th March, 1986, and the Bill to connote an agreement which is accepted by the parties as binding, though it lacks the form of say, a protocol or deed. An example of an arrangement might be a joint decision recorded in the agreed minutes of a meeting.
As regards the amendment to Clause 14, subsection (2) of that clause provides that a concession agreement, of which public notice has been given under Clause 4, shall be taken as valid and effective in all legal proceedings from the date specified in the notice. Without this provision formal proof of the validity of the agreement could be required for the exercise of certain powers under the Bill. However, an agreement supplementing or modifying the principal agreement may not be of sufficient moment to warrant publicity in the form of notices in the London Gazette and local newspapers. Nevertheless, its validity must be provided for and this amendment does that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 9 not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 49, leave out ("through the tunnels") and insert ("between Cheriton, Folkestone and Frethun by way of the tunnels").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 10. The amendment removes the possibility of
370
"shuttle train" being construed as including a motor rail train operated by British Rail or French railways. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert—
"(11) The Secretary of State shall by order make provision for ensuring that a person may not hold shares in the Concessionaires, or in any of them, in circumstances where the Secretary of State is satisfied that his holding of those shares would be contrary to the interests of the United Kingdom.
(12) An order under subsection (11) above8—

(a) shall contain such consequential provisions (including provisions involving the modification of any enactment) as the Secretary of State thinks fit; and

(b) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall not come into force until it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: I accept the fact that it may be difficult to relate in the wording exactly what is intended in the amendment but I am sure that the Minister is familiar with the argument. When we debated the British Airports Authority some time ago noble Lords from all sides of the House were conscious of the importance of airports authorities not being taken over by an Outside group of people or individual who did not have the best interests of Britain before them. This is also an important communications feature for this country. As noble Lords heard during the earlier debate on whether or not we should have the Committee session, it is a subject which raises great heat. The amendment attempts to give power to the Secretary of State. It does not delegate at all from his powers and it is not stating what he should do. It leaves the matter to the Secretary of State when he is satisfied that the holding of a controlling interest in the Channel Tunnel would be contrary to the interests of the United Kingdom. Therefore the Secretary of State can use these powers to prevent someone from having such control.
It is obvious, from various statements in the press and from the information which has become public knowledge, that there have been problems in raising money for the project. I do not wish to go into the details, nor do I wish to emphasise that fact. I wish to give the tunnel the best possible start that it can have. Because there have been these problems and because the Government have said time and again that there will be absolutely no government money put into this project, the tendency will be for the commercial people to look almost anywhere if matters reach the point, as they did a few months ago, and there is no money, particularly in the British market. The commercial people may be willing to go rather further than they otherwise might to raise the necessary money.
I hope that the Minister will give this a great deal of thought. He will remember that in Standing Committee in another place, and again on Report, the Minister stated that the British Government would review with the French Government and the concessionaires whether the Government should have some back-stop control to ensure that the management of the concessionaires does not pass into undesirable hands. For a project as important and vital as this, that is the least that should be done.
The idea of this project getting into "undesirable hands"—those were, I think, the Minister's actual words—is something we should not contemplate. I hope the Minister will be able to look at this. He knows the arguments from the debates that took place in the other place and I hope we shall have the benefit of his thinking on it, so that either we can have the words that have been put down or perhaps words of his own choosing that will do the same job. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: I am rather puzzled as to whether or not Eurotunnel is a plc. If it is not, when will it become so and when can members of the public buy shares in it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: To answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, I think Eurotunnel's proposal, if this Bill goes through in timely fashion to Royal Assent, is that there will be a public issue of shares in the autumn. The noble Lord will have to wait until then before investing his money in the project, if that is what he proposes to do.
To deal now with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, the invitation to potential fixed-link promoters was issued in April 1985 and the two Governments made it clear that they might wish to have certain rights in the successful promoting company. Although the fixed link was to be a purely private sector project, it was recognised that safeguards were needed to ensure that the link could not be operated in a manner inimical to the national interests of the United Kingdom and France. The nature of these rights was to be defined in the instrument of concession and the articles of association of companies which might be involved. Following the signing of the concession agreement, which contains an array of such safeguards, the two Governments jointly examined whether additional protective measures were needed. Our clear conclusion was that they were not.
As the Committee will be aware, this Government have no objection to foreign share ownership as such. On the contrary, foreign investment in this country is to be welcomed and encouraged. But what the two Governments have sought to avoid is abuse of such share ownership. During the negotiation of the concession agreement the Government secured a wide range of powers to deter or deal with any serious inadequacies in the operation of the tunnel system. For breaches of their obligations under the agreement the concessionaires can be fined by the Intergovernmental Commission. For serious breaches, such as, for example, failure to ensure that all necessary steps are taken to permit the steady flow of traffic, they would be liable to lose the concession. In addition, both Governments have general powers which would enable either state to act if national security was threatenecd.
In the United Kingdom we also have ample powers in this Bill to make orders to prevent specific courses of conduct prejudicial to the national interest. We are therefore satisfied that sufficient protection for the national interest already exists and that controls over share ownership are therefore unnecessary.
372
I should perhaps add that the proposed amendment is defective. Because of the equal partnership nature of the concessionaire companies, and particularly the twinned-share arrangement, it is not possible to apply a British solution to the British company and a French solution to the French company. Any measure to control share ownership would need to bite both in Britain and in France and to be apt in both British and French law. Although an arrangment involving both an amendment to the Bill and the protocol to the treaty might produce a workable solution, the Governments have decided, for the reasons I have outlined, not to take this complex indirect course when more direct remedies are already available. I hope that the noble Lord, having heard my explanation of the powers that are available to us, will agree that they are as good at anything that might be proposed in his amendment. I hope therefore that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mulley: The noble Lord says that it is difficult to draft an amendment to achieve the purpose my noble friend Lord Carmichael seeks namely, to retain the British national interest. I am certain that the French Government would not be unwilling to make sure that they pursue their national interest. My experience is that they tend to do that rather better and more accurately than we do.
Because of the special circumstances, namely, that two Governments are involved, the "golden share" principle, which has hitherto been characteristic of other legislation—British Aerospace and so on—is not appropriate here. I must however say in passing that I regret very much the indication that the Government are about to abandon the golden share principle in the undertakings given. In that sense they will not have the safeguards that one would like to see.
Of course, no-one is against foreign investment. What we are concerned about is that it should not be of a kind prejudicial to the interests of Britain on the one side and of France on the other. While the Minister made a very wide-sweeping statement about how many provisions there are in the Bill which will permit the Government to deal with any possibility that entries might be prejudiced, he did not give chapter and verse. Perhaps he could give us some indication, because unfortunately the concession agreement and treaty will not be submitted to your Lordships. We have to consider the matter in the form of the Bill before us. So if the noble Lord could give us some indication as to where all these safeguards are, that would help us and ease our minds.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I should like to thank my noble friend for supporting me in this amendment. I can see the point being made by the Minister that there are safeguards included in the agreement. But, as my noble friend Lord Mulley has suggested, we do not know exactly what the agreement is. I am tempted to divide the Committee. The fact made clear by the Minister in another place that there should be a long-stop was all that we were asking for. We feel that there should be something.

373
However, rather than divide the Committee, I would be happy if the Minister could put information in the Library. I do not see why, before an important Bill like this goes through, Parliament should not know, what is contained in the agreement. If the Minister would try to help by enabling us to know the type of safeguards involved, I would be prepared to withdraw the amendment and perhaps raise the matter for discussion at Report stage or on Third Reading.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I have given one example already of the type of thing contained in the concession agreement. The best solution is, I think, that I write to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, putting a copy in the Library and sending a copy also to the noble Lord, Lord Mulley. I shall also see whether I can find other things of interest to the noble Lords.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: With that promise, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall by order establish a Channel Tunnel Supplies Office for the purpose of ensuring that undertakings within the United Kingdom obtain any equitable share of contracts in the construction of the tunnel rail link as set out in this section.").
The noble Lord said: There has been considerable controversy in the country about the effect of the tunnel upon jobs and employment. I think it will be generally agreed that if the tunnel project is to proceed, every step must be taken to ensure that the maximum possible number of jobs are created in the United Kingdom in connection with construction equipment and rail equipment. It may be timely to refer to rail equipment, because some of us were very concerned to see that the contract for the East Coast main line electrification has been given to a Swiss firm. All that British Rail has is the contract for the bogies. The major work has been given to a Swiss firm.
What we are proposing in this amendment is that,
"The Secretary of State shall by order establish a Channel Tunnel Supplies Office".
In our view, it is not sufficient to say that of course the concessionaires are bound to look after UK interests, because it is, after all, a private venture with no public money. It is a commercial undertaking. The only purpose of people putting money into the project is the hope of making a profit. People will not put money in for philanthropic or social reasons. They will do it because they believe it is an undertaking which will be successful.
The Offshore Supplies Office was set up to ensure that UK companies had the best possible chance of winning contracts for the North Sea oilfields. My noble friend Lord Carmichael has a fair amount of experience of that, as I believe have other noble Lords. We believe it is essential that what was done for the oilfields should be done for the Channel Tunnel project. The amendment does not say how the proposed Channel Tunnel Supplies Office should be comprised. We suggest that it might be done on the
374
basis of the North Sea model, but this will be determined solely by the Minister by order. This is a very important amendment which we believe will command considerable support in the areas about which my noble friend Lord Sefton spoke—those areas north of Watford. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I entirely sympathise with the motives of this amendment, in that one of the great benefits of the fixed link will be the tremendous boost that the actual process of building it will give to production and jobs in this country. As has been said on many occasions, it will be a billion pound opportunity for British industry; and that is not the total value of the project, which is £2.7 billion at 1986 prices, not including British Rail's expenditure.
However, it is not in the nature of this project that shares in this work can be laid down by governments. I am sure the Committee will understand that contracts must be won and not given according to some pre-arranged scheme. If Eurotunnel is to make a success of this project, it must be free to place contracts with the most suitable supplier offering the right goods for services on the best terms. British firms will obtain all the work that they deserve. So far I am glad to say that they have secured orders totalling well over £50 million, which is excellent bearing in mind that the project is still in its very early stages.
Nevertheless—and now I come to the heart of this amendment—there is an important role for government in all this in helping to see that British firms are made fully aware of the nature and scale of the opportunities. The job to be done does indeed have some similarities to the role of the Offshore Supplies Office, to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred in moving the amendment, or indeed similarities to the British Overseas Trade Board, though there are important differences, not least of scale.
In fact, some months ago the Department of Trade and Industry established a special unit to act as a central information and inquiry point for industry on Channel Tunnel matters. Contact points have been set up in each of the department's regional offices in England and in the industry departments of the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and the Northern Ireland Office, and those are widely publicised. Through these contact points, industry is being made aware of, and being kept up to date about, the project and the main contractors' purchasing procedures and tendering arrangements.
Information is sent to local chambers of commerce, trade associations and individual companies, and the department produces a monthly newsletter to keep firms up to date on matters of design and procurement opportunities. In addition to opportunities for direct orders from the contractors, there are opportunities for many hundreds of companies to win orders for the provision of goods and services from the winners of the major contracts.
The department therefore publishes regularly details of major contracts that have been awarded so as to allow smaller and medium sized companies to follow up these opportunities. The Department of Trade and Industry has also organised a number of

375
regional procurement seminars for industry in order to provide companies with a better understanding of where opportunities lie and of how to win business. Seminars have to date been held in Birmingham, Telford, Glasgow, Bournemouth, Bristol and the East Midlands. These have all been well received, with an average attendance of 200 senior managers from local industry. Further seminars are planned for the near future in the North-West, Yorkshire and Humberside. In addition the department is keeping a close eye on purchasing on the French side of the Channel and is encouraging UK industry to bid for contracts over there.
I hope the Committee will agree that this is a substantial initiative on the part of the Government. It has been undertaken entirely independently of any pressure resulting from the passage of the parliamentary Bill, and the Government believe that it is an appropriate response to the needs of the situation. In these circumstances I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will agree to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I imagine that the Committee will be pleased with the statement that the Minister made, so far as it went, but there was something slightly complacent when he said that what has been done was done with no pressure from Parliament. I should have thought it was the elementary job of the DTI with a project as big as this tunnel, to jump in in a situation like this. What is most worrying is that all of the schemes set up are advisory. There is no powerful group, such as there is in the North Sea, which almost had a Minister of its own, a very energetic Minister, Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith, who, alas, has left the Government. He was very involved in bashing heads together and getting things done. But I agree that in some ways that was in a different category from this and that the North Sea was right on the fringe of technology.
In this case there will be the high-speed trains, the boring machines, the signalling equipment and the unique type of safety that will be required in a tunnel which is 30-odd miles long. For all these matters there should be a totally separate section of the DTI for at least the next few months.
It is not easy to tell people in Scotland and in parts of the North that competition will even things out. If you tell the shipbuilding industry that there is evenness of competition in Europe, management and trade unions in the area will tell you that they do not believe there is pure competition. There are all sorts of fancy ways of helping local industries. Therefore we do not want the Department of Trade and Industry to take a passive role and are anxious that it should take a very positive role.
I do not know my noble friend's views on this amendment, but I think it is sufficiently important to divide, having accepted that the Minister has gone a long way by telling us what has happened. However, he needs a little push to go over the edge and to set up separate sections in the Department of Trade and Industry. This will be the biggest engineering project since North Sea oil, involving British Rail and other important industries in Britain. Therefore we believe
376
that it should be looked at separately over the next six months to a year. I hope that my noble friend will press this amendment to a Division.
5.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 123.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Leatherland, L.

Airedale, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ardwick, L.

Longford, E.

Avebury, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Aylestone, L.

McCarthy, L.

Basnett, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Birk, B.

Mulley, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Bottomley, L.

Nicol, B.

Brockway, L.

Oram, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Peston, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Phillips, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

David, B. [Teller.]

Diamond, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Ezra, L.

Seear, B.

Foot, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Galpern, L.

Stedman, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hayter, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hooson, L.

Walston, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jacques, L.

Wheatley, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Colwyn, L.

Arran, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Auckland, L.

Craigavon, V.

Beaverbrook, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Beloff, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Bessborough, E.

Drogheda, E.

Blake, L.

Dundee, E.

Blyth, L.

Eccles, V.

Bolton, L.

Elibank, L.

Borthwick, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Erne, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Faithfull, B.

Brookes, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ferrers, E.

Broxbourne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Gisborough, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Glanusk, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Greenway, L.

Carnock, L.

Gridley, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Harlech, L.

377

Harvington, L.

Radnor, E.

Havers, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hemphill, L.

Reay, L.

Henley, L.

Reigate, L.

Hesketh, L.

Richardson, L.

Hives, L.

Romney, E.

Holderness, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Hood, V.

St. Davids, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Killearn, L.

Sandford, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Seebohm, L.

Lawrence, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Layton, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Long, V.[Teller.]

Sidmouth, V.

Mancroft, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Marley, L.

Somers, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mersey, V.

Swansea, L.

Milverton, L.

Terrington, L.

Molson. L.

Teviot, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Trafford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Tranmire, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Trumpington, B.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Norfolk, D.

Vickers, B.

Norrie, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Onslow, E.

Windlesham, L.

Pender, L.

Wise, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Young, B.

Portland, D.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Underhill: I have a question to ask the Minister on the matter of Clause 1 stand part. There are subsequent clauses in the Bill which refer to various works and also to the establishment of a safety authority.
Chapter VIII of the Select Committee's report states in paragraph 120 that the concession agreement actually established a safety authority. Presumably the safety authority cannot strictly act until the Bill has Royal Assent. Are decisions being taken and certain equipment being put in hand which really require consideration by the safety authority which I gather—and the Minister will be able to confirm this—cannot act until the Bill receives Royal Assent? That is a very important point.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: That is a point which I am not in a position to answer at this precise moment so I may have to write to the noble Lord about it.
Lord Mulley: I may be able to help the Minister on this point. There will be further amendments that will give him the opportunity to tell us the status of the safety commission and perhaps by the time we reach them he will be able to do so.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: That is indeed true. I shall almost certainly be able to cover the point later.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [No government funds or guarantees for the tunnel system]
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mulley Lord Mulley moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 12, at end insert ("nor shall the Concessionaires have recourse to any such Government funds or guarantees.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 14. I think that we all welcome the fact that Clause 2 is in the Bill and that it sets out very clearly the Government's assurance that no public money in any form is to be involved in this undertaking. As we know, that principle is also embodied in the treaty and the concession agreement. While we do not in any sense question the bona fides and good faith of the present Ministers and others who have made various assurances, either to the House or to the Select Committees, six years is a very long time. It is said that a week is a long time in politics. There may be some argument about that but I think it is indisputable that six years is a very long time. I understand that six years is the time that must elapse before the tunnel will be operational. The legislation now before us may well be in force for much longer than that.
I therefore believe that we need to make the Bill as watertight as we can although one recognises that one parliament cannot bind another parliament. If need arises, the government of the day would have to come to that parliament for amendment of the Act. One can envisage circumstances in which they might desire to do that. My concern is that there should be no backdoor way of giving money to the concessionaires.
My first amendment is concerned not only that, as Clause 2(1) provides:
"no Minister of the Crown or Government department shall provide funds to the Concessionaires"
but that it should be made reciprocal that concessionaires should not seek or accept any funds. That is the purpose of my first amendment.
My second amendment is directed to the fact that understandably Clause 2(2) provides for a wide range of exceptions to the general principle that no public funds should go to the concessionaires. One can imagine that there could be various circumstances in which that would be important. For example, one would welcome rather than deplore a move to place orders for equipment in an assisted area. If, in that sense, there was some form of indirect subsidy, one would not complain about that. I think we need to make sure that if profit is made from such exceptions, the total amount of profit from indirect public funds should not be excessive. I therefore propose that:
"the aggregate effect of all such funds of guarantees provided to the Concessionaires is not such as materially to affect the Concessionaires' competitive position".
Without Clause 2(3), they would profit under Section 56 of the Transport Act 1968 where capital expenditure to public passenger transport facilities can be made. There could be other ways in which grants could be made for some forms of transport which would not be available, for example, to ferries. I think it is the case that all of our European competitors give substantial subsidies to their ports and ship operators. We do not. If we saw fit to do

379
that, I should not wish it to come into the question at all. If, as is agreed, this is to be a wholly competitive commercial enterprise, we should close any possible loopholes. If there are good reasons for exceptions to be made to that principle, then Parliament should be consulted about it. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: It is some 12 years or more since I took part in any debate on the Channel Tunnel. I do not propose on this occasion to weary your Lordships with a long intervention or to intervene frequently. However, I am tempted to my feet by the fact that this amendment is moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mulley. It was he who had the doubtful privilege of being both my predecessor and my successor at the Ministry of Transport. I have always believed—I may be doing the noble Lord a great injustice—that it was he who was very substantially responsible for the ditching of the whole project on a previous occasion in 1974. If I do the noble Lord any injustice I shall immediately give way.
Lord Mulley: I am grateful to the noble Lord. The facts of the failure of the previous venture are that the Bill that the noble Lord introduced provided that unless certain matters were completed by 1st January 1975, automatically those involved would have the right to bring the project to an end. That was not a worked-out scheme such as the one we have today. As the noble Lord will recall, it was a preliminary to getting such a scheme worked out. In fact, because we had two elections in 1974 the Bill did not go through. As we know, the present Bill has taken quite a long time. The previous Bill did not go through and there was considerable public petition and an inquiry as regards the acquisition of land and so forth. Those concerned opted to have their money back on 1st January 1975. That was in accordance with a provision in the Bill which the noble Lord introduced.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am obliged to the noble Lord but I must tell him that what he has said does not entirely rule from my mind the belief that he was at least largely responsible for ditching the previous project. That is something which I have always regretted, even though it has never done anything to undermine my respect and regard for the noble Lord.
On this occasion I simply want to express some bewilderment as to what the noble Lord expects to achieve by Amendment No. 13, unless he has some more subtle reason than is clear to me. Clause 2 states that:
"no Minister of the Crown or Government department shall provide funds … or guarantees."
The noble Lord seeks to add the words:
"nor shall the Concessionaires have recourse to any such Government funds or guarantees".
That seems to me to be putting exactly the same point the other way round. I have always been very much opposed to adding unnecessary words to the Bill. In this case, the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, seems to be doing precisely that. While he is not displaying the same hostility on this occasion as he displayed on the previous occasion, I do not think he ought to add further words to a Bill which is already very clear.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil for the interesting discussions about what happened to the old 1974–75 project, and why it was cancelled. I can only reaffirm once more that this Government's determination, and indeed absolute commitment, is that there should be no public funding of the present project.
Clause 2(1) of the Bill already prevents the British Government providing government funds on guarantees to the concessionaires. It is proper to place the responsibility on government. Were any future government to offer assistance which might infringe the provisions of Clause 2(1) they should take responsibility for their own actions. The effect of this amendment could well be to open the concessionaires to a series of writs which, even if vexatious and quickly dismissed, could completely disrupt their operations. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, did not have that in mind when he moved the amendment.
We recognise that placing a duty on the British Government does not provide a remedy against breaches of the treaty by the French Government. However, a third party with an interest wishing to pursue an alleged infringement could do so in the French courts—that is the right place. Clause 2 already satisfactorily prevents government funds being paid to the concessionaires. This amendment does not assist matters and therefore I cannot recommend it.
Turning to Amendment No. 14 (the amendment to line 23), this amendment sets out to achieve even-handedness between the Channel Tunnel on the one hand and the ports and ferries on the other. I fully share and accept that objective. But I believe it is already met by Clause 2. Moreover, this amendment simply would not work.
It would be quite unreasonable to expect any court to judge as would be required by the amendment—whether the aggregate effect of funds or guarantees provided to the concessionaires was such as materially to affect a firm's competitive position. You can imagine that this is not something which is readily susceptible to objective judgment. It would create infinite scope for endless litigation. The balance provided by Clause 2(2) at present (permitting the concessionaires access to funds available equally to others) is in the Government's view the right one.
I entirely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, said. I hope that some of the orders for the Channel Tunnel do go to areas which have assisted status of some sort or another and therefore will indirectly be receiving some modest amount of government aid. But then, if one of the ferry companies ordered a new ferry in this country at the moment, there is a very good chance that that too would go to an area with assisted status.
I think that the Government have Clause 2 right at the moment and therefore I cannot recommend your Lordships to accept these amendments.
Lord Mulley: I should like to say a further word on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. Like him, I do not wish to go into a lengthy discussion on

381
past events, but he will recall that, on Second Reading of the Bill, he moved and I spoke and supported it. Secondly, I moved the reintroduction of the Bill after the change of government in 1974. Many of us are concerned about the principle which we are now talking about—the possibility of undertaking a whole project without any government funding, direct or indirect. The problem at that time was due to the estimates that finally emerged from British railways as to the actual cost involved if they were to be in a position to run the through trains for freight and passengers that we all hope to see. The problem arose because of the difficulties in getting the lines modernised—electrification and so forth, and also the problem of bypassing the commuter traffic in the London area, which is another matter to which we shall have to turn our attention.
I do not think it is unreasonable to say that should there be a responsibility on the Government not only not to make funds available, but also to make sure that the responsibilities are reciprocal, that people should not seek such funds. As we all know, many Ministers quite clearly cannot be concerned with all the details within their administration. It was to make that matter quite clear that I put down these words. I am glad to have the assurances but I repeat that they are valid only while the people who give the assurances are answerable. We are concerned now with the preparing an Act of Parliament which may last for a very long time, and one hopes that it will.
In view of what has been said I will gladly withdraw the amendment if it is thought by the Minister to be unnecessary. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mulley Lord Mulley moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 39, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) The court shall not make an award of damages—

(a) if the person bringing the action fails to prove that he has suffered any loss in consequence of something done in contravention of subsection (1) above; or

(b) if the Minister or government department concerned proves that, at the time when the thing was done, he or they did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know—

(i) that it was in contravention of that subsection; and

(ii) that it would cause loss of the description suffered either to the persons bringing the action or to persons of a class to which he belongs.").

The noble Lord said: This is a technical point which I hesitate to raise because I know that the patience of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is not very extensive and I do not wish to tempt him too much.
I tabled the amendment to find out why in these circumstances it is thought proper to throw the onus of proof entirely on anyone who claims to have been damaged by a breach of Clause 2, instead of pursuing the normal procedure of being able to take action for breach of statutory duty. As the Bill is now drafted it is necessary that they should fall back on what I am told is a very rare legal animal; namely, a tort of misfeasance of public duty.
This is a very difficult matter and happily does not arise very often in this country. It would mean that it
382
would have to be proved that the Minister, or person concerned, was acting maliciously and knowingly to damage the person, and not that damage had been suffered because of the breach of the statutory duty, in not making funds available, for example, to British Rail or Eurotunnel.
Therefore, all I am seeking to do in moving Amendment No. 15 is to put the matter as one would normally have expected it to be, that damages should be awarded by the court in the usual way for breach of statutory duty, which happily is also a rather rare occurrence. The person seeking such a remedy would not then have to prove the very difficult question of malicious intent as well as the actual breach of the statute. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I rise to my feet only in order to express briefly my gratification that a reputation for impatience which I have done absolutely nothing to earn should have restrained the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, from speaking at great length on an amendment which I must say I cannot see the need for.
I will not repeat the comment which I made concerning his previous amendment. However, I cannot believe that this amendment will add to the effectiveness, roundness or completeness of the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will advise the House to reject it.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I hope that I shall be able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, that the amendment is unnecessary by giving him the fairly technical explanation as to why that is so.
Clause 2 as drafted provides adequate protection and redress for those who might suffer loss if concessionaires receive government assistance. The Government have no intention of providing such assistance, and have accepted liability for deliberate contravention of this policy. It is not reasonable, however, that an inadvertent breach should give rise to liability. The purpose of Clause 2(6) is to guard against this.
Section 2(2) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 established that the Crown is liable only for breach of statutory duty when this duty is also imposed on others. As Clause 2(1) lays a duty on the Crown only, a breach would not involve a liability under this Act. Generally, the Government would not consider it appropriate to go beyond the Crown Proceedings Act. But in this case they have agreed to a special concession.
The requirement in the proposed amendment that the Government must prove they did not know, and could not have been expected to know, both that their action was in breach of Clause 2(1) and that it would cause loss is excessively strong. It would open the way to michievous litigation. The existing subsection (6) seeks to follow the tort of misfeasance in public office. This provides a sound basis for government liability. To go beyond it would significantly extend the normal boundary of such liability. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, will be satisfied with that explanation.
Lord Mulley: Far from being satisfied, it explains why the Government were not anxious to have my first amendment. That would have laid more responsibility on the Government because it would have made the concessionaires responsible and the Government would not now have to rely or those who wish to take action would not have to rely on the tort of misfeasance of public duty which is a very difficult legal matter to pursue. There have been very few cases, I am happy to say. There was a case last year and if the Minister wants me to give details I shall do so. One sees now why Amendment No. 13 was not wanted. The Government now say that is the reason why they do not want Amendment No. 15.
I accept the genuineness of the Government's desire not to have public money involved. One needs to take a longer view so I hope that between now and the further stages of the Bill the Minister will ask his legal advisers to see whether they really need all these legal innovations in the Bill. We shall see as we go along that they have done this for reasons which do not appear to be necessary or obvious. As I say, it is a very technical matter and I certainly do not seek to divide the Committee. In hoping that it may be further considered by the Government, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mulley Lord Mulley moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 46, at end insert—
("(6A) In this section "enactment" means any enactment contained in this Act or in any Act passed on or after the date on which this Act is passed, but does not include any subordinate legislation (within the meaning of section 21(1) of the Interpretation Act 1978).").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is put down because I do not understand why in this Bill it is sought to define "enactment"—as it does in Clause 48(1) on page 33, line 32—differently from what is normally the recognised legal definition of enactment; namely, an Act or part of an Act.
Clause 48(1) makes it possible for an enactment to include not only statutory instruments that need parliamentary approval but also any form of statutory instrument. Therefore, it would be possible—we are taking the long view as to what the future may bring forward—at a later stage for discriminatory legislation which has not been before Parliament to be made in favour either of the railways or the Eurotunnel, or other people involved. Therefore, why do we need to have this special definition in the Bill and reference to an enactment which is quite different from the normal usage of the word "enactment"? I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: As to the narrowing of the definition of enactment in line 46, this would be unduly restrictive on the concessionaires. I can say firmly that it is inconceivable that a power to provide funds to the concessionaires would be granted by means of subordinate legislation. I certainly cannot accept that the effect of Clause 2(2), which I have already said I consider to be properly balanced, should be restricted to future legislation.
The Committee will surely not expect us to prevent Eurotunnel, for example, using suppliers who are in
384
receipt of regional aid under existing legislation—a point which has already been covered. I am not sure that what I have just said fully covers the points which the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, raised. I will certainly read them again and see if there is anything that should be added. In the meantime, I hope the Committee will find the amendment unnecessary.
Lord Mulley: I am puzzled as to why enactment has to be differently defined in this Act than normally. Frankly, one has to be suspicious about giving wide, delegated powers of subordinate legislation that do not have to be referred in any way to Parliament. I accept that present Ministers would not dream of being party to a breach of the legislation, but one does not know what may happen in the future. We are now looking at the Bill which we hope will become an Act and which will govern the operation of the tunnel. With the understanding that the Minister will look at the matter again, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Walston Lord Walston moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Protection of frontier controls at United Kingdom ports.
.—(1)The Secretary of State shall ensure—

(a) that any United Kingdom frontier controls required in connection with the tunnel system are supplied by the provision of additional resources; and

(b) that, accordingly, the standard of frontier controls existing at the passing of this Act at United Kingdom ports (wherever situated) is not adversely affected as a result of the opening or proposed opening of the tunnel system.

(2) At no time shall the standard of frontier controls provided in connection with the tunnel system be materially better than the standard provided at United Kingdom ports.").
The noble Lord said: May I say at the outset that I am a wholehearted supporter of the tunnel project. I wish it well and I hope that it will not only come to fruition but that it will be successful for all those involved with it and all those who use it.
Its success may not come at the expense of the convenience to the travellers whether by the tunnel or by other means. It must not come at the expense of its competitors, particularly the ferry operators, and above all it must not come by reducing the adequacy of frontier controls, specifically with regard to the smuggling of drugs, weapons and such items.
We know, because we have read about it and some of the Committee may have experienced it, that already Customs officers are strained to near breaking point. That has been shown by their actions, which are very unusual and unwillingly taken actions. The tunnel will undoubtedly mean that there will be more cross-Channel traffic of all kinds. There will be more passengers and more goods crossing the Channel by whatever means they choose. That inevitably must mean that more Customs officers will be needed.
The Select Committee, in its very searching discussion of many of these points, was well aware of this matter and examined those who understand this issue well and drew attention to it in the evidence which is printed for the Committee to read. I am sure many noble Lords will already have done so. The Government have replied to some extent in an

385
attempt to alleviate these fears. The assurance that the Government have given reads as follows:
"It will do everything possible to ensure that, when the tunnel opens, the level of service at the ports and tunnel alike is the best practicable within the resources available to it and specifically that, in judging the resources to be allocated to each mode, it will do everything possible to avoid bias in favour of one competitor or the other".
Those are fine and good words.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will not repeat them. That is why I have read them out. We know that the Government are full of good intentions but I suggest that this expression of good intentions if far from adequate. What is needed is far more explicit assurances than simply the expression of good will. It is even conceivable—I think the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, will agree with me here—that by the time the tunnel actually becomes operative and the first train passes through it there may have been a change of Government. Therefore, even if the present Government are full of goodwill it is possible that the successor Government may not have the same desire or ability.
It is clear that if more Customs officers are not provided, not only for the actual operations but during the training period, there will be very severe difficulties. I should like to emphasise this point of the training period because the types of jobs which Customs officers will have to do on the trains under the tunnel are very different from those that the normal Customs officer has to do at the port of embarkation or disembarkation. A training period will undoubtedly be needed. There is a real danger that Customs officers will be withdrawn from their present duties at ports in order to be trained. That will inevitably lead to a worse service for ferry passengers, and will put freight operators and passengers at a disadvantage when it comes to them choosing their mode of travel.
There is a danger that the ferry operators will be at a disadvantage, because there will be longer delays for them than for tunnel traffic. That will mean that a hidden subsidy will be provided—not by Government action but by Government inaction—to the tunnel, which I am sure the tunnel operators and the Committee do not want. If that does not happen, there will be longer delays for all passengers. There will be an equality of misery, but it will be misery that can be avoided. More seriously, there will be less effective Customs controls. The only beneficiaries of that will be those who wish to import illegally into this country drugs, weapons, explosives and the other things which Customs officers are already having a difficult time combating.
I hope that the Government will agree that the amendment will minimise or remove the risk of any of that happening. It will mean somewhat more expenditure—a minor item when we look at the disadvantages of not having the expenditure. It will be essential if the tunnel is to operate smoothly and passengers using the tunnel or ferries are not to be unduly inconvenienced.
6 p.m.
Lord Holderness: It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, says, that the subject of frontier controls
386
occupied a great deal of the Select Committee's attention. The committee's emphasis was on the need for even-handedness between the tunnel and the ports. In our report we included the sentence:
"The Government have said that the frontier control department will ensure that when the tunnel opens the level of service at the ports and the tunnel alike will be the best practicable within the resources available to them".
We added:
"In the Committee's view this assurance is worth little".
In the Government's reply there is the sentence:
"The staffing of the frontier controls for the ports and the tunnel will be kept under close review".
I do not know whether the amendment is the right way to achieve what I should like to achieve, but I must warn my noble friend that if I am to oppose the amendment I should like an assurance which is a little more robust than the one which the Government have so far provided.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I should like to join in what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, to whom I think I may refer as my noble friend during this debate because we spent so many agreeable weeks together on the Select Committee. We found ourselves in general agreement. I very much agree with what he has just said. I do not regard the Government's response on this matter as satisfactory. The words "close review" are, as the Minister will be aware, wholly devoid of meaning.
The Government must recognise the degree of concern felt about this matter in Dover. Like my noble friend Lord Walston, I am a firm supporter of the Channel Tunnel project. Nevertheless, it is right seriously to consider the anxieties of the port operators at Dover. First, they say that they do not have enough Customs officers now and that there are substantial delays particularly at Easter and sometimes during the summer. Secondly, they are worried that some of those Customs officers will be withdrawn for retraining when the operating date of the tunnel comes nearer, and that therefore the delays now being experienced will worsen. That is a point of substance. I hope that the Minister will say something to reassure us.
I shall come to one of the more bizarre moments during the committee's proceedings. I should like to refer the Minister to the exchange which took place on 6th April. I do not know whether he has the Official Report of our proceedings with him. We were then receiving evidence from Mr. Sloggett, the managing director of the Dover Harbour Board. I think we all took the view that he was a pursuasive witness. He had our close attention when he was giving evidence. He was talking about the current delays at Dover. The harbour board was trying to find out how many Customs officers were being deployed so that representations could be made to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. He was questioned on that point by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who asked:
"But have you any data which you could put before this Committee"?
Mr. Sloggett answered:
"We certainly have data about the delays that are experienced. We have no data about the Customs resources that are available. It has

387
been suggested to me that to collect such data would be against the Official Secrets Act."
Is that the Government's serious position? I have rarely heard a more extraordinary statement. When I asked a few questions on this matter, Mr. Sloggett said:
"I did seek this year to try to collect those statistics, but was warned off, I am afraid.".
We then had evidence from Mr. Bolt, an Assistant Secretary from the Customs and Excise. He was asked about this rather strange matter. I apologise for quoting myself. It is a bad practice, but it is the ony way in which the committee can enjoy this series of exchanges:
"We heard one rather strange suggestion made to us. You will have seen this in the official report. When the Port Authorities wanted to find out how many Customs Officers were on duty there was a suggestion if they were to do it that they would be in breach of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. Do you know anything about that? A. No.
You were astonished? A. I think it is a matter to refer to the Treasury Ministers. They need to respond to questions of particular deployment programmes and give figures. I suppose there is some judgment which may be made about the overall allocation of figures.
You are not, with the greatest respect, answering my question. My question was, when you read this in the report on the proceedings, and you heard a suggestion made by a responsible representative of the Port Authority that, when they tried to find out something more about the number of Customs Officers at work, the suggestion was made that were they to do this they could have been in breach of the Official Secrets Act.
Do you know anything about that, point one? Were you—point two—astonished when you read it? A. I think perhaps I would have been initially surprised.
I am not one of the greatest admirers of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, but even during some of our debates on that issue I rarely heard an example of such foolishness directed against perfectly honourable, reasonable people, working for the Dover Harbour Board, who were merely trying to find out how many Customs officers were on duty so that they could make representations to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. There is serious concern by the harbour board and others on this question. They are fearful that the delays now being experienced at Dover will worsen, and I think they deserve to be satisfied on this point. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us, first, on that question, and, secondly, that there will be no more of this nonsense of trying to prevent them getting information to which I believe they are totally entitled.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: While I understand the purpose that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has in mind in moving the amendment, I have the greatest misgivings about including the second paragraph, which is extremely negative and could well add to the general depression of standards all round, whereas I should hope that the standard of facilities afforded for the tunnel will prove so good as to be a measure to be aimed at elsewhere. I should not like to see any limitation put upon the facilities offered for the tunnel leading to a standard that is admittedly unsatisfactory elsewhere. The request made by the Select Committee for the facilities best practicable within the resources available in preferable. I hope that my noble friend will not accept the second paragraph of the amendment.
Lord Teviot: I intervene briefly as I have tabled Amendment No. 22 dealing with immigration controls on trains. I believe in absolutely fair competition all round. There is great concern in Dover. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, my noble friend Lord Holderness and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, sat in the committee for hours, and we know of their experience. The wording of the amendment referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is at present irrelevant I think, but I believe that we should listen to what my noble friend says.
If the amendment is pressed, like my noble friend Lord Holderness I could find myself in the other Lobby. Let us hope that it will not come to that. It is a vital question not only for this reason but for others that I shall develop when I move Amendment No. 22. There are delays at present, and one does not wish to see delays.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The objective of the new clause is entirely reasonable. Noble Lords in Committee have expressed that. It seeks to ensure that the tunnel does not benefit competitively in relation to the ferries by having better customs and immigration facilities allocated to it than in fairness it should. However, I cannot support the amendment, partly because on closer inspection it appears to go further than is intended and partly because the Government feel that these are not matters that should be dealt with by legislative provision.
First, the Committee will note that subsection (1) (a) does not merely require fair and equal treatment between the ferries and the tunnel. By requiring all facilities for the tunnel to be supplied from additional resources, it means that the ports can continue with the same level of resources as before the tunnel opens, even though they will almost certainly carry less traffic. How much less is not of course something that the Government or I can comment on, since the Government must not seek to influence investors by giving implicit traffic forecasts. Similarly, subsection (1) (b) indicates that the standard of controls at ports should be no less when the tunnel opens in 1993 than it is today, and this implies the maintenance of a standard which, however laudable it is in its own right, is quite distinct from the question of fair and equal treatment. Subsection (2) means that, however hard the Government were to try to achieve fair and equal treatment between the tunnel and the ports, if events conspired to cause the standard to fall at the ports due to temporary difficulties, there would be a breach. Finally, the Committee will note that the amendment is one-sided. It seeks to prevent discrimination against the ports but not against the tunnel. These may seem to be minor faults, but I believe they serve to underline the fact that the objectives of this clause are not suitable to be achieved, nor could they effectively be enforced, by legislative provision.
As I have said, the general objective of fair and equal treatment is entirely reasonable, and repeatedly in earlier stages of the Bill the Government have attempted to reassure petitioners. The question was dealt with most fully in the Select Committee in another place, and by the time petitioners came

389
before the Select Committee in this Chamber the area of disagreement had considerably narrowed. It may help, however, if I repeat for the benefit of the Committee the commitments the Government gave, which are reproduced in appendix 32 to the special report of the Select Committee in another place.
First, the general principle of equal allocation of resources:
"The Government entirely shares the objective of the British Ports Association that there should be fair competition between the fixed link and the port and ferry operators. Non-discrimination, meaning consistency and a lack of bias in the provision of facilities and the allocation of resources, is the basis of the Government's policy. In particular, it is not the Government's policy that, just because the total travel time through the tunnel will be less than by the ferries, frontier controls should be expedited relative to the ferries on that account".
In relation to equal strictness of controls:
"Specifically the Government assures the Association that, regardless of how the frontier controls are arranged physically, the checks to which users of the tunnel will be subject will be as stringent, and subject to the same legal code, as the checks to which they would be subject were they to use other modes".
The problem is an intractable one, because it is one of forecasting travelling and freight consignment patterns once the tunnel opens. Without a massive increase in staff there must be a risk to both ferries and tunnel alike. If too many frontier officials are transferred to service the tunnel, the ports will be under-resourced and at a competitive disadvantage. If too few are transferred, or none at all, Eurotunnel will be disadvantaged.
However, I can assure the association that the frontier control departments will do everything possible to ensure that, when the tunnel opens, the level of service at the ports and tunnel alike is the best practicable within the resources available to them, and specifically that in judging the resources to be allocated to each mode they will do everything possible to avoid bias in favour of one competitor or the other.
It is difficult to see why deliberate undertakings about evenhandedness are inadequate when they can be quoted at any government who breach them in the future in this place or in another place. It is difficult to see how a statutory obligation would bite more effectively. The frontier authorities take great care to try to allocate their resources fairly. It is disappointing that they are being impugned for this.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, quoting from the minutes of the select Committee, questioned why the number of frontier officials at a certain port is a secret. Deployment levels of frontier control officials are a sensitive matter because detailed information on this could assist in evading controls. I have to say that it may well be that local officials were a little more reserved on that occasion than they should have been.
The Government have made many statements, and I repeat them this evening. They are very clearly on the record. We are willing, and expect, to be held to them by the ports and ferries companies. I invite the Committee to accept that this is the right way to deal with this serious issue—and we take it very seriously.
For the reasons that I have given for not accepting the amendment, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and other noble Lords will be reassured of
390
our absolute commitment to fair treatment, and that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Before my noble friend responds, I welcome what the noble Lord has just said about local misunderstandings. I recognise that they can occur. However, we are concerned about the future. Perhaps I may once again refer to the Government's response to the recommendations of your Lordships' Select Committee. Referring specifically to the Dover point, one sees in paragraph 88 of the report that in the view of the committee,
"The Government should keep the provision of frontier controls for both systems of travel under close examination".
That is a point with which we have already dealt. There follows the relevant point—
"and should in the meantime, give more information to the Dover Harbour Board about the scale of the resources now being deployed".
That was our recommendation. What was the Government's response? It was that the present close liaison with Dover Harbour Board, as with all other port authorities, will be maintained. That is wholly unsatisfactory. Concern was expressed vigorously to the committee by the witness whom we all recognised as a man of moderation and common sense. Bland language of the kind used in the Government's response convinces nobody.
The noble Lord made the point that there is some sensitivity about information as to how many customs officers there are at work. His case is not exactly strengthened by Mr. Bolt, the assistant secretary from Customs and Excise who made light of this point when it was put to him. He said that the port operators could almost count them. At one level, that is obviously true. However, when they tried to count them, they were told that they might be in breach of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.
Our request is very moderate. It is that the Government and Customs and Excise should have a sensible dialogue with the Dover Harbour Board and put minds at rest. I hope that the Minister will respond more positively than he has done so far.
Lord Mulley: I have listened to the exchanges and in particular to the interventions of the noble Lords, Lord Holderness and Lord Harris of Greenwich, who spent much time in committee on this matter. I am frankly surprised that the Minister, who is invariably so courteous to the House should blandly repeat an assurance based on the Select Committee in another place which is, in the opinion of our own Select Committee, worth very little. It is quite extraordinary. We all know that we are amateur draftsmen when we put down amendments. It is the drafting of the amendment that is involved.
The problem is that the Treasury may not authorise the necessary funds to have adequate customs facilities at both the ports and the tunnel. That is the undertaking that we require. I should have thought that if a Division were called, it would be on the understanding that between now and Report stage the Government might be a little more concerned to meet the very relevant points that members of the committee made in their report and which have been repeated today. It seems extraor-

391
dinary that the Minister cannot go further than he feels able to do.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The argument has been on two issues. One question is whether there are enough customs officers. The main point of the amendment is surely about even-handedness between the ports and the Eurotunnel scheme. I have tried to reassure the Committee that there will be even-handedness in the allocation of customs officers between the two projects. I shall obviously take into account what has also been said about the overall numbers of customs officers. I cannot commit the Government at this stage, or six years' hence, about the total number of customs officers there might be. However, on the even-handed approach between the two schemes, we should make sure that the allocation is obviously fair.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do not wish to be tiresome but I have put a specific point to the Minister concerning the Select Committee's recommendation relating to Dover and to the very bland statement in the Government's response. I asked whether he is prepared to go further. I believe it is reasonable that he should do so. We are asking for remarkably little. I recognise that another government department is involved. Will he agree to look at this matter between now and Report stage and perhaps write to one or two members of the Committee? I believe that that is the least for which we should ask.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, certainly.
Lord Walston: This has been an interesting exchange, ranging a little wider than at one time appeared likely. The Minister, as always, is extremely courteous and persuasive. However, I am afraid that his persuasion has not been sufficient to convince me that the Government are, or will be, prepared to do what is necessary in the future. If the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was not entirely persuasive, I found great strength in his criticism of the second paragraph of this amendment, which as worded is extremely difficult to enforce. I shall therefore withdraw this amendment on the understanding that I am free to come back at Report stage with an amended version—subject to some conversations that we may have before then—to implement the feelings of the majority of Members of the Committee who are present and members of the Select Committee. I hope that the Government can help us to work out a measure to achieve that aim. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 2 insert the following new clause:
("Control of predatory pricing.
—(1) It shall be the duty of the Concessionaires, and of other providers of transport and terminal facilities for cross-Channel traffic, not to pursue any course of conduct which amounts to an anti-competitive practice.
(2) In subsection (1) above "anti-competitive practice" means:

(a) A course of conduct which is an anti-competitive within the meaning of the Competition Act 1980; or

392

(b) prolonged pricing at a level which will substantially exclude from a particular market an equally or more efficient competitor.

(3) The duty of the Concessionaires under subsection (1) above shall be deemed to have been satisfied in relation to any course of conduct full details of which shall have been submitted to the Director General of Fair Trading and which shall have been approved by the Director General before such course of conduct is pursued.
(4) Any contravention of the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be actionable at the suit or instance of the Secretary of State or of the Director General of Fair Trading or of any providers of transport or terminal facilities for cross-Channel traffic who have suffered loss or damage as a result of that contravention.").
The noble Lord said: As I said at Second Reading, I am a strong supporter of the Channel project. Furthermore, I am entirely in sympathy with the concept of free and fair competition. The object of free and fair competition must clearly be to achieve a reasonable level of prices and a good standard of service to the public.
The purpose of this amendment is to prevent predatory pricing which is an abuse of genuine price competition. It is a system by which one operator temporarily sells his services below cost in order to force another operator out of business. Expert studies agree that at the opening of the tunnel there will be substantial surplus of capacity for cross-Channel traffic.
The object of this amendment is to prevent one or other of the cross-Channel carriers from dumping its surplus capacity on the market in a do-or-die attempt to put the others out of business. I have spoken to some of those involved in the ferry services and the harbour board who are concerned about the possibility of concessionaires so doing. I have also spoken to those involved in the Channel project itself who are concerned that the ferries might do likewise.
For example, if the fixed-link concessionaires were to pursue this policy and the ferries were to go bankrupt, or the boats were to be moved away—and the Dover Harbour Board under those circumstances has plans to convert its facilities to those of a marina—the tunnel would have a virtual monopoly and could in theory name its own price. Conversely, if the ferries—equipped with larger and more efficient boats which might largely be written off in six years' time—were to adopt a predatory pricing policy the concessionaires might be unable to service their debt. There are various scenarios as to what would then happen. Almost all of them end up with one or other group in a monopoly position. If that were to happen it is certain that the investors in the concession would lose their money. This possibility must be one which may discourage potential investors, if it could be avoided by ensuring that this amendment or something like it ends up on the statute book.
The Select Committee considered a similar but one-sided amendment proposed by the Dover Harbour Board. Paragraph 83 reads:
"Although the Committee disagree with the contention of the ferry operators and the Dover Harbour Board that the general law on competition as it applies to ferries should be altered in their favour they have questioned whether the competition regime for the tunnel itself is sufficiently consistent with the regimes that apply to other private sector enterprises."
This suggests an element of disquiet in the minds of the Select Committee as to the fairness of the competitive régime. I should like to suggest that this

393
amendment, if accepted, would constitute a significant improvement to the competition which would be available to the concessionaires and to the ferries respectively. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: I believe it was the intention that we should discuss Amendment No. 149 at this time as well. I dare say that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will wish to say something in a moment. I merely support what Lord Northbourne has said. I believe that the possibility of savage predatory pricing is somewhat remote, but it is there. It is a possibility and we ought to take what steps we can within the Bill to block off any such predatory pricing. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is quite right that we also have to remove the fear of predatory pricing from the minds of those who wish to invest in Eurotunnel in the coming months. As we know, there have been difficulties in financing which we hope are now behind them. If the general public are to put money behind this project when it comes to the market, it is important that these sorts of problems are removed from their minds.
The reason I prefer the amendment to which I have added my name to that of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is because I feel it is a rather more evenhanded amendment dealing with predatory pricing either by the tunnel concessionaires or by the ferry owners; indeed these matters could go either way. Between now and the opening of the tunnel there could be predatory pricing by the ferry owners; and afterwards, to jack up their share of the market, there could be predatory pricing by the tunnel concessionaires. Even if the Government do not like the wording of the amendment, I hope they will be prepared to put forward some wording of their own which covers the point.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: As my name is attached to Amendment No. 149, which is being taken with this, I should like to endorse everything that the noble Lords, Lord Northbourne and Lord Tordoff, have said. The wording of Amendment No. 18 I find is much more explicit and all embracing than my own amendment. I shall be happy not to move my amendment in favour of his amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will apply to all providers of cross-Channel transport and not just the concessionaires. That is the difference between it and the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael.
The ferry companies' contention appears to be that by introducing bigger and faster ships and by making other improvements in efficiency, they will be able to undercut substantially the level of fares that Eurotunnel need to cover its costs, including debt servicing. As a result, it is argued, Eurotunnel will have no alternative but to hold down its own fares for a sufficiently long time to bankrupt the ferries, after which Eurotunnel will he free to raise its fares again to what is, for it, an economical level. Eurotunnel will be able to do this—so the ferry companies claim—because its operating costs, other than debt
394
servicing, will be much lower than those of the ferries, and provided it can cover its operating costs that will always be a better option for Eurotunnel's shareholders and creditors than going into liquidation.
How likely this scenario is to come about is not a matter on which the Government can comment. We made it clear in the White Paper last year that the Government should not seek to influence investors' decisions. The point, however, is that predatory pricing—that is to say, as has been described, deliberate pricing below cost with a view to knocking out a competitor and then raising prices again—is an anti-competitive practice and is subject to the procedures and remedies of the Competition Act 1980 and also Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome. The 1980 Act gives the Director General of Fair Trading power to investigate any course of conduct which appears to restrict, distort or prevent competition in the supply of goods or services in the United Kingdom. It is established that predatory pricing, properly defined, constitutes such a course of conduct. Indeed the Office of Fair Trading investigates such cases. If the director general finds that such a course of conduct is being pursued in a particular case he can stop it by securing undertakings or by referring the case to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Alternatively under European Community law the European Commission has powers to investigate complaints and if appropriate to issue interim and final orders and to impose heavy fines. European Community law is also directly enforceable in the United Kingdom and would enable a ferry operator, who considered himself to be the victim of predatory pricing, to seek injunctive relief from a United Kingdom court.
This argument was put by the ferry companies at length before the Select Committee, that by the time any investigation had been completed and the anti-competitive practice brought to an end, they would have suffered irreparable damage. Accordingly, they proposed, much along the lines of the amendment now before the Committee, that Eurotunnel should be placed under a duty not to charge, without the prior consent of the Director General of Fair Trading, fares which an equally efficient competitor could not match. This proposal was not, and is not, acceptable to the Government for the following reasons. First, the Government do not agree that the existing procedures are ineffective. Preliminary investigations can be completed in a matter of months. And the mere fact of launching an investigation is sufficient sometimes to persuade the offender to stop the practice complained of.
Secondly, a process of investigation is inescapable. The amendment achieves no improvement in that respect because it would still be necessary to establish whether the competitor was in fact equally efficient. Although it could be argued that this would be avoided if the concessionaires were to comply beforehand with subsection (2) of the proposed new clause, this too is objectionable to the Government because it is tantamount to prior approval of pricing by the Director General. Thirdly, the attractive-sounding term "equally efficient" is almost impossible to define. But whatever it means, the basic principle that equally efficient competitors should be

395
required to charge the same prices is objectionable, because it takes no account of differences in costs. We do not require an efficient low cost, but slow, sea ferry to charge the same high fares as an efficient fast, but high cost, airline. Different modes with differing attributes and cost structures must be allowed to reflect them in their prices.
Both the amendments would make it a duty not to pursue an anti-competitive practice within the meaning of the Competition Act 1980, and breach of that duty would render the offender liable to pay damages. The effect of imposing unconditional prohibitions would be to exclude the necessity for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to consider whether the anti-competitive practice has been pursued and whether it operates or might be expected to operate against the public interest. This essential element of the investigative process would be eliminated by these proposed amendments and this would be a radical and unacceptable change in the whole bais of our competition law.
As regards the right of the competitor to receive damages—I am not sure whether it was mentioned—the Competition Act does not provide such a right unless the investigation culminated in the Secretary of State making a formal order and that order has been breached. If the culmination of an investigation is merely the securing of undertakings from the offending firm, breach of those undertakings does not give rise to a liability to pay damages. The position where a complaint has been made under European Community legislation is somewhat uncertain and it has not yet been fully tested in the courts.
I appreciate the concern that the injured party should be able to secure compensation, but, as I have indicated in my brief remarks, the law in this area is highly complex and any change should be made only as part of a general review of competition law and after very careful consideration of all the implications. I believe it would be quite wrong to introduce a radically new principle of competition law into a Bill concerned with one particular project, without regard to its implications for the whole structure of competition law across the board. The noble Lord's concern should not be pursued in the context of this Bill.
The Government believe fully that national and Community laws provide appropriate procedures for dealing with predatory pricing. The Select Committee agreed with that. Accordingly, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and others, will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: Perhaps I may intervene before the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, indicates what he proposes to do. In the Transport Bill the Government insisted that local public transport companies should not engage in anything which could be termed to be against competition. During the debates on the Airports Bill there was considerable discussion about predatory pricing in connection with Stansted. Why should the Government now take a different view on this point? If the Government do not like the wording of the amendment, they ought to say that they agree
396
with the principle and will bring forward an amendment of their own. Surely everyone agrees that there should not be predatory pricing. The amendment does not say that there should be equal pricing. I cannot see the word "equal", to which the Minister referred in his speech. As my noble friend Lord Carmichael said, we prefer the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, to ours because it is equal-handed. It deals not only with the concessionaires but with the ferries as well.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I did not say that I did not agree with the principle of the amendment, that we should seek to avoid predatory pricing. What I said was that I believed that we already have the mechanism to do this in both national and Community law.
Lord Northbourne: With great respect to the Minister, I do not feel that he has addressed himself to the problem of timing, about which the harbour board and the ferries have been extremely anxious. It is a fact that a matter of months, if not a year or so, could be quite long enough to cause great financial distress and possible bankruptcy. I cannot see why it is not possible to accept the principle of subsection (3), which suggests that any pricing policy could obtain the whitewashing, the approval, of the Director General of Fair Trading before it was put into action so as to avoid the necessity of legal action at a later date.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I said that these things can happen quite quickly. Action can be taken quite quickly. I also said that often the very fact of launching an investigation is sufficient to persuade the offender to stop the practice being complained of.
Lord Northbourne: I am not entirely convinced by this assurance. I shall make further inquiries and I reserve the right to bring this back at Report stage. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): Strictly speaking, the Question, That Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill, should have been put after Amendment No. 16. However, I understand that, largely through a printer's error on the top of page 4, it was not so put. In the circumstances I shall put the Question now, That Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Compensation to Dover Harbour Board
.—(1) If at any time the Concessionaires shall enter into liquidation or commit any act of bankruptcy or agree any composition, accommodation or moratorium with any one or more of their creditors or have a receiver appointed of any of their assets or revenues, the Secretary of State shall pay to the Harbour Board compensation determined as provided in subsection (2) below.
(2) The compensation payable under subsection (1) above shall be such sum as shall be agreed by the Secretary of State and the Harbour Board or in default of agreement determined by arbitration as being reasonable compensation.
(3) The matters to be considered in arriving at that sum shall include—

(a) the total sums expended by the Harbour Board in redundancy and other payments to employees and former employees in meeting or attempting to meet competition from the Concessionaires during any period when the Concessionaires were not able to meet their financial commitments without additional or extended credit; and

(b) the written down value at the default date of all capital expenditure incurred by the Harbour Board in the provision of terminal and other facilities which are in direct competition with those of the Concessionaires for cross-Channel traffic (less the proceeds of any disposals of the assets in question).

(3) In this section—
"the default date" means the first date upon which there occurs any of the events mentioned in subsection (1) above in relation to the Concessionaires;
"the Harbour Board "means Dover Harbour Board;
"the written down value of all capital expenditure" means the original capital cost as shown in the accounts prepared and published by the Harbour Board in accordance with the Statutory Harbour Undertakings (Accounts etc.) Regulations 1983, less the cumulative total of depreciation of that capital expenditure as shall have been shown in the last of those accounts to have been so prepared and published before the default date.").
The noble Lord said: I believe it is the Committee's wish to take Amendments Nos. 148 and 151 at the same time. I move Amendment No. 19 and want to speak to Amendment No. 148. Amendment No. 151 is not one to which I have given my support so I shall not comment on it, though I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, will wish to do so.
It is common ground that the Channel Tunnel will introduce into the cross-Channel transport industry massive additional capacity. The Government have announced that they consider that this capacity will be cheaper, faster and more efficient than the existing facilities. Eurotunnel makes similar claims and says:
"In short, this project is capable of taking a greater flow of traffic more quickly, securely, dependably and cheaply than any other".
Those words come from the CTG memorandum to the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport of 15th November 1985. If that view is correct then in due course the more expensive, slower and less efficient ferries will dissappear.
I find it curious that, despite their belief that in every important economic respect the tunnel will be superior to the ferries, the Government are also of the view that the tunnel and the ferries can and will co-exist. While admitting that there will be an impact—that is a modest little word—on the size and capacity of the remaining ferry fleet, the Government stated in the White Paper:
"It is not likely to be such as to create insoluble problems for the ferry industry. It is expected that the total ferry capacity, once the link is open, will be slightly less than it is today and will increase again in later years".
There is no published evidence to support this remarkable view. I move this amendment because I have a great interest in Dover. I was Member of Parliament for Dover from 1964 until 1970 and I had a good deal of contact with Dover during the election. The evidence that there will be hardly any impact on Dover as a port is not accepted. In fact at the time of the election all three candidates boldly proclaimed their total opposition to the tunnel,
398
despite whatever their parties' views were. I reckon that you could not stand as a candidate in Dover without making such a declaration. I was glad that I was not a candidate.
There is at least a chance that the tunnel will not prove to be superior to the ferries, or, if in some aspects superior, not profitable at market prices. We discussed those issues in the previous amendment. In those circumstances the Promoters of the Bill will have made an ill-judged decision in seeking to establish a fixed link. What then would be the position of the Dover Harbour Board, which, having carried the traffic during the construction period of the tunnel and invested accordingly, finds that the services have beaten the Channel Tunnel in fair competition? Fair competition implies freedom of entry and exit to industry but the key element here is that the tunnel, once built, cannot leave the market as there is no alternative use for the capital. It is quite different therefore from the ferries. In these circumstances an injudicious oversupply of capacity will have been promoted by the Government.
In the port industry the Government have provided funds for some time to buy out existing labour capacity resulting from the workings of the national dock labour scheme; and, more widely, in coal, steel and agriculture of the United Kingdom and Europe, which recognised that excess capacity exists, the Government have actively involved themselves in bringing demand and supply back into equilibrium by buying out some of the excess capacity or subsidising the continued over-capacity. I ask the Minister whether it is unreasonable to ask the Government to do the same for the Port of Dover if it finds itself in a similar position as a result of the Government's bad judgment? That is, if it is proved that it is bad judgment, and I draw no conclusions on that.
I want to say a few words about the impact on Dover itself. The harbour board admittedly employs only about 1,000 people, but if you take ferry operators, shore staff, Dover-based United Kingdom crew, freight agents, etc., there are about 10,000 people involved. By 1993 this could rise, in the view of the Dover Harbour Board, to 12,000. Directly and indirectly the cross-Channel industry accounts for an estimated 43 per cent. of local business. That was the figure estimated in the late 1960s when I was Member of Parliament, and it seems to be the same today.
If Eurotunnel succeed in meeting their minimum targets, they will need to take at least 60 per cent. of Dover's traffic, and of course that means revenue. This will lead to an equivalent reduction in costs and, inevitably, manpower. Thus as a first and immediate consequence of the tunnel some 6,000 or more jobs will be lost. The longer-term future depends on the relative success or not of the ferries and the tunnel.
There arises therefore—and this is the purpose of the new clause—the question of compensation. The new clause deals with the need of the ferry, hovercraft and harbour operators to receive compensation in circumstances where they properly require to write down, or write off, the value of assets in their accounts as a result of the proposed opening of the tunnel system. They would be required to establish that need to the reasonable satisfaction of the

399
Secretary of State. Having established that need it would be the Secretary of State's duty to compensate them.
The House of Lords Select Committee disposed of the ferries' and ports' petition in the same way as it dealt with other various aspects of compensation. It said that it did not consider the Bill's scheme to be unfair, and accordingly did not think that the compensation provisions asked for were warranted.
There are, however, two facets to the proposed amendment. The Government considered the first one, which is that the Government's intervention in the promotion of the Hybrid Bill justifies the payment of compensation, although of course the committee disagreed with that. They did not, however, address the second, which is that if no provision is made then there is no incentive for the ferries to provide sufficient capacity to cater for demand up to the time the tunnel opens.
The Committee may be aware that Townsend Thoresen are currently introducing two jumbo ferries on the Dover-Calais route. While these ferries are intended to compete with the tunnel, further investment by any of the ferry operators in this sector must from here on be questionable. They must satisfy themselves regarding the commercial régime which will exist when the tunnel opens—that is, a pricing policy in order to force the ferries out of business. This is the subject of a further amendment for consideration by the Committee.
Secondly, they must have regard to the fact that fleet reductions after the tunnel opens are absolutely inevitable, even on the Government's figures set out in the White Paper. Additional tonnage will merely compound the problem. All the evidence is that the only effective competition to the tunnel will be provided by a limited number of large ferries operating on the Dover-Calais route, and only then in circumstances which forbid the use of the tunnel's otherwise dominant position.
I would submit therefore that the case for compensation, both as set out in Amendment No. 19 and also in the different circumstances as set out in Amendment No. 148, is profoundly important not only to protect the interests that already exist in Dover but also to ensure that there is adequate investment until the time when the tunnel is operating. Moreover, if things go wrong with the tunnel there will be some compensation to ensure that facilities are then made available by the ferry operators from Dover to deal with what will inevitably be, by one means or another, an increasing demand to travel from Britain to Europe. I beg to move.
Lord Mulley: I was not aware that it was the desire of the Committee to take Amendment No. 151 in my name along with the other two amendments of my noble friend Lord Ennals, but I am prepared to do so and discuss the three together. Obviously the detail varies between the Dover Harbour Board problems and the losses that may be incurred by the operators on the one hand, and my amendment which deals with the costs that will be incurred by redundancy payments. As well as there being obsolete equipment,
400
one expects that there will unhappily be a great reduction in the numbers employed both on the ferries themselves and in their supporting services if, as is expected, a substantial amount of the cross-Channel traffic is taken by the tunnel. On the other hand if it does not take a lot of the traffic then it will not be a success.
The Select Committee rather disappointingly did not seem to understand that there is a special problem. They said that they could not see any unique feature as to why there should be special consideration for the ferries and the harbour authorities in these circumstances. My noble friend has made the point that this is quite unique in the sense that it is very much in the national interest as regards exports and tourism—both of which are of great importance to us—that there should be an adequate cross-Channel facility up until the very day that the tunnel becomes operational.
However, clearly if the ferry operators take the advice that the Select Committee proffered; namely, that they should look at these matters like any sensible entrepreneur, and if they see that their market is going to decline, they will not wait until it happens but will begin to cut their resources and begin to lay off, or not replace, jobs, and not replace ferries and so forth. Although the Government say that it is not their business to make traffic forecasts, obviously the ferry operators have had to make traffic forecasts. We are all looking a hit into the crystal ball and we do not know exactly how things will be in six years or more from now, but they do not see such an enormous growth in cross-Channel traffic arising from the building of the tunnel such as to maintain the same level of ferry operation after the tunnel is built as before.
It will be a national disaster if, in order to satisfy their shareholders—just as one understands that Eurotunnel will be concerned to satisfy theirs—they begin already to cut back as the six years go by. It will not be just in the year, or perhaps two or three years, before the tunnel is due to open. Not only adequate provision for our own people who want to go as tourists to the continent but more importantly, as has been stressed throughout, the freight situation will become extremely serious, as indeed will be the possibility of foreign visitors. We all know that invisible exports are extremely important as well as our actual trade in exports.
We cannot expect the ferry operators, or the port operators, to keep full capacity, or indeed to increase their capacity to meet the demand in the next few years, unless somebody is to help them at the end of the time with regard to the redundancy monies that they will quite properly have to pay to their staff, and for some loss arising in respect of obsolete capacity, which they will have kept on in the national interest until such time as the tunnel has taken a substantial part of the business.
A further unique situation is that the ferries in this country are the only ones which are privately owned. Sealink, prior to being sold by British Rail to a private operator, was publicly owned. The French, Belgians and Dutch have government support and are not wholly dependent on the shares of private enterprise. Despite the great belief of the present

401
Government that everything should be privately owned, they will be put in a real dilemma as to what they should do.
While there may be arguments about the particular drafting, or the particular way in which help should be calculated, I hope that the principle will be recognised in a way that it was not, I am sorry to say, by our Select Committee. Although the Government recognise that there might be a problem, so far as I can understand the matter they make no proposals which will encourage the ferry companies to carry out their function, in the national interests, of providing a satisfactory cross-Channel service, as I am sure they desire to do. If British ferries do not operate there certainly will not be sufficient foreign ferries willing to pick up the load.
7 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: I put my name to Amendment No. 19 but not to Amendments Nos. 148 and 151. Although there have been two brave tries by the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Mulley, Amendments Nos. 148 and 151 seem to me to be special pleading of a very high order. I understand the fact that people in Dover are worried and that they have tried to get some money out of the Government. However, I do not see my way to supporting that issue.
Amendment No. 19 is different. It deals with a situation where the concessionaires may have gone into liquidation or committed an act of bankruptcy. In that situation it is right to suppose that the concessionaires have been performing in such a way as to provide unfair competition, that the situation has got out of hand and that the harbour board and others will have been subjected to competition which is grossly unfair. In those circumstances, it would be right to make some provision for compensation for the harbour board. I do not necessarily go along with every word of Amendment No. 19, but I think that there is a much better case for that amendment than for Amendments Nos. 148 or 151.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The new clause in Amendment No. 19, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, requires the Secretary of State to compensate the Dover Harbour Board—though the principle is equally applicable to the ferry operators—for any loss of business resulting from competition from the fixed link if at any time Eurotunnel is obliged, in order to carry on trading, to write off or reschedule any of its debts. This proposal therefore accepts that if Eurotunnel can fully pay its way it will have justified its place in the market, and therefore the existing operators should accept any losses they incur as a result of such competition. On the other hand, it is argued that if events were to demonstrate that Eurotunnel cannot fully pay its way, that will show that it should not have been allowed to proceed with the project in the first place, and therefore the Government should pay compensation for any damage that Eurotunnel's entry to the market has inflicted on the existing operators.
402
Amendments Nos. 148 and 151 in Schedule 7 go even further. They provide unconditionally that, even if Eurotunnel can fully pay its way, the Government should compensate the existing operators for assets which have become obsolete, and for payments to employees made redundant as a result of the diversion of traffic to the fixed link.
This extraordinary proposition is based mainly on the argument that the introduction of a large quantity of additional capacity into the cross-Channel market is unfair competition per se.
These two proposals are not new. The Government rejected these and other compensation proposals when they were advanced before the Select Committee and also earlier in another place. The Government do not believe existing operators have a right to be protected against legitimate competition, and the role of the Bill is simply to provide the legal framework to enable Eurotunnel to compete. The decisions whether to invest in the fixed link rest entirely with the private sector. If those decisions prove mistaken the Government will not compensate the investors. Nor should the Government be under any obligation to compensate the existing operators. Mistaken investment decisions occur from time to time in every sector of the economy. They are a fact of commercial life and there is no right of compensation against them.
The Select Committees in both Houses have accepted these arguments. As the noble Lord said, the committee of this House concluded in paragraph 78 of its special report that the situation facing the ferry and port operators is neither unique nor unfair. The existing operators have at least six years to adjust their investment plans to take account of the opening of the tunnel in, 1993. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to the fact that one operator has recently put two new jumbo ferries on to the route. I understand that they are to compete directly with the link. The committee agreed that the operators have difficult choices to make, but it did not consider the Bill's scheme to be unfair or that the compensation provisions asked for were warranted. I hope that the Committee will endorse those conclusions, unless the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tordoff: The noble Lord does not appear to have distinguished between Amendment No. 19 and the other two amendments in the way I sought to do. I accept what he says about Amendments Nos. 148 and 151 but he must recognise that the situation is different as regards Amendment No. 19.
Lord Ennals: I should like to elaborate on that point. It was a helpful intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. The Minister replied only to Amendment No. 148, as opposed to Amendment No. 19 which is immediately before the Committee. I shall read the words again:
"If at any time the Concessionaires shall enter into liquidation or commit any act of bankruptcy or agree any composition, accommodation or moratorium with any one or more of their creditors or have a receiver appointed …".
Therefore, it is only under circumstances of a total failure of the Channel Tunnel. At no stage did I suggest that 1 thought that that would happen, that

403
I wanted it to happen, or anything at all. However, if there is such total confidence in the profitability of Eurotunnel—and therefore in the minds of those who decide and especially at this moment in the minds of the Government—and if there is no doubt whatever that this project will succeed, I do not understand why they should not feel that a guarantee such as that contained in Amendment No. 19 (I am not arguing at the moment about Amendment No. 148) is not absolutely proper and totally fair to the ferry operators and the Dover Harbour Board.
Lord Tordoff: I should like to reinforce that point. The noble Lord, in referring to Amendments Nos. 148 and 151, rightly said that normal competition must be allowed to exist and therefore ferry operators should be prepared to work in those circumstances. It is a presupposition of Amendment No. 19 that fair competition has not existed and that the Bill is based on a wrong premise. In those circumstances, I suggest that the Government have a responsibility and therefore that compensation should be paid in the case of liquidation or bankruptcy.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I do not think I can add very much more than I said in my original reply. I can assure noble Lords that when they read what I have said they will see that I did take into account Amendment No. 19. I am fully aware of the difference between this amendment and the latter two amendments. I am not saying one way or the other whether Eurotunnel is going to be a success: I have said that on several occasions this evening. I am not prepared to give investment advice on that issue: nor would it be proper for me to do so. It is a question for the market to decide. I really have nothing further that I can say on this at the moment.
Lord Ennals: I must admit that I was disappointed by the original reply and I am no more reassured by the reply the Minister has just given. I shall not go over the arguments again, but I shall go over his speech. He has just said that he gave certain assurances or said some things that should be read carefully. I shall read them carefully and I shall not press the amendment at this stage—or, for that matter, when we reach Amendment No. I48—but if I am not happy about what I have read in the Minister's reply I want to reserve the right to return to this subject at the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hesketh: Before moving that the House do resume, I would suggest that we should resume the Committee stage of this Bill at 8.15. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Jury Trial (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987
7.12 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11 th May be approved. [20th Report from the Joint Committee Session 1986–87].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Jury Trial (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, a copy of which was laid before the House on 11th May, be approved.
I should draw to the attention of the House that this is the second draft of the order to be laid before the House. The draft which was laid on 8th May was defective in that it did not give the commencement date of the order. On the advice of counsel to the Chairman of Committees, the original draft was withdrawn and a new draft laid on 11th May giving a commencement date of 1st August 1987.
The effect of the draft order would be to remove personal injury and fatal accident actions from the list of cases in which a party may request trial with a jury in the High Court in Northern Ireland. This change would bring Northern Ireland into line with the position in England and Wales.
At present in Northern Ireland either party to a personal injuries action in the High Court may request trial with a jury of seven persons. Although the majority of cases are set down to be tried in this way, in practice fewer than 2 per cent. are decided by a jury. The vast majority of cases are settled at the door of the court or, in some cases, in the course of the trial. Indeed, court records indicate that 95 per cent. of cases are dealt with without a jury ever becoming involved.
In November 1985 the then Lord Chancellor announced that he had decided to conduct a review of the desirability of a change in High Court practice. A total of 16 organisations were invited to make submissions. Of the submissions received, 11 favoured the abolition of civil jury trial. The 11 organisations comprised employers' organisations, representatives of the insurance industry and the accountancy profession, the Automobile Association, and the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland. Against this, three of the organisations invited to make submissions were opposed to any change. Those opposing change were: the General Council of the Bar of Northern Ireland, the Law Society of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. That will probably not be a surprise to the House.
Neither the proponents of change nor those opposing abolition raised any new points of substance which had not already been put to an inter-departmental working group which reported to Ministers in 1979. That working group, which comprised Northern Ireland Government Departments, established: that employers' liability insurance costs are higher in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain; that these costs have a significant effect on the operating costs of firms; that awards granted under the jury system in Northern Ireland are higher than under the non-jury system in England

405
and Wales; that legal costs form a higher proportion of the total costs of an award or settlement in Northern Ireland; and, very significantly, that there is a greater delay in dealing with cases or achieving settlements in Northern Ireland.
The working group recorded that consideration be given to the abolition of the jury system in personal injuries litigation in Northern Ireland.
In January this year the then Lord Chancellor announced that, having carefully considered the views of the interested parties, he had concluded that there was no compelling reason why Northern Ireland should differ from England and Wales in the use of juries in personal injury actions.
The change which it is now proposed should be made for Northern Ireland took place in England and Wales as long ago as 1933. I make this point to emphasise that this will be no leap into the dark for the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. The civil law and the rules of civil procedure in the Province are in most respects similar, if not identical, to those in England and Wales. The change now proposed will remove one of the few differences of any significance between our two systems and will provide for even greater parity in the methods of dealing with civil claims in the two law districts. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has appreciated that I have always been very anxious to reduce differences in legal procedure and other points between the Province and England and Wales.
To turn now to the draft order, the mechanics of the exercise are straightforward. The power to make the Order is provided by Section 62 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. Subsection (1) of that section lists five classes of action in which a party may request trial with a jury in the High Court. The effect of the draft Order is to remove head (e) from the list. Head (e) is concerned with personal injury and fatal accident actions. Removing personal injury cases will leave four classes of action (libel, slander, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment) in which a party will still be able to request trial with a jury. This, as I have said, will bring the law in Northern Ireland into line with that in England and Wales. I should also mention that there will still be power for the High Court to order trial with a jury, even in a personal injury case, where it is considered that this would be more suitable. However, the majority of personal injury cases will from now on be tried by a judge sitting alone.
As to the timing of this change, it is proposed to bring the order into force on 1st August this year so that it will be in place at the start of the new legal year—and of course I mean the new legal year in Northern Ireland, which is a month ahead of ours. A corresponding amendment to the Rules of the Supreme Court will make clear that, from the beginning of the new legal year, trial by judge alone will be the mode of trial in personal injury cases.
I. have no doubt that there are those who will oppose this change and will plead in aid of their case the common sense and standards of the ordinary juryman. However, I consider that arguments of this sort ought not to blind us to the simple fact that the
406
standard of justice attainable in personal injury actions in England and Wales is in no sense inferior to that which has hitherto been available in Northern Ireland from judge and jury. Consequently, the proposed change should not be portrayed as bringing about any lessening of standards. Rather, I would urge on the House that it is a desirable and long overdue reform. Indeed, the savings for litigants that should result from reduced legal costs and the expedition of trials and settlements are reason enough for bringing this order before the House. My Lords. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11 th May be approved. [20th report from the Joint Committe Session 1986‐87].—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will welcome the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the introduction of what is, I think, his first order. I wish that I could support it. Alas, I cannot! Indeed this apparently innocuous order has given rise to a great deal of adverse comment in Northern Ireland. In particular, as the noble and learned Lord said, it is strongly opposed by the legal profession in Northern Ireland, both the Bar and the Law Society. The Northern Ireland Bar is a Bar to which I have had the honour to belong for a great many years. It is distinguished both for its independence and for its competence. I do not think its opposition is explained by any selfish advantage which may be suspected to derive to the Bar from the existence in a limited number of cases of the jury system.
As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, the order is also opposed by the Northern Ireland trade unions and by many in the Province who deplore the further whittling away of the jury system. The weight of opinion that has been communicated to me from Northern Ireland is to the effect that the civil jury system is working sufficiently well there to justify the continuance of its use. In the troubled field of Northern Ireland, it is wise to leave well alone.
No overwhelming reasons have been put forward, I submit with respect, by the Lord Chancellor for abolition. Indeed the extent to which civil juries in Northern Ireland have historically carried out their duties free from religious, political and social bias has been one of the reassuring features of life in Northern Ireland. That record, we have every reason to think, will, in these troublesome times, be continued.
In my submission, speaking for those on this side of the House, the arguments for abolition are unconvincing while those for retaining civil juries are strong, particularly in the special circumstances prevailing in Northern Ireland. The factors which led to the setting up of the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland to deal with terrorist activities, by reason of the fact and fear of intimidation of witnesses and jurors, do not apply to civil proceedings. There has never been any evidence of intimidation of juries in those cases or indeed of witnesses in civil proceedings. So there is no justification of the kind that existed in regard to the Diplock court arrangements that apply to civil proceedings in Northern Ireland.

407
Indeed, the historical background in Northern Ireland does not appear to support the Government's action. The MacDermott Committee's report on the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland published in 1970, recommended with only one dissenter the retention of jury trials in actions for damages for personal injuries or death, and that was in full knowledge of the fact that civil jury trials in England had effectively been abolished before that time. If the Government's proposals are implemented, trial by jury will effectively cease to exist in the Province. As the Bar of Northern Ireland has stated:
"There will be no active public participation in the administration of justice. This may well diminish and endanger public trust in and respect for the legal system".
Those are serious fears with which I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will feel able to deal.
One claimed justification for the order is that judicial time will be saved by its introduction. Not so, my Lords. Inevitably there will be more appeals from judges sitting alone. More judges may well be required to hear a greater number of cases. While the Bar of Northern Ireland and the Law Society accept that jury awards of damages in Northern Ireland are higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom, economic factors specific to the Province are believed to be the main cause of this taking place and not the existence of civil juries. Indeed, jury damages awarded there are surprisingly both uniform and predictable and have kept reasonably in step with the value of money.
It would be interesting to know, if the noble and learned Lord has any statistics on the matter, how many cases in the last 12 months have been successfully appealed against on the grounds that they were excessive. It would be interesting to know also what proportion of total personal injury claims that amount represented.
As I have said, and as has been admitted from the Woolsack, the legal profession of Northern Ireland are strongly opposed to this order, and as I have again ventured to say, it would be wrong to attribute that to alleged additional benefit that they or their clients derive from jury trials.
I now turn to the opposition from the trade unions. The Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions has declared its firm commitment to the retention of juries in personal injury cases. The committee makes the significant and, I think, important point that those left disabled in Northern Ireland as a result of an industrial injury, motor accident or whatever it may be have significantly fewer opportunities of re-entering the labour market than those similarly handicapped in Great Britain—difficult enough as it is for those here. Awards in Northern Ireland should therefore reflect that extra disadvantage suffered by those who have sustained injury.
As the legal profession in Northern Ireland has urged, at the very least the Government should delay the introduction of the regulations until there has been an opportunity for full public consultation on
408
this issue in the Province—I understand that there has been very little—including possibly a public inquiry. That has not been done.
Secondly, it is the case that new supreme court rules were introduced in Northern Ireland last September on civil cases. Has any review been conducted into their effects and has that review produced any relevant information in relation to the trial system in civil cases?
Finally, has proper research been undertaken in Northern Ireland on the effects of juries on the level of damage awards? Those are important questions which, I submit, justify withholding approval of this order, certainy at this stage, until those steps are taken and those inquiries are made. My submission on behalf of my noble friends on this side of the House is that no adequate justification has been produced for the order.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I find it sad that the noble and learned Lord, whose accession to the Woolsack has been so very widely welcomed, should find himself constrained as his first substantive contribution to your Lordships' House to make a proposal to whittle away the right of jury trial. It is sad because those of us who know the noble and learned Lord know how both at the Bar and in his distinguished career since he ceased to practice at the Bar he has always been a stalwart supporter of the principle of jury trial.
I know that the noble and learned Lord will agree that the burden upon those who advocate any reduction of any kind in the principle of trial by jury is a very heavy one. I say that because we would all recognise that the jury occupies a quite unique place in our society. It occupies it in two important respects: first, as an essential bulwark of our democratic way of life and one that is probably far more important than the two Houses of Parliament in preserving our democracy. Secondly, the jury by its participation in the administration of justice enables the public to get a feel of what is going on and to bring informed criticism and comment to bear on the whole system of justice.
In those circumstances the proposal that is put forward today needs, I suggest, much more weighty argument in its support than so far has been mustered by those who are seeking to advocate it. It does not do simply to say, "Well in a sense it is not very important. It is only personal injury cases. It is only head (e) out of five heads contained in the order".
The noble and learned Lord can no doubt give us the exact figure but I suspect that the cases that come under head (e) that were tried by jury in the last 12 months were the overwhelming preponderance of jury trials in Northern Ireland and that in those circumstances the proposal is far from being an insignificant one. It will remove from Northern Ireland the great majority of jury trials that at present take place there.
I find this a strange time and a strange place for the proposal to be put forward. First it is a strange time because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, pointed out, new rules for civil procedure

409
introduced only last September have been operating for less than a year and it is still difficult to assess their precise effect. Secondly, it may be a strange time because of the election of the new government recently in the Republic of Ireland. I do not know what views that new government have on the proposal in relation to the legal system in the Republic but I should have thought, particularly after the Anglo-Irish Agreement, that there was much to be said for seeing if reforms could go hand in hand in the Province and in the Republic and it might therefore perhaps have been better to have waited a little while to see what the reaction of the new government in the Republic might be to a proposal of this kind. Those two reasons perhaps make it somewhat of a strange time.
I find it a strange place to put forward the proposal again for the reasons that have been touched on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. First, the Province of Northern Ireland is a strange place in which to put forward the proposal because of the fact that criminal trials there have already been for all practical purposes abolished and therefore there is no comparison to be made with the rest of the United Kingdom. The effect of the present proposal would be, as has been said, to abolish juries in almost every case throughout the Province, whereas the effect in this country would still be and always has been to leave the juries in criminal cases. I do not think therefore that the comparison is a valid one.
Secondly, Northern Ireland seems a strange place in which to introduce a proposal of this kind because, as is all too apparent, it is a small divided community in which, at the moment, the jury system is working adequately, whereas trial by judge alone in that kind of community will inevitably on many occasions give rise after the trial to complaints of bias and to criticisms of the judges. I am not saying for a minute that those complaints would be justified; of course they would not. But it is almost inevitable that in that society if the judge alone has to come to a decision on such matters he will incur criticism.
The noble and learned Lord mentioned the various bodies whose opinions have been given on this issue. I do not know whether the opinion of the judiciary in Northern Ireland, for whom I have the highest respect, has been sought or whether indeed it was unanimously in favour of the proposal. I would very much welcome that information from the noble and learned Lord.
One consequence, if I am right in the suggestion that it will not be easy in that kind of community for judges alone always to take those decisions, is that there may well be an increase in the number of appeals once the proposal goes through and that will largely undo any beneficial effects that the proposal might otherwise have in terms of costs or delay. In those circumstances I venture to think that there is much to be said for the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, that perhaps the Government should think again after the order has gone through your Lordships' House today and before bringing it forward in another place and should suggest a period of delay in which much more research could be undertaken into the various issues that have been raised today.
410
I have one final observation to make. It is that there was a somewhat curt footnote in one of the newspapers this morning which simply said that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had declined to receive a deputation from the Bar of Northern Ireland. All of us who know the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would know perfectly well that he would never in any circumstances show discourtesy towards members of the Bar, nor indeed appear to show discourtesy to them. I have no doubt that that short report does the noble and learned Lord something of an injustice and I hope therefore that he will clarify the matter so that his reputation in that respect will remain totally unsullied, as I am sure it will.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I assure your Lordships that my intervention will be very brief. I should like to appeal to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to consider the question of delaying the implementation of the order, not only to allow consideration of the matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, referred, such as the matter of the representatives of the Irish Bar appearing before him (which I know he would with his usual courtesy wish to happen), but also because of certain political considerations.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in extending the points made by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, said he wondered whether this was the right time and whether Northern Ireland was the right place. I add the further question: Is this the right House of Parliament? Should we, at this time and from a political point of view, issue from this House of Parliament an instruction which means that a vital civil right is being taken away from the citizens of Northern Ireland? One wonders whether the more tactful thing to do would not be to hope that there would be some parliament working properly in that Province which would make its own decision in regard to the matter.
As my last observation on the question of timing, I repeat the point that has been made concerning whether it would not be more tactful, when juries are restored to Northern Ireland in criminal trials, then possibly to think in terms of removing juries from civil trials. The jury system does not operate there, as the noble and learned Lord well knows, because of the tragic circumstances. Is this the time to remove a civil right of this kind in regard to civil trials for negligence actions?
7.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to what I think, given its brevity, has been a very interesting debate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, expressed straight away, as is characteristic of him, the view of the Labour Party. He said that this order was whittling away at the jury system and that there is no evidence of intimidation of civil juries. With that I totally agree and I should like to pay tribute to those jurors who set aside all the sectarian differences and get down to doing justice.
The noble and learned Lord asked me about criminal cases. The figures are quite interesting. One

411
finds, for example, that something like 75 per cent. of criminal cases are non-Diplock. Those cases will not all be tried by juries, because sometimes defendants plead guilty. But the figures show that juries are still playing a very large part.
When we come to balance the questions of whether it is right to keep the jury system and what juries do, perhaps I may go into a little detail about the other side of the coin. Jury trials may be said to militate against a consistency and predictability in the award of damages and thus to inhibit settlements. They are more expensive than trial by judge alone and unfortunately they take longer to arrange and complete. There is a further consideration which has weighed considerably, I think I can fairly say, not only with my predecessor but also with myself. This was a matter on which I was consulted when I was Attorney-General.
The development which I have noticed in my nearly 40 years is this. There was almost a rule of thumb regarding the award of damages. There was a certain figure for an eye and so on. The figures were such that one could almost do them lying in the bath in the morning. The noble and learned Lord and I would almost certainly reach exactly the same figure. Since those days, it has become a much more sophisticated exercise. Our proposals for a modified basis for the assessment of damages for future loss of income and for the full offset of social security benefits would of course reinforce this trend. It seemed to us, just as interestingly enough it seemed to the Law Commission, to militate against the use of lay juries.
As I have already mentioned, the number of scheduled cases in which the defendant pleaded guilty was 264 and the balance of 75 went to non-Diplock courts. I get bored with statistics but I think these are quite important and I promise not to give too many of them to the House. In 1986, 2,742 cases were dealt with in the QBD of the High Court of Northern Ireland. Only 43, or 1.57 per cent., were fully tried before a jury. The overwhelming majority of cases were settled between lawyers without a jury ever becoming involved. Perhaps at the risk of sharing an inside joke with the lawyers here, I may say that they were mostly settled at the courtroom door.
The figures for the first three months of this year show the same picture. There were 558 cases dealt with in the QBD. Eight of those cases, or 1.43 per cent., were fully tried before a jury. What is happening is that the system has developed in this country of cases being settled well in advance, before the huge increase in brief fees. If I may reminisce for a moment, I had a system when I was retained by Norwich Union of writing an opinion setting out exactly how I thought the award would be made. It had my full authority to send that to the other side and it was never to try to reduce the figure that I said was to be the figure that was likely to be awarded. I do not think that I had more than one brief actually going to court out of my entire time with it.
For the Norwich Union it was a great saving. I also think it was a reassurance to the plaintiff. If his counsel agreed, then he was able to say: "This is
412
absolutely clear. We are not trying to knock 10 per cent. off for you settling. Everything that Havers has advised is there and I agree with him". In that regard, I think the late settlement of cases in Northern Ireland has not been good news.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who is another old friend, spoke particularly of the position in Northern Ireland. I have to give what is rather an Irish answer. The matter was raised by the previous Government and voted against by the then Opposition. The Minister I forget which Minister—by resolution, which is a peculiarity of that system, has it back now that the new Government are supporting it. At this moment it is in the committee stage in the Dail. The Dail, who is luckier than we are, is now going into recess until November. I therefore think there will be a delay. However, there is a government commitment to abolishing juries in the Republic of Ireland in exactly the same way. I hope that gives the noble Lord the answer he asked for.
Going back to the earlier matter of how many cases have gone to appeal on the grounds of awards, I hope the noble and learned Lord will allow me to write to him. I do not have the figures to hand.
I think it is widely known that the judiciary opposed this measure for some time. It has now taken what I think can properly be called a neutral stance and does not oppose it, for reasons which one well understands. Therefore, the initial opposition, which was material over the many reviews we had over so many years, has made a substantial difference to the final decision taken.
Finally, I turn to the point that the noble Lord picked up about the passage in the newspaper. I do not think I have read a newspaper this week. All I can say is that this matter has been exaggerated. As your Lordships know, it was originally to be dealt with in May. The election intervened. For very sensible reasons, this must be in place when the new legal term starts on 1st September. The Rules Committee has to react to it and alter the rules. Therefore we urged upon the Whips the earliest possible date. It was to be the 6th of this month and it has now been advanced to 2nd June for this House. I think it has been advanced to 6th June for the other place.
It is not intended in any sense as a discourtesy. After my eight years as Attorney-General of Northern Ireland they are practically all great friends. There is no way that I would wish them to feel that I have been either churlish or discourteous. I must say this, that they have written letters and I have of course discussed the matter on my many trips to Ireland, particularly with the senior Silks at the Irish Bar. I do not think that they have left a stone unturned. I think it would have been a fun meeting, because it is always fun meeting them, but I suspect that there would have been nothing fresh. However, that is not the reason that the consultation did not take place. It is due simply to shortage of time.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.52 until 8.15 p.m.]

Channel Tunnel Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 5 insert the following new clause:
("Provision for public local inquiry.
The scheduled works shall not be commenced until—

(a) all environmental and other relevant matters relating to the works have been considered at a public local inquiry; and

(b) the Secretary of State, having considered the report of the inspector of that inquiry, is satisfied that the proposed works, in all the circumstances, afford the best practicable means of minimising the adverse effects on the environment.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 20 which refers to the provision of a public local inquiry. In doing this I am conscious of the fact that if a public inquiry were to be agreed to at this stage it would probably delay the whole procedure beyond the point at which it made sense. Nevertheless, I raise this question in Committee because it seems to me that the consultations which took place in Kent were less than adequate particularly in the early stages.
I know that the Minister, the Select Committee in another place and the Select Committee here have gone out of their way to listen to the objections of local people. When I say "objections" I am talking about the legitimate objections and not those from people who are fundamentally opposed to the Channel Tunnel at any price. I am referring to the people who really are being very much affected by the sort of Channel Tunnel proposed.
In moving the first amendment this evening I said that a rail-only tunnel would have far less environmental impact than the project which is at present before the Committee. I have been to Kent a number of times and I am impressed by the fact that ordinary local individuals are still very worried about the impact on their lives. They do not feel that they have had the opportunity of expressing their own views as well as they might have done. Of course, the big organisations have been able to make their presence felt and they have been able to employ expensive lawyers. That is not the same thing as having a proper public inquiry on the ground.
There came the point at which a public inquiry probably became out of the question if this Bill were to go through in anything like reasonable time. There was a reference earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, to the Sizewell inquiry. I think the whole question of public inquiries for major projects in this country needs to be looked at. We need to be able to establish a timetable for public inquiries so that acceptable projects are not held up by people who use the public inquiry as a way of destroying the project which is being put before them.
I take the opportunity of raising this question because I want the Government to recognise that
414
there is still considerable concern in Kent from individuals. By moving this amendment I seek to achieve some recognition by the Government that they are still sensitive to the feelings of the local people, that they will even now go out of their way to listen to the complaints which still exist and that they will he sympathetic to the pleas of those people.
There is a considerable fear that, once the Bill goes through, there will be a demand for extra land and there will be an extension of the powers which have already been granted. It is because of that sort of situation that I tabled the amendment: in order to provide the Government with the opportunity of expressing concern and allowing the local people to feel that their views are really being considered. I beg to move.
Lord Underhill: I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, moved the amendment in the temperate and considerate way that he did. My immediate reaction is that it is something for which we should press and support. It would be foolish of me to say that I have read every word of our Select Committee's report. I have turned over every page. When I have wanted to, I have read the particular section. I am full of praise for the consideration the committee gave to the vast number of petitions and petitioners who came before it.
I do not know whether there is a member of the Select Committee in the Chamber at the moment. It would be helpful if, after the noble Lord's remarks, a member of the committee could give us some information, because it seems to me that a considerable amount of evidence was taken and a vast number of petitions were heard. It would be helpful to hear the committee's view of the type of evidence it received and the attention that was given to it.
Whatever our views might be—for or against the fixed link—the last thing that we would want is to take any further decisions which might mean a 12-month or two-year delay before a firm decision is taken.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Both Select Committees made great efforts to examine the Channel Tunnel project from every conceivable point of view. I am therefore disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, should suggest another form of public inquiry. I know that the way he moved the amendment does not square with the way that it reads, because he is not suggesting that we should launch ourselves into a huge new public inquiry.
Both committees did a tremendous amount of work. They were accessible to a large number of petitioners, whether large corporate petitioners or individual petitioners. I understand that they took a great deal of evidence from individual petitioners. They made considerable changes to the Bill. I shall give examples of a few things that were done in another place. The committee in another place supplemented the planning provisions contained in the Bill with the substantial and detailed Schedule 3 which establishes a comprehensive role for local authorities over the detailed arrangements for carrying out the project, including matters such as the

415
control of construction vehicles, landscaping, viewing arrangements, overnight accommodation for drivers, the control of spoil disposal and the restoration of working sites. Those are all very much local issues in Kent. The committee did a great many other things as well.
In this place, the Select Committee implemented the alternative road access arrangements to the Folkestone terminal area which were developed over a long period of negotiation and were widely welcomed by local authorities, environmental petitioners and with even due recognition for Mr. Pattinson, who was one of the few people adversely affected by the change. That was another thing that the Select Committe of this place did for the local people. It recommended an amendment to the Bill to which we will come in due course. It is Amendment No. 121 on the Marshalled List. It requires Eurotunnel to adopt an environmentally much more satisfactory alignment of the railway through Holywell Coombe, thus saving a unique glacial deposit.
Furthermore, the committee heard detailed evidence on the sensitive issue of soil disposal, and decided to allow the arrangements contained in the Bill to stand. The Select Committee in another place said:
"Many of our petitioners argued that a public local inquiry ought to be held in addition to the passage of the Bill and our own proceedings. To judge from public planning inquiries which have been held in other fields, the process can be very long and very expensive. We believe that our own proceedings have enabled the various points of view of those directly affected by the provisions of the Bill to be deployed before us at a length which enabled us to form a judgment with adequate knowledge of what is at stake for our petitioners."
As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, the Select Committee took the unprecedented step of holding public inquiries with little formality in Kent. If it is true that consultaions in Kent were inadequate, which I do not accept, those omissions have surely been remedied. The noble Lord rightly discussed the issue of public inquiries in general—the length of time that they take and what should or should not be included. I take the noble Lord's point. I believe that the issue goes much wider than the Bill. A great many ordinary road building programmes, never mind anything the size of Sizewell, might benefit. It is something at which the Government should look. I do not think that the noble Lord is suggesting that we return to a public inquiry on this Bill. I take the point that he has made about how the whole process of public inquiries should be looked at in the future.
I have said a little about what the Select Commmittee of both places have been able to do and why we think that in this case they were just as good as a full public inquiry.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful for those two interventions. I would have hoped that the Minister might have given a little more reassurance to the people in Kent about what might happen from now on. I believe the Select Committee have done a good job. They have gone out of their way to be as open as they possibly can be. I hope that will be a continuing process and that the ordinary people in Kent who still have genuine worries will have them listened to by the
416
Government, although I do not suppose that there will be any major changes. If genuine proposals come from the local people, I hope that the Government will be prepared to listen to them and make modifications as may be necessary.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Before the noble Lord decides what to do with the amendment, I should say that I did not mention the committee which has been chaired by my honourable friend David Mitchell with which the noble Lord is no doubt familiar. It has done a tremendous amount of work in Kent. There have been a tremendous number of public meetings since before the project was even chosen. The joint consultative committee meets regularly in Kent under my honourable friend's chairmanship. We have set up a complaints administrator, and Eurotunnel has a permanent information centre in Folkstone. Of course large numbers of petitioners from Kent have been heard by both Select Committees. It is a continuing process. The noble Lord was right to ask whether it would continue. I can tell him that it will.
Lord Tordoff: I am grateful to the Minister for that comment. That was my sole purpose in putting down the amendment. I have no intention of dividing the Committee and trying to force a public inquiry because that would be damaging to the whole purpose of the Bill, and that is the furthest thing from my mind.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving the reassurance, which I think people in that part of the world will accept, that the Government recognise that there is a process which will have to continue in the years ahead and not stop at the end of the Select Committee procedure. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sefton of Garston: May I ask a question on Clause 5? This seems to be the most appropriate place to do so. I assume that Part II is the beginning of the authority to construct the works. I assume that there will be a requirement in law for the contractors to have their workmen insured against any accident that may ensue during these works. I am not sure what the situation will be when we start constructing the tunnel. Will the Minister write to me before Monday or as soon as possible to say whether there is any requirement for the concessionaires to carry insurances against any eventuality and, for any risks involved in constructing or operating the tunnel.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am sure that there is. I shall write to the noble Lord I hope before Monday.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Acquisition of land for the scheduled works and other authorised works]:
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Belstead)The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Belstead) moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 7, line 4, at end insert—
("(1A) The Secretary of State is authorised by this section to acquire by agreement any land which he is not otherwise authorised to acquire and which is required for the construction and maintenance of the Concessionaires' scheduled works and other works in connection with those works or otherwise for any purposes of the construction or operation by the Concessionaires of the tunnel system.")
The noble Lord said: Clause 8(1) authorises the Secretary of State for the Environment to acquire compulsorily any land required for the concessionaires' works within the geographical limits specified on the deposited plans. In accordance with the concession agreement, his expenditure will be reimbursed by the concessionaires and the land will he leased to the concessionaires for the duration of the concession. On the expiry or termination of the concession, the land occupied by the English half of the tunnel system will revert free of charge to the Secretary of State. Clause 9 and Schedule 3 grant planning permission for the concessionaires' development on this land, subject to various decisions being reserved to the local planning authorities.
While the Bill has been before both places, however, detailed design work has shown that some variations in the land used for the project may be desirable. We knew already that at Ashford a small shift in the positioning of the inland clearance depot would assist Eurotunnel to optimise its design. In order to do this Eurotunnel has in fact already purchased additional land by agreement. I emphasise that neither the Bill as it stands nor the amendment confers any planning permission for development on additional land acquired in this way. Eurotunnel will have to apply for permission to the local planning authority under the Town and Country Planning Act in the usual manner.
What then is the effect of the amendment, and why is it necessary? It is simply that the Government's policy, incorporated in the concession agreement, is that the Government, not the concessionaires, shall have the freehold in land required for the construction and operation of the fixed link. This is in case it becomes necessary to appoint new concessionaires and so that the Government are free to grant a new concession in 55 years' time. All the land required for the link will therefore be leased to the concessionaires for as long as is necessary. There is, however, legal doubt as to whether the Secretary of State is permitted to acquire any land by agreement without express parliamentary approval. The purpose of this amendment is purely to remove that doubt, and I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: A small point arises on the Minister's last sentence. I understand that this provision does not affect the future power of a Minister to acquire land without the authority of Parliament; it affects only the area of land near the tunnel. Will the Minister confirm that it does not give
418
any general power to the Minister to take over land without the authority of Parliament?
Lord Belstead: This is any land, but it is for the purposes of the concessionaires.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 21A:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
(".—(1) The Railways Board and the highways authority shall consult and co-operate with each other to plan and undertake any traffic management measures affecting the highways in the vicinity of Waterloo Station necessary as a result of extra traffic generated by international trains proceeding to Waterloo by way of the tunnel system, or of the construction and operation of Work No. 21 as specified by Schedule 1 of this Act or of alterations to the private roads within the confines of Waterloo.
(2) The objects of any such taffic management measures shall include the minimisation of the nuisance caused by the extra traffic in the vicinity of Waterloo Station.
(3) The costs of any such traffic management measues shall not be borne by the highways authority.").
The noble Lord said: We now move to the question of British Rail facilities at Waterloo. As noble Lords may know, a somewhat unhappy situation exists between the local authority and the British Railways Board. A number of amendments have been floated in front of Members of Opposition parties, some of which have been picked up. This is the only one that I feel is worthy of consideration.
British Rail has gone out of its way to ensure that its activities at Waterloo in general are confined within its existing premises. The exhibition on view at Waterloo demonstrates the lengths to which British Rail has gone to try to confine its activities to the terminal within its existing establishment.
I have been worried in particular about the impact of increased traffic going to the international rail terminal, as it will become, on the surrounding road network. Considerable thought has been given to how the traffic flow will take place in the new circumstances. There are bottlenecks already. I am well aware that it is said that the volume of traffic around Waterloo is less than around other terminal railway stations in Greater London. Nevertheless, there are potential bottlenecks, particularly on the roads approaching Waterloo Bridge and, I believe, Westminster Bridge.
We seek to ensure that at least the British Railways Board and local authorities speak to each other and co-operate. Whether within such an amendment it is technically possible to legislate for certain rather extreme local councillors (if I may so put it) to co-operate with the board, I do not know, but at least I seek to ensure that the Bill pressurises them to do so.
This is a difficult amendment to move. I know that at the end of the day I shall withdraw it. However, I believe that there is a continuing problem around the Waterloo area relating to traffic flow. I think that there is a continuing problem in regard to councillors who are not prepared even to accept the possibility of a railway terminal at Waterloo and who therefore are not prepared to contemplate that possibility and discuss matters with the British Railways Board.
I wanted to get on the agenda the opportunity for a short debate in Committee on the necessity for people to listen to each other and try to provide for a traffic flow around the Waterloo area that will not upset the flow of commuter traffic, particularly at peak hours.
Lord Underhill: I support the general tenor of the amendment in the recognition that Amendment No. 92 will be moved by my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. As the two amendments are tabled separately, I assume that any consideration of Amendment No. 21A will not affect our position on Amendment No. 92. A different principle is involved in Amendment No. 92, although it deals with the position of Waterloo. The general sentiments of the amendment now before us seem to me to be very wise. If the Government do not like the wording I ask them to bring forward an amendment which deals with the general spirit of this amendment. Whatever happens at Waterloo—whether or not there is any change, as we suggest, in 1992—there is need for consultation and urgent discussions on traffic management plans.
Lord Mulley: I speak from a little personal experience, because I live in this vicinity in Kennington. It is not a hypothetical traffic problem. There is already a substantial traffic problem approaching both Waterloo and Westminster Bridge. I use Lambeth Bridge if possible. I travel on that side and I cannot therefore claim that my personal inconvenience will be as great as for those living in the immediate vicinity of Waterloo Station.
A new estate has been built and many attempts made to improve the inner city in that locality. As members of the Select Committee know, a very active residents' association has made representations. I should like to compliment our Select Committee on giving them a hearing. They felt that they had not been given such a hearing by a committee in another place.
The position was a little difficult technically because it is the Government's Bill, for British Rail to to be called upon and to be cross-examined. The residents are not convinced of the case that Waterloo alone has to be the London terminal for the traffic. There is also the fact that the boat trains will be cancelled at Victoria when the tunnel starts. That will give some respite to Victoria, which I am sure gives great satisfaction to the noble Lord who chaired the Select Committee with such distinction.
I should welcome an improved traffic management system. However, I have seen enough traffic management systems to know that very often they make matters worse rather than better. The traffic experts who devise these one-way traffic systems usually end up creating more chaos than they resolve. I do not therefore have great faith in traffic management measures.
I do not think we can escape from the fact that carrying this load in that vicinity will be an enormous burden on the people whom live and have to travel in the area. There are a great number of such people. They are not convinced as to whether this is the only
420
and the best solution for the nation and London. That fact remains to be demonstrated. If that is the case then one would accept the position. But they are by no means satisfied. An alternative might be a special terminal for the international traffic from the tunnel. One had in mind in 1974 and 1975 the alternative of some place other than one of the existing stations. There is a great feeling that that ought to have been considered.
While I look forward to hearing the Minister on this new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, I very much prefer Amendment No. 92 in the name of my noble friends Lord Underhill and Lord Carmichael. These amendments are not exclusive. What is necessary is a re-assessment of all the traffic problems that the tunnel and the new international traffic will create. I can certainly testify that there are very strong feelings. One may recall the moving speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark on behalf of his parishioners. (I am not sure whether a Bishop has parishioners but it was made on behalf of those within his diocese.) I know that he has taken a great interest in the problems that the tunnel will create. I hope that the Minister can say something that will meet the concern of the people who live in the area. The situation may not be as bad as they suppose but they feel that so far as they are concerned life will come to an end some date in 1993.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: This amendment illustrates problems to which I referred but did not mention this afternoon when I moved my amendment for re-commitment to a Select Committee. Of whom does one ask the appropriate questions? It has been suggested that the people around Waterloo were wrong in not having discussions with British Rail. However, there are perfectly logical reasons for that. They do not want the terminal at Waterloo. If they were to start discussing the detail of the terminal at Waterloo they would be committing themselves to that case. That is the way in which they saw the position. Did the noble Lord wish to say something?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: We listened with care to what was said. The point that the noble Lord was making was that the criticism of the committee, in so far as there was one, was directed at the local authority. That is the point. It was not directed at the people around Waterloo.
Lord Sefton of Garston: I do not know what the noble Lord is referring to. I was not referring to any Member of this Committee. I was referring to suggestions made elsewhere that the people of Waterloo were wrong in refusing to have discussions before the issue was settled. They did so refuse, and it was alleged that they should not have done so; that they should have had discussions before the fundamental issue of whether or not there was a terminal at Waterloo was considered. Theirs was a perfectly reasonable attitude to adopt.
On the proposal that there should not be a terminal at Waterloo, why has not British Rail explored the

421
possibility of having the terminal south of London? I travel into London by Tube. It takes me 10 minutes to get from the other side of Clapham Junction to Victoria. It is quite within the bounds of possibility that British Rail could so organise a terminal on the perimeter of the Underground system in London that when one left the terminal one could go anywhere one wanted. For instance, if people from France now wish to get to Heathrow they have to go into Waterloo and then to find their way from Waterloo to Heathrow. If they came into the southern section of the Underground railway—and it can be done—they could go to Heathrow from there.
That underlines the fact that the only evidence about the terminal in London was taken from British Rail. It was judge and jury in its own case and no attempt was made to examine it further on the matter.
Lord Ampthill: I am a little surprised by that last intervention. The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, knows Liverpool a great deal better than London. We are all grateful to hear from him about Liverpool. I do not think his recent suggestion is practical.
The noble Lord, Lord Mulley, is aware of the enormous concern which the Select Committee felt about the situation of the people who live around Waterloo. Their position is fully understood by the committee. We came to the conclusion that Waterloo was the right place. The alternatives, frankly, do not work. What we bitterly regretted was that Lambeth Council failed to have discussions with government or British Rail. I accept entirely what the noble Lord has just said: it felt it was prejudicing the principle and it was opposed to Waterloo being the terminal. However, it does not make sense not to talk. That is why this amendment is not very helpful, because one cannot legislate to make people talk to each other.
Discussions need to take place. All the benefits that the Select Committee achieved were because we managed to get people to talk to each other and we resolved an enormous number of problems as a result. It is tragic that Lambeth Council has declined to speak to either government or British Rail until this Bill is upon the statute book. It has agreed that as soon as that happens it will comply. Therefore the sooner we get it on the statute book perhaps the better.
Lord Sefton of Garston: Where does the noble Lord obtain his evidence that British Rail have seriously studied the possibility of having the terminal for London on the perimeter of the London Underground system?
Lord Ampthill: There is an appendix to the report which goes at great length into all the alternatives. I honestly do not believe that it is practical to choose a greenfield site on the southern outskirts of London—it has to be to the south, as I am sure the noble Lord accepts—which will serve the purpose. We must be able to move people. Some 70 per cent. of those who will use the tunnel will wish to go to London. That is their wish and it is no good frustrating it. I do not believe that we should decant them into an area south of the river where the tube
422
service, let us face it is very poor indeed. Only two lines go south of the river. The system was never developed in the way it was north of the river. I do not believe that what the noble Lord is suggesting is practical.
Lord Sefton of Garston: In other words I take it that the noble Lord does not know whether British Rail have examined it or not.
A noble Lord: That is not true. It is nonsense.
Lord Underhill: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may say that the interventions we are now having stray very much on to our Amendment No. 92, on which, frankly, we have not been able to put our viewpoint because we do not think it is relevant to the present amendment. I should hate to feel that the discussion on Amendment No. 21A was covering, in a much lighter fashion, the detailed discussion that I hope will take place when we discuss Amendment No. 92.
Lord Tordoff: I totally support that point of view. The amendment we have before us now is totally independent of the amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on which Lord Sefton might properly say some of the things that he said. In fairness to British Rail, if he had taken the opportunity available of going to the exhibition at Waterloo he would have seen that British Rail had put a considerable amount of time and effort into considering the various possibilities. For all I know he may have seen that exhibition and he may have read the report on this, though from what he has said this evening it sounds as though he has not. Whether one agrees with the conclusions or not is a different matter. This is something we shall deal with when we come to Amendment No. 92. To suggest that British Rail have not considered this matter is unjust.
Lord Sefton of Garston: Let me make it absolutely clear again to see if anybody will deny this. I am not suggesting for one moment that British Rail have not looked at alternatives within their plans. I am suggesting quite clearly—perhaps the Minister can settle this—that apart from the stations they themselves referred to and they themselves established the criteria for looking at—both in the exhibition and in the written communications which I have had from British Rail—they did not consider an alternative outside those limited spheres. If they did, they certainly did not communicate it to me when I asked them. If they did, it certainly was not in their plan and, if they did, it certainly was not at the exhibition at Waterloo. If the Minister knows that they did perhaps he will tell the Committee. I do not believe they did and I believe it is worthy of consideration.
Lord Tordoff: I think it is very unlikely to be Clapham Junction, which is what the noble Lord was suggesting earlier, because no Tube line goes to Clapham Junction.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I was going to say to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, among others, that this

423
is an entirely separate discussion to the one we shall have later on Amendment No. 92. I assure the Committee that Amendment No. 92 is concerned with a much more specific subject than whether the terminal should or should not be at Waterloo. At least the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, has given me a clue about what his argument will be when we reach that. I shall have the answers for him. I have them now, but I shall not give him them now.
The new clause, the feeling behind which I fully share, seems to be intended to make absolutely sure that effective traffic management measures are undertaken so as to minimise the nuisance caused by road traffic generated by the Channel Tunnel terminal at Waterloo. The Government and British Rail certainly sympathise with this aim. Indeed, British Rail commissioned traffic consultants to examine the impact of the terminal on the local road network and to consider ways in which its adverse effects would be minimised. The consultants concluded that, with a new traffic circulation system within the station, road traffic generated by the terminal would be able to disperse on to the local road network without increasing overall congestion and delay to existing road users. Indeed they consider that in some places the implementation of their proposed circulation system produces an improvement on present day conditions.
As has been mentioned by the chairman of the Select Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, the Select Committee generally accepted the evidence of British Rail's traffic consultants. It recommended, as did the Commons Select Committee, that Lambeth should reopen forthwith discussions with British Rail on these and other issues relating to the Waterloo terminal. British Rail have always been willing to discuss these matters and co-operate with Lambeth. They offered further discussions last January in the light of the Commons Select Committee report, but Lambeth refused. British Rail have made yet another offer in the light of the report of your Lordships' Select Committee and are awaiting the council's response. So British Rail's commitment to consultation and co-operation is beyond doubt.
I also understand that Lambeth made clear during the Committee proceedings that they would be willing to resume discussions with British Rail once the Bill becomes law. So in view of that commitment, and that of British Rail, I see no reason to impose an unnecessary and very unusual statutory obligation on those two authorities requiring them to consult and co-operate with each other.
It seems to me that the sooner this Bill receives Royal Assent the sooner we can all have what we want, which is co-operation between the borough and British Rail. Perhaps we should dispense with the rest of our proceedings and move straight to that, but I do not believe that is quite possible.
I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will feel able to withdraw his proposed new clause, although I have much sympathy with the proposition behind it.
Lord Mountevans: I wonder whether, the Minister having pre-empted me, and before the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, decides whether to withdraw his amendment, I may ask about subsection (3) of the amendment. I am fortunate in that I can always come back on Amendment No. 92, but subsection (3) reads:
"The costs of any such traffic management measures shall not be borne by the highways authority".
It is my understanding that the costs of British Rail's proposals for traffic management, even including the implications of the above-mentioned Work No. 21, would be very small. Can the Minister confirm to me that the costs could be negotiated? I welcome the fact that the Select Committee said that there should be negotiation. There is a head-in-the-sand attitude, be it political or whatever, although it is interesting to notice that a council with a different political view has a totally different attitude as regards the thought of a national bus terminal in Paddington. Perhaps the opposition is not totally political: perhaps it is motivated by the needs and requirements of the citizenry of Lambeth. First, could the costs of such traffic measures mentioned in subsection (3) of the amendment qualify for treatment in the same way as road improvements and new construction will be treated in Kent? Secondly, would they qualify under the annual transport policy and plans and TSG situation?
Lord Galpern: I am more interested in Amendment No. 92. In view of the fact that our chairman took part in the debate I should like to ask the Minister one question. Can he tell the Committee what are the views of members of the Taxi Cab Owners' Association who frequent and use Waterloo Station?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am having enough difficulties answering for the Government, let alone answering for the taxi drivers' association. The noble Lord will have to ask them.
I can answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, about the costs of these roads, as it concerns the amendment we are discussing. The London boroughs make proposals for road improvements qualifying for the transport supplementary grant in their transport policy and programmes, otherwise known as TPPs, in the same way as county councils outside London. Highway maintenance expenditure and financing costs for capital schemes are also reflected in the appropriate grant related expenditure calculations which could have a beneficial effect on the local authority's entitlement to block grant.
As regards Waterloo, the London Borough of Lambeth has not yet made proposals for road improvements in its TPP. It has not decided to discuss them or even recognise that they might be necessary. If it does, these proposals will be treated sympathetically. It would be quite inappropriate to rule out the possibility of any payment by the highway authority. I hope that that answers the question.
9 p.m.
Viscount Sidmouth: It might be helpful to point out regarding traffic generated by this proposed terminal that Waterloo is essentially a commuter station, congested only for relatively short periods in the morning and afternoon. Any Member of the Committee who cares to go there during the day will see that it is virtually empty. It might be helpful if British Rail bore this in mind, as I am sure it will, in scheduling the international trains at times when the commuter traffic is not at its height.
Lord Tordoff: I understand the intervention of the noble Viscount. We are talking not so much about traffic into Waterloo as about road traffic around Waterloo which is somewhat independent of the commuter traffic. As one who worked for a number of years in a building just across the road from Waterloo Station—namely, the Shell Centre—I know that the ease of crossing York Road is not all that great. Certainly, as the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, has confirmed, the roads leading down to Westminster Bridge are congested for most of the day.
Although the survey may well be correct in saying that Waterloo is less congested than other rail terminals, there are particular points, particular sets of traffic lights, where congestion can occur at almost any time of the day. I have a greater faith than the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, in the virtues of traffic management engineers and specialists. I served on your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology and with other noble Lords saw some quite remarkable schemes for relieving traffic. I refer in particular to Leeds when the old West Riding metropolitan county was operating. A good deal of success comes from studying traffic flows and being able to phase traffic lights and so on. That is what is necessary here. The local council and British Rail have not been able to get their heads together because of what I believe to be stupidity. That is extremely sad.
I am glad that the Minister has given us an assurance on the cost of the traffic management measures. I did not particularly raise that when I moved the amendment but it is important that he should have gone on the record to give that sympathetic response. In addition to being grateful to Members of the Committee for having spent a little time on what is an important matter, I am especially grateful to the Minister for having responded in the way he did. I look forward to the discussions on the later amendment when the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, moves it. I hope that what has been said in the Chamber tonight will be listened to by both British Rail and Lambeth council and that a little common sense might be seen to prevail in the future. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 22:
Before Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Train frontier controls.
—. It shall be the duty of the appropriate Minister to exercise his powers under section 11 of this Act so as to secure that in respect of any international service for the carriage of passengers (other than a shuttle service), the controls in relation to the passengers are carried out on the train whilst it is engaged on the international service.")
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I should like at the same time to discuss Amendments Nos. 23, 33 and 34 which are consequential. The Committee will know from earlier debates on the Bill, here and elsewhere, of the strongly held views about the likely effect of the building of the Channel link on the regions. Many have argued, I believe correctly, that the existence of better communications with our principal market will increase the level of economic activity throughout the realm. Others stress the fact that further investment in the South-East will concentrate growth in that region at the expense of the Midlands, the North, Wales and Scotland. As the Bill has proceeded and as the project has taken greater definition, both sides have come to recognise very clearly the importance of showing not only that all the regions of Great Britain are alert to the opportunities created by the tunnel but that they are in a position to grasp those opportunities. This is a project for the whole country.
There has already been much evidence of this in the way orders for the construction of equipment are won in the regions. When the tunnel is built, I understand that the through rail freight services will run direct between those locations and the regions, producing substantial volumes of traffic from points in mainland Europe. British Rail has also made clear its desire to run as many through passenger trains to locations in the regions as can be commercially justified, but only if the necessary customs and immigration procedures can be carried out on the trains. It takes the not unreasonable view that it would have little success attracting passengers to these services if they were required to get out of the trains with their luggage and pass through frontier checks before re-embarking to continue their journeys. It is to that end that my amendment is particularly addressed. However, it seems to me that if effective controls can be devised for passengers on such trains then equally effective controls ought to be capable of being devised for those passengers travelling on the trains to Waterloo itself.
The French and Belgians are going to do it. The normal practice on the Continent is for customs and immigration formalities to be carried out on the trains and facilities on the through trains for these inspections will be provided. I am convinced that the link will revolutionise perceptions about travel to Europe. It should be as simple and speedy to travel to Paris or Brussels as it is to go to Manchester, Newcastle and Liverpool. What are incoming tourists or outgoing businessmen seeking export opportunities in Europe to think if they are held up by queues and delays at Waterloo caused by customs and immigration procedures which are unknown in the rest of the Community. We must have a walk-on service.
There is overwhelming support for the concept of on-train examination. Your Lordships' Select Committee, in its excellent report on its examination of this Bill, gave the matter careful consideration in paragraphs 113 to 117. It recognised the real concern that there should be no lowering of the standards of examination to which Customs and immigration staff work.
Equally it is also considered in regard to through trains to the North that,
"unless British Rail are able to operate through services on these trains the prospects of the tunnel for assisting economic growth in the Regions will be severely damaged".
In conclusion, the committee supported the case for the formalities to be carried out on the through trains, confident that international trains can be so designed over the next six years as to enable the controls to be effectively undertaken.
The case for on-train controls was also strengthened by a report from the Home Affairs Committee in the other place. That committee, concerned as it is with all the problems of immigration and Customs evasion, nevertheless recommended that frontier controls be carried out on board the moving trains, subject to a number of conditions primarily designed to ensure the effectiveness of those controls.
There is therefore great support for this measure. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that at the Second Reading of this Bill my noble friend Lord Brabazon, who is to reply to us, expressed the Government's support for the desirability of on-train controls, particularly for trains travelling beyond London. I realise that there have been long discussions on this question between the various responsible authorities. I realise too that there are problems still to be resolved in order to ensure the effectiveness of these controls, and that there are discussions about the cost.
However, I believe it would be unfortunate if this House were to pass the Bill before it was satisfied on two counts. The first is that there should be every reasonable prospect of ensuring that through-passenger trains will be able to run to the North. To do otherwise would run the risk of shutting out the North from some of the benefits which will flow from the link. Secondly we must not project to our European colleagues—who will, as I have said, be carrying out the examinations on the trains—a seeming reluctance to adopt modern compatible methods of frontier controls which are seen as the standard method of operation within the Community.
I accept that my noble friend may say that he is sympathetic, but that there are still many complexities to be sorted out. Nevertheless I believe that by accepting this amendment he could send an important signal of the Government's resolve to address these problems and reach the solution that they say they desire. I beg to move.
Lord Mountevans: When back in, I think, December 1985 we debated the issue of the feasibility of a fixed Channel link, I trailed this amendment, so it follows that I am delighted to support it. At the
428
time I argued, as the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has said tonight, that on-train controls were, and indeed remain, the norm in Europe.
On-train controls in Europe, as they would do through the tunnel, make the train an attractive product. They contribute to its marketability. It seems to me that their absence would in fact go a long way towards damaging the whole Eurotunnel concept, which I support as passionately as many others who have spoken tonight, but would also severely dent, if not destroy, British Rail's Eurotunnel prospects of going into the provincial passenger business to and from Europe.
As the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said, on-train controls have a part to play in achieving the spread of the benefits of the tunnel to those areas beyond London and the South-East. The Committee will know that I work for the British Tourist Authority and we are under a directive to spread traffic to the provinces. No doubt that is why, in a written submission to the House of Commons Sub-Committee on Home Affairs, we basicallly argued strongly for on-train controls. We put forward the European norm argument that I put forward in 1985 and which I have already put forward again tonight. We argued against fixed-point controls, be they at Waterloo or at some unspecified point used by the perhaps 2 million passengers per annum whom we are told, almost as a base case, will be travelling by trains which avoid London.
On Amendment No. 17 the Minister was at pains to assure us that there would be no discrimination between one cross-Channel mode and another. I recall—and I think perhaps that he does too from recent travels—that on-ferry immigration control is already a norm on all but the very shortest Straits of Dover ferry routes. It is certainly practised by the British immigration service on routes into Portsmouth, as I have experienced, and it is practised on routes into Weymouth. If we are not to have discrimination between one mode and another, I trust than on-train immigration, on all except the shuttle trains, will become a reality and not merely a pious hope or good intention.
I appreciate that customs control is a much more complicated subject. When one has travelled overnight in a sleeping car across four frontiers without seeing an immigration or customs officer and without travelling under the privilege of Lord Mountevans's passport but in what one might call a previous context, one feels that the problems are not totally insoluble. If people can travel into Scandinavia, if they can travel from Paris into Eastern Europe, if, as I have, they can travel across the Iron Curtain under certain circumstances without seeing a customs or immigration officer, then the problems of customs control should not be insurmountable. We should be able to solve them without loss of security or revenue.
I return to the subject of the European norm. Being of European descent and married to a lady from another European nation, I feel that it is not one that we should slavishly follow. On the other hand, one needs excellent reasons for turning it down. I therefore hope that the Government—who are after all a government with a big "G" and are

429
governing—will find it practical not only to grant on-train immigration control, which, as it has been granted elsewhere already, in equity they can hardly withhold from the Channel Tunnel trains, but also to ensure that customs control can take place. With those sentiments I commend this amendment to the Committee.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: I honestly believe that this is perhaps one of the most important amendments before the Committee in relation to the Bill for a variety of reasons that have already been spelt out. There are a couple of points that I should like to make in order to underline things which have already been said. In particular I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, accepts that this is an important amendment in relation to doing what he and I want to do, which is to see this tunnel benefit parts of the country outside the South-East and the Greater London area. Without this amendment trains from the North will not be doing the job that they ought to be doing.
It may be that the Government will wish to give some kind of planned reassurance that all will be well. This amendment needs to be included in the Bill, and it needs to be included in the Bill now in order to signal to the authorities that look after these matters that this Parliament is determined that there will be a modernisation of our customs and immigration facilities in relation to long distance trains. As the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, rightly said, it happens all over Europe. The pretence that this country is somehow totally different and must have an utterly separate system that can only occur at certain places dotted around its shores is nonsense. If the Government are not prepared to accept this amendment either now or at a subsequent stage, I hope that we shall press it upon them with the utmost vigour at our command.
It is true to say that we are also discussing Amendments Nos. 23, 33 and 34, which are linked to this amendment but which nobody has yet mentioned. I honestly urge the Committee, with all the vigour at its command—and I know that we have the support of the Select Committee in this matter—to press the Government to put into the Bill a determination that there will be on-train facilities on all the trains from all over the country; otherwise the whole purpose and value to the Channel Tunnel will be distorted.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, suggested that one of the important issues for areas to the north and west of London is that there should be on-train facilities. I go further and say that one of the strong selling points for the North was that there would be on-train facilities, and that they would rush through.
In their reply at paragraph 19, the Government accepted the principle that there should be on-train inspection and that facilities and formalities should be conducted on-train. Therefore we have a fair unanimity in that the Back-Benchers on the government side, the Cross-Benches, the official Opposition and the Alliance are all strongly in favour
430
of the Government's principled belief in facilities being available on the train. We hope that the Minister will take to heart the fact that we want more than acceptance of principle.
Although a good job may be done in other ways, one of the great bugbears of much of our legislation is that the Treasury wants to have a hand in everything that is going on. I hope that tonight's speeches—very cogent, clear and rational speeches—will give support to the noble Lord so that when he next goes to the Cabinet Committee he can say to his colleagues, "We must do something about this before the Report stage." 1 really believe that at the right time on a particular day, either on Third Reading or Report, we have a good chance of carrying your Lordships with us on this point. I hope that the Minister will take this very seriously. There is so much common sense in it.
Lord Sefton of Garston: I feel that I have been provoked by the mention of Liverpool. I put a plea to the Minister. Having customs on trains is important to a place like Liverpool. British Rail has said that unless there are customs facilities on trains we are not going to get a through service. It may well be that British Rail will conclude that at the moment potential traffic between Liverpool and the Continent is not great enough to warrant that service. I have bitter memories of the attitude of British Rail where commercial justification for projects is involved. I remember being invited to the opening of the container terminal at Seaforth. It was a marvellous terminal. Anyone who wants to see a good container terminal should go to Seaforth. Knowing of the railway line that ran under the overhead railway and serviced all the docks on Seaforth, I looked first for the rail link between the container depot and our national network. It was not there. British Rail had pulled it up, saying there was no immediate justification for that service.
Lord Mountevans: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Would he not say that that was rather a far-sighted view on the part of British Rail, given the success of the terminal?
Lord Sefton of Garston: I do not know whether it was far-sighted or not, but I know that five years later, after I protested. British Rail put it back in, at considerably greater expense than the cost of taking it out. It was absolutely shortsighted; nothing else. It was unforgivable. And here is British Rail beginning to establish the ground for no service from Liverpool. I made the point this afternoon that one of the difficulties is trying to persuade British Rail to provide these infrastructures in advance so as to encourage development in places like Liverpool where the Government intend to put a lot of investment. That is one of the things we ought to be encouraging. From that point of view I plead with the Minister and the Government not only to accept what the amendment says but also to encourage British Rail to establish these facilities in order to attract investment to places like Liverpool.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The Government have a great deal of sympathy with the aims of this amendment and so, evidently, does the Committee, on all sides. It seems to me to be a matter of common sense that the efficiency, attractiveness and therefore the profitability of the through rail services should not be compromised by what might so easily be portrayed as cautious or conservative attitudes on the part of our frontier control services—the Customs and Immigration service, not forgetting the Ministry of Agriculture.
It was entirely right, therefore, that the Select Committee should have looked thoroughly at this question. Indeed, it took detailed evidence from a senior customs official and from a chief inspector of the Immigration Service. The committee's starting point, and one accepted by Select Committees looking at this question in the other place was,
"that the Committee would not wish to see any lowering of the standards to which customs and immigration staff work".
Your Lordships' Committee heard about the physical arrangements that would be necessary in order to implement on-train controls. Indeed, customs officers and immigration officials will have to move systematically from one end of the train to another; passengers will be required to identify their baggage and, in all but the most straightforward cases, it will be necessary for passengers to accompany officials to interview rooms, of which there will have to be several on each train, in order to carry out questioning in depth and to make searches of a person's baggage. Such procedures and requirements have cost implications both for the railways and for the frontier services, and there is no way of avoiding these implications if, as I am sure the whole Committee would agree, the effectiveness of our controls is to be maintained.
The Select Committee recorded no disagreement with the view of the Government and British Rail that, for the services from Continental points—principally Paris and Brussels—to Waterloo, airport-style controls would provide a satisfactory and efficient method of control. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, implied rather that the Select Committee had endorsed on-train controls for all services. I see that the noble Lord shakes his head and is putting me right.
No final decisions have been taken about the manner in which controls will be operated for the Waterloo services, though as I have already said the Government's present view is that the controls would be less intrusive and more effective at the terminals, in the same way as they are at airports at the moment. But we shall continue to keep an open mind on this subject and the powers in Clause 11 of this Bill will permit either on-train or off-train controls, whichever option is eventually chosen. Of course the services referred to by other noble Lords this evening, notably those from the far-flung regions of this land —the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and the noble Lord, Lord Sefton—are those to places beyond London and it is clearly impractical to have terminal facilities at every major city in the United Kingdom. The only alternative to on-train controls would be for passengers to disembark at Olympia or possibly at Ashford.
432
The Select Committee strongly endorsed the need for on-train controls on these services and the Government responded as follows:
"The Government agree with the Committee's assessment of the case for on-train controls and thus accepts the desirability of such controls for trains travelling to destinations beyond London. The Government will make every effort to resolve the outstanding practical problems of operating such controls in its continuing discussions with British Rail.".
I have already explained that a great deal of detailed design work is needed on the facilities required on the trains. There are capital cost implications and, as we shall see later in connection with another amendment, there is a possible question of payment for the additional costs of the Customs and Immigration officials. It would therefore be premature for the Government to make an unconditional commitment to on-train controls. On the basis that the Government have made as strong a commitment as it is proper or practical to make at this stage, I hope that my noble friend will not choose to press his amendment this evening.
Members of the Committee have compared this country with others. It is simply not true to say that the norm on the Continent is that controls are carried out on board moving trains. Some are—that is agreed. But some take place with the trains stationary in stations and some are at terminals. The controls on the Continent are generally less strict, secure and effective than those in the United Kingdom. This country is different, as frontier controls between countries on the Continent can never be really effective, because the land borders can always be crossed clandestinely. Therefore Continental countries have things that we do not have and do not necessarily want to have in this country; for example, identity cards. So the circumstances are not completely the same in this country and in Continental Europe and that is something which should be taken into account.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: It is good to know that we have the Government's sympathy. But when I hear the word "sympathy" used in relation to an amendment I begin to hope that the proposer of the amendment will be as tiresome as possible, which is what I hope the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will be. That was a deeply disappointing reply. The second phrase which was spine-chilling was "The Government are keeping an open mind". We know what that means after our unfortunate experiences in the past.
I found that a deeply negative reply. I realise that the noble Lord is speaking again for a department other than his own. But as a Member of the Select Committee I found the evidence of the Customs probably the most unpersuasive evidence that we received. It was negative. It implied that everything was immensely difficult in the United Kingdom, that our services were astonishingly successful and that by implication those in the rest of Europe were not. That flies in the face of all the evidence.
Taking drugs as an example we probably manage to intercept somewhere around 10 per cent. of the

433
illicitly imported drugs into this country; in other words, 90 per cent. get through our present customs barriers. The implication that our system at the moment is infinitely superior to everyone else's flies in the face of all the evidence.
We must also accept the fact which the Select Committee pointed out in paragraph 115 of its report. It states:
"It is estimated that 90 per cent. of passengers will be British or citizens of the European Community and will therefore be checked very quickly."
The case for on-train controls north of London, if I may so describe it, is unanswerable. We must accept that if we do not have on-train controls the consequences for travellers going north of London will be very serious. That point was made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton. This is one of those happy occasions when he and I are in agreement. I quote from paragraph 116 of the Select Committee's report which states:
"Unless British Rail are able to operate through services on these trains the prospects of the tunnel for assisting economic growth in the regions will be severely damaged. The Committee therefore fully support British Rail's case for customs and immigration checks to be carried out on these trains".
If anything the Government's reply today is less satisfactory than the evidence put before us by their own civil servants. I must say to the Minister that I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will not choose to press this matter tonight but I very much hope that we shall get a better reply at a later stage of the Bill. The Committee should be aware of the consequences of what we are debating and its implications. The implications are that there will be no passenger services to the Continent north of London unless we get the on-train controls. I say that because of the evidence of British Rail which was clear and unmistakable on that point.
The Minister talks about the cost implications as regards British Rail, but the fact of the matter is that British Rail is pressing not only for on-train controls north of London but for on-train controls for all of the services which will use the Channel Tunnel. That was the evidence put before us. As a member of the committee which went into this matter in considerable detail I found what the Minister said tonight extremely depressing. I hope that it was simply a cautious brief from the Customs and Excise; but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will not accept the bland reassurances which we have received tonight, and that if we do not get something better on Report he will divide the House.
Lord Sefton of Garston: I shall attempt to be more agreeable. I thought that the noble Lord was going to quote further on from paragraph 116 because I thought that the Minister was casting some doubt upon the belief of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that the committee supported fully the case for on-train Customs. If I am correct, may I refer him to paragraph 116 of the report because that shows that there is no doubt about the committee's attitude. That paragraph states:
"The Committee therefore fully support British Rail's case for customs and immigration checks to be carried out on these trains".
434
There is no doubt about that attitude. The members of the committee and everyone who has spoken up to now in the Chamber all support that idea. I hope that the Minister will be more co-operative in giving some warmth to those deprived areas of the rest of the country.
Lord Ampthill: I think there is an element of confusion here. Even among the members of my committee there was an occasional moment or two of confusion! We are speaking about two entirely separate matters. We are speaking of controls on trains for those who are not coming to London and for those who are coming to London.
The amendment would require that passengers wishing to disembark in London —in other words the 70 per cent. who wish to come to London—would also have to be examined on the train. The committee did not take the view that that was a practical proposition. We were adamant that all trains destined for north of London must have controls on the trains. Once that point is made clear, the Minister's reply is not so unsatisfactory as has been suggested. I believe he remains convinced, although the Government will be looking at the matter, that trains coming to Waterloo will probably have to have the Customs and Immigration inspections carried out at Waterloo in a manner similar to those which take place at an airport. I believe the committee felt that that was a reasonable view to hold. However, they were absolutely firmly of the view that all destinations other than London would require that Customs and Immigration controls should he on the train.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I hesitate to disagree with my noble friend who was the chairman of the committee. However, if he will read the Government's response to our recommendation, it does not give unqualified support to the recommendation of the committee and nor did the Minister's speech. If the Minister said now that if an amendment were put down before Report stage which made clear that it would relate to all trains going north of London (if I may use that shorthand) the Government would accept it, 1 think he would reassure many of us and clear up this point.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: May I rise and make clear exactly what I did say to the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff, and Lord Sefton? The noble Lord has misunderstood me and has not read the report of the Select Committee properly. It was clear that the Select Committee appeared to be satisfied with the arrangements at Waterloo but not with the on-train services beyond Waterloo. That was made clear. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet—
Lord Mountevans: Waterloo is a terminal station. How can one have train services beyond Waterloo?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Perhaps I should have said around Waterloo.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: North of London.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: North of London is the safe phrase. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has put his finger on it. I am certainly prepared to reconsider the view which is obviously held throughout the Committee that I should look again at the situation on trains going beyond London. If the Committee accepts the views of the Select Committee that probably nothing needs to be done on Waterloo trains and I have already said that we have not yet finally made up our minds on that issue I will certainly look again at the situation with regard to trains beyond London.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If I may say so, that is very fair. Many of us will welcome what the Minister has said. If he is prepared to look at the matter between now and Report stage with regard to trains going north of London, that will reassure many of us.
Speaking entirely for myself, I very much hope that the Government will eventually go further and say, in terms of the general principle involved, that we shall eventually reach a situation where we can have on-train controls on all trains coming to the United Kingdom.
So far as the committe is concerned, we addressed our minds to the situation north of London for one very simple reason; that is, the clear and unmistakable evidence given by British Rail as to what the consequences would be if we do not have on-train controls north of London. We did not spend a great deal of time talking about trains which terminate at Waterloo because the same considerations did not apply; namely, that if there were no on-train controls, there would not be a service. That is what British Rail said about the situation north of London. However, I repeat that I very much hope that we will move to a situation where all trains coming to the United Kingdom have on-train inspection both by customs and immigration.
I do not believe it will lead to deterioriation in the quality of the service. Indeed, the evidence which we took pointed in precisely the opposite direction, because the representative of Customs and Excise agreed with me that often only about 1 per cent. of people going through the green channels at Heathrow and other airports were subject to any form of customs inspection. With on-train controls there would be staff implications for the whole system. All passengers would be checked and therefore the security implications would be better if there were on-train controls rather than off-train.
I repeat what the noble Lord said earlier today. There is no evidence that the customs service in many European countries is any less effective than it is in this country, despite the fact that in the overwhelming majority of cases they have on-train controls.
However, I welcome what the Minister said and I very much hope that he will be able to help us in this matter at Report stage. I think he realises that there is an overwhelming feeling in the Committee about the need to make some change in the Bill on this matter.
Lord Tordoff: I should like to take up a point made by the Minister when he referred to this as being premature. I hope that by the time we reach Report stage he will not regard it as premature. I hope he will co-operate and assist his noble friend or perhaps put forward an amendment himself at Report stage so that we will not have to reopen the whole argument again. With that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teviot: We have had a most interesting and full debate on this subject. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is quite right; I am capable of being very tiresome. There was a moment earlier (until my noble friend made a second intervention) when perhaps I was going to divide the Committee. However, I was intending to be equally sporting. I was going to inform my noble friend the Deputy Chief Whip, the Captain of the Yeoman of the Guard, to go round to all corners of the House sounding his hunting horn and using my name in expletive to keep everybody here. I can now tell him that that is no longer necessary. Equally, I hope that my noble friend will come up with something positive at a later stage; otherwise I shall divide the House. However, I am quite sure the matter will be resolved.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, supported the amendment. I have spoken to subsequent amendments. I was perhaps rather dull when I arrived, but with a moment of this magnitude, I know my limitations and frailties, so when I move such an amendment I have to go frightfully slowly and be well prepared. However, I am now back in the mainstream and enjoying myself.
Regarding trains in and outside of London, at first I thought one was dealing only with trains north of London and in the London area. I shall spend a little time going into why I think it is important that there should be on-train control on trains going into Waterloo. One reason is that in Paris and Brussels you will be able to catch a train to London, just as you will from Brussels to Paris or Paris to Brussels, on equal terms. There is no reason why one should not do that; it would not be very difficult.
Referring to fair competition, I think it is important to remember that rail travel will still be a little slower than air; perhaps that is not a very good point. However, it would be nice to be able to go to Waterloo and book your train to Paris as if you were going from London to Dover or London to Brighton. It is not possible to travel from Waterloo to Brighton; but it is possible to travel to Weymouth or Bournemouth.
There is one part of this country in particular which I know, where the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, now lives but which is not his native heath, so to speak. It is Taunton. The West and the East are not going to be included for through services by reason of the non-electrified lines. We can only run through trains on electrified lines. I am sure that one day it may be very interesting to run a service from Barnstaple, Penzance, or wherever, to Paris of even from Pwllheli, Aberystwyth, or Fishguard. However, that might be in the next century or even beyond.

437
Equally, on Amendment No. 92 Snowhill tunnel will not be practical for through Continental trains. It is very sad but I do not think that one would have such interesting through services from Sheringham, Cromer, Norwich, or wherever, to go right round by Willesden Junction and Kensington Olympia.
I think we have had a very good run on this amendment, which has taken only 41 minutes on a very important subject; and I rose to speak after 35 minutes. I will come back to this point, but in the meantime I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Regulation of the tunnel system: application and enforcement of law, etc.]:
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 9, line 41, at end inset—
("(aa) for the transfer to, and the vesting by virtue of the order in, any person or persons specified in the order (referred to below in this section as the transferee), on such terms (if any) as may be provided by the order—

(i) on any substitution of Concessionaires under the Concession or on the expiry or termination of the Concession, of the interest of the former Concessionaires in all movable property and intellectual property rights necessary for the construction or operation of the tunnel system;

(ii) on any such substitution, of all rights and liabilities of the former Concessionaires under the Concession or any Concession lease; and

(iii) on any such substitution which takes place in such circumstances as may be specified in the order, of liabilities of the former Concessionaires (other than liabilities within sub-paragraph (ii) above) of such description as may be so specified;

and for securing effective possession or control by the transferee of any moveable property or rights in which any interest transferred by the order subsists;")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 24 and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 28 and 32. These amendments appear to be extremely long and complicated, but I can assure the Committee that they deal with the rights of the lending banks under the concession agreement if the concessionaires fail and with the rights of the two governments on expiry or termination of the concession. They are complex and technical, but they do not represent new material of substance. They simply spell out in some detail the way in which the Secretary of State can give effect to certain clauses of the concession agreement.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 9, line 46, at end insert ("including in particular (without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provision) provision with respect to controls in relation to persons or goods within the system;")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 25 and at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 29 and 30. The first three amendments in this group simply serve to clarify the scope of paragraphs (b) and (d) of subsection (1) of Clause 11. Without the amendment a court might be encouraged to think, because controls within the tunnel system are explicitly covered by Clause 11(1)(d), that the words "construction, operation and
438
use" in Clause 11(1)(b) do not cover controls and are therefore to be construed narrowly. But it is important that Clause 11(1)(b) is construed widely to ensure that the Secretary of State has all the powers he needs to ensure the safe and secure operation of the tunnel system and the people and services using it. The combined effect of these three amendments is to discourage a narrow interpretation of this power.
The last two amendments are purely drafting changes to ensure that the word "modification" is properly defined in relation to the way it is used earlier in the clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Renton): As Amendment No. 28 has already been spoken to, I propose to call Amendments Nos. 26 to 30 en bloc unless any Member has objection.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30.
Page 10, line 9, leave out from beginning to second ("whether") and insert ("outside the tunnel system").
Page 10, line 11, leave out from ("work") to ("whether") in line 12 and insert ("outside the tunnel system").
Page 10, line 30, after ("(a)") insert ("(aa)").
Page 10, line 36, leave out ("amendment of an enactment") and insert ("in relation to an enactment, any amendment of it").
Page 10, line 38, leave out ("an enactment includes") and insert ("any provision of the law of England includes, in relation to an enactment,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 10, line 44, at end insert ("or imposing penalties otherwise than in respect of criminal offences;").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 11, line 37, at end insert—
("(6) An order made by virtue of subsection (1)(aa) above may provide for any interest or right transferred by the order—

(a) to vest in the transferee free of any security to which it is subject immediately before the order comes into force, other than one created in accordance with the Concession; or

(b) to be treated on vesting in the transferee as subject to a security of such a description, held by such person or persons, as may be provided by or specified in the order.

(7) Where immediately before any substitution of Concessionaires under the Concession or the expiry or termination of the Concession any company which is, or is included among the persons who for the time being are, the Concessionaires is subject to insolvency procedure, an order made by virtue of subsection (1)(aa) above may apply in relation to—

(a) any interest of any liquidator of that company; and

(b) any interest of any person deriving title under any such liquidator or under an administrator or administrative receiver of that company;

in any movable property or intellectual property rights necessary for the construction or operation of the tunnel system, or in relation to any such interest of any description specified in the order, as it applies in relation to an interest of the Concessionaires in any such property or rights.
(8) Where in any proceedings a question arises as to what constitutes for the purposes of subsection (1)(aa) or (7) above an interest in movable property or intellectual property rights

439
necessary for the construction or operation of the tunnel system, the court shall have regard in determining the question to any construction of the corresponding references in the Concession for the time being adopted by the arbitral tribunal.
(9) For the purposes of subsection (8) above, the corresponding references in the Concession are the references in Clauses 32.1(3) and 39.2 of the Concession to the interest of the Concessionaires in all movable property and intellectual property rights necessary for the construction or operation of the Fixed Link.
(10) For the purposes of this section—

(a) a substitution of Concessionaires under the Concession occurs at any time when any person or persons become the Concessionaires in substitution for any person or persons who were the Concessionaires immediately before that time;

(b) "the former Concessionaires" means, in relation to any such substitution or in relation to the expiry or termination of the Concession, the person or persons who cease to be the Concessionaires on that substitution or on that expiry or termination;

(c) "liabilities" includes duties and obligations;

(d) "company" means a British company or a French company;

(e) "British company" means a company formed and registered under the Companies Act 1985;

(f) "French company" means a body corporate incorporated under the law of France;

(g) a company is subject to insolvency procedure if—

(i) in the case of a British company, it is being wound up, an administration order has been made in relation to it or a receiver or manager of its property has been appointed who is an administrative receiver of the company; or

(ii) in the case of a French company, it is subject to any procedure under the law of France which corresponds to that applicable under the Insolvency Act 1986 in relation to a British company within sub-paragraph (i) above;

(h) "liquidator", "administrator" and "administrative receiver"—

(i) in relation to a British company, mean respectively a person appointed as the liquidator or administrator of the company under any provision of the Insolvency Act 1986 or (as the case may be) an administrative receiver of the company within the meaning of Chapter I of Part III of that Act; or

(ii) in relation to a French company, mean any person charged under the law of France with functions in relation to that company corresponding to those exercisable in relation to a British company by a liquidator, administrator or administrative receiver of the company; and

(i) "security" means any mortgage, charge, lien or other security.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Provisions supplementary to section 11]:
[Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Contract law and arbitration law]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 13, line 7, after first ("notice") insert ("and
(b) any Concession agreement other than one so specified shall be taken to be valid and effective at any time on or after the date on which it is expressed to take effect;").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 13, line 9, leave out ("for Concession lease")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 36. With the leave of the Committee, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 37 to 44. They are technical amendments. I could give a longer explanation if the Committee wishes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 37 to 44:
Page 13, line 13, leave out ("or lease")
Page 13, line 14, leave out ("or lease")
Page 13, line 17, leave out ("or lease")
Page 13, line 21, leave out ("or lease")
Page 13, line 22, leave out ("or lease")
Page 13, line 23, leave out ("or lease")
Page 13, line 44, leave out ("or lease")
Page 13, line 50, leave out ("or Concession lease")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Supervision by Intergovernmental Commission and Safety Authority]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 45;
Page 14, line 40, after ("time") insert ("(or, in a situation which in his opinion is or may be dangerous, at any time)").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 45 and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 46, 47, 48, 50 and 102. These are largely technical. I could give a lengthy explanation if the Committee wishes, but the amendments are non-controversial and do not alter the principle of the Bill in any way. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48:
Page 14, line 44, at end insert—
("(aa) to take in connection with any such inspection, examination or investigation samples of any articles or substances found in any premises, place or vehicle in the tunnel system and of the atmosphere in or in the vicinity of any such premises, place or vehicle;
(ab) in the case of any article or substance which is so found and which appears to him to have caused or be likely to cause danger to health or safety, to cause it to be dismantled or subjected to any process or test (but not so as to damage or destroy it unless this is in the circumstances necessary for the performance of any function under the Treaty of the supervisory body by whom he is authorised);
(ac) in the case of any such article or substance, to take possession of it and detain it for so long as is necessary for all or any of the following purposes—

(i) to examine it and to do anything which he has power to do under paragraph (ab) above;

(ii) to ensure that it is not tampered with before his examination of it is completed;

(iii) to ensure that it is available for use as evidence in any legal proceedings;").

Page 14, line 46, leave out ("such examination or investigation") and insert ("inspection, examination or investigation with respect to any matter concerning the construction or operation of the tunnel system").
Page 15, line 3, after ("such") insert ("inspection,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 15, line 14, at end insert ("and in respect of safety, it shall be the duty of the Concessionaires to submit to the Safety Authority detailed proposals for the transport of vehicles through the tunnel system, involving both drivers and passengers being segregated from their vehicles and drivers and passengers remaining within their vehicles, so that the Safety Authority may reach a decision as to which affords the most effective safeguards against fire and other accidents and best protects the safety of persons travelling through the tunnel system.").
The noble Lord said: I have reason to believe that this may be the last amendment to be moved tonight. I hope that that proves to be the case. It is an important one. The Committee will recall that on Second Reading considerable concern was expressed from all parts of the Chamber about the segregation or non-segregation of passengers from vehicles.
The amendment seeks to make it a duty on the concessionaires to submit to the safety authority detailed proposals in respect of transport of vehicles involving the segregation of passengers and also detailed proposals where there is non-segregation. This would enable the safety authority to reach a decision on the most effective way to secure the utmost safety. If this is not done, the authority will be in the position of considering only the proposals submitted to it by the concessionaires, which we consider would be wrong.
It may be recalled that in Standing Committee in the other place a similar amendment was defeated by only one vote, demonstrating the concern that exists and that has been expressed in your Lordships' Chamber. I hope therefore that the Government will find it possible to accept the principle that the safety authority should have from the concessionaires detailed plans for segregation and non-segregation so that both may be considered in the interests of safety.
Lord Tordoff: I have some sympathy with the amendment but I am concerend about the wording. It seems to predispose a decision on the part of the safety authority. It is almost self-evident that segregation is likely to be safer than non-segregation. Thus, it does not leave the safety authority any room for decision. It is clear that segregation is likely to be safer.
The question that the safety authority ought to determine is the appropriate level of safety within this system of transport. If, say, an amendment were tabled that airlines should decide whether it was safer to carry passengers or not to carry them, clearly it is safer not to carry passengers. I do not say that in a frivolous way. There is the nub of an important point in the amendment.
In my view the safety authority should be ordered to carry out a thorough assessment of the safety of segregation and non-segregation. However, I do not believe that the amendment as worded covers that point.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I have no sympathy with the amendment. Who can stand up now and say what terrorists will do in six years' time and how safety should be organised? We have to leave this to the people who know about safety in four and a half or five years' time. Things change every day. We should leave out the amendment. I hope that my noble friend will oppose it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I have no doubt that the motivations of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, are admirable. However, like my noble friend Lord Tordoff and the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, I very much hope that the Government will not accept the amendment. As my noble friend the committee chairman will agree, we went into this most thoroughly. I think that all of us were satisfied that the safety authority will look at the matter of segregation as compared with non-segregation with the utmost care. I do not believe that the amendment is phrased in such a way that it would improve the situation.
The matter to which we will come on Monday—the character and composition of the safety authority—is of far greater significance. The public require to be satisfied about the composition of that authority. However, as I have indicated, like my noble friend Lord Tordoff, I do not think that the Government should accept this amendment.
10 p.m.
Lord Hayter: My text is taken from the Select Committee's report at paragraph 129, where it says:
"It is clear from the evidence that since Eurotunnel's designs for this system are still being developed neither the Authority nor any other authority is in a position to evaluate them".
I agree with this amendment that we must know what they are. We cannot adopt the attidude of Pontius Pilate and wash our hands of the matter, leaving some body later on to get to the heart of the problem.
The House of Lords is not very good at fire security. I felt that most emphatically at the State Opening of Parliament. We had 500 people sitting in this Chamber in conditions which no theatre, cinema, aeroplane or railway station would be allowed to offer. Incidentally, the situation was compounded by the fact that that lock would not open. There could have been a serious inquiry if there had been any kind of accident.
Paragraph 5.38 on page xxxiii talks about evacuation from cars. I shall read only one sentence:
"The internal width of a wagon is 3·75 metres while a good average width"—
a nice phrase—
"for cars is 1·75 metres leaving I metre on each side. Door sizes vary from two door to four door vehicles but with doors open at about 45 degees the clearance is over 0·5 metres".
If I may translate that, it is 1 foot 7¾ inches. When this fire takes place, and I open my car door—which happily opens at right angles but I shall stick to the rules and open it only 45 degrees—those Members of the Committee who are also in the same wagon have to get past my open door in 1 foot 7¾ inches. I shall not look anywhere in particular in this Chamber but there are Members of this Committee who could not do that.
Lord Teviot: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he not addressing himself to Amendment No. 51, which relates to the subject of fire, rather than Amendment No. 49? Before he resumes, perhaps I may refer to the fire precautions in this Chamber. I have always felt very safe. I thought at one moment when the noble Lord was speaking that Black Rod was going to give Members of the Committee the benefit of his wisdom. On that point I and I am sure the rest of the Committee are very happy with the fire precautions here. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, is talking about Amendment No. 51 rather than Amendment No. 49.
Lord Hayter: No. The noble Lord can take it that way if he wishes, but I agree with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. We want to see detailed proposals on the alternative ways of managing the safety of passengers in these trains. For my part, I hope that he will keep this very much in mind and press the amendment to a Division if we have to.
Lord Ampthill: If I may intervene briefly, my noble friend Lord Hayter has not fully appreciated that neither this Committee nor the safety authority is yet in a position to make the necessary judgments about these matters. Therefore, if I may be allowed to use one of the least attractive words in the English language, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is otiose.
Lord Mulley: I did not follow the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, when he referred to Amendment No. 51. As I read that amendment, it is concerned only with the composition of the safety authority and not with the prevention of fire, although it is an important amendment. It has been suggested by Members of the Committee that the text of the amendment moved by my noble friend is prejudging the issue. I cannot see how the amendment prejudges the issue. I am sure that the distinguished membership of the safety authority that is proposed would not assume that they had to decide in favour of segregation. But I think this is a matter—
Lord Brougham and Vaux: The noble Lord—
Lord Mulley: I did not interrupt the noble Lord.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: I believe that this amendment originated from the competitors of Eurotunnel. May I suggest that the competitors of Eurotunnel should get their safety much better than it is at the moment?
Lord Mulley: That is a quite scandalous suggestion. I have heard it said in private meetings—I do not quote people who speak in private meetings—that the only reason Eurotunnel is not prepared to consider segregation is because it would add to the cost. That might make the financial viability of the tunnel less satisfactory. I do not believe myself that any reasonable person would sacrifice safety in the interests of cost. As Eurotunnel says in its memorandum, it realises that the tunnel
444
will not be successful unless the public are satisfied that it is entirely safe. It is only reasonable that the safety authority should consider the two alternatives. As has been explained it is not yet in being and the chairman of the Select Committee said it could not form a view, as no one can form a view at this stage.
It would be wise of Eurotunnel not to go too far in designing the proposed vehicles without taking the opinion of the safety authority. I cannot really see why the cost should be so much extra because, if there were no people in the cars or lorries, then the tunnel operators could easily use rather less expensive carriages to convey the vehicles and the passengers could sit in compartments as they do in an ordinary train. I cannot see that if there is an additional cost it should be all that unreasonable. No one would suggest that cost should stand in the way of safety. As far as one understands from the proposed design that has been published, in the case of fire there are real doubts about whether able bodied people would be able to get out, and some people with disability—another question to come before the Committee—would have real problems.
The possibility of fire must be a consideration because Eurotunnel makes this point. It argues that because there are two tunnels if there is a fire in one—these are Eurotunnel's words—the other tunnel would not be affected. The company is obviously and properly considering that this is a hypothetical possibility. The amendment of my noble friend, even though it may be subject to redrafting, concerns the fact that the safety authority should decide that this question is reasonable and proper for the Committee to concern itself with.
Lord Trafford: Surely some of us are being a little ungenerous in not giving credit to the movers of the amendment for their concern with safety. I do not think the question of cost arose in the mover's statement. We should give them credit for that, but it is somewhat ludicrous to suggest that in the next part of the Bill, where we shall discuss the question of a safety authority, at the same time we should tie the authority's hands and feet by saying precisely what it should do now six years before the tunnel is built. Surely we should give credit to those moving the amendment for their concern for safety and at the same time, however conscious we happen to be in this year about safety, leave the actual technical details and the implementation of that safety to those who are subsequently appointed to carry out that function.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My noble friend has put his finger on the point. The amendment is unacceptable because it is based on a misconception of the role of the safety authority. It will not be the authority's function to lay down a priori the design concepts for the project. The Select Committee went into considerable detail on this in paragraph 126. It is for Eurotunnel to put forward the design which it considers best meets the needs of its business, having regard not only to safety but to all the factors that are judged to be relevant.
If the safety authority is satisfied that the physical design, the operating procedures—that is, all aspects

445
of the scheme—meet all the relevant criteria and provide a proper level of protection and safety to users and employees, the safety authority will approve the proposals. It is not the safety authority's function to develop alternative designs and solutions, or to require the concessionaires to do so, if the design submitted meets the safety requirements.
The Select Committee heard evidence from Major Rose, the chief inspecting officer of railways and head of the United Kingdom delegation to the safety authority. He explained that his and his colleagues' minds remained entirely open on the question of segregation. The work done at the time of the previous project in 1974 had shown, prima facie, that non-segregation would not pose an unacceptable risk. However, further detailed studies and tests of the non-segregated design needed to be carried out before a final decision could be made. Those were in progress. If the results of those studies and tests did not satisfy the safety authority, the non-segregated solution would be rejected.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, rightly cast doubt on the presumption in the amendment that segregation is necessarily the right solution. There are arguments for and against segregation. It would be less open, for instance, for a terrorist to place a bomb in a car if passengers travelled with their vehicles. Evacuation from a train is easier if passengers are distributed throughout its length and not concentrated in a segregated compartment. It has also been pointed out that the most efficient fire detection system in a car is the car's owner sitting in it. The driver will quickly raise the alarm or deal with the situation if he is in his car. An unattended vehicle, on the other hand, could catch fire unobserved.
Your Lordships' Select Committee was entirely satisfied by the assurances which Major Rose gave, and that the framework for settling the issue was correct. I hope that the Committee this evening will endorse the Select Committee's conclusion, unless of course the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Underhill: I am amazed that any Member of the Committee should read into this that the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Carmichael, are taking one side or the other as to whether vehicles should be segregated from their passengers.
Lord Tordoff: I made the suggestion; but simply on the basic premise that it is almost certainly safer to have people segregated than not segregated. The Minister has suggested that that may not be the truth. It is my belief that this probably will be safer. The question the safety authority ought to judge is whether it is safe. In my view that judgment ought to be left to it and not predisposed in the wording of the amendment.
Lord Underhill: The amendment suggests that the safety authority should consider whether segregation is the best method. That surely is what we want it to
446
do. Paragraph 129 of the Select Committee report says:
"Eurotunnel are developing a system of carrying passengers in their vehicles on the shuttle wagons".
In other words, it is already going ahead and preparing a system of no segregation. This comes back to the question which I asked on Clause 1 and to which the Minister is going to endeavour to reply at some stage. Is the safety authority in a position to consider that matter now when really it cannot start doing its work until there is Royal Assent? Yet we are told that Eurotunnel is developing a system of carrying passengers in their vehicles. I am not saying whether segregation is the right system. I know what I debated at Second Reading. I know that when I read some of the provisions of Eurotunnel some of my fears about the lack of segregation were allayed.
I want the safety authority not just to have before it a scheme from Eurotunnel for no segregation, on which it has already done a good deal of work and has prepared plans, when the safety authority cannot do its work until Royal Assent is given. At that stage I want the safety authority to be able to have before it whether segregation is the desirable choice with detailed plans as to how that might be carried out, or on the other hand plans for no segregation.
I have not declared one way or the other. All I know is that Eurotunnel has declared one way, and 1 believe that at the moment that will be the only proposal as to whether that is the best method or not which will be put before the safety authority. I believe that it ought to have before it the Eurotunnel proposal and maybe an alternative proposal for segregation.
At this stage of the evening I would be foolish to do other than say that I shall read carefully what has been said in this debate. There has been a great deal of misunderstanding. Perhaps this has been badly worded or I have badly presented it; I do not know. I shall read carefully what everyone has said, and in the meantime beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, perhaps I may say that in no way did I want to deny anything to do with safety. But the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, knows as well as I do that the National Safety Executive moves with the times. As my noble friend said, there is no way that we can tie somebody's hands and say that this is what they have to do in six years' time. Safety improves with the times. It always does. Car safety has improved over the last five years. No doubt when they start building and designing all these trains safety will be paramount in their minds.
Lord Underhill: I hope I am not wrong but I have assumed that the safety authority will remain in being, and that at any time it can consider any aspect. That is my interpretation of the safety authority. I shall be welcoming, perhaps at Report stage, the Minister's comments on the first question that I put on Clause 1: can the safety authority now consider the Eurotunnel proposals for not segregating

447
passengers from their vehicles when the safety authority cannot take effect, so far as I understand it, until there is Royal Assent?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Perhaps I may answer that point for the noble Lord right now. The safety authority is already established under an exchange of letters that took place when the treaty was signed in February of last year. That exchange was incorporated in the printed version of the treaty, which is Command Paper 9745. The safety authority is already beginning to look at the main issues. Of course it has no formal power yet, such as under Clause 16 of this Bill, because the Bill is not passed and the concession agreement that is signed is not in force until the treaty is ratified. However, it is already established and it is already beginning to look at this kind of thing.
Lord Underhill: I thank the Minister for that reply, which I shall read carefully. It seems to add effect to the principle of this amendment, but nevertheless I shall withdraw it at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, has, in the last 20 minutes, tabled a manuscript amendment as follows:
"Page 15, line 14, at end insert 'and in respect of safety the proposals for the provision of fire precaution equipment shall be no less than that obtaining in any tunnel in the United Kingdom'."
Lord Sefton of Garston Lord Sefton of Garston moved a manuscript amendment:
Page 15,1ine 14, at end insert "and in respect of safety the proposals for the provision of fire precaution equipment shall be no less than that obtaining in any tunnel in the United Kingdom."
The noble Lord said: I do not think that anybody in this Chamber would disagree with the terms of that amendment. If they do it seems to me that they would be giving licence to certain tunnel operators to reduce their minimum standards. I am not inexperienced in the administration of a tunnel. I happened to be the chairman of the Mersey tunnel for a considerable time, and at one time it was the largest tunnel in the United Kingdom. Therefore I know about fire precautions in that respect.
This tunnel is going to be at least 10 times longer. Therefore it surely is of the essence of safety that we should at least have the minimum—I am not asking for the same; I am not asking for more—that obtains in tunnels in the United Kingdom. In support of my claim I heard somebody say that of course safety would be paramount in the minds of people. Well, safety was not paramount in regard to an awful accident that we had lately. All I am asking is that the same standards that apply in the UK should apply in this tunnel. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: It is unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, passed to me a copy of his amendment only a short time ago. It is most unusual to have amendments put down in your Lordships' House with this kind of notice. It is not a practice which is encouraged by your Lordships' House, as
448
the Companion to the Standing Orders states. Nobody else in the Committee has yet had an opportunity to see the amendment or to consider it.
Nevertheless, I shall reply to it immediately. It is certainly not the intention of the Government that safety standards in the tunnel will be inferior to those of any similar tunnel in the UK. The Mersey tunnel is of course a completely different kettle of fish to the proposed Eurotunnel. There is no similar tunnel in the UK and nor is there likely to be. Every tunnel is different in length, in the kind of traffic it carries, in diameter, etc. Every tunnel must have its own safety standards developed for its own circumstances. That is the job of the safely authority, and its starting point will be the detailed requirements already incorporated in the concession, many of which are unique.
The noble Lord's amendment falls right into the apples and oranges trap; one cannot as easily as that compare one thing with another. I hope that he will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sefton of Garston: Had I prepared an amendment which was detailed and required a tremendous amount of consideration I certainly should not have complied with the Companion to the Standing Orders in this Chamber in moving it in this way. Had I thought for one minute that the amendment I was about to move needed serious thought and examination, of course I should not have done that. But read the amendment. It merely states that at the very least the standards we have in our tunnels in the United Kingdom should apply here—at least. I hope that when this tunnel is built the standards that apply in the Mersey tunnel will be exceeded and there will be more precautions.
Is the Minister in this Chamber, the supreme body of Parliament, telling me that he cannot accept it? He should not be telling me that because it is evident that any lay person in our community would agree that that should be the minimum for the tunnel.
I do not wish to delay noble Lords, but in conclusion I say this, and I say it straight: that was what happened to Townsend Thoresen. It put off what was a common-sense decision. When I heard of the tragedy I said to my wife that I could not understand it; were they telling me that they did not have a television screen on the bridge to ensure that the doors were shut? It seems to me that that was an error of colossal proportion. Here we have a Minister of the Crown telling me that a tunnel of magnificent size, construction and complicated matter will be built, and that he is not prepared to stand in this Chamber and recommend that the Committee suggest to the full House that we should have a minimum standard equivalent to other tunnels in the UK. All I can say is that it is disgraceful.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 15, line 44, after ("affect") insert ("health or").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 45.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past ten o'clock.

  PASSPORTS: DELAYS IN ISSUE
  PASSPORTS: DELAYS IN ISSUE
  SINGLE EUROPEAN ACT
  SINGLE EUROPEAN ACT
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION: APPROVAL
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION: APPROVAL
  EC AND JAPAN: ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
  EC AND JAPAN: ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES
  FALKLANDS WAR: NUCLEAR WEAPONS UNDERTAKING
  FALKLANDS WAR: NUCLEAR WEAPONS UNDERTAKING