Sitting of 13 July 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    HARWICH PARKESTON QUAY BILL
    Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified—Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENERGY

    Mining Subsidence
    Mr. Haynesasked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress is being made by British Coal regarding mining subsidence compensation claims.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): Since 1984, when British Coal revised its procedures, there has been a significant reduction in the time taken to process the majority of claims, and the number of claims outstanding has fallen by 22 per cent.
    Mr. Haynes: May I suggest that the Minister has a look at the cases that British Coal is messing about with? British Coal is walking all over the people who have made claims. It is crushing them like insects. Reviews are in progress and it is now being said that there is no more time. The local hospital is now being messed about with. I warn the Minister that if he does not do something, I will be walking all over him.
    Mr. Spicer: That sounds an uncomfortable experience. Of course, I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's involvement in a number of cases, particularly as I have just received a letter from him on the subject. I shall certainly take it up with British Coal.
    Let me say more generally that as I was a candidate in the colliery town of Easington for 10 years in the 1960s and early 1970s, I am very much aware of the anxiety and distress caused by subsidence. I certainly intend that we should produce as soon as possible our response to the Waddilove report, which deals with those matters. In the meantime, I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that action has been taken to speed up the claims procedure in anticipation of that response.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Far from walking all over my hon. Friend the Minister, let me take this opportunity of welcoming him warmly to his position on the Front Bench. I am sure that he will bring great distinction to his office.
    There is a very real problem over compensation. Is my hon. Friend aware that, in a constituency such as mine, many people are very upset because they find that British
    688
    Coal is effectively judge and jury in its own cause? It is always British Coal that determines whether subsidence has taken place, which I find very unsatisfactory. Will my hon. Friend bring that problem to bear in his review as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Spicer: That will certainly be one of the outstanding matters that must be examined. It is the subject of a number of cases now before us which I am taking up with British Coal.
    Mr. Rogers: Is the Minister aware that, during the coal strike, Mr. MacGregor met a group of Members of Parliament and said, in answer to a specific question from me, that the charges for subsidence would be held against the collieries that had created it, and would not be a charge upon other collieries or the industry as a whole? I ask the question because of the peculiar geological circumstances extant in the Nottinghamshire coalfield as compared with, say, south Wales. I do not see why the south Wales colliery should bear the subsidence costs of collieries such as Nottinghamshire. Is the Minister aware of that suggestion, or is it just another of MacGregor's lies? He told enough during the strike.
    Mr. Spicer: I shall leave aside the hon. Gentleman's last remark. The whole question of funding and, indeed, allocation is one of the matters that we are having to decide in our response to the Waddilove report.

    Electricity Industry
    Mr. Tony Lloydoyd asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the future of the electricity supply industry.
    Mr. Baldryasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give an estimate as to the timetable for the proposed privatistion of electricity supply.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): The Government are working to secure a very successful future for the electricity supply industry in the private sector. We are urgently tackling the important issues involved, and consulting widely, and will bring forward proposals as soon as this work is complete.
    Mr. Lloyd: The Secretary of State believes that this question is about privatisation. The privatisation of the industry is very important, but the security andefficiency of electricity supplies are at stake. Those factors are of paramount importance to Labour Members. What guarantee will the Secretary of State give that a privatised electricity supply industry will still look to the British sector for its supplies of switchgear, turbines, generators and all the other important equipment, particularly as the Government have already failed to invest adequately in research and development in the industry?
    Mr. Parkinson: We cannot force the CEGB to buy British. It chooses to do so because British goods are competitive, because British equipment is good and because it has a long tradition of working closely with the supply industry. If the industry is privatised, there is no reason why that should change, provided that British suppliers continue to perform as well as they do now. I do not believe that the change of ownership need give rise to a change of policy, unless the suppliers fail to perform.
    Mr. Baldry: Does not the British Gas experience demonstrate that privatisation is good for the consumer,

    689
    that it is good for manufacturing industry—in that jobs have been created because manufacturers now pay a lower price for their energy—and that it is also good for the weaker members of the community, such as pensioners, who also now pay less for their energy? Is not the British Gas experience good for the taxpayer, who no longer bears the burdens that face nationalised industries? The sooner the electricity supply industry is privatised the better it will be both for the consumer and the taxpayer.
    Mr. Parkinson: It was widely predicted that the only way that British Gas would increase its profits was by shoving up prices, but following the first financial results and the pricing formula that we imposed on British Gas it has reduced its prices by 4·5 per cent. That was because the price of its basic supplies had been reduced, but the benefit of those cost reductions was passed on to the customer, which Opposition Members predicted would never happen.
    Mr. Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that since the privatisation of British Telecom there has been a sharp deterioration in the service, a sharp deterioration in the record of repairs, an increase in profits and an increase in charges——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is concerned with the future of the electricity supply industry.
    Mr. Benn: Mr. Speaker, I am drawing a comparison with a privatised industry that has already moved into the private sector where none of the Secretary of State's claims turned out to be correct. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that this will not occur when a privately owned monopoly in British electricity is brought into being by a Government who claim to believe in competition?
    Mr. Parkinson: I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman. He is making an unjustified assumption. We recognise the need to introduce competition into the electricity supply industry. That is why we are studying the matter with great care. The right hon. Gentleman would be most unwise to assume that there is only one way to privatise an industry.
    Mr. Rost: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to the Front Bench and wish him every success in a very challenging job. Will he assure the House that privatisation will not be along the lines of British Gas, but that a formula will be devised that will provide genuine competition and give a fair opportunity to private producers?
    Mr. Parkinson: In approaching the subject of electricity privatisation there are many interests to be balanced: the work force, the customers and the public—the taxpayers—as the owners. It is because we are trying to find a way to introduce competition and at the same time to be fair to all those interests that the matter is receiving deep and detailed attention. We are not rushing towards making decisions that have not been thought out.
    Mr. Wallace: Given the Government's enthusiasm for privatising the electricity supply system and nuclear power, particularly the PWR, why do they not put their convictions to the test and see whether they could raise on the market the private capital to build the Sizewell plant?
    Mr. Parkinson: That is a typically muddled alliance approach to the problem. Until we have settled a structure for the industry and decided on the basis for privatisation such questions are pointless.
    Mr. Speller: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on assuming his onerous office, but when considering the future of the electricity supply industry will he consider the potential input of energies that are alternatives to the normal coal or nuclear sources, particularly the amount of value that could be obtained from the many wind generators throughout the British Isles?
    Mr. Parkinson: I am tempted to make the obvious joke, but I will not. The matter of renewables and power that is generated from wind is under close study. The House will have noticed that we have commissioned a pilot project to consider power that is generated by the sea and tides. We think that this is an important sector and it will receive careful attention.
    Mr. Orme: Is the Secretary of State aware that the question of nuclear power and privatisation will be exceedingly important, particularly the accountability for nuclear power stations? Will parliamentary accountability be removed under any future legislation?
    Mr. Parkinson: I cannot imagine any circumstances in which the regulations under which the nuclear industry operates could be weakened or in any way lightened. We recognise the very serious point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, but there is another point. Chernobyl was a wholly state-owned station and Three Mile Island was wholly privately owned; ownership does not decide safety. What decides safety is the safety regime that is instituted and the rigid enforcement of it, which we are determined to do.

    Energy Efficiency
    Mr. Forthasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he plans to hold energy efficiency conferences.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): I am currently reviewing my Department's plans as to how best I can promote energy efficiency.
    Mr. Forth: I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks, but does he agree that the motive for adopting the energy efficiency programmes lies in the savings that can be made, which enlightened management should be able to understand by now? Does my hon. Friend share my suspicions that too many conferences often obscure issues rather than help people to come to rather more obvious conclusions about the benefits of energy efficiency?
    Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend that savings, profits, the labour force and the customer best promote energy efficiency. At the same time, as I said in my original answer, the Department has had a startling success in the past in making those points and we are looking at how we might make them again in the future.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the design of new buildings, as well as the satisfactory insulation of existing ones, is crucial in encouraging energy efficiency? May I have his assurance that his Department is in regular contact with the Royal Institute of British Architects to promote energy efficiency in new buildings?
    Mr. Peter Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend and, as he will hear in answer to the next question, the design

    691
    of new buildings is of key importance. If at that stage energy effficiency is taken into account, it avoids many subsequent problems.

    London Docklands
    Mr. Gerald Bowdenasked the Secretary of State for Energy what steps are being taken to promote energy efficiency in the development of London's docklands.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: London's docklands offer a unique opportunity for demonstrating that buildings can be designed and managed in an energy efficient way.
    My Department is liaising with the London Docklands Development Corporation and other interested organisations in order to promote the efficient use of energy in London's docklands.
    Mr. Bowden: I am encouraged by my hon. Friend's answer, but when considering energy efficiency in design and the appropriate improvement in building design, will he give some indication of the scale of financial savings and quantify some of the savings that may be achieved, for instance, in docklands by these new improvements in building design?
    Mr. Morrison: It is estimated that about £3 billion a year can be saved in the heating and lighting of buildings in the country as a whole. It appears that, on the plans to date of office development, some £20 million a year could be saved in the London docklands.
    Mr. Rogers: Although we would all applaud these savings, can the Minister give the House the assurance that no public money will be given to property developers in the docklands, and especially no grants to heat those £200,000 flats, and so on?
    Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

    North Sea Oil and Gas
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current level of production of North sea oil and gas.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: North sea oil production in May was 2·6 million barrels per day, the same level as last year. United Kindom gas production has increased over the past few years and in May production was 3·2 billion cu ft per day.
    Mr. Douglas: Would the Minister care to comment on how much the 130 million tonnes of oil production exceeds our requirement? Will he take a little look at the future and especially at balancing the needs of the British and especially the Scottish economies to secure employment with the oil and gas reserves available in the North sea? There is considerable well-founded speculation that the Brown Book figures underestimate oil and gas reserves by about 50 per cent. Would the Minister care to comment on that, because these issues are of particular importance to Scotland?
    Mr. Morrison: Having looked back, I know that the hon. Gentleman has followed the industry and production on the United Kingdom continental shelf very closely. If I infer correctly from his question, he is asking for a depletion policy. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that, on current prices, that policy is more academic than practical.
    Mr. Kennedy: What steps, if any, does the Minister's Department propose to take, or to encourage the Treasury to take following the feed-through effect of the welcome, if somewhat overdue, tax changes in this year's Budget? By the time those tax changes work through there is liable to be a gap or sag in the available contracts into 1988 for all the United Kingdom oil industry fabrication yards. Can further steps be taken by either the Department of Energy or the Treasury to ameliorate the effects next year, which will be a very rough year?
    Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, my Offshore Supplies Office is closely in touch with the companies to which he referred. I think that we have a good and close working relationship with them. I have made it clear that I shall keep closely in touch on their behalf with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Rowlands: Does the Minister still believe his predecessor's prediction that we will be self-sufficient in oil until the year 2000?
    Mr. Morrison: If the hon. Gentleman had had the misfortune to listen to me in Glasgow two weeks ago at precisely the same hour on the same day, answering the same questions——
    Mr. Rowlands: Answer the question.
    Mr. Morrison: I shall answer the question. I explained then to an audience and an interviewer that to make predictions of that sort, even if one were an oil economist of the highest level, would be dangerous.

    British Coal Enterprise Ltd.
    Mr. Pageasked the Secretary of State for Energy what is the latest figure on how many jobs have been created by British Coal Enterprise.
    Mr. Batisteasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the latest progress of British Coal Enterprise.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: Up to the end of June British Coal Enterprise had helped create 18,506 new job opportunities in 1,399 individual projects. The company's investment of £31·5 million has attracted additional finance from other sources of almost £200 million.
    Mr. Page: I welcome my hon. Friend to this portfolio and wish him every success. The figure that he cited of over 18,000 job opportunities is a considerable increase on the last figure quoted to me. It shows that the Government not only care about unemployment but, more important, are doing something about it. In view of that success, does my hon. Friend have any plans to increase this scheme? Are there any targets for which he will aim under that scheme?
    Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend is quite right. The scheme has shown great potential for the creation of jobs in coal mining areas. In answer to the second part of his question, I understand that British Coal Enterprise Ltd. hopes for an increase this year to an annual rate of 15,000 new job opportunities.
    Mr. Ashton: Is it not the case that job opportunities are often different from jobs? is the Minister aware that the figures that British Coal put out were very vague—like the Minister's own figures? Will he give us a breakdown

    693
    of the figures, constituency by constituency, so that we may establish which are real new jobs and which are duplicated jobs which have merely been shifted from British Coal to private contractors?
    Mr. Spicer: I cannot understand why members of the Labour party carp in this way and it has been going on for several months now. The scheme provides great new prospects for jobs in coal mining areas. Why not accept it for what it is? Would the Labour party withdraw the scheme?
    Mr. Ashby: Is my hon. Friend aware that many new and very good jobs have been created through British Coal Enterprise in areas of mining decline such as my constituency? Could BCE direct its attention to sites which are becoming disused and which need much work done on them if they are to be brought back into industrial use—sites for factories and so on? BCE could do so much in that area. Could it not take a more vigorous approach to such disused sites?
    Mr. Spicer: That is obviously a matter for BCE, but I shall draw my hon. Friend's interesting idea to its attention.
    Mr. Barron: How many of the 18,000 jobs have been filled by the 80,000 mineworkers made redundant since the end of the strike?
    Mr. Spicer: That figure is not available.

    Offshore Supplies Industry
    Mr. Evennettasked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards support of export initiatives in the offshore supplies industry.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: I can assure my hon. Friend that I will be doing all that I can to promote and support the export initiatives in the offshore supplies industry.
    Mr. Evennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that a secure home base is essential for exporting? Will he assure me, and the rest of the House, that his Department does all that it can to encourage the exporting industry?
    Mr. Morrison: On the latter point, I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that that is the case. The offshore supplies industry has been through a difficult time, but in spite of that it received £2·2 billion worth of orders last year. The domestic market is still extremely strong, and that is the basis on which to build the export market.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: While the Minister is supporting the offshore supplies industry, will he ensure that the various organisations in the north-east of Scotland, with the experience and knowledge that they can bring to the industry, are given an interest in this matter?
    Mr. Morrison: I can certainly assure the hon. Lady that everyone—in the north-east of Scotland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom—will be given a proper hearing. However, at the end of the day, it will be for the oil companies concerned to decide, on sound commercial grounds, how to invest and from whom to buy the equipment that they need.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Is my hon. Friend aware that ample rumours and a large amount of circumstantial evidence are circulating to suggest that foreign companies that supply
    694
    offshore services and supplies to this country are being heavily subsidised by their Governments? Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to support British companies which want to export to other oil-producing areas so that we may have a balance of international trade?
    Mr. Morrison: I assure my hon. Friend that as far as possible I shall ensure that there is fair trading between countries. However, I should point out that at present 82 per cent. of North sea orders come from United Kingdom-based companies.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: What is the Minister doing to ensure that we have a strong home base so that we can take advantage of export initiatives, and what is his Department doing to ensure that skills that are lying unused can be channelled into export initiatives?
    Mr. Morrison: As I have just said, 82 per cent. of current orders for the North sea are from domestically based companies. That is a very high figure and has risen from 40 per cent. over the past years. The Offshore Supplies Office is doing all that it can to ensure that British-based companies have a fair share of North sea orders.

    Sizewell B Power Station
    Sir Trevor Skeetasked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made in placing orders for the Sizewell B nuclear power station.
    Mr. Parkinson: Orders for the Sizewell B nuclear power station are a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board. I am advised by the board that as at 1 July contracts had been let to a value approaching £650 million.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his appointment at the Department of Energy, but I hope that he will show a great deal of enthusiasm for the nuclear industry, which is vital to the United Kingdom. Will he give us some figures for the employment that it has provided in various parts of the United Kingdom, thanks to the policy that the Government have pursued and that the nuclear industry has been able to pursue on its own?
    Mr. Parkinson: As my hon. Friend knows, about 20 per cent. of our electricity is supplied by nuclear power stations, and Sizewell B alone should produce an average of 10,000 jobs for the next seven years, reaching 15,000 when the contract is at its peak. It offers the prospect of many very well paid jobs and long-term security of electricity supply.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister accept that in drawing an analogy with Chernobyl he scarcely does service to the standards and safety record of the British nuclear power industry? Does he accept that in my constituency there is deep apprehension about the prospect of privatisation of nuclear power stations? Does he agree that it is bad enough to sell off the family silver, but criminally irresponsible to start flogging off the family plutonium?
    Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening carefully to what I said to the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). Safety is determined, not by whether a nuclear power station is publicly or privately owned, but by the safety code and the strength with which it is enforced. Britain has a fine record, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that.
    Mr. Jack: Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that British Nuclear Fuels can take full advantage of the Sizewell project to compete for pressurised water fuel orders?
    Mr. Parkinson: British Nuclear Fuels is a very successful company, and 80 per cent. of its business is done overseas. That represented nearly £500 million last year. It is an important export earner. It does a good job and it provides important jobs in Copeland, which the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who was the Opposition spokesman on the environment during the previous Parliament, recognised and supported.
    Mr. Jack Thompson: What proportion of the £650 million is committed to British contractors as against Westinghouse or other American contractors?
    Mr. Parkinson: The overwhelming proportion of the expenditure is with British companies——
    Mr. Thompson: How much?
    Mr. Parkinson: I cannot give the exact figure, but it is well in excess of £620 million of the £650 million. One order for £17 million has gone to Southern Ireland for some steel fabrication, but, apart from that, orders have been placed overwhelmingly with British companies.

    Coal Industry
    Mr. Neil Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase in labour productivity in the coal mining industry since March 1984.
    Mr. Wardasked the Secretary of State for Energy what are British Coal's latest figures for output per man shift.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: For the week ending 20 June, average deep-mined revenue output per man shift was 3·74 tonnes, an impressive increase of about 54 per cent. on the average of 2·43 tonnes for 1983–84.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is it not a pity that we did not have similar productivity figures in the coal industry in the past? If we had, there would be more jobs in coal today and miners would be even better paid. Is it not a shame that the Labour party supported every restricted practice that the Scargillite dinosaurs in the National Union of Mineworkers wanted to perpetuate? Has my hon. Friend had any representations from Labour Members on extending flexibility in working practices, for example, by supporting the six-day week?
    Mr. Spicer: It is true that in the last days of the Labour Administration productivity was falling, and it is also true that the industry now has an impressive record. It results as much from new investment in the industry as from the closure of uneconomic pits. That investment has been £5·5 billion during the lifetime of this Government, and is currently £2 million per working day.
    Mr. Ward: Those figures are impressive, but is it not a fact that they compare unfavourably with some of our foreign competitors? Is not the lesson the need for more investment, more productivity and, above all, support for the introduction of a six-day week?
    Mr. Spicer: It is true that many countries produce
    696
    coal more effectively. Some coal-exporting countries producecoal at over twice our productivity rate. It is also true that it is absolutely essential that we continue to introduce new practices to make the industry more efficient.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Minister realise that output per man shift can be achieved by reducing manpower? Does he agree that the magnificent figures that we have achieved—there is no doubt that they are magnificent—are due to a reduction in manpower, and that, therefore, there is an increase in OMS'? Following his reply to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), irrespective of whether coal is cheaper abroad, what effect will privatisation of the electricity industry have on the coalmining industry?
    Mr. Spicer: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes. The answer to his second question is that it is the Government's intention and objective that British Coal should be so efficient and competitive that there will be no question of its not being able to take on foreign competition.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that the proposed six-day week will affect not only miners? Many thousands of people who live in mining villages and mining areas, often in rural areas, will be badly affected by noise, dirt and dust, lorries and Sunday night processions to the pit. Those matters also have to be taken into account, because six-day working does not affect just miners.
    Mr. Spicer: Let me be quite clear about this. The six-day working week will mean that equipment, not men, will be working harder. Men will work the same or fewer days in the year, as is the case at the moment. A more efficient procedure for working mines is proposed and this will benefit those mines and the areas around them.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: In welcoming my hon. Friend to the Front Bench, may I say that he will be welcome in my constituency when he is ready to make his first visit to a colliery. When he makes such a visit, will he explain to the people who work in the industry that six-day working means not necessarily longer working time but a higher financial return to the miners who produce the coal?
    Mr. Spicer: I look forward at some stage to taking up my hon. Friend's invitation. It will not be my first time down a pit, as I was a candidate in a colliery constituency for 10 years and during that time I visited pits on many occasions. Certainly he is right in saying that a six-day working week will make the pits more effective, and it does not mean that men will be asked to work more during any one year than they are at the moment.
    Mr. Eadie: The Minister must realise that while we welcome increased coal production it has to be matched by increased demand. A consequence of increased coal production must not be more pit closures. Does the Minister believe that it is fair competition for coal to be imported from Colombia, where it is mined by nine-year-old children? Does he think that coal imported from South Africa is fair competition? Does he agree that the message to the miners must be increased coal production and increased demand, but fair competition?
    Mr. Spicer: I would put it slightly differently from the hon. Gentleman. Increased coal production has to be sold. Coal has to be sold as an economic product. I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that the vast majority of coal imports to this country are special coking coals. It is

    697
    precisely because British Coal understands that that the Margam pit is being proposed. If it works properly, Margam will provide coking coal that will be an import substitute.
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will seek a meeting with the chairman of British Coal to discuss industrial relations matters; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Parkinson: I have had an initial meeting with Sir Robert Haslam and intend to meet him regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.
    Mr. Strang: Does the Secretary of State accept that Opposition Members want to see better relations between British Coal and the NUM, but that one of the continued obstacles to progress is the victimisation of hundreds of miners and their families more than two years after the strike? Is he aware that some of the miners took the advice of his predecessor, went before an industrial tribunal and won their case, but are still suffering victimisation from British Coal?
    Mr. Skinner: Come on, you have got your job back.
    Mr. Parkinson: And the hon. Gentleman has never had one. Employment is a matter for the directors of British Coal. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (M. Strang) is aware that every case was re-examined after the appointment of Sir Robert Haslam. Representations on behalf of the men by their unions, managers and other parties were considered, and, at the end of the day, the board decided that more than 300 could not be reemployed. That is a matter for the board. However, I am satisfied that careful consideration was given to each case.

  THE ARTS

    Royal Shakespeare Company
    Mr. Blairasked the Minister for the Arts whether he plans to meet the Arts Council to discuss the level of future funding for the Royal Shakespeare Company.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I met the chairman on 1 July and the Royal Shakespeare Company featured in our discussion.
    Mr. Blair: Given that the Royal Shakespeare Company now finds itself in critical difficulties and that the Arts Council has suffered a cut in real terms in the funding that the Government have made available, what plans does the Minister have to extricate the Royal Shakespeare Company from its difficulties, or does he intend to abdicate responsibility for this great cultural institution?
    Mr. Luce: There is no doubt about the standard of excellence of the Royal Shakespeare Company. It acquired a deficit of £1 million largely because it had a bad year last year at the Barbican theatre. The Arts Council is negotiating with the RSC about its future funding. There is one point that I should make. The Royal Opera House has reached a three-year funding agreement with the Arts Council, which should give it longer term stability. That could be a good basis upon which the Arts Council and the Royal Shakespeare Company could reach an understanding.
    Mr. Jessel: Should we not build on our strengths? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Royal Shakespeare
    698
    Company is a great national asset which attracts to our shores visitors whose spending generates employment and income in other areas, such as hotels and shops? Does not the RSC deserve our full-hearted support?
    Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend about the important contribution that the Royal Shakespeare Company makes, not least in its tours around the country enabling people who do not usually see Shakespeare performed by the RSC to do so. We give a grant through the Arts Council of £5·2 million. As I said, the RSC acquired a deficit last year arising mainly from losses at the Barbican theatre, and that is a matter for negotiation between the RSC and the Arts Council.
    Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister recall that the Government gave the Royal Shakespeare Company financial stability on the recommendations of their own report, the Priestley report, three years ago? The Government having failed to live up to that undertaking, the RSC is more than £500,000 short of the level that was agreed. Do the Government not understand that it is not only a cultural crime to underfund and wash their hands of the RSC, but that it makes no economic sense? Not only did the RSC play to 1·6 million people last year, but it paid back to the Treasury in VAT and national insurance contributions far more than the £5 million that it received in investment from the Arts Council.
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman reminds me of a Dickens character called Mark Tapley who said that it was predicting the worst that kept him so cheerful. That seems to be in line with the hon. Gentleman's character.
    Following the Priestley report, going back to 1983–84, the deficit was written off by the Government of the day and the RSC's baseline was increased along the lines of the Priestley recommendation. One thing that was not agreed by the then Minister for the Arts—I think that he was right—was to index-link the RSC at the expense of other clients and companies. That would have been wrong.
    Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will not preside over the disintegration of one of our gratest national companies?
    Mr. Luce: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's assessment of the company, and I give such an assurance.

    Arts Council
    Ms. Ruddockasked the Minister for the Arts when he last met the Arts Council to discuss the future development of the Arts Council's work in education.
    Mr. Luce: I discuss the council's work regularly with its chairman.
    Ms. Ruddock: Does the Minister agree that, to build on the excellent arts education in schools, students must be in a position to go on to arts colleges and dance and drama schools? My constituents are currently being denied places in such institutions, despite having appropriate skills and educational standards, because the Government refuse to make such grants mandatory and students cannot afford the fees. Will the Minister, as a matter of urgency, meet the Secretary of State for Education and Science to ensure that the Government invest in that vital area of arts education?
    Mr. Luce: I am in fairly continual touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and

    699
    Science. Of course, the matter is principally one for him. I take the view that the introduction of the GCSE examination is an important basis upon which arts, in the museums and heritage world and in the performing arts, should be drawn in more closely with teachers' work. It is a fact that the Arts Council gives about £320,000 within its education unit to try to get teachers and pupils more interested in arts and heritage. That is the right contribution to make.

    Acceptances in Lieu of Tax
    Mr. Simon Coombsasked the Minister for the Arts if he has any further plans for changing the rules for the acceptance in lieu of tax schemes.
    Mr. Luce: There are no immediate plans for changing the present system for accepting items in liew of tax, although procedures continue to be kept under review.
    Mr. Coombs: How does my right hon. Friend or somebody else decide to which gallery a work of art that is accepted in lieu of tax is to go? Will he look carefully to see whether the number of galleries and institutions to which such works can be sent can be extended so that all the regions can have a fair share of that kind of product?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend has made in important point. It is important that our national treasures, from wherever they come, should be accessible and available to people all over the country. It is, of course, for executors to express family wishes. Very often, a family will express a clear request that a particular object of art should go to a particular location. On other occasions they make an express wish, and it is up to me to decide. I agree with the principle that my hon. Friend has expressed.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present explosion in prices of works of art, which bear little or no relation to the retail prices index, has meant that there is a greater temptation to sell now and that there are fewer funds with which to meet such high prices? Do we not require a fresh examination of the whole basis of retaining works of art in this country?
    Mr. Luce: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's analysis that the prices of pictures and objects of art are going up fast. There is no doubt about that. On balance, our procedures for the preservation of important objects of art in this country and the terms of our acceptance in lieu are working fairly well. As far as acceptance in lieu is concerned, we have a reserve fund of £10 million, upon which we can draw, in addition to a budget of £2 million in my programme for helping in that area. We have not yet used that full budget.

    Photographers Gallery
    Mr. Boyesasked the Minister for the Arts when he last visited the Photographers Gallery.
    Mr. Luce: I visited the Photographers Gallery on 23 March for the presentation of the Photographers Trust Fund prizes and bursaries.
    Mr. Boyes: On behalf of all hon. Members who have an interest in photography, I hope that the Minister will accept that we are extremely grateful that he has made at least two visits to the Photographers Gallery. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr.
    700
    Fisher) has also visited the gallery. I am absolutely sure that the Minister has been impressed by what he saw in the Leicester Square gallery. Will he give an assurance that he will give a bursary of some sort to a young photographer to work perhaps in the House of Commons or somewhere else? Such action would encourage photography, which, as everyone knows, is a medium in which all people may indulge at low cost.
    Mr. Luce: I know of the hon. Gentleman's intense interest in phtography, so much so that he encouraged me to join in the House of Commons competition.
    However, having seen my photographs developed, I am reserving my right whether or not to enter the competition. I accept that photography is of interest to a great many people, and the Arts Council, the regional arts associations and the MSC between them provide something like £1·3 million to help photographers in this country. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that.
    Mr. Baldry: If bursaries are given to photographers, surely that is exactly the type of area where private industry and enterprise can make a greater contribution. What we want as an encore are more speeches similar to the one that my right hon. Friend made last week regarding funding for the arts. What work is being done in my right hon. Friend's Department to consider how photographers in West Germany, Japan and the United States are supported by private enterprise and, indeed, how the arts in general are supported in that manner in those countries?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The more that bursaries can be funded from the private sector, the better. It is happening all the time. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about my speech. I only wish that the Opposition would acknowledge that the general election has taken place and the people have expressed their views. The arts world must go along with that, and I am sure that it will benefit from the fact that the private sector can offer a great deal of help in the raising of extra funds. The private sector has a great deal to do.

    Leicestershire
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister for the Arts whether he will make it his policy to increase the level of funding for the arts in Leicestershire.
    Mr. Luce: Funding for the arts in Leicestershire is a matter for the Arts Council and the Regional Arts Association. I am pleased to say that the Arts Council has been able to make a substantial increase in its grant to East Midlands Arts for activities in the region.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware of the magnificent work done by both the Haymarket and Phoenix theatres in Leicester and of the hard time that they have because they do not know from one year to the next how much funding they will receive or from where it will come? Is it not part of the Government's duty to ensure that magnificent organisations, such as these theatres, do not merely survive, but know how they will do so?
    Mr. Luce: I know that for many years the hon. and learned Gentleman has taken a close interest in these two theatres. I would have hoped that he would welcome the fact—if he did not perhaps already know it—that the East Midlands Arts Association has now allocated

    701
    £664,000 to the Leicester Haymarket theatre. I would have thought that that would make a major contribution to the health of the theatre. Now that the Phoenix theatre has begun to fulfil some of the conditions that it was asked to fulfil, the East Midlands Arts Association has started to restore funding. I am glad that the county council has contributed £35,000.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Top Management Programme
    Mr. Butlerasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the operation of the top management programme.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): Yes, Sir. The top management programme was established in February 1985 for very senior staff from the public and private sectors. The civil servants involved are generally grade 3. The tenth programme is currently taking place. The programme has been very well received by participants and the organisations which send them.
    Mr. Butler: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his reappointment, but may I ask him to ensure that the top management programme places a great deal of emphasis on interchange with the private sector so that civil servants can learn the lesson of Lord Young and how to solve problems rather than always concentrate on the obstacles?
    Mr. Luce: The private sector participates in top management conferences and, of course, pays for them. I believe that the fact that the private sector is working side by side with civil servants during those conferences does both sides a great deal of good.
    Mr. Janner: Is it correct that no member of any ethnic minority group has taken part in the top management programme? Has a monitoring exercise of any sort been applied to that programme in accordance with the code of the Commission for Racial Equality?
    Mr. Luce: Offhand, I cannot tell the hon. and learned Gentleman whether members of ethnic groups have taken part in this management programme, but I can easily find the answer for him. The hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that we attach a great deal of importance to ensuring that there is equal opportunity and that people are promoted into the service on merit. We have undertaken monitoring to see whether we can further the cause of equality of opportunity. However, promotion and entry into the service must be on the basis of merit.

    Civil Servants (Initiative)
    Mr. GwilymJones asked the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he is taking to reward initiative on the part of civil servants.
    Mr. Luce: As part of our programme for improving efficiency in the Civil Service we are taking a number of steps to encourage qualities that can help staff perform more effectively in their jobs.
    I would, in particular, refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 23 April on our plans for strengthening the link between pay and performance. Those will supplement
    702
    the schemes already in existence under which, for example, rewards may be paid to staff for suggestions and technical inventions.
    Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer and I should like to encourage him in that direction. There are a variety of different schemes that can be appropriately pursued with cash awards. Does my right hon. Friend agree that payment for initiative is as legitimate in the Civil Service as it is in commerce and industry?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is well aware that we are moving more and more towards performance-related pay within the service. A number of important decisions have been taken on that in recent months. In addition, there is a staff suggestion scheme, awards for the inventors of technical inventions and group incentive schemes. I believe that all that is moving in the right direction.
    Mr. Beith: On the question of rewards and initiatives in the Civil Service, is it not important to protect the impartiality and integrity of the service? How will that objective be served by combining in one post, against the recommendations of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, the posts of Cabinet Secretary and head of the Home Civil Service?
    Mr. Luce: I have no doubt about the impartiality and loyalty of the present Secretary to the Cabinet. In answer to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service a few months ago—I think it was in the autumn of last year—the Government made plain their reasons for accepting, on certain understandings and conditions, the combining of those two jobs.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: On the question of initiatives, incentives, rewards and performance-related pay in the Civil Service, will my right hon. Friend reassure me that a higher proportion of engineers and scientists are finding their way into the higher management grades of the Civil Service?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend puts his finger on an extremely important point. Certainly it is our objective to ensure that that happens. It is also our objective to recruit more people from science and engineering, because the Civil Service is short of such people. It is for that reason that we are introducing a flexible pay scheme that is designed to help the recruitment and training of those people.
    Mr. Skinner: I wonder how those initiatives and bonuses will be paid to civil servants. Let us consider, for instance, somebody who works behind the counter at the Department of Health and Social Security, or in the unemployment benefit office. Would that person get more money based on more people being thrown on the dole by this Government, or would that person get more money by reducing the dole queues? Would National Health Service civil servants get an added bonus by closing down hospitals? How would incentives and bonuses be calculated?
    Mr. Luce: They would be calculated on the basis of the merit of the civil servants' work and the objectives that they must fulfil. It would be interesting to see what would happen if the hon. Gentleman were to be paid on the basis of merit. However, as far as the Civil Service is concerned,

    703
    those payments will be based on whether civil servants fulfil their jobs effectively and well. Those who perform their jobs best will be given discretionary awards of one kind or another.

    Civil Servants (Training)
    Mr. Roweasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the quality and quantity of training for civil servants.
    Mr. Luce: Yes, Sir. On quality, our new programmes for senior staff and our plans for young people demonstrate that the Government are committed to high-quality training and development which improves operational performance. Quantity depends on need and relevance. In 1985–86 the Civil Service ran 35,000 training courses and provided 1·5 million training days, an average of three days' training for each civil servant.
    Mr. Rowe: Is that not yet another example of the way in which the Government are taking the lead? Will my right hon. Friend turn his mind to considering the ways in which he could persuade industry and commerce, which are far behind our competitors in the quality and quantity of training provided to follow the Government's lead and, possibly, to share some of the resources?
    Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend. One important part of our broad range of training schemes is that we are
    704
    trying to convey to the Civil Service the importance of carrying managerial responsibility, and we are more and more delegating responsibility through the financial management initiative. Our training schemes are designed to assist in that. Certainly the link with the private sector is of extreme importance.
    Mr. Winnick: Are civil servants to be trained to decide which British residents arriving back from America or which American visitors coming to this country have a copy of Wright's book? As the book will be openly on sale in the United States within 24 hours, does the Minister agree that an interesting situation will arise when people can bring that book, openly and legally, into Britain?
    Mr. Luce: We have more important things to discuss in relation to training.
    Mr. Thurnham: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strike by civil servants in Bolton over the introduction of YTS trainees? Will he consider ways in which the Civil Service could introduce more YTS trainees, as has the private sector?
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. The YTS is as important for the Civil Service as for anywhere else. Today, only 300 people are involved with the YTS in the Civil Service. However, the Department of Employment is taking a lead in extending the scheme. I am glad that there is an understanding between the Civil Service management and the unions on this matter.

Sub Judice Rule
3.31 pm
Mr. John Morris: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"Government policy in the light of the imminent publication in the United States of the 'Spycatcher' book by Mr. Peter Wright."
The matter is specific because the book is already on its way to American bookstalls and, indeed, because of the time factor, may already be there. It is only hours before it is here.
The matter is important because the Government have spent a great deal of taxpayers' money—if I may coin a phrase—in the courts of Australia, the Republic of Ireland and those within this jurisdiction, although, curiously, not in the courts of America. The capacity of the Government and their legal advisers to suffer judicial black eyes seems virtually inexhaustible.
The matter is urgent because the present Lord Chancellor, before his translation, like a bishop, to higher things, said that he was eagerly looking forward to explaining the Government's policy once the fetter of the sub judice rule was removed. The book, which has been the subject of so much litigation—I have nothing against work creation, even for lawyers, either by the Manpower Services Commission or by any other body—will be on our shores in a matter of hours. Whether or not the Government are right in the latest twist of litigation, the time has surely come to justify the value, or acknowledge the futility, of it all.
The House, traditionally, since at least the time of King Charles, has been the holder of the nation's purse strings. It is sufficiently important that the time has come when we should have the opportunity of saying, "Enough is enough" and when the world of "Alice in Wonderland", where the whole world, except a Briton who does not leave these shores or buy a copy from a traveller from America, can read the book in question is clarified. The time has come to justify this futile, farcical performance.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"Government policy in the light of the imminent publication in the United States of the 'Spycatcher' book by Mr. Peter Wright."
I have listened with care to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise a point of order that relates to the sub judice rule as it affects our proceedings. You will know that yesterday, following the decision of The Sunday Times to print extracts of the Peter Wright memoirs, the Attorney-General announced that he intended to bring an action against The Sunday Times for criminal contempt.
706
The House will recognise that the Government's handling of the affair has allowed moneybags Mr. Murdoch to move in with a big wallet to turn an issue of principle, an issue of official secrecy and open government, into a Fleet street scoop——
Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the point of order? If the hon. Gentleman is successful and in order, he may be able to raise this subject on the summer Adjournment motion.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: This morning I tabled four questions, three of which related to discussions and communications between The Sunday Times and the Government last week. I did that in the knowledge that Mr. David O'Callaghan of Turner Kenneth Brown, Solicitors for The Observer, telephoned Mr. David Hogg, the Deputy Treasury Solicitor, on Friday and told him that The Sunday Times had purchased the serialisation rights——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not, under the guise of a point of order, make a contribution which may well be in order at a later stage, but not now. I can deal with the sub judice rule if the hon. Gentleman will give me that opportunity.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Mr. Speaker, I——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to make a speech which he could make later.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have also tabled a written question to the Secretary of State for answer this Wednesday. I have asked whether the Government intend to issue an amendment to the general import licence, so as to render——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not raise matters of that kind. If he is concerned about questions that have not been accepted by the Table Office, he can ask for them to be referred to me.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am dealing with one thing at a time. The hon. Gentleman can ask the Table Office to bring his questions to my attention. It is not in order for the hon. Gentleman to raise this matter on the Floor of the House in this way. Does he want to know about the sub judice rule?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Mr. Speaker, I tabled questions before the application was made to the courts. I put it to you that my questions are critical, because they deal with public concerns and anxieties. Is your ruling, or any ruling that you may make, likely to affect my right as a Member of the House to table questions to which the public want to know the answers?
Mr. Speaker: I can deal with that. As the House knows, have consistently ruled that there can be no question of proceedings in the Australian courts being treated as falling within the ambit of the sub judice rule of this House. The same would apply to any proceedings in the United States courts, although I have no knowledge of any such proceedings.
With regard to the publication of Mr. Wright's book in this country, I have to rule that that subject cannot be raised in the House at this juncture. There are four relevant groups of cases pending in the United Kingdom courts,

707
and all are inter-related. In particular, the appeal of the Attorney-General against the High Court judgment in the case of the Attorney-General v. The Independent, the London Evening Standard and the London Daily News is now being heard in the Court of Appeal. That case raises exactly the same issues as will apply in The Sunday Times case. In those circumstances, the House will not expect me to exercise my discretion by allowing reference to be made to any of those specific cases in the House, or in questions or motions.
3.38 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: You said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that it might be in order to raise certain matters arising from the submission of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) for an emergency debate on the summer Adjournment motion, which is the next topic for business. That is, in a sense, an Adjournment debate. As you cited the cases about the sub judice rule, may I remind you of the plea that you made in another place when you were re-elected, when you said that you had made claim
"by humble petition to Her Majesty, to all ancient and undoubted rights and privileges,"
their relating to the House of Commons.
I have consulted "Erskine May", which states:
"any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may he treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence."
I am putting it to you, Mr. Speaker, very gravely, that from what has come out, whether we read it in an American bookshop, The Sunday Times or The Independent, we now know that senior officials of MI5, in association with Jim Angleton of the CIA, tried to destroy an elected Prime Minister of this country during the 1970s. We also know that when such a charge is made in the United States, Congress brings it out into the open, whereas a British Government use legal devices to suppress the prosecution of a criminal offence brought to public attention by a public servant.
With great respect, Mr. Speaker, no one wants to discuss the vendetta between the Government and the author of this book, but I submit that if you were to rule that in the debate on the Adjournment we could not discuss what has now come into the public domain, the House would be subordinate to what the Attorney- General wishes to do in his legal capacity. I seriously ask you to allow the House to discuss a matter which not only prima facie led to the obstruction of a previous Government, of which I was a member, but which, if it is not discussed now, would make a mockery of us compared with the American Congress, which is bringing covert action of this kind into the public domain because it is manifestly in the public interest.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Attorney-General has informed us that the further appeal in Australia is to be heard on 27 July. As you know, that is after we begin the summer recess. That means that the case will continue in Australia and be concluded, yet the House of Commons will be unable to comment in any way whatever.
I wish to take up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), because
708
if MI5 officials were involved in destabilisation, in trying to destroy an elected Government and in smearing the Prime Minister of the day, such allegations should be debated by the House. These allegations may not be true and may simply be part of Mr. Wright's imagination, but if they are correct, it could well be that some of the officials in MI5 who took part in such subversive and criminal activities are still in MI5.
If Parliament is told that it cannot discuss the matter, we shall go into recess for three months and the case will he heard during that time. That means that while the country and the press will no doubt have an opportunity to discuss the matter, Parliament will be silent on the fundamental issue of parliamentary democracy. If we cannot even debate serious allegations from a former senior official of MI5 that the Government of the day were subject to destabilisation, that makes a mockery of our parliamentary democracy and our parliamentary system. I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether we can have a statement from the Attorney-General at the first opportunity, and certainly before the House goes into recess.
Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps hon. Members now appreciate my request for a shorter recess. I fully understand the principle on which you say that if something is sub judice we should not discuss it, but surely the sub judice rule is designed to protect the rights of citizens who may appear in court and who would not want to have his or her case in any way jeopardised by talk inside the House. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would support that. However, the Government are now deliberately using the sub judice rule as a means of gagging the House to prevent its debating something of great importance. It becomes absolutely perverse when we know that this matter is being discussed in other countries and that the books will turn up on these shores. Therefore, there might now be a case for you to reconsider the sub judice ruling in respect of this case, because it seems to Opposition Members that the Government are manipulating the office of Speaker by getting you to defend a principle that allows them to gag the House.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am bound by the resolutions of the House. Let me repeat the rule that matters are sub judice if they are awaiting trial, or under adjudication by any court exercising a criminal jurisdiction, and should not be referred to in any motion—including a motion for leave to bring in a Bill—in debate, or in questions to Ministers. I am bound by that resolution passed on 23 July 1963. If the House wants to change the resolutions, it is a matter for the House. I have already said that I am not prepared to exercise my discretion in this case.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The book which is now to be published in the United States and which, apparently is now being distributed, will arrive in this country shortly. I am concerned only with whether, in view of what you have said and ruled, the book will be made available in the Library and who has control over that.
The book will be available to most of us very soon. I accept that security and the national interest matter. As you will know, Mr. Speaker—because you will have read the report of the Select Committee on Privileges—

709
we gave some thought to what is the security of the state and to who makes the judgment, the Government or others, in approaching you on such matters as the Zircon film. I have studied carefully the statement by the Prime Minister on 6 May, which I have in front of me. The right hon. Lady accepted the information given to her that the allegations made by Mr. Wright were untrue. If we are discussing something that is untrue, how can it be against the national interest for people to read it? So that we can make our judgment, will the book be available in the Library, although we cannot discuss it here?
Mr. Speaker: I have no idea. That will be a matter for the Librarian.
Dr. David Owen: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand your ruling, you are not prepared to accept the use of Standing Order No. 20 or any reference to the case in the debate on the Adjournment. However, would you be prepared to reconsider your decision on how the House might debate the issue if, as the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said, the book comes into the country tomorrow and is then widely available, but the Government refuse to ban it or to take action in the United States courts? In those circumstances, would you be prepared to examine the whole issue afresh, including what you have said about the sub judice rule affecting not only the particular case in which the Attorney-General is now involved, but the three other cases? That strikes many of us as going very wide of the issue.
Mr. Andrew Faulds rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) first.
Mr. Benn: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept that you are in a difficulty over the sub judice rule. May I put it to you, however, that, according to a proper interpretation of that rule, it might be wrong for hon. Members to comment during the summer Adjournment debate on the conduct of the editor of The Sunday Times in publishing extracts from the book, but it could not be wrong for hon. Members to bring to the Chamber matters which are already in the public domain through The Sunday Times, and which we expect to appear in their full form?
I am only anxious, Mr. Speaker that we should not make a fool of Parliament by an interpretation of a rule
710
that would deny to us uniquely what everyone else in the world is freely discussing, when it affects one of our former Prime Ministers and present Members of the House. May I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to narrow your interpretation and say that no one can refer to whether The Sunday Times, The Independent, The Guardian or the London Daily News is criminally culpable, but make it abundantly clear that we are allowed to speak about matters which touch upon Parliament, and which are now available to everyone—including your self, Sir—and rule accordingly?
Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of your pronouncement a few moments ago, I shall now proceed to the Library and ask for a copy of this book to be made available to me, on the presumption that neither the Prime Minister nor any of the Law Officers can forbid the Library to get hold of it.
Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical question, but may I say——
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why not?
Mr. Speaker: Because I am on my feet.
As the book is about to be published in America, I accept that this matter creates considerable difficulty for the House. I have already ruled that it is legitimate to raise anything that has come out in the Australian courts, but what should not be raised under our sub judice rules is the action that is pending before the British courts. I said at the beginning of my statement that anything that has come out in the Australian courts is fair game.
Mr. Benn: Or in The Sunday Times?
Mr. Speaker: That is before the courts in this country, but anything that has come out in the Australian courts is perfectly in order, and I do not think that the House needs to be too inhibited.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to be called in the debate, I am not prepared to hear a speech from him now by way of points of order.

Sir Kenneth Bradshaw
3.51 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That this House requests Mr. Speaker to convey to Sir Kenneth Bradshaw, KCB, on his retirement from the office of Clerk of the House its deep gratitude for all his devoted work in the service of the House throughout a long and distinguished career.
I am confident that the motion unites the House in paying tribute in this time-honoured manner to someone who has held, with distinction, a number of important posts in the Clerk's Department over many years, and who has held for the past four years, as Clerk of the House, the highest office in the service of the House.
Sir Kenneth Bradshaw will be retiring at the end of August. By then it will have been 40 years, following war service, in which he was mentioned in dispatches, since he joined up, so to speak, in the Clerk's Department. I believe that that is longer than the continuous membership of any hon. Member now in the House.
To have maintained over such a length of time a record of total loyalty, integrity and devotion to the service of the House is a notable achievement in itself. To have done so with undiminished enthusiasm, never failing courtesy, and with, I believe the musical term is such 'brio', is a still greater one.
In particular, throughout his service—both as Clerk of the Overseas Office and in other posts, particularly in the Association of Secretaries General of Parliament—of which, I understand, he is currently the President—he has for many years done an enormous amount to forge international links and friendships between those who service parliamentary institutions. His hospitality and kindness in that work have become legendary worldwide.
Here in Westminster Sir Kenneth's name will also always be particularly associated with his concern throughout his service with improving the welfare and status of the staff of the House at every level. Always patient and considerate in negotiations, he has done much to resolve staffing disputes, like the protracted grading review, which had seemed intractable for many years. The present staff relations in the House owe much to Sir Kenneth's guiding judgment and personal concern. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will agree that in this, and in many other matters, the House of Commons Commission is deeply indebted to Sir Kenneth.
Another important and lasting contribution which Sir Kenneth, in collaboration with the present Clerk of Committees has made, has been his published work on the comparative procedural workings of Parliament and the United States Congress. This broke new ground and is still recognised as a standard work.
On the less formal side, I understand that Sir Kenneth has been a social pillar of the Parliamentary Golfing Society for many years. With regard to the musical life of Parliament, his vocal style in his occasional interventions in our proceedings once, I recall, led a journalist to describe him as
"the last of the bel canto Clerks".
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that every hon. Member here will, as I do, wish Sir Kenneth every happiness in his retirement. He enters it with the profound gratitude of all those who recognise how much the work of this House of Parliament has depended throughout the
712
centuries on the proud traditions of the high office which he has so capably upheld, and which he now hands on to others, maintained and enhanced.
3.55 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I am happy to join the Leader of the House, and I am sure the whole House, in supporting the motion of gratitude for the distinguished service that has been given by the Clerk, Sir Kenneth Bradshaw.
Sir Kenneth has been a servant of the House since 1947 and has brought to all the offices that he has held in the course of his service that remarkable combination of commitment and dispassion that produces excellence in our British public and democratic administration.
The standard of Sir Kenneth's contribution is made more remarkable by the fact that it has continued for four decades. While it is true, as Lord Wilson reminded us, that a week is a long time in politics, 40 years must be an eternity to be above politics.
In those 40 years Sir Kenneth has performed, as the Leader of the House reminded us, in two spheres that are connected with this Parliament and international democracy. Those services have been distinguished and distinctive. First, it will be within the memory of many hon. Members that he contributed his capabilities as Clerk to the Overseas Office in this Parliament for four years. Further proof of his reputation among our fellow parliamentarians and those who serve them in other Parliaments is to be found in the fact that Sir Kenneth is President of the Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Both that general involvement and the particular role that he played as Clerk of the Legislature of Saskatchewan 11 years ago means that there can be few among the ranks of Secretaries General of Parliaments who can rival Sir Kenneth's parliamentary internationalism.
Sir Kenneth's second source of domestic and international distinction has been his co-authorship, with Mr. David Pring, of the excellent and now classical work, "Parliament and Congress". The reviewers who greeted the book back in 1972, and its reprint in 1981, commented on the lucidity, scholarship and readability of the book. I can testify to all three of those qualities. Before I went to the United States in 1976—during the recess—to do a series of lectures and television programmes on comparisons and contrasts between our Parliament and the United States Congress I naturally reached for this book, and when I read it its clarity and detail gave me the same sense of gratitude as would he felt by someone who thought that he was climbing on to a life raft and discovered that he had boarded a luxury liner. This work is everything that the reviewers said it was.
My copy of that volume is at home, but to refresh my memory this morning I borrowed the Library's copy. I intend to take it back, which is another breach of convention, later in the day. It is clearly a well-used book, as any hon. Member can see, and it is a testimony to the respect that the book commands among right hon. and hon. Members that, in all of its 412 pages, only one page is marked, and one would exaggerate to call it defaced. On the contents page there is the merest line of a ballpoint pen around one item: "Salaries arid Remuneration". Clearly, the book has not only lucidity but utility.
As hon. Members will know, those qualities are not confined to the book. Indeed, they have been the qualities,

713
together with many others, that have distinguished Sir Kenneth throughout our acquaintance with him. I am sure that anyone who has known Sir Kenneth will regard him as a friendly man, an excellent communicator and a complete master of procedure, utterly dependable in his judgment and advice. For all those reasons, but most of all because of the distinguished service that he has given our democracy and our Parliament, I am sure that all here and all who have worked with Sir Kenneth over those 40 years wish him a long, active and fulfilling retirement, with limitless golf partners and a limitless supply of opera tickets.
4 pm
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I am pleased to support the motion and to follow the Leader of the Opposition. As a former colleague of Sir Kenneth Bradshaw and the first Clerk of the House who was foolish enough to get himself elected as a Member of Parliament, I have profound respect for my more shrewd and more sensible former colleague. What the Leader of the Opposition has said is absolutely true. The privilege of being a servant of the House, whether as a Member of Parliament, a Clerk or official, is real. I learnt that privilege from, among others, Kenneth Bradshaw. He has been a fine servant of the House. I am honoured to have known him as a colleague and a friend, and he deserves well of the House.
4.1 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I support the motion with enthusiasm. As Clerk of the House, Sir Kenneth Bradshaw has been unfailingly courteous and consistently helpful to hon. Members, including those from minority parties. He has shown that impartiality and independence of the Government which the House requires of its Clerks. He has embodied and advocated that high view of the Clerkship in his international activities as President of the Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments.
Sir Kenneth's Clerkship has coincided with many changes in the way in which the House is run. This is perhaps symbolised by the fact that, so far as I can recall, he was the first Clerk who was interviewed extensively for
714
the post of Clerk. He carried out that task in a manner that involved greatly extended managerial responsibilities, through the Board of Management—responsibilities which he discharged with great tact and skill. In doing so, he provided enormous assistance to the House of Commons Commission.
Those of us who worked closely with Sir Kenneth in that or in other spheres have come to regard him not only as an outstanding servant of the House but as a man of great integrity and charm and a congenial colleague. We all wish him the greatest happiness and activity in his retirement. We pay tribute to the work that he has done on behalf of the House.
4.2 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In adding the support of the Scottish National party, I speak not only for the party's current Members in the House but for all those who have served since 1967. The Scottish National party has been continuously represented in the House since 1967, and that period spans some 50 per cent. of Sir Kenneth's service to the House. All of us have greatly appreciated his objective advice and courteous assistance over the years, and we wish him a long and happy retirement.
4.3 pm
Mr. D. E. Thomas (Merionnydd Nant Conwy): I should like to associate myself with the remarks that have been made on behalf of minority parties in paying tribute to Sir Kenneth's work in the House. Inevitably, tributes of this kind are a celebration both of an individual's career and of the nature of our institution. It is perhaps appropriate that we should speak to this motion on a day when we have been debating the nature of our procedures and our rules of order. In adding my best wishes to Sir Kenneth in his retirement, I ask him to consider whether he will have the time to prepare a further edition of his excellent study "Parliament and Congress", because it might be influential in liberating some of our procedures.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved, nemine contradicente,
That this House requests Mr. Speaker to convey to Sir Kenneth Bradshaw, KCB, on his retirement from the office of Clerk of the House, its profound appreciation of his forty years of devoted service to the House, and his maintenance of the highest traditions of his office.

Adjournment (Summer)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 24th July, do adjourn until Wednesday 21st October.—[Mr. Ryder.]
Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have not selected either of the amendments on the Order Paper, but they may be raised during the debate.
4.4 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. It has been reported to me that an hon. Member has been to the Library of the House and been told that the Librarian has been told that it would be inadvisable for him to obtain and make available in the Library a copy of the Peter Wright book. I should be grateful if you would look into this matter as the protector of the interests of all hon. Members.
Mr. David Winnick rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been asked a question, and I shall answer it. I do not know anything about this matter. I suppose that if such a book were to be ordered it would have to be ordered from overseas because it is not published in this country. I shall certainly look into the matter.
Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is another book, which is apparently banned in this country because the Government have tried to take action against the publishers, namely, "One Girl's War" by Joan Miller. Two weeks ago I brought to the attention of the House the fact that it was in the Library. I wonder whether the Government have acted on the latest book because they are displeased that this other publication is held in the Commons Library.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I can usually speak for myself fairly effectively. I was the Member who went to the Library to put my name at the top of the list to read this fascinating book. I was told that the Library had been advised that it would be inadvisable to hold the book. I was given to understand that there was a letter from your Office, Sir, making that point.
Mr. Speaker: I assure the hon. Member that I know nothing about it. If he is first in the queue, I shall certainly be second.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I approached the Librarian on 7 July—last week—and asked him about the Joan Miller book in the Library so as to set the precedent for the arrival of Peter Wright's book. On 8 July, the Librarian wrote to me, saying:
"My present intention is to retain these copies in the Library unless and until I am instructed to the contrary."
The Librarian has made it clear that he wishes to receive and retain in the Library books that he knows and recognises are the subject of legal action outside the House and that are not freely available due to legal restraints. I put it to you, Sir, that the only way Joan Miller's book can be removed from the Library is by resolution of the House. If the Government refuse to accept the Peter Wright book, they have an obligation to place a motion before the House calling for the removal of the Joan Miller book, thereby enabling Parliament to debate this whole matter in a way that it has been prevented from doing today.
Mr. Speaker: The Joan Miller book is in the Library and I do not know of any indication that it will be withdrawn. I have already dealt with the other matter. I shall certainly look into it.
Mr. Dobson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that, in the absence of a Library Committee, you are the only person who has the authority in the House to instruct the Librarian whether or not to make that book available?
Mr. Speaker: Yes. The Librarian is an Officer of the House and, as such, he reports to me.
4.8 pm
Mrs. Ray Michie: It is an honour to address the House. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me to speak during this debate on the summer Adjournment.
It is my privilege to represent the constituency of Argyll and Bute, one of the most beautiful parts of the country. Many hon. Members will have holidayed there and returned refreshed and invigorated. It is, of course, a complete myth that it rains a lot and that the midges wear tackety boots. I assure those who are to visit Argyll and Bute that they will find much there to delight and that they will always receive the kindly, courteous and hospitable welcome that is the hallmark of the highlander.
I understand that it is customary in a maiden speech to refer to one's predecessor. I happily pay tribute to John MacKay for his work in the constituency, and I know that he was a loyal and conscientious member of his Government. Perhaps I owe him a special personal debt. He contested Argyll and Bute twice as a Liberal candidate in the 1960s and had he not joined the Conservative party I might not be here today.
Life has come full circle. I was born and brought up in the Liberal faith and philosophy and I owe my success in large part to the continuing example and inspiration of my father—the late Lord Bannerman of Kildonan. Better known in Scotland, in politics, in international rugby and in Gaeldom as Johnnie Bannerman, he cut his political teeth in Argyll at the 1945 general election. Many of the problems that he encountered remain. The islands still bear the burden of high transport costs, and the failure to introduce the promised road equivalent tariff for ferries means that the islanders are considerably disadvantaged as they strive to build economically viable communities.
The whole economy of Argyll and Bute depends on thriving tourism, farming, crofting, fishing and forestry. In particular, the small farm and croft form the basis of our rural way of life, which has an intrinsic quality of its own. It does not have to be justified and it stands strong against any value judgment.
The reference to farming in the Gracious Speech gives me hope that the Government will remember that in Argyll and Bute we do not contribute to EEC surpluses. It leads me to hope that the Government will defend the interests of the family farm, especially in the less-favoured areas, and that they will consider allowing crofters and tenant farmers to participate in the woodland and forestry schemes, and to reap the benefits currently enjoyed by the landlords.
In the months ahead we shall hear much about the so-called community charge which is, indeed, a poll tax. No modern Western country would even consider such an

717
unfair and regressive tax—last levied in England in 1381, it led to the Peasants Revolt. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will reconsider the injustice done to two particular groups of people. Crofters and the Church have traditionally enjoyed a 50 per cent. derating concession but the Government have so far adamantly refused to continue that concession with the poll tax. Consequently, an extra £1·3 million will be taken out of the crofting counties and the Church of Scotland will have to find an extra £333,000. That will deal a hefty blow to both groups.
During the election campaign we heard much about the amount of money that is being spent on the Health Service. However, I regret to say that that money has not been spent in Argyll where, for nigh on 40 years, Campbeltown and Oban have waited for new hospitals. We have a superb staff who give a high standard of service to patients, but they are being asked to do so in impossible and unacceptable conditions, and in old and crumbling buildings.
Another matter that is causing grave concern in my constituency is the recent notification by the Nature Conservancy Council of the designation of an extensive area—over 32 square miles—on the island of Islay as a site of special scientific interest. The NCC sets out 20 operations that are thought likely to damage the SSSI. This is extraordinary in that it will affect 49 farmers and crofters who have worked the land over the generations without any environmental damage.
I am told of the NCC's objection to a temporary access to the proposed experimental wave power station and that a farmer who wants to level hillocks for easy cultivation will require permission because they give shelter to the corncrake. Those are just two examples, but the list of restrictions bodes ill for the social and economic welfare of the island.
We must seek a proper balance between nature conservation and the interests of the people who live and work in the area. To that end, I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will urgently consider the establishment of a Scottish nature conservancy council. It is vital that there should be close co-operation, consultation and agreement between the public bodies concerned with planning and land use and those who are affected by the designation. The people of Islay are deeply upset and angry. They fear that in the end 65 per cent. of the land area of Islay will become eligible for designation, and, if that happens, depopulation could occur on a scale not seen since the infamous clearances.
Many of my constituents have a particular interest in the Gaelic language, as do I. The need for Gaelic to be given a status equal to English, which is now enjoyed by Welsh, is all too obvious to those who know and care. Until reparation is made for the systematic and deliberate damage done to the Gaelic language over many years successive Governments must continue to bear the guilt. This ancient language lies at the heart of our traditions, culture and heritage, and its beauty in song, poetry and story is unsurpassed. We cannot afford to lose it.
We are told that the whole tenor of the Government's philosophy is the freedom to choose and to make our own decisions. We are told that we must stand on our own feet. In view of those tenets, I sincerely hope that the Government will respond to the wishes of the Scottish
718
people by setting up a legislative body in Edinburgh with fair elections by proportional representation and the abolition of one tier of local government.
We in the Liberal party are convinced that institutional change would bring that freedom and, at the same time, improve the quality of decision-making. Scotland has lived too long at less than its full potential. There is more to life for its people than material progress; there is the right to choose, and to ignore that right is to court disaster. Scotland must recover her sense of destiny, her pride and self confidence and take her rightful place as a partner in the United Kingdom.
4.18 pm
Mr. Michael Jopling: It is with considerable pleasure that I follow the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), who has just got her maiden speech off her chest. It is a great trial for all who join the House for the first time. The hon. Lady's speech was of great interest, especially to me, since I am interested in rural affairs. She made her speech with considerable charm and with none of the nerves which many people have on these occasions, and we look forward to hearing from her again. Her comments about her predecessor, John MacKay, will have given Conservative Members most pleasure. We miss him very much. I miss him especially because we battled together for many hours, day and night, in the Council of Ministers in Brussels. He was a doughty fighter for fishermen and especially for farmers in Scotland.
We discuss this motion, in different guises, many times during the year and I speak today for the first time in 16 years without having some Front Bench responsibility. To get myself back into the mood for doing this, I looked up the last two or three speeches I made 16 years ago. In June 1971, in almost my last speech as a Back-Bench Member, I was accused by Mr. Reggie Paget of being involved in a Whip's filibuster. I was somewhat perturbed to see that I replied:
"On principle, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I never speak to Whips."—[Official Report, 28 June 1971; Vol. 820, c. 172.]
At that time, Mr. Speaker, you were a Whip. You got your own back on me, because I was a member of the Conservative Whip's Office within a few weeks of making that remark. It has been somewhat difficult to get back into the swing of things.
I approve of the motion. I am especially pleased that the Leader of the House has been able to arrange an early rising of the House in July. This is an important matter, not least for the families of Members, especially Scottish Members. Scottish Members regularly used to complain that their children had been home from school for some time before the House went into recess. I hope that the Leader of the House will remember that sometimes Members' families pay a great price for our attendance here. I hope that it will always be part of my right hon. Friend's strategy to get the House up in good time every July. I also support the motion because my right hon. Friend is proposing a long recess during which the Government can produce a good deal of legislation before we return on 21 October. I hope that the Government will make the best use of the recess.
I reject the idea that is put forward every year of having a shorter summer recess and extending the recesses at Christmas, Easter and Whitsun. I note an amendment on the Order Paper and an early-day motion to that effect. I

719
have a simple reason for rejecting the idea. Governments being who they are the moment we did that, they would increasingly appropriate the extra recesses at Christmas, Easter and Whitsun to discuss so-called essential legislation. Some of us know what Governments do. They begin by saying that it is only for one year, and before we know where we are, it becomes a regular part of the parliamentary scene. There have always been suggestions that the House should return some time in September. That would be messy, and the House should not sit during the season of party conferences. It is best to have a long recess just as the Leader of the House has proposed.
My right hon. Friend must ensure that the recess is properly used. He must bully Departments to have ready a large number of Bills to lay before the House as soon as it returns on 21 October. After those Bills have been before the House for the appropriate two weekends, I hope that the first two weeks of November will be full of Second Reading debates so that we may get on with the parliamentary process. I am sorry to see only one Bill awaiting Second Reading on the remaining orders at present. I had hoped that more Bills would be awaiting their Second Reading so that we could debate them when we returned in October. It is crucial to get the programme off to a good start.
The Leader of the House may have heard me say before that organising the parliamentary legislative year is a bit like growing a good crop of wheat. One starts at much the same time of the year. It is important to prepare the ground—to have the Bills ready—so that once the crop is sown it continues to grow and prosper without any check. I hope that he will ensure that that happens, but I assure him that Departments will give him every excuse as to why Bills are not ready for laying before the House the first week after the recess. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be ruthless with them in ensuring that the Bills are ready. If not, during the corresponding debate on the motion for the summer Adjournment in 1988, my right hon. Friend will be faced by complaining Members whose children are already busy on the beaches with their buckets and spades, asking their mothers why their fathers have had to go back to London. It is important that the House should rise early, in July, each year, and I hope that my right hon. friend will continue his good work.
We all know that this will be a busy Session. The Gracious Speech demonstrated that clearly. The first Session of a Parliament is always the busiest, and rightly so. But I hope that the Leader of the House will be ruthless with his colleagues in ensuring less legislation in future Sessions. I remind my right hon. Friend that before we were elected to Government in 1979 we all said a great deal about the need to stem the torrent of legislation which had poured out of the House over the years. I fear that we have not done as much as we should to stem that torrent. I hope that my right hon. Friend will insist on a good deal less legislation during the Government's 10th to 13th years.
Some Departments in Whitehall seem to think that their Ministers' success depends on how much primary legislation they can introduce. When new Ministers go to Departments, I have visions of the permanent secretaries standing at the top of the steps rubbing their hands together and saying, "Welcome, Minister. We have a lot of interesting legislation for you this year." I hope that my right hon. Friend will curb this dangerous trend, of which I disapprove. I have always regarded the Department of the Environment as a special culprit here. It has been
720
notoriously bad at taking on more legislation than it can manage and then having to chop and change it at the expense of huge amounts of parliamentary time.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows all this and that he will take steps to ensure that we have a properly managed programme. He made great efforts to do that while he was Chief Whip. I hope that he will be vigilant in keeping legislation to a minimum and in getting it produced accurately and early so that the House is not kept here for longer than necessary during the summer months.
4.29 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I rise to follow up the matters that were raised with Mr. Speaker after Question Time about the material now in the public domain written by Mr. Peter Wright in his book "Spycatcher". It is being published in America today and extracts of it have been made available to the press in this country. I accept entirely that it would be wrong to comment upon the actions of those who may be held accountable in the courts for what they have done, but that is not the issue. The question that the House should consider without party prejudices of any kind is that a senior official of M15, Mr. Peter Wright, who served in that capacity over many years, has written a book in which he has said that during the 1970s half of M15, who are public servants, were engaged in an action designed to undermine or overthrow the elected Government under the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson.
I was a member of that Government and many of the events referred to in Mr. Peter Wright's book strike a responsive chord in my memory because I know what was being said then. I knew it was not true, I wondered the source from which it came, but I decided simply to proceed. and to note the events against the possibility that some explanation might be forthcoming later.
Mr. Wright says in his book that a Mr. Jim Angleton, head of counter-espionage in the Central Intelligence Agency, came to the United Kingdom at that time with a report that the Prime Minister was a Soviet agent and that the CIA virtually instructed MI5 to take action against an elected Prime Minister. Those basic facts only have to be stated for it to be clear that officials, some of whom may still be in the Civil Service, were guilty of attempting a coup against an elected Government in this country.
I do not claim that anybody in the present Government had direct responsibility for what happened. However, the Attorney-General is accountable to the House, as was his predecessor, the present Lord Chancellors and the Prime Minister is responsible for the intelligence services. They have made no attempt to investigate the truth of those allegations by testing them in the courts. Instead, they have thrown the entire resources of the State into getting the allegations suppressed. The Cabinet Secretary was sent to Australia and was exposed to absurdity in the Australian courts for many reasons, one of which was that he confessed that he had been "economical with the truth"—that statement from the most senior civil servant in the country who is normally regarded as being apart form and separate from matters of political controversy.
To stay within the rules of sub judice I will not name the newspapers which attempted to bring out what happened. They were proceeded against by the then Attorney-General, the now Lord Chancellor, who, for all I know, may well be called upon to adjudicate on the

721
matters he initially promoted as Attorney, should those matters go on appeal to the House of Lords where he sits on the Woolsack with some responsibility for such matters.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who is a lawyer, shakes his head. Anyone who really believes that the Government and the courts are separate knows little about the proceedings of the House or indeed of the other place. A comparable case of covert action is now being investigated in the American Congress. Colonel Oliver North and Admiral Poindexter are arraigned before the American Congress for action that is comparable precisely with what Mr. Peter Wright and, allegedly, Jim Angleton of the CIA did in Britain. Far fom the American Congress suppressing the matter because it might be the subject of judicial action—for all I know, it might be—in accordance with the tradition of open government in America, for which I have the greatest possible admiration, it has brought the matter out and Colonel North is required to explain everything that he has done. He has been forced to admit that he lied, and under cover of Congressional protection he is now delivering to the American people an account of the stewardship of Admiral Poindexter, the President and himself. Not in this country
Mr. Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Benn: No, I would like to continue as I do not want to detain the House for very long.
It would be an outrage if the House were to adjourn and an allegation as serious as that made by Mr. Peter Wright about a coup against an elected Government were to pass unnoticed. I am a long-serving Member of the House and I have attended all its ritual functions. We always meet after an election in a mass of mutual congratulations.We elect the Speaker and Members on both sides of the House say how good a man he is. I join in that. We meet to say how we are the best Parliament in the world. The newly elected Speaker goes to the House of Lords and claims our ancient privileges, and everybody nods. When the Queen is to deliver her speech, not only do we lock the door to pretend that we keep the executive out, but we put the Outlawries Bill down to show that we are not obliged to consider the Crown's business first.
But if the Attorney-General decides that he wants to silence Parliament, he has a very simple way of doing it. He goes to the courts and tries to interfere with the freedom of the press, knowing that the Speaker is obliged by precedent to apply the sub judice rule to silence Parliament. There is as great a threat to Parliament today as there has ever been in its history. That threat is not by the occupant of the throne but by the Crown's Ministers who sit in the House. As I said in the Zircon case when I begged the House to refer that matter to the Committee of Privileges, unless we take the matter seriously this Parliament will be a laughing stock around the world, and rightly so. We bring schoolchildren here and tell them about the mother of Parliaments. We tell them how wonderful it is and how speeches are made fearlessly by hon. Members in the public interest. We tell them that matters of concern are aired in a way that other countries try to emulate. It is not true. The truth is that the House, on a matter as grave as any that has been before it during my time as a Member, which goes back nearly 37 years,
722
has absolutely failed to insist on holding the Government, the Law Officers and the Prime Minister accountable because it has denied itself the opportunity of discussing the matter.
This is not a party matter. If Government Members had any evidence that some foreign security service was trying now to overthrow the Prime Minister by subversion, was
"bugging and burgling its way across London"
—I quote Peter Wright—the party opposite would quite properly be up in arms. I would hope that my colleagues would, too. However, when it happens to be a Labour Government that was subverted, where are the advocates of law and order? Where are the Members on the Government Benches who say that a crime may have been committed and that they want the guilty to be pursued in the courts? There is not a voice. The conduct of the Attorney-General and his predecessor in the case has fallen well below the standards required of their office.
I have heard many debates on the summer Adjournment where people get up to just make a point or, as we have just heard, to raise a rather funny speech about the length of the holidays. However, this is a substantial matter. I apologise for referring to the excellent maiden speech by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) at the end rather than at the beginning of my speech. It was a formidable maiden speech. As the son and grandson of Liberal Members, both of whom sat for Scottish seats, perhaps I may be allowed to put a special feeling into my reference to the hon. Member and to say that she will be heard with great respect whenever she chooses to address the House.
Before I sit down I must repeat what I have said. If Parliament does not have a full debate before the summer recess upon an attempted coup against the democracy of this country, masterminded by MI5 officials who are paid to protect our freedom and who are accountable to the Prime Minister, it will fail in its constitutional task to protect those who elected us.
4.39 pm
Mr. John Bowis: Tempting as it might be to follow the line taken by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I shall tread the traditional path of non-controversy and stick to non sub-judicial matters in my maiden speech. I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) on her maiden speech. I hope that I can equal it.
I begin by paying a warm and sincere tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Alfred Dubs. I believe that Alf Dubs was respected on both sides of the Chamber. He had a fine reputation as a Member of Parliament and he served his party well as a spokesman on home affairs and immigration matters. I believe that he did well by the people of Battersea. However, a Member of Parliament is judged not only by his work in the House but by his work in the constituency. From my experience of people in my constituency, I can say that a large number of individuals and organisations owe a great debt of gratitude to Alf Dubs for the work that he did for them. If when I come to leave the House I can say that I looked after my constituents as well as he looked after his, I shall have done well by them.
The best tribute that I can pay Alf Dubs is to say that political friends and foes alike refer to him as "a nice man". I certainly agree with that from the short knowledge I have had of him. Whenever our paths crossed during the

723
election campaign there was a courteous and civilised debate between us, which is just as it should be in party political circles. I believe that that is a fitting tribute to the man that I have replaced in the House.
It seems almost superfluous to refer to my constituency. As I look around, I find that almost every other hon. Member seems to live in the constituency. Unlike most hon. Members who escape their constituents when they go into the Division Lobbies, I have a nasty feeling that as I go into the Lobbies I shall be nobbled by hon. Members urging me to take some particular action on their behalf. Nevertheless, I shall take hon. Members on a brief Cook's tour of my constituency. There are rather a number of bridges in it. It starts at the Nine Elms approach to Vauxhall bridge, and includes Chelsea bridge, Albert bridge, Battersea bridge, Wandsworth bridge and ends up on the Putney bridge road. The constituency goes down through the two commons of Wandsworth and Clapham and ends up in Balham.
The Battersea that I represent is something of a merger. It used to he largely Douglas Jay's old seat of Battersea, North, with a hefty chunk of Battersea, South which used to be represented by Ernest Partridge. With all these Jays and Partridges around, I am tempted to give something of an ornithological history of the area. However, suffice it to say that in this case the Tory eagle has landed.
If one looks at history, as one must, to find my Conservative predecessors in the constituency, one finds that 1959 was the last occasion on which there was a Conservative Member for Battersea, South. One goes into the mists of pre-war history, to 1931, to find my Conservative predecessor in Battersea, North. That was Commander Arthur Marsden, who was hot foot from commanding HMS Ardent at the battle of Jutland. Therefore, one can see that I look back as well as around and ahead as I consider my constituency.
I can look back at another rare bird in this place, a Communist Member of Parliament. Saklatvala represented Battersea—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] Hon. Members seem to remember him.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I knew his daughter.
Mr. Bowis: I cannot speak for his daughter, but I can speak for him. He stood as a Communist, but I notice from the footnotes in all the history books that he was a Communist with Labour party support. Wild horses would not drag from me any references to modern parallels with Militant Tendency.
There are many parallels with the past in my constituency. One sees many references to Battersea as having a fair number of what are described as "Yuppies". I do not know whether that is a parliamentary term, but it is used frequently in relation to the area. The first Yuppie in the history books goes back to William the Conquerer. He, as an upwardly mobile gentleman, owned the manor of Battersea and took his chums there to enjoy the delights of what was described in the Domesday Book as the wealthiest manor in Surrey. Therefore, things have not changed that much in the area.
There is a tradition of agricultural interests in the area. That may surprise many hon. Members. However, there is the grain and malt that goes into the Ram brewery at the Wandsworth end of my constituency and fruit and vegetables go into Nine Elms market at the other end of
724
my constituency. We have a tradition that goes back to the days when the first asparagus was grown in Battersea park and lavender was indeed grown on Lavender Hill.
We have a tradition of colourful, if not turbulent, priests in the area. One was fined for catching salmon in the Thames and another was accused of consorting with witches. Today's incumbent has done nothing more scurrilous than serve a term as a Labour alderman.
In the south of my constituency we find the old route that is Stane Street, which the Romans built and down which the Roman tourists went on their way to Chichester. heading south along the line of Balham high road in a way that shows that Peter Sellers was not altogether inaccurate when he described Balham as the "Gateway to the South". Since then, Balham, Battersea and Wandsworth have grown and merged. From villages have grown towns and from towns have grown inner city areas. Areas have grown up and up, in many cases 20 storeys and more up. The borough of Wandsworth has inner city problems, as do all inner city areas. However, I believe that my area has found some of the answers to those problems.
The report "Faith in the City" referred to a number of relevant matters affecting my area. It referred to the unacceptably dull masses of municipalised housing estates, but it showed that the real need for areas such as mine was a thriving local economy. I think that that is what we have achieved. We have a partnership between central Government and local government, and a partnership between both forms of government and local firms and local people. It has put new heart into that area of inner London. The housing and environment have improved and the economic climate has taken off. It is a good place to live. It has the lowest unemployment levels in inner London and we have some 300 inquiries coming to the council every month from firms seeking to move into the borough.
I do not suggest for one moment that the successes and lessons of Wandsworth can be translated instantly to other parts of the country or to other inner city areas. However, I do suggest that the innovative and imaginative mix of public funding and private enterprise has done much to transform what was a depressing and depressed grey area of yesterday into a forward looking and confident community that looks to tomorrow's world with confidence and expectation.
I represent a wide variety of people. I represent those who have done well—many people in Battersea have done well. I congratulate those people, and it would be churlish not to wish them well in continuing their good fortune. We want more and more people to go on doing well. That is the climate of my constituency. However, I also represent those who have not done so well: those who are crying out to us for some form of help. My support came from a great range of people across the constituency, and I intend to represent the successful and those who need help.
There is a curious economic and fiscal truth, which is that low rates of income tax lead to a greater tax take. The same principle applies to company taxation. Tax cuts lead to greater wealth creation, greater wealth creation leads to more taxable wealth, and extra tax leads to more resources to be spent on areas of need; areas of need that are dear to the hearts of all hon. Members. The message in my constituency is that tax cuts and greater wealth creation lead to the spending that we want.

725
Having got the creation of additional wealth and an additional tax take, we must examine the balance that needs to be kept between spending and the maintenance of control over interest rates and inflation, without which spending would be much less effective than we would wish it to be. We must examine priority areas of spending, as well as increased spending.
My priorities for action relate to three areas of spending. They were referred to in one way or another in the Queen's Speech. One and a half of them relate to the ways in which Bills will come forward, and the other one and a half, I hope, will be considered by Ministers during the summer recess. They are summed up by the three messages by people in my constituency. They are, "I want my own home", "I want my child to get a decent education", "I want the worry taken out of my old age.". I bring those messages to the House. They say, "I am in a trap, and I want help to get out of it.".
Those are three traps, and they are not the fault of those who are entrapped. The child who is trapped in our education system in parts of inner London is locked into a system of neighbourhood mediocrity. The new education poverty trap holds faster children back and does not encourage slower children to catch up. I wish to encourage our education system to go forward to encourage children to stretch out as far as they can reach and to work and be rewarded to the height of their ambitions. The Government's actions go some way towards the achievement of that aim.
The moves to reform ILEA, to give schools greater budgetary autonomy and to give parents a greater say and influence in their children's schools are welcome. The move to make entry requirements and limitations on popular schools more flexible is also welcome. I hope that we can gradually unlock the education trap.
There are two housing traps. We in Wandsworth have one of the most successful boroughs, not only in enterprise, the environment and the economy, but in housing and home ownership. One third of our borough council tenants now own their own homes or, in most cases, their flats. The money that has been gained from that successful policy has been poured into improvements in houses, estates, sheltered accommodation and the great partnership between the local borough and local housing associations. But people still need housing help. Their housing ambitions are not met because of the absence of private rented accommodation. That is their trap.
Private accommodation once provided for young people in particular. Alas, in recent years, as hon. Members know well, for many reasons which we shall not examine today private accommodation has gone. I hope that it will return. The Government are seeking to encourage it in the institutional provision of private housing. I also hope that the Government will consider tax incentives for small private landlords, whom we also need back. That is half the housing trap.
The other half of the housing trap in my area relates to the particularly large number of people who live in housing association properties. Housing associations have done a great service for our country and for inner London. Nowadays, they are largely funded by central and local government. They take referrals largely from the local council of people who wish to move into housing association properties. Once people move into such
726
properties, they suddenly find that, through no fault of their own, they lose their right to buy. They want the right—council tenants also want it—to buy the homes which they have done much to improve and for which they have great affection. I should like to see them being given back that right. It is not enough to give them transferable discounts; they should have the right to buy the homes in which they live.
Finally, I come to the subject of pensions. Most pensioners are now much better off than they were, and pensioners are the first to say so. All pensioners have benefited from the Government's success in containing and reducing inflation. In the past, the ravaging disease of inflation affected pensioners' incomes and savings. No friend of pensioners today would advocate policies that would risk putting the inflation rate back to 10, 20, or 30 per cent. and thereby putting pensioners at risk again, but a certain group of pensioners need our support. They have given great service to the country, but the country has not rewarded that service by ensuring them comfort in their old age. That group is just above the supplementary benefit line. They have some small savings and a small pension and do not qualify for the benefits that would be available if they had less. They have retired too soon to benefit from new second pensions. They hesitate to turn up the gas in winter. They say, "I cannot afford to put an extra lock on my back door. They are in a real hardship trap, and we should support them.
Housing, education and welfare are my three priorities for action. There are three problems, three traps, and three locks. I hope that during my time in this Parliament I shall play my part in helping the Government to find three keys to unlock these three traps.
4.56 pm
Mr. Jimmy Wray: I pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Hugh Brown. He was a well-respected hon. Member. He worked very hard for the constituents of Provan. I respect him as a person and as a Member of Parliament. For a time, he served with the Scottish Office. He was a dedicated, able man. I have no doubt that many Opposition Members respect him as much as I do. Dod's Parliamentary Companion gives us a potted history of his career, and we know that he was noted for being a tough-talking Scot. His wife, Mary, also came from a great political family in Glasgow. She paid much attention to his constituents. I wish both Hugh and Mary happiness in his retirement.
This morning I consulted a dictionary for the meaning of the word "controversy". It means to debate or to be open to question. I have no doubt that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will agree that the Government are open to question. I do not have a great deal in common with Conservative Members. I abhor the rotten capitalist system that has brought misery to many families in my constituency. I am not like the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis). My constituency has the worst unemployment rate in Britain. In some areas, it is as high as 39 per cent.
The level of poverty in my constituency is deplorable. It is not so long ago that my constituents queued for the giros that did not arrive. They also queued at soup kitchens. Surely the Government must recognise the poverty that they have created by allowing banks to repossess houses and to raise their interest charges when

727
coffers were empty. That is the type of Government and the type of capitalism that Conservative Members have supported for the past nine years.
One of the most horrifying pieces of legislation discussed in the Chamber was discussed in panic because, when revaluations caused rates to treble in Strathclyde and Glasgow, the Prime Minister panicked herself into setting up a study to establish a rating system based on the ability to pay. The Prime Minister introduced what she called the "community charge". It is a poll tax. I have an electorate of 43,000, but if that legislation is implemented in Scotland my electorate will be down to 10,000 because nobody will register. The legislation is a breach of civil liberties, because, if people do not register, they will not be allowed to vote. The legislation must not he implemented.
The first person to introduce a rate relief for the poor was Pope Gregory. It was based on a system of help for the poor, but we are now considering a system based on the ability to pay. The community charge transfers the burden from the rich to the poor. A couple living in a 30-bedroom mansion, paying £2,000 in rates, would be asked to pay £500 under the new system. The burden would be transferred to a family living in a slum. That family of five earners may have a joint income of £25,000 a year, but they will be asked to pay something like £1,500 under the community charge. We abhor such a policy, and that is why the great lady has been scored off 90 per cent. of Christmas card lists this year.
Democracy has been eroded. The Labour party was the first to set up an inquiry into the local government system under the Layfield committee. That committee reported in 1976 and stated clearly that it would be extremely costly and take 10 years to introduce a new rating system. I believe that we should look for a system with a buoyancy yield, and the only system that provides that is a local income tax system. Based on that system Lawrie McMenemy, earning £4,000 a week, would pay a flat rate of just 5 per cent. on that £4,000. Wee Mrs. Dobbs on £30 a week would pay 5 per cent. on that £30. The local income tax system would leave room for exemptions and fluctuations in income and inflation would also be taken into account.
There are 18 million people living on or below the poverty line in this country. Press reports of previous weeks revealed that some of those people are only a giro cheque away from starvation. Oxfam has been turned into the national tailor for many poor families because they cannot afford to buy clothes on the menial supplementary benefit provided by the Government. The Government had an opportunity to do something about that problem when they introduced the Social Security Act 1986. However, that Act was designed not to help the poor, but to take from them so that the Government could save £1 billion.
Over the past eight years, it has been clear that the Government can give and find money, but they find it for the wrong people. They found £8 billion for the highest taxpayers in the country. That payment is the equivalent of £219 per week or an income of over £11,000 a year. The Government gave relief to those who did not need it. What did they do for the lower paid—those earning less than £5,000 a year? They gave them £1·63 per week, the equivalent of £89 a year. For that reason we will fight to dismantle the rotten, corrupt capitalist system that has been created in the past eight years.
728
Are we safe in the Government's hands? I do not believe that we are. The Government have decided to spend billions on a new weapon, Trident, that can destroy 26 cities and kill millions of people in one blast. However, we should consider the protection that is afforded to the Members and staff of this House. Last week, one member of staff was bleeding profusely and ran down to the medical office. The lady saw a 6 in. by 6 in. box wrapped in brown vinegar paper and bound with tape. Although she was standing there bleeding, the messenger said, "We cannot open the box." However, she said that she must and, after four minutes of unwrapping the tape, she opened it to discover there were six pieces of linen, six elastoplasts and one piece of cotton wool in that box. She was then told by the Serjeant at Arms that the box should never have been opened because the contents of the box were there to protect people if there was a nuclear attack. Such is the safety provided by the Government for the staff and Members of the House.
Three dear old ladies, who have spent 100 hours in the Court of Sessions, have asked me to raise their pet subject, the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985. I do not know how anyone could have voted for that Act, especially when one considers the paragraph that specified that fluoride would be applied to 1 mg per litre where practicable. I would like a definition of "practicable". No one has ever mentioned whether fluoride can be considered as a medicinal product. The Medicines Act 1968 states that a medicinal product is a substance that is used to clear up diseases. The disease with which fluoridation is concerned is dental caries, a disease of the mouth.
The 1968 Act also specifies what is meant by the adminstering of a medicine. If one takes one substance, mixes it with another, and administers that to an animal or a human being, that substance is a medicinal product. The Government should also consider that it cost £1·5 million to discover that they were ultra vires with regard to the Water (Scotland) Act 1946. Throughout Britain, we employ local authority engineers to treat the water to make it wholesome. We do not employ those engineers to treat the people who drink the water. That is an important fact. We do not want the civil liberties of individuals to be breached. I hope that my dear old ladies will be happy that I raised that matter on their behalf.
I have been asked by disabled people to draw attention to all the Acts that have been passed by Parliament over many years, especially the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Local authorities, including Strathcylde region, have not fully implemented the required survey. About one third of all chronically sick and disabled people are still suffering because central Government will not give local authorities the money to implement those provisions.
Another piece of important legislation recently passed was the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, which, in relation to funding from central Government, is another farce. The Government have told local authorities not to implement it to keep costs down. They have offered little financial help and the finance that has been made available does not meet the needs in Britain, in Scotland or in Strathclyde.
Finally, high unemployment is a waste of talent, energy and creative productivity. Thousands of Glaswegians are unemployed while our oil, shores and land fall into the hands of the greedy merchants of the temple. The £58 billion of North sea oil revenue has been thrown down the drain in payments to keep people unemployed. We look

729
for better for our unemployed. We look for jobs and apprenticeships, not for the slave and cheap labour of the YTS and MSC schemes. We look for investment. We want the Government to bring back the £109 billion that has been invested abroad, using cheap labour to get high interest rates. The Government can bring back that money.
We do not have to go far to know what an unjust world this is. Down at the Embankment, only a few yards from here, one can see people lying in cardboard boxes in the tunnels. The Government are uncaring and have no compassion. It is time that they got themselves together and started to implement policies to help the poor and unemployed. The quicker the Government do that, the better for the poor.
5.12 pm
Sir Dudley Smith: This afternoon I feel a little like a man who has been doing the football pools without success for many years, but whose number suddenly comes up. In the 25 years that I have been a Member of the House I have never followed a maiden speaker. Today, however, I find myself following two, and that is quite something.
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray). In the modern idiom, he was controversial, although there is nothing bad about that, because nowadays most maiden speeches are controversial. However, from the hon. Gentleman's delivery it is obvious that he is a robust speaker. I disagree with practically everything that he said, but I was interested to hear his comments about the "rotten, corrupt capitalist system". I am sure that he will be extraordinarily entertaining on the rotten and corrupt Socialist system although now is not the time to go into that, I should like to hear him speak on that topic.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about fluoridation, as I am sure does my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who is present. With my hon. and learned Friend, I have long been a campaigner in the House to try to stop fluoridation. We have not been very successful, but we have voted against it consistently. I hope that we can welcome the hon. Member for Provan to the ranks of those who, irrespective of party, oppose this indoctrination of water, which we believe to be harmful.
The hon. Gentleman paid a gracious tribute to his predecessor, Hugh Brown, whom many of us knew as a man of charm and a hard worker. He was well liked by hon. Members of all parties. If the hon. Gentleman does as well for his constituents as Hugh Brown did, he will do very well indeed.
As I am the first speaker after two maiden speakers, I should like to congratulate also my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), whom all Conservative Members are delighted to see with us. His election was something of a surprise, as Battersea was one of the seats that we were not quite sure of winning. I enjoyed his confident tour de force of that area, which many of us know because of its close proximity to Westminster. My hon. Friend's speech reflected the success of that area, of many areas in the country and of our party. He is here because people are doing well and showing energy and enterprise. He is a modern and young product of that enterprise, and long may he be so. I
730
appreciate that there are problems in Scotland, and elsewhere. They will be cured, and the thrust of this nation is forward, as we saw in the election.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea had the good sense to pay a tribute to his predecessor, Alf Dubs. He was a hard worker and an industrious member of the Opposition Front Bench and he will certainly be missed by Opposition Members. Perhaps one of these days he will be back, but not, I hope, representing my hon. Friend's seat.
All hon. Members congratulate those maiden speakers, and indeed all other maiden speakers because we know what a trial it is. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, the hon. Member for Provan and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) made their maiden speeches with commendable confidence and we look forward to hearing from them in the future.
In this general debate on the Adjournment I should like to say a few things about one aspect of democracy. There are many who take democracy in our country for granted. We are rightly jealous of our democracy and fight strongly against those who try to undermine and subvert it. Sensibly, we have strict rules about our democratic electoral process which need to be observed faithfully and properly. Personation, for example, is a serious and punishable offence. That ballot is secret and polling stations are run with scrupulous fairness and independence. Casting one's vote at a polling station is relatively straightforward. However, there is one area in which our electoral and democratic rules are beginning to fray a little at the edges at the moment. It is time to stop the rot, and to do so now.
The main thrust of my argument relates to postal voting and its management. At the recent election, postal voting was something of a shambles despite the previous Government's praiseworthy efforts to extend it to include holidaymakers for the first time. The flaws and the bumbling incompetence of the Home Office officials who designed the new obstacle course of postal voting have already been exposed efficiently by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) in his recent devastating Adjournment debate.
To obtain a postal or proxy vote, one practically needed a law degree and experience in picking one's way through tricky legal documents. It is laughable to think what must have happened when the postal vote forms arrived at many council residential homes, or indeed at any residential home. I had a letter from a constituent this morning who, on the eve of polling day, called on his mother, only to discover that she had done nothing about the postal vote form. Those forms had been handed out, but no one had given any help or instructions as to what the old people should do to exercise their franchise.
Indeed, even people outside such homes and with plenty of intelligence who managed to survive one or two hurdles would always encounter a further one that would bring them down in their attempt to obtain a postal vote. In some respects, that endeavour almost took on the aspect of a competition for prizes, in which the organisers were trying to trip up the contestants. At the end of the postal vote form, one almost expected to see, "In case there is a tie, please describe in less than 10 words why you believe in democracy," or something like that.
I have discovered that people in quite important walks of life foundered along the way and were unable to get their postal votes accepted. As a result, thousands of votes

731
were lost to all parties. Many postal votes were never returned, many others were returned but were ineffectual, and others were spoilt.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the whole postal voting system must be put right and a simple system initiated in time for the next general election. That is in the interests of all political parties and of our democratic process. We must safeguard the rights of as high a percentage as possible of those entitled to vote who come into these special categories; for example, the disabled, those who are going on holiday, those who are away from home because they have moved house and those who are away on business or for work purposes. I refuse to believe that in this advanced, electronic, computerised age we should retain a creaky, almost Victorian system of hit or miss, depending on whether one happens to fill in the form correctly.
In addition to the shambles of officialdom, I am worried about the attitude of the Post Office and the way it carries out its tasks. Every four to five years, when a general election comes round, the Government must instruct the Post Office at the highest level that it must provide extra supervision and pay extra attention to the handling of all communications in relation to that election. These are not merely ordinary items of mail which are processed daily. They are items which must be handled with care and expedition. I estimate that I lost well over 1,000 votes because of those who were unable to register on time, those who applied too late and those who were cheated of their franchise by officialdom. I am sure that that experience was shared by many other hon. Members. It goes without saying that in a marginal seat this could be utterly crucial to the outcome of the election.
In future, we cannot allow the Home Office to erect hurdles against us which are insurmountable by many people. We cannot leave to chance or a supposition of good will or efficiency that the Post Office will deliver poll cards, election literature and, most important, the growing number of postal votes that we shall have in years to come. Postal votes must reach their destination as quickly as possible and be transmitted back again.
In my constituency, postal votes were issued on the appropriate day. Some people were at home, literally sitting on their cases, waiting to go on holiday, knowing that their postal vote was to arrive the next morning, only to discover that there was a 24-hour delay because a sackful of postal votes had been put on one side and had not been dealt with by the Post Office. I would have thought that that was an electoral offence.
The electoral returning officer in my area made strong protests and I received an apology from the district head postmaster of the area that I represent. Two or three consitituents have alleged that their postal votes were issued by the returning officer, but never reached them. As a consequence, those people were disfranchised. One constituent wrote to me and said that he was now old and disabled and that he had voted in every general election since 1935. He regarded it as his democratic right and duty. This was the first time that he lost the opportunity to vote, because the Post Office did not deliver his postal vote.
These are serious matters, and in some cases they can influence the outcome of the contest. Whether or not they do, it is the right of every person of sound mind above the qualifying age to cast his or her vote at an election. It is extremely important that the Home Office takes these matters on board and acts positively to reform the system
732
and for the Government of the day to say at election times to the Post Office, "It is your duty to provide the utmost supervision to ensure that all election communications are handled efficiently, dispatched on time and returned to the returning officer ready for counting when the election takes place." If we do that, we shall make a small but significant advance.
5.25 pm
Mr. John Fraser: I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) about filling in postal vote application forms. I found it almost as difficult as booking tickets for the National Theatre. The sooner we revise those forms, the better.
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) and the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on their maiden speeches. My hon. Friend succeeds an hon. Member whose reputation for hard work, sincerity and robust speech was well recognised in the House. Clearly, my hon. Friend comes to the House with intense feelings about poverty, inequality and unemployment, and I hope that we shall often hear from him in future. He endorsed the people of Scotland's strong condemnation of Government policies.
I must be careful about congratulating non-Labour Members, because when it fell to me to congratulate the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) shortly before the general election my remarks found their way into a pre-election leaflet that was circulated in the Greenwich constituency and I had to account to Ms. Deidre Wood for what I had said in the House.
When I grew up in Battersea, it was pronounced "Ba'ersea" and Arding and Hobbs was pronounced "Harding and 'obbs". The hon. Gentleman finds himself in the House because the people of Battersea do not suffer unemployment to the same degree as the people of Provan. He spoke with fluency and sincerity and recognised the problems, two of which, housing and education, are dear to my heart. He may live to regret the Government's proposals for them, because he will find that the policy of the London borough of Wandsworth, which the Government intend to emulate, is a policy of rehabilitating buildings rather than the lives, hopes and ambitions of people.
It is no solution to the problems of inner-city London and of high council flats simply to remove the people facing the problems and to replace them with others on a high income who want an address close to the City of London. The same is true of schools. The hon. Gentleman may well find that if the better organised, articulate parents have a chance to take their schools out of the state system, the sink schools, which have a larger proportion of deprived children and face the inequities of the inner city, will not be improved, but their problems will be intensified.
I cannot conclude my opening remarks without mentioning the loss of my friend Alf Dubs, a man with a king-sized conscience for those who suffer any sort of oppression. He will be sorely missed and I hope that he will soon be returned to the House. It is no exaggeration to say that there were people in Battersea with tears in their eyes the day after the election, because they owed so much to his sincerity and campaigning.
Alf took a great interest in immigration and I believe that the House should not adjourn for the summer recess

733
until there has been a ministerial statement about the conditions of a constituent of mine, Donald Michael Brown, who is liable to arrest and removal from the United Kingdom without any right of appeal, without any trial and without any statutory or judicial way of dealing with the problem. His wife, Katherine Brown, was born in the United Kingdom and her rights are also affected.
The history of the matter is very simple. Mrs. Brown was born here, but went on holiday to Jamaica and married Donald Michael Brown there. He applied to the United Kingdom high commission in Kingston for entry to the United Kingdom as a husband. However, there is an immigration rule that is an intellectual assault. It states that a person cannot come to this country if the primary purpose of the marriage is to gain entry to Britain. According to the immigration rules, the primary purpose of a marriage can be absolutely genuine, namely, that the couple have fallen in love and want a permanent relationship but the couple may be caught because at the same time the primary purpose of the marriage might be to come to the United Kingdom. How can there be two primary purposes for a marriage? That is an intellectual assault.
The rule effectively states that if an overseas male marries and wants to come to Britain, he cannot do so. However, if he marries and proves to the Home Office that he does not want to come here, he can come here. That is the rule in a nutshell. That is the rule that caught my constituent.
My constituent married in Jamaica in March 1986. It might help matters if I give the Home Office reference number. There is a system that ensures that we can get replies to these matters in Adjournment debates. The matter is now being dealt with by the Minister of State, and the Home Office reference number is B439046. The temporary admission number is TN/RLE/2375/86. I hope that that will make it easier for the Leader of the House.
Mr. Brown was refused permission to come here in May 1986. Mrs. Brown has a problem. Her mother has heart disease. My constituent has a council flat of her own and she is self-supporting. However, her mother suffers from a severe heart condition. Therefore, Mrs. Brown had to return to the United Kingdom some time in May or June 1986. Her husband came here on a visit in December 1986. It is true that he did not tell the Home Office that he was coming here to see his wife. I expect that in dictatorships all over the world when, someone wants to be near a relative or to get into a country to be united with his family, that person would tell lies about the reasons for wanting to join a husband or wife. I am sure that that happened in Germany before the war, and I am sure that it continues to happen. I do not hold it against my constituent that he did not tell the entire truth when he tried to get into Britain to be with his wife. He got into Britain by gaining temporary admission, and that is why he is liable to arrest and removal without a trial or appeal.
Mr. Brown's wife is now expecting a baby to be born in October. All pleas for Mr. Brown to be allowed to stay with his wife have been turned down. The wife, who has rights in these matters, faces a great dilemma. In parentheses, if my female constituent had been a man, because she was established in the United Kingdom on 1 January 1973—if the sexes were reversed—she would have an absolute right to be joined with her spouse.
734
However, because of the way in which the rules are drafted, she does not have an absolute right for her husband to join her because she is a woman. She faces a cruel dilemma. What is she to do?
If the husband is removed to Jamaica, she must make a choice. Should she go to Jamaica and give up her home here? She has adequate accommodation. Should she give up her home in Britain and abandon her mother, who is suffering from heart disease, who is in and out of hospital and who lives only a few doors away because the local authority has shown good sense by housing them closely together? Should she abandon her home and her mother on the one hand, or her husband on the other? Should she go to Jamaica with her child, where the child may have fewer prospects than in the United Kingdom? What is she to do?
When we consider the question of primary purpose, we realise that the immigration rule is nonsense. The rule is sexist, because it distinguishes between males and females. It creates a cruel dilemma of choice for a pregnant wife in a genuine marriage with genuine conflicting family responsibilities. That rule should be changed.
There is a form of unofficial prerogative of mercy, although that is not a royal prerogative of mercy. At all times, the Home Secretary or the Minister of State can say that the rules are working in a cruel, harsh and unconscionable way and that he will put to one side the harsh operation of that rule. I ask the Home Secretary, through the Leader of the House, to consider that this is one of those cases where the prerogative of mercy should be used and my constituent Mr. Brown should be allowed to remain with his pregnant wife, who is expecting the birth of her baby in a few months' time.
I have another reason why I believe that the House should not adjourn just yet, and this has nothing to do with immigration. It was reported in the papers today that the Home Secretary is about to release 5,000 criminals from prison back into society. Crime is one of the worst problems in my constituency. It is not all that easy to get into prison in London, because the courts are, on the whole, very reluctant to send people to prison. Now, however, 5,000 non-violent offenders are to be released. I accept that they are non-violent and that they are burglars, pickpockets, car thieves and people who have been convicted of graffiti, criminal damage and other offences. The cases of those people have been considered in detail in the courts and they are about to be released by the Home Secretary back into society before they have served out their sentences.
As a recompense for the Government's inability to deal with matters of law and order properly, I hope that anyone who is burgled or loses his car as a result of the reconviction of any one of these released people during the time when they would otherwise have been in prison will take advantage of an extension to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. There must be some recompense for the incompetence that the Government are visiting upon the victims, who may include my constituents. It is an extraordinary comment on the so-called party of law and order that the Government are emptying the gaols of some 5,000 people to make room—as this is not an amnesty—for another 5,000.
My main plea is for mercy for my two constituents who face a grievous family dilemma. I hope that at the end of the debate the Leader of the House will not redeem but will start to make his reputation by bringing mercy to this case.
5.37 pm
Mr. Graham Riddick: I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech. I am happy to follow the tradition of the House by paying tribute to my predecessor, Richard Wainwright. He was nothing if not persistent. He fought and lost three elections in Colne Valley before gaining the seat for the Liberal party in 1966. When he lost the seat in the 1970 general election, that, I believe, was the only seat to be gained by the Labour party that year. However, he regained the seat for the Liberals in 1974 and held it until his retirement at the general election. Richard Wainwright was, I believe, a respected Member of the House and a good constituency Member who was always on hand to help constituents with their problems, however small. He was ever present in the constituency and he was very approachable. It is my intention to follow his example in that respect.
Colne Valley has a rich and interesting political history. In 1923, it provided the country's first ever Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer in Philip Snowden. Another Labour man, Victor Grayson, who was Member of Parliament for Colne Valley in the first decade of this century, disappeared in somewhat mysterious circumstances. That is an example that I do not intend to follow. I hope that I shall not be too controversial if I state that a former Prime Minister, Lord Wilson, was born in Milnsbridge in my constituency.
In this interesting political jigsaw puzzle that is the Colne Valley there has been one vital piece missing—in its 102-year history Colne Valley had never had a Conservative Member of Parliament. That was the case until four and a half weeks ago, and I am delighted to be the piece that completes the jigsaw. Indeed, it is worth pondering why, if there is such an appalling north-south divide—as Opposition Members contend—the good people of Colne Valley should see fit to elect their first ever Conservative Member of Parliament after so long.
I hope that I shall be allowed to indulge just a little in eulogising my beautiful constituency. Although they might not realise it, part of my constituency will be well known to many people both inside and outside the House, for as they enjoy the antics of Compo, Clegg and Foggy in the TV series "Last of the Summer Wine", they also enjoy the attractive scenery of Holmfirth and the surrounding Holme valley in my constituency where that series is filmed.
I do not imagine that many constituencies can boast that no fewer than five packs of hounds reside in their boundaries, yet that is the case in Colne Valley, with the Holme Valley beagles, the Colne Valley beagles, the Pennine hunt, the Rockwood hunt and the Colne Valley mink hounds. Indeed, I am delighted to pay tribute to the field sports followers in my constituency who gave me enormous support during the election because they saw that the Conservative party was the only party that posed no threat whatever to their traditional pastime.
Colne Valley takes in some of the suburbs of Huddersfield, such as Lindley and Crosland moor, which will tell those people who sometimes mistakenly associate Colne Valley with Nelson and Colne in Lancashire that Colne Valley is in the very heart—some would say it is the very heart—of west Yorkshire.
With its textiles tradition, Colne Valley was one of the major engine rooms of the industrial revolution. Sadly, the last 25 years have seen the textiles industry decline, and the
736
industrial Colne Valley has declined with it. Happily, however, I can report that this area, along with many other parts of Yorkshire, is being revitalised by the entrepreneurial efforts of many local people. Recent reports from the regional CBI and the local Kirklees chamber of commerce have demonstrated growing confidence among the business community.
Unemployment in my constituency has fallen by nearly 900 over the last year. These improvements have been brought about by the Government's economic policies that have led to low inflation, improved productivity, more responsible trade unionism and greater support for small businesses.
There is one major obstacle that stands in the way of increased economic progress in my area and, indeed, in many other parts of the country. I refer to the problems caused to industry by local councils and the planners. As firms increase their business, in many cases they need to expand their existing premises or to find additional premises. As a result, they come into contact with the local council, and only too often find that their problems have only just begun. There are so many hurdles to overcome—from the highways department to the water authority, from the planners to the tree planters. If one's building is listed, one's problems are compounded. After all that, one's proposal must then win the approval of the elected councillors.
A number of local business men have come to me with problems put in their way by the local Kirklees council. Let me give an example. John Crowther plc of Milnsbridge has turned itself round from being a loss-maker to what is now a thriving business, employing 400 people and exporting nearly 50 per cent. of its output. Crowthers wants to pull down an empty, derelict mill called Union Mills and in its place build some single-storey units that will create jobs for local people. That mill is an eyesore and is now dangerous because of its dilapidated condition. It is a mess. If one wants confirmation of that one only has to ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary who visited the mill with me last Friday. Yet the council has just refused to recommend demolition. There is no justification for the loss of jobs that would otherwise have been created.
On Friday I also visited a small printing firm, L W Graphics in Longwood. That firm wanted to expand, found the ideal premises 12 months ago, put forward a planning application and was turned down—not on environmental or traffic grounds but because the application went against the local plan which says that change of use of existing buildings for office purposes can only be permitted if inside the town centre. That was despite the fact that the premises had been used for commerical purposes for more than 20 years. What a crying shame that those few extra jobs were never created because of an unnecessary and petty bureaucratic restriction. I could quote many similar stories of how the rules and regulations of Kirklees council have hindered and, indeed, blocked the development and progress of industry in my constituency.
As this is my maiden speech, I would not dream of suggesting anything controversial, such as that these obstacles are an indication of the innate hostility of certain Labour councillors to private enterprise. My experience is that business men are very good at saying what they can do, what can be done, why a new product can be made and sold and why new jobs can be created but that council

737
officials are very good at saying why something cannot be done. It is my belief that had today's planning controls existed 150 years ago, the industrial revolution would never have taken place.
The Government will have to look at planning controls again. In my view, some local councils are abusing them, and in so doing are hampering the Government's efforts to revitalise the private sector of industry. Of course, we must have controls. We must protect the green belt and the best examples of our architectural heritage. But the pendulum has swung too far, and thousands of jobs that could have been created have been lost for ever. I am sure that the examples I have quoted are merely the tip of the iceberg.
In Yorkshire and my constituency scores of budding entrepreneurs are ready and able to create the jobs of the future. They have the courage, enterprise and ideas to create that employment, but many of them do not have the patience, know-how or mind of a bureaucrat to overcome the frustrations of local government red tape. This Government must free them so that they can go out and create the extra wealth, prosperity and jobs that we all so desperately want to see.
5.50 pm
Mr. Brian Wilson: I succeed in the House the former hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, who was before that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire, Mr. John Corrie. I am pleased to pay tribute to the diligence of Mr. Corrie's efforts over the years and to wish him well, whether in his retirement from politics or in his temporary absence from them.
My constituency is, in many ways, Scotland in microcosm. It is a mixture of the industrial and the rural. It is a constituency of great beauty; sadly, it is also a constituency of greatly wasted resources and talents. We live in a society which can apparently afford to dispense with the labour of 30 per cent. of my male constituents. with the unique deep-water facility at Hunterston and with the skills that have been built up over generations among the steelworkers of the Garnock valley.
I do not intend to take the House on a Cook's tour of my constituency. I shall quote only one statistic—from a document published last month during the election campaign. It is a careers report from the Ardrossan office of Strathclyde regional council's careers service, which states that of 174 school leavers, at Christmas fully 50 per cent. had failed to find any form of employment, and that 66 of those who had were on youth training schemes. Only 13 were in permanent employment. Of the other 50 per cent., the report states:
"Their prospects are bleak. There are no jobs and no YTS vacancies for them."
It is into this real world that the Government intend to introduce the venal concept of conscription into jobs and schemes that do not exist in order to fulfil the myth that this is a land flowing with opportunity for all.
I intend to concentrate my remarks on the subject of the poll tax, otherwise known as the community charge. I feel that, after two years of debate on the matter, we in Scotland have something to teach the rest of the United Kingdom. Let me say to Conservative Members that, with respect, it is a lesson to which they might do well to listen. The Conservative party has learnt certain lessons in
738
Scotland about what happens once the realities of the poll tax, as opposed to the glittering package of alleged reform, become known to the public at large. In a more musical and romantic age, the events of 11 June might have been commemorated with a couple of pipe tunes: I suggest that "Lament for the Earl of Ancram" and John McKay's "Farewell to the Isles" might not have been inappropriate memorials to the debate on the community charge.
The community charge, or poll tax, was born out of blue-rinsed funk and panic among Scottish Conservatives who saw electoral disaster staring them in the face some two years ago. At the end of the day, they have the community charge on the statute book. However, they have also had the electoral disaster. The idea was conceived that if the 20-odd per cent. of Scottish people who vote Conservative were bribed with a shameless transfer of wealth from those who have least to those who have most, those people would dutifully salivate their way to the polling booths to thank the Conservative Government for their generosity, and would return Conservative Members to those constituencies. That idea was based on a misconception about the quality of the human spirit. It was based on the assumption that everyone—or at least everyone who had previously voted Conservative—voted on the basis of shameless, naked greed, without the slightest regard for the conditions of the society that surrounded them.
Fortunately, that calculation did not prove justified. In my constituency, and in many constituencies with a larger middle-class electorate which was supposedly to benefit from the scheme, electors in their droves rejected the poll tax precisely because they realised the unfairness of it—although it was to benefit marginally, or even by a substantial amount, their own wallets. I hope that I have enough faith in human nature in the south, in Wales and in other parts of the United Kingdom that the same calculations will be made by the electorate there in a few years' time. Those people may decide that they are going to benefit, but they will, I trust, also decide that they do not wish to benefit at the expense of old-age pensioners, the disabled and the poorest families in the land. For it is those people who will have to pay the tax, so that the wealthiest in the land may be subsidised and live in even greater comfort.
I can give this transfer of wealth a simple title: the Dulwich factor. I can think—hypothetically—of a wealthy retired couple in Dulwich who will benefit from the tax by, let us say, £2,000. As long as that is an abstraction which will not greatly affect others in Dulwich, it may not affect their behaviour, electoral or otherwise. But when the people of Dulwich realise that for that wealthy couple to benefit someone else must pay £2,000, they will become curious about the workings of the new tax. And when they realise that the people who will pay the £2,000 to subsidise the wealthy couple are not an abstraction but indeed themselves, they will become not only curious, but extremely angry. That "Dulwich factor" has already applied in Scotland, and I confidently predict that it will begin to apply in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The poll tax as it is proposed is a shameless transfer of wealth. It presupposes, or rather makes the hypothetical assumption, that everyone in our society can afford to pay equally, irrespective of means. To add insult to injury, even the weakest in the land—even the frailest pair of pensioners in my constituency who exist on supplementary

739
benefit pension and are at present exempted from paying rates—must initially find £2·60 a week from their pitiful pensions. Why? So that the wealthiest people in my constituency, and in society as a whole, may make massive savings.
I trust that, when people are confronted with the unfairness of the system, and then see it applied to the disabled and all the other categories of poor people in our society, they will reject the tax. When the Scottish poll tax measure was debated in the other place, the Government made a concession in respect of the mentally handicapped. They discovered a new category of person: the severely mentally handicapped. The Government decided, in all their generosity and majesty, to exempt the severely mentally handicapped, but not the merely mentally handicapped. In what kind of society do we live when the merely mentally handicapped—and all the physically handicapped—are to be taxed, so that the Dulwich factor may apply, and the wealthiest in the land are given a shameless handout?
My main objection is not on the financial argument or the venality argument, but on democratic grounds. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) wringing his hands over the state of the electoral register and the iniquities of the postal vote system—and quite right, too, although I would remind him, as a Member for an Ayrshire constituency, that if the electoral register had not been so disastrously bad in our part of the world, the Secretary of State for Defence would have been packing his Red Box and never returning to the House.
On the democratic argument, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) was absolutely right. The poll tax will take hundreds of thousands—indeed, millions—of people off the electoral register. If the head of a household of limited means is asked how many adults are living in the household, and the price of honesty is another £350, £500 or £750 per head, it will be in his interests to minimise the number of adults living in the household. We shall be back to the means test days, when inspectors came to the door and asked how many adults were living in the house. Suddenly, young people were away, staying with aunties, and people were hiding under beds and in cupboards. The price of being caught in one's own home will be the payment of hundreds of pounds more by people who cannot afford it. I do not know whether the advice of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) to get on one's bike has been accepted in reality, but it will be accepted in theory because parents will say, "No, the kids are not here; they are in London"—or Manchester or Liverpool—"looking for work."
Another aspect of this tax is that it will destroy and disrupt family life. To admit that members of the family are living at home will lead to families paying more tax. That will be the result of this family-loving Conservative Government's policies. Many people will be taken off the electoral register. In this year of grace, 1987, is it respectable for a Conservative Government to seek to diminish the electoral register by removing vast numbers of people from it? Almost by definition, they are the least able to afford the tax and therefore, almost by definition, they are the least likely to vote for the Conservative party. Even according to the Conservative party's diluted concept of democracy, is it in the interests of that democracy to proceed with this tax?
740
I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to take note of my forecast that by the end of the debates on this tax it will be abandoned because the suburban peasants who vote for the Conservative party will revolt. In Scotland, this tax was acceptable only to the 20-odd per cent. who previously voted for the Tory party. In England and Wales, the Conservative party has to avoid seriously offending 50 per cent. of the electorate if it is to make the tax a vote winner. On the basis of the Scottish experience, I confidently predict that the Government cannot do it, that they will not do it, that sooner or later they will have to retreat in bad order, and that the poll tax will disappear.
That brings me to a very important point: what is to happen to the poll tax in Scotland? In the first few days after the general election and in whatever may be the opposite of the first flush of success, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) clung to the idea that the poll tax must be implemented because it is to be legislated for in England and Wales. According to his curious logic, it would be nonsensical to implement the poll tax in one part of the United Kingdom but not to implement it in the remainder. I hope those words are firmly on record so that when the poll tax is abandoned in England and Wales it will also be abandoned in Scotland.
Under no circumstances must the poll tax be implemented in Scotland before it is implemented in the rest of the United Kingdom. If there is an undemocratic or anti-democratic attempt to impose the poll tax in Scotland before it is imposed in the rest of the United Kingdom, there will be abstention on a massive scale. There will be non-registration and non-payment on a massive scale. There will be a unity of purpose in Scotland that will flummox and bewilder those who sit on the Conservative Benches.
I have been very disappointed, though not surprised, by the reaction of Conservative Members to the outcome of the election in Scotland on 11 June. If they had had any grace, sense, or long-term vision, they would have reacted sensitively to their disastrous election result on 11 June. There has been no such generosity of spirit. Now, the ludicrous idea is that Scottish local government will he legislated for by a Committee that does not include a Scottish Office Minister. Those on the Government Benches sneer and say that because of the Union we, too, are lumbered with the status quo.
I have always supported the Union, but I do so only if it can be used as an instrument of progress. I do not want the world or this little island to be further divided up. But if the Conservative party believes that the union can survive when it is seen as the guarantor of mass unemployment and mass poverty in Scotland, if it thinks that the Union can be used as an instrument of interminable repression, it has another think coming to it. The Act of Union is written on parchment, not on tablets of stone. If the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) wants a place in the history books, let her reflect that the Falklands war will come to be regarded as a minor skirmish compared with the stigma that she will incur if, by her intransigence towards the people of Scotland, she succeeds in becoming the instrument of the destruction, after 280 years, of the Union.
6.5 pm
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: In 17 years, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have never before had the

741
opportunity to compliment an hon. Member on a maiden speech. I compliment the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) on his maiden speech. When perusing "The Oxford English Dictionary" it might be difficult to reconcile the term "non-controversial" with what he said. None the less, it was a powerful speech and it came from the heart. I look forward to hearing him speak on many other occasions, when his comments can be subjected to critical examination.
I was glad that the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to my old friend, John Corrie, who was a first-class Member of the House. We all look forward to his speedy return. Similarly, I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) on a very good maiden speech. I welcome the tribute that he paid to Richard Wainwright, who, with me, was a trustee of the parliamentary pension fund. He was a very distinguished and very hard working Member who looked after the interests of all hon. Members and tried to improve their pension arrangements.
I shall refer briefly to three issues. First, I support my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith), who referred to the muck-up by the Home Office of the postal voting arrangements. I welcome very much the attitude of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department who said that he would examine with a very flexible mind many of the points that had been made. I hope that changes will swiftly be made.
Secondly, the community charge legislation is to be welcomed and the sooner it is in force the better.
Thirdly, I wish to refer to the postal services in northwest London. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House should note that one of the purposes of this Adjournment motion debate is not to indulge in the rhetoric of major political issues, but to refer to matters that are of particular concern to our constituents. I have no knowledge of hordes of people who are anxious to read a work of fiction by a man named Peter Wright.
It is appalling that when he wrote to me the district postmaster in north-west London said that he understood and recognised that a change in the population had resulted in a substantially increased volume of mail, and that in order that particular addresses should not always have their first and only delivery, in many cases, at 12 noon, he was arranging to stagger deliveries, so that on one day their mail would be delivered at 8.30 am and on the next day it would arrive at noon. He is making everybody share the misery.
I do not criticise the postmen, who are doing a first-class job, but the management—and perhaps the union leadership—ought to realise that if there is an increase in the volume of mail their duty is to provide a service so that those who pay 18p and 13p for the delivery of their letters are provided with a proper service. The sooner that that is realised in north-west London, the better. I hope that my right hon. Friend wil convey those remarks to the chairman of the Post Office.
Last Friday my secretary posted two letters to me, not merely with the correct London postal district, but with the correct postal code. The small envelope, which was posted at 8·15 pm on Friday, arrived at my home in London NW2 on Saturday morning. That was the second letter that she had sent to me and it apologised for omitting
742
to tell me something in the first letter. The first letter did not arrive on Saturday, even though it was posted some three hours earlier, at 5·15 pm, again with the correct London postal district and postal code. Might it be that it was too large for the Post Office?
I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to take up this matter, because the larger envelope, which is supplied to us, is being delivered late, yet the smaller envelope is getting through. The Post Office must be told that this is not satisfactory to the House of Commons. As a result of the larger letter arriving late, the letters that I could have signed and posted on Saturday to arrive at my constituents' homes on Monday will not arrive until tomorrow, because I could not post them until today.
The last matter that I want to ask my right hon. Friend is whether, before the House rises for the recess, he will tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that I am becoming tired of waiting for him to take over, under the provisions of the Housing Act 1980, the functions of the London borough of Camden in respect of its right-to-buy applications. There are hundreds of cases, not scores, where Camden is in breach of its statutory duty under that Act. It is denying hundreds of my constituents their right to cease paying rent and buy their own homes. I am aware that the power exists in the Act, because I was one of the Ministers who was responsible for that legislation.
The time has long passed when Camden should be allowed to thumb its nose at the Government and the law of the land. Behind the scenes its officers are saying, "Don't worry, we know how not to provide the information". The council is refusing to fill vacancies months after they have been created, and over and over again the ordinary people are suffering. The ordinary people showed what they felt on 11 June, because the overwhelming support that I received in my constituency came from council estates where people are sick and tired of the inactivity of Camden in dealing with this matter.
Those are the points that I wish to raise with my right hon. Friend. I hope that they will be dealt with before we rise for a well-deserved summer recess.
6.12 pm
Mr. Tom Cox: I have listened to the five maiden speeches that have been made. One of the joys of being an hon. Member is that when one hears new Members making their maiden speeches one learns something about the charms and problems of the area that they represent. I am sure sure that all hon. Members will listen with great interest to their future speeches.
I should like to congratulate warmly my two hon. Friends on their maiden speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) clearly outlined why we have this enormous north-south divide. He outlined the problems that his constituents face and why in the election on 11 June there was an overwhelming vote of support for the Labour party in Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) made an outstanding speech. He spoke with great confidence and sincerity on an issue that will, without doubt, dominate the House in the coming months, The comments that he made and illustrations that he gave about the effects of the poll tax in Scotland will be of interest to every hon. Member who has not suffered from the effects of it but who has deep concerns as to its effect.

743
The issue that I should like to raise is the conditions under which men and women are kept in custody in police cells. I must tell the Leader of the House that at the present time 355 men and women are being kept in police custody because our prisons are overcrowded. If those men and women were receiving the same rights as unconvicted prisoners who are on remand in prison, there would be no need for me to speak in the debate. The conditions under which men and women are being kept are an utter disgrace in this day and age.
The rights of the Home Office to hold men and women in such conditions come from the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act 1980. I stress the word "temporary" because when that measure was introduced in 1980 a firm assurance was given by the Home Secretary, now the noble Lord Whitelaw, that those provisions would be temporary. In 1982 only 42 people were kept in police cells, but in June 1987 there were 355.
The former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), made a statement that was issued by the Home Office on 2 July 1983. It said:
"The Home Secretary, Mr. Leon Brittan, said today … he was determined to ensure that the use of police cells to hold prisoners is eliminated before the end of this year."
In a written answer the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Home Department, the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), said:
"I am conscious that it is not always possible to ensure that prisoners held in police custody receive all the entitlements that would apply if they were in prison custody and I am aware that there have been particular difficulties in relation to visits and exercise."—[Official Report, 8 May 1985; Vol. 78, c. 407.]
How true that is today, yet that statement was made over two years ago.
Sadly, the position for men and women who are being held in police cells has worsened since then. I have some comments that were made by Sue Richley, in April of this year. She is the deputy chairman of the bench at South Western magistrates' court, which is a major court in the south of London. Although it is not in my constituency, it is in the borough of which I am one of the Members. I shall not quote all that she said, but these are some of the matters to which she referred. She described the conditions that she had seen and referred to the conditions at the court in Lavender Hill and in similar cells that she had visited elsewhere in London. She said:
"These court cells were made for people to be kept in for no more than four hours while they were waiting to appear in court. Some are being held for weeks and many for several days.
There is no proper bed, just a kind of bench that pulls out from the wall on which the"
police officers
"put an old mattress …
There is no room for a chair or table or any furniture…
There are washing facilities but they are very poor…
There is nowhere for"
people
"to put their belongings. They just keep everything stored up in lots of plastic bags."
Those comments were made by a magistrate in April 1987. Wandsworth prison is in my constituency. Over the years I have visited that prison on many occasions, so I have a fair idea of what conditions should be like for people who are being held in prison. Prison standing order 8A clearly says:
744
"An unconvicted prisoner will he afforded immediate and ample facilities for communicating with his relatives, friends and legal advisers."
As well, he has the right to daily changes of clothes arid the right to have food brought in from outside by relatives or friends. That is all denied to the men and women kept in police custody.
Two of my constituents have been held in custody for four months. The wife was shunted around—the only description that I can give—for weeks from police cell to police cell. She is now held in Holloway prison. Likewise, her husband was shunted around and he is now held in police cells in Northamptonshire. His home is in my constituency in Wandsworth. When his relatives sought to visit him, they were denied access and told that visits were not allowed.
Last week I took up this matter with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). As a result of pressure, my constituent is now allowed visits once a week. For more than three months that husband and wife have been denied access to each other. They are convicted of no offence. They are in custody on remand, but that proves nothing. We all know that vast numbers of people are remanded in custody and are often acquitted and discharged. I have two letters which the Leader of the House might like to see. The husband is now on a hunger strike, protesting at the refusal by the authorities to allow him to see his wife. It is an utter disgrace that such conditions are imposed on people who have not been convicted of any offence.
Time does not permit me to outline what I think should be done. I happen to know a bit about prisons, and I disagree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). The tragedy is that far too many people are in prison. A great many should never have been put in prison. They may need some form of care, but not prison. So long as they are in police custody, constituents such as mine will suffer the basic denial of what are their rights even though they are held in custody. If my constituents were held in prison they could enjoy all those rights that are clearly stated in prison rule books.
I beg the Leader of the House to take up this matter with the Home Office. I have quoted the comments in 1983 of the former Home Secretary the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks. The position has worsened since then. There are people living in the most degarding conditions that one can imagine. They are denied access to relatives and friends. My constituents, who have been married for many years and have children, are denied their rights. This is an utter outrage and I beg the Leader of the House to do something about it, and as soon as possible, not only for my constituents, but for the many men and women also suffering under these conditions.
6.23 pm
Mr. Ian Taylor: I rise with some trepidation, as this is my maiden speech, and with some confusion about what maiden speeches should be. I have sat through this debate and many others in the short time since I became a Member thinking that maiden speeches should be uncontroversial and related to a subject pertaining to one's constituency. But it seems that that message has not got through to several Labour Members. I sat through one maiden speech this afternoon by a Labour Member feeling considerable resentment about his arrogant assumption

745
that he had a monopoly on care. Some of us have become Members because we care about people. We care deeply about the people in our constituencies. We shall not take from Labour Members in what are supposed to be uncontroversial speeches assumptions that we lack care and that they have a monopoly on it. As the hon. Gentleman who made that assumption is not here, I hope that he will read Hansard to find the depth of my feeling and, I am sure, that of many of my hon. Friends on the matter. I am sure that you will be relieved to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is the last controversial matter to which I shall refer.
I have the great honour of standing in the House as the Member for Esher. That seat has been the subject of two previous maiden speeches since the war. The last was by my predecessor, Sir Carol Mather, in 1970. He spent 17 happy years here working hard for his constituents, the last 11 as a Whip. Before entering the House Carol Mather spent 22 years serving in the Welsh Guards and, sadly, was one of the declining number of hon. Members who had a Military Cross for the services he rendered for this country in the last war. He was a heroic man. Sometimes that was not always noticed because of his quiet disposition. His service as a liaison officer to Montgomery, his capture and subsequent escape and many other incidents during the war are a tribute to him. The constituents of Esher were proud to have him as their Member for 17 years, during which he assiduously looked after their interests, never failing to take up a case and always being particularly interested in the concerns which they brought to him. As I said, this is a proud moment for me to make my first speech as his successor.
It is also a proud moment for me to mention Esher. Not everyone necessarily knows of the joys of Esher. If one drives down the A3, even perhaps slightly faster than the official speed limit, one may not necessarily notice the beauty of the countryside which lies on either side. On the section of the M25 that abuts onto the A3 to the east, one may be going too fast, finding too much other traffic or hearing too much road noise—a matter to which I draw the attention of the House—to notice the green fields and the quiet tranquility of the area. I urge those hon. Members who adopt that fast practice to see some of the lovely villages that comprise the constituency, including Thames Ditton, Claygate, Ripley, East Horsley—villages of great distinction—and perhaps to shop in Cobham, which has an ancient mill site of interest. I commend some of the fine houses in the constituency, many now looked after by the National Trust. I urge a visit to Claremont, a house with tragic associations, with the death of Lord Clive and the premature death in childbirth of Princess Charlotte. It has a more appealing interest as well in the sense that it is connected with Vanhrugh, Kent and Capability Brown—a worthy tribute to their work, especially in the gardens which are well worth the time spent away from the A3.
There are many other facets of the constituency which I should draw to the attention of the House, perhaps most notably the Royal Horticultural Society gardens at Wisley—a fine example of the way in which we in Britain can not only talk about gardens but grow them. As perhaps the world's worst gardener, I look with complete admiration at everything on display at Wisley.
746
Another aspect of my constituency that is worthy of note is the great voluntary spirit, which is part of the way of life of this country of ours. People join together to do things that the Government do not do and should not be looked to to do because they are so much better done by the community. One example of which the people of Esher are justifiably proud is the Princess Alice hospice, put together through voluntary donations and of great service to those who, sadly, need its help.
The constituency that I represent houses 62,500 electors or thereabouts who reside in parts of the boroughs of Elmbridge and Guildford. It is bounded by the river Thames, and the river Mole and the river Wey also play their part. As I said, I urge hon. Members to come and look for themselves. If they do, they will be greatly impressed by the wonderful commons, fields and farmland which make up a rural setting in close proximity to London. That is the matter to which I wish to refer today.
In an age of economic growth it is vital that we should remember how important it is to preserve the environment and thus the quality of life. If we fail in that duty now, it will be too late to try to recover the environment for the generations who come after us. The green belt around London—of course, it applies to other cities, too, but I am speaking particularly of the area that I represent—enables people to travel and find countryside rapidly. That is not possible in many other countries that I have visited. The green belt was brought in by statutory instrument in 1955 and the provisions strengthened in circular 14/84. People living in and near the areas that it affects have reason to be eternally grateful for it. There is every justification for continuing the green belt, partly because it enhances the quality of life to which I referred. We need to stop villages coalescing into one great concrete jungle and to prevent complete over-building in the south-east, which would prevent us from enjoying environmental pleasures and which would result in overcrowding and overuse of facilities and roads. Far from representing bad planning the green belt restrictions represent extremely good planning. They encourage industries to locate in other parts of the country—which many hon. Members would welcome—rather than trying to develop the green fields of the south-east. The green belt is critical for other reasons. It is one of those great environmental developments which have awakened the better spirit of people in the south-east and made them go out and work for themselves in their residents' associations and so on, to protect themselves from possible encroachment.
The green belt is a vital matter of Government concern. The green belt and threats to it lie at the very heart of the relationship between central and local government—whether the interests of the locality should take precedent. I was delighted by the statement of the Government in the previous Parliament to the effect that they would resist further encroachments into the green belt. I am especially mindful of the statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) in his previous incarnation. He made it quite clear to property developers who wished to build large and unwanted shopping complexes on green belt land that they would have to suffer the full costs of any application for appeal against local objections because there would be a presumption against such schemes. I have in mind the Elmbridge mall scheme in Esher, which many of us fervently hope will not go ahead. It is unwanted and unnecessary and will be of no advantage to the local environment. I hope that

747
Ministers' statements will be further developed into a coherent policy. That would be a good theme for the Government to pursue in this, the European Year of the Environment.
In its 1984 report the Select Committee on the Environment said: that the green belt should he sacrosanct. I endorse that view and I have already stated the reasons why. Many of my constituents are very concerned about the confusing signals which are coming from the Government and which arise out of the current process of planning appeals. There are many occasions when coherent local objections to a scheme seem to be overridden when the developer has gone to appeal, the inspector has reported and the Secretary of State has made a decision. It is important in a democratic society that we realise that this gives rise to immense frustration at local level. Where there is clearly stated local opposition to a scheme, we must ensure that there does not appear to be an imposition of a different decision from above. If the Secretary of State for the Environment has no alternative—because the statute leaves him no alternative—the Government should seriously consider whether the statutes are correct or whether they need further review. During the lifetime of this Parliament I shall push hard to make sure that the statutes say what my constituents feel they should say—that is, to give prime responsibility for such matters to local interests.
Borough councils have a major responsibility to ensure that the green belt that we are protecting is kept in good condition and does not become scrubland or run down. They have a duty to plant and maintain trees and to maintain and improve common land. They must look for sensible and sympathetic alternative uses of farm buildings so that the farmers do not have to break up their farmland into small units, which is a subject of great concern. National Government have a responsibility in this respect also. We need to consider rural planning policies in view of the development pressure and movement of people and industries in the south-east. If developers could not hope to override local interests by going to appeal to the Secretary of State, that could reduce the speculative purchase of land by developers who think that, if they keep trying, ultimately they will win.
Many property developers are ingenious men with a great deal of willpower. If they were told that there would never be an opportunity for them to have land banks in the green belt—because they would never be given the right to develop them—they might turn their ingenuity, enthusiasm and financial acumen to some of our inner-city areas and derelict land. That happens to be a crucial and highly welcome plank of this Government's policies. It is a major part of the Queen's Speech. For the Government to establish this central platform for their current legislation, it is vital for them never to reduce the controls on the green belt and to ensure that, by removing hope from the developers, they also remove some of the pressure which is causing people so much concern.
This matter goes to the heart of some of our debates, and especially the debate between central and local government. I commend the green belt issue to the House. It has a wide interest for those of us who fervently believe in the environmental matters which are so important to our way of life and our quality of life. It will be a major part of our forthcoming debates on issues which may, at first sight, not appear to be directly relevant to it.
6.40 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: It falls to me to congratulate the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) on his maiden speech. He showed us that he has an encyclopaedic knowledge of his constituency and did a fine job as an advocate of tourism in the area. He also paid a fine tribute to his predecessor in the House.
I shall speak only briefly because of the limited time available to me. My remarks are addressed essentially to the Government, but they also have implications for members of the official Opposition. How will the Government and the official Opposition respond to the fact that the Government have no mandate to rule in Scotland? I remind the House that, of the 72 Members of Parliament from Scotland, 62 sit on the Opposition Benches and only 10 on the Government Benches. Despite consistent pressure since the State Opening of Parliament and throughout the debate on the Loyal Address, there has been no positive response from the Government on how they will handle Scottish affairs or respond to the election results north of the border.
The issue has been exercising the minds of people not only in the House but in the media in Scotland. The issues have not only been mentioned by Opposition Members. There has been pressure from the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who said:
"It is commonly said that we must remain a united kingdom … The parrot cry that we must just have a united kingdom bears no relationship to the reality of modern times."—[Official Report, 2 July 1987; Vol. 118, c. 666.]
The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) said:
"I have to say that I do not easily entertain the prospect of going through this Parliament assuming that we shall continue the present basis for Scottish affairs without consideration."—[Official Report, 30 June 1987; Vol. 118, c. 398.]
Both right hon. Members urged that attention be paid to the Scottish dimension.
Added to this, last week the Government found themselves in a dilemma when looking for Members to serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Three of the five Conservative Members who were available to serve on that Committee refused to do so. That may have left the Government in a dilemma, but it has left Scotland with a major problem. The work of Ministers should come under effective scrutiny from Back-Bench Members. If we do not have a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs because Government Members refuse to serve on it, there are plenty of Opposition Members prepared to serve on such a Committee to ensure that legislation is subjected to the scrutiny that it needs. It is not as though there were not enough issues for the Select Committee to discuss. We must consider the Government of Scotland itself; the prospect of nuclear dumping; the future of Ravenscraig; the prospect of many of our industries being taken over; the dilemma of the whisky industry in the wake of the Guinness takeover; the problems of agriculture and fishing; and, not least, the poll tax.
It would be wrong for the House to adjourn until the Government gave us clear guidance on how they will respond to the election results in Scotland. It is not good enough to ask Scottish Members to return to their constituencies during the recess unable to say, "We will ensure that these issues are raised in the House through the appropriate channels." The Government seem to be unwilling to establish a Select Committee.

749
The official Opposition in Scotland also have a major responsibility. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) leads a band of 50. The people of Scotland have given a mandate to the Labour party, and we ask the Labour party to take a clear initiative on this. Or, as is predicted in some newspapers in Scotland, will it be no action yet again from the Labour party, but only oratory? The hon. Member for Garscadden may laugh, but the Labour party is looking constantly over its shoulder at the concept of independence as propounded by the Scottish National party. The Labour party in Scotland has already had eight years to deliver the Scottish people from the Government's economic policies, but they have failed signally to do so. Another four years of similarly inept opposition will be rejected by the people of Scotland at the next general election. The Labour party is equally on trial.
6.46 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: This is my first opportunity to tell the new Leader of the House how glad I am to see him in that role and how much I hope that he will enjoy it. He more than anyone will appreciate the difficulty of following the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who was held in genuine affection by hon. Members on both sides of the House and whose humour and eloquence of phrase dominated much of the previous Parliament.
Today we have heard a series of excellent maiden speeches. The debate lends itself to such speeches, and all the hon. Members who spoke today did great credit to themselves and to their constituents.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) was fortunate to be the first to be put out of her misery. Although I was not in the Chamber to hear her speech—I was attending a meeting—I understand that she can preserve for her memoirs a unique commendation from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who described her speech as formidable. Although my right hon. Friend is a controversial figure in the House, he is also recognised as a master of the parliamentary arts, and such a comment from him must mean that the hon. Lady's speech was well worth listening to.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) made an extremely articulate and good maiden speech. He was extremely gracious in his remarks about a friend whom we were sorry to see leaving the House. As he said, Alf Dubs is an extremely nice man of great diligence who looked after his constituents assiduously. The hon. Gentleman claimed that Battersea was the original yuppie land. It is the normal tradition in the House to try to find something nice to say about one's constituency! But I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's contribution and look forward to hearing from him again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) made a wide-ranging maiden speech which was a mixture of humour and conviction. He paid tribute to a dear friend of mine and of yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hugh Brown entered the House at the same time as we did, and the House will miss him sorely. My hon. Friend's speech was hardly non-controversial, but, as we heard about the problems of his constituency, we understood why he thought he needed to speak in that way. He mentioned the problems of the poll tax. I share his
750
incredulity that, having drawn the correct conclusion that the present tax system is wrong, the Government decided to put in its place something that is unfairer and more difficult to defend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Provan mentioned fluoridation. That issue gave rise to some strange coalitions across the Floor of the House during the previous Parliament. I remember the many bitter opponents of fluoridation fighting well into the night on the issue. I wish that we had had an extra ally and an extra vote then. It is interesting that fluoridation was considered outside the context of the possible privatisation of the water system. One is bound to wonder how the decision making that is left to the water authorities at the moment will be handled and whether the indemnification that has been given to the public bodies will still exist for private organisations.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) made a maiden speech in which he referred to Richard Wainwright, his predecessor as a respected Member. That certainly is the case. Richard and I were both made Privy Councillors on the same day and I have always felt great friendship and affection for him. I was glad to hear the hon. Member speak of him as he did. I understand that the constituency has never had a Conservative Member of Parliament. That is one record that I am rather sorry to see broken, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate. As far as I can gather from his speech, it seems that his constituents spend half their lives in support of hounds pursuing all the poor wretched animals in his constituency. He made an impassioned plea for blood sports, although, after listening to the later part of his speech, I could not help thinking that he wanted to replace the fox with the planners.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) made a singularly articulate speech. It was controversial but very effective and very powerful. He spoke with as little affection of the poll tax as did my hon. Friend the Member for Provan. The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) spoke with pride of his membership of the House. I say quite genuinely that I hope it is a pride that he carries however long he stays in the House. I think the Leader of the House would say the same as myself. I have been here 23 years and whenever I walk into the Chamber I think that it is a unique privilege and a unique honour. Having a marginal seat, I am always delighted when I am re-elected, to my incredulity, at successive elections. What he said was appreciated on all sides of the House. He made an impassioned plea for the preservation of the green belt, which I am sure will strike many a reflective chord in his constituency. I am glad to see that we have someone who intends to set out to become the terror of the developers in the new Parliament.
The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) is, if she will excuse the phrase, a recycled Member. It is good to see her back and to hear her speak again. I think she will not be offended if I say that I almost recognised some of her phrases. I am quite sure that she will be as combative and active as she was when she was previously here. I look forward to her further speeches.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) referred to the voting shambles. It certainly sounded that, and it merits a proper investigation. It is interesting to note that there is another form of disfranchisement that has also inadvertently taken place. A consequence of the bed and breakfast legislation,

751
unintended as it was, is that a lot of youngsters are moving around so frequently that there is now a virtual disfranchised army of should-be young voters. It is a quite serious problem that I expect every hon. Member has encountered. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) made a very effective constituency speech. His indictment of the attitude of the Home Office on immigration, when he said that if one can prove that one does not want to come here it is willing to let one in, was effectively made.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) referred to the issue that we discussed earlier today—the Wright book and the way in which it has been handled by the Government. The Leader of the House knows that a feeling I have had for a long time and which I have repeated frequently is that it is a matter of great disbelief to me that here in this mother of Parliaments we can have a Prime Minister, Law Officers and even Government Back Benchers who are utterly disinterested that there was an attempt to organise a coup to overthrow an elected Government. I find that bewildering and more than slightly worrying.
I was deeply disturbed to hear earlier today that the Librarian of the House has been told that he must not hold a copy of the Wright book. We hope to pursue that further because the Librarian takes his instructions from the Speaker via the appropriate committee, and purely through that route. The Committee and the Chairman do not exist. As the Speaker was unaware of any such instruction having been given, we want to know who told the Librarian that he is not to hold a copy of a book which any of our constituents travelling to America will be able to buy and probably bring back, but which Members of Parliament arc to be denied the opportunity to read.
Despite all the arguments that my hon. Friends put forward for our not going on recess in a fortnight's time, I am very much looking forward to that opportunity.
6.55 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): We have had a wide-ranging debate, in which many points have been raised, and I will do my best briefly to answer as many as I can. If there are any specific points that I do not answer, I will certainly write to the hon. Member who raised the point.
As this is the first Adjournment debate for a number of years that has not been led either in person or in proxy by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), it would be wrong of me not to say how much Government Members appreciated his courtesy. He is a formidable parliamentary orator. He had a distinguished Front Bench career over 20 years and we will miss him from the Front Bench. However, I have no doubt that he will make his presence felt in many ways in the years to come.
As the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said, we have had six maiden speeches—three from the Government side and three from the Opposition side. I am sure that all who made their maiden speeches today can be well pleased. They made vigorous and forceful speeches. There was nothing stereotyped about any of them. Each hon. Member spoke from his or her constituency point of view about things they felt very concerned about. Their constituencies can be proud of the way that they have started their parliamentary careers.
752
We heard first the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). She made her constituency sound very attractive to me. I have to sail my boat to where I want to go on holiday, and from where my boat is situated at present the 88 days of the summer recess will not get me around to Argyll. However, I am tempted to do it in two stints—this year and next year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) made a very effective speech. I have known my hon. Friend for many years and I am delighted to see him in the House. I know that he will make many more speeches. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) spoke well and with sincerity about things that he feels passionately about. Having been the Chief Whip when the Fluoridation Bill went through, I hope that he does not take it amiss that I am glad that he was not around in those days to cause us additional problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) certainly made a very effective speech about the opportunities and problems in his constituency. He spoke about the difficulties that many of his constituents and businesses have with planning controls. I am delighted that he found time in his speech to make a reference to field sports.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) made an impassioned and effective speech. We shall certainly listen to his future contributions with added respect.
The predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), Sir Carol Mather, and I spent many years together and, I might add, many nights together in the Whips Office. He is one of my dearest friends. My hon. Friend made an effective speech, in which he talked about the problems of the process and the interaction of central and local government and of the problems of the green belt. I look forward to more contributions from him in the future.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) raised the subject of the Peter Wright book, as did the right hon. Member for Swansea, West. It is wrong to say that the Government do not take this matter extremely seriously. I advise anybody who has any doubts about that to look at the comprehensive statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 6 May 1987. That set out in great detail the position the Government have taken and what has been done in the way of investigating the claims. I do not want to add any more than that except to say that it is not true to say it was not dealt with carefully and with a great deal of trouble. However, I should remind the House that in the New South Wales proceedings the Government are seeking to uphold the lifelong duty of confidentiality that is owed by all members of the security services, present or former, to preserve the confidentiality in respect of matters arising from their work. unless authorised to publish. That is an important principle and I believe that the Government are right to do everything in their power to seek to uphold it.
Mr. Alan Williams: If it is so important to uphold that principle in Australia, why is it not important to uphold the same principle in the United States?
Mr. Wakeham: The Government's legal advisers will advise on what to do. It is not for me to comment any further on the matter except to say that the Government will take all steps possible to preserve that principle.

753
The question as to whether the book should be put in the Library is a matter for Mr. Speaker and not the Government. It must ultimately be for the House to decide these matters if there is any difficulty.
Mr. Winnick: Is it possible for the Leader of the House to use his good offices to try to ensure that there is a statement on the position arising from the fact that the book is being published in America and will be freely available for anyone who comes in from the United States? Could we have a statement this week on that aspect?
Mr. Wakeham: I will look at that matter, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any encouragement to think that there will be a further statement from the Government this week on that aspect.
My hon. Friends the Members for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) and for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) raised the matter of postal voting. I know that the Home Secretary is concerned about that. I know that he is looking into it and I will see that the points raised are referred to him.
I know that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) is in contact with the Home Secretary. I heard his speech and I recognise the careful and sincere way in which he put the points of his constituents. I can do no more than say that I will refer his remarks and the way in which he made them to the Home Secretary to see whether anything can he done to assist his constituents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate raised other matters concerning the size of envelopes and the postal service. I shall refer the matter of the postal service generally to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I will see that the chairman of the Post Office knows about it. I feel that I should look into the matter of envelopes for the House of Commons myself and I shall certainly see what can be done. I shall refer the disturbing information about Camden and the difficulties my hon. Friend's constituents have over the right to buy to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) showed a great knowledge of the problems of his constituents. He clearly knows a great deal about the way in which the police service and custody should be organised in this country. What he said caused me some concern. He has courteously sent me correspondence so that I can see that the Home Secretary has the matters immediately in hand and will write to him to give him any information he can.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 22.

Division No. 15]

[7.04 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Beith, A. J.

Alton, David

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Amess, David

Benyon, W.

Amos, Alan

Bevan, David Gilroy

Arbuthnot, James

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Ashby, David

Boswell, Tim

Atkinson, David

Bottomley, Peter

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Baldry, Tony

Bowis, John

Batiste, Spencer

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

754

Brazier, Julian

Knapman, Roger

Bright, Graham

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

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

Knowles, Michael

Browne, John (Winchester)

Lang, Ian

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Lawrence, Ivan

Buck, Sir Antony

Lee, John (Pendle)

Burns, Simon

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Burt, Alistair

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Butcher, John

Lilley, Peter

Butler, Chris

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Butterfill, John

Lord, Michael

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Maclean, David

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Madel, David

Carrington, Matthew

Malins, Humfrey

Carttiss, Michael

Mans, Keith

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Marlow, Tony

Chapman, Sydney

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Chope, Christopher

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

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

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Mates, Michael

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Maude, Hon Francis

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Cope, John

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Couchman, James

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Cran, James

Miller, Hal

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Mills, Iain

Curry, David

Miscampbell, Norman

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

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Day, Stephen

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Devlin, Tim

Moore, Rt Hon John

Dorrell, Stephen

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Dover, Den

Moss, Malcolm

Durant, Tony

Neubert, Michael

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Nicholls, Patrick

Fallon, Michael

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Favell, Tony

Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Paice, James

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Pawsey, James

Fookes, Miss Janet

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Forman, Nigel

Porter, David (Waveney)

Forth, Eric

Portillo, Michael

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Price, Sir David

Fox, Sir Marcus

Raffan, Keith

Franks, Cecil

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Freeman, Roger

Rathbone, Tim

French, Douglas

Redwood, John

Gardiner, George

Rhodes James, Robert

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Gill, Christopher

Riddick, Graham

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Roe, Mrs Marion

Gorst, John

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Gow, Ian

Rowe, Andrew

Gower, Sir Raymond

Sackville, Hon Tom

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Ground, Patrick

Shaw, David (Dover)

Grylls, Michael

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Harris, David

Shersby, Michael

Hayward, Robert

Sims, Roger

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Hind, Kenneth

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Holt, Richard

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

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

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Howells, Geraint

Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Steen, Anthony

Hunter, Andrew

Stern, Michael

Jack, Michael

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Janman, Timothy

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Jessel, Toby

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Summerson, Hugo

Kirkhope, Timothy

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Kirkwood, Archy

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

755

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wells, Bowen

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Wheeler, John

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Thorne, Neil

Wiggin, Jerry

Thurnham, Peter

Wilkinson, John

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Wilshire, David

Tracey, Richard

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Tredinnick, David

Winterton, Nicholas

Twinn, Dr Ian

Wolfson, Mark

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Wood, Timothy

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Yeo, Tim

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Walden, George

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wallace, James

Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Richard Ryder.

Waller, Gary

Watts, John

NOES

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Madden, Max

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Mullin, Chris

Corbyn, Jeremy

Nellist, Dave

Cox, Tom

Pike, Peter

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Skinner, Dennis

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Wall, Pat

Hardy, Peter

Livingstone, Ken

Tellers for the Noes:

Macdonald, Calum

Mr. Bob Cryer and

McTaggart, Bob

Mr. Harry Barnes

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 24th July, do adjourn until Wednesday 21st October.

Orders of the Day

  Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(1) (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Benyon.]

  British Broadcasting Corporation
  7.16 pm
  Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: It is an honour and a pleasure to introduce the debate upon the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. Although I have done so once before, far more frequently during my parliamentary career I have laboured on during the watches of the night. Therefore, it is a fair reward for a "Consolidated Funder" that, on occasions, he gets to speak at 7.16 pm. I shall speak on a subject about which I care very much and in which I have absolutely no interest whatsoever to declare other than a strong belief in the British Broadcasting Corporation and—perhaps even more important—a strong belief in its capacity to play a formidable role in the British interest abroad. The importance of satellite television in general and satellite television news in particular is recognised in all parts of the House. In a few moments, I shall refer to certain early-day motions that were tabled only a few months ago during the final stages of the last Parliament.
  Satellite television news is a fact of life. All concerned with it recognise it to be the way of the future. Various concerns in various countries are rapidly expanding into satellite television, whereas we are patiently waiting. We have to, because the BBC has no option but to approach the Government in the matter. It is not a matter of going cap in hand; it is an approach that has to be made. Although other countries are expanding satellite television, we are patiently waiting for a Government decision.
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been considering the matter. I appreciate that it is complicated and that policy questions are involved. That is one of the reasons I raise the matter now. I hope that it will be an additional spur to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and his right hon. and hon. colleagues to consider matters that are important to the national interest with all due speed. My hon. Friend's Department has been aware of the matter since November 1986. As the months go by—one cannot help but think that a year will soon pass—matters get more and more difficult for BBC external services as others are beginning, continuing and developing satellite television. It is no excuse for Government to say—as my hon. Friend says, it is not for me to anticipate his contribution—that they want details on this or that. So far, since the submission of the matter in November 1986, the Foreign and

  757
  Commonwealth Office having known of the matter for many months before that, there has been no reaction other than to ask for details.
  The demand for a decision, as I have said, is within the knowledge, and I hope has the support, of the House. Two early-day motions were tabled—of course, I had a lot to do with them—in the last stages of the last Parliament in only April of this year. Both those motions were interlinked and together give a measure of Back-Bench support—not just Conservative Back-Bench support—for a decision on this matter.
  Early-day motion 846 was tabled during the previous Parliament with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), myself and others as principal signatories. It stressed the urgency of the overall situation. It made no mention of the BBC, but drew the Government's attention to the fast expansion that was taking place in satellite television. It urged the Government to declare support for a United Kingdom programme of satellite television news. I repeat that that motion made no mention of the BBC. It was a totall Conservative motion, put down on 3 April 1987, and by 15 May, when the House was already up and we were about to fight the general election, it had gathered 145 signatues. Those 145 Conservative signatures represented more than half of those on the Conservative Benches who can sign early-day motions. I ask the Minister to take note of that.
  Early-day motion 852 was put down by me and was an all-party motion. It was tabled several days after the previous motion, but by 15 May it had gathered 224 signatories from all parts of the House. If we include an amendment, which was not unfriendly, that motion had 230 supporters in all. It was a BBC motion and it overtly urged the Government to allow the BBC to proceed with satellite television news as soon as possible. In other words, it urged the Government to make up their mind. Of the 224 signatories to that motion, it is perhaps educative for my hon. Friend if I put it on record that there were 118 Conservative signatures, 90 Labour signatures, 12 alliance signatures and four others.
  If this matter is raised again, it is important for my hon. Friend to realise the support from all sides of the House for a decision on this matter. The 118 Conservative supporters represented almost all the 145 who had signed the motion that made no mention of the BBC. I sent out letters to exactly the same people who had signed the first motion, asking for their support for early-day motion 852, and only 27 declined overtly to support the BBC. There is a lesson for us from those early-day motions.
  The present situation is that satellite television and satellite television news is a fact of life. Equally, it is also a fact that a formidable American lead has been built up. Such a lead is not automatically attractive to everybody, not least the Third world, that would, perhaps, like something a little different and a little more balanced. Let me run through those who are engaged in satellite television news. Cable News Network, CNN, is marketing its 24-hour news service all over the world. Columbia Broadcasting System is marketing its evening news in Europe. National Broadcasting Company is selling its "Today" programme to Australia and is marketing its news programme on European cable. Independent
  758
  Television News—this debate is not, in any way, an occasion to criticise ITN—is in Europe via Superchannel.
  Good luck to ITN, but my message to the Front Bench is to let the BBC in as well. It is wrong that the BBC should be kept out because of its structure and charter. However, I applaud ITN's efforts and the fact that it is marketing a European news programme on the Superchannel. That programme is directed for a commercial return. An important point to bear in mind is that ITN, in common with others, is not making much money at the moment. However, it is investing in the future and it is a commercial future. Indeed, for everyone concerned except for the BBC it is a commercial venture.
  ITN has linked hands with the mighty American Broadcasting Corporation to form World Television News and is planning a 24-hour cable satellite news service. Again, that will be a commerical undertaking. Those are commercial undertakings, but another important category we should not forget is Government—offered free services. Among our European partners, the French are already seriously considering that option with regard to Francophone countries. Bearing in mind France's track record on cultural diplomacy and its expenditure on such matters, I have no doubt that the French will pursue that option. The United States Information Agency has a free service in operation on the Worldnet service for news on television via satellite. That news is available to anyone, anywhere, who can take satellite television. However, an important point to consider is that there is a third category, a unique category—the BBC.
  Although the BBC may be dependent upon Government for its finances, the whole essence of the BBC is that it is independent of Government when it comes to its broadcasts. It is a unique category, so it should be treated with all due respect and consideration.
  The importance of satellite television has been recognised. It is vital for international communication, commerce and information. In many respects, information equals influence. I happen to believe—I trust that it is not a jingoistic, nationalistic comment to make—that this country has an influence for good. That influence should be displayed across the world, if only the Minister and his Department would allow the BBC to exert that influence.
  With regard to the development of satellite television there is a demand—it will become apparent—for the BBC to enter this area. Although the BBC is not in the game at the moment, and although it has not seriously marketed a project, there have already been many favourable approaches. ITN is already in the game, quite rightly so; it can go out and sell something. It has taken every opportunity, via the newspapers, to inform us of the progress it has made. However, the BBC has its hands firmly tied behind its back. The BBC could sign up 10 countries tomorrow. Indeed, 20 other countries have made it clear that they would want the service, but they would be unable to pay in whole or in part for the service.
  That problem brings us to the realm of public service broadcasting in the international context. The BBC will, if it is allowed, quickly expand. There is an enormous potential for the BBC within the Third world, where the news service is much wanted. I believe—I do not want to embarrass my hon. Friend; indeed, I am sure that he

  759
  will smile—that there is considerable support for what I am saying within his Department. I trust that I am not being too optimistic about that.
  There are difficulties—piracy, censorship and so on—but we must make a start. We must endeavour to create the demand. We already have examples to prove that that demand is there. I was amused by the German example. East Germany, and in particular East Berlin, can get West German television. When the East German Government considered their position, such was the demand from the rest of East Germany to receive West German television that the Government had to make arrangements to supply that service throughout East Germany. Therefore, virtually all that country receives the television broadcasts from the Federal Republic.
  We have encouraging signs from the Soviet Union thanks to Mr. Gorbachev and what he is endeavouring to do under the policy of so-called openness. It is no accident that, as part of that policy, Western leaders have been allowed to appear on Soviet television. That development is extremely relevant when we discuss satellite television news. Those Western leaders have been allowed to say exactly what they want, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Before my right hon. Friend went to Moscow, the BBC Russian service was unjammed. Shortly after my right hon. Friend returned from Moscow, the Voice of America was unjammed. I am not attempting to suggest that the Voice of America is a blinding example of neutrality, but it is now being transmitted into the Soviet Union.
  The possibilities are enormous. The future is beyond the satellite and the take-up of satellites by national networks and cable. The future will be the age of the dish. I have seen a few dishes and I appreciate what they are like. I have seen them sitting on top of the odd school. However, in general, such dishes are for the rich and the ingenious. It is surprising how many people, even now, are endeavouring to make them and the number who, within a short period and in various countries, will make them. It is no accident that the USIA, with its Worldnet publications that are associated with the service, is publicising how to "do it yourself" and make a dish. Of course, that body wants people in many different countries to have dishes and to listen in.
  The impact of satellite for the future is being seriously considered in the Eastern bloc and in many Communist countries. I believe that there was an article in Pravda quite recently that went into this in some detail, so seriously does the Soviet Union take this matter.
  A matter of vital concern are the qualifications that the BBC needs to participate. Hon. Members are aware of many of the arguments and I intend to run through them reasonably swiftly. Lord Reith began external broadcasting on the radio 55 years ago, so the BBC has 55 years' experience of external international broadcasting. Incidentally, as my hon. Friend knows, Lord Reith could not get the money either. However, he was able to raid his own funds to get the money, but that cannot be done now because of the structure. The licence fee cannot be raided.
  I hesitate to say it, and I hope that it is not now true, but the Government then—I hope not now—did not have the imagination to appreciate what we now realise was one of the most remarkable feats of external broadcasting in the world. The external services give the BBC's efforts credibility and their audience has been built
  760
  up to 125 million. When travelling, we have all encountered people hurrying out of rooms and from under the so-called palm tree to listen to it.
  That credibility has been achieved at the price of discomfort from time to time. I give one relevant example, about which one or two people, inside and outside Government, have been concerned. Many people say that the Iran revolution was brought on by the BBC's external services. I think that I am entitled—with, as the Minister knows, an Iranian wife who had a considerable stake in the ancient regime there and whose family had to flee that country because of the revolution—to make it clear to the House that those accusations against the BBC are untrue. The BBC spoke the truth. Enormous pressure was put on it. In my humble way, I, with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), was asked by the then Iranian embassy to go over the scripts at the BBC. We did that. However, my hon. Friend, with his previous journalistic experience, and I, with knowledge of Iran, could not find anything wrong. I might add that I did more than reading scripts, because I followed the matter in some detail for many months. It is wrong to think that, because the BBC speaks the truth, it should be accused of bringing somebody down. How much worse it would have been had the BBC not spoken the truth, but the Government in Iran had fallen anyway—as, I am sad to say, was probable.
  As for the BBC's qualifications and readiness, it has the appropriate structure in place. It has the experience that it has gained in radio. It has more foreign correspondents than any other organisation engaged in this enterprise. As I have said, it also has tradition and credibility. It has the news resources and the backing of Television Centre, wit h all its expertise.
  On cost and timing, I hope my hon. Friends will sympathise and agree that the sort of money that we are discussing will hardly break the bank. I advise my hon. Friend that it is not a question of the BBC coming cap in hand or demanding more and more money or saying that, because it is part of the public sector, we, the great strong Government, cannot give it the money for which it asks. Satellite television will involve considerable returns and considerable profits will increasingly be available. I dare say that from time to time one would have to sort out the balance between the BBC's public service element and the profitable activities that will be available to it. The capital costs will be £1·4 million, and £7·8 million per annum will be required to run it on the basis of a five-day service with all possible economies. Obviously, a seven-day service would be more expensive: indeed, one could spend more money on the whole thing if one wished.
  We should remember that at the moment nobody is making money out of satellite television but at least the private sector is offering a loss leader and is considering the future. However, the hands of the BBC are tied firmly behind its back in its efforts to get in on the same thing. The income offset at the end of the second year is estimated to be about £2 million, which will increase as developments are made. Satellite television can be on the air in six months and fully operational in one year.
  I refer now to the BBC's overall position and to the arguments against it. The BBC is different, if not unique—I have used that word before—because it is not a commercial operation. It is a public corporation and must

  761
  conduct itself according to its charter, which does not permit it to put up venture capital or to do anything that its competitors in this area—rightly—can do.
  As hon. Members know, the BBC's external services are funded somewhat differently from the BBC overall. They are funded by Her Majesty's Government through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. There is no way in which the BBC's external services can touch the licence fee. Therefore, by their creation and existence, they become dependent on the Government. They need Government consent even to borrow. I do not suggest that they should borrow money for what I see as a public service broadcasting operation in the interests of the country.
  We are grateful to my hon. Friend for the level of BBC external funding and I am sure that he will tell us how generous the Government have been to the BBC's external services. We are all looking forward to hearing the facts and figures. The level of external funding for the BBC is about £114 million. The overall increases, about which my hon. Friend will tell us, have been extremely welcome and, as he knows, much is capital expenditure for the audibility programme. However, my recent experiences suggest that the BBC's external services could be a little more audible still. Many things are more audible than the BBC's external services as anybody knows who has struggled to receive them. Similarly, anybody who has visited Bush House knows that it is not a plush operation, and nobody pretends that it is.
  I remind my hon. Friend of something that happened in, I believe, November 1983. The increases in expenditure have become broadly acceptable—there have been no rebellions in the Chamber in the shape of votes—but they were achieved after one of the biggest Conservative Back-Bench revolts on foreign affairs, when no fewer than 60 of my hon. Friends, including every officer of the Back-Bench Foreign and Commonwealth Committee, either abstained or voted against the Government. It was miraculous to see the effect that that had. I warn my hon. Friend that there could be similar goings-on unless, with his usual sensitive responsiveness, he urges the Foreign Secretary to take action on this matter, in conjunction with the Prime Minister.
  As I have mentioned, the BBC is not a Government information service. Unlike USIA, and Voice of America, the BBC is vigorously independent; that is why it is trusted. The BBC represents the concept of public service broadcasting. We accept the BBC nationally. Although it has had its critics from time to time, the nation does accept that it embodies the concept of public service broadcasting. Thus, the fundamental argument is that it is utterly wrong to prevent the BBC from doing what it is best created, suited and fitted to do internationally on a public service basis, provided that one can sustain its qualifications—which, in my view, are easy to sustain. There is also the fact that it has an obvious role internationally.
  I said that I would mention a few of the general policy arguments against the BBC. Her Majesty's Government must consider these as part of their policy considerations. This is a vital area for the future status and role of the United Kingdom and will approximate what radio has achieved with the switching on of short-wave sets and so on. It is the Government's duty to act in our best interests. We would all agree with that. We have a unique
  762
  international asset in the BBC. Moreover, any course of governmental action other than to allow the BBC to go ahead with what it has been created to do would throw that considerable national asset away. With that background to the decision, I shall deal with one or two of the policy options and considerations.
  One argument, particularly from those who do not like the BBC, is: "Leave it all to the private sector and free enterprise. We do not like the BBC, so stuff it and let ITN proceed." The name ITN would be a bit of a mystery in the middle of some desert, for all the distinguished luminaries who broadcast on it. While such a course may save taxpayers' money, it would throw away our best national asset and limit the United Kingdom in this important area to an ultimately commercial approach.
  The second argument, which is often raised by independent television companies, is, "It is unfair to create subsidised competition for ITN and the private sector." It is fair to say that the whole existence of the BBC has been and is subsidised. It already competes with ITV and ITN here and all over the world, subsidised or unsubsidised. Surely the overriding argument must be for the maximum use of available credibility in the national interest.
  The third argument is, "If there is Government money going, let's have a jolly good tender. Everyone can come galloping along and tender, including the BBC, and then doubtless we in the private sector can outbid it and will have all this lovely Government money which otherwise would go to the BBC." That is somewhat unnecessary, because ITN is already proceeding with its allies in this area and has money to lose from the private sector. We can all clap at that and wish it good luck. That argument also ignores the concept of public service broadcasting for those who most need the news. We have a clear duty in both their and our national interests to transmit news to those who cannot always pay for it.
  Some people say, "Let's have a joint effort with ITN and the BBC." That is wholly impracticable. They already compete all over the world, ITN is already proceeding with this and there is the whole question of editorial control and advertising. Such a suggestion is not on; it is a general nightmare.
  The final position at the end of the day is that we need a decision soon. We have the BBC and we must use it. This matter is crying out for action and Ministers are placed by us to deliver action. That is why many of my hon. Friends and many hon. Members feel so strongly about this. I do not suggest for a moment that the motives behind Government decisions are anything but altruistic, but if any dogma were to creep into this decision the country would not forgive the Government and many people, rightly, would take a dim view.
  Fundamentally, we accept public service broadcasting nationally and it is utterly wrong to prevent it from performing its obvious international role. The BBC has no option but to come to the Government for assistance and it is doing so. It needs to get started in a vital industry of the future. It is about time the Minister recognised the qualifications and arguments and let the BBC get on with it.
  7.44 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The evidence of the BBC external services to the fourth Foreign Affairs Select Committee on cultural diplomacy included a complaint that in the past the external services

  763
  had been in receipt of nothing more than avuncular pats-on-the-shoulder commendation during debates in this House. Nobody who reads the speech just made by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) can accuse him of that. I agree with much of what he said. He made a powerful case for the BBC fairly, properly, and in a forthright manner. He laid the question about the future of the BBC TV service fairly and squarely at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office door. I hope that the Minister will provide an answer.
  Perhaps we are not addressing the question to the proper Minister, but I hope that we shall have an early decision from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I suspect that, in his heart of hearts, the Minister is sympathetic to the BBC case and has the same hopes and aspirations as the hon. Member for Leominster and that the real sticking point will in reality arrive when the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury and other Treasury Ministers consider the financial implications of the proposal. I hope that will not be the case in this urgent, important decision. If the Treasury uses its usual cost-benefit analysis procedures, it will follow the wrong path in assessing what the external services of the BBC can provide in terms of satellite televised news systems and the work that it already does on radio.
  With the forbearance of the House I shall rehearse the arguments for the existing radio external services. I would hate to think that in these times of financial constraints—and I do not deny that they are real—the money that is required for the televised news service should be supplied at the expense of any existing radio programmes produced by the BBC external services. There is an argument for further development of the radio system already provided by the external services and the valuable monitoring services at Caversham and elsewhere.
  There may well be 730 million television sets in the world, but there are 1,600 million transistor radio sets and we must not ignore that audience. The needs of the radio service are as urgent as ever, and there is plenty of potential for developing the technical services. I am worried that large parts of the eastern USSR, Latin America and North America still find it difficult to hear the existing radio services broadcast by the BBC. To increase the audibility of such broadcasts will cost money, but it would be money well spent if it was decided to devote resources in that direction.
  The number of hours that are broadcast by radio through the external services has decreased since the second world war from 850 to 732 hours per week and the number of countries to which we broadcast has decreased from 45 to 37. Since the war there has been a decrease both in the number of hours of broadcasting each week and in the languages covered. I regret that. The most recent cut, in 1981–82, which reduced the number of languages from 40 to 37, was regrettable and bad in terms of cost effectiveness as it saved only about £1·5 million.
  There is a genuine case to be made for starting up a language service to Korea and for extending the Pashto and Tamil services, the Arabic service in north Africa and the Spanish service in Latin America. A real argument can be made on any kind of objective analysis for extending the present external services. Also, there is a real need to extend our present radio and TV communications to Third-world countries in the southern hemisphere.
  The Minister will be aware that I have a particular interest in overseas development. Three billion of the
  764
  world's population of 5 billion live in Third-world countries. By and large they are poor, a high proportion of them are young people, and most of them believe that they are exploited by the north. That amounts to a potentially explosive situation over the middle to longer term whether regarding international trade, the development of the world economy or in any other area of international relations. The World Service as presently constituted must be extended. We all have stories of the influence of the radio service. The World Service has a proven record, and the hon. Member for Leominster articulated that record eloquently and properly. He described the generous ways in which the BBC considers problems faced by Third-world countries. The news and information services in many of those countries are severely hobbled in many ways by their Governments or by technical constraints.
  I know that the Minister is familiar with the arguments about UNESCO, as one of his first duties was to try to sort out the problems. I understand that there arc real problems, but I do not share the Government's views about UNESCO. However, the UNESCO ideas about the new world information order were a symptom of the fact that there is real and rooted prejudice in some of our sister western countries' broadcasting services which are monopolising the airwaves in the Third world. That is not generally a criticism made of the BBC external services which have a reputation for independence and a programming policy that is substantially and positively development oriented.
  We must not ignore the work carried out by the external radio services in the Pacific basin, India, Brazil, or any of the other vastly important areas. I am wholeheartedly in favour of the arguments deployed by the hon. Member for Leominister, but I do not want that argument to proceed or that service to develop at the expense of the continuing development of the radio services provided by the BBC's external services.
  I want now to consider the television proposal. I fully support the argument that has been deployed, but I do not want to reiterate what has been said. I believe that the proposal is no new development, although in technical terms the hardware and transmitters that will be necessary are new. I consider the argument more in terms of simply maintaining the BBC's position in international broadcasting. There is a great deal of expansion taking place in many different areas within transnational television and satellite broadcasting, as the hon. Member for Leominister has said. If the BBC does not enter and become fully involved in that area or make the most of the unique BBC qualities and experience it possesses, it will be substantially left behind. That would be deeply regrettable.
  Rather than considering the television proposal as breaking new ground or as a new revolutionary proposal, I believe that the least the Government can do is to enable the BBC to continue to add its own to this new field and to thrive and prosper. We would expect the USA and USSR to devote resources to broadcasting. However, we must consider the resources that Japan, Germany and other competitors are spending in this area of broadcasting. The public service ethic which the BBC would bring to producing an international televised news service is of fundamental importance. Every day that the decision to proceed is delayed is lost time and that time will be difficult to recover.

  765
  I am obliged to say that, having studied the background, the Government give me the impression that they do not appreciate fully the value of the asset available to them in the BBC's external services. If they did, I do not believe that they would hesitate further, but would forthwith approve the scheme for the new BBC external services satellite television. At the estimated cost, in my opinion it is cheap at the price.
  7.55 pm
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: One of the paradoxes of Parliament is that we spend so long debating trivia and so little time debating essentials. Tonight we are discussing the projection of our country throughout the world over the next 20 or 50 years. If we begin to consider all that can flow from that, we can sense how vital the issue is.
  Lord Carrington, when he was Foreign Secretary, said:
  "Let me begin on a note upon which there will be no disagreement in any quarter of the House: that is, the support and admiration of all of us—and of course I include Her Majesty's Government—for the work of the External Services of the BBC. There is nobody who does not recognise the excellence of what they do. Certainly so far as I am concerned. I believe them to be an important arm of Government foreign policy. Indeed, I think we have got to look at the whole of our defence and foreign policy as one, and external broadcasting has a most important part to play in the influence that Britain can exert throughout the world"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 July 1981; Vol. 423, c. 811.]
  As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I believe that the attitude of Government in recent years towards the BBC external services has been amateurish and appalling. Governments have been like the small boy who is used to going to a filling station and getting a free watch. When he is handed a valuable heirloom, he just does not appreciate the difference. If hon. Members think that that is a bit strong, we must remember what Lord Carrington said on television when he left the Government in 1983:
  "When I was Foreign Secretary, I was told I had to save money on the overseas service of the BBC. I think that was really totally counter-productive and the money saved was trivial compared to the amount of damage done. I think the time has now come, really, when the Treasury and the Government ought to look at cutting out a function in Government rather than cheese-paring on the things that are essential and have to be done."
  It is my case, and it was the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), that the television services must be provided in the interests not simply of the best external broadcasting system in the world, but of our country.
  Why is the BBC so good? It is so good partly because throughout the world vast numbers of people speak English, and perhaps even more want to speak English. Secondly, at the time of the second world war, the BBC established a superiority for telling the truth that it carries with it today. That is the difference. Our competitors in eastern Europe and the United States and Canada lack that essential history. That is why, although their broadcasting services are listened to, they are not considered to be in the same category as the BBC's external services.
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: Integrity.
  Mr. Townsend: As my hon. Friend says, it has integrity. That is the key.
  766
  I had the privilege last Thursday of watching the ITN service go out from Wells street. That was a superb and very professional half hour and it does the company great credit. I do not believe for a moment that there is no role for the BBC external services as well as ITN.
  We are like visitors to a new continent. We see a vast hinterland, the mountains, the rivers and the forests. We are just starting on a vast adventure. Who would like to forecast in 10 years' time, let alone in 100 years' time, the future of world television broadcasting? It would be a crying shame if the BBC, with all its expertise and use of languages, were not leading the way.
  I end with another quotation, this time from, of all people, Colonel Gaddafi. He said:
  "All the Arab radios rave from dawn till noon but nobody listens to them because everyone switches on London."
  I want them not only to switch on London and listen, but to switch on London and look.
  8 pm
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I think that is the correct term——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Just call me Madam.
  Mr. Buchan: I was trying to avoid that.
  I came into the Chamber by accident. One of the problems of this House is that things can go on in the Chamber and we who are working diligently elsewhere hardly know that it is happening. I missed the announcement of this opening debate, but I have come here to congratulate the hon. Member for Leominister (Mr. Temple-Morris) on raising it.
  It is an important matter, not least because it occurs at a time when much of the future of broadcasting in general—quite apart from the external services aspect—has been brought into question by the Peacock report, the Green Paper on radio and things that, regrettably, are being said by the Government. That puts into jeopardy much of the best kind of broadcasting that the hon. Member for Leominster described. I am delighted that at least Conservative Back Benchers still use the phrase "public service broadcasting". On that there will be no dispute between us, at any rate in relation to external services.
  That is my first reason for supporting the hon. Gentleman. Given the rush to follow the misguided view of the Peacock report, it would be criminal to strip away any other areas of broadcasting that should be undertaken by public service broadcasting, should be undertaken only by such broadcasting and would be best undertaken only by such broadcasting.
  Secondly, we are now entering a phase in which diplomacy is not merely of the old-fashioned kind. Among other things, it now consists of trying to have an understanding of our own country best known abroad. However, along with cuts in broadcasting there have been cuts in relation to the British Council. We have never understood the importance of the British Council or the fact that it matters that Ian McKellan and others perform "Coriolanus" on the steps of Acropolis in Athens. That sometimes means more than the diplomacy that is carried out formally.
  I question the quotations from Lord Carrington to which the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend)

  767
  referred. As I see it, the function of the external services is not necessarily to project the views of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is to do what the BBC has been famous for doing for the past 50 years: to give a reasonably objective—it cannot be any more than that because none of us is totally objective—picture of world events emanating from London.
  I remember the horror that occurred two years ago when the Government intervened in the "Real Lives" programme. There was interference by the Government to prevent a programme from being shown. That had a shattering effect in various parts of the world, which had accepted the freedom and independence of the BBC. It was because of that recognition of its freedom and independence that, paradoxically, most of its valuable work was done for Britain. Therefore, I do not accept the argument that it is a projection of the diplomacy of foreign affairs.
  The "Real Lives" incident had that serious effect and some of us have had to fight back to restore the position, which was not helped by the Government's intervention over Zircon. Nevertheless, for the past 50 years, of all world broadcasting organisations the BBC has been the most acceptable and recognised throughout the world. It has done a major job on behalf of this country precisely because of its relative objectivity.
  My third reason for supporting the BBC is that it is proper that it should have the imprimatur of public service broadcasting, because if anything is in doubt it is the question of over-commercialised, so-called independent, satellite broadcasting. I have seen some of it emanating from America. If one goes to any of the poorer West Indian islands and sees what comes from the American independent broadcasters in the form of news—I think particularly of the all-day news stations—one will get an idea of the cultural shock that it is to those poorer West Indian islands, because it is seen as the normal interpretation of world events as observed through American eyes.
  The Government will have to he persuaded. They do not like public service. They think that public expenditure is a bad thing, unless it is for frigates and so on. But in relation to other things, we must deal with a deep, ideological malaise on the Government Front Bench.
  I have no doubt that we shall get good words from the Minister. He can do little else but give what I call a "lying in state ceremonial" type of speech and tell us how excellent our external services have been. However, we might not get the final commitment. Normal lying in state ceremonial ends with a commitment when the poor guy goes into a hole, but rarely do we get any commitment or action in respect of public expenditure from the Government Front Bench.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is no part of my job tonight to bury the external services.
  Mr. Buchan: I was making a complicated metaphor in relation to any commitment that might be made. Perhaps it was too subtle for the Government Front Bench. At any rate, we would welcome that commitment. I think that my own Front Bench will oppose the report. It had better. We wish the hon. Member for Leominster well and hope that this is the beginning of a successful campaign to have this brought about.
  8.6 pm
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: I wish to add a few quick words in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris). One point that he did not make was that he has had many years of experience in the Inter-Parliamentary Union. He knows the effect of British broadcasting overseas, and he speaks with that sort of knowledge when supporting the spread of the BBC's established performance in radio broadcasting to satellite broadcasting.
  My hon. Friend said that the BBC had experience in broadcasting. That statement of fact is unarguable. But equally important is the fact that the BBC has built up a constituency of overseas listeners who are waiting to become BBC overseas viewers. If we do not grab that opportunity, we shall be missing an opportunity for the BBC.
  As for budgets, in spite of the increases to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster drew attention, and which I am sure the Under-Secretary will cite, the BBC overseas service has been badly done by in recent years, and it is just as well that that point is made. The small increase in budget for the added influence that we could have had in terms of listenership, audibility and reach throughout the world would have been as nothing compared with, for example, the cost of running embassies in some parts of the world where the presence of the BBC is even more important——
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Or buying a tank.
  Mr. Rathbone: Or buying a tank, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) says.
  The BBC makes a marvellous contribution to the world in terms of information which is unbiased and trustworthy, and in terms of entertainment which spreads British culture throughout the world. It also does so in terms of learning, not only direct learning—I hope that there will be room for that in a televised BBC overseas service—but indirect learning. I hope that we shall hear the most positive speech that the Under-Secretary has ever given, or is ever likely to give, in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster.
  8.10 pm
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I am glad to have a brief opportunity of joining the debate in order to congratulate the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), who raised the subject, and also to say again something that I have been saying for a number of years. I think that it deserves to be considered in the context of the proposal to put the BBC overseas services, or at any rate the news services, on to television.
  I do not think it would be sufficient for the BBC simply to put out a daily news programme. The news should be seen in the broader context of regular, informed television programmes on the historical, political, commercial and cultural trends that explain the significance of the news. The BBC has already firmly established that practice on the sound wavelengths, and the move to television would be a natural extension of all the excellent work that has been done over many years.
  If the facility to provide news programmes were expanded so that there was a full daily service of supporting programmes, the cost could be considered as being spread over 24 hours. We could include other matter

  769
  that would also attract the very willing support of the taxpayer. We ought to make a full programme that builds on what we already have, and what the country already does extremely well. The BBC already provides a world language tuition service, which I believe is followed extensively in the far east, Latin America and elsewhere. The BBC is expert in providing that service, which is a well understood and accepted part of what the BBC does. At the same time, in this country we have established the technique of a broadcast university through the Open University. That is a most important extension of the use of television into the educational and higher educational spheres.
  What a very good thing it would be if the BBC now proceeded to establish a world university of the air as part of Britain's service to the world. That would only be building on what we are already doing. The cost would be small, but the influence could be of tremendous benefit to mankind. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will consider the idea seriously at last: I have been recommending it for many years. In the meantime, other countries have been getting the idea and catching up with the BBC. Possibly they will pass it before long in providing that type of service and Britain will once again be left behind.
  We owe it to the Third world to carry on the colonial tradition of helping people to understand our civilisation in Britain by giving regular historical, technological, constitutional and other programmes to supplement the sometimes very meagre resources in Third world countries for higher education. Many of our ex-colonial territories, for instance, have educational establishments which we may have founded in the past, or which other colonial countries may have founded in their colonial territories but which are not able to provide a sufficient stimulus in those countries now because they have not the teachers or the facilities to keep up to date with the subjects that they are trying to impart. What a bonus it would provide if the BBC were able to supplement the local facilities by means of a regular, establshed television service to bring all those subjects up to date.
  The proposal would, if implemented, be supported by British publishers, who already have a worldwide market for technical books which are widely used in education and are influential in producing engineers, doctors, chemists and others who look to Britain for the ideas that they have already begun to absorb in the course of their education. That is a lifelong influence, which we should not throw away. British publishers of technical books would welcome the opportunity to follow up television courses, regularly given free to humanity, with printed supporting tuition, which would be an extension of the educational service that they are already seeking to provide.
  We should not make this service merely an English language service. It should be a European Community project. Films of an educational character, once made, could easily be dubbed into French and Spanish. That would enormously extend the range and utility of the satellites which would continuously transmit news programmes all over the world. How easy it should be, surely, for us to collaborate with other European Community countries and make the concept part of our contribution to the Lome convention. I have often thought that we should be prouder than we are of the Loe
  770
  convention, which is one of the most substantial contributions that the European Community has made to the external world since the Treaty of Rome.
  Our own former colonial dependencies and associated territories are not the only ones that we have to consider. As members of the European Community, we should consider our responsibilites to the French, the Spanish and the Portuguese speaking territories, who have looked to Europe for education and inspiration in the past. We should be willing to give them 20th and 21st century technical assistance by the modern method of regular television broadcasting.
  I was encouraged by the written answer to a question that I tabled recently. On 29 June my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said:
  "We are aware of the potential opportunities offered by satellite broadcasting. We are considering these carefully. There is currently no provision in the grants in aid of the BBC external services for a world university of the air project. We shall consider whether this could be pursued under EC sponsorship."—[Official Report, 29 June 1987: Vol. 118, c. 38.]
  I was encouraged by that reply. Although I should like to think that money was beginning to flow in this direction, at least in an exploratory way, it seems to me that the idea has planted itself in the Foreign Office, and I hope that it will grow into something of great importance.
  As a Member of the European Parliament for many years, I have discussed this idea with parliamentary colleagues in Strasbourg. I believe that it would be enthusiastically supported by other EEC countries and that that support would assist the BBC to reach the widest possible audience. I am glad that the Foreign Office is already aware of the matter, but I hope that this debate will stimulate a surge of activity, and will also enable my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to get money from the Treasury to follow this important initiative. I should like it to be carried forward, not just for the sake of Britain's honour, but in the national interest. As a great exporting power, we cannot simply sink out of sight and let the Japanese. the Americans or any others take our place.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominister (Mr. Temple-Morris) for initiating this debate. Until a few weeks ago, I worked for BBC television news. During my time there, I worked on one of the pilot programmes for the television news project, which hon. Members may have seen. Although I worked for the BBC, that does not necessarily mean that I always agree with what it is seeking to push, as the BBC will discover in the future. On this occasion, however, I do agree.
  In the brief time available, I want to try to answer a couple of questions. First, do we need a world television news service? I believe that we do. Television will supplant radio more and more throughout the world, largely because of fast-moving technology that will bring satellite television to homes not only in the West, but in the East and the Third world, because of the cost savings brought to national television systems. It will be easier for people to receive television programmes in their homes, beamed from anywhere else in the world.
  The reputation of the BBC is paramount throughout the world. In many countries to which I have travelled on

  771
  behalf of the BBC it is trusted as an organisation that tells the truth. The BBC is relied on by all other journalists. They listen to the BBC World Service on their short wave radios. Its name is already established. We need to use that name to put forward our views throughout the world.
  The name "ITN" can be a bit of a mystery. It is no criticism of ITN to say that occasionally it hijacks the name "BBC" to gain entry to other parts of the world by mumbling, "We're from British television." When the BBC then goes along it is told, "You're already here." I am not surprised that ITN tries that trick. Whatever people may choose to believe, only the BBC could provide a television equivalent to the World Service.
  If we were discussing only a new service on television, I should not say that the BBC ought to run it, but running a world service is different. A world service implies reputation. It involves the use of the BBC's resources throughout the world—its correspondents and its contacts with other television broadcasting organisations. That service could be run most cost effectively by the BBC. It has the capacity, and already it has most of the capital equipment. National television stations in other parts of the world will buy BBC products, but they will not buy the products of other organisations.
  If the BBC were given the small amount of money that is needed to start up the service, it would be prepared to beam its services to those parts of the world where a profit could not be guaranteed. We need a useful world service. That is why I distinguish it from an ordinary news service. In the foreseeable future, usefulness will be in inverse proportion to the profitability that is likely to be achieved. Usefulness will not be achieved by Superchannel, WTN, CNN, Worldnet or any of the other organisations.
  Technically, it is easier to receive pictures in this country from eastern Europe, because of the method of broadcasting and the use of satellites. Were it to be beamed to them by satellite, it would be easier for people in parts of eastern Europe to receive the World Service. That idea could be pursued with profit by the BBC technical experts. The other organisations in this market will never provide a world service that gives the British view, and that advances, through the strength of their advocacy not through what they say, British interests. A very small amount of money, compared with the amount that is already provided for the World Service, would enable the Government and the country to ensure that the money is well spent. If no money is provided, we shall never know whether we made the wrong decision. If we make the wrong decision, we shall pay for it in later years when radio becomes obsolescent or even obsolete.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: It is a pleasure, Madam Deputy Speaker, to see you in the Chair.
  I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) on raising this issue on the Consolidated Fund Bill and on having come first in the ballot. Usually I have to get up in the early hours of the morning to reply to Consolidated Fund debates. I congratulate him also on his continuing campaign and his persistence on this issue. It has been noticed and commended by many Opposition Members as well as by Conservative Members.
  The hon. Gentleman did not know whether he should declare an interest. Nor do I know whether I should do so.
  772
  As a spokesman on foreign affairs, I have broadcast from time to time on the World Service and I hope to do so again, particularly if there are pictures.
  I have just returned from Washington where I observed and tried to influence a little the Iran-Contra hearings. If any proof were needed of the power of television, the way in which Colonel Oliver North, by his acting ability, coupled with his being somewhat elastic with the truth, has manipulated a relatively pliant and uncritical media shows once again how powerful that media is. It is astonishing that a self-confessed liar, who admits to law breaking, who shares the responsibility for the deaths of hundreds and the misery of thousands in central America, can manipulate the media in America in such a way as to make him into a hero. It was sad and worrying to witness that. It says a good deal about the lack of critical coverage and analysis by the media in the United States. Mr. Rupert Murdoch also understands the power of the visual media. He is now avidly buying up local stations in the United States so as to ensure that a fourth United States network comes under his control.
  The kind of service that we are debating is already operating in America. With pictures, Voice of America is powerful. However, it is organised on the basis of cultural imperialism rather than cultural diplomacy. France and other Governments are considering such a service. Hon. Members have already referred to the fact that Britain is being left behind. ITN is already said to be providing such a service on behalf of Britain, through Superchannel news. I am not against that—quite the reverse. I welcome it. A plurality of British output is surely good. However, without being unduly critical of the ITN coverage, it is not tailor made. Its distribution around the world is limited. It does not provide special material and there is only one contact outside Europe, which I understand is Japan.
  The BBC service is vital for a number of reasons. I shall refer to three of them. First, I refer to its experience with the World Service. It has experience of 55 years of sound broadcasting; it has 120 million listeners around the world; it still has a worldwide reputation for accuracy and impartiality, despite the efforts of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit).
  Secondly, I refer to the wide coverage of BBC news. Ten networks around the world have already agreed to take BBC programmes, and 20 more will possibly do so. BBC will have a much wider distribution than ITN.
  Thirdly, I refer to the BBC's unrivalled foreign news-gathering service. It has 26 full-time correspondents around the world and 100 overseas stringers. Furthermore, the Foreign Office makes great use of the BBC's well respected monitoring service. The BBC will provide special programmes. It will not just recycle existing material.
  Those are three strong reasons—but there are many others—why the Opposition believe that the go-ahead should be given as quickly as possible. The BBC has conducted market research and has established that there is a demand. That demand should be satisfied.
  Unlike commercial television, the BBC is unable to put up the risk capital. Therefore, it has asked the Foreign Office for the money that is needed to set up this service. It requires £1·4 million of capital, and the running cost will be £7 million or £8 million. That is not a lot, as Conservative Members have said. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) will know only too well that that figure is equivalent to the cost of two or

  773
  three days of fortress Falklands. The Foreign Office is dragging its feet while our competitors are marching on. Will the Minister tell us what is delaying his decision? On 15 January 1987 in an article in The Times the political reporter said:
  "The Foreign Office …is considering"
  these proposals,
  "but has said that there will be no rapid answer."
  We are used to that sort of reply from the Foreign Office. However, that was January and it is now July. Time is marching on and we are losing out further. Conservative Members have asked whether it is dogma that is holding this matter up or whether the Government have an aversion towards public service broadcasting. Is it cost-cutting or vindictiveness against the BBC? I hope that those are not the case.
  The excellent report of the Select Committee points out how little as a country we spend on cultural diplomacy. That does not merely relate to the BBC, but to the British Council, which is doing an excellent job and which has had its budget cut by 21 per cent. in real terms. Germany spends twice as much as us on cultural diplomacy and France spends three times as much.
  The paradox, dilemma and peculiarity of the comparison was pointed out well in an editorial on Friday by Martin Jackson, in "Broadcast". He said:
  "Curious isn't it, that a Prime Minister so wedded to the trappings of national virility—both in her Common Market and defence policies"—
  I shall not comment on either of those policies—
  "should acquiesce in muting Britain's influence in the world."
  That is curious because this is the sort of positive influence that we should be encouraging. Britain's values, which are shared by all hon. Members, of freedom and democracy should be encouraged and spread around the world. We should allow the BBC, with its high reputation, to continue its tradition of independent broadcasting into television. Television news from the BBC that is relayed around the world will be a vital and important part of our cultural diplomacy.
  The Opposition wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support the hon. Member for Leominster and every hon. Member who has spoken in this debate. We hope that the Government will agree to give the BBC the necessary funding and we hope that they will do so sooner rather than later.
  8.32 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): It is a great pleasure, Madam Deputy Speaker, to be speaking in front of you. I hope that I shall not be misunderstood if I say that we will be meeting later during the night, because I have some six debates to answer during the next few hours.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) for raising this important topic. I was aware, before I came to the debate, of the high regard that the House has for the BBC external services, and if I did not know I can be under no illusion now. It is right that the future development of such a valuable national asset should be a matter of national interest and national debate.
  I listened extremely carefully to the detailed points that have been made by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) made his
  774
  latest salvo in what has been a long, hard-fought campaign by him in his true tradition. I am delighted that he found my answer to his question encouraging.
  We currently face some important challenges and decisions with regard to external broadcasting. Most of the debate has concentrated on the proposal for a world television service, but that is one of a number of new avenues that have been opened by the rapid advance of broadcasting technology. We have already invested heavily in modern technology to improve the audibility of the BBC's external radio services. All the evidence that we have—this is an important point—suggests that short wave radio will continue for the foreseeable future to be the major international broadcasting medium, which is a point that was made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). Currently there are some 1,600 million receivers worldwide, and that number is likely to continue to grow.
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Eggar: I shall not give way, because I have a lot to get through.
  It is not only the technology that changes, because the needs of the BBC's international audience develop in tune with sociological and political changes in the countries in which the people live and to which the programmes are broadcast. A particular case in point is our broadcasts to the Soviet Union. We welcome the decision to cease jamming the BBC's broadcasts, and we hope and expect that this decision will be implemented consistently, although it is a pity that it has not been extended to the BBC's Polish service. Unhindered access to a large Soviet audience is a new and qualitatively different challenge for the external services, with far-reaching implications for the kind of programmes and the hours and times at which they are broadcast. It is true that in the developing world audiences' needs change rapidly as education and development progresses. The activities of other broadcasters must be taken into account. I am thinking, for example, of the massive increase in commercial broadcasting in some parts of the world.
  The Government are in no doubt that the BBC external services are a precious resource that brings great benefits to Britain. They enjoy a high international reputation for the quality, accuracy and impartiality of their broadcasting. That can only enhance Britain's image. In their news coverage it is the task of the external services to broadcast a balanced British view of national and international developments, including an accurate and effective representation of British life. In that they enjoy editorial independence.
  It is the Government's task, in close co-operation with the BBC, to ensure that the funds that we invest in external broadcasting are used to maximum effect. We must ensure value for money in the technology that we employ. We must discuss how to respond with the necessary flexibility to the challenges of a rapidly changing world. We therefore maintain a close and continuing dialogue with the BBC external services to set the geographical priorities for broadcasting and the hours broadcast in each language. In doing this we must consider the requirements of the BBC external services within the framework of the total Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget and to assess them against overall foreign policy priorities. We bear the responsibility for ensuring that the taxpayer's

  775
  money is spent economically, efficiently and effectively. That is why we believe that it is right for the National Audit Office to have access to the external services to carry out its examinations. Following the Perry report, we attach considerable importance to securing agreement on the revised financial memorandum, which had been proposed by that report.
  A glance at the figures for the funding of the BBC external services shows why we take this responsibility so seriously. The BBC's present broadcasting output stands at over 732 hours per week, which is the highest level since the 1950s. To achieve this level we have increased grants-in-aid in real terms by over 50 per cent. in the past eight years. About half of this has gone to support increases in running costs. The remainder has funded a programme of capital expenditure, which was begun in 1981, to improve audibility. In 1979–80 the BBC external services accounted for 12 per cent. of the total Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomatic wing expenditure. The figure is now 17 per cent.
  I hope that that figure, when put in context, gives an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) who cast aspersions on the way in which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office spends money on the BBC in contra-distinction to our true diplomatic effort and our embassies. We must take an overall view, and it is fair to say that the BBC external services have done well over the past five years, in what has been a time of constrained spending.
  Mr. Buchan: Why was that policy necessary?
  Mr. Eggar: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I am trying to discuss world television news. We are studying the whole matter of Government involvement. It is a deceptively simply proposition which raises a number of extremely difficult issues. Broadcasting by satellite is neither simple nor inexpensive. It is estimated to be 10 times as expensive as broadcasting by traditional means.
  The broadcasting of television programmes is not merely a logical extension of radio broadcasting. We need, for instance, in the context of television broadcasting, to examine again the audiences whom we are trying to reach and how we shall reach them. In many areas of the developing world radio is likely to remain the sole means of communication for the foreseeable future. I need hardly say, in addition, that in closed societies, especially in the Eastern bloc, which are a priority for external broadcasting, it is no simple matter for them to acquire, erect and use a satellite television receiving dish. It is, of course, far easier for authorities to spot a dish than to spot a short-wave radio receiver.
  Furthermore, the technology is changing almost from day to day. We must be sure that any investment will be a sound use of taxpayers' money. That is why we are conducting a thorough analysis of all the issues raised by satellite broadcasting. We hope to consider the whole proposal and the Government's role in it from production of a programme to delivery to the potential audience.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: When will we know?
  Mr. Eggar: We are already engaged in exploratory discussions with the BBC and others interested in this idea. Partly as a result of those discussions the BBC is, I understand, renewing and changing its original proposals. I hope to be able to study its revised plan shortly. I have a feeling, from listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster, that he may know rather more about the proposal that will soon land on my desk than I do.
  We should not, of course, ignore the fact that British broadcasters are already present on the international scene. Many hon. Members have referred to the ITN's World News, which is transmitted by Superchannel and is available to a potential audience of more than 8 million homes in 15 European countries. It is available also in hotels and by individual satellite receiving dishes in a number of other countries. Furthermore, I understand that, since the beginning of this month, it is available in Japan. I am told that there are other possible opportunities.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister answer one question? He said in a fairly waffly comment that the plan would be considered "shortly"—that famous ministerial word. Both sides of the House are anxious to know when he expects to announce a decision about the request, whether it is revised or not, by the BBC for financial assistance. When does the hon. Gentleman expect that announcement to be made?
  Mr. Eggar: Discussions have been continuing since we received the first BBC proposal in November 1986. I understand that the BBC is shortly to send me a further revised proposal. I do not know when it will arrive. I assure hon. Members that as soon as it arrives we will be able to continue our evaluation of the various options open. I am not in a position to give a definite time for announcing a decision, because I am not even aware of the precise proposal that the BBC, and other interested bodies—that is an important addition—will put forward.
  The Government are faced with an important and extremely complex decision. It involves a number of separate issues, especially the need to identify audiences and to ensure that any product that is in any way assisted by public money can reach the appropriate audience, otherwise it simply is not justifiable to put in public money at the first stage. For instance, we must consider how people can receive a product which is in any way financed by British taxpayers' money if they do not have access to a satellite dish. We must know exactly what the markets are and decide whether we can justify any kind of public subsidy to transmit that product into the homes in those areas. I am unwilling to be pinned down to a time, but I assure hon. Members that this issue is receiving considerable attention and priority. It will continue to do so. I look forward to receiving the BBC's further proposals.

  Local Government Finance
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Richard Caborn: It is nice to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will continue to show the fairness that we saw when you were a Committee Chairman, that you will allow Back Benchers to intervene from time to time and that you will control Front Benchers. I thank you also for allowing a three-hour debate on the important subject of local government finance. The number of applications for this debate clearly shows the interest and concern of many hon. Members.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: Where are they?
  Mr. Caborn: I have no doubt that they will come in from the Tea Room and other places in the Palace in the not-too-distant future.
  The concern about this subject can be broken down into three main aspects. The first is the difficulty faced by many local authorities in meeting their daily commitments on behalf of the communities they represent, especially in the main conurbations where many of the problems of housing, social services, education and deprivation are evident and, some would say, reaching crisis proportions. Local government and public representatives have to meet and cope with those problems in difficult financial circumstances.
  The second matter concerns the introduction of the new community charge, which was clearly outlined in the Gracious Speech only a few days ago. No doubt many hon. Members will try to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to speak in more detail on that than I have time to do.
  The third aspect is the way in which, over the past eight years, the Government have manipulated the financial arrangements, along with other local government legislation, in a manner which is best described in the words of the Financial Times:
  "the Government have no coherent strategy or philosophy for the future of Local Government in Britain."
  At worst, it can be called deliberate financial strangulation and drip-feeding of poison into local government, led by the Government Front Bench, aided and abetted by the gutter press, especially the tabloids. They have attacked local government with unfounded allegations, although facts never stood in the way of a good story in the tabloids. Unfortunately, the worst venom has been reserved for our local authorities. The present financial constraints do not even allow many local authorities to carry out their minimum obligations. About 42 Bills passed in the last few Sessions tried to strangle local authorities.
  That attitude forced even the Audit Commission to conclude
  "the position of Local Government in many of the areas has become impossible."
  Many people inside and outside the House are asking: is the problem just hatred of local government, as fostered by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment, or is it that the impossibility to which the Audit Commission referred is deliberately designed to limit the role of local government and place that limited role to the Government's advantage or to create the conditions for local government's abolition?
  Tragically, over the past eight years, democratic trade union rights have been removed and a tier of local
  778
  government abolished. We must question the conditions imposed by the Government, particularly on local authority finance. Are the Government trying eventually to abolish or greatly curtail local authority control? Are they trying to build the centralised administration that many of us fear? The Gracious Speech implied that education could become far more centralised. I suggest that the Government are taking us towards that type of administration. That was underlined clearly in an article in the Sunday Telegraph on 5 July:
  "Meanwhile, Mrs. Thatcher has ordered ministers to take the offensive over the controversial community charge and over the inner city programme. The aim will be to lay the blame for squalid housing and urban deprivation at the door of the Left-wing councils which, ministers say, care more about extremist politics than people."
  That is not the idea that is even now emanating from the Palace. The Palace is trying to bring communities together. However, it is clear that, to the Prime Minister, confrontation with local government is the order of the day. During the election campaign. the Prime Minister declared that she intended her third term to see the removal of Socialism from the face of the United Kingdom. Her vindictive approach to local government could be seen in that context. She wants to limit the role of local authorities because she knows of the strong role that Socialism maintains in our major inner-city areas in the north. She sees local authorities as a legitimate target.
  It is true that the Government are now putting forward proposals to assist the inner-city areas. If they are not trying completely to resurrect the industrial base, at least the Government are attempting to rebuild the inner cities and provide safety valves to alleviate what could be a major problem in the future. However, all the proposals are bypassing democratically elected local councils and disregarding the views of people who have spent years in the localities, who have been put where they are by the ballot box and who know the feelings of the people they represent. Unfortunately, the Government want to try to bypass the democratic process.
  The Government's cynical approach to local government has not gone down particularly well with Conservative Back Benchers. That was highlighted by the statement of the previous Leader of the House, who was quoted in an exclusive interview in the Sunday Telegraph on 5 July as saying that the Prime Minister now acted more like Stalin. I think she could probably teach the Soviet Union a lot about centralism.
  Last Friday, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) said, in reply to the remarks of one of his hon. Friends who was rather enthusiastic about the removal of Socialism from the face of the United Kingdom:
  "We cannot say that our mission in history is to eliminate Socialism; that is a function of the will of the people."
  He said that people would only reach the same conclusion as the Conservative party if
  "we produce attractive policies that appeal to the whole electorate. Our national share of the vote did not increase last time; it fell slightly. The workings of the electoral system gave us another big majority in the House, but we know that people do not agree with our policies. We must persuade them. We cannot simply bash them on the head and insist that they accept our policies."—[Official Report, 10 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 654.]
  Unfortunately, we are getting used to the style of government that bashes people on the head. However, many Conservative Back Benchers are even now

  779
  challenging that type of Government, and the dogma of the Government Front Bench, particularly towards local government, is becoming unacceptable to them.
  What is the case against the Government's financial manipulation during the past eight years? We have a whole new jargon written into local government vocabulary, which includes financial targets, rate capping, precepts and the rest. Ironically, the constraints implicit in that vocabulary have not applied to central Government. Between 1980–1981 and 1985–1986, central Government expenditure increased by 51 per cent., while local authority spend over the same period increased by 32 per cent. That clearly shows that the criteria apply to local government but not to central Government.
  Since the Government took power in 1979, we have seen two major developments in local government finance. As I said, there has been an increase of some 32 per cent. overall since 1980–81, but capital expenditure has gone down by a staggering 44 per cent. in real terms. Current expenditure is expected to remain virtually static in real terms over the rest of the planned period to the 1990s, but capital expenditure is expected to continue to fall over the same period. Current expenditure is rising by an average of 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. per annum in real terms and net capital spending is Calling by 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. per year in real terms.
  A closer look at the details of local authority current expenditure in England shows that the Government have succeeded in changing the distribution of that spend. Spending on social security, housing benefits and law and order are now taking a significantly larger share of spending than in 1979–80. Education, the local environment, transport and housing consume a much smaller proportion of the total than in 1979–80.
  The cut in capital expenditure goes to the heart of the problems of our inner cities. If it is not defused, the time bomb planted in our inner cities over the past eight years could reverberate well beyond those areas. It is rather ironic that, while we have been called upon to improve our infrastructure—in transport, energy and education—central Government have been cutting the very means that would make it possible.
  I shall take Sheffield as an example to illustrate what I have said. In 1981–82 the housing capital account had an allocation of £19·2 million; in 1987–88 the allocation is £17·3 million—a reduction of over 10 per cent. That is before allowances have been made for inflation. The increase in the retail price index over that period was 36·6 per cent. For education, capital expenditure was £3·2 million in 1981–82, which has now been reduced to £2·6 million. That comes after a report at the end of a two-year study conducted by Her Majesty's inspectors, which came out in favour of Sheffield education authority's services, expenditure and curriculum, and gave a glowing report. We had favourable press releases and comment even from the Department of Education and Science. But although the report said that we managed our financial affairs to the benefit of the pupils and the service in general, there has been a 20 per cent. cut during that period—again before allowing for inflation.
  Community services have also borne the brunt of the cuts, especially in the inner cities. There is an average of 30 per cent. unemployment in Sheffield, Central and of about 50 per cent. in the inner city. But our community services budget has been cut by about 40 per cent., again before taking inflation into consideration. Some may
  780
  argue that revenue expenditure has increased. In 1981–82, 51 per cent. of Sheffield city council's expenditure was financed through central Government grants—specific or supplementary grants and the block grant. For 1987–88, the proportion has fallen to 48 per cent. The city council's expenditure increased in cash terms by 36 per cent. between 1981–82 and 1987–88, because the city council took over responsibility for the metropolitan county council services in 1986–87. That expenditure increased to 52 per cent., and the ratepayers are having to foot the bill for the reduction in the percentage that used to come from central Government.
  The Secretary of State's ignorance was shown on 1 July, when he attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). He said:
  "There can never be enough public money to do everything through municipal ownership, nationalisation and services provided by highly unionised public sector services, It is inherently inefficient, and, worse, the necessary level of rates drives businesses and business men alike away."—[Official Report, 1 July 1987; Vol. 118, c. 534.]
  I do not know where the Secretary of State got his brief from, or whether he occasionally goes off his brief, but we should consider the spend on the private sector in Sheffield in 1984–85. Sheffield's total budget for that year was £262 million. Of that, slightly less than £100 million—38 per cent.—was spent in the private sector or on agencies outside the control of the local authority. The false picture has been painted that all the revenue that goes to a local authority is designated within that authority. That is totally untrue. The private sector, especially builders and architects, have said that the cuts experienced during the past eight years and the strangulation of local government have had a major impact not only on the viability of their businesses but on their survival. The Secretary of State should know better than to make such statements.
  The Government, aided and abetted by the gutter press, in their attempt to limit the role of local authorities, have painted a picture of irresponsible councillors of all parties. They have said that local government does not serve the community, but then they come up with the poll tax. On 29 June this year, the Secretary of State said that the rates bill for the average household in Sheffield will increase from £371 to £496—an increase of 33·7 per cent. The Minister will know that that is only half the story. Much of the increase will fall on those who can least afford it. If the Bills introducing the poll tax go through the House—they may be opposed by some senior Conservative Members—they will represent another blow to those who can least afford it.
  If the Government continue to attack under-resourced local government, they will be in breach of the consensus that has been accepted for many years: that local people who are democratically elected should have a say in how the money is spent. Crude though it may be, we have used the rating system for the redistribution of wealth generally. More than that, we have used it to develop the infrastructure of the more deprived areas so that we can attract industry. That consensus has now clearly been broken. Many Conservative Members and outside agencies, in documents such as "Faith in the City", have said——
  Mr. Tony Favell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Caborn.: I will give way in a moment.

  781
  It has been pointed out in documents drawn up by many institutions outside the House that we are building that time bomb. Unless the Government start taking note of what people in various localities are saying, not only will they break that consensus but there will be major problems for the inner cities.
  Mr. Favell: Will the hon. Gentleman say a word about the unified business rate and how that will affect Sheffield? Will it not reduce the charge to businesses substantially and is not unemployment the major problem facing Sheffield? Would not a reduction in overheads of businesses be welcome to Sheffield?
  Mr. Caborn: Obviously a reduction in charges would be of some assistance to any business. It depends how one accepts responsibility within a community. When the Government destroyed the cheap fares policy that was supposed to be a massive burden on ratepayers, the removal of that redistribution of wealth fell heavily upon industry. Where the net reduction in the family budget was about £10, people put in for wage increases to combat it.
  If the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) speaks to business men in the centre of Sheffield who have lost a tremendous amount of business because people cannot afford to travel there, he will find that business activity has reduced considerably. If he talks to industrialists about high interest rates, the high value of the pound and energy costs over the eight years of the Government, he will find that rates pale into insignificance in terms of a vibrant manufacturing base in the city of Sheffield. Any industrialist will tell him that they will always moan about the rates, but that the real cause of the decimation of the industrial base is clearly the economic policy that has been pursued by the Government, which has strangled that manufacturing base with high interest rates, an overvalued pound and energy costs.
  I hope that the Government will take on board what has been said not just by Opposition Members but by Conservative Members—that if they do not start treating local government in a manner more befitting the type of civilised society in which we live, they will reap the consequences.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Michael Fallon: The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) for giving us such an early opportunity to debate local government finance. I suspect that it will not be the last opportunity and that we shall debate the subject again and again over the next few months. If we continue to do so in the atmosphere of calm authority that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, bring to our proceedings, we shall all he very grateful.
  No new tax or charge will be popular. It is no surprise, therefore, that the Opposition have latched on to the proposed local government finance reforms as a key part of their political attack on the Government. Nor is it any surprise that some of my hon. Friends have expressed, and may express during this debate, occasional reservations about some of the details of the reforms that have been proposed. Many criticisms have been made and will be made about the community charge. Almost all of the criticisms that I have heard so far can be answered.
  782
  First, it has been suggested that the new community charge is not to be based on the ability to pay. Of course, rates were not based on the ability to pay and many of those who will benefit under the community charge—single people, pensioners and single-parent families—were unable, in many cases, to pay a high rates burden but will be able to afford the lower sum that the community charge represents and will be grateful for the reduction.
  Secondly, it is suggested that the community charge will benefit the better off. That seems a rather curious argument. The community charge applies to working couples on good salaries and it may well be that in certain areas—we could call this the Dulwich argument—their community charge, if two of them are earning, will be less than their existing rate demand or less than that of others who are not in such fortunate circumstances, who are not earning as much, but who happen to be living in the same borough. However, it is a false argument. The community charge will account for only 25 per cent. of local government finance. Another 25 per cent. will come from the business rate, but, more importantly, the remaining 50 per cent. will continue to come from central Government. Those who keep saying that the community charge will help the better off have not taken that on board. That is a crucial point. Those who pay higher rates of income tax will be making their contribution to that 50 per cent. of local government finance. In fact, they will be paying twice as much towards local government in their income tax as they will through the community charge.
  The Dulwich argument is not simply false but is rather curious coming from the Opposition. They are saying that some people who are better off will be paying a little more towards their public services. Where have we heard that before? We heard that from the Labour party throughout the election campaign. The Labour party was appealing to the sense of community and sense of obligation among those who were better equipped to pay. I find it rather odd that the Labour Members should now style themselves as the defenders of the prosperous bourgeoisie, and are concerned that its pockets should not be pinched further by the community charge when they were suggesting just a month and a half ago that those same people would be quite happy to pay a little more. Indeed, some of the people who are now complaining about the community charge are the very people who told us two months ago, perhaps on the doorstep, that they did not need the tax cuts that the Chancellor provided in his March Budget. They said that they did not need the extra £100 or £200 a year, but they are now squealing across the suburbs and the home counties at the prospect of paying an extra £50 in a year through the community charge.
  The third criticism that I do not understand is that the community charge will not help the north. It is true that in some areas of the north, particularly in Yorkshire and the north-west that happen to have that fatal combination of historically low rateable values and high spending Labour councils, the individual may be paying more through the community charge than he pays at present in rates. However, that ignores the other central reform in our proposals, the reform of the non-domestic rate and the introduction of the national non-domestic rate. Of course, that would lead to substantial reductions in the business rates burden. I can speak only from the point of view of my own region. It is already estimated that business rates will fall by about 40 per cent. in places such as Newcastle, Middlesbrough and other towns in the north-east.

  783
  It is also calculated that the total benefit to the north—even as the Opposition style their geographic north—will be about £700 million a year. That is a considerable sum. It is three times what the Government are spending on their regional aid budget at the moment, and it should not be ignored by anybody who believes in the urgent necessity of regenerating the economy of the north.
  Fourthly, it was suggested by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central, who introduced the debate and has already fled from the Chamber, that somehow the reform is centralist and that it will undermine local democracy. That is one of the weaker arguments to be mounted against the community charge. I suspect that, as time goes on and we debate the proposal, we shall hear less of such an argument. The strongest argument for the community charge is that it will strengthen local accountability because it will directly improve the responsibility of local government.
  Of course, if council rates continue to be high until the introduction of the community charge, and if councils continue to be high spenders and ignore central Government advice on spending targets, as they have done for four or five years, the community charge may be high. Councils may find that electors will pay even more than they pay at the moment. But it will not be for the Government or for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make the decision. The decision to enforce a higher community charge will be for local councils. They will have to account for it in due time. Indeed, if they consistently impose a community charge that is higher than the national average, it will be transparent to their local electors in a way in which present rate levels, caught up in the complexity of grant-related expenditure—GRE and all the other synonyms of local government finance which have baffled the House for the past four or five years—are not. For high spending local authorities, the logic of the community charge is absolute, and for them there will be no hiding place. Fifthly, I cannot accept the criticism that the community charge may be unfair. No system of local government could be more unfair than our present rating system. No account is taken of ability to pay, of the extent to which people use local services, or of the need to involve a much larger number of people in local democracy. No account is taken of the need to redress a situation in which 35 million people use local services but 20 million people do not pay rates. We must remove the absurdity in some central urban areas such as in Manchester, where only one in four adults pay any rates. That is not only absurd in principle but pretty tough on the man who pays rates.
  I have already said that I believe that almost all criticisms of the community charge that I have heard can be answered. Indeed, I have no doubt that those criticisms will be answered admirably and efficiently by my hon. Friend the Minister when he replies.
  However, I have heard one criticism from outside the House to which I believe my hon. Friend should address himself if he has time. The criticism is that this sensible reform of local government finance is not, at the moment, being linked to any reform of local government structure. My hon. Friend should bear in mind the consequences of the reform that he will be promoting. Once we have a local government that is locally responsible and truly accountable to its electors, I believe that it will make no sense to continue with the two-tier structure of local government. We should reconsider, as recommended years
  784
  ago by Redcliffe-Maud, single-tier, all-purpose authorities responding to local demand in a much more effective way than at present.
  Such is my single note of reservation. I hope that my hon. Friend can satisfy my question. There will be many more debates on this subject. I hope that when criticisms are made of the community charge they will be better founded in fact and based on a better grasp of what the Government are seeking to do.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I hope that it will not be thought presumptious or unduly prococious of the part of a maiden speaker to offer you, Madam Deputy Speaker, my congratulations on your new appointment. May I express the wish of those on the Liberal Benches that you enjoy your appointment and occupy the Chair for a long time to come.
  I am grateful for the opportunity afforded to me to make a maiden speech in this House. I do so attended with all the apprehensions to which maiden speakers are traditionally subject. In the spirit of that tradition, I wish to begin by referring to my predecessor, Barry Henderson.
  Barry Henderson served the constituency of Fife, North-East sincerely and conscientiously during the time he was its Member of Parliament. To me he was a courteous opponent, and he was gracious and generous in defeat. However, none of those qualities, admirable in themselves, was sufficient protection against the condemnation by the electors of Fife, North-East of the party of which he was such a loyal supporter. Some of the condemnation was especially reserved for the community charge, or the poll tax as it is colloquially described north of the border.
  I trust that we on the Liberal Benches may be forgiven some small self-indulgence from the realisation that the constituency that returned Mr. Asquith for so many years has once more returned a Liberal Member of Parliament.
  The House will be aware that within my constituency lies Scotland's oldest university, founded in 1411. That university has a long noble tradition of scholarship in the arts and sciences, in teaching and research. The maintenance of that tradition is becoming increasingly difficult in the present climate. Research, in particular, is an issue of considerable controversy within that university. It is universally recognised within the academic community that research for its intrinsic merit is an essential feature of a vigorous and healthy university. It must surely be accepted that scholarship should not lightly be sacrificed to commercialism. However, that is an inevitable consequence of Government policies towards universities.
  Since 1980, St. Andrew's university has suffered a cut of 21 per cent. in real terms in University Grants Committee funding. It has survived only by the skilful management of its investments and by a robust programme of recruiting foreign students who pay full fees. Obviously, that programme has been acompanied by a reduction in opportunity for students from the United Kingdom. Indeed, it may not be long before that institution is staring deficit in the face. One may think that that is hardly conducive to the role that is required of it during the last part of the 20th century.
  This debate is concerned with local government finance. Anyone who listens to those who are involved in local government on a day-to-day basis will readily accept

  785
  that many of the difficulties that local government faces arise from the continuing reduction in central Government's support for local government. In Fife, North-East, for example, if the housing support grant stood today at the same level as in 1979, the rents for council houses would be £6 per week less. Until that reduction in central Government support is halted, the pressure on local authorities will continue to be acute and damaging. To suggest, as appears to have been suggested in the House a few moments ago, that the community charge will bring a solution to the many problems of local government financing seems to ignore the fact that the community charge, of itself, will create its own difficulties.
  Of course, it is accepted that rates are universally discredited, although from time to time one feels that, as a means of raising local taxation, rates still enjoy some support from Labour Members. The replacement of one regressive tax by another is no solution. The community charge, or the poll tax, must be regressive and unfair; otherwise there would not be any need for rebates. If it were essentially a fair charge, there would not be any necessity to make allowances for those whose personal circumstances were such as to make them unable to pay. A tax that will benefit mostly those who earn over £350 per week is self-evidently unfair.
  We argue, as we have argued for a long time, that the only fair system of raising local taxation is by a local income tax based on the ability to pay. If ability to pay is recognised as the proper measure for raising taxation on a national, United Kingdom-wide basis, why is it denied that the same basis should be applied to local taxation?
  If the Government were to undertake to restore the level of central Government support to what it was in 1979 and to introduce a local income tax along the lines that we have argued, real progress could be made in the financing of local government. I look for that, but so far I have been disappointed.
  9.27 pm
  Mr. Tony Baldry: It gives me great pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who spoke with great clarity and coherence and who, I am sure, will make many more speeches in the House. I understand that he is an advocate, and I welcome him to the small band of lawyers in the House. As his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who is seated on his left, and who is a leading member of the all-party group of barristers, will inform him, we are a much-misunderstood, misrepresented and maligned group of individuals.
  I welcome the hon. Gentleman also as a representative of, among other institutions, St. Andrew's university. Some of my hon. Friends have, for a number of years, been trying to contain the influence of St. Andrew's university on the thinking of the Conservative party, but with not as much success as some of us would have liked. Therefore, for many reasons, we welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman into the House and look forward to hearing from him on future occasions.
  I should like to make several straightforward points about the rating system and local government finance. First—this is an important point—no one will lament the passing of the present domestic rating system. It is an
  786
  anachronistic system, which owes much to the old concept of the window tax and which is riddled with anomalies and unfairness. An elderly widow who is a pensioner may well, for example, be liable to pay exactly the same rates as her neighbours, where perhaps both husband and wife go out to work. That cannot be a fair system.
  The present rating system gives every incentive to local councils, such as Oxfordshire, to be profligate and to write cheques on other people's bank accounts because on average only half of those who can vote must foot the bill for any extra spending. The present rating system gives no real incentive to local councils to be prudent as they have little accountability to those whose money they spend, often with gay abandon. Therefore, the arguments against the present rating system are many.
  Secondly, if any hon. Member has any lingering support for the present rating system rather than opting for something new, such lingering support should evaporate when one considers the prospect of revaluation. The point which has not been taken on board by nearly enough people is that we could not carry on with the existing system without a revaluation, since the last was in 1973 and revaluation is part and parcel of the existing system.
  In Scotland, only five years after the previous revaluation, the rateable value of an ordinary house increased from £171 to £726 and the rateable value of a modest flat increased from £405 to an incredible £1,289. Imagine what revaluation in England and Wales after 14 years would do. Inevitably, it would lead to serious disruption for many present ratepayers. Therefore, I do not believe that the present system has any friends or supporters either on the Opposition Benches or on these Benches.
  Time and again during the general election campaign that was made clear on the doorsteps by many people who asked that at last the Conservatives should redeem their pledge to reform the rating system. Clearly the electors understood what the Conservatives were proposing in our manifesto which stated that we would
  "legislate in the first session of the new Parliament … to replace rates with a fairer Community Charge."
  Thirdly, the community charge has several clear advantages. It is straightforward; nearly every adult over 18 will be liable to pay an equal share; and there will be protection for weaker, poorer members of the community. Furthermore, the community charge will ensure both that those who spend the money will again be accountable to those who provide much of the money that is spent and that business, commerce and industry will no longer be prey to the unreasonable demands of unreasonable councils. It is an inherently fairer system as 69 per cent. of single pensioners and 83 per cent. of one-parent families will be better off.
  Naturally, some critics will try to dream up as many obstacles and difficulties as possible, and I have no doubt that the difficulties they will seek to raise during the passage of the legislation will be legion, but the burden of proof is undoubtedly on them. If they do not believe that the present rating system is sustainable and they are opposed to the community charge, the burden of proof is clearly on them to come up with an alternative which combines fairness and accountablility by councillors to those who provide the money they spend.
  So far, during the debate on the Gracious Speech and in press comments on the reform of the rating system, we

  787
  have not seen a shadow of a scintilla of any suggestion from any opponents to the community charge of any alternatives that they could devise. They will not be able to argue with any conviction that the community charge will weaken local democracy; it does exactly the reverse, because it strengthens local democracy by making those elected directly responsible to those who pay. After at least 15 years of debate and argument over the present iniquitous rating system, the Government have at last come up with a real viable alternative.
  Fourthly, it is important that this point should be understood clearly by everyone—under the community charge, people living in counties such as Oxfordshire will pay more than they need to under the new system only if the county council refuses to cut spending. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment recently released figures that reflect what the position would have been if a community charge had been introduced this year instead of rates. The figures show that households in Oxfordshire with more than two people would end up paying more under the community charge system than under the rates system, but only—this point has been made time and time again—because of overspending and profligate spending by the county council. If the county council cut spending, the same household with the identical figures would pay £27 a year less under the new community charge than under the rates system.
  We must get the message home to people that the figures clearly show that it is important that high-spending authorities such as Oxfordshire should start to identify sensible economies. It is also important that those of us who live in counties such as Oxfordshire should insist that such economies are made. There will be a real incentive for all of us living in Oxfordshire to insist that such counties begin to behave prudently and sensibly and stop writing cheques on other people's bank accounts. Nearly every adult in Oxfordshire will have a vested, direct and identifiable interest in ensuring that the county is prudent.
  There are four simple points. First, the present rating system is discredited. Secondly, the community charge will be much fairer. Thirdly, the burden of proof is on those who oppose the community charge to come forward with another system, and we have seen none of that to date. Finally, under the community charge many people have the potential to be better off, but only if local authorities try to contain their spending and do not continue to pursue profligate spending policies, spending money on other people's bank accounts.
  9.37 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this important debate. The debate affects all of my constituents who will be interested to learn the views of Conservative Members who have said that rich people tend not to live in large houses and poor people tend not to live in small houses. That means that under the present system they believe that things are inequitable.
  I want to pay tribute to Ray Ellis, the former Member for Derbyshire, North-East. Ray would have been interested to be involved in this debate. He was a former councillor in south Yorkshire, and that county council has since been abolished. He served in this House for eight years and during that period he
  faced strong Government
  788
  opposition. When I took over from Ray Ellis, I had hoped to be in an easier position, but I face the same level of strength on the Government Benches.
  The Government must realise that the election result has not given them a mandate to ride roughshod over people's feelings. Strong feelings were expressed across both sides of the political divide during the election campaign and on no point were feelings running stronger than on the poll tax.
  Ray Ellis was the fifth miner to represent Derbyshire, North-East, an area which has suffered boundary changes. The first miner was a Lib-Lab, elected in 1907, who joined the Labour party in 1910. For 68 years of the intervening 80 years the constituency was served by five mining Members from Derbyshire. Among them was Tom Swain, who was well known in the House and was a fighter on behalf of his constituents in more ways than one. I have broken that tradition in that I am not a miner, but I take over the commitment to fight on behalf of mining in my constituency.
  Some mining is still left in north-east Derbyshire. There are three pits, one of which is at High Moor, where Ray Ellis was for a number of years an extremely effective union branch secretary with a sound reputation for negotiating on behalf of his members. The other two pits are at Renishaw Park and Ireland. Ireland is on the boundary of north-east Derbyshire and Chesterfield and is currently the subject of closure plans by the NCB.
  The NCB has also produced a hit-list of further pits in the area, such as Markham, Bolsover, and Warsop. Renishaw Park also appears on that list. Such closures would seriously affect the future employment prospects of people in my constituency.
  In the three constituencies of Bolsover, Derbyshire. North-East and Chesterfield, mining is still the leading employer, partly because of the growth in unemployment within the area. Even so, the mining industry has been contracting, although jobs have been contracting at a faster rate. It can therefore be seen that mining still has a prominence in the constituency, and it is my intention to argue on its behalf and for the maintenance of the pits in those areas, particularly as they all have workable coal reserves.
  I shall also defend the mining industry because of my own background. My father, relatives and my wife's father were miners. During the past 21 years I have taught both Derbyshire and Yorkshire miners, although they have probably taught me much more. In fact, three Members of this House attended classes that I have taught, and they, too, are now teaching me much more than I ever taught them.
  I probably learnt more about miners' interests during the academic year 1984–85. During that time I taught two classes of Yorkshire miners, who attended rigorously despite the fact that it was the most terrifying period that they had ever gone through. Indeed, one of those miners was later killed when he returned to his pit.
  My election to this House indicates that many changes are taking place in north-east Derbyshire. It is no longer an area pockmarked with pits, as it was at one time. It now contains a commuter element which centres on Sheffield and Chesterfield, of which I was a part as a teacher. Derbyshire, North-East is a socially and politically divided constituency, although not on traditional north-south lines. There is a classic east-west divide, with a strong Labour feeling in the east and a strong Conservative

  789
  feeling in the west. Both views should be taken account of by the Government, because to some extent it is a replica of what we now find generally throughout the country. A wise Government do not ride roughshod over differing attitudes and opinions, but seek to reconcile such conflicting interests and attitudes.
  The Government's poll tax is a striking example of the problem that now exists, because in north-east Derbyshire the east-enders of the constituency will be expected to subsidise the west-enders, and that will cause uproar.
  The Government are seemingly intent on creating scenarios that repeat those that we have seen in the past in Derbyshire, North-East. The eastern part of my constituency includes Clay Cross; in the western part are commuter areas such as Dronfield and Wingerworth. Clay Cross fought the Housing Finance Act 1972 for reasons similar to those that people have put forward against the poll tax. The Housing Finance Act provided for people's rents to be increased to pay for subsidies for their neighbours, and to reduce the rate burden and generally to transfer funds to the Exchequer. The poorer people were expected to subsidise the richer. But that was mild in comparison to measures instigated by the Government since and in the poll tax that is now on the cards, including reduction in rate support grant, controls being operated centrally, and the destruction of the ability and right of people to provide and act for themselves and to control things democratically. Clay Cross and the other areas in Derbyshire, North-East are unlikely to be willing to sit back gently and allow that to occur.
  Financial problems in the community affect such areas as Dronfield, which, like many western areas, also has its working-class wards. In one of those wards there is a problem that requires Government finance and assistance. There is a fire raging underground near an industrial estate at Callywhite lane in Dronfield. We are seeking a delegation from the district council, the town council, firms, trade unionists and others to seek Government assistance. According to a magistrate's decision last week, the council is expected to find £300,000 to put out the fire. In terms of grant penalties, that would be £342,000—the product of a 4p rate, in areas that can ill afford it. Clearly, there is a case here for help from central Government.
  The Department of the Environment has at last agreed to meet the delegation, but only after I put before the House early-day motion No. 46, signed by several other hon. Members; after an oral and a written question were put forward; and after I had tried to raise the matter on the Adjournment. Now, because we are approaching the summer recess—which I voted against—that delegation may not be met until September. That is not adequate for my constituents. Serious dangers need to be dealt with, and North-East Derbyshire district council is beginning to require assistance, particularly financial assistance.
  There is an embankment of 40 to 45 ft. with a stream at the bottom. At the top of the embankment, on car park land behind firms, the temperature is 40 deg C. on the ground. At the top of the embankment the soil temperature is 60 deg. At the bottom of the embankment it is 87 degrees. Three feet below the bottom of the embankment the temperature is 630 deg C. in various hot spots. The fire cannot be put out with water; water oxidises the soil. The fire is gathering momentum; because it is growing in area it is threatening other firms and gas
  790
  supplies in the area. At stake in the immediate future are 300 jobs. If the district council puts up the rates and requires firms under the Public Health Act 1936 to provide the money, a number of those firms will go bankrupt. They will not be assisted by the poll tax, nor by the provision that is made for businesses; they will go by the board, and 300 jobs will have gone in an area of high unemployment. Even worse than that is the fact that the stream at the bottom of the embankment is within 100 yd of a BMX track. Children are not prevented from going to the stream; all that is provided is a warning notice. That must be acted on.
  I return to Clay Cross. That struggle showed that to engage in hard battles against Government measures is not unpopular. In a recent by-election, a formerly debarred Clay Cross councillor was elected to the North-East Derbyshire district council with 85 per cent. of the votes. The Government believe that such a high vote is impossible, but that is the percentage that has to be gained to establish a closed shop.
  The Clay Cross councillors did not intend to defy the law. They believed that under the Housing Finance Act 1972 a commissioner could be sent in to take over housing. It was only after they had been through the courts that it was decided that under the Local Government Act 1933 a surcharge should be levied on the councillors. Many of my constituents, particularly those in the mining community, are aware of the fact that, although the action that was taken then appeared to be quite clear and open, the law can apply differing interpretations. Many sacked miners in north-east Derbyshire, including many of those who helped me in my election campaign, believe that to be so.
  The Government should not unduly burden people. Instead, they should seek to reconcile conflicting interests. I shall quote from a letter that has been written to me by somebody who lives in north-east Derbyshire. It is not a put-up job. The letter comes from a 10-year-old girl in Unstone Green, which is a deprived area. In her letter Claire Staines writes:
  "Dear Mr. Barnes, I am just writing to say how glad I am that you won your election. Can you ask Mrs. Thatcher to let us have more books and equipment for our school, and when is she going to find a job for my Dad?"
  What is being done through local government financial legislation to ensure that books are placed in Claire Staines' school and to ensure that her father is given the opportunity, because the community is prosperous, to work again? I do not think that anything is being done.
  9.54 pm
  Mr. Tony Favell: It gives me great pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). I know his constituency well, and I spent many hours of my courtship there with my wife. I was a native of Sheffield, and one of the nicest areas to go to was north-east Derbyshire.
  Occasionally I travel to Bolsover, where I am president of the Conservative Association, and where I like to keep an eye on the activities of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It is a very pleasant area——
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Skinner's hole.
  Mr. Favell: That is true. The hon. Member for Bolsover tells me that none of his predecessors lived in my house, but I have my doubts.

  791
  I am glad to be speaking this evening because the subject for debate was chosen by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn). I have connections with that area because I have been a ratepayer in that constituency for the past 20 years, and during that time I have seen the city steadily decline.
  The hon. Gentleman said that there were problems with Sheffield's industrial base. Those problems have been largely self-inflicted by the Socialist council that has ruled the city for more than 40 years.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the steel industry. When the Minister replies to the debate, he might comment on the fact that there is no major steel producer in Sheffield. Most of the steel producing in south Yorkshire is carried out in Rotherham. That is due to the fact that the rates in Rotherham are lower than those in Sheffield. Four years ago a manager of British Steel in Sheffield was complaining that it was costing him £1,000 per employee in rates per annum. It is no wonder that he has chosen to move to Rotherham rather than stay in Sheffield.
  Mr. Allen McKay: What the hon. Gentleman is saying is untrue. If he looks at the history of the steelworks and of Sheffield he will discover that the older parts of the steelworks disappeared. He will discover that due to the recession, not because of a lack of demand for steel, they disappeared. The Steel Peach and Tozer steelworks have always been in Rotherham. They did not move from Sheffield to Rotherham.
  Mr. Favell: I am suggesting not that Steel Peach and Tozer has moved from Sheffield to Rotherham, but that it is still open, whereas all the major steel producing plants in Sheffield are shut.
  Mr. McKay: The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right. The reason why Steel Peach and Tozer is there is Concast. The investment at Steel Peach and Tozer made it one of the best plants in Europe. The reason for Samuel Fox remaining at Stocksbridge is exactly the same.
  Mr. Favell: The fact remains that there is no major steel producer in the city of steel, Sheffield. That is largely due to the fact that rates are higher in Sheffield than in Rotherham.
  Why have industrial cities such as Sheffield been destroying their industrial and commercial base'? It is because. as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) said, only 18 million out of 35 million adults in this country pay rates. Of the 18 million who are liable to pay rates, only 12 million pay full rates. In places such as Sheffield, Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle and Leicester the figure is lower because of housing benefit.
  Rate rebates were introduced not that long ago because certain councils were spending more money than ratepayers could afford. It was a modest provision to start with, but now 40 per cent. of people receive rebates. That is obviously nonsense. They receive rebates because the cities and towns in which they live spend more money than the people can afford to pay for. The wonderful point about the community charge is that it will mean that the people receiving the services will largely be able to afford to pay for them. This returns democracy to the towns and the cities, and not before time.
  If we continue with the present system, there is no doubt that it will destroy our industrial cities. The simple
  792
  reason is that there are no votes in saving money. At the moment the votes are in spending money. Only a quarter of the people in Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Newcastle—all our great industrial cities—pay rates. It is not in the interests of people for whom they vote to save money. The interest is only in spending money.
  Three or four years ago I discussed the matter with Birmingham Members—it is interesting to see my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) here—and they said, "My goodness, the Conservative party will do well in Birmingham." I said, "No, it will not, because there are no votes in saving money." The Conservative group on Birmingham council was a low-spending group, but it was voted out because there were no votes in saving money, as the group found to its cost.
  Not so long ago, before the introduction of rate rebates, Socialist councils tried to hold rates down, simply because the lads as well as those who indulged in commerce and industry had to pay rates. That no longer happens. In my view, having spent my whole working life in a northern industrial city, this long-awaited, long-sought reform will be their salvation. It is a sledgehammer, but we need one to crack the nuts. It is not before time. It is welcome and I heartily endorse it. I cannot wait to vote for it.
  10.1 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who made his maiden speech today, on his felicitous references to our late friend and colleague Tom Swain and his successor Ray Ellis. I shall always remember Tom Swain with affection. He was a picturesque colleague and brave in what he said. Indeed, every hon. Member will remember how Tom Swain reacted when some kind of missile—he could not know what it was—was thrown down from the Strangers Gallery.
  I pay tribute also to my Scottish colleague the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who has been a personal friend of my family for many years. I should like to follow what he said about the poll tax.
  My contribution is precise. It refers to an interview given on "The World This Weekend" on the Sunday before last by the director of finance for the Lothian region, David Chynowith, to Gordon Clough. Clough said:
  "there's one group of people for whom the community charge will be a universal headache, the local authority finance directors who'll have to put the will of Parliament into practice. They'll have to reorganise their systems to assess and collect a tax, levied not on houses, which stay put, but on people, who don't. In Scotland, of course, they've already started work preparing for that day two years hence, when the rates overnight turn into the community charge."
  Earlier today, in a remarkable speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) made a point with characteristic embellishment. Michael Ancram lost his seat. The Secretary of State for Defence nearly lost his. Another Scottish Minister lost his. The basic reason was the immediacy of the poll tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North said in his sparkling speech that there should be a piper's lament for the election results for Michael Ancram and the other Conservatives, including John MacKay. I pay tribute to

  793
  John MacKay. He was a decent Minister in our personal dealings with him. The Scottish election result was as much about the poll tax as it was about anything.
  David Chynowith is the director of finance for Lothian region. He is also the chairman of an ad hoc committee of Scottish finance directors who are grappling with gestation problems. He said that he had been recalling what some of the problems were:
  "Well, the main difficulties at the moment are trying to analyse the various systems which we'll need to set up before 1989 … we've only got until April 1989 to get everything up and running and the first major job of course is that the assessor has to set up the community charge register and once he's done that, we've then got to sort out the means of collection from the very many more people that we'll have to collect for as compared to the domestic rate charge."
  He was asked:
  "What about the business of setting up a community charge register … That isn't exactly the same as it is the electoral register."
  Chynowith replied:
  "No, indeed it isn't and it's a running register as compared with the electoral register which is set on one day in the year. It has to be kept up-to-date continuously and must at all times record all the people who are aged over 18 and who are staying in this area."
  Is the director of finance for Lothian region and the chairman of the ad hoc committee in Scotland right or wrong to say that the register has to be kept up to date continuously each month? Is that so, or is it not?
  Clough then said:
  "Well, that's to say it's got to be updated pretty well monthly has it, because you have to collect in 12 monthly instalments?"
  Chynowith replied:
  "That's correct. It has to be updated continuously, yes and so each month it must be correct for each of the residents in the area."
  Will the Minister tell me whether that is right or wrong? He can get the information from his officials in the Box, because the Box had better have thought about these things. Is it true that the register has to be updated every month? Let it be put on the record that I give the Minister an opportunity to reply. The fact is that, like so many of the other things that I have seen in the last quarter of a century, the poll tax is ill thought out.
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), whom I hold in the highest regard, has repeatedly asked these questions both publicly and privately—he does not say anything in private that he would not say in public. It is no good dismissing him. After all, he has run one of the major committees in Birmingham, so he just might know something about this. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I intend to make my small contribution when the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has finished.
  Mr. Dalyell: Let me then warn the House that I think that it is correct that if the register is to work—we are not talking about equity here—there has to be an updating every month. If the Minister does not deny that, either he does not know the answer or I am right. It must be one or t'other.
  Clough continues:
  794
  "So how is the assessor setting about this? Is he having to send out questionnaires to every household to say, who is going to be living in your house on April 5th 1989, who's over 18?"
  I wish that the Minister had heard my hon. Friend in his maiden speech talking about aunties under the bed, because in the Dulwich question that he put so brilliantly my hon. Friend said exactly what would happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) has gone on record time and again as saying that he now has 43,000 constituents but, by the time the poll tax is in operation, he will have only 10,000 because they will not register. How are people going to get them to register?
  The director of finance answered:
  "He will have to canvass every property in the area. It won't just be a postal canvas of course because there is not a complete response to any postal canvass one does and it will be necessary for him to employ staff to actually go around and knock on doors and stand on door steps, I'm afraid."
  Clough said:
  "What happens if someone who is initially registered on April 5th, let's say, decides to go away and live somewhere else … so he presumably doesn't … or he, she doesn't have to go on paying the community charge to Lothian but will presumably have to pay it somewhere else. Whose duty is it to tell whom about that?"
  I suspect that the answer is a ministerial lemon, because the Minister does not know.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: That is not untypical.
  Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend says that that is not untypical, but my hon. Friend and I know a good deal more about this than the Minister does, because with us it has been far more immediate. This is how the Secretary of State for Defence, who without any question is a good constituency Member, nearly lost the seat that has been held by the Tory party since the first Reform Bill. That requires some explanation. Edinburgh, South has been held by the Tory party since the first Reform Bill. I confess that the university of Edinburgh came into it and that other factors were at work there, but Ministers must ask themselves what will happen to their colleagues in 1991. I have a great deal of experience in the House, and I know that as soon as we start lifting up stones, creepy crawly things come out. It is wise for Governments to understand what those creepy crawly things are.
  Chynowith says:
  "Well, it's the responsibility of every individual to notify the authority they're leaving and also the authority that they're going to. So every single person over the age of 18 will have that duty and responsibility to ensure that the community charge register is kept up-to-date."
  Will every family Cunninghame, North do that? I do not think that I can promise to deliver it in Linlithgow.
  Clough says:
  "It wouldn't be, I think, having too gloomy a view of human nature to suggest that some people might get lost on the Way?"
  What happens if someone's son is lost in the Sahara? Does he pay? That is the Dulwich factor again. I do not wish to embellish the Dulwich question, because it is the property of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden telling me that the West Lothian question was like the Schleswig-Holstein question. The Schleswig-Holstein question became very interesting and that is what may happen with the Dulwich question.
  Mr. Ralph Howell: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments about creepy crawlies

  795
  that might come from under stones. Is it not true that, at the election, the creepy crawlies did not come out from under the stones and, therefore, the Labour party lost the election?
  Mr. Dalyell: That is what I am trying to say. This is something that worries me greatly. One sees how blue the map is—with the exception of Oxford, East—south of a line that starts about 25 miles south of Derby. In Norfolk and East Anglia, there is only one red dot, for Norwich. I mourn greatly the loss of Ken Weetch in Ipswich. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) can say that the Conservatives won the election in his area, but has it not occurred to him that, even with the huge Conservative majority of 102, there is not a single Conservative Member on the Greater Glasgow conurbation? Does that not create problems?
  Mr. Howell indicated dissent.
  Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Thoughtful Conservatives might ask why it happened. What I am saying—not on the hustings—is that this has much to do with the fact that Scotland was being used as a guinea pig for the poll tax. That is a partial explanation for the remarkable discrepancies. If hon. Members were wise, they would challenge their Ministers on how this scheme would work. I do not think that the Minister has much of a clue, because he has not yet put his mind to it.
  Chynowith says:
  "I'm absolutely certain that they will because clearly if people move regularly, they may take the view that they'll wait for the local authority to catch up with them."
  Where are all the local authority personnel going to come from for this? An enormous amount of staff are involved.
  I will read into the record the question to which I received an answer today:
  "Mr. Dalyell asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many civil servants in all departments are currently involved in preparation for the implementation of the poll tax?
  Mr. Michael Howard: 21 staff in the Department of the Environment, 10 in the Scottish Office and three in the Welsh Office are engaged full-time on all aspects of the reform of local government finance. A further 21 staff in the Department of the Environment and 36 staff in other central departments are involved, as part of their other duties, in contributing to this work."
  Those 21 staff in the Department of the Environment had better be asked to bend their minds to the kind of question that the director of finance—the technical man, who is a careful accountant—is being asked.
  Clough said:
  "OK. So you've got to draw up a community charge register which is going to need extra staff. How many people are you going to have to take on, do you think, to do that?"
  Chynowith said:
  "Well I understand the assessor is estimating in Lothian that he'll need between 60 and 70 extra staff."
  If 60 or 70 extra staff will be needed in Lothian, 120 to 140 staff will be needed in Strathclyde. How many one will need in the Western Isles I do not know. The physical cost of employing extra staff is very real. What kind of money will they be paid? Clough said
  "There is going to be … a difficulty isn't there, even in collecting the names because if people know that in admitting that there's going to be an 18 year old living in the house, they're going to have to pay whatever it might be … a great temptation not to register."
  I ask the Minister to save time by reading carefully the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for
  796
  Cunninghame, North, because he put it more graphically than I could. He said that people will be disappearing under the bed. That may be a flight of poetic language.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman has advanced three arguments. The first is that it will be hard work for the finance officers. They would say that. I have never had any sympathy with local government officers who complain about changes in legislation because it means that they have to do more work, if it happens to be a better system. Secondly, he cast aspersions on the Scottish people by suggesting that there would be only 10,000 people left in one of his hon. Friend's constituencies. That suggests a very high rate of dishonesty among the Scottish people, which I am sure is not true. The third suggestion was that he was concerned about the Government losing seats. I am grateful to him for his concern about our electoral future, but when will he gel. to the main issue—equity? Is the community charge fair, because it increases the charge so that everybody who uses services pays towards their cost?
  Mr. Dalyell: I am not casting any aspersions on the Scottish people. I am simply a little worldly wise. I know how people behave when asked to pay more money than they probably can pay in circumstances where the electoral register is not perfect. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) said how imperfect the electoral register was in his area. It means forming another register. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) dismissed the directors of finance, but when dealing with them and with actuaries I have learnt to be careful. One has to take them seriously. The man I am quoting is a careful accountant.
  Chynowith added:
  "Yes, I think there will be a temptation and especially for those people who … are itinerant, whose perhaps jobs change regularly or perhaps they're on the move … through their job and … I think that there will certainly be a great temptation on people not … to register."
  Does the Minister accept that there will he this temptation?
  Clough said:
  "So are you then going to have to employ constantly people who will have right of entry to households to count the number of beds that have been slept in and whether they've got big shoes alongside them?"
  Chynowith replied:
  "We hope very much that we do not have to do that sort of thing. I don't think that the local authorities will relish that at all … it's not the sort of thing which we like to be doing.
  CLOUGH: What about the problems of collection once you get that far?
  CHYNOWITH: Yes, well, collection is going to be most difficult because we are going to be dealing with people who at the moment don't pay any form of domestic rates."
  We now come to the question of equity. How does one justify, on the basis of equity, the fact that those who live in largish houses will be paying the same as those who are crowded into unsatisfactory houses?
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Surely, we are talking about the charge for local authority services. Houses do not borrow books, go swimming or use the roads. It is the individuals within the houses that use the services. We are talking about a charge on the individual for the use of those local authority services.
  Mr. Dalyell: If that is going to be the argument, we can go back to Wat Tyler. I take the hon. Gentleman at face value and say that, if that is his view of life, there will be great trouble in the country.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the easy platitudes that we have heard from the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) are exactly the same sort of things we were hearing a couple of years ago in Scotland from people who looked at the superficialities of the matter and found it attractive but who increasingly found that there was an awful lot more to it than met the eye? Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government accept that the collection cost of the new tax in Scotland will be £21 million a year? That is how much it will cost to carry out the extraordinary shoe-measuring exercise and the rest that has been described. On a pro rata basis one would be talking about £210 million a year for the whole of the United Kingdom.
  Is my hon. Friend aware that the evasion rate that the Government now accept as likely is somewhere in the region of 15 per cent., but more sceptical people, such as myself, think it will be in the region of 20 per cent? Therefore, in spite of the silly snipes about the dishonesty of the Scottish people, it is not a victimless crime, if crime it is, because inexorably it means that the more people evade, the higher the tax is for those who remain. The figures that are being quoted as a per capita tax in England and Wales are bogusly low because they do not take account of the evasion factor of at least 20 per cent.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: That is very succinct.
  Mr. Dalyell: It was very much to the point. The House will learn to listen to my hon. Friend as I have for the past 10 years. He talks a great deal of sense and does not open his mouth without knowing what he is talking about.
  My hon. Friend asked a question as to the origins of all this. I will explain the origins. The Prime Minister, like Henry Plantagenet in a fit of frustration, said, "Who will rid me of the rates?" There are junior Ministers who, like the knights who went to do away with St. Thomas a Becket at his own altar in Canterbury wanting to please the monarch, said, "We will get rid of the rates." One gets back to a sort of patronage system where there are junior Ministers—Michael Ancram was one—who were only too pleased to oblige. All I can say is that there are certain dangers in obliging monarchs who ask too much or ask that which is impossible, and Michael Ancram paid the price.
  The Prime Minister made an unwise promise. She decided that the evidence to the Layfield committee on local income tax was overwhelming. She found that there was a refusal from the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who had more political nous and would not do it. The former Member of Parliament for Wanstead and Woodford, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, would not do it, but the present Secretary of State for the Environment, for reasons that fit in with his character, undertook to do it and then shuffled it off on other people.
  If the Minister is dealing with the poll tax, he has been handed a poisoned chalice.
  Chynowith said:
  "They're fully rebated and they will be coming due to pay at least part of the community charge because everybody has to pay 20 per cent. at least and that in itself is a major headache because we're going to be trying to collect relatively small amounts of money—perhaps something of the order of £10 or less a month and a lot of these people just will not have the wherewithal to pay it."
  798
  That brings us to the viability of the cost of collection. What is the Government's answer to the sheer cost of trying to get 20 per cent. or relatively small sums of money from itinerant people? The matter is mind-boggling.
  Clough said:
  "But the people on supplementary benefit as I understand it can help in paying even that 20 per cent. cut pay by going to the office and getting the money and then sending it on to you."
  The director of finance replied:
  "Yes indeed. As I understand it, there will be provision under the supplementary benefit regulations for a payment to be made to individuals which would cover the 20 per cent. but it's not at all clear how that is going to be done and we … obviously the regulations have still to be made."
  Clough said:
  "You're having to put into … operation a very complicated bit of legislation. As you work on it are you finding that there are areas which you have to deal with which aren't actually spelt out in the Act?"
  Ministers had better note the reply:
  "Yes indeed. We think at the moment there is something around 90 different issues which will have to be settled by some form of statutory instrument and they will have to laid fairly soon because of course we've got to develop the systems that will make this thing work."
  There are 90 different issues—90 statutory instruments. Has anybody told Mr. Speaker or the Government business managers about that? I have it from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that we are to spend hours on each one. We shall not let anything go through. Ninety times 90 is 8,100 minutes of parliamentary time.
  Mr. Bennett: That was a promise made before the shadow Cabinet election.
  Mr. Dalyell: Promises may have been made, but somehow we have experience of the matter. I am the man who, for 47 days—some of my colleagues did not approve—kept the House going in 1978–79 on devolution. We know how it can be done. Some hon. Members can talk even longer than I can. The Government business managers should take the matter on board. They should bear in mind the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Garscadden and for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton).
  Mr. Wilson: People will miss their trains.
  Mr. Dalyell: Yes, there will be missed trains. If we are to talk about the Scottish people, they will expect us to miss our trains because of this matter. The Government can set the business down for Thursday nights. The night sleeper will be less frequented, because we shall be here.
  Clough went on:
  "That does suggest—and I'm not asking you to make a political comment but it does suggest—that the Act wasn't properly thought through."
  Chynowith replied:
  "Well, I wouldn't say that. No, I think in fact in drawing up the Act, the civil servants who drew it up were well aware that there were a lot of gaps in it and they have made provision for statutory instruments to be made subsequent to the passing of the Act. But clearly, it was rushed through and there were a lot of last amendments to it … clearly it was an Act which was difficult to draft and is going to be even more difficult to implement."
  Let not the Government say that they have not been warned.
  I wish to raise one other local authority issue. In my constituency there has been a proposition that the village of Torphichen should have the first AIDS hospice or

  799
  hostel in Europe. For 25 years I have always taken the view that it is not up to Members of Parliament to second-guess or try to overturn local authority decisions even though they may be decisions of local authorities that, as in my case, are not Labour-dominated. Local authorities have their place and must be treated with respect by hon. Members. Therefore, I do not wish to bother or concern the House with the direct issues of Torphichen.
  I wish to ask the Minister—I do not expect an answer tonight, as that would be unreasonable—to what extent the Government are thinking about AIDS hospices and hostels? Such a development was one of the recommendations of the report of the Select Committee on Social Services. What is the Government's view—
  800
  possibly this should be passed onto the Scottish Office, but other Government Departments should reflect upon it—about placing AIDS hospices or hostels in small rural communities? I believe that a hospice is somewhere that the terminally ill can die with dignity and a hostel is where patients go with some hope of recovery. That recovery involves integration with the local community.
  It is a delicate issue, and I leave it at that. Any reader of the Scottish press or viewer of television—not only national television; the French and the West German television companies are also interested—will be aware of its importance. It is something of a test case. I ask Ministers to reflect on the issues involved.

  Local Government Finance
  10.31 pm
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: There is no doubt that the Government have a mandate for change. There is also no doubt that for most people voting in the general election local government was an important issue. Many people are sick and tired of the present rating system.
  A single person may live next door to a similar house where there are two, three or four income earners. That person may find that he pays exactly the same local tax—that is what rates are—as those four people. As a result, he feels hard done by.
  There is no doubt that when it was first devised, the rating system was not intended to bear the huge and groaning burden that the present rating system must bear. It was devised to fill in potholes, to make sure that there was a road from one village to another and from one town to another, and to ensure that itinerants on the road were put into a home overnight and then moved on to another parish. Rates were meant to be a small burden on the community. However, as time has moved on the kind of sums that local government needs to raise have grown fast. The sums that local government spend today are between £26,000 million and £30,000 million. They are vast sums.
  It is no good thinking that an outworn and overburdened system can bear such expenditure. There is a common feeling among people that the present system is unjust. There is no shadow of doubt but that the present system is unjust to many people. However, it is no good changing from one unjust system to another potentially unjust system or one that may be even more unjust. It is no good the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) talking about Thomas a Becket or saying, "Who will rid me of this pestilent tax?", without suggesting some better tax to put in its place.
  One Parliament after another in this country has fiddled around with local government, and nearly always to local government's disadvantage. We have had one local government Bill after another, in which I have had some hand since I have had the great honour of being a representative in this House. Has local government improved? The answer is that it has not. We have tried one system after another. We abolished one type of council and put in the great urban and district councils. We had a West Midlands metropolitan council, and what a disaster that was. We have now decided to do away with such councils. We must find a better, more efficient and just way in which to raise money for local government expenditure for the needs of our local people. It can, of course, be done by taxation or by VAT. However, the people who say that the few pay for the many have some justice in their argument. There must be some accountability, but, if one is to change the basis of local taxation, there must be that one essential justice that runs throughout this ancient country's history—the ability to pay. That ability to pay is missing from the poll tax as it will be. Let us be quite blunt; call it what one will, it is a poll tax.
  Mr. Ralph Howell: Surely the ability to pay should be taken care of by the tax and benefit system. Why should there be two tax and benefit systems?
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I shall come to that point. One could say that it should be done through national taxation. However, I am one of those people who, between the ages of 22 and 40 years, when I had the honour to come here was in local government. I believe in government, and I believe in it being local. I believe also that there should be a structure in government that accounts itself to local people and their needs. Therefore, there needs to be a local tax.
  In a debate on one of the local government Bills, I suggested to Patrick Jenkin, the then Secretary of State for the Environment, that there was a need for change. I have not had any reason to change the system which I suggested back in 1983 and which I hope the Government will reconsider. It is quite simple. If we believe in a property-owning democracy as I do, that it is right to give between £2·5 million and £3 million of relief to people who own their own homes through mortgage tax relief, as I do, and that possibly the best investment that any person can make is in his own home—I believe that it is—then a property tax should form part of the basis of any form of collecting local revenue.
  Therefore, I suggest that we need not to abolish the rating system, but to use the property tax in a rather different way. What we need to do—the Government could even do it—is to say that a property tax may not be increased by more than the rate of inflation without a Government edict. That would be fair. The same applies to the business rate. Because the business man is not represented directly by a local vote, he is represented by us. Therefore, the business rate should not he able to be increased by more than that same factor. In an inflation-proofed rating system that is above the rate support grant, one should get any extra expenditure from a poll tax. That poll tax should be based on nearly everybody except the most impecunious and poor. Everybody, except those people, should pay a poll tax, because it is right that everybody should be involved in, should bear some responsibility for and be willing to vote on what their local council does.
  If the whole rating system is swept away and a poll tax is introduced, a vast and heavy burden will result. The system will not work, because it will not be just or based on the ability to pay. It is no good abolishing the whole of the property tax system; the problem will not go away. We are moving along the right lines in changing the system, but we must make it fairer and ensure that the tax can be borne by a greater number of people.
  The Government will be out of their tiny mind if they think that they can abolish rates and transfer the burden without taking account of the ability to pay. As the Bill progresses, the Government will merely have to make one exception after another. I am told that London ratepayers cannot bear the full burden. Fine, we shall make an exception for them. Then there will be other exceptions. It is exceptions that make lousy legislation and bad, unjust laws.
  Let us change the present system where it bears unfairly only on property owners and use all the benefits and systems of our modern society to ensure that the system is fairer than it is at present to a greater number of people. If we do this together we shall have a fairer system and more people will become involved in local government. Surely, that is what we want in the end.
  It is no good any of us thinking that this is like a children's tea party, with everyone gaining. There is not a

  803
  present for everybody. Some people who have not previously had to pay local taxes will have to pay, and so they should. In the end we want people to feel that, even if they do not like the system, it is just, because a just society is more united and happier than an unjust one. If the Government push through their proposals, the system will not be just, people will not be happy, and it will not work.
  10.42 pm
  Mr. Allen McKay: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark ) because we have sat on many local government committees together and I hope that we shall sit together on many more. I shall read and analyse his speech carefully. Nobody would deny that the present rating system needs to be reviewed, but the Government's proposed rating system will be equally unfair, if not more so. The hon. Gentleman should note what happened in Scotland, because the poll tax had a great bearing on the election results there. There is great unrest about it throughout the country and among Conservative Members, and the Government should realise full well what is happening.
  It is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) intervened, because as a farmer he is one of the most privileged people in the country. Farmers do not pay rates. Every hon. Member present in the Chamber except the hon. Gentleman pays rates. His is a privileged position. But I shall not enter into the rates argument—I had that with my local branch of the National Farmers Union during the election. We agreed on many points regarding the necessity of rating and the problems of it for the farming community. The hon. Gentleman will know of those problems and somebody must pay for them.
  Mr. Ralph Howell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that if agricultural land was rated the price of food would have to rise considerably. That point must be accepted.
  Mr. McKay: As well as land, we must consider buildings and other factors.
  It would appear from some of the speeches made by Conservative Members today that no one will lose. We have heard about the old lady on her own and the young married couple who will not lose. We have also heard about industry and commerce, which will not lose. Who will pay, if no one is to lose? I am reminded of Paddy's donkey. Paddy had the bright idea that it was costing too much to feed his donkey. He decided that it would be more economical if he cut down on the donkey's food. He discovered that when the donkey reached the stage when it could do without food, it died. That is what will happen to local government. There will be so many cuts that eventually local government will be cut out altogether.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall try to help my hon. Friend. Of course we could rate farmers. That would help local authorities, because they could get back some of the £500 million to £1 billion net payments that have been made to the Common Market, most of which is recycled into the pockets of farmers for growing useless cereals or for storing them. It would actually be an advantage to rate the large cereal farmers.
  Mr. McKay: I have taken that point up with the National Farmers Union and my local farmers, with whom I have a very good relationship. We are paying the farmers twice, once for growing the cereals, and then by subsiding them to put the crops into intervention. That is a crazy system.
  How did the position in local government arise? Committees and Governments of various political persuasions have tried to find an alternative to the domestic rate for many years. They have not found an alternative that is as cheap or as easy to collect as the present system. There is no doubt that Government Committees have shied away from alternatives which were not as cheap or as easy.
  The Government have now found a different method, but it will not be as cheap or as easy to collect as the present system. For more than 350 years the rates have been the principal source of local revenue. It will take a very strong case to justify the loss of that experience or the costs that will be incurred. The Government have not made such a case and we need more time to examine the proposals. We need more time than the Government are prepared to allow. Clearly, when the House reassembles in the autumn there will be a major Bill on the community charge, and no doubt that Bill will be in Committee after the Christmas recess.
  We all know that there is a case against the present system. The single elderly woman who lives in a large house on her own and who is paying an enormous rate is often quoted. That is what the rate rebate system was brought into being for. Conservative Members go on about people not paying rates and about people receiving rate rebates. The reason why they receive rate rebates is that they simply do not earn sufficient, particularly in low-wage areas. Indeed, if they are earning at all in my area, they are extremely lucky.
  We could equally make a case for a childless couple, asking why they should pay towards the education bill when they have no children and are not likely to have any. People with their own transport may ask why they should pay towards a transport system when they do not use or need it. We could go on and on citing reasons why people should not pay rates. People have made the point forcefully.
  The problems with the rates have arisen because of the reduction in grant from central Government to local government, which has dropped from 61 to about 46·5 per cent.—and that has caused tremendous problems for local government—and because of the industrial depression.
  I think that Conservative Members have got it the wrong way round. They say that industry moved out of areas because of high rates, but those high rates were caused by industries becoming depressed. They closed down; they went bankrupt; they were not earning. The old rateable base disappeared. The few industries that were left took on the burden of the rates that all the industries used to share.
  A combination of those two factors—the loss of grant from central Government to local government, and the depression of industry—caused a rate problem, particularly in northern areas. The Government tell local government to cut back on its rate spending, but who are the so-called high-spending authorities, and what are they

  805
  spending the money on? I do not want to hear about frivolous things such as newspapers. They take a very small percentage of what local authorities spend.
  Local government has tried to take on the responsibilities abdicated by central Government. It has tried to take on board the loss of employment and to create employment. It has tried to take on board subsidies for housing, which has been sold off in some areas. Ironically, local government cannot touch that money either. It has been salted away in a bank and cannot be used. If it were released, some spending power would be released for the local authorities.
  Those, then, are some of the problems that have been caused, not by local government or by the rating system, but by the deliberate policy of a Conservative Government who have cut back and depressed local areas. Businesses that had taken on the huge burden of industries that had closed called for help, and rightly so. The Government reduced interest rates, abolished the national insurance surcharge, reduced corporation tax and dispensed with wages councils, so wages were lowered. All that was done to help industry, but while that was happening the opposite was happening on the domestic side. Rents and rates were increasing. Now, the Government are trying to turn the burden back from industry arid commerce on the on to the domestic ratepayer. Those ratepayers have already been hit, but the Government are saying, "You should help more."
  There is little doubt that in my area industrial and commercial rates will be lower. I am not a betting man, but, if I were, I would put money on its not increasing prosperity, jobs or job opportunities. I know that in many cases industry in my area is running on a knife edge, not just because of the rates, but because of energy profits an energy prices. I can point to two firms in the area that are second to none. BXL plastics depends on the prices of oil and other commodities from abroad, and Shaw Carpets also depends considerably on oil produce, the price and the variance between the dollar and the pound. There is no doubt that the alteration in rate will lift the anxiety and the burden, but it will not increase the number of people employed. Only better sales.
  Mr. Favell: One of the things that the Government have been trying to do is reduce energy prices—for example, by getting some sense into the coal industry. Reducing the number of people required to produce a ton of coal reduces energy costs. As the hon. Gentleman has suggested, lower energy costs help industry in his area. Why on earth will low rates not also help it? Will they not bring greater prosperity, and also jobs? Jobs, after all, are what we in the north want, not more people employed in the town hall. Where, for instance, is the sense in Manchester employing twice as many people as Stockport to empty a dustbin, when there is not the slightest difference between the two?
  Mr. McKay: I cannot comment on what happens in Manchester and Stockport without examining the situation—no doubt there are good reasons for it—but what the hon. Member says about the mining industry and coal prices can be taken a bit further. The Government's policy has increased the rates burden in my area. Nine collieries have been closed. The area depended on the rates from those nine collieries, and the remaining businesses are
  806
  now having to bear the burden of those closures. Furthermore, if the collieries are not producing coal, the spending power of the miners is also lost.
  The domestic rate is now a political issue. Whether one is in or out of work, whether one is rich or poor, young or old, whether one lives in a bungalow or in a castle, everybody will pay the same rate. A person who lives in a bungalow will pay the same rate as somebody who lives in Wentworth Woodhouse. It is crazy to introduce such a system. As the hon. Member for Selly Oak said, we shall have to create exceptions. As soon as the Bill becomes an Act, statutory instruments will have to be introduced to cover those exceptions.
  Whenever we alter the law relating to local government, we make it worse. A previous Government decided to abolish the small urban district councils, which were cheap to run and which provided an excellent service. That was when all our troubles began. How will the water and sewerage rates be calculated? The water supplies cannot be metered by next year when this measure is expected to reach the statute book. How, therefore, will water and sewerage rates be calculated? People are worried about this. They know what is to happen.
  The poll tax will depress areas that are already depressed and it will place additional burdens on people who are already overburdened. The Bill will be discussed in Committee. The worst that we can do is to try to alter it. The best that we can do is to bury it.
  11.57 pm
  Mr. Robin Squire: I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) for initiating this debate. At a time when we can, we hope, still influence Government thinking, it provides us with an opportunity to discuss again the community charge. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) last addressed the House immediately after I had spoken during the first day of debate on the Loyal Address. And surprise, surprise, we are discussing the same issue tonight. It is opportune to take it a stage further, because matters have moved on since then.
  I shall concentrate on the few reasons that have been advanced by my right hon. Friends for introducing this charge. I make it clear, if I need to do so to any hon. Member, that I oppose its introduction. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, for whom I have considerable personal affection, said in a number of interviews that this charge should be introduced because there is no logic in all those who enjoy the same local government services not paying the same charge. It is an interesting theory and at first sight it has a certain superficial attraction.
  The principle is that we should pay the same amount for education and social services, regardless of our resources, but why do we not do the same on defence or the Health Service? What is so specal about local government services that they should be funded by a flat rate charge when we are not proposing to extend the same benefit to nationally funded services? The more that one looks at the matter the more one sees the logic of the proposition that we should continue to draw on a property tax, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) said. Broadly speaking, after income tax and VAT, a property tax is the natural third leg of the tripod. We can argue about the basis for a property tax and whether there should be a revaluation.

  807
  If there is not to be a revaluation, I should like to be the first to opt to pay my income tax on the basis of my 1973 earnings. In principle, a property tax is a perfectly reasonable suggestion and we should stick to it.
  My experience so far is that not a few people who stand to benefit should the community charge be introduced are embarassed by it and consider it unfair. They have said to me, "It would be nice for me personally, but I do not think that I can justify it when I look at the nature of those who will be paying much more.' It is a welcome, although not common, attitude. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary should be aware of that attitude, because it is important. I do not believe that the claim that we should pay an equal amount for the same service stands up, and it is not consistent with the provision of national services.
  The residual claim that is increasingly being uttered—occasionally with a note of desperation—is that the community charge proposals were in the manifesto. I commend to hon. Members the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) who last week skilfully made clear his position on the theory of manifesto accountability. He said that he had never believed in it as a reasonable concept. I agree with him.
  I was not consulted on the subject, but I opposed the introduction of the community charge in Scotland. My hon. Friends who were in the House before the election may remember how our attitude was conditioned by the approach of our Scottish colleagues, who argued strongly for the community charge in Scotland. I am the last person to deny hon. Members a tax or a piece of legislations that they are seeking, particularly if it does not affect me——
  Mr. Caborn: What has happened to them?
  Mr. Squire: The hon. Member asks a pertinent if embarrassing question which is not for me to answer but, as he rightly implies, some of my colleagues asked for it.
  I am anxious that the political lessons—there is a political dimension in this matter—be learned by the Government before it is too late. Much of the doubt and questioning and many of the fears that have been expressed by Conservatives on this issue have been on the structure of the proposed tax, its innate fairness or unfairness and the relative ease of collection. I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to bear in mind that, as the weeks and months go by, the political dimension will become stronger.
  Because of the nature of any major tax, a number of hon. Friends will be a little embarrassed about its impact. That will not go away. They may not now be involved in our discussions about the fairness or rectitude of such a tax relative to the present form, but they will be involved in its political impact. I judge that they will be involved in a way that will not increase support for the Government's proposals. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to think carefully about this measure.
  We are pledged to introduce a fairer charge. I am happy to consider ways of improving the fairness of the payment for local government services. I suggest that, if we embark on the community charge course, there is little room for halfway measures. There are few compromises. There are few ways in which we can get a satisfactory answer if a number of people—perhaps a large number—object to the initial premise. My fear is that the majority of the people will not be convinced, whether in one year or five
  808
  years, that it is fair for the man in his castle to pay the same as the man in his mid-terrace cottage. Because I believe that, I urge my Government to rethink.
  11.6 pm
  Mr. Ralph Howell: I have listened to many speeches on this subject. Many hon. Members have said that there will be gaiiners and losers. But there is a way in which we can all be gainers, and that is if local government reduces overmanning. In 1960, 2 million people were employed in local government. There are now 3 million. We argue about how these charges will be levied on the whole population, but we should concentrate our minds on economising in local government and getting value for money. There could be a million fewer people employed in local government. What are they doing? There are virtually no more children to educate or dustbins to empty than 1960; also, there are about five times as many planners as in 1974.
  There is much to be said for thinking about the community charge in the way Professor Patrick Mulford did in his article in the Daily Telegraph today. He said that, whether we are rich or poor, we pay the same amount for a Mars bar. I am not, however, convinced that the same applies to rates.
  Mr. Favell: Why not?
  Mr. Howell: I believe that there should be an element of property tax. It should not be charged entirely on property, as at present. I would prefer a halfway house between the two forms of charging. However, I am convinced that there should not be two systems which try to level out income. At present we have the income tax and benefits system to try to redistribute income and also rent rebates. The interaction of those two systems creates many anomalies. We should return to one simple system.
  I hope that the Government realise that they will make a great mistake if there are two categories of ratepayers—those who pay 100 per cent. and those who pay 20 per cent. If that is how it will be, I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to tell me whether there will be any taper between 20 and 100 per cent. The publication., "Paying for Local Government", does not make it clear. Nor does it make clear how it is proposed to recover unpaid rates. It says:
  "It is envisaged that the system regulating such deductions. will be a simplification of present arrangements for attaching earnings to pay family maintenance or court fines. It will apply to employees, but not to the unemployed, self-employed or retired."
  I am self-employed. It is very odd that people in normal employed work will have to pay whereas the others—I should like to know how many they are, but I believe that they number about 13 million—will not pay the full amount.
  Is the change worth it if we do not spread its effects across the board evenly and make adjustments for people who are unable to pay in one tax and benefit system?
  Mr. Fallon: My hon. Friend is making a good point. If there is to be attachment of earnings on those in employment, why not have attachment of social security benefit for people who are not in employment?
  Mr. Howell: The Government must consider that matter, or they run the risk of making a traumatic change and achieving little. lf, as I believe will be the case, a vast

  809
  number of people are left outside the scheme and are therefore not effectively charged, the object of the exercise will be destroyed.
  Mr. Caborn: Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on redistribution through taxation? One of the sources of concern to the north of England, especially in view of its declining industrial base, is the fact that block grant has declined substantially. It has always been argued in local government circles that block grant is a mechanism to redistribute wealth throughout the United Kingdom. One of the major difficulties for the north is the reduction of Government grants. As I tried to explain, the burden is now clearly lodged with the north whereas previously there was much fairer distribution. If it had not been for the reduction in Government assistance, there would not have been the fairly massive increases in rate contributions in the north.
  Mr. Howell: I am afraid that I am unable to follow that argument. There has been too much support from the Government and not enough responsibility in local government. The north, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have had a very good deal; it is the south-east, which creates all the wealth, which has had to pay the bill.
  I should like clarification on how married and unmarried couples will be charged. Paragraph 46 of "Paying for Local Government" says:
  "The Government is therefore considering the suggestion that joint and several liability should apply to unmarried couples who live together."
  It is about time that the Government knew what they were going to do; otherwise we will have a further attack on the family and married people. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that those who are married will not be disadvantaged compared to those who are not married.
  11.14 pm
  Mr. John Fraser: There are four people I need to congratulate. The first is my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), on having initiated the debate and, although he is the only person to have done so in the debate, on emphasising the cuts in capital expenditure by local authorities, the effects of which are now being seen more markedly on our council estates. They are starved of capital investment and starved of improvement and are often situated in those difficult areas of the inner city and out city estates. My hon. Friend underlined the extent to which the Government are turning up the fire under the inner-city cauldron by that form of neglect. He also does us a service by initiating not only a debate on the poll tax but a debate in which every speaker since his opening speech has concentrated on that subject. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) said that we will return to the subject time and time again. I expect that there is an enormous amount of truth in that.
  Secondly, our congratulations go to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd), whom we saw in the Chair tonight. I am sure that those congratulations have the endorsement of all hon. Members.
  Thirdly, my congratulations go to the two hon. Members who made maiden speeches. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) is
  810
  clearly a Member of great ability. I understand that he has a great reputation at the Bar and we can look forward to hearing from him again. He rightly turned his attention to the poll tax.
  The final congratulations are to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who spoke in an insistent regional accent about the problems of his constituency and about the predicament of a constituency where some of those facts are neither understood nor known to some Members on the Government Benches. He illustrated very well some of the absurd nature of local government finance when he dealt with the financial penalties that will be inflicted upon his council for dealing with the Dronfield fire. I hope that the Minister who is to wind up on the matter will say something about that.
  The speeches of the hon. Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) are probably more authentic of the concern of Government Back Benchers than those from some other Government Members. It certainly looks as though the non-ratepaying farmer, the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell), also is a floating voter on the matter.
  Mr. Ralph Howell: I am not sure whether I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly. I thought he said that I was a non-ratepaying farmer. That is not true, and perhaps he could withdraw that.
  Mr. Fraser: Of course I withdraw if the hon. Gentleman is a ratepaying farmer. Perhaps many other farmers will now, in their enthusiasm to take part in this exercise of paying for the services which are received, join the hon. Gentleman in that activity.
  A cinema in Baker street has become the centre of a cult movie called "The Blues Brothers". I heard somebody on the radio the other day say that they had seen the film over 100 times. The poll tax will achieve that kind of notoriety. The poll tax featured in the opening day of the debate on the Queen's Speech. It was the subject of a large part of the debate on 1 July. I sat through much of the Summer Adjournment debate today, of which the poll tax formed a fairly large element. It has also been adopted as the second debate in this series. I believe that that will be the pattern for the Session, if not for the entire Parliament. I believe that in adopting the poll tax the Government have adopted a legislative albatross that will fly behind them from the beginning to the end of the Parliament.
  The case against the poll tax is not that it is a radical change in taxation. Many people would want to see a radical change in local taxation. I do not suppose one could argue, in principle, against the whole of that stated in the 1974 Conservative party manifesto. It said that rates should be replaced by a tax that is more broadly based and related to people's ability to pay. The trouble with the poll tax is that it remembers the first part of the 1974 manifesto but forgets the second.
  This tax will be grossly unfair. It is certainly not based on people's ability to pay. The supreme example of that is the Dulwich case. I know it well because the Prime Minister's house is almost next door to the place where I play squash. It is interesting that the Prime Minister chose to move to Southwark. It shows that councils such as Southwark do not seem to act as that much of a disincentive. We find that the Prime Minister's rates, which will be around £3,000 a year, would fall under the

  811
  poll tax to £1,136 a year. A family of five, living in a Lambeth or Southwark council home, would be paying £3,200 between them. Therefore, the sort of burden that would be borne by the Prime Minister and her husband at present in their Dulwich house would go down by almost £2,000 a year, but the burden borne by people living in a smaller, meaner council house would rise to almost the same figure as the Prime Minister is paying now.
  There are many other examples of the tax being wholly unrelated to people's ability to pay. Presently rates are based on roughly on the size of a house and relate roughly—I do not say that the system is perfect—to the affluence of the occupier. However, that would be an even more accurate statement about the burden of rates if the present rateable value system were replaced by a system of valuation which was based on capital values, which is a much more realistic way of assessing the rateable value of property.
  Mr. Favell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fraser: I am rather short of time. I mean no discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to try to finish by 11.30 pm so that the Minister will have a chance to reply.
  The present system has that degree of equity between the affluent and the poorer members of the community. Under the poll tax, four people living in an overcrowded pigsty will pay twice as much community charge as two people living in a palace. The dowager duchess who lives in a mansion will pay as much as the widow who is living in a basement. I realise that that is subject to rebate but, given that the widow is living in a basement is——
  Mr. Tim Janman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fraser: I would rather not. I do not have much time.
  Almost invariably with the poll tax, the rich will pay less and the poor will pay more. The papers deposited in the Library showing the comparisons of average rates per household as against the new charge per person mask the inequity because average rates mask the fact that on the whole the rich tend to pay more in rates and the poor tend to pay less.
  Apart from looking at it from an individual point of view, ability to pay will be ignored between one area and another.
  Mr. Fallon: Has the hon. Gentleman not addressed his mind to the point that I and others have made, that the Prime Minister and her husband are paying tax at a rate much higher than the standard rate? The payment they make through tax is twice what they will be making through the community charge, so their contribution will be much greater than the family next door in the example given by the hon. Member.
  Mr. Fraser: I certainly recognise that their tax contribution is high. I do not deny that. Equally, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will deny that there will be an abrupt and hugely beneficial diminution in the amount of rate burden that they pay as a result of the introduction of the community charge, and that there will be a large increase in the total rate burden that will be borne by much poorer people than they. Let us bear in mind that the
  812
  percentage of tax that is paid by ordinary working-class people has gone up hugely since the Tory Government got into office.
  The next point that I argue is that the poll tax is not only inequitable as between one person and another but does not have regard to ability to pay between one area and another. Deprived areas would be defined as inner-city partnership areas. The definition does not lie for me to make; it is already defined by the Government. I shall gove the House the figures for London. On the Government's own figures, the average rates per head in Hackney, which is the most deprived borough in the country, would be up by £276 per adult. In Lambeth, an inner-city partnership area, the average per head would be up by £259 per person a year. In Islington, another inner-city partnership area, the burden would be up by £206 per head of the population against the average rates per head of the population at the moment. In Southwark, a newly created inner-city partnership area, rates would be up by £269 per head.
  We must compare those figures with the most affluent areas of London. In Westminster, the figure would be down by £103 per head; in Barnet, it would be down by £71 per head; in Richmond, it would be down by £51 per head; and, in Bromley it would be down by £26. The House should be aware that the effect is not absolutely even as between rich and poor areas. For Brent's Labour council—it is not the flavour of the month with the Minister or the Government—rates per head will go down under the community charge by £51 per head.
  In the local authority that is the flavour of the month—Wandsworth—community charge will lead to a rise or £217 per head per year in the burden of taxation. No wonder we read in this evening's edition of The London Daily News:
  "Local Government Minister Michael Howard is working on a scheme to slowly phase in big bills from ILEA so that Westminster and Wandsworth boroughs have time to opt out of the schooling system."
  That was before they realised the huge burden that will fall upon them as a result of the proposals.
  Of course, the community charge is equally undemocratic. It will certainly result in under-registration of votes, particularly in areas such as mine where there is already a great deal of under-registration, and the 20 per cent. minimum charge will make the poorest people in our communities hostage to their local authorities, and the charge will be twice as expensive to collect.
  One or two hon. Members have referred to the problem of enforcement of the poll tax. I live in an area in which the population changeover in most of the wards is about 27 per cent. a year. I do not know how on earth it will be possible to compile a community charge register and to collect money in a borough that has unemployment running at one in four males. Since the only real sanction among poorer people against failure to pay the poll tax will be prison, I can imagine the Government declaring yet another amnesty in two or three years. They will make available several thousand places in prison for those who do not pay the community charge.
  In introducing this measure, the Government have unleashed a spirit which will haunt them from the beginning to the end of this Parliament. My forecast is that the Government will drop the proposed community

  813
  charge, but, if they do not, their victory on the community charge will, if nothing else happens, herald a defeat for them at the next election.
  The Government have go away with actions against the homeless because the homeless are a minority; actions against the unemployed because the unemployed and a minority; and action against the poor because the poor are a minority. For the first time they have made the mistake of introducing a measure which has the ability to offend the majority, instead of simply penalising the minority. My view is that this measure is doomed to defeat. But, if I am wrong about that, the Government are doomed to defeat on this issue alone.
  11.32 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) on having secured this debate at a relatively reasonable hour. The debate has been notable for the excellent maiden speeches from the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). I hope to have time to refer to them later in my speech.
  This has been a serious debate about one of the central major reforms being brought forward in this Parliament—the future financing of local government, a system which consumes about one quarter of total public expenditure and touches the life of every citizen. It is not surprising that it warrants serious debate.
  After listening to the debate, the question I ask is: do we want local government to have a future? I hope that all those who have participated in the debate would agree with me that we do, but I have to tell hon. Members that many outsiders are fed up with local government as it is now and would like to see it stripped of its revenue—raising powers, with local services adminstered more along the lines of health authorities. As recently as last Friday a letter published in the Financial Times advocated that course of action. It stated:
  "So why on earth should local government have separate revenue-raising powers—whether by rates or otherwise? To ensure efficiency, councils should be cost centres with budget allocations made by central government, who in turn levy and collect tax revenue. Giving local authorities a set sum would concentrate their minds wonderfully on setting priorities and getting value for money. And it would quickly allow electors to judge which party could produce most for their money."
  I do not agree with that recipe, because I do not believe in the centralisation of power and direction of local government in that way. Hon. Members continue to defend the indefensible in the way that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has just been doing. He ignored the fact that Hackney is overspending £513 per adult, referred to Wandsworth, but quietly omitted to refer to the fact that the figures he quoted take no account of the situation where ILEA is overspending by £250 per adult in inner London. That is the extent of overspending against assessed need. If the authorities spent in accordance with their assessed need on the exemplifications for the current year, the community charge would have to be only £178 per adult, and that would be subject to rebate in certain circumstances.
  814
  I submit to all true friends of local government that our fundamental reforms of the way in which local government is paid for offer the last hope of saving local government. That may sound dramatic, but it is meant to be. Our system of local government finance is in an advanced state of senility and decay. It is antiquated, arbitrary and incomprehensible.
  In preparing for tonight's debate I asked officials to find out the last occasion on which the present system of local government finance received praise in the House. They have not yet come up with the answer, but it must have been many years ago. That is hardly surprising, especially to those of us who have tried to work with the system, either inside local government or in the Department of the Environment. But now that this radical, reforming Government come to change it, we see that the very injustices of the present system have thrown up pressure groups of vested interests prepared to defend those injustices because they are the beneficiaries of them. That is something to which we shall have to pay careful regard in considering how to deal with the issues raised in this very serious debate. It is important that the fact that Hackney is overspending to the massive extent that it is should be brought home to the general public.
  I shall briefly remind the House of how the present system operates. It is based upon rateable values—a notional rental value placed upon property. I say "notional" because, with the decline in the private rent sector, it is far from easy to ascertain true rental values. It assumes that differences in rateable value reflect differences in ability to pay. As has already been pointed out, that is clearly a wrong assumption. It is designed to ensure that a standard rate poundage is charged by a local authority for a standard level of service. Therefore, two identical properties in different parts of the country with the same level of local authority service will pay rate bills proportionate to the rateable value.
  Those three principles, upon which the present system is based, are flawed and unfair. That is because rateable values take no account of financial status of the householder. For example, the average rateable value of a three-bedroom semi-detached house in Elmbridge in Surrey is £547; in Craven, in north Yorkshire, the same house would have a rateable value of only £188. That means that if both areas provided the same level of local services with the same degree of efficiency, the Elmbridge ratepayer would face a bill three times as large as the person in Craven. There is no reason to believe that the owners of those two houses would have widely different incomes, as income variations across the country are much smaller than variations in rateable value. If the house in Elmbridge is occupied by a widow on her own and the house in Craven is ooccupied by two adult earners the Surrey widow's per capita rate bill is six times that of each adult earner in Craven.
  It is clear, therefore, that ability to pay is not reflected in the present system. Those with the lowest incomes presently pay a higher proportion of their income in rates than those with higher incomes because many of the poorest households in this country are single-parent families or single pensioners.
  Is the present system fair? I will give way to any hon. Member who thinks that it is.
  Mr. Dalyell rose——
  Mr. Chope: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he suggested, sotto voce, that he would not seek to intervene on the point on which I invited intervention. In the short time that I have left, I hope to deal with the points that he raised earlier.
  If we go to a system of revaluation, which is the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire)—and I admire him for his courage in putting it forward—and if that were to reflect the massive changes in turbulence in the capital values of houses currently taking place, there would be consequences for him and his constituents that I doubt he has fully considered. According to the recent Halifax Building Society house price index, house prices have risen nationally by 47·3 per cent. over the past four years, but they have risen by 95·6 per cent. in the Greater London area. Therefore, if there were the same system of equalisation of rate poundages, based upon a system of rateable values based on capital rating revaluation, it would result in massive increases in rate bills in the southeast and London and reductions in rate bills in the north. In the example that I quoted, I have shown that currently the system is loaded in favour of those in the north and against those in the south.
  Mr. Squire: As a former chairman of the finance committee of a large local authority when the previous revaluation took place, I am aware of the impact of such a measure. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that a revaluation is neutral and that the significant factor is what a council does with the revised poundage. It is possible to build in safety nets to prevent excessive increases in any one year.
  Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), in an excellent speech, anticipated my hon. Friend's intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury talked about the consequences of a revaluation in Scotland after only seven years, when the valuation of an ordinary house increased from £171 to £726. Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends think that the electoral difficulties that the Conservative party experienced in Scotland were the result of the Government's proposals to introduce a community charge. At the time of the revaluation in Scotland the popularity of the Conservative party had declined to about 13 per cent., but by the time of the general election it had risen to about 24 per cent. I have little doubt that by the time the much fairer community charge comes into operation, our popularity in Scotland will have increased even more.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Chope: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because only a short time remains available to me to reply to the debate.
  The present rating system is short on accountability. Councils have the power to increase spending without the responsibility of being properly accountable to those who pay. The non-domestic ratepayer—whether the huge multinational or the cornershop—provides more in rate income than all domestic ratepayers put together. If we add to that grants from national taxpayers, we find hat about three quarters of local authority revenue comes from those with no local vote. The problem goes much deeper than that. because, of 35 million adults in England,
  816
  only 18 million are heads of households directly liable to pay rates, of whom only 12 million pay rates in full. There are 3 million who receive partial assistance with their rates and the remaining 3 million receive full relief from their rates bill. In Liverpool, only one voter in four pays rates directly and in full. In Manchester the proportion is even less.
  Those figures speak for themselves. A system has developed in which the majority of the electorate can vote for services which they will either not pay for or pay only a small contribution towards. The opportunity that the system presents for abuse is being exploited by the most irresponsible councils. By their actions, they have brought, and are bringing, local government into disrepute.
  I shall refer briefly to the two maiden speeches this evening. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East paid a generous tribute to his predecessor, Barry Henderson, whose comradeship and company my right hon. and hon. Friends and I certainly miss. The hon. Gentleman's comments struck a chord with all those who enjoyed the time when Barry was a Member of this place. We look forward to his early return.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East referred to my old university and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), whose excellent speech I have not had the time to take up and do justice to in replying to the debate. It is notable that the fine university of St. Andrew's, despite having a lower Government subsidy now, is doing better than ever before as a result of the long-established principle of self help. I agree with the hon. Member for Fife, North-East that the rating system is thoroughly discredited, but I cannot agree that the only fair system would be a local income tax Such a tax would be a disaster. It would be fiendishly complicated to administer, there would be only 20 million taxpayers and there would have to he an extremely complicated register. I am informed that it would increase income tax by anything between 4p and 11p in the pound, thereby exacerbating unemployment and the poverty trap. It would drive those in work out of the inner cities and he a recipe for even greater dereliction and despair.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East paid a fitting tribute to his predecessor, Ray Ellis. He referred to the mining industry and tantalised us by referring to three hon. Members who were his pupils when he was a school teacher. I hope that we shall be able to guess in due course who they are.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East referred to Claire Staines and asked when her father would be able to get a job. If we bring in the unified business rate, rates in north-east Derbyshire will be reduced by almost 26 per cent., and that will provide a boost to employment opportunities in the area. I think that it is disappointing that the hon. Gentleman did not find time to include that in his speech.
  Sadly, I do not have time to deal with all the other issues that have been raised in the debate.
  Mr. Dalyell rose——
  Mr. Chope: I refer the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to the yellow booklet, "Paying for Local Government: The Community Charge", published by the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office. If the hon. Gentleman reads that carefully, he will discover that it contains most, if not all, of the answers to the questions that he raised in the debate tonight.

  British Sugar Beet Quota
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: It was with some relief that I learnt that the subject that I had chosen had come third in the batting order and we still had not reached midnight before we started this debate.
  My purpose in raising the question of the United Kingdom sugar beet quota is to give strength to the elbow of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the next round of negotiations gets under way later this year for new quota levels. As my right hon. Friend was involved in the last set of negotiations, he will recall that quotas were fixed up until 1988 only so that developments in sugar consumption and distribution of producer levies could be assessed. As the Commission is expected to put forward its proposals in September and the House is about to adjourn for the summer, now is the appropriate time for the House to make its views known.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be aware that the present distribution of quota reflects the negotiations between the original six members of the European Community. That quota has never been fully revised to take account of United Kingdom membership. It is also worth noting that major sugar exporters, such as Belgium and France, have quotas equivalent to twice their domestic consumption. The United Kingdom must make do with a quota equal to only half its consumption.
  United Kingdom sugar beet growers also recall that, at the review in 1981, they lost the ability to grow beet to the extent of more than 182,000 tonnes of sugar—a reduction of 13·7 per cent. Although it is correct that until that time the United Kingdom sugar beet industry did not fulfil its quota, for a variety of reasons, the substantial investment made by the industry in the past 10 years has meant that the United Kingdom quota has been met in full every year since 1981. There is now capacity to produce 1·5 million tonnes. Moreover, British Sugar is arguably the most cost-efficient producer in Europe.
  In the light of that and the geographical factor that British Sugar is located in one of the few countries in which there is likely to be a substantial increase in sugar usage by the chemical industry, surely it is right to argue for the introduction of a margin of flexibility in the quota system to allow for differing efficiencies and demand prospects, and to reflect British circumstances.
  With regard to demand prospects, the United Kingdom has one of the largest chemical industries in Europe. It is a world leader in the development of biotechnology. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that biotechnology is one of the leading edge technologies in which an advanced industrial nation such as Britain cannot afford to fall behind.
  It is clear that the European Commission recognises the importance of encouraging biotechnology, from the introduction of its scheme to make sugar available at close to world prices for new chemical industry developments. As anticipated, the chemical industry has waited for the greatest price reductions before buying sugar in any quantity. That quantity is now starting to increase.
  The European chemical industry forecasts a sixfold increase from the present sugar usage of 80,000 tonnes annually to a new level of 500,000 tonnes in the early
  818
  1990s. The Chemical Industries Association Limited has estimated that its current usage of 25,000 tonnes will increase to 150,000 during the same period.
  I believe that ICI is investigating the feasibility of a plant in Britain to manufacture biodegradable plastic, and that Sturge is currently investing some £30 million in a new citric acid manufacturing facility at Selby in Yorkshire. Other plans for diversification by British Sugar, using sugar as a base, are as widespread as to include animal and food proteins, biodegradable plastics, polymer bulking agents, natural flavours, natural pharmaceuticals and substitutes for oil-based materials used in the production of polyurethane and bakelite.
  As a major part of Europe's biotechnical research takes place within the United Kingdom, it will be especially galling if, as a consequence of there being no spare domestically produced sugar, the actual physical facility for making the product of that research is to end up being located other than in the United Kingdom. Given the size of the potential investment, the fear must be that the chemical industry will locate bulk manufacturing facilities on the continent, where there is a great deal of spare sugar. Apart from the high unit values low volume products, the industry will not be able to afford to transport sugar from the continent because of the significance of the sugar costs in the final pricing of the high volumes low unit value bulk products. Again, from a security of supply standpoint, the United Kingdom chemical industry would not want to be dependent on imported sugar when, by locating in France or Belgium, it can be assured of as much sugar as it will need.
  On the distribution of producer levies, it is clear that the present position is grotesquely inequitable to the United Kingdom. As the United Kingdom does not export any of its domestically produced quota sugar, which attacts an export refund, the United Kingdom industry receives no rebate or return on its levy payments. Such exports as the United Kingdom industry makes are re-exports of sugar that has already been imported from the continent. Although statistically it has been needed for the United Kingdom sugar users, who themselves need to be assured of the continuity of supply. Therefore, in effect the United Kingdom's levy payments go to finance the export of surplus sugar by the Community's net sugar exporters, France, Belgium, Germany the Netherlands and Denmark.
  Our United Kingdom levies represent a transfer from Britain, whose beet quota is equivalent to only half its consumption, to countries such as France and Belgium, whose quotas are twice their consumption. Britain does not contribute to the Community's surplus of quota sugar, but ends up paying some 9 per cent. of the levies raised from the EEC sugar industry, whereas Belgium, for example, produces 14·5 per cent. of the surplus, while paying only 7·5 per cent. of the producer levies. That is the basis of assessing the United Kingdom's position as being grotesque in respect of producer levies.
  It is interesting to note the tight position of the United Kingdom's supply position for sugar. In recent years, as British Sugar has demonstrated its ability consistently to fulfil its production quotas, industrial sugar users have felt able to reduce their requirements for sugar imported from the rest of the continent and the Community. In the past five years that has halved to just over 80,000 tonnes, and over the same period there has been a dramatic reduction in the "free" sugar stocks in Britain, from almost 200,000

  819
  tonnes to an anticipated 49,000 tonnes at the end of this season. As a result, British Sugar tells me that it is operating with barely adequate stocks to cover normal demand before the new season's crop becomes available. To put that into context, that anticipated 49,000 tonnes is equivalent to about one week's sugar consumption. That is hardly an adequate safety margin.
  What is boils down to is that the tightness of the United Kingdom's supply situation for sugar means that their is no scope for supplying new chemical industry demands from domestic production without taking sugar from existing users. This has to be an unacceptable position for the United Kingdom to be placed in.
  Reasonable fears have been expressed that an increase in the United Kingdom sugar beet production would prejudice the position of African, Caribbean and Pacific sugar in the British market. While it is interesting to note that five of the 16 ACP states with current sugar quotas must import sugar from the world market in order to release their domesic product to fulfil their preferential quotas in the EEC, it is also the case that the ACP quota has been enshrined in the Lomé Convention and can be changed only by political decision by all signatories to the convention. It is also the case that the British beet quota is being fully filled by domestic production, with there being yet additional capacity.
  However, it is important to point out that an increase in the United Kingdom quota to cater for the needs of the emerging bio-technical industries depends on the continuation of the ACP quota at its current level. If the quota decreases, any increase in the beet quota will have to be diverted to traditional sugar users to make up the shortfall, thus destroying the security of supply that the chemical industry will require if it is to set up plants in the United Kingdom in the first place.
  British Sugar has assured the Government that it will export any new quota sugar for which the expected increase in chemical industry demand has not yet come through. It would not be placed on the British market so as to weaken the position of ACP sugar. British Sugar's track record on exports is encouraging, in that during the early 1980s a surplus in the United Kingdom market brought about by imports from the continent was successfully exported by British Sugar without disturbing the position of ACP sugar in the market.
  The value of a comparatively small increase in the United Kingom sugar beet quota is considerable to the United Kingdom. In industrial terms, the bio-technology prize must not be allowed to slip away. In agricultural terms, sugar beet production is the second most profitable, large-scale arable crop and is the most consistent in its profitability. It forms an alternative to other crops, which is of inestimable value for the rural economy. Many hon. Members present have constituents such as mine which depend on the continued development of the sugar beet crop and they would welcome the ability to produce a little more.
  In employment terms, it is interesting to note that the University of East Anglia estimates that for each job in British Sugar another seven jobs are supported in the rest of the economy, and that for every 100 tonnes included in the quota, three jobs will be created. That shows that if we could get a further 150,000 tonnes, another 4,500 jobs in the sugar industry would be created even before we consider the ramifications for the biotechnological industries.
  820
  In terms of fairness in respect of the levy position, the case for an increase is, again, strong. The decision in 1985 to fix quotas up to 1988 only has, in the light of developments both in the market and technology, been shown to have been right. Now is the time to ensure that the United Kingdom has a fair opportunity to share in these developments as they progress, and a relatively modest increase in quota will be helpful in achieving just that. I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and our right hon. Friend the Minister will be determined to address this problem in the negotiations to come.
  11.58 pm
  Mr. Michael Lord: I should like to stress the need for the extra quota of 150,000 tonnes to come to the United Kingdom. No hon. Member can be unaware of the problems facing agriculture in all sorts of ways or of the problems of surplus and the need for us to find alternative crops. Farmers desperately need to grow a crop which they can grow well, which is not in surplus and which has great potential. So far as I can see, sugar beet appears to fit the bill.
  I am greatly concerned at the moment about agriculture in general, because I think that the industry has reached a point at which it will have to decide what direction it must take. I believe that all industries go forward or backward and they rarely stay in the same place for very long. Agriculture is now in grave danger. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) has explained, so much in the rural areas depends on agriculture, not just directly on farming, but on all the associated industries. It is crucial that farming should continue and it is no more crucial than in the area that I represent and in East Anglia where farmers are very worried about the direction which farming might take.
  Agriculture has been an object lesson in efficiency and it stands comparison with any other industry. I want to refer to my experience in the sugar beet industry. I do net know how many other hon. Members share my experience, but I remember many years ago walking behind a sugar beet drill as the seeds were put in and the drill was drawn by a marvellous grey Percheron. Grey I may be, but I am not too old to remember that: indeed, it did not happen so long ago. That gives us some idea of the strides made by the industry, which is the most efficient in Europe and probably the most efficient in the world.
  Like an efficient engine, I believe that the industry is now up against the buffers of the common agricultural policy and it badly needs new outlets and ideas. We cannot get away from the fact that the medium in which agriculture works is soil. Farmers must grow crops. Yes, there may be alternative enterprises such as forestry and woodland and nothing could be nearer to my heart with my experience and fondness for trees than for us to grow more trees in this country. That is a good idea, but it is a long-term prospect. Other enterprises must also be considered because farmers now must consider themselves as business men as well as farmers. They must apply themelves to other alternatives and I am sure that they are doing that. Unless large quantities of land are taken permanently out of agriculture for housing, which on any kind of scale would be extremely ill-advised, land must grow crops.

  821
  The combination of the new biotechnology involving sugar capable of giving us biodegradable products is heaven-sent for those of us who care about the environment, commerce and jobs. The developments are extremely exciting for both those areas and we must grasp the opportunities with both hands.
  I want to consider briefly the question of fairness. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford drew the Minister's attention to the history of quotas and the present imbalances and inequalitities in the EEC. Nothing incenses our farmers more than a sense of injustice and that sense of injustice is all too often engendered by the machinations of the CAP. I understand the great difficulties facing the Minister, given the overall surplus of sugar in the EEC. I urge the Minister and his team to fight for our farmers, for fairness and for an increased quota when they go to Europe.
  12.5 am
  Mr. Geraint Howells: As far as I am aware, there are no sugar beet growers in Wales—although there may be a few. Many of us who farm in the Principality, however, are dependent on sugar beet to feed our sheep in the winter. It has proved a very successful method of feeding them during the hard months that we get on the hills.
  My purpose in taking part in tonight's debate is to support the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), who, I think, has made a very good plea on behalf of this country's sugar beet growers. I should like to ask the Minister a few probing questions. Many farmers in west Wales are very worried about the present milk quotas. They believe that British farmers are not competing on equal terms. I want to ask the Minister this question: do British sugar beet growers compete on equal terms with their counterparts in the EEC?
  I believe that the Minister's negotiations and deliberations will succeed in persuading the other EEC Ministers to give British farmers an extra quota. But let me ask a question similar to those I have asked on milk before. If a young farmer in this country was very keen to start growing sugar beet, is there a quota that he could get from the British Sugar Corporation? I believe that there are many young entrants into farming, and that we should be able to help them. There should be an extra quota somewhere within the system to help youngsters who want to start on their own.
  However, the main question is parity within the Community. I hope that, by saying a few words tonight, those of us who are far away from the sugar beet growing area of this country can help those who, one day, may in turn help the dairy farmers of west Wales when they too are in need.
  12.7 am
  Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) has correctly identified the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) so ably outlined in his excellent introductory speech. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate.
  We have had the opportunity from time to time to consider sugar beet production in this country, and I have
  822
  had the privilege of addressing the house on the subject before. I now have interests to declare: the British Sugar Corporation factory in Brigg, which is the largest employer of labour in the town, and the large number of sugar beet farmers in my constituency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford said, for every one person employed in a British Sugar Corporation factory, up to seven jobs have been derived in the country's sugar factories. Sugar beet farming is an important part of the rural economy for many of us who are here this evening.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North made a very important point. I have a table, of which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary—who, I am delighted to see, will respond to the debate—will be aware. It is a simple chart showing EEC beet sugar production quotas as a proportion of consumption by member states. The figure that jumps out at me—this is something that I have never been able to understand—is the quota in the United Kingdom: 1,144,000 tonnes of white sugar. Yet United Kingdom consumption is 2,256,000 tonnes. Quota represents only 50·7 per cent. of consumption. I am referring to beet sugar. However, as a percentage of consumption, the quota is 222 per cent. In France it is 199·5 per cent. Therefore, the case for a fair deal for the British sugar producer, sugar beet farmer and sugar factories is overwhelming. Britain is producing only 50 per cent. of its sugar quota. Therefore, equity demands that British Ministers should speak up for the British sugar beet industry in the European Community. When the United Kingdom quota is renegotiated, it is imperative that British Ministers should bang the table hard for the United Kingdom sugar producer and the beet farmer.
  My hon. Friends have already said that the sugar beet industry's request is for a modest increase of 150,000 tonnes in the United Kingdom quota. Ministers should put such a reasonable and modest demand before the Council of Ministers on the ground that, in equity, the imbalance in the United Kingdom's quota, compared with the rest of Europe, should be rectified. Indeed, it is vital that Ministers should do so because the United Kingdom is the only major European Community country whose sugar beet production quota is less than its sugar consumption.
  Even allowing for imports of ACP sugar, the United Kingdom is barely self-sufficient at the existing levels of sugar consumption. However, the United Kingdom is facing an important increase in sugar consumption, because of the needs of the chemical industry, based on its European leadership in biotechnology. I enjoy the privilege of having an ICI subsidiary factory in my constituency. Together with other chemical industries in this country, ICI wants to play a leading role in biotechnology. However, it must know that beet sugar will be available so that it may make the long-term investment that is required. The United Kingdom has been denied the marginal increase in its sugar quota that it needs to meet this genuine new demand, while other EEC countries, whose needs are not so great, had major surpluses of quota sugar which had to be exported. The United Kingdom was obliged to fund those exports through its producer levy contributions.
  The United Kingdom sugar beet industry is looking for fair treatment in Europe so that it is not denied the opportunity to create a new chemical industry, based on biotechnology at home. I join my hon. friends and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North in asking

  823
  the Minister, who is a first-rate Minister, and his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who have done a superb job on behalf of British agriculture in the past, to ask for a modest quota increase of 150,000 tonnes to cater for this new use.
  12.13 am
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) declared his interest, largely in a sugar beet refinery. As a constituency Member. I must declare mine. The cane sugar refinery at Silvertown in Newham, east London, refines no fewer than 1 million tonnes of cane sugar a year, which is nearly equivalent to the whole of the beet sugar production—approximately 1·2 million tonnes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who represents the only other cane sugar refinery in the United Kingdom, would have been here tonight, but unfortunately he is unwell. His case would have been similar to mine.
  The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) asked why we produce only half the sugar that we consume. The answer is that historically—and I believe rightly—there has been a national policy since the early 1930s to produce sugar in this country from sugar beet instead of relying wholly. as we did, on Commonwealth imports. That balanced arrangement continued successfully until 1974, when, having entered the EEC the year before, the Commonwealth sugar arrangement fell and new arrangements had to be made. The quota arrangements, of which Conservative Members have made some justifiable criticisms, came into vogue at that time.
  I shall now make a point with which I am sure Conservative Members will agree. Britain is the only country in the EEC that imports large quantities of cane sugar. France imports only a small amount from its Departement Outre Mer, which for fixing purposes is part of domestic France, although that is the West Indies. We do that for a number of reasons. First, we do it as a moral responsibility to our overseas partners in the Commonwealth and the Third world. That is recognised throughout the EEC, and I am glad to see Conservative Members nodding in agreement. It is an undertaking on behalf of the EEC, although we have a part to play in it.
  Employment in the cane sugar refining industry in the ports has been reinforced by two resolutions of the House: first, on 11 November 1974; and secondly in December 1985. The first resolution emphasized:
  "The continued existence of and employment in the port sugar refining industry of the United Kingdom, or for securing long-term supplies of domestically refined cane sugar at a fair price to consumer and producer."
  That was reinforced by a resolution of the House on 2 December 1985 in an amendment that was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow to
  "take account of the interests of both producers and users of the products concerned and fulfil the objectives set out in the Resolution of the House relating to sugar supplies of 11 November 1974."
  The hon. Member for Hereford dwelt on this matter and rightly reminded the House that part of the Lomé arrangement—it is an adjunct to the renewable treaty—is the arrangement to which I have referred.
  The problem with what Conservative Members have said is that there appears to be a statistical imbalance between what is open to British agriculture and what is
  824
  open to the French in particular. The problem is compounded by the figures. As I understand it. EEC production of beet sugar is about 13·6 million tonnes in white sugar equivalents, but the consumption, including that of the United Kingdom, is only 10·6 tonnes. In other words, there is a surplus production of about 3 million tonnes, which is just under three times the amount of imported cane sugar. While there is criticism from some European beet farmers of cane imports, it is a relatively small proportion, not only of the consumption of the EEC but of the total available surplus.
  The problem is how to maintain our moral responsibility and the long-term agreement to which we are all committed; provide pricing arrangements for the refiner's margin and the extra cost of shipping the cane from places such as Fiji, Mauritius, Jamaica and other Commonwealth friends, and at the same time make that sugar marketable at a price that is comparable to the beet price in European and United Kingdom markets. That is one of the other aspects of the matter that the Minister will have to see to. Not only is he battling for greater beet quotas; he is having to follow that resolution of the House and the moral responsibility to which the EEC agrees to ensure the refiner's margin. The Minister is aware of that, and the debate is not specifically about cane sugar, so I shall not pursue that matter. I am sure that the Minister will renew the Government's commitment to maintain that margin so that the structure continues.
  Conservative Members who represent beet-growing areas put the case fairly in some respects. We must recognise that there is a certain resistance, perhaps from those who ultimately pay or consume, to increasing the amount of beet sugar that goes into chemical stock above the present surplus. Some people might think that it is not good policy, especially in the northern parts of Europe, where there is less sunshine, to grow beet sugar that is refined, at some expense, and then becomes chemical feedstock. This is a little unusual from the point of view of conservation and, ultimately, of the good use of land. I know that there are surpluses, but Conservative Members face the problem of persuading our continental "partners" that it is their surplus that should be used for that burgeoning chemical use about which we have all heard, and that they should voluntarily transfer some of their surplus beet production to the United Kingdom.
  Why would those continental countries give up any of their existing national quotas to increase United Kingdom acreage when they already have a surplus? In equity, of course, they should, but I suppose that equity is the United Kingdom's strongest argument. The EEC is on a ratchet. The answer to the questions aked by some Conservative Members lies in the fact that, even before Britain became a member of the EEC, the Agriculture Ministers built in a surplus when the beet quotas were agreed. Instead of each national arrangement balancing out, as the United. Kingdom's wisely did under the Williams arrangements from the 1930s, other countries, especially France, had a surplus that was built in by a political arrangement. I believe that the facts will show that that is so. It is at least an argument why, in equity, British beet producers should share in the ill-distribution made at the beginning. especially as we are discharging our responsibility, and wish to continue to do so, to the Third world and our Commonwealth colleagues.
  The moral commitment to the Third world is shared by us all. The pricing arrangements to assure the margin for

  825
  cane sugar refiners at the ports and the price paid to our Commonwealth producers so that they can continue to produce must be viable. It is no use having a quota of 1·3 million tonnes if the price prevents our Commonwealth colleagues from producing. At the same time, we should promote an agricultural regime that is equitable in the sense that I have outlined. I hope that in Brussels the Minister will respond to his hon. Friend's requests and ensure that the refiners' margin and the price paid, not only in this quinquennium but in those that follow, enable the resolutions of the House to be fulfilled.
  12.24 am
  Mr. Stuart Randall: This is a splendid opportunity to get over the point about biotechnology and the need to increase quotas. We are all here to support our industry, to back Britain and to ensure that, where there is inequity, it is overcome. We know that there are historical reasons for it, but Belgium and France seem to have huge production quotas in proportion to demand which seems unfair.
  I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) said about the increase in demand from biotechnology, which uses sugar for chemical non-food processes. I hope that developments proceed successfully in Britain. I wonder whether there is too much optimism about biotechnology as the EC proposals amount to only 300,000 tonnes by 1992, which is a tiny increase. There are problems to overcome in biotechnology, but I am glad to hear that we have a British company doing research.
  Although the rate of development might not be as rapid as many people expect, the opportunity for job creation is important and welcome. I wondered whether there was some devious motive behind the debate, but the hon. Member for Hereford made a straightforward case. I am anxious that there should not be pressure on ACP imports of cane sugar in the negotiations.
  The ACP countries depend on exports of about 1.1 million tonnes of cane to the EC for a considerable amount of foreign exchange. They are principally the West Indies, Fiji and Mauritius. I should like the Minister to give a commitment that nothing in the negotiations could lead to that figure being reduced. I appreciate that the levels were established under Lomé, but I should like an assurance that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the EC are not thinking along those lines.
  Mr. Michael Brown: I can probably reassure the hon. Gentleman. He will probably realise that the Lomé convention can be changed only with the agreement of all the signatories to the convention. That may give him the reassurance that he seeks.
  Mr. Randall: I appreciate that that is the mechanism, but all things can be changed. I ask the Minister for an assurance that that sort of activity, or the lifting of the foundation stones, will not take place because of the inequities that exist and, therefore, the pressures from our own industry. My main concern is for the ACPs, the poorer countries of the Third world, and whether we are being optimistic about the effect of biotechnology and of those small quota arrangements.
  British Sugar has had a superb opportunity to put its case. A company does not usually have the opportunity of
  826
  having a one-and-a-half hour debate on a matter of this sort. Obviously everyone except myself has been briefed up to the eyeballs. The important thing is to make sure that we back our own industry and that opportunities are created for developing it. The Opposition will be supporting it.
  12.30 am
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: We all share the concern voiced by the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) about the ACP or Third-world countries. We realise that there is a moral and legal obligation towards them, but one thing that stands out sharply, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), is that, of the 16 ACP countries, five have to import sugar from the world market to match their share of EC quota. That is outrageous and something ought to be done about it. When the Minister winds up, I hope that he will be able to deal with that. Why are we being so weak and pathetic over that matter? It is costing many jobs in this country. We obviously have that moral obligation. No one here wants to sabotage the Lomé convention. We realise the importance of it, particularly so far as jobs in Newham, South are concerned. I have a sugar factory in my constituency, and I was interested to hear the figures given by the hon. Member for Newham, South.
  I join my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford on securing the debate.
  I do not think that we have been briefed up to the eyeballs. I certainly have not been briefed at all. I do not know where the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West got the idea that it was all a put-up job. Certainly the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford made about the number of jobs being created being a factor of seven for every job in British Sugar would mean that in my constituency British Sugar either directly or indirectly in the past 20 years or so, has created more than 1,400 jobs, which is a very considerable input into the local economy. That shows how important the whole area is to Norfolk, and to west Norfolk in particular where many small farmers at the moment rely to a large extent on sugar beet. I am talking about the smaller farmers because the larger farmers certainly have more of a cushion to survive difficult times. People seem to think of Norfolk as being a county of large farmers, but there are many small farmers who rely to a considerable degree on sugar beet. If they could be allowed to grow just a little bit more, it would make a tremendous difference.
  We had an interesting tour de force by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), who took us down memory lane. My memory does not extend that far, although the grey hairs are coming. It was a thoughtful and penetrating speech that reflected the concern of many of us on the Government side of the House for farmers in our constituencies, who are the fabric of rural constituencies, and for jobs in rural areas. Even in Norfolk where there are many light manufacturing industries and where there is a big growth in the service and tourist sectors, a large number of jobs are still totally dependent on agriculture. We have heard of many different schemes and ideas. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central mentioned some of the ideas put forward by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. One thing

  827
  that it could do that would make a profound difference to the confidence of farmers throughout the country especially in areas where a lot of sugar beet is grown would be to increase, even modestly the United Kingdom quota. I hope that the Minister will take that on board. At one stroke he could achieve an enormous amount. In that one small stroke he could achieve more than would be achieved by any number of set asides, schemes to encourage forestry or schemes to encourage amenity and small businesses in rural areas, laudable though those schemes may be. I urge that on him to a great extent.
  The case is strong. One has to bear in mind the points that have been made already about where the United Kingdom stands in relation to other European countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes quoted an interesting set of figures. I do not know where he got the table from. He must be the only one who came here with a brief. The figures show the disadvantage at which the United Kingdom finds itself. We must bear in mind the fact that in 1981 the United Kingdom suffered a cut on the most spurious of grounds. I have never quite been able to work out why the United Kingdom suffered that cut. However, it was manifestly unfair, and surely now the time has come to reverse that.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South mentioned the dilemma in which the EEC finds itself in terms of equity and how it would be equitable for European farmers to give up quota to the United Kingdom. That is probably pie in the sky. However, if there is an increase in quotas overall it will not cost the EEC anything at all. Of all the agricultural regimes in the common agricultural policy, the one that is totally self-financing is the sugar beet regime. Therefore, a small increase for the United Kingdom, and perhaps a small increase for other EEC countries, would not cost the national taxpayer or the EEC taxpayer one penny. The regime has been cleverly tailored so that it is entirely self-financing.
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman may be correct, but I understood that there was a storage levy. If there is greater production of beet in the whole Community, the levy for overall storage from one campaign to the next might wit go up. I may be wrong about that. I am willing to concede that in terms of export restitution it is different, but there is quite a bit of public money involved if one looks at the matter in overall terms.
  Mr. Bellingham: I do not know the exact answer to that. The Minister may be able to put us right but my understanding is that, given the situation raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South, it would be British Sugar that would be paying more. It would greatly reduce its overall profit.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: It is a producer levy.
  Mr. Bellingham: My hon. Friend is right. The taxpayer would not have to dip into his pocket any more if there was an increase in quota.
  The points about the chemical and biochemical industry have been made clearly. There is a great opportunity for the United Kingdom in biotechnology. If plants were located away from the United Kingdom in Europe on account of that fact that there was not a ready supply of sugar available on the doorsteps of the plants that would be a tragedy. I understand that the United Kingdom Chemical Industries Association has predicted
  828
  a six-fold increase in the need for sugar from roughly 15,000 tonnes to getting on for over 125,000 tonnes per year by 1991. That is a big increase.
  On all those points we have a strong case. I join hon. Members in urging the Minister to push the United Kingdom case as hard as possible. He should kick over traces, sit on the table—not break it—and do his best to put the case for the United Kingdom farmer. He should bear in mind that he could do more good by a modest increase in the United Kingdom beet quota than a whole panoply of other measures. I hope that he takes that on board.
  12.39 am
  Mr. Tim Boswell: I begin my remarks by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on introducing the debate, on his timing and on the substance of his speech. It is appropriate that we should encourage the Government to address such matters in good time before the negotiations take place and before the Commission makes its proposals. I, too, say to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that the House has no interest in creating a conflict of interest between beet growers and the cane industry. It is essential to proceed on the basis of mutual interest.
  As to who was or was not briefed, there may have been certain domestic difficulties to be sorted out amongst Opposition Members. I do not know whether that had anything to do with the matter. My basic interest derives from some years back through my having worked with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as its special advisor. Some hon. Members will know that I am also a farmer, but I am not a beet farmer. My family gave up beet farming roughly at the time when my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) was plodding behind his Percheron. We cut the beet tops off by hand, but we gave it up a long time ago.
  I hope that it reinforces the points that need to be made if I tell the House that we in Daventry have a virtually insignificant constituency interest in beet growing, lying as we do between the eastern factories of Peterborough and the west midlands. Little beet is grown at any one time in my patch. Nevertheless, for many reasons, we have a proper interest in the subject of the debate. The first reason, as some hon. Members have said, relates to employment, which affects us all. The second reason is the importance of creating and sustaining as many hectares of arable land for alternative uses to cereal production as we possibly can. That goes to the heart of the need to expand our beet quota when we can do so.
  There are two specific points. The first was eloquently touched upon by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells). He mentioned the benefits to the farming and livestock industry, which is or interest to me also, in having a supply of beet pulp. British Sugar is the third largest manufacturer of animal feedstuffs in the country—that fact surprised me—and about 85 per cent. of its total production now goes outside beet growers to other livestock farmers. It is as important to my farmers as it is for people in the eastern counties that as much feed as possible should be available. It is an excellent feed.
  It is important for the whole industry to draw on the example of plants such as the ABR chemicals plant at Corby, which is just outside my constituency. That plant. is able to use modern technology to separate wheat

  829
  feedstock, make the best product and add value to it. That is highly relevant to increasing farmers' returns and the saleability of their product. As in Corby, modern developments in biotechnology in beet production, sugar and related products are highly relevant to the tenor of agriculture.
  There is an unfortunate background to the negotiations. At the time of the 1980 negotiations and the 1981 quota quinquennium, this was the worst possible background against which to conduct a European negotiation. There were two reasons: first, we tended to decline as a producing country during the immediately preceding years, and we threw away one of our negotiating counters. Secondly, at that time and since, a high proportion of the European beet crop had to be exported. Therefore, it was a natural ploy that was carried out, to deprive us of a proportion of our quota. The industry has not yet recovered from that blow.
  In the meanwhile, we have two major encouraging changes in the situation. First, the British beet industry and sugar industry have had good performances over the past quinquennium in fulfilling their quota, increasing their productivity and reducing their costs. The second change, which we should take back to Europe, is that we now find the potential for an enlargement of the whole market.
  When I was in MAFF I was worried about the impact of concern about diet and health on the consumption of raw sugar. It now seems to have stabilised in a healthy way and there is the possibility of an additional demand for new uses. Europe recognised the new situation to some extent by the introduction last year of provisions for chemical sugar, which recognises the principle that new industries based on new technology should, wherever possible, take place and be founded within the Community, rather than abroad, exporting products into the Community.
  We are asking the Government to work on behalf of the industry to see that Britain gets its proper share of the action of these new developments. Nobody can be certain of the exact level or timing of them—it may well be that quotas will have to be adjusted or modified as they develop. We cannot anticipate how far they will go. If they go slowly, there must be some scope for modulation, but the principle must be established that we need to go forward as the European sugar industry goes forward.
  We have two powerful moral claims on that. First, we are not talking about increasing over our historic quota level; we are talking about working towards a reestablishment of our historic quota. We lost 182,000 tonnes, and the British Sugar Corporation is not indenting for more than 150,000 tonnes, so we are in no sense going above our historic quota. The second point, which has been commented upon inadequately, is that the British consumption of sugar is the largest in the Community. We are significant users of sugar and we have a strong base on which to make our claim.
  My hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues must go in to bat on our behalf on the sugar quota. We have a similar kind of European negotiation on a smaller scale and in microcosm to the issues which have been tackled on a wider scale in relation to the European budget by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. She fought both for the equity of the situation and within the context of
  830
  realism. We are asking the Minister to undertake to go in and understand the reality of the situation and to understand that we did lose ground, but there is now the possibility of the market widening so that we can make a claim to gain more ground, or to regain ground. We must put these points firmly, together with the compelling point of fairness and to stand up for the British industry, which has a rightful claim.
  12.48 am
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on initiating the debate and I congratulate everybody who has taken part in it. It is flattering to me to see that they are all still in the House, and it must be of great satisfaction to the sugar industry, which is delighted that my hon. Friend has raised the subject tonight.
  British sugar beet growers and British Sugar, which processes their beet, have a legitimate interest in maximising production and marketing of this profitable crop for our domestic market. The Government fully share the desire of the House to have a strong and prosperous British sugar beet industry, and we will continue to work for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), in his usual forthright manner, urged me to work for that, and I can assure him that that is what we will do.
  However, that is not the only interest that the Government have to consider. We also take pride in ensuring fulfilment of our long-standing Community commitment to import cane sugar from producers in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries—ACP countries. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who apologised for the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)—we wish him a speedy recovery—made a strong speech on behalf of the ACP countries, to which I will refer as I go through the speech I wrote before I heard the speeches tonight. Fortunately—touch wood—it fits fairly well. The House is going to get it—it fits, and that is better than usual from either this or the other side of the House.
  We need a viable cane refining industry, and that industry is itself an important source of employment and revenue, as the hon. Member for Newham, South said. We must also have regard to the interests of British food manufacturers and consumers in supplies of sugar at competitive prices. Finally, we need to take account of the concern of sugar producers throughout the world—mostly in developing countries, including those who do not enjoy privileged access to the Community—at the volume of supplies on the world market. Clearly, the Government's policy on the EEC sugar regime must strike a fair balance between those interests, and that is what we have striven to do in the past.
  I wish to say a word about someone who has not been mentioned often tonight—the consumer. Two weeks ago, we finally reached agreement on CAP support prices for 1987–88. For sugar beet, common prices were frozen for the fourth successive year. Over the same four-year period, there has been an increase of just over 1 per cent. in the effective common support price for white sugar. In real terms, the support price for white sugar in the United Kingdom has fallen by more than 10 per cent. since July

  831
  1983. That is, of course, less satisfactory to growers. However, even my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who is always keen to ensure that his constituents are well rewarded, is not complaining about the income of sugar beet growers. The consumer must be very pleased that the price has remained steady. Sugar remains a relatively profitable crop with available quota keenly sought after, and growers will now have the benefit of the green pound devaluation.
  There is to be a review of the Community regime in the autumn, as a direct result of this Government's pressure. Specifically, the Community will need to determine in the review both the A and B quotas for the period 1988–89 and 1990–91 inclusive and the incidence of the various production levies, which are designed to recoup from growers and processors the cost of supporting the Community sugar market. We do not know at this stage, and may not know for some months, what proposals the Commission will put forward on those and other relevant issues. Clearly, therefore, I am in no position to set out the Government's policy on the review. However, I will try to give some indications of our attitude on a number of the points raised tonight.
  First, we should consider the balance of supply and demand in the Community of 12 as a whole. Production within both A and B quotas, together with the committed supplies from ACP countries, far outstrips the market available within the Community. The EEC is having to export about 3 million tonnes of quota sugar a year, and these exports can be made only with the aid of large subsidies. The export subsidy has averaged nearly £300 per tonne in the past year, which is about two and a half times the world price. It is true that the Community beet growers and processors themselves meet most of the cost of these exports through the levy system, and it occurred to me as the hon. Member for Newham, South was speaking that they may have done that originally because they knew that they would be in surplus and that it might be a good way of getting rid of surpluses. I am not sure that that is true and. as I have said, it was merely a thought that occurred to me as I was listening to the hon. Gentleman.
  Community sugar exports amount to about a fifth of the free world sugar market, which is the market not covered by special arrangements such as the ACP countries enjoy in the Community or by bilateral contracts. We cannot ignore the effect of these exports on world markets.
  Against this background there can clearly be no case for any increase in the overall Community sugar quotas. Indeed, there is a case that these quotas should be reduced, and at the previous review in 1985 we proposed that the overall quotas should be reduced. British Sugar pressed for an increase in its quota but that was not negotiated because, among other things, of the serious position of the sugar market. Quotas for all member states were therefore left unchanged for two years. In addition, an elimination levy was introduced to clear the deficit on the export refund levy account that had built up from 1981 to 1986, and this was shared among member states to our basic advantage. That brings us to the 1987 review and this debate.
  At the 1985 review we proposed that overall quotas should be reduced and that this should be achieved by means of a more equitable allocation of B quotas on a standard percentage of the A quotas for all member states in place of the present allocation, which ranges from 10 per
  832
  cent. for some member states, including the United Kingdom, up to 30 per cent. for others. The Commission and most other member states, however, were strongly opposed to any reallocation of quotas. I have no reason to believe that they will change their minds despite what has been said during this debate, including the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). My hon. Friend has made two successive speeches in the Chamber without interruption, and that must he a record. His first contribution was, of course, a maiden speech. The Government will do their best to ensure that the allocation is changed.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) asked about the United Kingdom's position. When quotas were last reallocated in 1981, the changes were made on the basis of past production. Our production in the base period had been adversely affected by climate and other factors, so our quota, especially our B quota, is less than it might otherwise have been. As a result, although we are fully producing our A and B quotas, there is little if any surplus in the United Kingdom over our domestic requirements.
  I have been asked whether the machinery of the sugar quota operates differently from the milk quota, and to the best of my knowledge it does.
  When a sugar beet farm goes out of production British Sugar takes it back and then reallocates it. That reallocation may lead to new entrants into farming or new entrants into sugar beet production.
  Although we are fully producing our A and B quotas, there is little, if any, surplus in the United Kingdom over our domestic requirements. At present, beet sugar production within quotas of 1·144 million tonnes, together with supplies of imported ACP cane sugar of 1·15 million, roughly matches domestic consumption of 2·25 million to 2·3 million tonnes. Taking one year with another, we import about 120,000 tonnes of white sugar from other member states and export slightly more—150.000 tonnes to 200,000 tonnes—of domestically produced white sugar to third countries.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry has already said, there is little likelihood of any increase in domestic demand, but, as mentioned by all hon. Members, there is a growing interest in biotechnology and the biotechnological use of sugar in other products. The hon. Member Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) comes from a part of the world which is accustomed to biotechnology and such chemical plants. We are aware that such industry is found on the north-east side of England. We would like to see the development of this aspect of the chemical industry in the country and especially in the north-east. It is important that, if biotechnology is extended through the use of sugar, we should push as hard as possible for an extra quota to meet that increasing demand.
  At present there is no evidence to suggest that the figure covered by the review will exceed 50,000 to 100,000 tonnes a year. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford discussed a level of usage far higher than that.
  The level of national quotas is inseparable from that of the level of the production levy. Under current arrangements, the basic A quota is subject to a maximum levy of 2 per cent. of the intervention price, the B quota to a maximum additional levy of 37½ per cent. This seems appropriate since it is the additional production represented by the B quota which has to be exported and

  833
  therefore provides the main additional expenditure. The Government continue to attach importance to maintaining this distinction between the levies applying to the quotas.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), who backed his Suffolk horses into the buffers at one time—that will make an interesting mixed metaphor in Hansard—called for an increase in quota. Our quota represents 9 per cent. of EC quota production and we contribute under 6 per cent. of levy. In some ways, that is reassuring.
  We must also continue to maintain a reasonable balance between cane and beet producers in the United Kingdom to ensure a secure market for ACP cane sugar. I share the belief of the hon. Member for Newham, south that we must protect the ACP and the jobs that are created by that body.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful for the Minister's reassertion of the principle already reasserted by other hon. Members tonight.
  I believe that the quotas for producers were introduced in 1981. Cm.167, the Intervention Board report for 1986, showed that the United Kingdom got no less than £86 million from the funds. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) mentioned storage and that report shows that there was a £24 million contribution to the storage levy. Later, I hope that the Minister will check whether all that £86 million comes from the producers' levy, the percentage of which he has just given.
  Mr. Thompson: If it was four minutes past one o'clock in a Committee room and the hon. Gentleman started talking about Cm. 167 and going into such details, I would be terrified, but as it is I shall write to him.
  834
  We have it very much in mind that ensuring a secure market entails more than ensuring that there remains a place for ACP sugar on the United Kindgom market. In the long term there will be a market in the United Kingdom for ACP sugar only if the Community regime also provides a sufficient margin to enable this raw sugar to be refined. Last year, at United Kingdom insistence, the Commission undertook to carry out a review of that margin and it has yet to submit a report on it to the Council of Ministers. I am glad to say, however, that as part of the price-fixing settlement secured a week ago, the Council formally recognised the need to take measures rapidly to resolve the problem of the refining margin for cane sugar and the Commission undertook to submit proposals to this end. The Government will continue to press for a speedy and satisfactory solution in the interests of the United Kingdom industry and the ACP suppliers.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West asked me about that commitment and I have made that commitment. Hon. Members have said that things change and, of course, the Portuguese entry has changed the entire nature of sugar and sugar refining in the EEC. Nothing stays still and in the machinations of EEC committees, it may be that Portugal's entry will give us a window whereby we may get various adjustments to our satisfaction. I do not know.
  I end by assuring the House that I have noted the various points made in this debate; and that the Government will have them very much in their mind when we come to the review of the regime in the autumn. It will continue to be our objective to maintain a fair balance between cane and beet supplies in the United Kingdom—and to secure a fair deal for each in the Community, within the limitations imposed by the Community sugar regime and by the stark fact of a substantial Community—and world—surplus of sugar.

  Nuclear Arms Control
  1.6 am
  Mr. Harry Cohen: I am pleased to have obtained this debate on the nuclear arms control negotiations. The current negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union are certainly the most important international negotiations taking place at present. I welcome them and want them to result in a deal that will see a large number of nuclear weapons on the scrap heap. Such a deal, if achieved, looks likely to be only a small step towards ending the nuclear threat that hangs over mankind. It is important that a deal should be achieved and that Britain should work for its achievement. However, beyond that, it is crucial that all our efforts are directed to carrying on the impetus further to reduce and then eliminate nuclear weapons from the world.
  Nuclear weapons are a threat to the very existence of mankind. However, that is still not fully understood by some of the Colonel Blimps who are in political and military positions around the world. Among them, I am afraid, is the Prime Minister. The message has still not got across to them that, unlike pre-atomic weapons systems, nuclear weapons have the potential to destroy or blight all life on earth. They leave little opportunity for controlling the situation or for second thoughts.
  Mr. Gorbachev, in his February address to the Moscow Forum, said:
  "The development and subsequent stockpiling of nuclear weapons and of their delivery vehicles beyond all reasonable bounds have made man technically capable of terminating his own existence. The simultaneous accumulation of explosive social material in the world, and attempts to continue tackling forcefully, with stone-age methods, the products of problems of a cardinally altered world make catastrophe highly likely in political terms as well. The militarisation of mentality and of the way of life weakens and even removes altogether any moral inhibitions with regard to nuclear suicide.
  We have no right to forget that the first step, which is always the most risky, has already been made. Nuclear weapons have been used against human beings, and used twice. There are dozens—I repeat dozens—of recorded and acknowledged moments when the possibility of using such weapons against other countries was seriously considered … The question stands like this: either political mentality is geared to the requirements of the times or civilisation and life itself on Earth may perish."
  The author, Martin Amis, in his "A Blast against the Bomb" essay, published in The Observer on 19 April 1987, put it in an even more startling and brilliant way. He said:
  "Nuclear war is seven minutes away, and might be over in an afternoon. How far away is nuclear disarmament? We are waiting. And the weapons are waiting.
  What is the only provocation that could bring about the use of nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons. What is the priority target for nuclear weapons'? Nuclear weapons. What is the only established defence against nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons. How do we prevent the use of nuclear weapons? By threatening to use nuclear weapons. And we can't get rid of nuclear weapons, because of nuclear weapons. The intransigence, it seems, is a function of the weapons themselves. Nuclear weapons can kill a human being a dozen times over in a dozen different ways; and, before death—like certain spiders, like the headlights of cars—they seem to paralyse."
  We must break that paralysis. That is what the people of the world want. The circumstances and the arguments have changed.
  In the same article Amis compared his and his father's view—his father representing the outdated Tory notions still prevalent in his House. He states:
  836
  "My father regards nuclear weapons as an unbudgeable given. They will always be necessary because the Soviets will always have them and the Soviets will always want to enslave the West. Arms agreements are no good because the Soviets will always cheat. Unilateral disarmament equals surrender. And, anyway, it isn't a case of 'red or dead.' The Communist world is itself nuclear-armed and deeply divided: so it is a case of 'red and dead.'
  Well, Dead, at any rate, is what this prescription seems to me to promise. Nuclear weapons, my father reminds me, have deterred war for 40 wars. I remind him that no global abattoir presided over the century-long peace that followed Napoleon's discomfiture in 1815. And the trouble with deterrence is that it can't last out the necessary timespan, which is roughly between now and the death of the sun. Already it is falling apart, from within.
  When I say that America is as much of a threat as the Soviet Union my father categories me as somone who takes democracy lightly, who takes freedom lightly. But of course it is the weapons themselves that are the threat."
  The deterrent myth has also been hammered. Nuclear weapons have not deterred conventional attacks from Vietnam to the Falklands. They could not be used in such circumstances without wreaking enormous destruction and loss of life and without risking a chain reaction which could lead to nuclear retaliation, invoking the Chernobyl effect of mass radiation affecting the whole world—as someone crudely put it, "Peeing into the wind as the effects return to plague all of us."
  Mr. Gorbachev has hammered the deterrent myth. He pointed out that the viewpoint which underlies the doctrine of nuclear deterrence was
  "an evil necessary to prevent a greater evil—war … First, even if we stick to this doctrine, we would have to admit that the 'nuclear safeguard' is not 100 per cent. effective and not termless. It may any time become a death sentence to mankind. The bigger the nuclear arsenals, the less chance they will be kept 'obedient'. Proliferation; increasingly sophisticated nuclear weapons systems, a greater transportation scale and the constant risk of technical error, human failure of malice are all chance factors on which the survival of mankind depends … deterrence … is, in fact, a policy based on intimidation … When threat is a political means, the natural wish is that each such threat should be taken seriously. For that, one has to always hack up threats by definite action … In a historical context that does not reduce the risk of military conflict. In fact, it further increases the risk … the more nuclear weapons there are, the greater risk of a fatal malfunction."
  That is the new realism in the Soviet Union based on the need to act now to avoid a nuclear holocaust in future. Because of that new realism, a deal seems possible at least to lessen the overkill and make a start on a downturn in the nuclear arsenals rather than crazy expansion. Arms control negotiations are very slow and easily get bogged down. They require a serious political will. It is source of sadness and of concern that there has been no deal in President Reagan's period of office or during the Prime Minister's eight years on the central issue of achieving nuclear arms reductions.
  An opportunity for an agreement exists now. That has arisen not from strength, but more from glut. There are 50,000 nuclear warheads with 1 million times the power of the Hiroshima bomb. The Gorbachev initiative provides the opportunity. I hope that the deal will not be thwarted deliberately by some dinosaur-thinking, pro-nuclear vested interest. Such potential deals have been sabotaged before. The House of Commons Library briefing paper put it succinctly:
  "Arms control, because of its emotive aspects, is always vulnerable to political abuse, when Governments use the forum of Arms Control to pursue other aims or distract attention from actual deployment programmes."

  837
  There must be no political abuse in this case. On the contrary, the deal should be nurtured as top priority. That should be the British Government's insistence. The deal must also not be used as a cover or excuse to expand under the guise of modernising nuclear weapons in the categories outside the deal. There are signs that that could happen. The Government do not appear to have clean hands in that respect. The Government and some NATO dinosaurs appear to me to be in the process of trying to cheat on the deal, even before it has been agreed. I will refer to that later.
  The deal will almost certainly be limited. It is called zero-zero, but that is a misnomer. That does not mean zero nuclear weapons on both sides. It is unlikely even to meet Mr. Gorbachev's aim, proclaimed before the Reykjavik summit, of zero European theatre nuclear weapons in five to eight years, excluding the British and French capability. That exclusion alone would not have meant zero. For a start, that deal would be restricted to Europe. Secondly, British and French submarine long-range nuclear weapons would be untouched. The deal will cover only intermediate nuclear weapons—the shorter-range intermediate forces in the range of 500 km to 1,000 km and longer-range intermediate nuclear forces in the range of 1,000 km to 5,500 km. Missiles outside those ranges will not be included in the agreement. Battlefield nuclear artillery, airdrop nuclear weapons and short-range missiles up to the 5,000 km range are not included. Strategic intercontinental weapons over the 5,500 km range are not included and space nuclear weapons—star wars—are not included. A lot is not included. However, even within the intermediate nuclear weapons range, the West German Government have been screaming for the exclusion of Pershing IA missiles. They have a range of 740 km, right in the middle of the shorter-range intermediate nuclear forces category which is supposed to be zero. Those missiles are German, with United States warheads, under a dual-key arrangement.
  The NATO Foreign Ministers, at their meeting which culminated on 12 June, sought their exemption. They said that the agreement should apply to all United States and Soviet land-based short-range intermediate nuclear forces missiles. The reference to the United States provides for the exclusion of Pershing 1A, because that missile is nominally West German. But the limitation to land-based missiles opens up a huge loophole which, in my view, would subvert an effective agreement. The exemption, if in the agreement, would not mean "zero" in intermediate nuclear forces. In fact, it presents the opportunity to expand sea and air-launched nuclear weapons as a replacement for the land-based ones. The restriction suggested by the Foreign Ministers actually clears the way to the modernisation and increasing of nuclear weaponry. It means a new generation of nuclear weapons replacing the old lot.
  The Government have been preparing for this. The Defence Secretary has already talked of moving cruise to Holy Loch and converting it to be sea-launched. Other cruise weapons may well be air-launched, as more F111 and B52 nuclear bombers are brought into Britain. More emphasis is being placed on battlefield nuclear weapons below the 500 km range. The United States has been reported as giving consideration to converting Pershing 2 into shorter-range missiles. There has also been talk of
  838
  replacing NATO's Lance missiles with new longer-range ones, of expanding the nuclear weaponry over the 5,500 km range and of placing yet more emphasis—along with British involvement—on the star wars programme.
  Those developments could seriously undermine the opportunities opened up by an INF deal for a permanent reduction in the number of nuclear weapons. What assurances will the Government give that, if an INF deal is achieved, they will not use it simply to deploy more nuclear weapons in a different category? The Government seem to have been very active in this respect, planning for loopholes and for the replacement of missiles which have to leave Britain. I understand that the official parlance is "compensatory measures". The Government proclaim themselves as being one of the main architects of the deal. That is a falsehood. They are still busy expanding Britain's nuclear weaponry, particularly outside the range of a likely deal. They are introducing a new generation of battlefield nuclear weapons—nuclear cels, with a neutron bomb capacity; and purchasing Trident, which represents a huge upgrading of Britain's strategic nuclear arsenal. The number of warheads on each submarine is boosted by two and a half times, from 48 to 128, with a capacity for expansion to 224 per submarine.
  This is at a time when a 50 per cent. cut in strategic offensive weapons is one of the Government's proclaimed aims, mentioned in the Queen's Speech. That seems to be interpreted as cuts in everyone else's missiles, but not in our own. Trident is a hindrance to a deal between the two superpowers, especially one to achieve a nuclear-free Europe. It also prejudices the climate for disarmament. Furthermore, it undermines the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Along with the Prime Minister's notorious Moscow statement that nuclear weapons are the only means of allowing a small country to stand up to a big one, it gives the green light to proliferation—to every small country obtaining a nuclear bomb.
  The Tory record, when examined for substance rather than rhetoric, is quite thin on achievement. The Prime Minister's "nuclearphilia", as the Russians called it, puts nuclear disarmament in Europe out of reach. The Prime Minister is very much a part of the problem; she is no part of the answer to it.
  Britain should be doing much more. A high profile in international diplomacy, especially for general election purposes, is no substitute for the achievement of real nuclear disarmament. Britain should be prepared to close the loopholes and to renounce expansion. Britain should be prepared to make a bilateral deal with the Soviet Union, whatever the outcome of the INF negotiations. We should join the call for a nuclear-free Europe.
  Zero-zero is not what it pretends to be. It is a misnomer. It is a step forward, but only a first step. There are many others, and the Government should be using the Gorbachev impetus to place them on the agenda. For example, battlefield nuclear weapons should be drawn in to the deal. It should be made into a triple-zero option. The Government should be pressing for a longer-range nuclear weapons agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union and for the scrapping of many of those missiles.
  The Government should also ensure that a comprehensive test ban treaty is put back on the agenda. The Soviet Union's self-imposed moratorium was wasted. Britain still

  839
  objects, on the basis of inadequate verification. The United States has dropped that objection, but wants tests to continue so that new nuclear weapons can be developed.
  We should be backing a new test ban treaty. We should not do anything and we certainly should not encourage anything that breaches the ABM treaty. Outside Europe, we should stop stalling. We should sign the 1985 Rarotonga treaty, which aims to restrict the testing, deployment and use of nuclear weapons in the south Pacific. Britain should withdraw from the star wars programme. Its alleged rationale—as a shield against all ballistic missiles—is obviously flawed. Its potential is much more offensive than defensive, and it has a massive first strike capacity. It will reduce stability between the superpowers.
  Britain should also refuse to accept chemical weapons on its soil. We should seek their complete elimination worldwide, and also a reduction in conventional weapons. Britain should grasp the opportunities that an INF deal would provide. We should not invent ways to circumvent it. For the future of the world, we must not lose this opportunity.
  1.27 am
  Mr. John Browne: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on drawing this place in the debate, even though I do not agree with much that he said.
  As always, our aim must be peace, but not peace at any price. It must be peace with freedom. If we want peace with freedom, we must be prepared to defend ourselves not with a minimal capacity but with a credible deterrence capacity.
  Approximately 5·2 per cent. of our gross domestic product is devoted to defence. It acts as an insurance policy against aggression. This level of spending is a little lower than that in the United States, where it is between 6·5 and 7 per cent. However, we depend critically upon alliances. We must be careful not to make any moves on nuclear arms control that would split those alliances. They are an essential part of our defence strategy.
  The result of the defence policies of the last 40 years under both Labour and Conservative Governments has been peace within NATO. This 40 years of peace within NATO has not been in a peaceful world. There have been hundreds of conflicts since 1945. That is what makes the peace within NATO so special. The hon. Member for Leyton referred to the Falklands battle. It did not escalate because of the nuclear deterrent and the super-power balance. We have enjoyed a period of peace and we now have the highest degree of freedom and human rights in history. It is not a bad bargain; it is something about which we should be pleased and we should look for the reasons for that success.
  In all of our policies we must continually re-evaluate and examine the sectors in which the world is moving and adapt accordingly. We must not gamble our national survival on mere whims or vague assumptions. We have empirical evidence and a track record from which to draw. We must not gamble on unchecked proposals on nuclear disarmament, for example, from the Soviet bloc. We must check because those proposals are not always what they appear to be on the front cover. When one looks at the details one finds that a different nuance is thrown upon them.
  We must be creative and flexible and push for peace with balanced disarmament. However, to maintain peace
  840
  we must be vigilant and always look for substance in the reaction to proposals. We owe it to our citizens, not only those who are alive today but to future generations, to ensure that verification is as certain as it can be and that any reductions are balanced, not only in nuclear forces but in biochemical and conventional forces. Defence should be looked at as a completely integrated system. It would be wrong to allow even a balanced reduction in one arm of defence that leaves us more exposed in another. In other words, it would be wrong if we had a reduction to zero in nuclear weapons but left ourselves with a deficit in biochemical weapons. That would be to leave ourselves wide open and it would not be in the best interests of either our country or of world peace.
  We should remember the Carthaginian wars when, in the interest of trade, Carthage suggested disarmament and unilaterally disarmed. Today, historians argue about the location of Carthage, and that was before the days of gunpowder. There was a complete annihilation by Rome, the side that did not disarm.
  The outlook today is exciting. There are great economic prospects. One only has to look at what is happening in agriculture. There are also great financial and social prospects as well as those for peace and disarmament. There are prospects of turning the dream of nuclear disarmament into reality. We are at that threshold, but we should not take options at their face value. It is vital important for our leaders and politicians to look at the details. There will be a need for that in the future unless we are to create a catastrophe in terms of peace with freedom.
  A bright future is in prospect and that has been arrived at not by weakness in the western position but as a result of strength. It is also due to other pressures on the Soviet Union.
  The Soviet Union has enormous economic problems. They are more understandable, if one compares the strengths and weaknesses of the free democracies and those of the totalitarian states. It is difficult for Governments of free democracies to sustain any form of hot war when there is no open threat to the mother country. The reverse is true of a totalitarian state. It has little chance of generating real wealth in relation to the enormous wealth generation in the free democracies. The Soviet Union faces that problem.
  The Soviet Union's economy is still basically in the heavy industrial age. It has not progressed across the board into the light industrial, let alone technological, age. The Soviet Union has problems in generating the wealth necessary to maintain the trappings and influence of a super-power. It also faces tremendous internal challenges. Sixteen per cent. of GDP is spent on armaments. With interchanges with the free countries in the Western world, consumer demand is growing at the grassroots for what we consider basic products, such as jeans.
  The Soviet Government also face problems with the technological revolution. The root of power in the totalitarian state is the control of information. How can a technological revolution be achieved without decontrol of information by the extension of the use of personal computers?
  The Soviet Government must also face external challenges, of which China is one example. It was predicted that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister could not do a deal with a Communist leader over Hong Kong, but the deal was done. The Communist Chinese

  841
  Government are not communising Hong Kong so much as capitalising China, with tremendous results in terms of economic growth and productivity. China is entering world markets as an exporter of rice and other goods, which it previously imported. That worries the Soviets, if only because of a possible challenge for the leadership of the communist world.
  Another external challenge comes from the other superpower, the United States. The Soviet Union is falling further and further behind in terms of wealth creation and the technological sophistication of weapons systems. It is losing the race, and the distance between the two nations is growing. The most graphic example is the strategic defence initiative, to which the hon. Member for Leyton alluded. This is a new aspect of defence in space, on which the Soviets had a monopoly in the 1960s and 1970s. The United States has now entered the arena. The entry ticket, just for research, is some $15 billion to $20 billion. The key element of the SDI is computer power, the ability to make some 40 million calculations a second. The Soviet Union is furthest behind the United States in terms of that industry and technology.
  The SDI has had a tremendous impact on Soviet thinking. I was privileged to be a member of our delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting in December 1984 and to escort Mr. and Mrs. Gorbachev to various functions, which included showing them around the House. The overriding impression I gained was that the Soviets are desperate to negotiate an end, or even a halt, to the SDI. The SDI has given the Western negotiators an ace card. It has brought the Soviets to the negotiating table for the first time in decades to talk seriously about negotiation on nuclear and conventional arms. That is a very important factor.
  There has been a great change in the Soviet stance on arms control. We must ask how there could be such a change, bearing in mind the old pattern and the resistance of the Soviet elite or Nomlakatura to any form of change, and especially to any leader with charisma.
  In the first day of debate on the Queen's Speech, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary mentioned the impact of Mr. Gorbachev. He was right to do so. The why and the how of Mr. Gorbachev's succession is intriguing and will occupy historians in interesting research for years to come.
  As I have said, I met Mr. Gorbachev when he came here. Much has been written about him, which I will not repeat. However, certain of his characteristics are important with regard to arms control.
  Mr. Gorbachev has obvious charisma, Western-style charisma which he is both able and anxious to exploit over our Western media. He does not pay for air time or coverage but still manages to get into every room with a television set and on the front page of major newspapers every day of the week. What a change that is from the previous style of Soviet leadership. It has had a tremendous impact on the Soviet Union and the rest of the world. It will have a tremendous effect on the motivation of work force and management within the Soviet Union. It will enable them to export in major markets for commodities of which they were previously huge importers. It will have an immense effect on commodity and financial markets and upon arms negotiations.
  842
  Mr. Gorbachev will increasingly use his charisma to talk to people in the free world over the heads of our leaders and negotiators. That provides new challenges for us when trying to keep our people behind our policies.
  He is a formidable negotiator and will exploit potential rifts between the allies. The difference between zero-zero Europe and zero-zero global is just one example of this risk. He will be able to lull the West into a false sense of security and allow us to fall into the trap of unbalanced, unverifiable arms reductions. We must remain vigilant at all costs.
  Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: I am having some difficulty following the trend of the hon. Gentleman's logic. On what does the hon. Gentleman lay greater stress, the alleged superiority of the West in intermediate weapons, which I understood to be an inferiority of 9:1 and 6:1 in medium and longer-range intermediate nuclear weapons, or the charisma of Mr. Gorbachev? Which has been the critical factor which has brought the Soviet Union and the United States together?
  Mr. Browne: I myself did not say that there is superiority. It is impossible to tell which is the more important. We must accept the facts, and the fact is that we have got where we are through strength—SDI is just one indication of that—but Mr. Gorbachev's influence is also important.
  The third of his characteristics that is important is his self-confidence. It is based on a tremendous track record of his own promotion and his own proven ability. That leads to two interesting points. First, people with that sort of self confidence can afford to be more flexible, and with more flexible attitudes they are able to be more creative. This has an important impact in terms of nuclear arms negotiations because no longer is it exclusively the West that puts forward the initiative and is told "Nyet, nyet" by the Soviets. We saw a classic example of the Soviets putting forward royal cards at Reykjavik, for which the West had been negotiating for years, and suddenly the West walked away without accepting them. The Americans, the great public relations experts, were beaten to the post.
  I know that the hon. Member for Leyton will not agree with me, but I think that President Reagan showed tremendous integrity in saying that he would not accept those royal cards on their face value and that there was a lot more to nuclear arms negotiations than just looking at the face of a card. He had the integrity to come back, having refused what looked like an irresistible offer. The Western press tried to make him out as the warmonger in those first two days.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Perhaps he is.
  Mr. Browne: I do not believe that he is. One main point that I want to stress is the risk that the new Soviet style can make Western leaders appear to be warmongers. That is a great risk because it demands tremendous integrity and leadership on behalf of the Western negotiators.
  Under Mr. Gorbachev the Soviet goals have not changed, but their style and methods have. Out goes the brutal Russian bear and in comes a reasonable, responsible, even a reassuring Russia—a nice bear that smiles when it shows its teeth; it does not growl. That change is difficult for Western leaders to convey. It is a real threat to the population as a whole. Soviet hands at the

  843
  negotiating table are clean. All the activity is done under the table by surrogate nations, and that is something about which we must be well aware.
  I welcome the new Soviet approach beause it creates a tremendous opportunity in terms of nuclear and other arms negotiations, and trade. However, it also presents tremendous risks.
  One risk is unity. As I said. our deterrence policy is based on alliances. There is a risk of the splitting of Europe from the United States, or of Britain from France, in different interests, even in just the specific nuclear part of the arms control and arms negotiations. There are risks that we can be wrong-footed, as I think to some extent the West was when the Reykjavik talks took place. There is the risk that our leaders can come back from those talks and appear as the warmongers because the Soviet package looks so great. It is difficult to unravel the nitty gritty details of arms negotiations on television because it does not give one the space in which to do it.
  It is a difficult new challenge that the Western leaders must meet. At the same time the Western leaders, will face tremendous temptations. There are enormous stakes to be played for, and the opportunity to come back as the so-called greatest peace-maker of the century will be difficult to resist. What a deal one could strike apparently on the surface, but what a selling short could result for the West and for world peace if one took only the popular decisions. For example, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, there is the zero-zero Europe option which allows for 100 residual missiles on each side, not able to strike each other because they would be removed from the West of the Urals and not be deployed in Alaska on the American side. However, the Soviet SS20s are relatively small misssiles on mobile launchers with a reload capacity and are able to strike into Europe.
  Why is it not zero-zero global? The zero-zero Europe option means that down the road the European interests become different from the American interests, thereby decoupling the key alliance of our defence and of our peace and freedom. Therefore, zero-zero Europe is a very different thing from zero-zero global. Yet, in the newspapers it is just referred to as zero-zero. When one starts unravelling the details it is a very different thing.
  I would like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister, who is being very patient, whether he would update us on the nuclear planning group. the spring meeting of the NATO defence Ministers and the EEC Foreign Ministers with regard to nuclear arms reduction, just to put us in the picture more than we were before the election campaign and more than we have been over the past two months. It is a fascinating subject and I would be grateful to him for that.
  Will my hon. Friend the Minister urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and fellow Members of the Government to persevere with their patience because it will take enormous patience both to negotiate with the Soviet Union and to explain the real details and the effects of those details to our own people? Will he urge them to persevere with the vigilance that was stated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, to consider the details in terms of substance and to ensure that our Government and other Governments know the importance of integrity in terms of accepting the risk of appearing to be the warmonger? They should not accept at face value superficial royal cards on the other side that would mean the dissolution of one arm or
  844
  another of our integrated defence system. We must accept the need for change, for updating and the need for arms negotiations. I would strongly welcome such negotiations. In fact, it would be obscene to go on if we could think of a way of not spending all that money and of not putting the world at such risk. At the same time we must be vigilant and ensure that arms reductions are genuine. Let us hope that the peace we have enjoyed for the past 40 years will progress for 40 years in the future and beyond. I wish my hon. Friend the Minister well in that tough endeavour.
  1.52 am
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) for putting this subject on our agenda, although at a late hour, which is not the hour of his choosing. It is time that we had some discussion on this subject, albeit a fairly brief one.
  I share many of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Leyton and some of his conclusions, although not all of them and not all the direction of his argument. I parted company with him when he said—giving the game away as to the difference between his standpoint and mine—that it might be possible or necessary to have a bilateral deal between Britain and the Soviet Union if the current global discussions broke down. That is the point at which we would be abandoning any attempt to have a NATO strategy and deciding that we can simply negotiate some minor adjustment in Soviet weaponry to compensate for the removal of all the nuclear weaponry that is in the United Kingdom. I watched the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) making such an offer to Mr. Gorbachev when he and I and the noble lord Lord Whitelaw were in Moscow. Mr. Gorbachev was, understandably, most receptive and offered reductions in strategic weaponry and changes in the targeting of Soviet weaponry if the policy of the removal of all American bases from Britain and the removal of the British deterrent could be accomplished.
  That is not the way in which we will make Europe secure at the same time as reducing the total of nuclear weapons in the world. For those two objectives to be accomplished, we need an agreement that draws together NATO and the Warsaw pact. I am adamant in my determination that that should be achieved by NATO acting as an alliance. It cannot be achieved bilaterally.
  Nuclear weapons exist and cannot be disinvented or removed from the scene without negotiation between countries. We do the world no service if we merely detach ourselves from the system by which we are defended in a gesture that may marginally reduce the total of nuclear weapons in the world but threatens the security of the West and does not achieve those major reductions for which so many people are looking.
  As the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) pointed out, this is a time of great promise for global arms negotiation prospects. We have seen a much more realistic approach from the Soviet Union, coupled with a recognition by the United States President of the value of an agreement, although we sometimes wonder whether the United States President remains in control of United States foreign policy. Perhaps we shall know tomorrow, when Admiral Poindexter takes the stand, just how much the President knows or does not know. It must be a matter of genuine concern that there should be doubt as to who

  845
  precisely is running United States foreign policy. There is no doubt that the President has become convinced of the desirability of reaching agreement and has some personal commitment to it.
  What should the British Government's contribution be in the circumstances? Surely it should be to facilitate and to urge on the reaching of an agreement. The Prime Minister is fond of saying that it is all because of cruise, Polaris and Trident that the Soviet Union is coming to the negotiating table. But, of course, for decades the West has been strong relative to the Soviet Union at any given time. We have had areas of strength, and there have been areas in which we have been concerned that the Warsaw pact was stronger than we were, but our overall position has been one of defensive strength.
  The Soviet Union did not then come to the negotiating table in the same spirit as it does now. It is obvious that the change in the Soviet leadership and its perceptions has changed the climate. One may speculate as to the reasons for that change. They are a balance of two factors: first, the economic factor to which the hon. Member for Winchester referred—the mounting cost that would be involved in the Soviet Union matching anything like the American strategic defence initiative, particularly in its offensive capabilities; the impossibility of meeting the legitimate demands of the Soviet people for a better standard of living, against a background of higher and higher arms expenditure. That is clearly a major factor.
  Secondly, General Secretary Gorbachev has a keen appreciation of the dangers of nuclear war and a genuine desire to achieve peace. That is a harder matter to assess. Like any Soviet leader, he will not do that at the expense of what he sees as Soviet security. Perhaps it is more prudent to place reliance upon economic motivation for the stand that he is now taking. Either way, he is taking a more realistic position about the need for global nuclear disarmament than any previous Soviet leader did.
  In recent months, Britain has too often been seen as holding back the superpowers from arriving at a deal, with apparent opposition to an INF agreement, and apparent hesitation at almost every stage. Indeed, it was only in the immediate prelude to the general election that it seemed to become clear that the British Government were supporting a deal on the lines that seemed to be in prospect and were no longer placing obstacles in its way. I take that now to be the case. I make no quarrel about the circumstances in which it arose. If the election influenced it, that is well and good. That is what elections are for. The Government may have sensed the general desire among British people to see progress towards multilateral arms negotiations. Indeed, some British people are suspicious of one-sided disarmament but are anxious to secure multilateral disarmament.
  The Government cannot at one and the same time appeal to the opposition to one-sided disarmament and fail to meet aspirations for effective moves to multilateral disarmament.
  Mr. John Browne rose——
  Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman took quite a long time to make his speech. Other hon. Members wish to speak. Whereas I would readily give way, I feel constrained by that fact. I wish to put some questions to the Minister who is to reply.
  846
  What is the United Kingdom Government's attitude now to Pershing IAs in West Germany? Do the Government see them as a potentially insuperable obstacle to the achievement of an arms deal? Do the Government reflect upon the divisions that exist in the West German Government about an issue which is of understandable importance to many people in West Germany but is much more important for its political significance than for the real defence value of the weapons about which we are speaking? What is the United Kingdom view of the suggestion referred to by the hon. Member for Winchester that the remaining 100 missiles on either side should be removed because it would make verification so much easier? Do the British Government have a view on the total zero-zero option?
  Has the Prime Minister abandoned the view she expressed at one stage that Europe might have to increase its short-range missiles to match those of the Soviet Union? It is difficult to see the point of such an exercise, as many of these missiles, by their very nature—certainly those stationed in the United Kingdom—could only be fired at our European allies.
  These matters can be resolved. There are real prospects of agreement on the zero-zero option, but other issues must be debated, such as battlefield nuclear weapons, which present the dangerous prospect of easy escalation into nuclear war. We must make more strenuous efforts to control and limit those weapons and remove them from a significant sector of any potential European battlefield.
  There is a need to press ahead for a comprehensive test ban treaty and to continue towards limitation of strategic missiles, which has implications for Trident. It remains possible that we could reach the stage in this Parliament that the weapons system the Government have chosen might fall within the limits which the super-powers want to set on strategic missiles.
  The strategic defence initiative seems to carry the United Kingdom Government's support against all the evidence and all the sensible arguments. Nobody I have talked to from the United States really believes that it can work as a total defensive shell, the leak-proof astrodome of President Reagan's dreams. If it does not work in that way, it becomes potentially a very large offensive capacity, but one which offers no real protection to Europe at all.
  If Britain is protecting Europe's interests in this argument, it is difficult to see why it should be offering any support to SDI at all. I say to all Ministers, particularly the Minister who is new to his responsibilities, that they should go back and read the speech of the Foreign Secretary, which gave 18 different reasons to doubt the viability and value of the SDI project. That speech remains as sound as it was when it was first made.
  The Government are currently addressing the issue of a chemical weapons treaty. We send our good wishes to the negotiations in which the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Minister of State, is engaged today. I welcome the fact that the Government are taking an initiative in this field. We are reminded of the dangers involved and some of the frightening aspects of it by the current publicity given to the experiments involving servicemen at Porton, testing our ability to deal with any kind of chemical attack. They are extremely worrying instances—although they are not the hon. Gentleman's ministerial responsibility—and are a reminder of the terrifying evil of chemical weapons and the urgent need for a proper international ban on them.

  847
  Successful arms control must mean that each side feels that it will be secure under the agreement that is being arrived at. No arms control agreement which leaves one side feeling insecure offers any sound prospects for the future. That must be the basis for any sensible multilateral agreement. But to reach that position involves both sides making adjustments of old ideas of what constitutes effective security. It has happened on the Soviet side and it must happen on the Western side. It involves constant assessment of the implications of new technology, and questioning of our old assumptions of what we depend upon for our security.
  At the end of the day, both sides must feel that the agreement leaves them secure from any realistically imaginable threat they could face. It is possible to retain that dimension of practicality while having the vision to press ahead to the kind of arms agreement which so many people want to see.
  The determination of people to prevent the awful cataclysmic destruction of our civilisation by a nuclear war is there and it is the responsibility of Governments to give it practical expression. Governments which are found wanting in doing so will have to answer not just for the fate of the people of this country but also for that of future generations throughout the world.
  2.5 am
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on initiating the debate and on his efforts in raising, in this House and elsewhere, the questions of arms control and peace. Those matters should be at the forefront of our debate rather than, as we hear from Conservative Members, the eternal search for conflict and war. They maintain that there is the possibility, even the likelihood, of a war, and that, therefore, it is necessary to arm to prevent that. Frankly, I reject that philosophy. Anyone who believes that nuclear weapons provide any form of defence should look back to what happened in Japan in 1945, when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were devastated by nuclear bombs. In those areas people are still dying from cancers resulting from those bombs. They should also look at what is happening in western Europe at the moment, and recognise the increase in cancers that will result from the Chernobyl disaster a couple of years ago. They may then begin to realise that nuclear war knows no boundaries, frontiers or limitations.
  As soon as a nuclear war begins, it is anhihilation, in one form or another, for both sides. It will be either instant death in the fire storm and nuclear winter that follows a nuclear attack, or slow, progressive cancer deaths for decades and decades. A number of excellent films on the subject show that a limited nuclear war conducted in Europe will result in what remains of life in this country being put back to medieval levels of production and living standards. Those would be the consequences of nuclear war.
  Therefore, the search for peace and for freedom from nuclear weapons is important. However, also important is the search for peace and for freedom from war by conventional weapons. Hon. Members often claim that there has been peace in Europe for the past 40 years. There has not been an armed conflict, but I would not exactly say that the expenditure levels of both sides on arms, both nuclear and conventional, have maintained complete
  848
  peace in Europe, not had an enormous effect on the social expenditures that could have taken place in Europe or have not been part of the export of war to other places.
  I wish briefly to refer to the terrible conflict between Iran and Iraq, in which 500,000 people have already died. That conflict has been fuelled by arms sales and loans frorn western European and American banks, and chemical weapons are being used in that conventional war with all its horrors. There must be a search for peace. Those who say that arms expenditure by the superpowers does not have an effect on the rest of the world are, quite frankly, deluding themselves. One of the major reasons for the United States budget deficit is its vast level of arms expenditure. Estimates are given for the levels of expenditure by one side or the other, but there are also hidden levels of expenditure. Education expenditure in universities in the USA goes, to some extent, on military research. A large degree of corporate expenditure, in one form or another, also goes on military research. There are large areas of so-called civilian expenditure in the USA and this country which, in reality, go on military expenditure.
  The question worldwide of the consequences of the arms race must be examined. The real danger of nuclear proliferation way beyond those countries that hold nuclear weapons now, with the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons and delivery systems, is growing all the time. It is important that there is some positive contribution towards nuclear disarmament discussions. That is one of the reasons why this debate is so important.
  When I hear generals pontificating about nuclear deterrents on one side or the other and mutally assured destruction—it is called madness by them and everyone else—it is time to think and call a halt to what is going on. There are enormous possibilities for a real reduction in and the removal of nuclear weapons.
  I am unapologetically in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament for the United Kingdom. If we were to remove all nuclear weapons and bases from this country, we would no longer be the nuclear aircraft carrier of the United States. That must be the first step. Our lead would be followed by other European countries. The peace movement would be invigorated in other places and that would assist the overall nuclear disarmament process.
  Secondly, we must examine what has gone wrong and right in the peace negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union. Considerable progress was made at Geneva when the Soviet Union submitted a number of proposals. A communiqué was agreed and it was resolved to meet again. Eventually there was the meeting at Reykjavik, and the proposals advanced by the Soviet Union were, in essence, the ones that the United States arms negotiators had been asking for in the past.
  Why did the Reykjavik proposals not come to fruition? Why did they not provide a springboard for a real reduction in nuclear weapons on both sides? The answer lies partly with the stubbornness of President Reagan, who refused to put back star wars research and to cancel some of the research programmes. The pressure that was put on him by political cronies in the arms manufacturing and high technology industries in the United States undoubtedly had a major effect on his decision not to interrupt any aspects of star wars. That decision was both bad and dangerous. It has meant that the star wars research programmes continue and that the likelihood of

  849
  a computer-controlled war, or a computer-controlled nuclear attack, comes nearer, is more real and is ever more dangerous.
  An enormous amount of money is being spent on star wars research. It is said that star wars is creating jobs when in reality it is destroying them and destroying hope and life. The claim is nonsense and it must be exposed. The idea that Britain is benefiting from star wars in some way is so ludicrous as to be barely believable. Conservative Members often talk about jobs that are being created in the defence industry, but I ask them to consider the loss of jobs that is caused by capital-intensive defence programmes and the development of research programmes in the United States. This part of the world is being treated as a sort of colony for the United States arms industry. If the Conservative party is seriously interested in creating jobs, it should consider socially useful expenditure and the problems that people face. Housing problems are not solved by star wars, nuclear weapons or the construction of more tanks. Education and Health Service shortages are not met by that activity. We must address ourselves urgently to decreasing all forms of military expenditure so that more money is available to spend on social programmes.
  The role of the Government in stoking up nuclear arms race and supporting the United States is grossly underestimated. There are more cruise missiles destined for this country than for most others in western Europe. There are 30,000 American troops here, and we give them legal immunity through the Visiting Forces Act 1952. American troops are allowed to act with impunity when escorting cruise missiles around Salisbury plain and elesewhere. We allow the unacceptable denial of civil liberties to those in areas where cruise missiles are based and to those who seek to oppose their presence on the roads.
  We accept all that because, apparently, we are prepared to accept that the United States can use this country as a nuclear aircraft carrier. We also apparently accept the expenditure of £10 million to buy Trident missiles for this country. Those missiles will mean that we have a whole new generation of nuclear destruction heading for our shores. Apparently we are happy to pay for those missiles. We are also prepared to say that we support President Reagan in not promoting peace between the United States and the Soviet Union.
  The Government should carefully examine what has been put on offer by the Soviet Union. Those proposals include the zero-zero option, the withdrawal of missiles to more than 100 km from the frontier between east and west Germany. They also include proposals for the verification of the removal of those missiles. There is a whole host of proposals that could be considered and could lead to the possibility of the start of rapid disarmament.
  We can go down the road of negotiation and peace or the road of massive expenditure on star wars, increasing expenditure on other forms of nuclear weapons, such as Trident, and the escalation of the military arms race. Do we want that? Do we want to look for peace?
  The effect of the nuclear strategy is enormous. The Government's Defence Estimates for 1987, volume II, reveal that total defence expenditure from 1981–82 to 1987–88 has risen from £12·2 billion to £18·7 billion. The total defence budget has increased by about 50 per cent.
  850
  during that period, but the nuclear strategic force expenditure has increased by 150 per cent. during that same period. That appears to be the trend that the Government wish to follow.
  The House should consider the Camp David text that the Prime Minister agreed in November 1986 after the Reykjavik summit. That text said that priority should be given to an INF agreement and a 50 per cent. cut, over five years, in United States and Soviet Union strategic offensive weapons. It also said that an agreement had been reached on a proposal to ban chemical weapons.
  However, that text did not specify that the main negotiating stumbling block is the obsession of the President of the United States and of the high technology and arms industries of the United States to develop a strategic defence initiative. That initiative will lead us to the horrors of nuclear war in outer space, a computer-controlled set off of nuclear destruction and the appalling prospect of total annihilation.
  We have a choice before us. Either we go down the road of nuclear madness, nuclear war and nuclear annihilation—the obsession of some to spend greater resources on nuclear weapons will mean that poverty in the world will increase—or we can look in the direction of peace and clasp with both hands the possibility of reaching an agreement, rapidly and quickly.
  I hope that the Government will seriously consider the possibility of getting genuine peace negotiations under way with the hope of obtaining nuclear reductions at the earliest opportunity.
  2.17 am
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: It is customary to congratulate hon. Friends who have been fortunate enough to secure an opportunity to sponsor a debate. I am a wee bit dubious about congratulating people on having debates at this time in the morning. However, this is an important subject and it is one which, at any time of the day or night, should ensure that there are people interested enough to participate. I believe that we have heard a representative section of opinion this evening.
  We must return to this subject because although it featured in the debate on the Gracious Speech events are continuing apace. It is important that we keep the subject under review. That is especially important because whenever there is a prospect of advance or the possibility of a coming together, the Government immediately try to open up the divisions once more.
  It is a source of regret that, in a country where there is precious little common ground, certainly among the Opposition parties, there is a consensus—if I may use that word—in respect of seizing the opportunities that Reykjavik and the post-Reykjavik situation have afforded. Sadly, when we look around for the Prime Minister to enter into that consensus, we see her acting out a role that is not dissimilar to that of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), where other consensuses or confusions seem to be evident. It would appear that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has been endowed this evening with the full authority of whatever remains of that small alliance to express the views of his party.
  Labour Members' view of the Government during the past eight years is that they have done precious little to promote nuclear arms control and disarmament, and much to hinder it. In fact, following Reykjavik we saw the

  851
  Reagan and Gorbachev discussions inching closer together. However, no sooner had the discussions ended than the Prime Minister, who was not invited to Reykjavik—a testament, it would appear to the weakness and irrelevance of Britain—immediately tried to get into the act by going to Washington to attempt to weaken the resolve of the American Administration. It is certainly true to say that, had the full agreement been secured at Reykjavik. the prospect of the Prime Minister obtaining Trident and satisfying her lust for nuclear weapons would have been greatly restricted. It is almost certain that a wider agreement from Reykjavik would have prevented Britain from going down the road that we are presently travelling to secure about an 800 per cent. increase in the number of nuclear warheads that we would be able to train on potential enemies.
  We know that the escalation in Britain's nuclear capability comes at a time when many people—in fact, the overwhelming proportion of the population, according to opinion polls and the like, about 79 per cent.—favour a nuclear freeze. Therefore, Trident and the maintenance of the independent deterrent, fly in the face of those attitudes. The implications of almost any improvement in or upgrading of our nuclear deterrent would result in the contravention of the 1967 non-proliferation treaty.
  It was significant that in what was a thoughtful speech the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed omitted any reference to his party's position—or rather his interpretation of his party's position—in respect of minimum deterrence or the upgrading of that deterrent and its consequences for any non-proliferation or test ban treaties to which he would wish to commit his party. It is clear that Britain's adoption of any forms of nuclear weaponry will require testing, if not by the United Kingdom, at least by someone producing such weapons. If that were to be by the French—perhaps the most enthusiastic testers of all—or by the Americans, either way we should have to benefit from what is clearly a violation of what has hitherto been. at least by Labour Members, regarded as an inviolable international agreement.
  However, from the Government side, we have heard from the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) all the old chestnuts about the 40 years of peace and how that is attributable exclusively to nuclear weapons, and perhaps partially to NATO. The Government have yet to consider the negotiations towards an international convention which would forbid the use of nuclear weapons against a state which neither possessed them nor had them stationed on its territory. We have yet to see any expression from this Government of a willingness to accept the doctrine of no first use.
  Certainly, the consideration of the use of nuclear weapons against another nuclear power in retaliation is still at the forefront of the British Government's thinking on deterrence. Certainly, it is somewhat unclear whether Britain would be prepared to come out firmly against the use of its nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. Certainly, if we could get such a declaration it would provide assurance to those who are at present non-nuclear and who may consider the acquisition of such weapons.
  One of the present problems is that many nations are on the verge of or capable of obtaining nuclear weapons and they must be discouraged from following that road. It is hypocrisy for a country such as Britain to say, "It's
  852
  okay for Britain to have nuclear weapons, but not for any other country to have them." We must go further than simply hiding behind treaties which had some substance when they were first agreed but which in many respects over the past 20 years have become almost irrelevant, given the ease with which relatively poorly developed countries can now obtain nuclear power.
  This evening we heard from the hon. Member for Winchester about the problems of securing a zero-zero agreement and we heard that such an agreement would be virtually unacceptable in any form to the Prime Minister. But we have since heard that perhaps it could be reached. The Government's approach seems to be to say, "We may support what is happening because at the end of the day we do not have much say in it", or, "We leave it to the Americans", or, "We have had a go at the NATO planning; groups and elsewhere and at the end of the day the Americans will probably know best." They might say "Certainly, all the long-range nuclear weapons and" indeed, the short-range ones are American. They will be decommissioned when the Americans decide." At present the British Government take whatever line they wish so long as Britain can retain some sort of fig leaf.
  We in the Opposition are not satisfied with the Government's arguments so far. We recognise that many opportunities may arise for the NATO powers and we urge the Government to seize those opportunities. We recognise that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is present in place of the Minister of State; the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), who is participating in talks on a chemical weapons ban. Certainly, we would welcome any agreement on that. I agree with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that there are many problems regarding chemical weapons, some of which were identified this weekend in the press. It is strange that a Government who claim always to adopt the role of peacemaker can at the same time test dreadful nerve gases on their own people in a form which no other member of the Alliance is prepared to do.
  We live in times when there are tremendous opportunities for peace. We recognise that in their own confused ways, both the Soviet Union and the United States are beginning to appreciate that. On the one hand, we see the sophisticated Gorbachev and on the other the naive and confused Reagan. They are both coming to agreement, but on the sidelines this Government appear to be wilfully and maliciously trying to frustrate everything that those powers want to achieve. We hope that the Minister will give us some hope of a change of attitudes this evening and I ask him to give us the opportunity of seeing that hope meet reality tonight.
  2.30 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar) rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The Minister may reply if he has the leave of the House.
  Mr. Eggar: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to reply. I also thank the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) for giving me at least a brief chance to respond to this interesting debate which in true form has been initiated by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). It was nice to be reassured by the presence of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). I

  853
  thought that I was to miss out on our debates that usually take place on central America, but I was delighted to see that he had his central American clothing with him even if he did not have the usual text. It was also nice to realise that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) can take some time off from his fratricidal strife to fight the battle on a wider canvas.
  I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne). I am afraid that my classical scholarship does not extend as far as his with regard to the Carthaginian wars, but I am sure that he will be able to take me aside after the next debate—as I will be seeking Mr. Deputy Speaker's permission to speak yet again—to give me the classical side of the story.
  It is only to be expected that Opposition Members will criticise the Government for not doing enough in this area. However, it must be depressing for them to have to continue to play the old gramophone record which may represent a convenient concensus as the hon. Member for Clackmannan stated, but which is a gramophone record that was rejected and thrown into the wastepaper basket for the second general election running by the voters. It was clear on 11 June that the voters throughout the country supported the Government's policy on defence and not that put forward by any of the many opposition parties that have now reappeared.
  One of the foundation stones for these policies is the recognition that arms control negotiations, and nuclear arms control in particular, are about preserving security, even if we seek to do that by reducing the number of weapons on both sides. This Government will not compromise on that basic point. We do not believe in arms control which does not meet that basic criterion of reinforcing security. If that means that progress in arms control negotiations at times seems slow, that may be an inevitable consequence of the complexity of the issues with which we are dealing. To call for greater speed in the negotiations ignores the very real need to understand fully what is involved before committing ourselves to an agreement which is binding on the Alliance.
  Another of the foundation stones of this Government's approach to arms control is the commitment to full
  854
  consultations within the Alliance. I remind the House that we do not participate in the main nuclear arms control negotiations, the Geneva nuclear and space talks. Those are bilateral negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union, but in recognition of the consequences that nuclear arms reductions agreements will have for the security of the European Members of the Alliance, the United States has engaged in the most exemplary process of consultations within the Alliance. I remind the House that NATO is a free association of 16 democratic nations. We must all be given the opportunity to express our views on the conduct of the negotiations affecting our security.
  Some may attempt to portray those consultations as European obstructionism, or European blocking of major agreements. Let me say frankly that it far better to resolve all the difficulties within the Alliance before the agreement is signed than to try to do so afterwards. That is what the consultation process is designed to achieve.
  The Alliance is wholly committed to achieving an INF agreement, and in that context it continually assesses its nuclear capabilities. It does what is necessary to maintain deterrence. The United Kingdom is not holding back an INF agreement; on the contrary, we are a principal architect of such an agreement.
  The House is rightly concerned about nuclear arms control. However, we should not forget the massive threat from Soviet chemical weapons—a threat that has built up despite the United Kingdom's unilateral renunciation of its own chemical warfare capability in the 1950s, and the unilateral United States moratorium since 1969. The dangers from those weapons are spreading. As two hon. Gentlemen have mentioned, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, is currently in Geneva, and will be making major new proposals to move the negotiations forward with the practical steps that are necessary to make a chemical ban effective. I am delighted that we have received support from both sides of the House for what is a major British arms initiative.
  Finally, the British Government——
  In accordance with MR. SPEAKER'S ruling—(Official Report, 31 January 1983: Vol. 36, c. 19) the debate was concluded.

  Overseas Civil Servants (Pensions)
  2.36 am
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I must first declare an interest. I served in the Colonial Service in Nigeria, and I derive a pension from my service there. Also I was a service man in the Royal Air Force during the war. I would therefore be a beneficiary of any change of policy that the Government might make as a result of the claim about which I intend to speak.
  I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to the debate. The subject has been raised before in the House—on 1 May last year—and I am fully aware of the official replies to the points that I intend to make. I have no quarrel with my hon. Friend. In the past, the claim has been raised at the highest level—Cabinet level—where it has been refused because, it is said, the money simply cannot be found to satisfy it. I believe, and I hope to persuade the House, that the Cabinet should be ashamed of its attitude.
  All branches of the public service of this country, except one, are entitled to include war service in the computation of members' pensions when they retire. That provision was made to allow for the many people who, during the war, were taken on by the Home Civil Service. So that their position would not be prejudiced, members of the Civil Service who were called up were taken on as non-established staff without pension rights. Immediately after the war, it was decided that those with war service should be entitled to count half of it towards their total service for pension purposes, just as those who had non-established service were entitled to count half of theirs. That was seen as equality of treatment between civil servants who had done war service and those who had remained at home.
  The principle was adopted in other branches of the public service, particularly in the 1970s, when it was extended to the police, local government, teachers and others. The Colonial Service, which is now called the Overseas Civil Service, was never included in that movement. Credit for war service that had been performed before the first appointment to the Colonial Service has never been given.
  The question, therefore, is: why was the Overseas Civil Service excluded from this privilege, which had been given to every other civil and public servant? There are three possible reasons, and in dealing with the claim we may take our choice.
  First, there was the legal fiction that a colonial officer was recruited in this country by the Secretary of State for the Colonies and to some extent trained here but that then he was sent to a colony which then, through its Government, employed him and were responsible for his conditions of service thereafter. Therefore, the British Government, not being the employer of colonial officers, never felt that they were responsible for the pensions of those officers. The colonial Governments, even when they became the Governments of independent Commonwealth territories, respected the pension rights of their expatriate staff, but they did not accept—at independence, at least—responsibility for war service that had been performed before the individual concerned joined their own service.
  The Colonial Service officer was therefore denied the benefit of a privilege that, by the 1970s, had been extended to every other public servant. Naturally, independent Commonwealth Governments could not be asked to take
  856
  responsibility for periods of time when their expatriate staff were not working for them. The British Government rested on the notion that they were not the employers and that the people concerned would therefore have to look elsewhere. That is inherently unjust, and that notion is no longer pursued by the Government.
  The second line of argument is the one that I apprehend will he used by my hon. Friend the Minister: that the British Government cannot afford the cost. Cost is an element in this problem. The Overseas Development Administration is responsible for the pensions of 46,000 former Colonial Service officers. The additional money that would be required to pay for war service, together with other service, in the pensions of those people would have to be found from somewhere. One accepts that it should not be found from funds that are allocated to overseas aid. The Treasury would have to find the money. It is not overseas aid; it is a matter of honour.
  The Overseas Development Administration believes that about 10 per cent. of the 46,000 officers had war service before their first appointment to the Colonial Service. Therefore, 4,600 officers might be entitled to claim an additional pension entitlement. A recent estimate of the cost was £3 million. However, on 1 May 1986 my hon. Friend, the then Minister of State, told me that the cost might be as much as £5 million, or even £6 million. There is no basis for his estimate, save for a glance at the files and the derivation of some evidence from individual cases. The cost element is exaggerated. We must remember that we are dealing with a declining number of people because they are mostly elderly.
  The third argument that is somtimes advocated is that officers of the Overseas Civil Service, the old Colonial Service, do not deserve this privilege because of the special conditions that applied to them. Some say that they were so beneficial that they are not entitled to the privilege. Those reasons were touched on by the former Minister of State, who said that Colonial Service officers were entitled to retire earlier than Home Civil Service officers, at
  "55 rather than 60."—[Official Report, 1 May 1986: Vol. 96, c. 1187.]
  He said nothing about the shorter careers for those who served in unfavourable climes, in particular, the notion that was well justified for a long time that west Africa was the white man's grave.
  That is one alleged advantage. Another is that the commutation of pensions is possible with the Overseas Civil Service, particularly in places where the colony concerned is about to gain independence and the careers of the officers are brought to a premature end. That strikes me not as an advantage, but as a natural consequence of the British traditional policy of granting self-government and independence while ensuring that the pension interests of expatriate staff are respected.
  A further argument is that those officers whose careers are brought to a premature end should be entitled to compensation for early retirement, which is not something that is generally accepted in the Home Civil Service. It was suggested by the then Minister of State that Colonial Service officers have the advantage of a second career, such as being a Member of Parliament.
  It is true that there is a difference between the Overseas Civil Service and the rest of the public service, but the difference is that conditions overseas were inferior to almost every other branch of the service. It is not and was not an easy life. In general, low levels of pay applied

  857
  because the salary scales were adjusted not to United Kingdom levels but to what the colony could afford. Therefore, that often being a matter of local negotiation, salaries tended to be rather low.
  It was a short career and there were adverse climatic conditions, poor health services and few amenities. The typical colonial officer endured malaria, dysentery and typhoid as normal occupational hazards. I caught typhus when I was out in the bush and my wife saved my life by taking me to the hospital at the provincial headquarters. One night our house in the bush was burnt down by an arsonist who had a grudge against my predecessor. We endured plagues and suffered all manner of pestilence. Every colonial officer led a similar life and loved it because we had the satisfaction of working directly and personally to improve the conditions of life for the people among whom we worked.
  We in the Colonial Service with our African friends spent our time digging deep concrete-lined wells to get pure water. We built bush roads to enable lorries to use them and so stimulate trade. We organised the schools. We improved farms. We talked to, trained and helped the people of the colonies to govern themselves. We gave no thought to things like pensions. Most of the people of whom I speak are now elderly, living in the United Kingdom on the pensions that they earned during their service. It is a matter of shame that they, who ruled the empire so well, should be denied the privilege allowed to the most junior clerk in a town hall. The amount of money involved, whatever it is, would make a small, but significant, difference to their lives. It is a matter not of affordability; it is a debt of honour. Why is it not paid?
  2.50 am
  Mr. Julian Brazier: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the small remaining band of happy warriors look so comfortable at nearly three in the morning that I am sure you will be disappointed to hear that I shall be brief. I should like to follow up a few of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). I start by declaring an indirect interest. Most of my mother's relations were overseas servants with the Colonial Service and its sister services and at least one would be a beneficiary of the proposed measure, were it ever to be adopted.
  I have little to add to my hon. Friend's eloquent points. It is appropriate that we should debate this matter here. One of the principal aims, perhaps the principal one, of the Colonial Service was to bring this sort of democracy to many parts of the world. This Chamber has been duplicated in some 40 or 50 countries as a result of the work of the Colonial Service.
  Life in the Colonial Service was tough. I pay particular tribute to the section to which my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington belonged. He worked in west Africa. To show how tough conditions were, I should like to give an example of an organisation that did not draw on the public purse. Recently, I heard a talk by a missionary from west Africa who told me that, in the part of Africa in which he served, none of the first missionaries to start work in the 1920s, not so long ago, survived for more than 18 months. The oldest was 36. It was, indeed, a hard life.
  The war service of many overseas pensioners was not easy. It is an extraordinary anomaly that these people who
  858
  gave the best part of their lives to serving their country should lose up to a quarter of their pension rights because they chose to spend part of that time serving in our armed forces.
  I shall not labour the point. The hour is late. The Government have a good record in war service matters. For examply, it is this Government who, for the first time in 40 years, took the firm decision that war widows' pensions would be paid tax-free and this Government who have taken a number of steps to give much better treatment to members of the armed forces, regular and territorial, who while serving in uniform suffer injuries caused by enemy forces or accident. With this good record, it is sad that this one anomaly has been allowed to continue. I urge the Government to look at it again.
  2.54 am
  Mr. Stuart Holland: There are many anomalies in public sector pay and pensions rather than the single one to which the hon. and new Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who opposes the Channel tunnel, referred.
  There are considerable anomalies in the pay of temporary civil servants. I know from personal experience. In the 1960s, I was invited to advise a Prime Minister for pay equivalent to a student grant. When I took the matter up with the establishment officer, I was told that many people would regard it as a privilege to advise the Prime Minister. I said that it was, but that I could not afford to subsidise the experience. That attitude seems to have persisted in certain sectors of the Civil Service. It is regarded as a privilege to serve one's country and bad luck if one's pension is not properly funded.
  I can think of other anomalies. Ministers have Departments and several thousand staff. Shadow Ministers, if they are lucky, have one, or half of one, research assistant. The Minister is able to travel on the approval of his superiors and take private staff. The shadow Minister has no budget on which to travel. Shadow Ministers for foreign affairs or overseas development cannot even get public funding for a telephone on which to make overseas calls. They cannot even get a postage stamp.
  There are many people who gave war service—and were taken from their jobs to do it—and whose pensions were not funded for that period. Many fought through the war without gaining any public sector pension. Others gave their lives. I appreciate the point about war widows' pensions. That was an outstanding anomaly.
  There is an anomaly here, however, which previous Governments probably should have addressed. It is a matter of diminishing and not major cost, and the Government should consider meeting at least in part, the claims concerned. I had to leave the Chamber briefly while the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) was speaking, so I do not know whether he referred to hardship cases, but the Government should address that matter.
  Many of the colonies may not have appreciated that they were enjoying what the hon. Member for Orpington called progress towards democracy. Rather, they saw their natural resources being extracted and exported at prices which were not reflected in the pay of those who drew them from the ground. Often, as a condition of independence, those countries had to pay pensions to

  859
  former civil servants. That is quite wrong, as some of those countries now face falling commodity prices and heavy debt burdens.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Orpington that any funds that might be forthcoming should not be regarded as part of the aid budget.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I take it that the Minister has the leave of the House to speak again.
  2.59 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) on raising yet again this topic. I remember some years ago attending a meeting when he first raised the issue privately with my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), who was at that time the Minister for Overseas Development. My hon. Friend has again argued eloquently and forcefully the case that post-war entrants to the Colonial Service should be able, like other British civil service groups, to reckon half of their military service for pension purposes.
  As the House knows, this is a somewhat specialised and narrow issue and sadly, but inevitably, we are bound to traverse much of the same ground, as my hon. Friend predicted, that was covered in the Adjournment debate on 1 May last year. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury replied to that debate and attempted to put the issue into historical context. It would be helpful if I recapitulated some of the points made on that occasion because I believe that the background is rather more complex than has been presented tonight.
  First, it is important to recall why the concession on war service for pension purposes was introduced. The Superannuation Act 1935 provided that the unestablished services staff who subsequently became established without a break in service should reckon at one half its length for superannuation purposes. Recruitment to the Home Civil Service during the second world war was on an unestablished basis. The concession introduced for the Home Civil Service in 1946, therefore, was to remove an anomaly that would otherwise have arisen between wartime and post-war entrants to the service. Recruitment to the Colonial Service during the second world war was on a much smaller scale but generally continued along "normal lines". In other words, unlike the Home Civil Service, appointments could be made on pensionable terms. Although no hard and fast conclusions can be drawn, it appeared that the anomaly in the Home Civil Service that needed to be corrected by the 1946 concession did not arise in the Colonial Service.
  It has been suggested that the Colonial Office, which retained control over pension matters until a colony achieved independence, may have overlooked the need to ask colonies to amend their legislation to allow war service to count as pensionable service. I think this scenario unlikely. The recruitment literature at the time gave details of a salary scheme for war service that stated quite specifically that war service before appointment to the Colonial Service would not count as colonial service for purposes of a pension. Post-war entrants to the Colonial Service thus had no expectation at the time of their appointment that war service would count towards their
  860
  pension. I cannot accept the argument therefore that, by withholding the concession, the Government are defaulting on their obligations.
  Expectations among this group of pensioners may have changed because of developments in the 1970s. However, those circumstances are not identical. The public service groups to whom the war service concession was extended during the 1970s—teachers, health workers and so on—have contributory pension schemes. Beneficiaries were required to make a contribution to the cost of implementing the concession. Colonial Service pensions, for officers at least, were non-contributory. Additional public expenditure resources have to be found, therefore, if the war service concession is to be extended to this group of pensioners.
  I do not believe that it is sensible to characterise the public services as a single amorphous body. The Home Civil Service and other United Kingdom public services, the Indian Civil Service, the Sudan Service, the Diplomatic Service and the Colonial Service are distinct entities. Conditions of service differ in all kinds of ways, as do superannuation arrangements. In some respects, the arrangements for the colonial service were more advantageous than those of the Home Civil Service. For instance, colonial pension accrual rates were higher and retirement ages were lower. Admittedly, as my hon. Friend made clear, this was in part a reflection of the harsh conditions in tropical areas, but in many respects the post-war years saw steady improvements in those conditions.
  Colonial service pensions are index-linked from the age of 55 rather than from the age of 60. Many officers retired at independence, some with immediate payment of pension, while still at an age to begin successful second careers, even if all could not follow my hon. Friend. It is difficult to argue, therefore, that, as a group, Colonial Service pensioners have fared significantly worse than their peers in the United Kingdom public services. Similarly, there is no case for treating them automatically as on all fours with those groups in superannuation arrangements.
  The case for granting war service credit to Colonial Service officers in the immediate post-war years, therefore, was clearly not considered self-evident. Extending that concession now to that group of pensioners would, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington has admitted. hold an additional public expenditure commitment, unlike the United Kingdom public service groups, to whom it was extended during the 1970s. I am afraid that we do not accept that the cost of the extension of the concession is trivial, even though it may be trivial to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland), to whom an amount between £3 million and £6 million, to accept my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington's estimate of the cost, must pale into insignificance compared with the £34 billion extra spending commitment that was made during the election campaign by his party.
  Mr. Stuart Holland rose——
  Mr. Eggar: On the basis of a sample survey of almost 1,000 personal files completed last year——
  Mr. Holland rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.
  Mr. Holland rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the Minister is not giving way.
  Mr. Eggar:—we estimate that perhaps 5,000 to 6,000 pensioners could be eligible at a cost of about £5 million to £6 million. That is our best estimate. Information on war service in a significant number of cases was either incomplete or lacking so the estimate is subject to a wide margin of error.
  I know, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington is aware, that the Overseas Service Pensioners Association is not persuaded that the cost would be so high and argues that a figure of £3 million a year is more realistic. Nevertheless we are satisfied that our sample survey, which gives the figure of £5 million to £6 million, gives an adequate order of magnitude that is sufficiently accurate for present purposes.
  Mr. Holland: Had the Minister left me alone I would not have intervened. However, he has been saying that there is an anomaly here and an anomaly there and that certain things are not self-evident. What is quite evident is that the Government will not address the quite reasonable claim that is being made and are not prepared to come forward with the funding when it is inconsistent with the rest of what has happened. As to whether £3 million is sizeable or not, the Minister may recollect that I said that, although it may not be the case that that should be met in full, it certainly seems that there is an anomaly. That is evident but the Minister simply wants to avoid the point.
  Mr. Eggar: The whole point of what I was saying is that it is not possible to compare directly the Colonial Service with service in the other public services. There are a great number of differences, to some of which I have drawn attention.
  862
  With regard to the question as to whether £3 million or £5 million to £6 million, which is our estimate, is a significant sum, I am interested that the hon. Gentleman suggests that part payment should be made without telling the House how he would go about deciding which part. Would he select specific pensioners for special treatment or would he pay only a quarter of war service credits? He cannot get away with an airy fairy assertion that he would try to be reasonably prudent. He was coming out with almost an alliance-type policy. I would have expected a more robust and clearer statement from the Opposition Front Bench. [Interruption.] The only alliance Member who has been around has spoken once so, unfortunately, is unable to contribute to our debate. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) wanted an evening off from his fratricidal strife and he has to come in to address the House on the question of nuclear weapon controls.
  The claim, which has been argued so forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, has been considered carefully in previous public expenditure survey discussions. So far, the Government have not felt able to accommodate the extra commitment. That remains the position, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development are keeping the matter under close review. I am sure that the points that were raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) will be given due consideration. However, I regret that I cannot give any undertaking as to whether or when the Government might be prepared to allow the reckoning of war service for pension purposes for former members of the Colonial Service.

  Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987
  3.10 am
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the poll tax once again. I deliberately call the tax a poll tax, in spite of the Government calling it a community charge, because that is how it is known north of the border. The more it is debated in England and Wales, the more well known it is as a poll tax. In fact, the Prime Minister gave it that description not so long ago.
  I clearly recall the debate on Second Reading on 9 December 1986 when there was no shortage of Tory Members who supported the poll tax. In fact, Michael Ancram delivered the winding-up speech. He steered the legislation through Committee. He was supported by Michael Hirst, who represented Strathkelvin and Bearsden, Alex Fletcher from Edinburgh, Central, Barry Henderson. Gerald Malone, John MacKay, Albert McQuarrie, Alexander Pollock, John Corrie, and Peter Fraser. All those former Members welcomed the tax. They said that it was the greatest thing since sliced bread and that the people of Scotland would queue up to vote for the Government. Two reasons why those people no longer represent constituencies are the destruction of our industrial base in traditional industries in Scotland and the high level of unemployment, particularly among the young, that is hitting the people of Scotland. Another reason must be the poll tax. In places such as Edinburgh and Strathkelvin and Bearsden, people realised just what the Tories were going to foist on them. The guinea pig was to be not the whole of the United Kingdom, but Scotland. Voters were queueing up to vote for Labour candidates.
  Even some present Conservative Members did not do too well. They all sang the praises of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who is not here to defend the poll tax for which he campaigned before other Tories in Scotland even thought about it. He did not do too well either. At the 1983 election, he had a 5,000 majority, but that fell to 900 at the last election. The Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), did not do too well. A few more votes for Labour and he would have been out. The only thing that saved him was the fact that, for many years, he has played the role of the perfect gentleman. Certainly, the poll tax did not help him. Even the Secretary of State for Scotland did not do too well. The arrogance that the Government displayed throughout Second Reading and in Committee was such that the people of Scotland considered that the legislation was the final blow to them. It was a final attack on their standards of living. I am surprised by that.
  The reason why I am here at this time of the morning is to put on record that we are now getting English Conservative Members of Parliament saying that there will be a revolt of Tory Back Benchers against the poll tax. I note that the Whip is nodding his head and saying that that is not true, but the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and a former Cabinet Minister are on record as saying that they do not like the poll tax. In fact, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) stated that on two occasions within Cabinet and argued against such a tax. Even the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) got into the act.
  864
  I am glad to see that there are converts to the argument that the Opposition have been putting forward, but it is a pity that some of the former Members I mentioned went through the Division Lobby in support of the Scottish Tories to impose the tax in Scotland. Their credibility and standing in the community would have been far better had they been prepared to say at that time that they were not interested in seeing the tax imposed in any part of the United Kingdom.
  It is shameful that the Tories who are against the tax should say, "Why don't we let it be tried in Scotland?". I take exception to the community that I represent and the people of Scotland being used as guinea pigs. If the Government are putting forward the argument that the tax is much better than rates, it should be implemented throughout the United Kingdom at the same time
  The hardship it will cause is such that people in local government, who arc not elected to take part in our political arguments here, are now coming out and saying that this will cause hardship in Scotland, and in England and Wales, if it is implemented in England and Wales.
  The director of finance for the Glasgow district council, Mr. William English, who is respected in local government circles throughout the country, has said about the rating crisis in Glasgow that if the poll tax were introduced tomorrow it would mean that every person over the age of 18 would have to find £292. Many households in my constituency contain at least five adults and they would each have to pay £292, which means that one household would be required to pay £1,460 a year, not including any rates rises imposed. That would impose a great deal of hardship on many families.
  This will apply in housing estates, where the people are among the poorest, but I know that the Minister will say that housing estates are the responsibility of the authority. I do not want him marking any part of my constituency, because the part of Glasgow in which I was brought up as a boy was mentioned as a deprived area so often that the place got a bad name. I have no intention of giving any place a bad name. I mean no disrespect to the people of Possilpark in my constituency, but the area was built in the period between the wars. The people were taken out of the worst slums in Glasgow. They were so poor that the old Glasgow corporation had to give them furniture. They did not have beds, tables or chairs. Those problems of generations ago still exist in Possilpark. When I was in that area during the election, I found that, although there was a good community spirit, the people were the first to admit that there were many problems. The poorest people in Scotland reside in that community, yet the Minister is expecting some families to pay £1,460 in poll tax. That is neither right nor fair. There are not many hon. Members in the Chamber this morning. However, I hope that when hon. Members read Hansard they will recognise that hardship will be imposed on many families.
  The Minister will no doubt say that the Government will take care of low-income families and that provision will be made for those on supplementary benefit. However, we have not heard the full story of what will happen to those on low incomes—those in the catering, retail and garment industries, where the Government have abolished the wages councils that protected the workers. Some people are working in sweated conditions and are being exploited day by day. More and more the story is coming out that people are hired one day and sacked the next. They are on very low incomes; some are lucky to earn

  865
  £70 a week gross. The Government keep repeating the magical figure of 20 per cent. as being all that they will have to pay. The Government are distorting the picture because it is a minimum of 20 per cent. Some people on low incomes will be required to pay up to 95 per cent. of the poll tax because of the sliding scale. I want to put on record that the 20 per cent. that the Government keep mentioning is not the full picture.
  As I have often mentioned in the House, my area used to have a booming railway industry. It was once the finest railway engineering construction site in the country, and it was famous throughout the world for its expertise. Many people were pensioned off from that industry, and I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are familiar with such pensioners. They were labourers in the workshops and did not earn big money, but they got a bit of a pension. That was compulsory. They retired with two pensions, and they live with dignity and respect because of that extra income. Under the poll tax, they will not pay the minimum of 20 per cent. That bit of extra pension will be taken into consideration and some of them will be required to pay more than the 20 per cent. that the Government quote. There will be difficulties in communities throughout the land. I hope that the Minister will consider these matters seriously, as they were not properly debated in Committee. It will be the downfall of the Tories in Scotland.
  The effect on local government is devastating. The Government say that high-spending local authorities will have the most to complain about and that those that are prudent and behave themselves have nothing to fear from the poll tax. That is nonsense. As I have said, Mr. William English, who is highly regarded as Glasgow's director of finance, has put the facts and figures to CoSLA, to various local authorities throughout the country and to Ministers, and, as I understand it, his figures have not been contradicted. I should explain that Mr. English is extremely worried.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland, in his first speech in the House after the general election, congratulated Glasgow on the good work that it was doing. In his position of Secretary of State he took credit for what had taken place. He cannot say that irresponsible local authorities have the most to worry about and then congratulate Glasgow when he knows that Glasgow is complaining about the tax. However, he has congratulated the city on its housing initiatives, its garden festival and other projects. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about irresponsible authorities, but he is on record as saying that Glasgow is not irresponsible.
  The bureaucracy in my native city of Glasgow will be a nightmare. The rates system, with all its faults, was a property tax that was relatively simple to collect. A tax was imposed on every building or house. Glasgow officials now have to start worrying about second homes, for example, because they will attract a different tax from that levied on first homes. If hon. Members are fortunate enough to have accommodation in London and a second home in Glasgow, difficulties will be created for local government officials. There are not many hon. Members in that position, but the issue of first and second homes will worry officials.
  In Glasgow, 560,000 people will be required to pay the poll tax. Only half that number are paying rates. The population in a city such as Glasgow is constantly on the
  866
  move, and that is also the situation in Dundee. In Aberdeen, with the oil industry, the movement must cause an even greater headache for local government officials. The poll tax will be easily avoidable, and there will be those who are on the move who will avoid it. There will be those who forget to register and others who move and forget to register at their new home, for example. There will be those who avoid the tax deliberately and others who overlook registration. It is calculated that in our major cities about 20 per cent. of the tax will not be collected as a result of unemployment and associated difficulties.
  About 80 per cent. of local government expenditure will come under the control of central Government. The rate support grant, which is one of the main sources of income for local authorities, and all other grants will be controlled by the Government. That will mean that the remaining 20 per cent. will be the only area in which local authorities will be entitled to implement a rise.
  Critics of the Labour party will say that local authorities should have thought about increases, but time and again the Secretary of State has said that he will make allowances for inflation. However, this year, with the manual workers' pay increase and the teachers' pay award, we are aware that the allowances made by the Secretary of State have resulted in a shortfall in local government finance. Once the poll tax has been introduced, the increased demands on local government finance will be put on the domestic rate. The local authorities will not be allowed to put the increase—an increase caused through no fault of the authorities—on to the non-domestic rate. The poll tax will place an unfair burden on local authorities.
  I envisage that families will be split up because of the poll tax. Those who want to stay together—most do—will face intolerable pressure. That pressure will result from the fact that, as a result of the poll tax, each boy or girl over the age of 18 will be expected to fork out about £300. There will be terrible pressure on parents to ask their sons or daughters to leave home.
  The poll tax will bring back the days of the depression. I have no memory of those days, but my parents have bitter memories. I clearly recall my mother and father telling me stories about old communities where, because people's means-test money was being cut, young boys and girls were asked of leave home so that some extra money from the parish could be allowed into the house.
  Because families will face a charge of £300 per person, young boys and girls will be asked to move out. Some responsible young people, who will say that they do not want their parents to be burdened with their problems, will leave home. That already occurs because of unemployment, and the Government are putting more pressure on the poorer families.
  In Committee we heard talk of summary warrants. Such warrants will be discussed again and again as more and more people do not and cannot pay up. Because of the problems in our society we have witnessed the welcome sight of lawyers moving their offices from the city centres to the main streets of housing estates. However, in Glasgow and other cities we have seen the establishment of offices for people who are messengers-at-arms and sheriff officers. I have no desire to see sheriff officers moving into premises in a housing estate. However, the poll tax will encourage that development.

  867
  I can also envisage that some local authorities, which support the Government at the moment, will offer rewards to neighbours to tell on those neighbours whose sons and daughters are staying at home and who are, therefore, not paying enough poll tax. At the moment we have detector vans going round to find out whether people are watching television without a licence. Will we see detector vans going round our cities and rural areas finding out if there are more people living in a house than there are paying the poll tax?
  The Minister should go hack to his boss, the Secretary of State, and tell him that the people of Scotland have rejected the policies of the Tory party, including the poll tax, and that this legislation should be taken away, forgotten about and buried, along with the Tory candidates who lost their seats at the recent election.
  3.34 am
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The most remarkable aspect of the poll tax was that the Tories thought that it would be a vote winner in Scotland. They told 2 million voters that if the Tories won the election, they would have to pay a tax that they had never paid before, and then they were astonished when those people voted Labour. I ask the two Conservative Members who are present to reflect carefully on that, not only to save their colleagues' skins on a future polling day but to consider how far out of touch the Conservative party must have been with Scottish public opinion. They went on to force the legislation through despite all the warnings from opinion polls in Scotland, from the Scottish media and the advice of all the professional bodies that are involved in rating valuation and local government accountancy.
  It was with some hitter amusement that earlier tonight I sat here and listened to Conservative Members raise all sorts of questions about the poll tax as it would apply to England and Wales. Clearly, they did not think too strenously about those points before they voted last May to apply them to Scotland. Nevertheless, if they are having second thoughts now, I hope sincerely that they will be big enough to recognise that if it is wrong for England and Wales it is wrong for Scotland also.
  However, I fear that those Conservative Members who are conscience-striken are struck merely by the size of the Tory defeat in Scotland. They will be outweighed by the number who do not understand local government finance but who are prepared to toe the line, and by those who understand very well that the entire idea is not about fairness but is, in reality, about enforcing lower council spending, cutting jobs and services and making Labour councils take stick from their electorate for implementing Tory policies.
  Conservative Members have argued that the rating system is unfair. Nobody ever said that it was more than rough justice, but the price of one's dwelling is a rough and ready guide to one's wealth. If fairness were truly the problem, why did the Government come up with a scheme that is so monstrously unfair? If simplicity were the aim, why devise a scheme that the local government accountants have described as an administrative nightmare? If this is a supposedly simple alternative to rates, there are difficulties that Conservative Members representing seats in England and Wales may not yet have considered. People who move in and out of institutions will end up paying their own community charge and a contribution to the institution's collective charge. What
  868
  about the separated spouse who finds his or herself "jointly and severally" responsible for the ex-partner's bill? What happened to the idea of every individual being liable for his or her own tax?
  I wonder whether the Minister has considered the impracticability of enforcing the responsibilities of the designated responsible person on a household because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) mentioned earlier, people who are accustomed to the present system of an annually updated voters' roll will not—if they think about it at all—realise that the new register is a rolling one. Such a person will perhaps not notify the council, but the council will discover that that person is there and he will be presented with a bill for the full backdated amount, plus interest, plus £50 penalty or a penalty of 30 per cent. of the debt if that is more than £50. People with no intention of evading, and who arc no more disorganised than the average Member of Parliament, will end up with substantial debts.
  Can the House imagine a local authority pursuing all the small debts that will arise? I shall outline briefly some of the possible cases. They may include claimants and pensioners who have not paid the few pounds that they owe under the 20 per cent. rule, people who are homeless or who move from place to place frequently, young people with no independent income of their own, or carers who will be forced to take responsibility for their dependants' financial affairs.
  Chasing up such people will cost a disproportionate amount of money and create public criticism of the council, not of the Government, who created the mess in the first place. It is a highly ingenious scheme and I give full marks to the Machiavellian who thought it up. Either the council will chase up those debts and receive public odium for its pains, or it will do without and either increase the poll tax of those who do pay, or of course, be forced to cut services and jobs when it was elected to protect them.
  Another possibility is that all this administrative chaos will be avoided by having a comprehensive national register with computers keeping tracks of everyone's whereabouts. If hon. Members think that that is farfetched, the Institute of Cost and Management Accountants has already warned of the need for a supplementary national register if the poll tax is to work. Where do we end up next'? with identity cards for one and all.
  Conservative Members have claimed that individual poll taxes will be high only if allegedly profligate Labour-controlled councils impose too high a level of spending, but the facts contradict them. Glasgow district council, of which I was until recently a member and on which I spent four years as deputy convenor of finance, held its rates steady for three years and this year declared a small reduction. The average rate bill is £514 and notice that I said "bill", not "rateable value". The former seemed to confuse Conservative Members on a previous occasion. The city accountants calculate that the poll tax will be £292 per head, so a two adult household will pay more than before and where there is a third adult a further £292 will be payable.
  The national business rate has not yet been mentioned. If the plight of carers, young people without an independent income, the mentally handicapped and the homeless does not make an impact on Conservative

  869
  Members, perhaps the pleas of small businessmen will. The standard business rate will penalise businesses in the lower-rated, mainly rural areas. According to the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses, it would mean 50 per cent. increases in local tax bills. That would remove one of the few incentives that many rural councils can offer to businesses to encourage them into their patch. There will be a loss of business to those trades, fewer jobs and rural local economies will be further run down.
  Many English and Welsh Conservative Members will have voted for the Act in Scotland in ignorance of its impact on our country. They must be presumed to have acted in ignorance of its electoral impact on Scotland. Last week a Government spokesman said that the poll tax had not made the Tories any more unpopular than they already were from the revaluation exercise. Indeed, he though the detected a minimal increase in support by the time the election came round. He should chew on the poll figures for himself and not rely on being bottle fed by a civil servant's not too well researched brief.
  I ask Tory Members whether they want all these problems in England and Wales too. Does not the scale of their Scottish defeat create just a niggle of doubt about their own safety? Would they have believed it if anyone had told them before the election that the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), the Secretary of State for Defence, would have his majority reduced to less than 200? Will they not accept that if they persist in treating Scotland as a laboratory for their experiments before trying out proposals in England they can hardly claim with any credibility that they believe in the concept of a United Kingdom?
  The Government should support the contention of my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn and be prepared to withdraw the Act and start again on local government financing in a way which takes account of the needs and views of the people who elected us and who also elected local authorities to govern locally, not merely to act as administrative outposts of the regime in power at Westminster today.
  3.47 am
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: There can be little doubt that the concept of imposing a poll tax in Scotland proved to be one of the most unpopular acts of the previous Government, and the results of that were seen at the general election. As a candidate during the campaign I was aware that the poll tax, as it has become known, was a major issue at public meetings, on doorsteps and at every workplace that I visited. The public as a whole has responded angrily to the concept put forward by the Government.
  In a parliamentary reply only last Wednesday the Minister indicated that the Secretary of State had received 966 individual responses and 240 responses from organisations about the proposals. The Minister declined to break those figures down to who was in favour and who was against, but it is widely known that the vast majority of the responses were hostile. Certainly those responses recorded in the press showed that many of the major organisations in Scotland from COSLA to the Association of Assessors were very dubious about the Government's plans.
  870
  Opposition to the proposal did not come simply from the supporters of Opposition parties in the general election campaign. Many Conservative supporters expressed concern, doubts and antagonism over the proposals. It is insulting for the Government to assume that all Tory voters cast their votes on the issue of greed. Many Tory voters were conscience stricken and horrified by the implications of the tax as it was proposed. The poll tax flies against the whole idea of a tax based on the ability to pay.
  During the election campaign in the constituency of Moray—a seat previously held by a member of the Committee on the poll tax Bill—we analysed three different areas in the main town of Elgin to assess the implications of the poll tax. We considered three different areas—a leafy suburb with large detached villas. a section dominated by terraced houses in th centre of town representing the kind of house which is often the first home of a married couple, and finally we considered a section of the council estates. We found that those in council houses would suffer most under the new arrangements, the people in terraced houses would suffer next and very few in the leafy suburbs would benefit. The analysis was based on the electoral register and on those registered within the community to vote and therefore eligible to pay tax. It seemed that virtually everyone would suffer, but the penalty would fall most severely on those least able to pay—those who lived on council estates. That analysis is true of all sections in Scotland. This regressive tax is alien to the whole concept and psyche of the Scottish people. The Minister should take it away and rethink it.
  Will the Minister tell us how he intends to respond to the Church of Scotland and to other churches about their concern over the poll tax? In a written answer last week it was revealed that 32 churches had written to the Minister. They asked what had happened to the original promise given during the debate in the last Parliament and in the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government," to preserve the benefit of the existing rate relief for charities in the form of a discount from collective community charges. They view with dismay the failure of the Government to honour the undertaking in the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Act 1987. The churches have been active on this issue and they wrote to the Minister. In his reply, he said that the present reliefs available to churches in respect of non-domestic rates will continue. Will the Minister spell out explicitly what that means? He has not given a straight answer to the request to know whether the initial promise in the Green Paper has been observed by the Government.
  I want the Minister to comment briefly on the non-domestic rates and their implications for Scotland. At present, rates are still based on rateable values. The Government admitted in the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" that business rates in Scotland were paid at a generally higher level than elsewhere. No concession has been made in the interim, although the Government accepted and conceded the argument when the sports clubs stated that they were placed in an unenviable position because they were expected to pay at a higher level. Has the Minister considered the possibility of granting some interim relief to the many small businesses in Scotland which are now in a perilous position?
  There has been no effective response from the Government to the pleas of small businesses that the uniform rate envisaged in the Abolition of Domestic Rates

  871
  Etc. (Scotland) Act will be a disadvantage to the rural communities. In Moray, many businesses are concerned that they will be unable to sustain the uniform rate applicable throughout the length and breadth of the country because those businesses do not have access to the larger markets experienced by their counterparts in larger cities. That would be a gross disadvantage to rural communities, and it would lead yet again to rural clearances and the rundown of the rural economy.
  As the daughter of a ploughman, I also wonder what thought has been given to how farm workers are expected to pay the community charge. Can we expect farmers to give each farm worker an additional £250 for every member of his family living in the tied cottage who is eligible for rates? It would be nice to think that they would, but I suspect that farm workers will be expected to find the money out of their wages, which are still appallingly low in comparison with those of most other workers.
  What will happen to the crofting communities of Scotland, which have previously received 50 per cent. exemption from paying rates? What concession will be made to them? Are we to expect yet another highland clearance?
  Those are all major points on which the Minister must come clean if he is intent on pursuing the folly of ensuring that the poll tax is imposed in Scotland.
  The Scottish National party has always argued that the funding of local government should come through a local income tax. That would ensure that taxation was related to people's ability to pay. It seems ludicrous to me that the Government did not even consider a feasibility study on how local income tax could be implemented. Some European nations operate such a system. Are we so different that we cannot implement it?
  The Labour party—at least, according to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton)—is determined to stand
  "on the plank of retaining rates."—[Official Report, 25 June 1987; Vol. 118, c. 124.]
  I believe that most people understand the anomalies that were abhorrent in the previous system. In my view, the poll tax is a much worse system. Surely we want to eradicate the anomalies of the previous system and bring forward a much more positive and radical approach to the funding of local government.
  Finally, let me say to the Minister that the people of Scotland object very strongly to the idea that they should be used as guinea pigs in this exercise. Over the past two weeks, I have been appalled to read many reports from senior members of the Conservative party, both inside and outside the House, arguing that the poll tax should not be implemented south of the border until there has been an opportunity to examine how it has operated in Scotland. That is surely an arrogant attitude to take towards the people of Scotland. The Act of Union of 1707 stated that they would be taxed equally with their neighbours south of the border, but we now have unequal taxation, which brings into disrepute the Act of Union to which the Minister so loyally adheres.
  More appropriately, if the Government had any concern for the well-being of the community of Scotland, they would take away this ridiculous legislation and bring forward the local income tax concept of other European nations. They would ensure that the people of Scotland
  872
  were given a system that enabled them to pay for the local government that they wish, without penalising the poorest sections of society.
  3.53 am
  Mr. John Maxton: Let me first thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) for raising this important issue, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on their contributions. I also congratulate the Minister first on his promotion, and secondly—perhaps more important—on being one of the few Scottish Tories to survive the general election. He must be proud of the fact that his position was not as seriously eroded as were those of most of his Scottish colleagues.
  When we debate the abolition of domestic rates in Scotland we have to examine the failure of the Scottish Conservative party. My hon. Friends have already said that this was the Act that was to save the Tory party in Scotland and bring about its revival. It was the major plank of the Tories' election campaign. Except for his election address, the only leaflet that was distributed by my Conservative opponent in Cathcart dealt with the poll tax. That was true of most Scottish constituencies. Leaflets drew attention to the benefits of the poll tax and the horrors of the rating system.
  Despite the claim that everybody would benefit from the poll tax, the people of Scotland firmly rejected it. My hon. Friend the Member for Springburn read out the roll of dishonour. He referred to those who had lost their seats. It was right that he should do so. However, my hon. Friend did not mention that seven of the 10 or 11 Tories who were members of the Standing Committee that dealt with the Bill lost their seats. Mr. Michael Ancram, the lead Minister, the man who staked his political career on the poll tax, lost his seat. The Whip, Mr. Malone, who guided the Bill through its Committee stage, also lost his seat. Now there is a "Scottish" Whip who does not even represent a Scottish constituency. Mr. Michael Hirst, one of the most vociferous supporters of the poll tax, lost his seat. Strathkelvin and Bearsden has the highest average domestic rate bill in the United Kingdom. If any area in Scotland stood to benefit from the poll tax, it was Bearsden, but Mr. Hirst lost his seat.
  When this Government put the poll tax up front in their election campaign, the Scottish people told them what to do with it. It is an insult to democracy and to the people of Scotland to allow the poll tax to continue. When she answered a question that I put to her last Thursday, the Prime Minister asked me whether I was proud to be a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament. The implication was that the United Kingdom Parliament passed the Bill and that therefore everything was all right, was it not? I am not proud to be a Member of a United Kingdom Parliament when the Government so obviously ignore the democratic wishes of a major nation that forms part of the United Kingdom. "The United Kingdom" means three or four kingdoms that are united. Scotland is one of those kingdoms.
  If the Government had had any morality or any sense of democracy they would have said in the Queen's Speech that they intended to introduce a limited Bill to repeal the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987. If they do not do so, they will face enormous problems—

  873
  for example, over the register. I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments about the fairness or unfairness of the rating system. I disagree with the hon. Member for Moray about local income tax. Most countries have some form of property tax. That is what rates are. The point that rates are grossly unfair does not stand up to close scrutiny. The Government have completely misinterpreted the figures for the number of people who pay. They can get down to their figure of 21 per cent. of people who do not pay rates only by using the people who received rebates, partial rebates or by using those instances where husbands or wives are the ratepayers. The number of people in Scotland who are liable to pay rates, if husbands and wives are included, is about 79 per cent. of the population. Only 21 per cent. of the population is not liable to pay anything towards the rates, assuming that a young adult who is living with his parents makes no contribution towards the rate bill, which in many cases is unfair on the young person.
  The present system of rates is not an unfair tax, but the poll tax will shift the rates burden from those who are better off to those who are poor. The Government say that it is unfair for a widow who is living in a big house to pay the same as a family of five people. I have calculated some figures relating to my constituency. In Corrour road there are two adjacent properties. In one lives a widow who is paying £1,500 in rates. The Government would say that that is an unfair burden, but I know that she is a wealthy widow who has been left very well off and that she can afford to pay that amount. Next door is a family of five adults. They are also paying £1,500 in rates. If one calculates the sums involved, the widow will be over £20 a week better off under the poll tax. She will pay only some £290 instead of £1,500. But what about the family of five adults next door? They will be paying some £1,300 a year, which is less than they are paying now. The well-off large family will still be better-off. The widow will be much better-off, the family will be marginally better-off, but they will both be better-off.
  Who will pay for the family and the widow to be better-off? It will be people such as another widow who lives in my constituency in Castlemilk. That widow will be worse off because whereas at the moment she pays nothing because she receives a full rates rebate she will now have to pay a minimum of 20 per cent. That 20 per cent. will have to make up for the wealthy widow being £20 a week better-off.
  The widow in Castlemilk will conscientiously keep herself on the register, but it will be extremely difficult for local authorities to compile that register. During the election I knocked on a door in Hillpark in my constituency and the lady who answered the door said that she was voting for me. I looked at the register and asked whether her son was voting for me and she said, "Yes." I said, "What about Mr. and Mrs. Parker who live here?" She said, "No, they do not live here, they were the previous tenants and they moved to England three years ago." Yet they were still on the electoral register.
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: Track them down.
  Mr. Maxton: That may happen, but who will track them down?
  Despite all the denials in Committee, there is no question but that the major source of information for the
  874
  poll tax register will be the electoral register. The person who compiles the poll tax register will have to choose between employing large numbers of people or obtaining the information from the electoral register. Finance officers in the Lothian region say that a minimum of 50 people will be needed in that one region to go around continuously seeking information, doing a lot of prying into people's personal affairs and knocking on door after door.
  The person compiling the register would have to search for the other couple who lived in the Hillpark house to ascertain whether they were living there. Will officials have the power to say, "You say that they moved to England three years ago, but we want proof. We want to come into your house. We want you to show us that they are not now living here." That is an intrusion into people's privacy and it is nonsense that authorities should he forced to spend time compiling the register.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has asked Ministers a question about the register. They have admitted that the electoral register is faulty in many regards. It may be between 5 and 10 per cent. out when it is compiled. Once it has been running for six months, it may be up to 15 per cent. out. How will the poll tax register be compiled? It will not be feasible. If the electoral register becomes the major source of information, as inevitably it will, people will take themselves off it to try to evade payment of the tax.
  The register will present a major problem. Some people will not pay the tax because there is a register. Others will not pay it because they will evade it. They will say, "We will not pay," or "We cannot afford to pay." In the past. I have given the example of the 80-year-old widow in the middle of February who lives alone in her damp house in a part of Glasgow and who will be given the choice—I agree that it will be her choice—as to whether she pays her electricity bill and keeps her house heated, or turns on the fires, knowing that she will not be able to pay the bill. or pays the poll tax. That is the choice that she may well have to face. To the Minister and, I admit, to me, it is only a few pounds and it does not mean very much, but, to a widow living alone on her old-age pension and perhaps supplementary benefit, it is a large sum. I wonder whether the Minister, when he hears of someone dying of hypothermia following the poll tax, will have the same sang-froid about this nasty business.
  Young people will try to evade the poll tax. Other people will be forced to pay it. There will be the ludicrous sight of local authorities using the full rigours and whole panoply of the law, including warrant sales, to try to get back £50, £60 or perhaps even £20 or £25. The tax will be collected monthly and the authorities will say that they must ensure that it is collected within six months. The law officers will be chasing people for these paltry sums. In some cases, it will cost more to collect the debt than it is worth. Local authorities will eventually tell the Government, "It is just not on. We will not do it. We are not prepared to see young people harried from address to address to get the money. We are not prepared to put officers into an old-age pensioner's house to take away the television set to pay her poll tax. If you want to do that, you can, but we will not."
  We are creating a nightmare to which Conservative Members seem to have woken up. They now realise that the proposed system is unfair, unworkable and undemocratic. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and

  875
  Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who was one of the leaders of the campaign and advocated the experiment in Scotland, have all come out against the poll tax, although most of them supported its introduction in Scotland. They realise that what happened to the Tory party in Scotland as a result of making the poll tax a major part of their campaign may well happen to them in the next general election. They realise that they may be wiped out just as the Scottish Tory party was.
  Perhaps the Secretary of State for the Environment was right when he said on radio that but for the poll tax the Scottish Tories would have done considerably worse. Perhaps the Minister is delighted that the poll tax was introduced because he would have lost his seat without it. Although I would like to believe that that theory is correct, I believe that the poll tax lost the Conservatives votes in Scotland and that English Tory Back Benchers are afraid that the same will happen to them.
  If there was any democratic justice, if the Government had any regard for Scotland and the wishes of the Scottish people, if they had any desire to have the wishes of the people of Scotland properly represented, they would withdraw the tax immediately. Whether they continue with their plan in England and Wales is up to them, but they have no mandate to continue with such an iniquitous tax in Scotland, and they should withdraw it.
  4.12 am
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) on his success in the ballot and on his choice of subject for debate, although not on the timing of his success.
  I was not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's theme would be whether or how the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 should be implemented, so I shall try to cover both. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) for congratulating me on my promotion—and, I think, by implication, survival. We have debated this matter across the Committee Chamber at about this hour more than once, so this is familiar territory although I disagree with his assessment of why so many of my colleagues lost their seats at the last election.
  The real issue which underlies the debate and which has not been touched on much is the fact that the present domestic rating system is discredited and that the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 contains the only workable package on offer for doing anything about it.
  Mr. Maxton: I wonder how the Minister can claim that the rating system is discredited in Scotland when the only party that stood fair and square for it and made that clear was the Labour party, which gained nine seats.
  Mr. James Wallace: The Opposition got no more seats than they did in 1979.
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman points out that the Labour party received fewer votes than it received not just in 1979 but I think in every election before that since the war. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Cathcart as to the effect of the issue on the electoral result, but I am interested that he confirms the continuing commitment of
  876
  the Labour party to the rates system. That is a sad reflection on the lack of constructive thought in the Labour party on this important and fundamental issue.
  I make no apology for reminding the House what is wrong with domestic rates. I shall do so briefly, because our proposals were debated at great length and in great detail last Session. We spent something like 125 hours in Committee alone.
  First of all, domestic rates are unfair. The bulk of local authority services relate to people rather than property and payment for them through a property tax is therefore unrelated to the use that individuals make of those services. A good deal of time in our earlier debates was spent comparing the hypothetical single person with the hypothetical family of four adults in an identical house next door who pay the same amount in rates. The message which came across very clearly was that our opponents do not care about the predicament of single people in that position. They are also unfair because they are paid by too few people. Just under 50 per cent. of the population are ratepayers and, as the hon. Gentleman said only 29 per cent. pay full rates, while the balance have partial or full rebates. This means, quite simply, that the burden of local authority expenditure is unfairly placed on too few shoulders.
  Secondly, domestic rates are illogical. They depend on a system of valuation which takes very careful account of the factors that may affect the rent that a particular property might command. But this has reached the absurd position where, for example, someone will pay more for local services—having their bin emptied and things such as that—if he has a double garage where the cars sit side by side compared with one where the cars have to he parked end on. This sort of thing simply has no relation to the question of paying for local government services.
  Thirdly, the rating system inevitably means the turmoil of revaluation. We saw the effects of that in Scotland in 1985 when revaluation faced many Scottish householders with what were seen as quite arbitrary and unpredictable impositions. Over 100,000 householders faced increases of more than one third in their rate bills between 1984–85 and 1985–86.
  It seems that our opponents have no answer to those problems. So far as one can discern what Labour party policy would be—and neither 125 hours in Committee nor the Scottish manifesto gave many clues in that area—it would involve the retention of rates on the basis of capital values. That would do nothing to remedy the unfairness or illogicality that I mentioned. The alliance, if we can still call it that, would like local income tax, as would the Scottish national party, as the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) mentioned, but it has never come forward with properly worked out proposals of its own. Again, after 125 hours of Committee, we still eagerly await the full details of its proposals.
  The hon. Member for Springburn emphasised the circumstances of poor families and the pressures on young people to leave home, but the young will be eligible for rebates assessed on their own circumstances and not on a family or household basis.
  During the course of the ADRES Bill through Parliament it was repeatedly made clear that the provision of a rebate scheme was an essential part of the community charge proposals, and provision is made for such a scheme in the Act. I confirm that a rebate scheme remains a key element of the Government's proposals.
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: Will the Minister at this stage, before the poll tax is implemented, send out circulars or make them available in housing estates and libraries to explain what rebates those young people will receive?
  Mr. Lang: It will be our intention to publicise widely the way in which the scheme operates when it is introduced and ahead of its introduction. Therefore, I feel certain that that point will be met as matters proceed from now on.
  The Government remain committed to the essential philosophy of having a minimum contribution that will go some way to restoring a sense of local accountability, which is lacking at present. Equally, it is recognised that the minimum contribution means that many people will, for the first time, be making a contribution towards their rates. Thus, when the rates for income support are set in the autumn of this year—this meets the point raised by the hon. Member for Cathcart with his example of the widow and her heating difficulties they will include the average amount that we expect householders who are income support claimants to have to meet as their minimum contribution to domestic rates. That means that claimants will be compensated for the average minimum payment that they will have to make but, at the same time, preserve the vital principle of local accountability.
  Our intention with regard to rebates, therefore, gives the lie to the repeated claims that the community charge is unfair and takes no account of the ability to pay. It is remarkable that, after lengthy debate of the community charge proposals during the Bill's passage through Parliament, that point still has not got through.
  The hon. Member for Moray mentioned ministers of religion. The personal community charge is a personal liability which does not depend on residence at a particular address or directly or indirectly on the nature of a person's employment. The Government do not, therefore, propose to replicate in the new system of community charges any equivalent of the tax concessions that are at present available in respect of payments made by employers towards the rate liabilities of employees who, like ministers of religion, are required to occupy particular domestic property as a condition of their employment. It is in a personal capacity that they will have liability and it is in a personal capacity that they, like others, will be eligible for rebates depending on their circumstances.
  Mr. Maxton: The Minister said that the Government are not going to take account of people's professions. Surely it is true that the Government are going to take some account of those who are in the armed services and who, having been stationed in England or Wales, move to Scotland. Surely the Government are going to ensure that they get some extra payment in order to pay the poll tax. I understand that the idea is that they should be paid an overseas allowance for being stationed in Scotland.
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is raising a different issue altogether. I was replying to the point raised by the hon. Member for Moray concerning ministers of religion.
  The hon. Member for Moray raised some other specific cases on which I shall comment briefly. She mentioned crofters, whose circumstances were discussed extensively at all stages of the Bill. The circumstances of crofters are very diverse and there is no case for singling them out for special treatment under the new system of personal local taxation. Rebates will be available for those who need them. The hon. Lady also discussed farm workers; that
  878
  will be a matter to be settled between employer and employee. It is not something on which the Government should attempt to give a hard and fast line. Payments made as part of contracts of employment will be a legitimate business expense; that was made plain during the passage of the Bill.
  I shall now turn to the process of implementation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has already made clear our intention to proceed with the implementation of the Act. The first step will be to make a commencement order under section 35. No parliamentary procedure is involved in this process. I envisage that a draft of the commencement order will shortly be the subject of consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and, while I cannot yet give a firm date, I envisage that commencement will take effect before the end of August.
  Bringing the Act into force will mean, for example, that assessors will then have the functions of community charges registration officers, whose functions are to prepare, maintain and keep up to date the register. We envisage that preparatory work will be carried out over the coming months, with the process of convassing beginning in spring or early summer of 1988. The detailed rules for the operation of the new system will be set out in a number of regulations to be made by my right hon. and learned Friend over the next few months. It may be helpful if I sketch out the main framework of these. We expect there to be about half a dozen main sets of regulations, of which the most significant are as follows.
  First, there will he a set of regulations dealing with the definitions of domestic subjects, which are, of course, those on which no rates will be payable in future. The basic definition in the Act covers properties that are valued as houses at present, and the purpose of the regulations will be to include certain other premises, at present non-domesic, where people live. These will mainly comprise various forms of institutional accommodation such as halls of residence and nurses' homes. It was made clear during the passage of the Bill that residential care homes, nursing homes and hostels providing care on a similar basis would not be made domestic subjects, so that they would remain liable to rating and their residents would be exempt from the community charge.
  The domestic subjects regulations will also have to deal with fairly complicated matters such as the definition of domestic garages to ensure fairness of treatment for those which are valued with dwellinghouses and those which are not. Again, the hon. Gentleman may recall echoes of that during our debates in Committee.
  A second important set of regulations will be those relating to registration procedures. In sections 13 to 20 of the Act, there are a number of powers of prescription relating to the form and content of the register, the start of the canvass and the content of canvass forms, the notification to individuals of the contents of their register entry and the time limits within which they may appeal in various circumstances.
  Thirdly, there will need to be regulations making definitions affecting the liability of certain groups. The most obvious example is students, who, by virtue of section 8 of the Act, will pay only a reduced percentage of the community charge. It has been made clear that this will be 20 per cent., in line with the minimum contribution which will be paid by those who are entitled to the

  879
  maximum rebate. Other definitions will be required under section 30 to provide for the exemption of prisoners in custody and long-stay hospital patients.
  A further set of regulations will be needed to lay out the timetable for setting community charges and non-domestic rates to replace the present rate-setting timetable. This will have to take account of the need for the system to be able to handle the issue of a greater number of bills, so the timetable for setting rates and community charges will probably be earlier than it is at present. The collection of community charges will also require regulations—for example, to set out the information which is to be shown on community charge bills.
  There is a considerable list of regulations, but work is well advanced on the preparation of the necessary material as a basis for formal consultation in the fairly near future. To help the process of implementation, we have made arrangements for a study to be carried out to prepare a specification of computer system user requirements. We intend that this should be made available to local authorities next month, and wer are confident that it will be helpful to them in providing a basis on which to design their own systems.
  Mr. Maxton: The House would be grateful if the Minister, in dealing with the regulations that he will have to put before the House, would give some idea of the time scale on which the regulations are likely to be placed before the House and also what parliamentary procedures they will he placed under. Will it be a positive or negative procedure in terms of statutory instruments? Obviously, Opposition Members are extremely concerned about that. We assume that each will be placed as a separate statutory instrument that can be prayed against or debated.
  Mr. Lang: I have stated the number of regulations that will be required and which will embody a number of different provisions, as I have described them. As to the timetable, it will be in this Session of Parliament. I do not anticipate that any instrument will be laid before the
  880
  House before we adjourn for the summer recess. My understanding and recollection is that they will he laid under the negative procedure.
  I hope that this somewhat detailed explanation of the next step towards implementing the Act has been helpful to the House, particularly in demonstrating the extent to which progress is being made on the development of the detailed rules.
  In recent days, much has been made of the proposition that the Government's proposals for England and Wales may be changed as they go through the House. Although it would be quite wrong of me to anticipate what may be done here or in another place. I am confident that the fundamentals of the reform already enacted for Scotland will in due course apply to England and Wales. Scotland is not a guinea pig, as the hon. Member for Moray said. Rather, Scotland is the trail blazer. Scotland is having the advantage of the provisions because the need for them in Scotland was made much greater during the course of the past year or so.
  Mr. Wallace rose——
  Mr. Lang: I would rather not give way. The hon. Gentleman was not involved in the debate.
  But I can make it clear that, if refinements are made to the proposals, we will of course consider whether any parallel changes need to be made in Scotland. None of this is, however, in any sense a justification for delaying the timetable of implementation so clearly set out in the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act and so clearly approved by Parliament.
  The debate has been valuable in enabling me to place the Government's position clearly on the record; first, to reaffirm our determination to abolish domestic rates and to demonstrate the fairness of our proposals, in contrast to the hopeless inadequacy of the position of the Opposition; and secondly, to make it clear that we will he proceeding with the implementation of the 1987 Act on the basis that we have always envisaged, so that the benefits of these changes can be enjoyed by the people of Scotland without further delay.

  Lighthouse Service
  4.30 am
  Mr. James Wallace: I welcome this opportunity to raise the issue of the lighthouse service in the United Kingdom, because it must be many years since there was a substantive debate on this important subject. This opportunity is timely, given the number of issues that have recently caused some public debate and controversy surrounding the cost and provision of lighthouse services.
  The orders for increasing the light dues and extending them to cover fishing vessels over 10m in length have not yet been debated in the House, although they were debated in another place. That is regrettable, given that the motions praying against the orders have attracted a considerable amount of support; more than just the usual formal notice of opposition that one sometimes gets. Nevertheless, the orders increasing the level of light dues have attracted considerable opposition from those involved both in the shipping industry and in the ports.
  It is widely accepted that our merchant fleet has been facing a worrying decline for many years. Although this is not the occasion to go into that, obviously there are concerns that the increase in light dues is a further imposition of a burden upon an already beleaguered industry. It will affect our ships more than it will affect foreign vessels, because British ships come into British ports more often than do foreign vessels and will more often have to face the increased charges.
  I believe that the increase will make our ports less competitive, not least with those ports immediately across the Channel in western Europe. Of all the countries in the European Economic Community, only Greece and the Republic of Ireland—which to some extent is bracketed with the United Kingdom when we talk about lighthouse services and charges—have lighthouse charges.
  It has been argued by the Department of Transport that only one-seventh of the difference in costs between a European port and a British port can be attributed to light dues. This does not appear to square with the figures put forward by the General Council of British Shipping, which suggests that in Antwerp the cost per container is about £25, yet in the United Kingdom that cost will be about £90 once the new light dues provisions are put into effect, £40 of that being attributable to light dues. The difference amounts to about £65, more than two-thirds of which would appear to be due to light dues.
  I ask the Minister, in replying to the debate, to give an indication of how his Department arrived at such a relatively small proportion of the difference between the costs and charges of British ports and those with which we are in considerable competition in western Europe.
  Looking forward, we would like to see our ports, not least on the west coast, being able to take up some of the advantage of having a Channel tunnel, once it is built, and to become the terminal ports for western Europe for traffic from North America. It would be regrettable if a further increase in light dues were to put them at a competitive disadvantage and not allow them to take the opportunities that may open up for them in the next 10 years.
  The extension of light dues to fishing vessels is viewed by the industry as being exceptionally unfair. They were imposed with little or no consultation. Admittedly, once the previous Secretary of State said that he intended to do
  882
  it he consulted, but prior to that there was little or no consultation with the industry. They have been imposed on fishing vessels over a certain length, and do not relate to their activities or to their ability to pay. Not taking into account the ability of individual vessels to pay the dues could be said to be the fishing industry's version of the poll tax. It has caused considerable resentment in the industry.
  This is another burden on our fishing fleet that is not borne by those with which it is in most competition. I think especially of Danish and Norwegian fishing vessels, which do not have to pay the charge. Our fishing fleet will have to pay it at a time when so much effort is being made to bring European nations into line. We are putting our fishing fleet at a deliberate disadvantage by expecting it to pay that additional amount.
  The argument for imposing dues on the fishing fleet has not been convincing. In fact, it is riddled with inconsistencies. On the face of it there is some logic in saying that the user must pay, but not by any stretch of the imagination has that been taken to its logical conclusion. There is no provision for yachts to pay. I can well understand the great practical difficulties involved, as there is not a register of yachts as there is for fishing vessels. Nevertheless, if the charge is to be imposed on the logic of user pays, immediate resentment is caused if we cannot fully follow through the logical consequences of that policy.
  I understand that there is no charge on the Royal Navy, although it uses the Racal-Decca navigator system. Whereas previously it paid an estimated £800,000 per annum to Racal-Decca for the system, that charge is now being imposed on the general lighthouse fund. The Royal Navy is being relieved of that cost and it is being imposed on those who have to pay light dues. That is not the proper way to resolve any problems in the defence budget. It brings home to us the basic unfairness of the system as a whole.
  When writing to the fishermen's associations, Mr. Battersby—the assistant secretary of the marine directorate at the Department of Transport—said, when referring to general lighthouse authorities:
  "The navigational aids they superintend and manage (which now include Navigator) are used by a great variety of shipping, much of it passing our coasts and not calling at our ports."
  He is quite right. The general lighthouse authorities are providing services to shipping that goes around our coasts but does not come into our ports and does not pay. It is a fundamental problem, because people are using but not paying. The Government must face that problem. If, for understandable reasons, they are not prepared to accept the logical consequences of their policy, they should be prepared, out of general taxation, to make at least some contribution to the lighthouse authorities to help them to fund their services and to ensure that the whole burden is not placed on relatively few people. If other EEC countries can do that, with the exception of Greece and the Republic of Ireland, perhaps it is time that we consider that option.
  As the orders have now taken effect, does it follow that by extending the charge of fishing vessels representatives of the fishermen's associations are now automatically to be included on the Lights Advisory Committee? The Department of Transport should be taking steps towards encouraging the setting up of a users' consultative committee. That was recommended in Arthur Young's report of 1984. I understand that the Northern Lighthouse

  883
  Board consults far more widely than those who pay, and that would be a good example to follow. It is my impression and understanding that over the past three or four years the Department of Transport has been reluctant to extend the ambit for consultation, taking the view that it is only those who pay who should be consulted. The Northern Lighthouse Board's view is that all users have an interest, regardless of whether they pay, and that as consumers they have a worthwhile contribution to make when the subject of navigational aids are under discussion. By including only those who are paying, the general lighthouse authorities are subjected only to the views of those whose prime objective is to keep down expenditure. I am not necessarily criticising that approach, but that seems to be the sole thrust of the views of those to whom the GLAs are expected to listen.
  I understand that the British Ports Association is invited to the consultations, even though it does not have a direct interest. It would be encouraging if the Minister were to say that the scope of discussion and consultation is to be extended far beyond those who come within the category of payers, to those who are also users.
  The reduction of expenditure is uppermost in the minds of many, not least the General Council of British Shipping. There seems to be a notion that with the advancement of technological aids the need for the type of safety aids that are provided by LHAs is diminishing substantially. A report was commissioned by the Lights Advisory Committee and undertaken by Dr. Strange, who, having made studies and examined the passage of certain ships between Portland Bill and the Thames estuary, suggested that if ships were fitted with modern electronic position fixing equipment there was scope for a significant reduction in the number of aids provided by the lighthouse authorities. I am not sure what status that report has, and I do not know what credence will be given to it, but it has some clear limitations. It cannot be assumed that all foreign vessels will use the Decca navigator system. It cannot be assumed either that ships under 500 tonnes will be similarly equipped. The report does not take account of occasions when equipment breaks down or of the position of yachtsmen and lifeboats.
  Despite the provision of electronic aids, a number of ships have collided this year. In late January, or early February, in fog off Felixstowe there was a collision between Townsend Thoresen's Nordic Ferry and a Spanish cargo ship. On 1 May there was a collision off Dover in poor visibility between the Cambridge Ferry and a French operated vessel the St. Eloi. On 30 May, in the Channel in fog, there was a collision between the Skyron, a Liberian tanker, and a Polish cargo ship, the HEL. Despite the great advancement of modern technological equipment, collisions still take place. We are not able to say that we can dispense or readily reduce the visible aids that the lighthouse authorities have been providing over many years.
  In a report on navigational aids by Dr. D. Kieley, which was published this year, reference is made to the numerous people who still rely on such aids. The Royal Navy has said that reliable and proven methods of visible fixing are always used whenever possible and the Scottish fishermen say that even the most modern electronic and technical devices can fail from time to time for unaccountable reasons and that as not all vessels are new, it seems clear that any future system of navigational aids should retain much of the existing shore-based facilities. I hope that
  884
  there will be recognition of the fact that, albeit that technology advances, for some time to come there will be an important reliance on the more traditional types of aid that have been provided effectively over many years by the Commissioners of Irish Lights, the Northern Lighthouse Board and Trinity House.
  Another area of recent dispute is that relating to sound fog signals. Following a resolution of the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities that sound fog signals were no longer a general requirement, steps have been taken to discontinue a number of sound fog signals around our coasts. Indeed, a number of assistant lighthouse keepers in my constituency have recently received their redundancy notices.
  I believe that there has been too much haste and anxiety in trying to follow the IALA policy decision. I have studied the roll call of nations that supported that decision and I suspect that many of them have not had to contend with the problems of fog—at times thick fog—with which we have to contend around our coasts. In pursuing that policy decision I believe that insufficient account has been taken of the apparent proviso in that policy:
  "Some low power fog signals may still be required to assist fishing and pleasure craft."
  What consultations took place before the IALA reached that decision? What consultations took place with the various industries and users involved? Since that policy decision, what consultation has there been with the fishing industry and those who might be using pleasure craft about the consequences of the discontinuance of sound fog signals?
  As an example, I think particularly of North Ronaldsay, an island in my constituency. It is basically a crofting island, with many transport problems. It has a small population, but it has a lighthouse. That lighthouse is an important source of employment. The island also has a very small fishing industry—a number of local people fish in the local waters. Indeed, one of the few opportunities for increased employment is in fishing. The fishermen of the island wrote to the Northern Lighthouse Board protesting about the proposals to discontinue the sound fog signal on the island. Although I have not seen the reply, I have been advised that the board suggested that if things were that bad, perhaps they should not go to sea. It also said that if 30 boats had been involved, rather than three, it might have made a difference. On North Ronaldsay, given its population, three boats represent a sizeable part of the working sector. It would be regrettable if it was the decision of the Northern Lighthouse Board to discontinue the sound fog signal, as that would have an adverse effect on the promotion of the fishing industry. This industry could not only improve people's livelihood, but could be a useful source of future employment.
  The decision of the Northern Lighthouse Board also suggests that at times economic rather than safety reasons are the guiding criteria. Indeed, when considering the minutes of the Northern Lighthouse Board, one realises that, despite the emphasis on the fact that each lighthouse has been considered on its own merits and that safety is paramount, the tenor of the discussions is about whether money can be saved.
  If we consider Sumburgh Head in my constituency, we see that the minutes state:
  "The decision to retain Sumburgh Head fog signal could he justified by the high incidence of fog and although there

  885
  was little passing traffic there was some fishing activity in the area. The Engineer-in-Chief outlined the potential savings from possible keeper reductions and running costs and eventual discontinuance of the fog signal on automation although a stand-by generator would still be required to power the Radio Beacon. It was eventually decided, however, that the fog signal should be discontinued."
  It is clear from that that the savings to be made outweighed the advantages that there would still be for fishing activity in the area.
  As regards Cantick Head in my constituency, the minutes reported:
  "There was no case to retain this fog signal as there would be savings from the reduction in keepers and possible future capital expenditure."
  My contention is that this is not an area in which savings should be the guiding principle, but one in which the provision of the service and safety should be the overriding principles. It is a matter of considerable concern that there has been such a rush to adopt the IALA policy, not with any substantial regard to the service provided by the sound fog signals, but as yet another way of trying to meet the financial targets set for our lighthouse authorities by the Department of Transport.
  The same pressures are undoubtedly being applied with regard to the future of the lighthouse tender vessels. I understand that the report that was prepared by Arthur Young reached the Department during the past week or two. It has still to be published for public consumption, and perhaps the Minister will suggest when that is likely to be. I do not think that it will be helpful if, without having seen that report, I were to indulge in too much idle speculation as to what it might contain. However, we know that to a considerable extent the report was commissioned with cost-cutting zeal and with an eye to trying to improve the balance sheet.
  It is important that the Minister recognises—I am sure that he does—that those currently engaged in the service have, over the years, built up considerable expertise on the various navigational aids that they service and maintain and also of the various shores and approaches to the lighthouses that are supplied from the tender vessels. I wonder whether we are facing a position where that expertise might have to be dissipated. Is it indeed in the best interests of the operation that we should have—this may well be the case—one vessel trying to cover the entire service from Muckle Flugga to Spurn Head? Indeed, can one vessel do that? I should be interested to know exactly what the Department of Transport's interest is in this case.
  I am sure that much of the detail will have to be worked out by the lighthouse authorities themselves. If the Minister will give some suggestion of the division of interests and responsibilities between his Department and the lighthouse authorities that will be useful to those of us who may well have constituency battles to fight on this issue. I am especially aware that many of the crew of the Pole Star are constituents of mine and, of course, the number of vessels and the crewing that will be retained is vital.
  I am also aware that the town of Stromness on Orkney is the base for the Pole Star and it would be affected critically if the new configuration of ships were to remove the Pole Star from Stromness. The families who are based there and who live there are an important part of the
  886
  population and shop in the town. Most of the services and the supplies for the boat are purchased from local shopkeepers. Any decision to move the vessel away from Stromness could have important economic consequences for the town. I give notice to the Minister that this issue will be debated at great length if the outcome of the report is not satisfactory for my constituents.
  There is a fear that getting rid of a number of ships will inevitably lead to the contracting out of some services to private operators who do not have any knowledge, and who have not had the opportunities to build up the knowledge, of the special needs and of the duties that have been undertaken for many years by the lighthouse authorities. We do not want privatisation by the back door simply to massage the balance sheet. What is most important is that we maintain a good service, which is what we have had up to now. Why upset that?
  My concluding remarks relate, first, to savings. I ask the Minister what the position is now regarding the contribution made by the Republic of Ireland towards the cost of the lighthouse authorities? Receipts from the Republic are less than expenditure. I understand that there is an arrangement whereby the Government of the Republic make up so much of the difference. How has that worked out, and is there scope for more to be contributed from the Republic? We are in the unusual position of one sovereign nation appearing to subsidise the services that are supplied to another sovereign nation, when there might be competition between the two.
  Secondly, what is being done to try to monitor the administrative efficiency of the lighthouse authorities? In its response to the increase in light dues the General Council of British Shipping suggested one lighthouse authority instead of three. I would certainly advise against that. The Scots would not readily accept any attempt to take over the Northern Lighthouse Board. It is a question, not just of national pride, but of economics, because with more lights than Trinity House the annual cost has been consistently less than half those of Trinity House. I am well aware that Trinity House has much greater responsibilities than simply the lighthouse service, but I would have thought that that would provide it with an opportunity to develop economies of scale. Yet, the cost of general lighthouse administration appears to be greater.
  Similarly, between 1980 and 1986 the head office of Trinity House increased its staff by 20, whereas those engaged on other locations were reduced by 228. The Northern Lighthouse Board increased its administrative staff by three, whereas those in operations were reduced by 103. Therefore, it seems that more chiefs are administering fewer field workers. Perhaps a timely review of the administration of the service would not go amiss.
  The lighthouse service is important in remote rural areas and problems follow from the reduction in the number of those who work for the service and from automation. Now there are threats of discontinuing the sound fog signals and fears for the future of the lighthouse tender vessels. When there are closures in the coal industry, for example, when many redundancies are pending and particular areas are hit, British Coal Enterprise Ltd. is there to relieve the unemployment that is caused as a result.
  The effect on much smaller communities of the loss of the odd job here and there is not noticed, although proportionately that can have just as great an effect on the community. The automation of a lighthouse may well

  887
  bring with it the removal of a young family from an island or remote rural area, which in turn can affect the future of a local school. I have already mentioned the importance of the lighthouse shipping service to Stromness. I hope that the Government will be sensitive to the effects of any cost-cutting exercise on these communities.
  I know that the Northern Lighthouse Board, to which I have frequently spoken about this issue, is aware of the effects, but it cannot do anything about them. It is not within its remit to take account of the social and economic consequences for a community of an automation programme or any alteration to the lighthouse tender vessels. It is anxious in cases of individual redundancy to take into account the fact that employees not only lose a job, but often a tied house, and it wishes to enhance the redundancy payments to take account of that. Naturally, it would look to the Government for assistance with that and perhaps if the Minister cannot respond to that point this morning he will write to me about it. I would happily correspond with him to see whether anything can be done to enhance redundancy payments.
  Similarly, we should enable the lighthouse authorities to pay a rent allowance to those who should perhaps be encouraged to find their own home, either to buy or to rent, so that they do not become as dependent on a tied house as in the past. I understand that Trinity House has operated a system of rent allowances, but that has not been the case north of the border. If assistance could be forthcoming to enable the Northern Lighthouse Board to do that, I am sure that it would be welcome.
  We need a broader perspective. We must accept that we need people on our coasts and that everything cannot he left to automation. There are good security reasons for that and when ships go aground it is useful to have people on the scene, not merely automated machines. In New Zealand and Canada there has been a rethink of the whole programme of automation.
  We have a good service, which has been provided for many years. I seek an assurance from the Minister that in the development of the service the first and foremost consideration will be safety and the quality and efficiency of the service, and that that will not in any way be subordinated to the interests of the balance sheet. I am not denying the importance of that, but I hope that the valuable quality of the service will be recognised and that its work can continue.
  4.59 am
  The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): It is understandable that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) should raise this subject in tonight's debate. I know that he takes a personal interest in the subject on behalf of his constituents especially those in the service of the Northern Lighthouse Board. The subject of the debate is an invitation to cover much wider matters. However, the hon. Gentleman's timing is unfortunate. Not just because it is 4.59 am but because a number of the matters he raised are directly related to the Arthur Young tender vessels study which is about to be published and it would be improper of me to disclose its contents in advance.
  However, considerable attention has focussed on the lighthouse service in recent months, and this reflects a range of developments and studies bearing on the activities and responsibilities of the general lighthouse authorities. I am sure all Members on both sides of the House have a
  888
  high regard for the dedication and traditions of service of those employed in the lighthouse service and I pay tribute to them. The authorities are bodies with long and respected histories of high standards in the service of the mariner. I recognise that they are engaged in a difficult period of transition and change, reflecting increased automation and new technology in the area of marine navigational aids. The problems this brings in human and management terms are understood. I have a high regard for the readiness of the authorities' staff to adapt to new circumstances.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to the financing of the lighthouse services. I accept that the United Kingdom, with Ireland and Greece, are in a minority within the EC in charging light dues—though nearly half the members of the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities rely on dues of some kind to finance their lights. We in the United Kingdom remain of the view that the user should pay, within what is administratively practicable. I can hold out no prospect of the Exchequer taking on these costs. I accept some of the criticisms from the shipowners and ports that aspects of the current light dues regime—which has remained substantially unaltered since the turn of the century—have a disadvantageous effect on some traffics such as liner container vessels and part cargoes, and that some of this traffic may be diverted to a near continental port for transhipment. However, the reasons for transhipment are complex and go beyond the issue of light dues. We are nonetheless examing the scope for technical changes in the light dues structure which I hope will go some way to remedy some of the anomalies.
  It is however inevitable that a substantial element of the costs will continue to fall on commercial shipping, because the revenues which might be raised from other users can never amount to more than a small proportion of the costs. The main category of user not contributing to these costs is small pleasure craft. Here it has not proved practicable to devise an enforceable system which would yield worthwhile revenue after collection and enforcement costs from other sources.
  I fully understand the concern of the shipowners and the ports about the 14 per cent. increase in light dues which had to he imposed earlier this year. That increase has to be seen, however, as one coming after a long period when it had been possible to cover the difference between costs and revenue by drawing on the considerable cash reserves which had accumulated in the General Lighthouse Fund. However, these reserves were reducing rapidly, and an increase was unavoidable to bring revenue closer in line with current operating costs. There was also a new requirement—about half the increase—to be met as a result of transferring the £3·6 million annual operating costs of the UK Decca Navigator transmitters to the GLF. Reflecting this transfer, we have also for the first time extended light dues to the larger fishing vessels—but 60 per cent. of vessels—those under 10 metres in length—will still not have to pay. The Government believe that the new arrangements are a good deal for fishermen, who have seen substantial reductions in the market price of receivers. Most of those who previously rented sets will in fact save money.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the question of representation for fishermen on the lights advisory committee. That

  889
  is a matter for the committee, which has already approached the industry to invite its members to be represented.
  Despite this year's increase, light dues are steadily declining in real terms. They are down 33 per cent. from the 1975–76 peak, and 18 per cent. lower than in 1981–82. The Government also reduced dues by 10 per cent. in 1983, in contrast to the increases of 23 per cent. and 40 per cent. imposed by the Labour Government in 1975.
  The Government's policy objective is to contain and reduce lighthouse costs to secure efficiency and economy in the operation of the service. We have taken a number of constructive steps. There is now a much stricter control over the GLA's budgets, and it is set demanding cash limits which, to its credit, it is striving to meet, or even to better. A number of studies are now in progress.
  I must stress that, although the costs that must be found for the lighthouse service fall on ship operators and not on the Government, we are determined not to take any risks with safety. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be glad to have that reassurance.
  A major study has recently been undertaken by Arthur Young, the management consultants, into the tender vessel requirements of the three lighthouse authorities. I know that this study is of particular interest to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, as one of the NLB tender vessels is based in his constituency, and he has already raised the matter. We have now received the consultants' final report, and my right hon. Friend will be making an announcement about it very shortly. Copies of the report will be placed in the Library.
  This study was commissioned jointly by my Department and the three lighthouse authorities, and I believe that it is the first comprehensive joint appraisal that has been made of the fleets and the requirements that they have to meet. The report makes a wide range of recommendations, but, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, it would be improper for me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement. We shall, of course, consider the report carefully in close consultation with the Authorities and with the lights advisory committee, which represents ship owners, shippers and port authorities.
  I know that the hon. Gentleman has a particular interest in that the Northern Lighthouse Board currently bases its ship "Polestar" at Stromness, and he raised that in his remarks.
  The consultants' report makes some recommendations about different fleet configurations, and suggests illustrative alternative locations for vessels. The operation of the vessels represents about a quarter of the current running costs of the lighthouse service. Those costs fall not on the Government but on ship operators, who are under considerable financial pressure.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the matter of the Kiely and Strange reports. Let me add, in connection with electronic aids replacing traditional ones—which he also mentioned—that reports on navigational aids have commanded wide interest in the marine world. Earlier this year my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State published an independent report by Dr. D. G. Kiely, a consultant electronics engineer, recommending how developments in marine navigational aids should be applied in the coming years. The report contains an extensive analysis of likely technical developments, and
  890
  examines those developments in relation to the implications for United Kingdom marine policy and the likely requirements of all classes of marine users. It makes a large number of recommendations, and the views of interested parties have been invited. We shall be considering Dr. Kiely's detailed recommendations in the light of views expressed by the marine community. I am sure that, when that is done, account will also be taken of the hon. Gentleman's comments.
  The hon. Member also referred to the Strange report. The Lights Advisory Committee has urged on my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping a review of the traditional aids provided by the general lighthouse authorities. In support of this, it has commissioned a study by Dr. John Strange to examine the shipowners' contention that many of the traditional lights, buoys and beacons have been superseded by those of modern electronic position-fixing equipment carried on board ships. Dr. Strange concludes that the number of traditional aids should be reduced as electronic aids gain wider availability. I think the hon. Member will admit that because of the duplication that would necessarily be involved, one could not expect two systems to be kept permanently in being.
  The LAC report is a timely contribution to the continuing examination of the costs and requirements of the GLA's services. It would be wrong to pretend, however, that the resolution of these issues will be easy. There will always be a continuing need for lights and daymarks as hazard warnings—a point recognised in the Kiely report. There are also many conflicting views and interests to be reconciled. They range from the largest tanker vessels through to the weekend yachtsman. The lighthouse authorities, who bear the responsibility of providing aids to safe navigation for all users, have already questioned some of the conclusions that were reached by Dr. Strange. My noble Friend will be taking forward consideration of all these complex issues in consultation with the lighthouse authorities.
  The hon. Member referred to fog signals, or fog horns. That is a management matter for the authorities, which they will no doubt carry through as they think fit, in consultation with the users. In the light of the recent recommendations of the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities, that fog signals should be dropped as a major navigational aid but retained where needed as a hazard warning, the GLA, including the Northern Lighthouse Board, will have to hold consultations with the vessel users for whose benefit the fog signals exist. The Government are not involved in the matter. I hope that the hon. Member will raise it directly with the Northern Lighthouse Board which is responsible for the safety of navigation.
  Mr. Wallace: The Minister has said that restrictive financial targets have been set by the Government for the lighthouse authorities. I referred earlier to Sumburgh head, Copinsay and Cantick head. Cost cutting seems to be paramount. Fog sound warning devices, particularly for fishing vessels, do not appear to have been considered. Does the Minister believe that when the board is considering these important matters it should bear that point particularly in mind?
  Mr. Mitchell: The board has to balance all the considerations and make a sensible judgment. I said earlier that we do not intend that there should be any safety risk. Safety is the paramount purpose of the board's activities.
  The hon. Member referred to the proportion of light dues that account for the difference between United Kingdom and Continental port charges. United Kingdom port costs are about 60 per cent. above those in comparable Continental ports for the liner container trade. A study undertaken by the Department of Transport in 1985 estimated that light dues, on average, accounted for only one seventh of the difference.
  The hon. Member also referred to the Royal Navy. The Ministry of Defence still pays for its use of the Decca Navigator under an agreement with the Racal-Decca company. It has not been relieved of that responsibility under the new arrangements. The hon. Member also referred, understandably, to consultations with users. The Arthur Young study of the lighthouse service in 1985 recommended a new lights users committee, in addition to the current lights advisory committee that represents the shipowners and ports. One must guard against the proliferation of committees and the concept of separate payers' and users' committees seems of doubtful value. The general lighthouse authorities have regular and satisfactory consultations with users. The fishing industry has been invited to be represented on the Lights Advisory Committee with regard to any extension of light dues for some fishing vessels.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised the matter of Irish lights. A financial agreement was reached in 1985 whereby the Irish Government now makes an annual contribution to the costs that are incurred in the Republic. After a transitional period, Irish sources of light dues and contributions will meet 50 per cent. of the costs in the Republic.
  Enhanced redundancy terms for lighthouse keepers are initially a matter for the general lighthouse authorities in their capacity as employer, but approval from the Department would be required to sanction any increase in expenditure in redundancy compensation.
  The keepers who are in the service of the Northern Lighthouse Board have sought improved terms to compensate for the loss of tied housing. The redundancy terms, which are based on those of the Civil Service, are already generous and for keepers they already take account of their tied housing. The Department had to reject an earlier proposal which would have added between £2 million and £4 million to the costs of the automation programme, but we are prepared to consider some more modest proposals if the NLB believes that there is a case for them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents will find that helpful.
  I hope that what I have said will reassure hon. Members that we are aware of the problems that face shipowners on the one hand and the authorities and their staff on the other. The Government's primary concern is to secure an efficient and cost-effective system of navigational aids that are appropriate to the needs of marine users.
  It is not in dispute that a service to the mariner is required if safety at sea is to be maintained, but it is a service which is necessarily adapting to changing circumstances and technology. With the co-operation of the lighthouse authorities our objective is to continue the process of reducing the costs of the service and improving its management.
  892
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that during the course of this short debate I have been able to cover most of the points that he raised and that he will take some reassurance from them.
  5.17 am
  Mr. Roger Stott: I apologise to the House and to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for being absent at the beginning of the debate. Unfortunately, the provision of public transport in the capital city at 4 am is not what it should be and I have the dubious pleasure of having walked to the House from Lambeth.
  I listened with interest to that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech that I heard. The hon. Gentleman spoke with knowledge of his constituency and with concern, which is shared by many of us, about the position that is currently enveloping the lighthouse service.
  I think that the hon. Gentleman played some part in the debates on the reorganisation of the pilotage service. Many of us on the Opposition benches were concerned about the way that the Government were proposing to allow exemption certificates for masters and foreign masters who use British ports on a regular basis. They would be able to gain exemption certificates and they would not necessarily need a pilot. In my view, and that of the United Kingdom Pilots Association, that was a retrograde and detrimental step. The current thinking in the Department of Transport, whether on pilotage or lights, does not satisfy many of us in respect of the safety provisions that we all feel are necessary for British merchant shipping.
  I readily accept that there is an argument that modern electronic navigational techniques make lights and buoys unnecessary. That may be so, but it assumes that a ship and those navigational aids are functioning properly. If there is any problem on board ship and the aids are not functioning properly, those involved have to resort to traditional navigation methods using lighthouses, buoys and the Decca navigational system. I contend that that system is essential. No matter what it costs, it needs to be maintained and available at all times as a fallback. I do not think that the House would readily agree to any reduction in the provision of safety around our coasts caused by the withdrawal of lighthouses, foghorns, buoys or any other type of navigational aid currently in place. I understand what the Minister says about the current review and his unwillingness to comment until its findings are made public. Perhaps we can debate that matter when those views are made public.
  I am conscious of the time. I see that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is waiting for the next debate and that my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) is duly in his place at 5.20 am, so I should like to make a final point. It is a great pity that, because of the general election's intervention, we were denied the opportunity of an hour and a half's debate on the Opposition prayer on the increase in light dues. I have to say in honesty to the Minister that, even at this early hour of the morning, I found his defence of the increase in light dues utterly pathetic. The total cost of the provision of lights around the United Kingdom is about £40 million. In overall Exchequer terms, that is a drop in the bucket. It is insignificant. It could well be paid out of central Exchequer funds, as it is in almost every major maritime country, but instead the Government have done as all

  893
  Governments have done—my Government did it just as the Minister's Government are doing it now—and have imposed a levy on ship owners and port authorities. According to the Port Users Association, an increase of 14 per cent. in light dues means an increase of about £1 million for certain ship owners. That must be a massive disincentive for ships to come to the United Kingdom.
  The Minister is as aware as I am of the demise of the British Merchant Navy and our port industry. The Government should have constructive policies and a proper strategy for shipping and ports, instead of putting a spanner in the works by increasing light dues. I reject the ethos behind the Minister's speech, which implies that it is not possible for the Treasury to take on board what is a minor cost to it but a major cost to the shipping industry. It is time that the Government sat down and thought about the damage that they are doing by simply hiking up the costs and charges imposed on an already overburdened shipping industry.
  5.23 am
  Mr. David Mitchell: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) started with some rather snide remarks about the lack of transport services at 4.30 am in the capital city. If it were appropriate, I would have referred to the hon. Gentleman as the foolish virgin for not having made prior arrangements to ensure, as other hon. Members have, that he got to the House on time.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the subject of the traditional aids which he seeks to defend, almost brick by brick and stone by stone, as though no technological
  894
  advances were taking place. If the hon. Gentleman reflects on what he said, I am sure that he will feel that there is some inconsistency in his expressing a desire to retain all of the existing aids while technological advance means that there are other ways in which to secure safe navigation.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to a 14 per cent. increase in light dues and said that it is not justified. About half of that cost arises from the Decca Navigator being a cost now taken on by the general lighthouse fund which was not formerly carried by that fund, so we are talking about a 7 per cent. increase in costs. Moreover, it is not a 7 per cent. increase in one year. Lighthouse funds have drawn on reserves recently. It is not possible to draw on reserves for ever. The hon. Gentleman must demonstrate that the reserves are still larger than they need to be. He did not, and unless he can make out such a case, he cannot deploy an argument against a 7 per cent. increase.
  The hon. Gentleman takes the view that the Exchequer should pay, although a previous Labour Government concluded that dues should continue to be paid on the traditional basis. He said that the cost is £40 million, but it is £63 million. He said that it is a burden on the United Kingdom shipping industry, but he fails to take account of the fact that 90 per cent. of light dues are paid by foreign shipping. He is suggesting that this sum should be paid by United Kingdom taxpayers. The logic behind that statement is not as impressive as I would expect from the hon. Gentleman. It is perhaps understandable that his logic is not as impeccable as normal at such an hour of the morning.
  No doubt we shall return to these matters, when I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be thinking a little more clearly.

  Social Workers
  5.27 am
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I listened with considerable attention to the interesting attempt to separate the men from the buoys. I am delighted that there is little danger of your becoming automated, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I am to step out of order, I would far rather have your eyes flashing at me in disapproval than some automated blinker.
  The point of the debate is to try to clear up some of the misunderstandings about social workers which I do not think it is unfair to suggest are shared by some hon. Members and are widely held by the public. For that reason, it is a sensible subject to raise in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill even if I were the only hon. Member to speak. I am delighted, however, to see the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) here to add their considerable understanding to the debate.
  I speak partly as the outgoing chairman of the parliamentary panel for personal and social services, but I do not expect—I do not think that I am qualified—to dazzle the cognoscenti of the social worker world. I hope that any experts who read what I have to say will not be too contemptuous of the simplicity of my approach.
  What is a social worker? Twenty four thousand 800 qualified and unqualified social workers are employed by social service departments in England and Wales—one for every 1,900 persons. This exludes the probation officers, who are also social workers, but who are in a different service. This compares with one general practitioner for every 2,000 persons in England and one police constable for every 550 persons.
  By no means are all social workers young and inexperienced. For a long time there was a belief that most social workers were dolly birds with neither experience nor good training. One third of the intake to the certificate of social service training courses at the start of a career are aged between 35 and 44. The spread of age thoughout the profession is comparable to that in any other profession.
  Social workers are to be found mostly in social service departments, but around 16 per cent. of them work in the voluntary sector, some work in private practice and some are attached to the armed services. It is perhaps also worth saying in this child's guide to the profession, that where teachers have pupils and doctors have patients, social workers, like lawyers, have clients.
  Social workers mostly do what Parliament tells them to do. More than 36 principal Acts govern their work. We in the House shower regulations upon them as if we wanted to give them some sort of ticker tape welcome. Their duties include the requirement to help children either in trouble or at risk of being so, both in their own homes and when removed from their homes and to help disabled and handicapped people in residential care and in their own homes. The pressure to empty the huge institutions not only moves an individual from residential care into the community but also transfers financial responsibility from the National Health Service to local authorities.
  It is worth noting that efficiency improvements in the hospital services, such as the faster turnround of patients and the greater use of hospital beds, throws added burdens on to social service departments, usually with no additional resources allocated to meet them. They also
  896
  have a duty to help to look after the elderly. This is a rapidly growing source of demand that is outrunning the provision of resources. Our present Ministers have done a great deal to get more resources in real terms, but in 1984–85—the last year for which I have figures—the number of meals provided, the number of home-help hours and the number of local authority-supported residents in old people's homes had fallen to 91 per cent., 85 per cent., and 74 per cent. respectively of the 1978–79 levels. What is more, the age of the elderly has increased. In my own constituency, Kent County Council spends 85 per cent. of its budget for the elderly on the over-85s.
  The clients of social services departments are disproportionately from among the poor and disadvantaged, but we should remember that thousands of clients have difficulties that have little or nothing to do with being poor and the tendency, prevalent in our society, to attach importance to a service relative to what one might quote as the importance of its clientele has only to be described to be seen to be disgraceful.
  What sort of people are social workers? Social workers are taught that it is more important to listen than to talk, more important to assist a client to work out his or her own solution than to direct and better to help a client identify and use their own or their family resources than to depend on outside help. As the Barclay report said:
  "The aim of social workers will always be to create a relationship with their clients so that the tasks are accomplished in partnership by people who share some measure of trust and understanding."
  If that is the goal, social work will attract into its ranks men and women who are different from most recruits into other professions, even those concerned directly with helping others. Many policemen will get caught up in the complexity of human motivation or the subtleties of cultural difference hut, on the whole, police recruits want to be able easily to differentiate right from wrong and to see that the wrongdoer is caught and punished.
  For many lawyers, it is precisely the ability to separate the key issues in a legal dispute and to achieve the best for their client that is their strength. To weigh one family member's interests against another is often to betray that trust. That is why our adversarial legal system often exacerbates family disputes.
  If, as has been said,
  "social workers will always be bound to put into practice in their work a respect for persons and to see other people in all the complexity of their life, relationships and environment",
  it is small wonder if they sometimes come, like Voltaire, to believe: "Tout comprendre c'est tout pardonnez." Therein lies another danger.
  If one has a profession that not only recruits compassionate people in the first place but then spends much of their training teaching them how to ensure that their clients receive all the resources to which they are entitled, encourages them to develop family and community networks of support and to become more articulate and effective in standing up for themselves, its members will naturally tend to become the champions of the poor, the deprived and the powerless. Indeed, for many social workers that becomes a major role and many critics of social work base their attacks on a perception that individual social workers are less effective in pursuing that role than they feel they ought to be.
  I believe that that places social workers in a serious double jeopardy. It leads many of them into accepting a narrow and often transiently fashionable view of what are

  897
  and are not acceptable policies. For example, many social workers seem to believe that public provision of services is incontrovertibly superior to private provision. I have met social workers who seem to think that if a pensioner, for example, chooses to pay for private residential accommodation and outlives his or her capacity to keep up the payments they should be, as it were, punished by being put much further back in the queue for local authority help than someone who, for whatever reason, has never made the effort to contribute in that way. That has to be nonsense.
  If, on the whole, people in Britain are to continue to enjoy the rising real incomes and stability of personal savings that the Government have delivered successfully over the past eight years, the partnership between private resources and public funds has to be accepted joyfully and effectively defined and developed. There is also the danger of undermining one of the objectives of good case work; the liberation of a client to enable him or her once again to determine their own future. If the habit of blaming the system becomes too ingrained, it can easily lead to ignoring altogether the part played by some clients in the creation of their own difficulties.
  It is noteworthy that that theme never appears in, for example, the classic study of study work practice, the Barclay report. Not only is it bad social work; it is bad politics. It hands to those who do not want to know the real condition of the poor a perfect excuse for not listening to the voice of social work when it is raised on their behalf. That is one reason I welcome the decision of the four professional associations to establish the parliamentary panel and why I have been pleased to play a small part in it.
  It is not only appropriate but necessary for social workers to inform Government and the public about the work that they do and the conditions in which they do it. I am equally sure that that task has to be performed with accuracy, relevance and as clear an understanding as possible of the practical choices open to Government and to social services departments. For far too long, medicine or the economics of benefit have dominated discussions of policies that are directed at improving the conditions of the least fortunate in society. It is high time that social work and social services played a role proportionate to their importance. Yet social workers are required by Parliament frequently to act both as rationers and gatekeepers, on behalf of the taxpayer saying no to clients' demands for more benefit or better services. More often than not, it is their decision whether a child stays at home or is taken into care, whether an old person gets a place in a home or stays with the exhausted carer, or whether a mentally handicapped person stays in an institution or goes out into the community.
  They are powerful decisions, and are seen by the public to be so. Moreover, if a decision goes badly wrong—if a child who is kept with a family suffers abuse or dies—the press and the public will not hesitate to vilify a social worker. They will instantly forget that, yesterday, they enjoyed articles that lambasted social workers for destroying homes and removing parents' rights. They will seldom remember that social work is dangerous. In the past three years, four social workers were killed on duty. That is more than the number of police deaths. Few field workers have not been physically assaulted in the course
  898
  of their work. Frightened social workers must find it even harder to do the sensitive work of finding the strengths in a client group and helping someone to build on them to climb out of their personal abyss.
  The present furore about child abuse will, I hope, be salutary and bring everyone's attention to bear on the muddle that is society's attitude to its own members. I welcome the appointment that was announced today of a senior woman judge to examine the issues raised in Cleveland. I have no intention of seeking to prejudge them here, but I will say that, in Britain, we have nugatory training for people in how to be parents, nugatory support networks for parents, and severe restraints on the right of anyone to intervene between parents and their children.
  When one in three marriages ends in divorce and stepparents multiply, these deficiencies are daunting. When we add to them the fact that every social worker knows that when a child is taken from his home, his chances of returning satisfactorily to it diminish sharply after a mere six weeks and become sadly dim after 12 months, it is hardly surprising that they are reluctant to remove a child in the first instance. That is why the work of the interdepartmental working party reviewing the legislation on children is important. It seeks to define the sort of partnership between a local authority and parents, which holds out some hope of a successful outcome for a child who is taken into care for a period.
  It also seeks a system that will cut down the delay in working out a proper arrangement. At present, the system can take nine months or more to deliver a proper regime of care for a child who is at risk. What is more, many of us feel strongly that the present adversarial system for dealing with children's cases is wholly inappropriate. When I worked in Scotland, I played a part in the introduction of children's hearings—a largely non-adversarial system for trying rapidly to reach an agreed regime for children in trouble.
  Will the Minister tell us when we can expect real progress towards a similar system in England and Wales? Call it a family court or whatever, but we need something.
  There are other burning issues in social work; one is training. For five long and substantially confused years, the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work has argued about a third year of training for professional social workers. Ministers are soon to pronounce on their latest and, I have to say, much their best version of its proposals. I think that the new director and chairman of the central council are some of the best news for social work for a long time.
  Everyone agrees that social workers need more training; everyone agrees that the present mix of CSS and CQSW is unsatisfactory. The question is whether a combined pre-entry training lasting some three years, and adding some £40 million to the training bill, is the best solution. It is the solution that the Beckford inquiry pressed for. Would it be better to offer the third year later and, if that were the decision, would it be honoured in practice? We also know that between 80 ad 90 per cent. of all residential staff have no professional qualifications. What can and should be done about that? Perhaps the Minister will give us some clues this morning.
  Mr. Toby Jessel: Is there not a risk of putting too much emphasis upon technical and professional qualifications and too little emphasis upon common sense?
  Mr. Rowe: One person's common sense is another person's prejudice, but one has to be extremely wary of being mesmerised by training. I remember Lord Kilbrandon saying: "If we are not careful, the way we are going now, we will have to have a qualification before helping an old woman across the road." But I take my hon. Friend's point. Ther is a substantial risk that qualified social workers constantly run into problems with which they are unable to cope.
  I ask whether they would be better off having a longer pre-entry time for training, or whether it would be better to have the extra time later in their career when they have hit their head on the ceiling with their knowledge once or twice before they absorb any more. That is a serious question about which there is considerable division in the social work world, although the present proposals by the central council have been welcomed by social workers.
  Then there is accountability. At its crudest, what is to be done about the unfit social worker and about the use of the term 'social worker', which at present describes anyone, including bricklayers? I have just seen an advertisement of a bricklayer building a wall and being called a social worker because he is doing it in an inner city. The term 'social worker' covers everyone from bricklayers to agony aunts.
  Many people in social work believe that the time has come for the Government to create a social work council which will be empowered to regulate the profession. But there are hazards in the proposal. If it were still further to undervalue the non-professionally qualified people in social work, or if it should occupy itself with trade union matters rather than the broad sweep of social work professionalism, it would become like the stick in the fairy tale, which the scolding old woman summoned out of the sack, to her lasting chastisement. Yet it is surely strange that a major profession should have so little control over its affairs. I should be glad to hear from the Minister some of her thoughts on that.
  Two other matters and then I am done. The first concerns one of the central tenets of social work practice; working with others and making maximum use of all resources. The Cleveland affair has demonstrated dramatically the importance of different professions working together to a common end, but it should be the same in all facets of social work.
  There is no doubt, for example, that in developing community care the closest co-operation between professions, voluntary organisations and members of the public is absolutely essential. In my part of Kent we have so far achieved miracles of rehabilitation for many clients as they leave hospital for a place in the community. It is all due to skilful and dedicated working together.
  That is why I was appalled to learn that in some areas, health authorities, suddenly aware that they are losing resources and influence as patients turn into clients, are establishing separate, health-dominated community care systems. Even worse, Mr. Utting—chief social work inspector at the Department of Health and Social Services—told the parliamentary panel for personal social services that not only did he not know that, but he probably never would have known of it as it was of no direct concern to the Department. I ask the Minister to comment on that potentially disastrous waste of resources and on the Department's role in preventing that.
  I wish to draw attention to the huge importance of both the voluntary sector and the volunteers to social workers
  900
  and their clients. Simply to mention the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Dr. Barnado's, Age Concern or the Spastics Society is sufficient to remind the House how rich we are in devotion and expertise outside Government ranks. I mightily applaud the growing willingness of social services departments not only to work with voluntary organisations, but to clarify and define their mutual roles. Volunteers form a vein of ever-richer value, whether that is tapped by organisations such as Community Service Volunteers or directly by social services departments and hospital authorities. One person in five in Britain already offers help on a regular—at least monthly—basis.
  It is devoutly to be hoped that the process will continue as more and more people have disposable time, disposable income and varied skills and experience to offer, and at a much earlier stage in their career than hitherto. Social workers will need to become ever more skilful at working with them. In that way society can, perhaps, go some way towards healing itself. For far too long we have cared with our voices, clamouring for someone to do something about the problems that are too complex, too distressing, too messy or too dangerous for us to face. That someone has usually been the social worker, trying desperately to meet the conflicting demands made of him by the prejudices, fears and carelessness of the rest of us. We in Parliament, like the rest of society, owe a great deal to social workers. Above all, we owe them understanding and support in their difficult role.
  5.52 am
  Mr. Toby Jessel: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on his profoundly thoughtful speech in the debate that he initiated on social workers. It is of value to the House and the country that, from time to time, hon. Members enter into the discussion on the work of certain specialised professions. My hon. Friend has done that in depth, and we are in his debt.
  I wish to share my hon. Friend's general tribute to social workers and the value of their work both to the community and to individuals in need of their help. I hope that my hon. Friend did not mind my intervention. We live in a society that places undue emphasis on professional qualifications. Of course people need to be good at their jobs, and of course they need to know how to do them. There must be some means of testing to be sure that they know how to do them, and that is the purpose of a professional qualification. However, a professional qualification is a necessary, but not in itself a sufficient; condition of being able to do a job well. In addition, to do a complicated and important job people need gift, flair, insight and wisdom, and those cannot come solely from book learning, technical expertise or even from experience. They must also owe something to talent. Nowhere is this more necessary than in social work. We are all aware of the difficulties under which social workers have to operate and of how easy it is, with hindsight, to be critical when things go wrong. We are all aware of the special need for insight as well as professional qualifications.
  I wish to refer to a constituency case involving social workers. For the past few days a little girl aged four and a half years has been in the burns unit of Queen Mary's hospital, Roehampton, having been badly scalded by

  901
  boiling water. The case is distressing and worrying, and yesterday I felt it necessary to draw the facts, as far as I knew them, to the attention of the Twickenham police.
  Just over a year ago the social services department of the Richmond upon Thames borough council was warned that the little girl in question, Joy Scott Chaney, could be in danger. The warning came from a highly responsible and respected person who runs an excellent playgroup. Having noticed a considerable amount of bruising on the child, this lady was sufficiently concerned to bring the matter to the attention of the social services department of the Richmond upon Thames borough council.
  A circular had been sent by the council to all independent playgroup proprietors. It said:
  "If you have any concern about a child in your care, please contact the social work team for your area."
  That is exactly what the lady did. A case conference was called. I quote from the case papers:
  "On the evening of 27 June 1986 the playgroup proprietor"
  whom I shall not now name
  "telephoned Mrs. Dolton, an assistant day-care advisor, to express concern about serious bruising that her staff had noticed on Joy's arms and abdomen in the course of the week. Mrs. Dolton subsequently referred the matter to the Twickenham intake team for investigation. On 30 June 1986, Mr. Burridge, duty social worker, visited the kindergarten and was informed that frequent bruising had been noted on the child during recent months and recorded in a note book by staff as follows:

  24 April 1986—Very severe bruising noted on Joy's forehead. Father stated that she had tripped over his foot whilst out shopping.

  28 April—Joy covered in bruises, some very livid, behind her left knee especially.

  6 May—New bruising noted on child's arms, two the size of a 5p coin on the front of her arms just above her elbows and smaller, less distinct ones in a row on the back of her arm.

  15 May—New bruise noted in the mid-back of the left thigh.

  19 May—Large bruise and lump noted on forehand and graze on nose. Child stated that she fell over whilst at somebody else's house.

  13 June—Large bruises noted on the child's legs on return from holiday. Mother informed staff that there was `nothing to worry about' and that Joy was unhappy and just needed to settle again.

  17 June—Bruising on front of Joy's legs, especially around her knees. (She was wearing thick tights.) There was also bruising on her left inner ribs, the size of a 5p coin.

  27 June—Fresh bruising noted on the middle of child's back and more on the right side of her waist. Also a very nasty bruise the size of a large egg on the right side at front waist level and more on her thighs the size of a lop coin. Whilst at the kindergarten Mr. Burridge noted the extent of bruising on the child on a skin map, having observed Joy at play."

  At a subsequent conference, two weeks after the previous case conference—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order; I can barely hear the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel).
  Mr. Jessel: At a subsequent conference, medical opinion suggested that the bruising could have been caused entirely by a blood condition. However, medical opinion in this matter is not unanimous.
  Yesterday I showed the papers to a distinguished doctor, the former dean of a medical school of one of the great London teaching hospitals. He was thus responsible
  902
  for the training of hundreds of doctors. He was highly sceptical of the suggestion that so much bruising, occurring in a short time of a few weeks, could be explained solely in terms of a blood condition coupled with ordinary childhood collisions.
  On the face of it, it appears that the view of the former dean of the medical school was one of common sense. The doctor who examined the child was a junior doctor, a registrar, with nowhere near consultant status. That doctor should not have had the last word. I believe that in such sensitive matters we should all make a point of remembering the wise advice of Sir Winston Churchill:
  "Experts should be kept on tap and not on top."
  A second case conference decided that the child's name should not be placed on the child abuse register—based on the advice of the doctor to whom I have just referred. The child's health and development were to be monitored by out-patient appointments at the West Middlesex hospital and by the general practitioner and the community health services. It was agreed that there was to be
  "no on-going social work involvement as the parents are opposed to such intervention".
  I believe that this last decision was wrong.
  Once it was decided not to place the child on the child abuse list, there was insufficient follow-up by the Richmond upon Thames social services department. Little if anything was done to inform the infant school attended by the child that the child may have been in danger. It has since become clear that both the head of that infant school, Stanley road infant school at Teddington and the nursery class teacher had cause to feel somewhat worried about the child during the ensuring year.
  I am concerned that when the child was taken into hospital with severe scalding the social services department was not informed. It appears that, following the two case conferences, there was an element of complacency in the social services department of the borough council about the dangers that the child faced.
  I do not think that anyone can criticise the playgroup proprietor for referring the case to me. She is a responsible person, the wife of a solicitor, and her playgroup is of first-class repute. That lady had first gone through the proper procedures by referring the case to the borough council. With her experience and knowledge of small children, she had felt cause for continuing concern about this child, and events have tragically proved her right.
  I hope that the borough council will look into its procedures to see what can be done to reduce the risk to other children. I ask also that my hon. Friend make inquiries about what happened, with a view to preventing any recurrence.
  6.5 am
  Ms. Harriet Harman: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I first say how much I welcome the fact that you have taken the Chair and say what a pleasure it will be to speak in this debate with you presiding over it. I should like to welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has chosen this as the subject of his debate.
  In 1982 Peter Barclay said that social workers had two main functions—the organisation of social work and counselling. That remains the case today but th demands that are being made on social workers and the context in

  903
  which they carry out those two functions are altering dramatically. Social workers are required to paper over the cracks in an increasingly divided society.
  The cruel increase in unemployment subjects families to stresses and strains that lead to increasing demands, which need an increasing response from social workers. The increasing demands that are placed by unemployment on social work are recognised by the Association of Directors of Social Services, by the British Association of Social Workers and by many other professional organisations.
  The dramatic increase in the number of people who are dependent on benefits means more work for social workers as they try to help people who are struggling on inadequate incomes. The deteriorating conditions in the inner cities mean that more people turn to social workers for help. Social workers may, for example, try to help a family through a crisis that is caused by inadequate housing. In my own constituency I know that social workers are increasingly involved in desperate attempts by families who are under pressure and who are trying to get rehoused in a situation where the housing pool is disintegrating rather than increasing. In the inner cities, social workers are often called upon, for example, to help a woman who has become addicted to tranquillisers that might have become necessary initially because of anxiety caused by repeatedly being burgled. In the inner cities, social workers are often called upon to help youngsters who are starting to drop out of school and who start to sniff glue.
  I am talking not only about an increase in the work load of social workers but about work that is becoming more stressful, difficult and frustrating as the circumstances of their clients become more and more difficult. As the hon. Member for Mid-Kent said, social workers are increasingly subject to attack. We know that the incidence of attacks by clients on their social workers has increased dramatically. I do not believe that we know the full extent of that because social workers are reluctant to report such incidents because they want to encourage and help their clients. They are trained to put themselves second and not to speak out about their own problems. Therefore, I do not think that we know the full extent of physical attacks on social workers. There should be some initiative to collect information nationally about the level of those attacks which are of growing concern.
  Social workers go—and must go—to places where even the postman is not prepared to go and where the milkman may have ceased delivery. Doctors will not visit certain estates, yet it is expected that social workers will go, often on their own, into people's homes, in circumstances in which many other professionals or employees would not go. I hope that the Minister may take the opportunity to report to us on the progress of the inquiry into the death of Isobel Schwatz.
  I have already mentioned the increase in the problems caused by Government policy that cause problems for the clients whom the social workers help to look after. Demographic changes have also increased the work load for social workers. Obviously, we welcome the fact that people with disabilities have a much greater survival rate, but that often means that they need more help. People are living a great deal longer, which means that more people need social work help, even if it is only to assess their need of other services.
  Mr. Rowe: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is 11 years since Amelia Harris did her great study on old people?
  904
  Does she agree that our understanding of old people in need, particularly the statistics for them, is badly in need of updating?
  Ms. Harman: Absolutely. We are dealing with a whole range of statistics which are out of date because of the shape of the population and the increasing number, not only of elderly people, but of very elderly people.
  The changes in the approach to social work, most of which are welcome, have also increased the responsibility on social workers. It has been recognised that services must be more consumer friendly which has meant allowing those who need the services to plan and choose their services. Obviously, that requires social workers to be more flexible in allowing their clients to have a say, which places extra demands on social workers. That change from handing out paternalistic, patronising, pre-packaged services, as was sometimes the case in the past, has placed an extra demand on social workers.
  It has been recognised that greater help must be given to carers and that social work departments cannot leave people who are caring for elderly or disabled relatives on their own and excluded from social services. That again, has opened up a whole new area of demand on social workers. Care in the community, as the Government are currently operating it, has cast on to the shoulders of already over-committed social workers the responsibility for supporting in the community people who would previously have been in residential care. I know that it causes social workers great anxiety that they have the responsibility of assessing the needs of someone who is moving into the community from an institution and of smoothing that path when the social workers do not have adequate back-up facilities in the social work department to make the transition an easy one for all concerned.
  Several steps in relation to social work are overdue. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent mentioned the funding of a third year of social work training. Obviously, we all believe that social workers should have common sense and we can all think of examples where more common sense was needed, but that does not mean that we should ignore the growing consensus for a third year of training. If it is right to demand high standards of professionalism arid competence, it is right to recognise the training implications of those demands.
  It is also important to provide sufficient funding to social work departments to meet the additional problems that I have identified as arising from unemployment, poverty and the extra responsibilities of community care. The Government have had rather a cheek in claiming the credit for an increase in spending on personal social services when that increase has been largely in Labour-controlled authorities which have refused to make cuts arid insisted on improving and expanding services to meet the growing demands.
  It is outrageous for the Government on the one hand to tell social services departments to spend less, and on the other hand to claim the credit when spending by social services departments improves. The Government cannot have it both ways. I accept the points raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent about the general social work council, and that point needs more attention and discussion. It is certainly heading in the right direction.
  I want to make several brief points about child abuse and child care. The public must choose whether they want a witch hunt or good social policy. I believe that we cannot

  905
  have both. At the moment there appears to by hysteria and witch hunts, rather than a sensible discussion of child care policy. The hysteria and witch hunting that developed following the tragic death of Jasmine Beckford are now developing in Cleveland. It provides a climate in which it is impossible to make sensible and calm judgments about what is in the best interests of individual children and in which direction the policy for helping children at risk should lead.
  I know that it is difficult not to be emotive, because we are talking about vulnerable children who cannot speak up for themselves and the topic invokes revulsion in everyone. On the other hand, we are also concerned with the rights of parents to bring up their own children and the terror that can be struck in parents' hearts at the thought that a child will be taken away. This is an emotive issue, but it is important that we do not allow a climate of hysteria to be whipped up.
  It is also a shame that no parliamentary time has yet been set aside for child care law reform. There is a wide concensus about the work that has been carried out in that area and parliamentary time should be set aside for implementing those plans.
  It is also a shame that there is no firm proposal yet on when we are to see the introduction of family courts. Some of us feel like parrots, as we have to raise this issue so often. The problem is that there is no longer any reason not to introduce family courts. There is unprecedented agreement on the need for such courts and the form that those courts have taken. I do not believe that events in Cleveland would have developed as they have if the Social Services, the medical authorities and the parents had had the benefit of the involvement of a family court early in the development of the incidents and reformed child care law as the framework within which the family court could operate. I welcome the Government's inquiry. I hope that it will conclude speedily and will stop finding excuses for not taking measures that all in the profession are agreed are necessary.
  6.18 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): Madam Deputy Speaker, may I begin by joining the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) in saying that it is entirely appropriate that you should be presiding over our activities at this strange hour of the morning. I suspect that this might be the first time ever in the House when both Opposition and Government Benches and the Chair have been occupied by women. We give notice to the rest of our colleagues that women are on the march and I hope that more women will join this place and help to serve our people.
  I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on his success in the ballot, in one of our quainter rituals of the House, I congratulate him on introducing such an important subject upon which he spoke with the erudition and sensitivity which the subject has long required but which it has not always met in the House.
  My hon. Friend referred to the parliamentary panel on personal social service that was set up in the House during the previous Parliament. He knows that when I was a Back Bencher I was in touch with that committee. The
  906
  establishment of the panel was long overdue and its work is very valuable. My hon. Friend will also be aware that I served for seven years on a major metropolitan social services committee and chaired that committee. I learned then about the terrible things that people do—particularly, perhaps, to their children. But I also learned about the incredible courage, fortitude and endurance of many others, especially the long-term sick and the disabled, and those coping with such people. I recognised, and hope at all times to act upon. their demand to be treated first as human beings and citizens, so that they retain their rights—and, indeed, their obligations—along with the rest of us. But most of all I learned a healthy respect for the skills and the insights of social workers, and I am glad to say that I agree with a great deal of what has been said tonight.
  Social workers work in many settings and for many different employers. It is worth remembering that they do not all work for local authorities, and that they are not all employed in the same way. They work in hospitals, fieldwork teams and residential institutions; often they work unseen in the domiciliary setting of other people's homes. A large number work for voluntary organisations, and about 24,000 work for local authorities. Nowadays, nearly all of those who work for local authorities are qualified in one way or another.
  Social workers who work in the social services departments are charged to perform tasks that mainly arise from the powers and duties given by their employers to Parliament. They are the majority. In this important sense, social workers are public servants working on behalf of their employers and of society—in other words, the rest of us.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent referred to child care law, and I shall go into some of the issues in detail. However, before I do so, it is worth remembering and perhaps reinforcing the fact that social workers are involved in far more than child care. They are involved with every age group, particularly the elderly, and especially those without close relatives. They are involved with the mentally handicapped—even more so with the strenuous efforts now being made through the community care programme to improve the quality of life for those people. They are involved with the mentally ill, and in that respect psychiatrically trained social workers have a particular part to play.
  Social workers are often in the role of gophers—intermediaries—and, as a result, they may take the blame when others fail to deliver. The successes are not always seen, and I believe that the efforts required to produce those successes are rarely understood and frequently underestimated by the general public. That is well illustrated by Wally Harbert, OBE, director of social services for Avon county council, writing in last week's Social Services Insight. In a wry and humorous piece about how the status of social workers might be improved, he suggests that one answer might be to introduce insignia for presenting to persons in other organisations who have distinguished themselves in personal social services activities—a sort of Legion d'Honneur. He says:
  "It would go to head teachers who retained troublesome children in their schools, geriatricians who found beds for dying patients, paediatricians who made the same statements in court about child abuse as they made in case conferences, and housing officers who found accommodation for mentally

  907
  ill people. A special award would be for newspaper editors who produced such unlikely headlines as Social Worker Saves Child".
  I must say that I have considerable sympathy with that point of view.
  Local authorities determine their own priorities, and it is for them to decide how they should meet the need for social work and other aspects of the important work that we have been discussing. In the rate support grant settlements, the Government set indicative figures for individual local authority services. Those figures take account of the demographic and similar pressures on the personal social services. In successive rate grant settlements, the year-on-year increase in the personal social services indicative figure has been higher than for local government services as a whole in order to reflect those pressures. Between 1978–79 and 1987–88, expenditure on the personal social services grew in cost terms by 34 per cent., and by over 10 per cent. more than was required to meet demographic and other pressures. In 1986–87, the net current expenditure growth was 8·5 per cent. This year, the provisional figure is 4·7 per cent. That makes a total of a 13 per cent. increase over the past two years. The money is available.
  Government plans have usually reflected the fact that personal social services are subject to such pressures as the growth in the number of elderly people—particularly the very elderly—increasing numbers of difficult children, and the need to take on the taper of joint finance and unemployment. That has been calculated at 2·5 per cent. per year, from which 0·5 per cent. has been deducted to take account of efficiency savings. In this year's expenditure group report, a further 1 per cent., or £27 million, was added to take account of the need to build up services in the community. Potential savings were also netted off to deal with other pressures, such as AIDS and drug abuse, and also with the need for substantial additional investment in social services training. The new figure—a 3·5 per cent. increase—has been fully reflected in local authority current expenditure levels for 1987–88 and amounts to an additional 7 per cent. in cash terms.
  I was also asked about meals on wheels and other domiciliary services. We covered some of these issues in our debate on 14 May 1987. As I said then, the number of meals served by the meals on wheels service has risen by £43 million a year during the life of this Government, and 70 per cent. of those meals are delivered to people in their own homes. The number of home helps has increased by 14 per cent. There are now 53,000 full-time equivalents. A substantial army of people are helping others to remain in their own homes.
  This rate of growth is rather less than the rate of growth in the directly managed services of the National Health Service. It is due to the fact that this Government run the NHS services more directly than the personal social services which, as the hon. Member for Peckham rightly pointed out, are often run by Labour-controlled councils whose priorities are different.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) referred to a particularly sad case: to the injuries to a little girl who so incongruously is named Joy. He has passed the papers to me. I shall look urgently into the matter, and I hope to be able to deal with it.
  Mr. Jessel: The papers that I have passed to my hon. Friend refer to the bruising that was caused a year ago. In my speech I referred to recent serious injury by scalding.
  908
  It is the conjunction of those events, rather than the events taken separately, that is so serious. One child has suffered far too many injuries.
  Mrs. Currie: Without yet having had an opportunity to study the papers, I agree with my hon. Friend's last comment, and I shall be very glad to look into the matter.
  The hon. Member for Peckham referred to the inquiry into the death of Isabel Schwarz. I shall find out exactly what the state of play is as at 14 July and will write to the hon. Lady. If she wishes me to do so, I shall put that information in the Library.
  Mr. Rowe: I have been informed today—Monday in this House—that the inquiry into that case reopened on Monday and that again it is in closed session because of the nature of some of the medical evidence.
  Mrs. Currie: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He is several hours ahead of me on that issue.
  The Government take very seriously the violence that is inflicted on social workers and other care services staff. My hon. Friend Lady Trumpington chaired a working party on violence against not just social workers but NHS staff and those who work in social security offices. That responsibility has been taken on by my hon. Friend Lord Skelmersdale, the new Under-Secretary of State. In the last few days the chief inspector, Mr. Utting, has sent papers to all the local authorities. We believe that they will assist local authorities in the management and organisation of their services so that problems and conflict can be avoided. When there is conflict, the staff will be able to cope with it.
  In May, the Association of Directors of Social Services sent out some thoroughly sensible guidelines. Partly as a result of recent tragic cases involving the death of social workers and attacks upon them, some progress is now being made. There is better training of staff. They now know both how to avoid problems and how to deal with them.
  Several hon. Members mentioned the child care law and the necessity for reform. The Government accept that the existing child care legislation is confused, and that it is confusing for social workers in doing their work, and that it urgently needs reform. Our proposals are set out in the White Paper and have followed, in many instances, the views of the Select Committee of which I was a member. We believe that the proposals will lead to a greater clarity of purpose, will bring parents and public bodies into a closer partnership and will be more fair than the current arrangements to children and their families. The Government are committed to enacting this legislation at the earliest opportunity.
  Perhaps it is appropriate, since we have talked a lot about reforming the law, to bear in mind exactly what the White Paper has suggested that we might do. We will take into account in the exact formulation of the proposals that will be put before the House, the results of the current inquiries. Broadly speaking, I feel that many of the suggestions that we have made in the Select Committee report and in the White Paper are along the right lines, and I would be glad to hear the views of hon. Members as to whether they feel that to be the case.
  The White Paper's proposals are wide-ranging. The key points include a positive statement of the role of local authorities in promoting the care and upbringing of children within their families, which will generally be in the

  909
  child's interests. Local authorities' existing statutory responsibilities towards children for whom they are caring away from home will be recast. The changes will build on existing welfare principle that governs local authority decisions about a child for whom they are caring. The local authority will be under an obligation to safeguard and promote the health, education, development and welfare of the child, and in particular to afford him opportunities for the proper development of his character and abilities. The authority will continue to be required to give due consideration to his wishes and feelings in these matters and to his religous persuasion and racial and cultural background. In addition, the authority will continue to be under a duty to review the child's position every six months.
  Children and young people who are leaving care may face difficulties in adjusting to the change in their circumstances, so two changes to local authorities' duties are proposed. First, they would be required—we wish to make it as strong as that—to advise and assist children and the young people for whom they are caring so as to promote their welfare when that care ends. Secondly, the prevous duty to advise and befriend all those who leave care after leaving school, provided that their welfare requires it and that they request it, which currently lasts until 18 years of age, will be extended to cover those up to the age of 21 years. Those proposals are in the White Paper in chapter three.
  For children who are looked after under voluntary arrangements an emphasis will be on a partnership between parents and the local authority in caring for their child. The local authority's responsibility for planning its care to extend to all such children, including those who are handicapped, will be emphasised for, I think, the first time.
  There will be clearer and greater emphasis on the local authority's parental responsibilities for children who are committed to its care by a court order. In particular, there will be a rationalisation of the 20 or more legal provisions by which a child can be committed to the care of a local authority.
  There will be a new and simplified list of legal grounds on which a court order committing a child to local authority care can be made. The new grounds should cover cases where substantial harm is likely in the future as well as those where harm has already occurred. Local authorities should no longer be able to take parental rights over a child in their care without references to a court and we hope that changes to court procedure will be introduced to ensure a fairer and more expeditious means for the court to determine what is best for the child. Recent attention to issues in Cleveland and elsewhere mean that some of the provisions are even more important than they were when the White Paper was written.
  We want to see a full involvement of parents in court proceedings and more involvement of relatives, friends and foster parents. We will be extending the court's present power to hear cases where access to a child in care is denied to cover cases where there is dispute over the reasonableness of the access that is granted.
  Clear rights of appeal from decisions in magistrates courts will be introduced for local authorities and parents, in addition to the existing appeal rights for the child. We hope to recast the law governing private and voluntary
  910
  facilities for children, leading particularly to improved arrangements for facilities for under-fives and hopefully a more rational approach to facilities for older children.
  Hon. Members will realise that that is a major piece of child care legislation and is a considerable reform. As presently drafted in its preliminary form, it already runs to over 100 clauses. It is therefore right and proper that it be introduced when sufficient time is allowed in the House for its discussions to proceed without hindrance. We look forward to doing that at the earliest opportunity.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent and the hon. Member for Peckham mentioned the importance of introducing some non-adversarial system for discussing family and child proceedings, and called for the formation of a family court. That matter was raised by the Select Committee on Social Services at the time I served on it and it has been repeatedly suggested from the 1970s. The matter is under discussion. As yet, I have no further progress to report.
  To cover both education and training prior to qualification and post-qualifying training, there is a shared responsibility between the Government and the local authority employers. The Government spend £11·25 million annually in support of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work, of which £7·5 million is grants for students and direct support of training. In 1987–88 we have made provision for an extra £10 million to be made available to social services departments for training. We estimate that local authorities spend some £20 million a year on internal and external training, which is not a small sum.
  We can see that improvements are needed. Our acceptance of that obligation was clearly set out on 6 April 1987 in the letter from my hon. Friend the Minister for Health to Professor Saul, in which he said:
  "it is therefore clearly right that CCETSW should be examining these problems and considering what might be done to bring about improvements. I must say however, that the arguments for the proposals contained in Consultation Paper 20.6 do not provide a sufficiently clear or sound basis for the Government to give you a final decision."
  Therefore, we have asked the CCETSW to do more.
  We shall look carefully at the proposals that we expect this autumn from it.
  I concur with the statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham that training alone is not enough. We need to ensure that we recruit people of maturity and common sense. In my view, common sense is not a bad thing in any form of work. It is particularly valuable when dealing with the fine judgments that a social worker is called on to make. It is important that we motivate and support them and retain their skills later for the service of clients. There are considerable parallels here for the other caring services.
  I have heard what was said about the profession's desire to regulate itself and the proposed general social work council. Our position is, broadly, that it is not in the first instance for the Government to act anyway. We shall listen carefully to arguments from the employers and the professions. We want a convincing case to be made that it is in the public interest that the profession should be regulated in any of the proposed ways. It is worth going into that aspect in a little more detail because it helps to illustrate some of the difficulties that face those who would turn the social work profession into some model which is based on one of the other professions and has the same difficulties.

  911
  There is renewed interest among professional social services associations in seeking support for a GSWC in some form, but the main role and functions of the regulatory body are not yet the subject of agreement between the associations. Indeed, there are large gaps between them. We have at all times shown a willingness to listen to the debate and we have encouraged greater agreement on the fundamentals. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health had a meeting with the British Association of Social Workers on 28 January this year when some of these issues were explored in depth.
  The claim of social work to be a professional occupation rests in part on the existence and the transmission to practitioners of a set of values finding expression in an ethical code. Training courses leading to the certificate of qualification of social work normally give attention to social work values and ethics. But not all those practising as social workers, particularly in residential and day care settings, have had the opportunity for professional training.
  BASW, which has about 10,000 members, adopted a code of ethics for its members in 1975. The Social Care Association, with 5,000 to 6,000 members, is consulting its members this year about the introduction of a code. Not all social workers, however, are members of those organisations. The way forward according to those bodies is through the establishment of a national regulatory council which they hope will protect the interests of personal social service consumers and maintain satisfactory standards of conduct and practice among all social services staff in contact with clients. Also envisaged is the incorporation of the functions of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work in the new council, which would include the promotion of training, the approval of courses of study and the awarding of certificates to successful students.
  The Barclay committee report of 1982 provided a comprehensive review of arguments for and against the creation of a general social work council. Among the counter-arguments put to the committee were that such a council could be part of the creation of a self-protecting elite group of social workers, that the definition of social work is still unclear and accordingly that it is uncertain which staff would be eligible to be registered; and that as local government is the principal employer of social workers, its conditions of service provide sufficient means to regulate the conduct of social workers and other social services staff.
  Such arguments, which came mainly from local authority associations and NALGO, reflect their stance in the current debate about a regulatory body. Local authorities have responsibility for the quality and standard of work done by their staff. Social service staff function as the agents of the local authority, not as independent practitioners.
  The earlier lack of agreement expressed to the Barclay committee by professional associations persists. The Association of Directors of Social Services envisages that all people with a recognised social work qualification who are in practice should be eligible for registration. By
  912
  contrast, the SCA argues for a broader approach in which registration would be a requirement for all staff in personal social services—qualified or not—who hold positions of authority over clients. BASW's firm stance, which broadly accords with that of the ADSS, is subject to current review. NALGO has issued a statement of opposition. That is not a very strong basis of agreement on which the Government can support further moves.
  Mr. Rowe: Whether a council is the right way forward is something that will be considered during the next few months. What worries me is that, in inter-professional discussions, there is a tendency for the old established professions, notably medicine, to assume a seniority and authority which is often unjustified. It is in the public interest to foster good practice which is found in several areas so that, when they earn it by expertise and experience, social workers are accorded the kind of professional seniority which, at the moment, too often goes by the board.
  Mrs. Currie: I recognise the force of the feeling behind my hon. Friend's assertions, but I am sure that he agrees that we must aim to achieve teams that are genuinely multidisciplinary and teams that are genuinely teams. People should share all their skills to assist clients.
  The current debate and the papers produced by professional associations have been brought formally to the attention of the CCETSW. I would be unhappy at entering endless negotiations about the status of social workers when we are more interested in the quality and standard of social work. I am keen to ensure that we do not lose sight of the client and his or her needs, or of the employer—usually the local authority—its statutory responsibilities, the taxpayer and the ratepayer.
  There is considerable public ambivalence about social workers. I hope that this debate will play its part in helping to resolve the public's feelings about the role of social workers. We all feel some concern when we recognise that perhaps some over-zealous bureaucrat is meddling in people's lives. Yet we call them in to protect us from the difficult problems of the real world outside. We hand over to social workers the flotsam and jetsam of our society and then we criticise them for perhaps being too interested in those who have little opportunity to stand up for themselves. We criticise when social workers are too cautious or when they are over-eager. The British public persists in the belief that there is a formula for social work, whereas each case is different.
  I think it was in the Barclay report that social workers were described as brokers in lesser evils. Perhaps that sums up exactly the role that they have to play. The Government value what is being done by social workers. We recognise that the work is important, difficult, stressful and frequently dangerous. We recognise that the work involves the exercise of considerable influence over people's lives, often with pressure and conflict. We want to ensure that, as far as possible, social workers are well equipped and supported in the work that they do. I put on record my appreciation of everything that they do and try to do.

  Fire and Civil Defence Authorities
  6.45 am
  Mr. Ian McCartney: It gives me great pleasure at this hour, having sat all through the night giving moral support to hon. Members on both sides of the House in a number of interesting debates, to see the end of this marathon sitting ahead. I hope that at the end of the morning's celebrations I shall have been able to shine some chink of light on the matters that I wish to raise with the Under-Secretary.
  It is no accident that I raise the issue of Government funding arrangements for fire and civil defence authorities as I am still a member of the Greater Manchester fire and civil defence authority. In the period between abolition and the setting up of the new authority I was a member of the transitional organisation. Since the setting up of the authority I have been the Labour party spokesperson and whip on the authority and as such have been involved in detailed discussions about the running of the authority, both in terms of its policy towards the development of the service and how that service is funded. Interlinked with that, there has been the role of civil defence obligations within the all-purpose authority.
  I want to mention three items in the debate. The first item relates to the fire service and the delivery of service by fire fighters. The second item relates to capital allocations and expenditure limitations in the civil defence and the third item relates to the inclusion of fire authorities in the Local Government (No. 2) Bill in respect of the privatisation of certain aspects of the fire service. I do not want to go over all of the ground about the whys and wherefores of abolition.
  Much of what I complain about stems from the hurried way in which the Government carried out that operation and failed to take into account the nature of the single purpose bodies they were setting up and the way in which those bodies, not only in the short term but in the long term, have to be funded in a way different from other local government organisations.
  The fire and civil defence authorities are all subject to precept limitations under the Local Government Act 1985. This means that the Home Office prescribes the maximum expenditure level—MEL—for each joint authority. The grant entitlement is calculated by reference to grant-related expenditure and other calculators set by the Department of the Environment. The precept raises the difference between those two calculations and the entitlement that flows from the calculations is prescribed as a maximum by the Home Office.
  The two target areas have been met by two separate Government Departments. The MELs set by the Home Office, which also provide establishment levels and establishment costs, average about 80 per cent. of the total expenditure. That is important in respect of that high level of investment in manpower when changes take place in expenditure levels and how critical that can be to the service in respect of maximum expenditure levels.
  The grant-related expenditure assessment is calculated by the Department of the Environment on a hypothetical assessment of need to spend based on total population, density and fire calls. There is no consistent relationship between those two targets, and the statistics for 1987–88 show unsatisfactory, unexplained discrepancies. For example, the grant-related expenditure assessment as a
  914
  percentage of maximum expenditure limits for Merseyside is 97 per cent., for West Midlands it is 97 per cent. and it gradually goes down the scale. It is 85 per cent. for London, 84 per cent. for my authority in Greater Manchester, 83 per cent. for Tyne and Wear, 81 per cent. for South Yorkshire, and, at the bottom of the pile, is poor old West Yorkshire. The result of that discrepancy is the loss of block grant for spending at Home Office target levels with consequent increases in precept levels. This year the Merseyside precept is 6·3p in the pound. In West Yorkshire, an authority of a similar size and nature, the precept is 11·59p in the pound. Yet, there is no indication that the standard of fire cover in West Yorkshire is almost twice that on Merseyside. That is the result of the central financing systems. The fire authorities are working to common standards. They are controlled at establishment level by the Home Office and are subject to Her Majesty's inspectors audit. On the face of it there is no justification for the differences and the result is an imposed burden on precept payers in many metropolitan areas.
  The absurdity is best demonstrated by the London fire and civil defence authority, which receives no block grant because GREA is so far below maximum expenditure levels. That arises because of totally erroneous assumptions by the Department of the Environment on financial resources available to the authority. I am genuinely hopeful that at the end of this debate the Minister will provide the House with a satisfactory explanation for that wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs.
  The effect on Greater Manchester fire and civil defence authority in the past 12 months has been serious. The Home Office set the maximum expenditure limit at £44,232,000. Albeit as a consequence of the Secretary of State for the Environment's indiscretions earlier this year, the redetermination process was suspended and the maximum expenditure limit was eventually converted into the precept level of 9·75p in the pound. However, if the Secretary of State, old Nick as he is commonly known, had got his way, he would have set GREA at £37,241,000. That is £7 million below the Home Office's own assessment of my authority's requirements simply to stand still in the current financial year. If that figure had been imposed on us we would have had drastic cuts in our budget in terms of manpower, ridership factors and in relation to our successful Whelephant operation, which is known throughout the United Kingdom and Europe as the most success attempt to teach children and others in the education process about fire and the prevention of fire. Therefore, an error of judgment by the Secretary of State has prevented us from being paid £7 million less this year than the figure set by the Home Office Minister.
  The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has been considering the matter for the past 12 months and on 26 May its sub-committee met to discuss papers prepared by the Home Office and the Department of the Environment addressing the options about the discrepancies on GREA and the Home Office determined expenditure limits for all of the metropolitan fire authorities. The AMA felt that, despite the obvious delay in completing the fire risk areas exercise some one-off proposal should be made to the Home Office for 1988–89 which would
  "recognise the total expenditure resources required by individual authorities in order to meet their statutory functions and support their (Home Office) approved establishment levels;
  minimise the differences in GREA's and ELs so that the precept levels within the metropolitan areas would be similar

  915
  and reflect the provision of a (largely) homogeneous service provided to nationally determined standards as monitored by Home Office inspectors."
  The authority subsequently asked for information from constituent metropolitan fire authorities that would help them in negotiations with the Home Office. That exercise has highlighted major discrepancies between authorities with a commonality of interest. At this hour, I do not wish to tax the House or the Minister with a further list of statistics. Therefore, I recommend to the Minister the AMA report that was approved on 8 July 1987, a copy of which I understand has been sent to his office.
  The views of the AMA have all-party support. I do not attempt to use the difficulties between the Home Office and the Department of the Environment for party political purposes. All of us who have worked for fire and civil defence authorities recognise that they are here to stay for a considerable time. Even if the Labour party wins the next general election, fire authorities will remain in place for a considerable time thereafter. Therefore, we are in the real job of trying to come to an accommodation with the Minister about appropriate funding for single purpose authorities. That was basically highlighted by the London fire and civil defence authority on 9 July, when an all-party resolution was approved, stating that the current methodology for GREA is unsuitable for assessing expenditure levels and that more regard must be paid to the standards of fire cover set out by the Home Office, a review of which is presently being undertaken not only by the London FCDA but by most metropolitan fire and civil defence authorities.
  Two matters must be considered by the Minister. One is what we shall do in the short term, and the other is what we shall do in the long term. In the long term, we must examine a system that is based on the risk categorisation exercise from which all other factors such as needs and resources ultimately come. I have noted that the Home Secretary's working party discussion paper is examining some of the AMA options in developing GREA for 1988, 1989 and 1990, based on establishment levels, total calls, pensions and fire prevention work, but as yet no firm decisions have been forthcoming from the Department. Such delays have been unhelpful to fire and civil defence authorities who are desperately trying to plan without the obvious abilities of multi-purpose shire counties to support levels of expenditure by virement of GRE between service heads, or using contingencies and balances that are almost always available within larger budget heads such as those commonly available to shire counties.
  Fire and civil defence authorities are not in the business of trying to rob Peter to pay Paul. There is no suggestion, nor would I support any proposal, to move funding from the shire brigades to assist metropolitan brigades. We require an interim agreement for 1988–89 on the recognition by all of us that a long-term formula must be agreed for 1988, 1989 and 1990. There must be some political discussion between the Home Office Ministers and those who are responsible for the day-to-day running of fire and civil defence authorities. The AMA has been asking for such a political level meeting since July 1986, and so far, for various reasons, such a meeting has not taken place. Time is now running out to agree a joint package that will meet the needs of the fire service and suit the ratepayer's pocket. At the end of the day, I shall look to the Minister to give an indication to the House when
  916
  he will meet fire and civil defence authorities via the AMA this summer. If he is not available, I shall ask the Minister of State to do so as soon as possible.
  The Government, through their abolition proposals, created the single purpose authorities such as the FCDA's. They must ensure that they are adequately funded. One approach to consider in 1988–89 is that maximum expenditure should be calculated by reference to the original 1987–88 redetermination submissions, updated for inflation and other committed expenditure. I leave that for comment from the Minister.
  I now turn to the problems of civil defence, in particular to the funding arrangements for the planned programme of implementation. Despite the original hostility between local authorities and the Government about attitudes to civil defence, there is now a common purpose about the way in which the Government should proceed about using funding arrangements for civil defence in terms of meeting emergency situations in local communities.
  At a recent meeting which I attended at the Home Office, to report on what the Greater Manchester fire and civil defence authority was doing to implement the PPI, it became clear from the representatives of the F6 division of the Department that there was no common ground between those officials and the Department of Environment about the way in which 100 per cent. funding grants for emergency centres would be financed via the fire authorities and districts. We have the ludicrous position of the Minister's Department being prepared to provide fire and civil defence authorities and district councils with 100 per cent. funding to update emergency centres, yet the Department of the Environment, on the other hand, penalising authorities by including the calculation in the capital expenditure limits.
  The Government cannot seriously expect metropolitan district authorities such as Wigan, which are having their capital expenditure limits squeezed to allow that kind of virement to take place at the expense of social services, housing and education. Because of that difficulty and the disagreement between the two Departments, which has still not been resolved, we have a position where neither ourselves nor the Minister's Department can move forward in any real sense with the refurbishment of emergency centres in metropolitan districts.
  On 3 July, F6 wrote to the Greater Manchester fire and civil defence authority about this matter. I quote from the letter, which states:
  "We understand the difficulty authorities face with the capital costs of establishing emergency centres. The Home Office has raised the matter with the Department of the Environment and with the Treasury but the issue has been subsumed into a wider reconsideration of local authority finance. We will not be letting the matter lie but there is nothing further we can say at the moment. As promised, we are currently giving consideration to the question of the running costs of emergency centres."
  That small paragraph is indicative of the whole attitude towards fire and civil defence authorities in all its guises. The Department of the Environment and the Home Office cannot get their act together, never mind agree with the fire and civil defence authorities.
  I turn to privatisation and the incredible decision to include fire services within the scope of the Local Government (No. 2) Bill, I indicate to the Minister that the AMA and others of a responsible view will be looking for

  917
  an exclusion in the Bill, similar to that contained in the Bill for the police service vehicles. This should also apply to fire service vehicles.
  In addition, it is important to place on record the problems associated with the maintenance of fire brigade vehicle workshops, because it is essential that the issue is not simply put aside in the Local Government (No. 2) Bill. We must ensure that fire appliances have 100 per cent. reliability, extending for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The public must have confidence in the fire brigade and that confidence can be ensured by having both the vehicles and the equipment on the vehicles fully operational in a first-class condition. I hope that, in all the circumstances, the Minister will state his intention to meet with the AMA as soon as possible to consider all the points raised in the debate this morning.
  7.5 am
  Mr. Clive Soley: I wish to begin this very brief intervention by saying what a pleasure it is to see you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the Chair.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) on his speech. He covered a technical area very competently. He was, perhaps, a little optimistic when he hoped for a chink of light. Even at this time of the morning, that is a bit much. However, when he then said that he hoped for a satisfactory explanation from the Minister, that really was raging optimism.
  I served on the abolition Bill, which, as my hon. Friend recognised, is really where all this trouble started. If the Minister were to give my hon. Friend a satisfactory explanation, he would stand at the Dispatch Box and say that that Bill was a total and utter disaster, especially in relation to the fire and civil defence services. Lord Whitelaw's own words showed that the thought it a nonsense to set up a separate authority. The Home Office never wanted it, it never liked it, it thought that it was a contradiction in terms and it recognised that it would lead to major financial problems in the administration of the services. As my hon. Friend said, organisations such as the AMA recognised in advance of the Bill that it would be nothing but bad news for the fire and civil defence services.
  The Minister has the opportunity—and I suggest that he takes it—to return to his Department and arrange meetings with the AMA at the level suggested by my hon. Friend, and to begin to talk realistically about the funding of such organisations. My hon. Friend was right to point out the need for a longer-term view of the arrangements for the fire and civil defence services. We do not doubt that we should be looking for proper local authority arrangements again rather than at this mismatch of centralised control, lack of sensible funding related to local needs and so on. My hon. Friend has provided the Minister with an opportunity to recognise past mistakes and to say that he is prepared to begin talks along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.
  I think that the Minister, in his wisdom, recognises that this area went badly wrong under the abolition Bill. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Government's intentions on the wider aspects of abolition, this area has caused acute problems. If the Minister is not to duck the challenge from my hon. Friend, he should be bold enough—as I am sure he can be at times, as I have seen it in
  918
  the past—to recognise that there is a major problem to which he needs to respond along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.
  7.7 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): In common with other hon. Members, I welcome you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the Chair in your new capacity.
  I congratulate the hon. Members for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) on raising a matter of considerable importance. Before I deal with the main points raised, with particular reference to the fire authority function, I wish to comment briefly on the civil defence aspect raised by the hon. Member for Makerfield.
  The hon. Gentleman made the point that capital controls work in an eccentric way, and I well understand that. He will know that a review is taking place into the capital control—or capital expenditure—system. The points that he raised about civil defence capital grants will be considered in the context of that review.
  Mr. McCartney: I understand that, but that does not alter the fact that the Department has been pressurising local authorities to put pressure on district authorities—irrespective of the review—to commit some of their capital expenditure to a refurbishment programme. The Minister has admitted that the current review is considering whether any expenditure in an authority at district level reflects on the total capital expenditure. The Minister cannot have it both ways. The Government have had 12 months to resolve the matter, and until they do so there is no chance of authorities finding moneys from the housing, education and social services budgets to meet the planned programme of implementation.
  Mr. Hogg: I have not conceded anything. I said that the Government are reviewing local authority capital expenditure controls, and that in that context capital allocations for civil defence will be considered. That is a statement of fact, not a concession. I shall not go beyond that and I shall not anticipate the outcome of the review.
  I shall deal with the broader questions that the hon. Gentleman raised, which concentrate largely on the mismatch between the GREs and expenditure limits. Before doing so I shall summarise in brief form the controls that exist for the fire and civil defence authorities. There are essentially two controls, those of manpower and finance. I propose to deal with manpower fairly rapidly, as it is not an issue on which the hon. Gentleman concentrated. He will appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department exercises a statutory control over the establishment, support services and management arrangements of the seven FCDAs. These controls will operate for the first three years of the existence of the seven FCDAs. That will mean that they come to an end in 1988–89.
  The second and much the most important area of control is something that relates to financing. By section 68 of the Local Government Act 1985 the FCDAs were deemed to be subject to the rate limitation controls that were created by the Rates Act 1984. That operates for the first three years of their existence. Effectively, the authorities are treated as being rate-capped, and there is a maximum precept that they are authorised to levy on the constituent districts.

  919
  The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the fairly complex procedure that has to be followed to determine both expenditure levels and precept levels. I could explain the procedure to the House, though I question the merit of doing so at 12 minutes past seven in the morning, but I shall do so if the hon. Gentleman wishes.
  I take up the issue that is worrying the hon. Gentleman, which is the mismatch between GREs and expenditure levels. There is a difference between the GREs and expenditure levels, and there is a difference between the functions of the two. Expenditure levels are set by the Home Secretary, and GREs by the Department of the Environment. They are intended to have different functions and purposes.
  Grant-related expenditure is used as a yardstick for use in the distribution of block grant. Its assessments are a means of distributing block grant on an equitable basis. The GRE formula for the fire service was reached after consultations with local authority associations. It is based on common principles that are applicable to all authorities. The GRE of a fire and civil defence authority does not determine what an authority should spend, nor does it determine what it can spend. Grant-related expenditure is a yardstick for all fire authorities. It applies to all fire authorities, and is not confined to the FCDAs. The object of the GREs, imperfect though it may be, is to apply a common yardstick throughout the country for fire authorities.
  The expenditure level is a different instrument, with a different purpose. It is part of the process by which the precept limit is set. It takes account of the particular circumstances of each fire and civil defence authority. It is hoped and intended that the expenditure level will ensure that adequate fire protection is provided for the public and fire crews. The expenditure limit determines what an authority can spend, apart from the amount allowed for contingencies that is taken into account when setting the precept limit. It is not possible for the authority to set its budget in excess of the determined expenditure limit.
  However, to take a broad view, the function is different. There is a distinction between the GREAs and expenditure levels. They are not intended to achieve the same purpose and there is no particular reason why the two should be in total harmony. I appreciate that there arc problems that necessarily flow from mismatches—the hon. Member for Makerfield has described some of them—and it is for that reason that a review is taking place with regard to fire risk categorisation. That review is intended to bring the GREAs more into line with expenditure levels. It is desirable that GREAs should be more in line with expenditure levels, but there is no compelling reason why that should always be so.
  To contrast the expenditure limit against GREA in order to determine the actual level of expenditure is not, in itself, a sensible thing to do. The functions of the two criteria are different. Although I appreciate that there is a need to bring the GREAs more into line with the expenditure levels—a review is being undertaken to that effect—it is not essential that that should happen. The hon. Member for Makerfield will be aware that we have not had a full response to the fire risk categorisation review. Only a minority of the authorities have replied on the question of fire risk categorisation. Therefore, it is not yet possible to say when the review will be complete. I hope
  920
  that that review will be completed in the foreseeable future. Certainly I should like to see a greater matching between GREAs and expenditure levels.
  The hon. Member for Makerfield suggested that a meeting should be convened between the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and Ministers at the Home Office. It is fair to say that the letter addressed to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was received in his office on 10 July. I am not in a position to commit my right hon. Friend or indeed my noble Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, who has direct responsibilities for the fire service to such a meeting. I am sure, however, that at an appropriate time Ministers would be extremely pleased to meet the AMA to discuss the problems that the hon. Member for Makerfield outlined.
  Mr. Soley: Does the Minister accept, perhaps at this time in the morning with a spirit of generosity, that if Lord Whitelaw's advice had been accepted the fire and civil defence authorities would not be in their present difficulties? In those circumstances, will the Minister convey to the Home Secretary, the importance of meeting the AMA as a matter of urgency and recognising that the problems that it faces have been put upon it largely as a result of the Government's legislation on abolition.
  Mr. Hogg: I shall not make any concession along those lines. The hon. Gentleman is well able to make his own points. He has done so, and those who read Hansard will understand them. The hon. Gentleman must not be the least bit surprised if I say that, much as I should like to agree with him—I spend much of my time agreeing with him—on this issue I shall not make the concession that he wants me to make.
  Mr. McCartney: The Minister has already given the game away—the Department is already conducting a review. That review is needed because the figures do not add up. The discrepancies have been growing. I find it absolutely amazing, even at this time in the morning, that the Minister can, in the space of 10 minutes, suggest that there is no good reason why there should be any correlation between the two calculations, but then admits that there is a working party endeavouring to bring about that correlation.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman was either not listening, or he did not understand. The plain fact is that he does not comprehend what is going on.
  It is desirable that there should be as much of a match as possible between GREAs and expenditure, as I have said, but, as I have also said, it is not essential, because the functions of the two are different. However, it is desirable, which is why we are having a review to ensure greater consistency between GREAs and expenditure levels. I do not contemplate that they will be the same. That is certainly not an essential requirement, nor is it necessarily an essential part of the review. However, as I have said, greater consistency between the two is desirable and, when more of the authorities have replied, we shall be in a better position to assess whether we will be able to achieve that desirable result.
  As I was saying before that pleasing intervention from the hon. Member for Hammersmith, who I gather wants to get away rather urgently so I shall wind up the debate promptly because I never wish to be discourteous to him——
  Mr. Soley: I cannot stand the idea of the Minister going through all these verbal gymnastics at this time of the day. He will do himself an injury, if he has not done so already. Yes, I am leaving shortly, to tell the police at a local college about how bad the Government are on law and order. However, let us leave that discussion until a little later this morning.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield has a fair point and all that the Minister is struggling with—I understand why and accept that it is not his fault—is the fact that the Government got themselves into a mess between the requirements of the Department of the Environment and those of the Home Office on the abolition Bill. Lord Whitelaw recognised that openly and honestly, and it was frequently referred to during the passage of the abolition Bill. If the Home Office would now say, "Yes, we recognise that that abolition process created acute problems, especially in areas such as fire and civil defence", and would go to meet the bodies to which my hon. Friend referred, especially the AMA, on that basis, the Minister would be impressed by the willingness to co-operate to try to make what has become a mess work much better. The Minister must have an interest in that. Indeed, his verbal gymnastics clearly displayed that he knows that it is a mess. Let us get on and sort it out.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman said that he was going to talk to the police about how bad the Government's policies on law and order are. I advise him not, in any way, to try to impress the police with the desirability of his party's policies on law and order, because the police would all fall out of their seats laughing. [Interruption.] In fact, the hon. Gentleman knows that and is smiling now. Indeed, he must be embarrassed by the prospect of presenting to the Metropolitan constabulary the policies of the Labour party on law and order because the police would hoot with laughter. However, that is by the way, and we shall let the hon. Gentleman off on that matter.
  As for the hon. Gentleman's references to my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Whitelaw, the hon. Gentleman has already made that point and I have already told him as
  922
  clearly as I can that I shall not make the concession for which he has asked. I am just not going to do it. Although repetition from the hon. Gentleman is humorous, and no doubt enchanting, it will not get him anywhere at all. I was merely trying to conclude my speech to allow the hon. Gentleman to go off to Hendon, which is what he wants to do.
  The essential question is whether fire cover in the joint authority areas that we have been discussing is adequate or inadequate. All the other gymnastics that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and through which we have been going, are interesting and relevant to that question, but they are not the principal issue. In such cases, the principal issue is always whether the service is adequate or inadequate. Incidentally, I was deeply disappointed not to hear from the hon. Member for Makerfield any analysis of that, because surely it is the major issue. All that stuff about GREAs and expenditure levels is splendid, but it does not go to the main issue, which is simply that the fire cover in the relevant areas is adequate.
  Mr. McCartney: I do not want to prolong this issue because other hon. Members wish to speak. However we need no lessons from the Minister about adequate fire cover, when the Department of the Environment wants to take £7 million off this year's budget, a budget that was set by the Minister's own Department.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman improves his case not a bit. The question, as he knows well, is whether the fire cover provided in these areas is adequate. Even in his area of Greater Manchester the proposal for financing represents a 7·5 per cent. increase on 1986–87, which seems to be a significant increase. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman has not thought for one moment to suggest that the fire cover is inadequate. As I feel sure that the Opposition parties are willing to take every point, whether bad, indifferent or perhaps good, that can be taken against the Government, the fact that they fail to suggest that the fire cover is inadequate makes my point in a singularly compelling way.

  Economic Performance (North-West Region)
  7.25 am
  Mr. Alistair Burt: I thank the House for finding time for me to raise this important topic. It is particularly pleasant to do so under your benevolent eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, bearing in mind how much you know about our area.
  The north-west is generally reckoned to stretch from Crewe to Carlisle, and whether it includes Cumberland and the Lake District depends on the statistics being used. The heart of the area is certainly Lancashire, Cheshire, Merseyside and Greater Manchester. It is the United Kingdom's most densely populated area. My constituency and the metropolitan borough of Bury is right at the heart of the north-west.
  I am not unique in the House in having been born and brought up in the constituency that I represent—I am aware that there are others—but it gives me a special feel for the area. For that reason I speak for the area not as an outside, objective observer, but as someone who has the heart of the area close to his own heart.
  The area is representative of the country as a whole as such it typifies both the optimism and pessimism that the Government face since their election. If Opposition parties seek to use the north-west as an example of what they term divided Britain, I fear they will be genuinely disappointed. At the general election, 34 Conservative Members, 36 Labour Members and three Liberal Members were returned, so it cannot be classed in any way as a Labour party stronghold. Indeed, one reason why we still sit on the Government Benches and the Labour party is on the Opposition Benches is the Opposition's failure to capture seats that they needed to win in the north-west and their rejection by voters in the north-west.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: It is curious that the hon. Gentleman should follow that train of thought. Can he explain why the Labour party now has more seats than the Conservative party in the north-west?
  Mr. Burt: I did not seek to suggest that we had more. The Opposition sometimes suggest that the north-west is a great red area, and that is simply not true. The Labour party recovered marginally from being in the minority. In the last Parliament there were more Conservative Members than Labour Members representing the area and the Labour party's recovery, in the context of the Conservative majority of over 100, is rather marginal. The Labour party expected to do far better in the north-west, but it failed to do so. That is why we are still sitting here.
  If a foreign visitor were to come to some parts of the north-west, he or she would shake his or her head at the extraordinary claims of abject poverty and deprivation that he or she might have heard during the election from the Opposition parties. However, if the foreign visitor came to other parts of the north-west, he or she would shake his or her head ruefully and wonder what this talk of prosperity was all about. The region, therefore, like the country at large, has plenty of areas of prosperity but also areas of considerable concern.
  In the north-west we tend to suffer from over-concentration on the affairs of our two great cities, Liverpool and Manchester. We have inner-city problems,
  924
  but I welcome the Government's recent initiatives, such as the Trafford park urban development corporation, the development of Liverpool and particularly the success of the Albert dock. I am glad to see that the Government are tackling inner-city problems in the north-west.
  It should never be forgotten that there is a great deal to the north-west outside these particular urban areas. That is sometimes forgotten and glossed over by the outside world. It is remarkable that our foreign visitor, who now sees areas of prosperity and deprivation close together, could have made comments on this disparity at almost any time during the past 300 years. Relative poverty and prosperity side by side are nothing new and it is nonsense to suggest that the phenomenon has arisen since 1979. We should get that one out of the way straight away. However, the problems posed by disparities of wealth now affect our generation, our constituents and the north-west. Therefore, the economic performance of the north-west, coupled with its determination to succeed, is the way forward for us all.
  Even in the House, it is sometimes necessary to restate the obvious. That is doubly so in the case of the north-west due to the remarkable lack of knowledge of the area in some places where considerable investment decisions are made. I hope that it will be helpful to the House to consider a little of the north-west's economic history and show how the base of its economy has changed.
  Traditionally, of course, the area has been dominated by heavy manufacturing industry—textiles, mining, engineering and paper. There was a concentration of textiles, engineering and paper in my constituency. Those traditional manufacturing industries have been in a long-term decline which certainly predates 1979. Indeed, the textile industry has been in difficulties since the turn of the century.
  The reasons for the decline in manufacturing industry in the north-west are not hard to find, and they are almost standard for the rest of the country. They include a decline in markets, poor investment decisions, sometimes poor labour relations, the end of empire and the growth of overseas countries providing more and more of their own manufactured goods. All those factors have affected industry, and employment has declined constantly.
  However, that is the old north-west. People sometimes forget that the land that gave birth to Arkwright, Kay, Hargreaves and Crompton is the same land that gave birth to the chemicals at ICI, to the development of Unilever and the development of the world's greatest glass-making company, Pilkington. The new was beginning to replace the old.
  The other day I listened to an extract from one of Winston Churchill's famous wartime speeches about: fighting on the beaches. In that speech he was referring to the new world at some stage needing to come to the assistance of the old. The analogy with industry is simple. New industries in the north-west are coming to the aid of those who used to be employed in the old industries. The pattern of employment in the north-west is changing.
  Unfortunately, a generation of film and television producers of the 1950s and 1960s has perpetuated the myths of the north-west. While we all enjoy "Coronation Street," and no one would wish to see it disappear from our screens, sadly, down south it fuels an image of the north that can sometimes be dangerous.
  Mr. Tony Favell: My hon. Friend is portraying the north-west painting a proper picture of itself and so encouranging investment and people, but would he dwell on the picture that the Oppostion paint of the north-west, as a down-at-heel part of the country which is dirty and full of unemployed people when that picture is not true in many parts of the north-west? For example, Stockport, which is an industrial town, now has unemployment of 8·8 per cent.
  Mr. Burt: Of course, my hon. Friend is correct. One of the problems faced by the north-west in recent years is the difficult balance between portraying its good side and its bad. It would be wrong to ignore the problems in the north-west. However, laying over-emphasis on those problems paints a rather unfair picture. The balance must be right. Sometimes, for political reasons, Opposition Members overlay the problems, and that is no way forward for the north.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: This point is fundamental to the whole debate about the north-west. In our great cities, the traditional centres, there are pockets of such desperation and economic devastation, which the hon. Gentleman must accept has occurred particularly over the past few years. If he does not begin to approach questions, such as what is to be done with the inner cities, he is ignoring the basic problem of the north-west. What is to be done in those inner-city areas?
  Mr. Burt: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads what I said at the beginning of my speech more carefully. I do not dissent from his comments. However, to concentrate solely on the problems of the inner cities in the north-west is to distort the picture of the north-west completely. I fear that concentration on those problems by Opposition Members and the ignoring of the rest of the development of the north-west gives the wrong picture of the area to those who have the power to make investment decisions.
  We are not an area of the begging bowl. There is a lot going for the north-west, and it is wrong to approach the people who can provide jobs with a begging-bowl mentality. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), I shall return to that theme later, because it is important, but I certainly do not try to ignore the problems of the north-west. As the House should know, I have been open-minded and outspoken about them in the past.
  If the base of the north-west economy is examined, a familiar pattern emerges, as in the rest of the country. Like all manufacturing countries, we have seen a decline in the number of pople employed in manufacturing industry and a consequent increase in the number employed elsewhere. The regional trends publication shows that in 1979 41·2 per cent. of people in the north-west were employed in what might be called traditional manufacturing industries and in construction, compared with 55·7 per cent. Of the population employed in what might relatively be called the service sector. By 1986, those figures had changed, 33·3 per cent. being employed in traditional manufacturing and construction and 63·9 per cent. in what might loosely be termed service industries. Interestingly enough, if those figures are compared even with those for 1985, they reveal an increase in the percentage employed in manufacturing.
  The central point is still the same. We have seen the figures for alternative industries in the north-west grow,
  926
  and we know that the area's industrial and economic base is changing. I shall point to two or three examples in which that is most noticeable.
  The old, surviving manufacturing industries are surviving because they have adapted to change. They make better products, and market them better. They are looking hard at where the products should go, and they have the right image. Two publications show the changing nature of two of our traditional industries. The British paper industry has made major strides since the catastrophes of the early 1980s. It now presents itself in a much better way, and its export and productivity statistics are remarkable. Similarly, the textile industry has moved away from the old-fashioned idea of textiles. Now it is again a major sector, contributing to the British economy and to exports, and it has done a good deal to improve its image and activity.
  It should also not be ignored that traditional manufacturing industry is surviving because of new techniques. It is easily forgotten that new technology is useful in old manufacturing industries. We sometimes seem to imagine that there is a new-tech industry, located somewhere around Reading or Maidenhead, in which thousands of people are employed making computers. But we forget that high-tech then comes into traditional manufacturing industry and keeps it going. We must remember that the old skilled industries now have a balance between the old and the new skills. That is why some of them have survived and prospered throughout a very difficult period.
  As well as the old traditional industries, we have the growth of new industries in our area. The north-west is singularly blessed with such industries, which will provide employment for many years to come. There is aerospace and the nuclear industry. Again, it should not be forgotten, when attacks on the nuclear industry are made from the Opposition Benches, that that industry in all its forms employs many thousands of people in the northwest, and will continue to do so. We have the telecommunications industry, the pharmaceutical industry and the computer industry itself, and there has also been a substantial growth in self-employment. The enterprise centre in my constituency has been working for five years. Each year, about 325 firms have commenced business, employing 400 people per year. Those new firms have a success rate of about 50 per cent. There has been a cheering growth in self-employment throughout the region, as well as in my constituency.
  There has also been an encouraging growth in small business. In 1984, the Conservative authority in Bury opened a small business unit with centralised services. Various firms could come along and grow at their own pace and in their own time. It started with six firms. All 74 units in that building have now been filled. I pay tribute to the hard work of those in the centre who have created that growth. The traditional industries have survived and there are new industries.
  There has also been growth outside the manufacturing sector and an increase in employment in the service sector. There has also been an increase in tourism. The North-West tourist board maintains that the north-west has a great deal to offer. According to the statistics, that is true. The latest figures show that 150,000 people in the northwest are employed in jobs connected with tourism. Between 1984 and 1989 the number of jobs in that sector is expected to grow by 25,000. Total spending on tourism

  927
  in the north-west each year is £580 million; £1·5 million a day is spent on tourism. Furthermore, £150 million comes from overseas. That is a great new development in the north-west.
  In the next fortnight a steam railway will be opened in my constituency. It will run from Bury to Ramsbottom, which is in the north of my constituency. Ramsbottom is developing a small but effective tourist industry. Places that people never thought of as tourist spots have become popular. I note the presence of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott). The so-called music hall joke, "Wigan pier", attractively presented by very good people with very good investment, has become a major tourist spot. I do not know anybody who has returned disappointed from a visit to Wigan pier. We have much to learn from that development. Ramsbottom should be similarly developed. It has connections with Dickens, and it will have one of the finest and longest steam railways in the country.
  Mr. Favell: Is my hon. Friend referring to our hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens)?
  Mr. Burt: I do not know whether it is possible to develop my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) as a tourist attraction. I am sure that many people would like to visit him. He is freely available here on many days of the week. That is why the Strangers Gallery is packed.
  I thank the Government for providing, through the Department of the Environment, a £300,000 grant to develop that steam railway in the north of my constituency.
  A number of factors underpin all these economic changes. One of them is communications. Manchester airport is a major source for the development of the region as a whole. During the past decade its growth has been phenomenal. In 1981 Manchester airport carried 4·7 million passengers. In 1987 it will carry 8·75 million passengers, and by 1995 that figure will rise to 16·1 million. More and more routes are being developed. All hon. Members pay tribute to the work of Mr. Gil Thompson, the managing director of Manchester airport, and to the work of the authority that helped to run the airport for many years. Manchester airport has a key role to play in the development of the north-west.
  There are also many fine motorway links. One cannot move in the north-west without coming across a new motorway. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) found that out a few years ago when a new motorway was constructed almost on his doorstep. The north-west is blessed with a fabulous motorway infrastructure. We also have the 19th century legacy of the railways. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that the rail link between the centre of Manchester and Manchester airport should be constructed as soon as possible. We have noted with concern the development of Stansted and Government assistance to provide a rail link. We hope that the time will soon come when a rail link is built between Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester airport.
  Another major factor that underpins the change in the north-west is education. We have first-rate educational facilities, in particular higher education facilities, in the north-west. It contains the universities of Manchester, Liverpool, Manchester and Salford. There is also the University of Manchester Institute of Science and
  928
  Technology. There is the Manchester Business School and the Liverpool, Manchester, Preston and Stockport polytechnics, all of which perform to very high standards. Both independent and state education are first rate. The north-west's education provision will be of great benefit to the area for years to come.
  As for the changing pattern of our economy, I have dealt with the old image of the area. The major problem is employment, and it will continue to be a problem for some time. It would be foolish to ignore the loss of jobs in the area. We have seen employee numbers fall from about 2,670,000 in 1979 to 2,260,000 in 1986, but it is interesting to note the changes in pattern over the past few years. Between 1979 and 1983, including self-employment, the figures for people who were in work declined from 2,870,000 to 2,526,000. But if one looks at the figures between 1983 and 1986, one finds a net increase in employment from 2,526,000 to 2,530,000. That has been achieved through the growth of the service and self-employment sectors.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: This is stupid nonsense, even by the hon. Gentleman's standards. To talk about a 4,000 increase in employment over the period is a joke. The reality is that the numbers of the self-employed and builders in the north-west, according to the Government's statistics, have declined in real terms. In 1976 14 per cent. of the work force in the north-west was self-employed. In 1986 the figure was 15 per cent. The growth of the job-creating service sector, about which the Government boast, is false. In the north-west we have experienced a loss in jobs. Self-employment and service jobs have declined.
  Mr. Burt: Once again our concern over the dismal picture that is being painted by the Labour party about the north-west has been justified by the words of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). If I had been one of the 4,000 who had got a job between 1983 and 1986 I would have been pleased. The hon. Gentleman missed the point that I was making. I was referring to a considerable drop in employment in our area between 1979 and 1983, which continued an historic pattern, but I was showing that between 1983 and 1986 not only did that fall in employment stop, but it was reversed. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures for the past year he will find that that historic trend has been further reversed, and more people are coming into employment.
  No Conservative Member who represents the northwest tries to gloss over the problems. We know that there has been a lot of unemployment, but I am talking about recent changes and the way forward. On that the statistics are clear. I do not know about the hon. Gentleman's statistics on self-employment, but mine show that in 1976 209,000 people were self-employed in our area, but by 1986 that figure had increased to 276,000. Those are considerable increases, whatever the hon. Gentleman thinks. The pattern of the economy shows a welcome increase in the past few years with regard to employment with a change in the historic pattern of employment ebbing away.
  The vacancy statistics are encouraging. They show that vacancies increased by a third in one year. Our local newspapers are full of new jobs. However, there is the problem of skill shortages. I shall quote from the latest CBI survey on the problem of vacancies and skill shortages. With regard to the north-west, it says:

  929
  "The number of vacancies is increasing and overall unemployment is now falling. However, redundancies are still occurring in manufacturing sectors, although not on the scale experienced in the past. Employment prospects are best in the non-manufacturing sectors.
  "Although skill shortages continue to be reported, they are not on a large scale. The main shortages are of skilled operatives, of plant and project engineers and in computer-related activities."
  We are starting to get to grips with the problems of skill shortages, and that is largely due to the measures that the Government have taken to assist in training.
  I should like to pay tribute to the good work that is being done by jobcentre teams throughout the north-west, particularly in my constituency, which work extremely hard and have a good record for finding people jobs.
  That deals with employment, but I should like to consider the overall picture as seen by the CBI in the Greater Manchester area and regionally. Regionally, the CBI reports:
  "Overall business is good, and the improved situation is expected to be sustained … Recent reports from … the Manchester and Merseyside Chambers of Commerce indicate that there was a steady overall improvement in the performance in the North West region at the end of 1986 and in the first quarter of 1987. There is now a more optimistic view of the industrial and commercial trends and the region's investment performance is improving in both quantity and quality."
  Those words come not from Government sources but from sources outside the Government. They reflect the picture which I have put forward of the changes taking place in the north-west.
  There have been individual success stories all around the north-west in recent years. Just a few years ago, Vickers wondered where its next frigate would come from and worried about labour relations with Cammell Laird at Birkenhead. The back-to-work committee from Birkenhead lobbied north-west Conservative Members here, seeking support for their company because they could not find it elsewhere. They found their works blockaded by strikers and pickets. They were desperate to show that they needed their jobs and could return to work. They knew that if there were not good industrial relations at Birkenhead, the company would die. They pleaded with us about their future. We took their pleas to the Minister. Eventually, Birkenhead won the order for a type 22 frigate because it was known that the workers were determined to remove the bully boys from their midst and produce a good future. Vickers' success was mirrored in Barrow's privatisation. Vickers has become a success story for the north-west and for the Government.
  Mirroring what happened with Vickers, there are examples all around the north-west of manufacturing and service jobs being created. The Manpower Services Commission's publication on trends has a section on company expansion and development. The 1987 winter edition refers to a number of those developments and jobs. Isolated success is no longer the story of the north-west. There is continuing success in many sectors.
  I should like to put my comments in a nutshell. The truth about the north-west is not as the Opposition have often presented it. It is not all doom and gloom. We know that the area has problems, but there are also many patches of success. The task for all of us is to ensure that
  930
  those patches of success spread, especially to deprived areas and other areas that need assistance. I am pleased by the Government's commitment to the inner cities.
  I have had my battles with the Government on employment. I remember a speech which I made in the House, which was subsequently translated into an article for the Tory Reform Group. I resile not one whit from it because I was concerned then about the Government's emphasis on employment and the fact, that they were not getting the messages from the grass roots. I am now less concerned. The Government have listened to some of the arguments and there have been some changes. I know that they do not ignore the pain and problems caused by unemployment in the region.
  I hope that I have made it clear that the north-west is now an area for the development of new and old industries. I hope that I have made clear the importance and influence of new technology in the old industries, of tourism and of growth in the service sector. Lastly, and most important, I hope that I have made clear the need for the north-west positively to put forward its own image. We do not have a begging-bowl mentality. We know that our region has many positive advantages. We appreciate the fact that people, whether from the City or from overseas, invest not through sentiment but for hardheaded reasons. In the north-west, we can provide them with an area where land prices are cheaper, so that they can build and develop their companies on green field sites more cheaply than in the south. We offer them a place where rates are cheaper and where the new community charge will benefit them. We offer them an area where homes are cheaper for their employees and their families. We offer them an area where there is less congestion and where their employees will be happier. We offer them an area where quality of life is second to none and where the costs to their companies are low. We offer them hard-working people committed to a brighter future. We offer them a fine infrastructure and great educational opportunities for their children. We offer them a new north-west.
  My message to investors is not to be put off by the stories of inner-city areas but to come with us to the areas of growth and development in the north-west and, above all, to get in quickly, because the north-west is expanding. It is bringing in new people. There will be a great future. If the companies miss their chance now, they may never get a chance to come back to the fastest-growing and best part of the north-west. If they want opportunities for development they can contact me at the House of Commons. They want to locate in my constituency of Bury, North and the metropolitan borough of Bury. I know that and you know that, Mr. Speaker, and it is about time that those investors in the City knew it as well.
  7.54 am
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: It is almost a tragedy to hear what amounts to a form of economic assassination by Conservative Members who want to ignore the plight of our area. My constituency is still home to the largest concentration of industry in the north-west. I am the first to admit that many firms are still successful, for even in the middle of a Government-induced recession, there is still employment in the depths of despair.
  The fact remains, however, that our manufacturing base is in a difficult condition. When the Government produced figures for the EC recently, they predicted a rise in unemployment in the area to 1990. They also said that

  931
  the problems of ageing infrastructure in the north-west outstripped the available resources and that there was therefore a danger that the infrastructure would continue to worsen.
  The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) talked about Vickers. I found it amazing that he should boast about its success because it was the result of public spending. When public spending is the vehicle of recovery, there is some opportunity for social and economic progress. Many of our industries rely on the public sector, and manufacturing is still the driving force in the local economy.
  The Government, however, have withdrawn money from the electricity supply industry, British rail and the nationalised sector with the result that jobs have gone every week. That being so, I find it difficult to accept the Conservative view of recovery in the north-west. The Central Electricity Generating Board, for example, has not built one new power station during the Government's tenure of office with the result that jobs and skills have been stripped from my community.
  Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman is persisting in describing the north-west as a predominantly manufacturing area built on the public sector. That is no longer true. Does he agree that, in common with manufacturing areas all over the world, there has been a decline in the number of jobs in manufacturing and a consequent rise in other sectors? The hon. Gentleman must concede that there are more jobs in areas other than manufacturing and that the number of new jobs in those industries is growing. The new north-west is composed of traditional manufacturing industry and the new industries of which I spoke. If the hon. Gentleman persists in saying that there is only a hard core of industrial areas dependent on the public sector, he is not painting a true picture of the north-west as a whole. The hon. Gentleman should remember that he in his area is not the only hon. Member who represents the northwest. If he takes a wider view, he will see how wrong he is.
  Mr. Lloyd: None of my colleagues has suggested that the north-west is an exlusively manufacturing area. In 1979, fewer than 1 million of its 2·5 million jobs were in manufacturing. Many of the non-manufacturing jobs relied on manufacturing, however, which is why we have lost nearly 500,000 jobs, some 330,000 of which were in manufacturing. That is a colossal decline, but the tragedy is that those jobs did not have to go. Some went as a result of the workings of the public sector cycle, others went because of the Government's incompetent policies. They almost waged war on manufacturing between 1979 and 1981. Since then, by incompetence, the Government have kept interest rates sky high. Conservative members have spoken of rate increases. We hear much about that. If any Conservative Member wants to talk to people in manufacturing industry and in the service sector about what the costs are in their own industries, they will find that high interest rates are the predominant factor talked about. That is a direct responsibility of the Government.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman said that the Government have declared war on manufacturing industry in the north-west. I have never heard such nonsense. Was it not the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers that shut down the engineering
  932
  industry in not only the north-west, but in the whole of the country for three months in 1979? Was that not declaring war on the industry?
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman suffers from a type of myopia when it comes to the reality of his Government. There have been 330,000 jobs lost forever in the north-west in manufacturing. That was nothing to do with the AEU or with the trade union movement, but everything to do with the Government Front Bench and the sycophantic Back Benchers who are not prepared to fight for industry in the north-west. A figure recently produced by the City of Manchester—although I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will dismiss it because it comes from a source of which he does not approve—shows that venture capital flows into the south-east at 3·5 times the rate it flows into the north-west. That is not because we do not have the skills or the competence but because of the bias of the City of London and the incompetence of the management of capital interests in a region such as ours.
  The hon. Member for Bury, North talked about the begging bowl. I have no begging bowl to hand out. My colleagues and I have talked to industrialists and people such as Lord Weinstock, who is still a leading light in the biggest private company, who told us that he would not invest in the north-west because many of the jobs that his company was now investing in were work for women, and that women in the north-west did not have the nimble fingers necessary for such work.
  Mr. Thurnham: It is nonsense.
  Mr. Lloyd: It is absolute nonsense for the noble Lord to talk in those terms. It demonstrates the incompetence we have in this country, and that is a real part of the problem.
  Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman has related statistics about investment going into other areas of the United Kingdom. What do his colleagues and he intend to do to present a positive image of all the north-west to encourage those investors to come to our area, because simply relating statistics of manufacturing decline and the problems in certain areas is, as I indicated in my speech, not enough. We have much going for us in a positive way in the north-west, about which I have heard little. I have heard nothing from the hon. Gentleman to convince me that he has changed his mind. When will he see that, unless we put forward the best image of the north-west, not glossing over the problems but examining why on a hardheaded, practical basis investors should come to our area we shall never achieve anything.
  Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman is patient I will develop the many things that we can do. There are many things that we ought to do in the north-west. I welcome the injection of money that is coming in through the urban development corporation in Trafford Park, not because I necessarily think that is the right vehicle and the right mechanism for those things to be done, because I do not think that is the case. The money that is finally being put in by the Government has long been sought by those interested in the north-west. At last we have a response from the Government because they recognise the irrelevance of their policies over the past seven or eight years. It was necessary for us to say that, without sizeable public expenditure in those areas, we would not begin to resolve those problems. When we have a Government who

  933
  talk about the inner cities, that is pumping no real money into those areas and that is channeling no money in any targeted way or in any meaningful sense, we have a Government who want the cosmetics of the inner cities but that want nothing to do with the large-scale social and economic problems of those areas. Headlines in local newspapers referred to a recent initiative in my area that saved £100,000 to be pumped into two local government wards in my constituency. In those two wards there are 20,000 people who are to receive that massive cash investment of £100,000, which is £5 per head of population. Conservative Members may think that £5 per head is a huge success for the Government. It actually represents £10 per head for each unemployed person in those two wards. That is the level of investment received from the private sector.
  Mr. Favell: The hon. Gentleman has been saying a great deal about what the people of Brighton, Bournemouth, Bristol and London should be doing for Manchester. What is Manchester going to do for itself? May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the greatness of Manchester was built on the backs of Mancunians and the greatness of Liverpool was built on the backs of Liverpudlians and not on the backs of Brighton, Bristol and Basingstoke? It is nonsense to suggest that there should be more public sector spending in Manchester. Statistics show that Manchester council already spends more per head of population than any other city in the country. Manchester should start setting out its stall and getting back the sort of image that it used to have, which is hard-headed business-like devotion to making brass instead of bleating that the south owes it a living.
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) is a relative newcomer to the north-west and does not fully understand what goes on there. For example, the one thing that Conservative Members always parade as a triumph of north-west ingenuity is Manchester airport. That has been run, virtually since its inception, by the local authority. It is the fastest growing enterprise in the area and it has been run by the public sector, by municipal Socialism. Conservative Members find that difficult to accept. We hear the occasional accolade from the more sensible Conservative Members who accept that the local authority, when given a chance to do such things, does them very well.
  The reality is—Conservative Members cannot shirk this—that when we see the withdrawal of what amounts to £1 million per week from just one local authority, which happens to be one of the bigger local authorities in the north-west, inevitably we see a massive withdrawal of purchasing power from the local economy and we see a downward cycle created that affects service industry, manufacturing industry and so on.
  Manchester, indeed the whole community in the northwest, wants the ability to spend its own money and create it own jobs. That is right and proper. We want the institutions. For example, we want the institutions that have been given to Scotland and funded by the Government. We want a development agency. Scotland, quite legitimately, has the Scottish Development Agency. I do not begrudge Scotland that for one second. However, the Government look at the north-west as a mere colony and are not prepared to let it have such facilities. When
  934
  local authorities such as Manchester and Liverpool make decisions about economic development the Government say that they will truncate that development and prevent the local authorities developing enterprise in their own areas. They do that, ironically, at the expense of the private sector that Conservative Members claim that they support and want to help.
  In economies such as ours the private sector depends on the public sector because there is an inter-relationship. The idea that the private and public sectors operate as wholly independent sectors is not only nonsense, but is completely irrelevant to the sort of economy that we operate.
  The largest private sector company in Britain, GEC, still has a significant involvement in the public sector whether through the railway system, the CEGB, the arms trade or whatever. We heard the row not so long about GEC when the discussion was raging as to whether we had bought from GEC in this country or whether we had bought American technology. Once again, the public sector determined whether the private sector would make a profit. That is the reality of the modern economy. We want a relationship between the public and private sector where they work together.
  Mr. Favell: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the problem. The problem in the north-west is that there are Socialist controlled areas, that believe that the private sector depends on the public sector. In fact, the reverse is true. The public sector depends on the private sector. It depends on the enterprise of private individuals and of private companies, of people who go out and make the money on which the public sector depends. A town's prosperity does not grow out of the town hall. The town hall exists on the back of the prosperity of a town or city and once places such as Manchester and Liverpool, the great Socialist citadels of the north realise that, they will re-install the sort of prosperity from which those towns and cities grew. The prosperity of Liverpool and Manchester come not out of the town halls but out of individual private enterprise. The sooner those cities realise that, the sooner they will get back to where they should be.
  Mr. Lloyd: The reality of the north-west is slightly different. Once again, the hon. Gentleman demonstrated his ignorance.
  The city of Manchester, certainly on its southern edge, relied on Trafford park for its employment. That was the manufacturing base. Trafford park, as the hon. Gentleman probably does not realise, is in the borough of Trafford. Historically, the borough of Trafford was a Conservative-controlled, low rating authority. The borough of Trafford underwent a job shedding, the like of which was never seen in any other parts of greater Manchester, not because of the high rating city of Manchester or the low rating borough of Trafford, but simply the damage that was done to the manufacturing sector. I have seen horrendous levels of unemployment in my part of the city of Manchester and in my part of Trafford. The idea that the hon. Gentleman somehow has the mechanism of private sector development ready to set up market stalls in old Trafford and McDonalds takeaways in Moss Side is a nonsense. Business is starting in Moss Side and Trafford. We welcome that. I welcome it

  935
  when Conservative Members manage to get their Government to eke out the money that will invest in such areas.
  There is no substitute for a real and sensible pattern of public sector investment—a real programme that is organised around the public and private sectors working together to bring in that kind of investment. The private sector in the north-west has failed the north-west. It will continue to fail the north-west if we do not get new investment in new technology on a regular and consistent basis where it is needed. That is not happening. That is why we need the private sector to work with the public sector, and for the public sector to be given the institutions and mechanisms to invest in that area.
  Give us our north-west development agency. Give us institutional financial agencies. Give money to local authorities. Give money to the public sector mechanisms that are prepared to make the economy work. We shall then have a chance. I freely concede what the hon. Gentleman said. There is a lot of good in the north-west—there is a lot of good in my area—and we have to enhance it. To turn away from the real problems that exist in manufacturing and service sectors blinds not only our community but central Government to the needs of our area. It is desperately important that we have a recognition. Let us enhance what we have. Let us enhance what is good there. Let us make sure that what is good there can thrive. It must be accepted by Conservative Members that, even now, it is not always in the state that we would like it to be in. Let us also not kid ourselves that when there are pockets of deprivation, if we are not prepared to make the public sector work, if we are not prepared to allow the public sector to help the private sector to work, we shall not be able to get investment in the areas that need it. We will not create the north-west that we want.
  Opposition Members despair when Conservative Members claim what they want. As things stand, as long as they talk the rhetoric of a rosy future for the north, we shall not get that type of effort from the private and public sectors. A recognition of the real problems is what matters. We do not want simple words, whether they be from the Prime Minister or from anyone else. We want real action that is targeted to the unemployment problem, the need to create skills and the need to create investment in such key areas. That is not yet happening, and the north-west must begin to demand it.
  We shall have the Government for the next four years. We have to work with them. We shall continue to press them not to kid themselves—they have their sycophants on the Government Back Benches—that things are going well in the north-west. The hon. Member for Stockport knows that he has one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the north-west, in his constituency. Nevertheless, without Government targeted action, unemployment in the north-west will not go away. The future of the north-west without the Government doing considerably more than they are now doing, will continue to be the social cancer, the social malaise from which we suffer. Conservative Members will do us all a favour if they press their Government to do more—privately; out of the headlines; we do not mind; simply do it. Without that, the north-west will not have the opportunity to go in the way that we all would want.
  8.15 am
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) on his choice of the performance of the economy of the north-west as the subject for debate and on the excellent way in which he described the growth of the north-west, in contrast to what we heard from the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). I could not disagree more with the hon. Gentleman's comment that the northwest depends upon being spoon-fed by the Government.
  I am very familiar with the turbo-generator industry, and I was working at Trafford Park at a time when I suspect that the hon. Gentleman was still in his pram. I know the industry there and I have worked in the Trafford plant. The future of that industry lies in competing in worldwide markets, not on the pattern of ordering power stations in this country.
  If the Government have not ordered power stations in the past five years, it is because sufficient electricity has been generated by existing power stations. There is no point in building a power station that is not needed. The future of the industry depends upon the needs of the worldwide market, and that is where its success will lie.
  The north-west economy depends upon the performance of individuals and firms which can see their opportunities to develop.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman touching on a fundamental point. When we have a world economy that does not want to order power stations, and a Government who deliberately choose not to order them, what do we do with an industry such as that? Do we say "OK. that industry is finished; it is no longer needed," or do we say, "By the time the 1990s come round we will want to order power stations and we will want those skills and technology, therefore we need to maintain the viability of that industry so that we can produce cheaply and efficiently at home"? The hon. Gentleman talked about world markets, but they have not been there. Unfortunately, that industry has hung on, both in the north-east and in the north-west, but not because of action by the Government.
  Mr. Thurnham: This country's exports would not be at a record level and our share of world trade would not be rising if we were not able to take advantage of new markets that are developing. It is no good looking back to previous markets and imagining that in some way we can fossilise industries which were previously in demand. I am sure that if industries offer the best products they will always find markets for them. We should develop new products for new markets.
  I invite hon. Members and my hon. Friend the Minister to visit Bolton to see what is happening there. Bolton and Bury are linked, because we are in the same travel-to-work area. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North spoke very well about what is happening in Bury. He will be well aware of the changing skyline in Bolton. There is a new mood of confidence developing in Bolton, and it is evident from the skyline.
  The new town centre development is a visible sign of what is happening. We have a £60 million investment based on a £3,250,000 urban development grant. It was the biggest urban development grant of its kind when it was obtained, and it is an example of the leverage that can be obtained by successful partnership between central

  937
  Government, local government and the private sector. I congratulate my noble Friend the Duke of Westminster on the enormous investment that he has made in bringing about this new town centre development, which provides almost 250,000 sq ft of shopping space.
  Bolton is an old-established market centre and that development provides visible evidence of its success. It is part of over £150 million of new investment that is in the pipeline for Bolton and the surrounding area. We have new transport links with the £30 million route 225 to the west, and a new rail link, of which my hon. Friend will be well aware. The Windsor link will provide a through line for the first time from Bolton to London. There is a £30 million investment in that line, in new rolling stock and in a new railway station at Bolton, which contributes to the advantages of the town for new industries.
  I commend to my hon. Friend the Minister the new "Quarterly Economic Review" produced by Bolton district council. It is evidence of the strength and diversity of the economy and it lists some of the inquiries for industrial space and the sorts of industries which are seeking to come to Bolton. The industries vary from curtaining to carpets, cricket to computers, paint to pharmaceuticals and plastics to putty, as well as gas storage, tent manufacture and administrative facilities for a children's charity. We can see the enormous diversity that is the basis of the strength of the economy.
  The hon. Member for Stretford appeared to doubt the growth in self-employment. I draw his attention to a booklet that has just been published by the Conservative Political Centre, based on the community programme schemes in Bolton which I was able to persuade the previous Minister to back. I recommend to the hon. Gentleman "Operation Longstop". He should note the figures for the growth of self-employment in the northwest. It has steadily increased year by year from 214,000 in 1979 to 280,000 in 1986. That is evidence of the way in which new jobs can be provided by people themselves, rather than looking to other employers or to the public sector.
  The review described Bolton as being on the move and said that the most buoyant part of the property market was in small units. In 1986, 700,000 sq ft of property was let, but 70,000 sq ft of that was in units of fewer than 2,000 sq ft. Again, that is evidence of the growing demand by new and small firms. My hon. Friend the Minister will be well aware that Bolton Business Ventures is one of the leading enterprise agencies in the country, and claims to have helped to create more than 700 jobs since it was set up in 1983. I commend to my hon. Friend the work done by that agency to create new jobs.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, in his excellent speech, spoke of the film makers sometimes giving the wrong image of the north. I am pleased to say that there are now signs of the film-making industry developing in the north-west, and it can create an image of what is happening there as part of the new industries arriving in the area.
  Tourism is creating 50,000 jobs a year in the country as a whole. I am pleased that Opposition Members are no longer deriding the tourist industry as a candyfloss industry. It is making the most of our industrial heritage and showing what can be done. Real jobs of lasting value can be created. At the moment, Bolton has a heritage
  938
  centre being built in the Lion Yard, and that will add a feature to the town. One of the best attractions of the north-west is that the people can come to see the old industries actually working, as is evident at Styal Mill.
  Unemployment in Bolton is now at its lowest level for five years. That shows that we are winning the battle to develop the economy, to generate new jobs and to show the town as one where prosperity will increase. I commend the efforts of the Bolton chamber of commerce, which celebrates its centenary this year, in helping to bring that about and showing the town in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North said it must show itself. It must no longer denigrate itself or ask for its future to be dependent on Government handouts.
  It is evident that the future of Bolton and other towns in the north-west is in the hands of the people. They are taking advantage of that, and other people should also come and take advantage while they can. Large properties are still on the market—;some of the old mills have been demolished, but there are still mill spaces that provide economical areas for people who want to move there. However, they will not be available for much longer. I join my hon. Friend in his call to people to come to the northwest to see what can be done and to live in an area which I feel is a much more pleasant area in which to live than the congested areas of the south-east.
  8.24 am
  Mr. Michael Jack: It is not often that one can make an unusual announcement at the beginning of a debate of this nature, but I wish to inform my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and others that the northwest has recently been visited by a man from Mars. Luckily he did not arrive in any form of extra-terrestrial vehicle. Instead, he was the guest of Granada Television as a member of the delegation that it brought to Blackburn as part of its "State of the Region" series.
  I watched the programme with keen interest. The company took a delegation from Slough, included in which was a representative of Mars, the confectionery company. The members of it saw the low-cost housing, the low-cost industrial units and the help that had been given to the area. The reporter then put a microphone under the nose of a man from Mars and asked. "What do you think of it?" He replied, "I never knew that it was like this." The reporter asked, "What should we do in the north-west to try to promote the advantages which you have seen?" He replied, rather irreverently. "Get off your Burns and go and sell it." That was a man from a highly successful company from a highly successful part of the country. He was impressed, and he told us in the north-west to put forward our message.
  I found the message of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) most depressing. I sent out a letter to the industrialists in Fylde asking them to set out the barriers to job creation in the north. I was staggered by the replies that I received. The managing director of a company called Dudley Industries, which produces the air dryers that we see at motorway service areas, wrote,
  "The north-south divide has no relevance to my company. It is simply the competitiveness with which we can produce that will get us the jobs."
  It is that attitude of mind that is so important.
  The hon. Member for Stretford referred to GEC. Perhaps he has not left the Manchester area to observe that GEC has substantial investments in Fylde with its

  939
  specialist mouldings division and in Preston with the traction division. It is necessary to travel around to get to know our region before making comments about where investment will take place.
  I think that our constituents will be impressed that we choose to rise at an early hour to discuss the problems of the north-west. Many of those who are employed by the 3,500 manufacturing companies in Lancashire will be travelling to work now. I have a book entitled "Lancashire at Work," in which the phrase "county of opportunity" is used. That is a much more up-beat, positive message to put forward than that of the hon. Member for Stretford. Fifty of the 3,500 manufacturing companies employ between 500 and 45,000 people. That is not a message of depression.
  It is interesting that earnings in the north-west were the third highest in the United Kingdom in 1986 at £198 per week. That says something about the strength of northwest industry and what it is doing. Value added is an interesting measure that relates to the sophistication of businesses in the region. In other words, how much can we contribute in value to basic raw materials? For the United Kingdom last year, value added per employee in manufacturing industry was £14,052. It was £14,266 in north-west, which took the region ahead of the west midlands, the east midlands and Yorkshre and Humberside. That is a sign of the strength of the region's economic performance.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to certain messages because I believe that the Government still have an important contribution to make in the development and renaissance of north-west industry. I ask them to remember the power of the public pound in terms of purchasing power with companies such as British Aerospace and British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. There is an opportunity for BNFL to receive orders for pressurised water fuel elements for the new power station at Sizewell. There will be new export opportunities. I hope that the Minister will hear his purchasing power in mind.
  Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Jack: I shall not give way. I am sure that my hon. Friend understands that only a short time is available to me.
  I wish to thank the Government for their continued support of the motor industry and their efforts to keep it moving. It is pleasing that over 50 per cent. of United Kingdom car production is produced at home. The spinoffs from help to that national industry affect the northwest. In Fylde, one small company called Sykes Pickavant won the garage tool of the year award. It is a little-known award that may seem to be insignificant but it is an example of how employment has been created by the help that has been given to the motor industry in even the smallest ways.
  When Ministers talk with industry they should also talk to the financial markets. The Guardian Royal Exchange in my constituency is the classic example of the decampment of work down telephone lines, via the company's electronic office, to the company's data processing headquarters in Fylde. I wish that more people in the City would make such a move. It is a relatively easy one and the benefits, highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), of low cost houses and leisure facilities would be an attraction to anyone to get out of the overcrowded south-east.
  940
  I make a special plea for those parts of the north-west which are benefiting from tourism, but which still have high seasonal levels of unemployment. With regard to the Fylde coast, stretching from Fleetwood through to Blackpool, will the Minister give serious consideration to restoring its assisted area status? The Peel industrial estate, phase one, was fully let when that facility was available. However, now that assisted area status has been removed, phase two of the development of the industrial estate is struggling. I ask the Minister to reconsider sympathetically the Fylde coast.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: A Tory begging bowl.
  Mr. Jack: I am not begging. I am making a request for consideration, and I know that the Minister will take greater note of the comments of my hon. Friends and myself than those from the Opposition Benches.
  I wish to pay a compliment to a Cinderella industry that does not get discussed often—produce pre-packing. Produce pre-packing reflects the fact that, in Lancashire., we have the second largest amount of grade 1 agricultural land in the country. That land produces some splendid crops and they are packed by companies, such as L.O Jeffs, which is part of Northern Foods, and has a turnover of £16 million. That company, through its managing director and its entrepreneurial spirit, has shown that the natural advantages of the north-west, the locational advantages of the north-west, entrepreneurial spirit reacting to the needs of the major supermarkets and innovation are key elements in creating a company that started with a turnover of £5,000 after the war and now has a turnover of £16 million and employs 450 people.
  That is the type of success story that I believe we should be promulgating throughout the north-west. I trust that the Minister will not just consider horticulture as part of agriculture. Horticulture is not party to the problems of the common agricultural policy. Horticulture provides a real opportunity for the north-west to exploit its natural advantages and create jobs.
  8.32 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): I welcome the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) in highlighting the performance of the economy of the north-west. I represent part of the north-west and the red rose county of Lancashire and I am pleased that my hon. Friend has had the opportunity to raise this matter.
  I was delighted by the support that was given by my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, North-East ( Mr. Thurnham) for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and for Stockport (Mr. Favell). That support comprehensively saw off the speech of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) who adopted what we have come to expect as the traditional Labour approach to these matters. I believe that it is about time that the Labour party moved into the 20th century and realised that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde rightly said, the north-west needs to be talked up and sold.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North has already said that there is a great deal of good news that needs to be told with conviction if the extensive assets of the north-west are to be capitalised upon with increasing effectiveness. The continuing upswing in the economy as a whole provides the region with particular opportunities.
  The north-west, with its broadly based manufacturing and commercial activities, is well placed to tackle the new

  941
  market opportunities at home and abroad. The United Kingdom economy is in its strongest position for years and the north-west is sharing in this economic resurgence that has been stimulated by Government policies of the past few years. We believe that the talents and skills of the individual can be released to create new wealth by adding value and finding new markets. Those policies are now paying dividends as output, productivity and profitability rise in the north-west in line with the rest of the country.
  Inevitably, over the past two decades, employment in manufacturing has had to decline as a proportion of total employment in all major industrialised countries. In the late 1970s, overmanning and low productivity were especially prevalent in the United Kingdom. Therefore, with the onset of a world recession, which was not just confined to this country, there was bound to be a reduction in the numbers employed in companies that were aiming to survive. The north-west's manufacturing industry had to shed substantial numbers as a consequence, as we all know.
  However, we need to see that in a wider perspective. Unemployment persists in all major EEC countries, but in the north-west new jobs are being created in the service industries through business start-ups and self-employment. The rate of unemployment is, therefore, declining. In June 1986 it stood at 14·6 per cent. and now it is down to 13·3 per cent. Overall, we do the region a great disservice if we fail to acknowledge that the north-west has successfully been creating a great many new jobs.
  It is the Government's view that real economic growth can be sustained in the north-west, and elsewhere, only through the enterprise culture. The enterprise allowance scheme has, for example, done a great deal to encourage the growth in self-employment. In Manchester, for example, more than 4,000 people are now running their own businesses with the aid of the scheme.
  At the same time, this large region retains a formidable range of major companies, underpinned by networks of smaller firms. Outside the south-east the north-west contributes the most in terms of GDP manufacturing output and employment to the United Kingdom as a whole. Over three quarters of the Financial Times top 100 companies are represented in the north-west. Companies from abroad have come to the region, liked what they found, and invested on a permanent basis.
  As my hon. Friends have said, the region has an unrivalled transport network and the only international gateway airport outside London. Its highly skilled work force is better suited to advanced industrial activities than almost anywhere else in the world. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North said, in the north-west we have the largest campus in western Europe, encompassing the universities of Manchester and Salford, the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, and various polytechnics.
  However, I know that, despite those strengths, much of the region's industry has had to go through a major process of rationalisation over a protracted period. As part of that adjustment process, successive Governments have made regional financial assistance available. The northwest is receiving more of this type of assistance than any other English region. It has received £113 million in regional development grant for 1986–87 and £19 million in regional selective assistance in the same period.
  942
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde made the case for the Fylde coast and Blackpool, and as one who lives not a million miles from the area, as he well knows, I am sympathetic to the points that he has made. However, at this stage, I see no reason to change the map with the travel-to-work areas considered as he has referred to them.
  The Merseyside development corporation was set up by the Government in 1981 to revive a depressed area of Liverpool. The corporation has spent in excess of £100 million. The private sector has responded to that, and the results are there for all to see. Indeed, only yesterday, on a visit to Liverpool, I was able to see a great deal of the tremendous work that has been done there. Liverpool successfully mounted the country's first international garden festival in 1984 which gave a lot of people in the north-west and other parts of the country a great deal of pleasure. The corporation also managed to restore the Albert dock warehouses, which is one of the finest groups of historic buildings in the country. I recommend anyone to go to see it because it is the most marvellous attraction. Partnership with the private sector is providing high-quality commercial development.
  I recently had the opportunity of looking round the Salford quays project where an extensive derelict area is being transformed by commercial development, following Government funds to reclaim the infrastructure of the site. Again, it is well worth seeing the transformation that is taking place.
  Back in Liverpool, the Wavertree technology park, which again I saw yesterday, has been created from 60 acres of derelict land with the help of a £6 million reclamation grant. At Speke, there is a proposal for Baltic Developments to colloborate with English Estates to develop yet another derelict site, which will eventually create 4,000 new jobs.
  In Manchester, the Government have set up an urban development corporation at Trafford park, where, once more, Government help with infrastructure improvements is confidently expected to lead to about £500 million of new investment and up to 16,000 new jobs.
  Even more recently, a private sector initiative has been announced to redevelop the Prince's and Waterloo docks in Liverpool with an investment of over £300 million, creating jobs for an estimated 5,000 people. Such expressions of confidence give me encouragement for the future of the north-west. Recently, announcements were made about setting up task forces in Preston and Rochdale to focus help on the local communities' attempts to restore pride, initiative and success to those deprived areas.
  However, I must stress that we see the future performance of the north-west economy as relying at the end of the day on the enterprise of companies and individuals, not on Government intervention. We are trying to release the real potential and entrepreneurial energies of people in the north-west by creating an environment where they see genuine incentives for individual effort. I wish that some local authorities in the area could do more to recognise the importance of economic development. A crippling rates bill in some areas does not help companies to create jobs.
  I emphasise yet again that we wish to co-operate with local authorities, not to confront them in the context of our inner-cities initiative. It was, therefore, instructive to go to Salford, as I did and meet the council which is cooperating in a big way. At the launch of the task-force initiative in Preston the Labour-controlled council made

  943
  it clear that it wishes to co-operate, and it is doing so. That is all to the good. It is much better to co-operate and take advantage of what is happening than to have a policy of confrontation and to refuse to accept that the Government's initiatives can be successful.
  There are many signs that the economy in the northwest region is becoming stronger and that it has emerged from the recession in the early 1980s in much better shape to face the years ahead. Overall business confidence is strong and there is a general expectation that recent improvements will he sustained. The rate of investment has increased. The Ford motor company has recently spent £87 million on its Halewood plant in Merseyside. Again. I had the opportunity to visit that plant yesterday. Despite the history of the plant in years gone by when it featured largely in the public prints and the media for its problems, it has developed extremely well. There is a lesson in that for Ford and the rest of Merseyside. It has made achievements in personnel, industrial relations, investment and the quality of its products. I recommend all hon. Members to go and see what has been achieved by Ford.
  Nabisco is investing more than £25 million in its biscuit factory at Aintree. Philips Dupont Optical is investing heavily in a new compact disc plant at Blackburn. In Workington, British Alcan Aluminium has recently announced a major modernisation of its high-duty aluminium extrusion plant. Many hon. Members will know how pleased I am that the British aerospace industry has had a successful year in the region not just with the major companies, but with the various supporting companies which play such a large part. I know how much my hon. Friends appreciate that.
  Equally, British Nuclear Fuels, an important company, has done well. Its future might have been threatened if the Labour party had come to power, but not with the return of the Conservative Government. I know how pleased it is that things are going well and how successful and important the Springfield site is, which is located in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde and employs some of my constituents.
  At the same time, we have had difficulties in the motor industry. I know full well the particular problems of Leyland Bus and Leyland Truck, now Leyland DAF, how they have faced those difficulties and are now on the road to greater profits and security. Other high technology industries are equally vigorous in the area. Both ICL and Ferranti are respected worldwide as companies whose technology is as advanced as any of their international competitors.
  Many companies in the more traditional sectors are also showing that it is possible to compete effectively against all corners by a combination of good management, marketing and timely investment in the latest manufacturing technologies. Coats Viyella is now spearheading a resurgence of the textile industry and Coloroll has become a major force in the home furnishing sector.
  The service sector is also buoyant. Manchester is the biggest financial centre outside London. More than 40 international, foreign and merchant and other banks are
  944
  represented in Manchester, including three major international banks that have very recently come to the city. As hon. Members have said, Manchester international airport is growing rapidly, handling at present between 8 million and 9 million passengers a year. I cannot forgo the opportunity to mention in glowing terms the albeit smaller success that is brewing for Blackpool airport, so crucial to the Fylde coastal area, which often gets forgotten in the consideration of aviation activities in the north-west. I hope that that airport will continue to develop successfully.
  The north-west has forged an increasingly effective regional policy in Inward which is promoting the region as an excellent location for inward investment. It is working closely with English Estates in the north-west to ensure that suitable locations are available for overseas companies to assess.
  After what has been, even at this early hour, a sparkling debate, with many hon. Members putting the case for the north-west and arguing that the region has a lot going for it which perhaps other people do not appreciate, I recognise that a great many challenges still lie ahead, particularly in old urban areas where we must focus the experience and resources of the wider business community on identifying new market opportunities which, with imagination and determination, can attract new enterprises and generate additional employment.
  I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde who, in his maiden speech not so long ago, used the expression directed at business men and others in the country to "Think North-West". That is extremely important. Talking down the north and the north-west does not help our prospects. We have a great deal going for us and we should make people realise our strengths, not our weaknesses. We are no different from other parts of the country in terms of the problems that face us. However, we want to ensure that people are aware that the north-west has an enormous amount going for it. People should come to us not only for communications reasons, but because the region is ideally located. I moved to the area 11 years ago and I would not move away for all the tea in China. It is a successful and attractive part of the country which should have more attention.
  I believe that with the right approach the public and private sectors can work together to build on the natural strengths of the region and its people and bring real prosperity. In the long run, the health of the economy in the north-west must depend on giving the people who live there the opportunity to exercise their natural talents for entrepreneurialism, industry and commerce. If we can create the right conditions in which interprise can flourish, I know that the north-west will have a strong and prosperous future.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North on raising this subject for debate. I hope that his constituents and the constituents of other hon. Members who are present today will realise how much we care about the north-west and how important the north-west is to the future policies of the Government.

  Tripartite Commission for the Restitution of Monetary Gold
  8.47 am
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: I offer my generous thanks to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the previous Conservative speakers for allowing me a little more than the five minutes I would have had had the previous debate run its full length. If my debate had taken place in a genuine sense, it would not have been related simply to the title that I have had to use, but would have referred to what is to happen to the remaining 7 tonnes of gold looted by the Nazis in the last war from the treasure chests of Europe and currently held in the Bank of England and the United States Federal Reserve, and when.
  I understand that there are some 7,136 kg—approximately 7 tonnes—of gold, valued at Friday's gold price at about $100 million. I have never been able to understand why part of the gold is across the Atlantic. There is only one claim on that gold, that of the Albanian Government for about 2,400 kg. That leaves some 4,600 kg, almost 4·5 tonnes, of gold unclaimed and unused.
  It was not my intention to develop the argument about the Albanian gold as a central issue. I intended to refer to it only in passing. I make it clear that I have no interest to declare other than curiosity, which arose after I talked to Ian Sayer, the author of "Nazi Gold", published in 1984. His book is essentially about the theft of gold from the German National Reserve in 1945. But some of that gold would have been destined for the body to be set up by the victorious allied powers—the tripartite commission referred to in the title of the debate. The commission's task was to distribute the gold stolen by the Nazis as restitution to countries in proportion to their respective losses through looting or wrongful removal to Germany. The tripartite commission did not make up the pool of gold, and it cannot be held responsible for any gold that it did not receive. That is another story altogether.
  The commission, as records show, was set up under the 1946 Paris agreement on reparations. I do not believe that the authors of the eight short paragraphs, A to G, that make up part III of the agreement, relating to monetary gold, could have conceived in their wildest dreams that 41 years later the tripartite commission would still be in operation, and there would still be a pool of gold. The commission's function relates solely to the gold. It reminds me of the telling phrase used by Sir James Callaghan in 1979, during an exchange in the House about the Blunt affair, when he said that it was like the rustle of dead leaves.
  Over the years much of the gold has been restored to its rightful owners, the last large shipment being of about 18 tonnes to the Czechs in 1982. I do not know what the total pool ever was. The tripartite commission works in secret, and I doubt that it will welcome today's parliamentary searchlight—or tiny spotlight—on its workings. I should like the Minister to tell me at some time, perhaps in correspondence, why it works in such secrecy. I do not know whether annual reports are made to anyone, but I know that the commission corresponds only with Governments, because from time to time inquiries are made to it about checking its records on the delivery of specific consignments of gold.
  946
  In short, the tripartite commission is an instrument of Government, the three commissioners answering to their respective Governments. We have had several commissioners over the years. At one time I expressed an interest in the expenses of the commission, which it obtains as a first charge on the pool of gold. That was a by-product of my inquiries. Late last year the Minister's predecessor, who is now at the Home Office, promised to check on the matter for me, but in March this year he finally wrote to me saying:
  "We cannot get the permission of our fellow Commissioners to release the information you requested".
  The Minister kindly offered me another chat at the Foreign Office, following the one in March 1985 which the Prime Minister had arranged for me. However, I took the view then that after I had waited so long and had had protracted correspondence with the Prime Minister on the matter, it should have an airing in the House of Commons. It is all taking too long, in too much secrecy. It is about time that we put as much as possible of the second world war behind us.
  I asked my first parliamentary question on the matter in May 1984. Between then and last Friday, the value of the gold pool increased by $40 million. I assume, therefore, that the commission's expenses have been met from that increase.
  I am aware, from several exchanges with the Prime Minister and from meetings with Foreign Office officials, that the Government would like to settle the Albanian question, because that would release the rest of the gold for distribution. The Albanian question is tied up with matters which I would not dream of going into now, but which relate to the Corfu channel incident in 1946, when 44 British seamen and officers lost their lives after the mining of two ships. The Albanians will not pay the International Court of Justice claim until they get their gold, and the International Court of Justice has said that they should get the gold. It is a question of the chicken and the egg that is holding up the distribution of the other 4·5 tonnes of gold. That is why I felt that the issue should be raised.
  I made a suggestion, which the Government have considered. Our claim against the Albanians is for less than £1 million in 1946 figures, which is very little compared with the value of the gold that the Albanians will receive from the tripartite commission. It would be quite easy to suggest taking it out before it had passed across. That suggestion has been considered, but it is not possible. One of the main reasons is that the French will not allow it. The French have good diplomatic relations and, as I have reminded Ministers, damned good trading relations, with Albania, which serves to keep out the British competition. That is partly what concerns me—that the stalemate of our present position could affect our trade.
  It is a simplistic view, and I put it very briefly to the Minister. I shall send to him the speech that I would have made, so that we can discuss some of the questions that I ask in it.
  The Prime Minister told me that the relatives of those who were killed in the Corfu channel incident would probably not understand the action, which seemed to be cutting corners in an effort to reach a settlement. The dependants will not gain from a settlement of the dispute, even though the Foreign Office has changed its language over the years—from a flat refusal, to the line that the

  947
  dependants are unlikely to benefit. I believe that they ought to benefit, because at that time the compensation was unfair. Wartime allowances were made for a peacetime incident, for which the allowances are different.
  The Italians have placed a veto on a tripartite commission consisting of the French, the British and the Americans, simply because of the relationship between the Albanians and the Italian banks, where the gold was deposited, before the war. It is almost a quadripartite commission.
  I want to place just a few of my questions to the Minister on the record. I do not intend to speak until 9 o'clock; that would be grossly discourteous to him. Discounting the Albanian gold, I want to know why the balance of the gold has to be held by the tripartite commission until the Albanian issue is settled and there are no more claims. Also, what is the precise weight of the remaining gold, excluding the Albanian gold, and it current value? Are my figures correct? Is the gold physically separated and labelled in the Bank of England, or is it just an accountancy matter, to keep it out of the reserves?
  Does the Minister know, or do the Government know, how much of that gold has been used over the years for expenses, or is it a fact that the tripartite commission will tell nobody about this—even the allied Governments who form the commission? Is there any problem over interest claims on the United Kingdom award by the International Court of Justice against Albania, or is there a dispute about the value of the gold, which has vastly increased over the years? It was $35 an ounce in the 1940s; it is now between $440 and $446 an ounce.
  Are the claimant countries all aware that the tripartite commission is holding gold that ultimately will be distributed to the claimant countries? Six Common Market countries, and also Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Jugoslavia will share the remaining gold after the disbursement to Albania. What, if any, steps are being taken to inform the recipients of the procedure that will be used for the final distribution? If there are none, are there any plans to do so?
  I have two final questions, one of which relates to a parliamentary answer in April 1987. Why is it not possible to state now what procedures will be used for the final distribution? Are the procedures yet to be decided by the tripartite commission'? I referred in my parliamentary question to the fact that they had not been fixed. Does this mean that the procedures that were adopted for the earlier distributions of gold—which probably amounted,
  948
  according to one private estimate, to 250 million tonnes—are to be varied? If that is so, why? Why is it not to be simply a pro rata percentage of the claim that was met by the commission in the first place?
  Finally, will the 30-year rule on the official papers run from the date of the Albanian settlement and the final distribution by the tripartite commission, or will they be disclosed immediately, given that the whole issue has now lasted for more than 40 years? Indeed, will such papers ever be released?
  8.57 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for allowing me three minutes in which to deal with this question, which has bedevilled various individuals for the last 41 years. It is absolutely typical of the hon. Member that, his attention having been caught by this interesting matter, he should have pursued it consistently and thoroughly.
  In the short time that is available to me, I cannot deal with all the questions that the hon. Member has asked. I undertake to write to him, to comment on his questions and to deal with the full text of the speech that he would have made, had he had time to make it. I shall try to be as helpful as I can in my answers. Having pursued the matter over the past few years. he will be aware of the very severe constraints under which the Government operate in dealing with answers to these questions.
  The commission consists of the United Kingdom, the United States and France. The commissioners are the respective commercial councillors in the relevant embassies in Brussels. They meet from time to time as and when the meetings become necessary.
  The amount that is currently held by the commission is some 7,000 kg. Once the Albanian portion has been delivered the residue will be handed to the various local original claimant countries in proportion to their earlier allocation. The procedures to be used when this time arrives have not been established but will be determined by the tripartite commission. The twin problems of the gold allocated to Albania that is held in the custody of the tripartite commission and the payment by Albania of the Corfu channel claim have bedevilled relations between the United Kingdom and Albania and have bedevilled efforts to try to wind up the tripartite commission.
  It being Nine o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  Dyslexia
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
  9 am
  Mr. David Amess: Dyslexic or not dyslexic, that is the question. At least, it is a question that is posed by many parents who are desperately concerned about the progress that their offspring are making at school.
  I shall not waste time by discussing whether the Department of Education accepts that there is such a thing as dyslexia; I shall assume that it does.
  Many right hon. and hon. Members are concerned about this matter. I am delighted to note the presence of the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) is present and I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, during the debate. Many hon. Members have contacted me about this debate, including the hon. Member for Bolton, South-West (Mr. Sackville), who also wishes to catch your eye briefly. My hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame Peggy Fenner) has a related constituency problem. She hoped to be here this morning and I know that it is a subject that she wishes to take up with the Minister in due course.
  Some 30 years ago I was a child with special learning difficulties. I fully appreciate how lucky I was to be identified as such a child and have the problem dealt with quickly. At the age of five I was apparently known as "Double Dutch". I had a very bad stutter and could not make the sound "ST" and "TH" and I needed my sister to act as my interpreter.
  I attended St. Anthony's school in Forest Gate and sat in a class of about 50 children. My teacher, Miss Grey, asked to see my mother after school and explained to her that she thought that I had special learning difficulties.
  For about three years I went to a speech therapist and the dentist fixed me up with braces on my teeth. If today I am able to communicate it is due to the dedication of that teacher and the provision that I was afforded.
  For 18 months I taught at a junior mixed school, St. John the Baptist in Bonner Road, Bethnal Green. I specialised in teaching children who were described as ESN. They often turned out to be the most unruly children in classes and unfortunately were all lumped together, but I did my best under difficult circumstances.
  Dyslexia is a special learning difficulty that results in a specific and persistent difficulty with reading, spelling, written prose and sometimes arithmetic. There is a discrepancy between the child's literary skills and his intelligence and abilities in other spheres. It occurs in spite of adequate educational provision and is independent of socio-cultural background. In addition to difficulties with the written language the individual may also have difficulties with orientation, time, short-term memory, sequencing, auditory or visual perception and motor skills.
  There is a danger that some parents who feel that their children are not making progress will automatically assume that their child is dyslexic. I Would not wish to be part to an outbreak of dyslexia throughout Essex or the country. My hon. Friends and I fully understand parents' anxieties about their children not making the progress their parents expect. I willingly pay tribute to the work of
  950
  the British Dyslexia Association for the way in which it has tried to help parents who have experienced difficulties in obtaining adequate educational provision for their children. I have had the honour of being made the first president of the Essex Dyslexia Association which was formed to assist parents with information on how to get the right help for the children.
  As we all know, the Education At 1981 requires local education authorities to provide for proper assessment of children. That procedure can take a long time. We have already experienced some unfortunate delays in Essex and in my constituency of Basildon. After the assessment stage, the child must have a statement of his disability drawn up. From the time of the recognition of the problem to the final statement of disability, over two years may have passed. To alleviate some of the problems, an informal assessment can be made, but if the child shows signs of disability, he must go on to a formal assessment so that he can have a statement made. Even after that, it can often prove difficult to get adequate help for him.
  I pay tribute to Essex county council and its education department. They are trying to provide education in difficult circumstances in the largest county in the country and to cope with ever-changing needs. However, I shall ask them to do more for children with special learning difficulties. At the moment, parents in Essex have to hope that a place is available for their child in a boarding school in another county or, if their child has not been diagnosed behaviourally disturbed as well as afflicted with a learning disability, they must be content with remedial teachers working with the child a few hours a week. Remedial teachers, however, are not necessarily trained in the methods of multi-sensory programmes used to assist dyslexic children to learn.
  Because of the delays in assessments and statements and in locating proper facilities for teaching, a child may be almost ready to leave school before adequate training has been found. There is a clear need in Essex for more provision for special education for those with learning disabilities. Although I would not wish such children to be labelled "different", with may cases there is little alternative than to provide special tuition in a separate school.
  I particularly welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), who has a special interest in this matter. I should have thought that there was a strong case for Essex county council to turn one of the schools which, unfortunately, had to close because of falling numbers into a centre for the provision of intensive tuition for chidren with special educational needs. Such an arrangement would surely make sense from an educational and a financial point of view. Naturally, I would be particularly delighted if the centre were sited near my constituency of Basildon and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point.
  It is difficult to know how many children are affected by learning disorders, as the assessment/statement process includes all ranges of physical handicaps. When children with physical handicaps are evaluated, it is often easier to assess their needs and adequate provision is more easily arranged. I ask for those with learning disabilities to be given the same consideration and opportunities as other children. When a dyslexic person takes a driving test, if he presents the evaluator with a note saying that he is dyslexic, his test will be arranged to suit his condition and circumstances. Essex university's open university

  951
  programme will make special provision for dyslexic people. However, I am concerned that few dyslexic people will reach the stage where they seriously consider university education, because they believe that the education they have already received is adequate. I believe that there are nowhere near enough teachers who are trained in regard to special learning difficulties.
  Mr. Tom Sackville: I have a particular interest in this subject because we have a dyslexia institute at Horwich in my constituency where there are skilled teachers. The institute is for the children of parents who can afford to pay to have their children specially coached. Children who are referred to the education authority as dyslexic are not taught in that specialist manner. Whether it is a matter of teachers or psychologists getting their act together I am not sure, but I know that there is an injustice and that dyslexic children in my constituency are not getting the help that they deserve.
  Mr. Amess: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention and support what he says.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has visited my constituency and seen some of the excellent work that is being done in some schools there, will encourage local education authorities to release teachers for training in this important area. If local education authorities put a programme for training teachers into effect immediately, I should like my hon. Friend to tell me whether there would be enough staff to meet the needs of children. Does the Department intend to have remedial teachers sufficient to meet children's needs in a certain number of schools, does it intend to release dyslexic children for private tuition for which the local education authority will cover the cost, or does it intend education authorities to set up their own units which dyslexic children can attend full or part-time according to need?
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he think that it would be sensible to enable dyslexic children to take examinations by having the questions read to them by specially trained teachers or a tape recording? Now. they may be able to pass an examination but cannot read the questions.
  Mr. Amess: I am grateful for that intervention. My initial reaction is that I have no objection to that. We have oral French examinations and an oral part of the English examination already.
  I am not entirely convinced that this important subject has been given enough attention. I draw on my own experience 30 years ago when I was one of the lucky children. I hope that, after this debate, others will be given extra help.
  9.12 am
  Sir Bernard Braine: I am sure that the House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) for raising the subject of dyslexia with such sensitivity and understanding.
  It is high time that the plight of children who have a normal intelligence quotient but who suffer from learning difficulties which have grown worse because they were not identified early enough—despite pleas from their parents—was properly examined by the authorities.
  Two cases have been brought to my attention recently by frustrated parents. These suggest that the Essex
  952
  education authority is failing in its statutory duty to ensure that such children receive their right under the Education Act 1944 to be educated according to their needs. One reason is that no directive is given to teachers to identify such children early and to refer them without delay to an educational psychologist. Essex does not seem to recognise—and I am speaking more bluntly than did my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon—that special teaching is required for dyslexic children and that to lump them together with other under-achievers in what was called before the 1981 Act a school for educationally sub-normal children is utterly wrong and should be changed.
  One child in my constituency has been right the way through the system without any help. He is now 16. He is intelligent, he is capable of verbal reasoning, he understands his condition and he can converse sensibly, but he has been turned out educationally backward because of the absence of spcial teaching that only properly qualified teachers can provide. It is a disgraceful state of alloirs and I wonder how many more children are affected.
  Another child in my constituency has an above average IQ. He needs what is called a multi-sensory programme, of which there are a number of variations, which can be geared to individuals. Nothing like that is provided in Essex. There is a complete failure so far on the part of the local education authority to understand the problem. Intervention takes place only when a child becomes so frustrated and his behavioural problems become so distressing that he has to be sent away outside the county to a boarding school, at great expense to the ratepayers. That is madness and it should stop. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take the matter seriously and to put in hand steps to improve the situation.
  The time has come for a directive to local education authorities. I hope that heed will be paid to the practical suggestions that were made by my hon. Friend. There is a great deal of sense in what my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) said only a few moments ago. These children deserve a much better deal than they have been getting.
  9.16 am
  Mr. David Wilshire rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Does the hon. Member have the agreement of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and the Minister to intervene? I gather that he does.
  Mr. Wilshire: I thank the House for allowing me to intervene without giving notice. It was brought to my attention overnight that an institute based in Staines in my constituency specialises internationally in training teachers as well as helping children. It trains teachers to teach dyslexic children in ordinary state schools, and it has now launched an appeal for £1,500,000.
  The best way of helping people is for the Department to contribute to that appeal, rather than to set up another training scheme. That institution has an international reputation, is visited by presidents, royalty and celebrities and is supported by charitable contributions. If the House wishes to make progress in the training of teachers so that children do not have to be sent away, this institute in Staines can help. Therefore, I wonder whether the Minister will see if the Department can support that appeal.
  9.18 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Dunn): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on his superb election victory in Basildon recently and on his success in obtaining the Adjournment debate this morning on a subject of long-standing interest and concern to the House, and to the parents of children with specific learning difficulties all over the country. My hon. Friend has shown a particular concern for children with a range of special education needs and learning difficulties. No one could fail to be moved by the account that he gave of his own experiences over 30 years ago.
  I open my response to this short but important debate by trying to dispel a myth—that the Department of Education and Science and its Ministers do not recognise dyslexia as a problem. The Government recognise dyslexia and recognise the importance to the education progress of dyslexic children, their long-term welfare and successful-function in adult life, that they should have their needs identified at an early stage. Once the assessment has been made—and I note the points made by my hon. and right hon. Friends today—the appropriate treatment should be forthcoming.
  I know that there are some local education authorities, which as a matter of policy, refuse to accept the word dyslexia. They argue that there are very few children who present a common pattern of dyslexic symptoms. Certainly there is no one characteristic which defines a child as dyslexic or not dyslexic. There is a range of criteria, and a child who shows a particular pattern of difficulties may be termed dyslexic. Whether or not the term is used, the important thing is to be sure that something is being done about the problem.
  So, what are we doing? Perhaps I can best start by using the definition which the noble Lord Ritchie used when introducing a debate on this subject in another place earlier this year. He said that dyslexia is a disorder in children who, despite conventional classroom experience, fail to attain the language skills of reading, writing and spelling commensurate with their intellectual abilities. That definition was made by the World Federation of Neurology as long ago as 1968, and some experts have subsequently added to that definition difficulty in handling figures.
  The House will know that the issue has been considered by a number of committees who have advised successive Secretaries of State. In the light of this advice, the Department of Education and Science takes the view that there are children with severe and long-term difficulties in one or more areas whose general ability is at least average and for whom distinctive special arrangements are necessary. This normally takes the form of good remedial teaching in ordinary schools. The term "specific learning difficulties" seems to provide the best description of these children's problems, since it denotes the existence of an educational problem for which help is required, but without implying any definite cause or exclusive category.
  Under the Education Act 1981, which came into force on 1 April 1983, local education authorities are under a duty to assess the needs of those children brought to their attention as having, or possibly having, special educational needs. Parents too, may ask for an assessment of their child's educational needs, and local education authorities must comply with the request unless it is, in
  954
  their opinion, unreasonable. Such educational needs, of course, include dyslexia, as well as blindness, deafness and physical handicaps among other things. I should add that health authorities also have a duty to inform local education authorities of any child under the age of five who may have special educational needs. Those duties cover children with all forms of hearing difficulties, including those associated with dyslexia. What is more important, the 1981 Act requires local education authorities to ensure that the needs of children who have been identified as having special educational need are met.
  Section 1 of the Act defines a child who has special educational needs as a child who has a learning difficulty which calls for special educational provision to be made for him. The section goes on to define a "learning difficulty" by reference to a child with a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children of his age, or one who has a difficulty which either prevents him or hinders him from making use of educational facilities of a kind generally provided in school, within the area of his local education authority for children of his age. Thus, special educational provision is defined as educational provision which is additional to, or otherwise different from, the educational provision made generally for children of his age in schools maintained by the LEA concerned.
  The Warnock committee estimated that up to 20 per cent. of school children might have some kind of special educational need at some time during their school days. It does not, however, follow that all 20 per cent. will be the subject of a statement made and maintained under the procedures in sections 5 and 7 of the 1981 Act. That is necessary only for those children whose educational needs are such as to call for the LEA to determine the provision which needs to be made for them.
  The provisions of the Education (Special Needs) Regulations 1983 made under the Act are perhaps less well known than the provisions of the Act itself. Under the regulations, it is required that the people making assessments of children are qualified educational psychologists. All such educational psychologists will have been teachers before taking up the specialism. Also included must be the advice of a qualified medical practitioner and of the headteacher. Consequently, the people involved in making assessment are, or I truly believe should be, well qualified to reach the right decision.
  There will be complaints that different authorities will make different provision for children presenting with broadly the same range of problems. Let me emphasise again that LEAs are under a duty to make available appropriate provision to meet the needs of all children identified as having special educational needs, whether or not they are the subject of a statement. The Department's circular 1/83 indicates that a statement is appropriate for all those children who have complex learning difficulties, as well as in all cases where a child is based in a special unit attached to an ordinary school, a special school, a non-maintained special school or an independent school approved by the Secretary of State for the purpose. On the other hand, formal procedures are not appropriate where ordinary schools make special educational provision from their own resources in the form of additional tuition or remedial provision, nor in normal circumstances for those children who attend a reading centre or a unit for disruptive pupils.

  955
  That is all well-known to hon. Members, but, in response to the comments made by my right hon. and hon. Friends, I shall bring to the attention of the Secretary of State the points that they have urged upon us in terms of direct action. If there is anything that we can do to tighten up any of the procedures that lie before us in the form of statutory or legal requirements, we shall be more than willing to consider such action as is represented to us on this occasion and from time to time in future. The 1981
  956
  Act, which governs most of the debate, was a major step forward. Clearly, concerns have been echoed by many hon. Members, not just today but in the past and, I am sure, will be echoed in the future. I undertake to bring this important matter immediately to the attention of the Secretary of State.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty seven minutes past Nine o'clock on Tuesday morning.

PRIME MINISTER

  Arms Export Control Procedures
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Prime Minister for what reason it is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to answer parliamentary questions about the operation of arms export control procedures in relation to individual countries; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Successive Governments have agreed that it would not be in the public interest to disclose details of the operation of arms export control procedures.

  British Telecom
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Prime Minister if she will give the total cost to each public service and each department of British Telecom's decision to end free emergency fault repair cover and replace this by total care and prompt care schemes.

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Inner-city Initiatives (Cabinet Office)
  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Prime Minister if she will publish in the Official Report the grades and estimated annual costs of the staff of the Cabinet Office dealing with inner-city initiatives, and show for each post whether the present occupant was (a) a member of the Cabinet Office staff on 11 June 1987, (b) in another Department on 11 June 1987 or (c) employed elsewhere and, in such cases, where.

  The Prime Minister
  Since the beginning of July, one official at grade 3, two at grade 7 and a senior personal secretary have been temporarily detached from their duties in other Departments and seconded to the Cabinet Office to work on urban policy issues. The annual costs of such officials are £98,524. In addition, a number of other officials in the Cabinet Office spend some of their time on matters relating to urban policy issues in the course of their regular duties.

  Lebanon (Hostages)
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Prime Minister whether she will make a statement on the action being taken by Her Majesty's Government to bring about the release of Mr. Terry Waite and other persons held captive by terrorist groups in Lebanon.

  The Prime Minister
  We are pursuing every reasonable lead, through our staff in Beirut and elsewhere and by maintaining close and regular contact with those concerned at Lambeth palace, to try to establish the whereabouts of Mr. Waite, as well as the fate of the other British hostages held in Lebanon.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Family Law
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Attorney-General when he intends to bring into force the Family Law Reform Act 1987.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor intends to bring the Family Law Reform Act 1987 into force when the necessary resources are available.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General on what basis the figure of 70 per cent. of households qualifying for legal aid, mentioned on page 9 of the recent White Paper on legal aid, was calculated; what proportion of households has been covered by the legal aid scheme for each year since 1979; and if the basis of calculation has been changed at any time over the past eight years.

  The Attorney-General
  It is not possible to calculate with precision the percentage of the population eligible for legal aid. The figure of 70 per cent., which has remained broadly constant throughout the past eight years, is an estimate only. It is based on a comparison between the qualifying levels of income for legal aid for different compositions of households and figures published by the Department of Employment for household incomes. This method has been used throughout the last eight years.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Housing Executive
  Mr. McGrady
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the policy of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive with regard to the repair or replacement of steel-framed windows in its houses.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I understand from the chairman that the information is not readily available; I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Warrenpoint Harbour Authority
  Mr. McGrady
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the plans of the Warrenpoint harbour authority with regard to the expansion or development of the harbour area in Warrenpoint.

  Mr. Needham
  I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Action for Community Employment
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the list of sponsors of action for community employment schemes which was made available to ACE sponsors in 1986 for the elections to the Northern Ireland Federation of ACE sponsors.

  Mr. Viggers
  I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will publish a table showing the average

  317
  household bill for water rates for each regional water authority in Northern Ireland for each year separately between 1979 and 1987;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the figures for the numbers of households where water supplies have been disconnected, showing, where possible, the reasons for disconnection for each year separately between 1979 and 1987.

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

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Batiste
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many civil servants are employed by his Department in (a) London and the south-east, (b) the south-west, (c) the midlands and (d) the north of England; and what is the budgeted expenditure of his Department for the current year in each of these regions.

  Mr. Butcher
  The number of Department of Trade and Industry staff in post at 1 April 1987 were as follows:

  Number

  London

  8,669

  South West

  194

  Midlands

  442

  North of England

  865

  Other (Wales and Scotland)

  2,443

  Total

  12,593

  Most of the Department's spending programmes are addressed to national objectives, and budgets are not therefore set on a regional basis. The Department's budget for regional support in the assisted areas in the current year is £230 million. Expenditure in the different regions will depend on their respective demand from eligible projects under the relevant schemes. Last year, such expenditure totalled £356 million. A regional breakdown of the bulk of this expenditure (regional development grants and the main programme of regional selective assistance) is as follows, on the basis of spend in DTI regions (aggregated where appropriate):

  £ million

  London and the South East

  —

  South West

  20·5

  Midlands (East and West Midlands)

  20·4

  North of England (North East, North West and Yorks and Humberside)

  277·9

  Total

  318·8

  Textile and Carpet Companies (Aid)
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he has had with the European Commission about the grant of state aid in breach of the treaty of Rome to textile and carpet companies in other European Economic Community countries.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Government have made a number of respresentations to the European Commission concerning the fair and even-handed enforcement of the state aids rules in the textile sector.
  318
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has yet received information on whether the Belgian Government have now complied with the Commission decision of 27 June 1984 and the European Court judgment of 9 April 1987 concerning the required repayment of aid of £3·7 million by a subsidiary of Deaulieu, a Belgian carpet manufacturer.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No information has been received to date. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Electricity Safety (Exhibition)
  Mr. Thurnham
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to safety with electricity to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Maude
  Arrangements have been made for such an exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall to take place from Monday 2 November to Friday 6 November 1987.

  Regional Development Grant
  Ms. Quin
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement as to the reasons for the decline in regional development grant assistance to the north-east of England, as detailed in the reply to the right hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) on 2 February 1987, Official Report, column 501.

  Mr. Atkins
  I will reply to the hon. Lady as soon as possible.

  Financial Services Act
  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the implementation of the Financial Services Act; and, in particular, when he expects to exercise the functions of sections 119 and 120 of the Act.

  Mr. Maude
  Following transfer of the relevant powers, the SIB has received two applications, from the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association and the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation, for recognition under section 9 of the Act. The SIB is in discussions with other potential applicants and further applications are expected shortly. Copies of the rules and supporting material submitted by FIMBRA and IMRO have been sent to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and forwarded to the Director General of Fair Trading. My right hon. Friend will consider whether to give leave under section 120 for the recognition of these SROs when he has received a request to do so from the SIB and the report on their rules from the Director General. Now that the power to grant recognition has been transferred to the SIB my right hon. Friend has no powers exerciseable under section 119 in advance of a recognition order being made.

  Satellite Research (Surrey University)
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his funding of Surrey university satellite research.

  Mr. Butcher
  Surrey university has a good record of achievement in space research. My Department, through the British National Space Centre, is currently funding one
  319
  research activity there in the field of high technology thermoplastic polymers for space structures. A number of other possibilities are under discussion.

  Steel Industry (Redundancy Pay)
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations have been made to the EEC Commission to ensure that applications under article 56 of the European Coal and Steel Community programme for payments to redundant steel workers are approved without delay.

  Members of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission as at 10 July 1987

  Name

  Position

  Background

  Salary

  £

  Sir Godfray Le Quesne

  Chairman

  The Law

  64,739

  Mr. H. H. Hunt

  Deputy Chairman

  Management Consultancy

  22,670

  Mr. D. G. Richards

  Deputy Chairman

  Accountancy

  26,070

  Mr. R. G. Smethurst

  Deputy Chairman

  Economics

  22,670

  Sir James Ackers

  Member

  Industry (management)

  9,128

  Mr. C. C. Baillieu

  Member

  Industry (management)

  9,128

  Mr. L. Britz

  Member

  Trade Union affairs

  9,128

  Mr. M. B. Bunting

  Member

  Industry (management)

  9,128

  Mr. K. S. Carmichael CBE

  Member

  Accountancy

  9,128

  Sir Robert Clayton CBE

  Member

  Industry (management)

  9,128

  Mr. P. H. Dean

  Member

  Industry (management)

  9,128

  Mr. A. Ferry MBE

  Member

  Trade Union affairs

  9,128

  Mr. P. S. G. Flint

  Member

  Industry (lawyer)

  9,128

  Mr. D. G. Goyder

  Member

  The Law

  9,128

  Miss A. M. Head

  Member

  Unit trusts

  9,128

  Mr. J. D. Keir QC

  Member

  Industry (lawyer)

  9,128

  Mr. L. Kelly

  Member

  Industry (management)

  9,128

  Mr. M. S. Lipworth

  Member

  Insurance

  9,128

  Professor S. C. Littlechild

  Member

  Economics

  9,128

  Miss P. K. R. Mann

  Member

  Advertising

  9,128

  Mr. S. McDowell CBE

  Member

  Economics

  9,128

  Mr. L. A. Mills

  Member

  Trade Union affairs

  9,128

  Mr. B. C. Owens

  Member

  Industry (management)

  9,128

  Professor R. Rees

  Member

  Economics

  9,128

  Mr. N. L. Salmon

  Member

  Industry (management)

  9,128

  Mr. D. P. Thomson

  Member

  Banking

  9,128

  Mr. C. A. Unwin MBE

  Member

  Trade Union affairs

  9,128

  Mr. S. Wainwright CBE

  Member

  Banking and Finance

  9,128

  Mr. R. Young

  Member

  Industry (management)

  9,128

  Notes:

  (1) Under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973 the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is responsible for maintaining a panel from which additional members may be appointed to take part in any investigation into a newspaper merger.

  (2) Similarly, under section 13(10) of the Telecommunications Act 1984 the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is required to appoint not less than three additional members to the Commission to assist in any investigation under the Act.

  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the cost of running the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and whether he will itemise this over the past four years.

  Mr. Maude
  The cost of running the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the current year and over the past four years is estimated to be:

  £'000s

  1983–84

  Outturn

  1,879

  1984–85

  Outturn

  2,029

  1985–86

  Outturn

  3,404

  1986–87

  Provisional outturn

  3,317

  1987–88

  Estimated provision

  3,563

  International Digital Communications (Merger)
  Sir Geoffrey Pattie
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any information relating to the
  320
  Mr. Atkins
  I will reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the members of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission giving their occupations and/or professional background and their remuneration.

  Mr. Maude
  The information requested is as follows:

  proposed merger between International Digital Communications and International Telecommunications of Japan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  Her Majesty's Government understand that commercial discussions are still continuing in Japan. Her Majesty's Government have consistently made clear their expectation that the issues be given a fair and objective appraisal, and are continuing to watch the situation very closely.

  Clydesdale Bank
  Mr. Salmond
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, in view of the importance of the Clydesdale bank to the Scottish financial sector and the Scottish economy as a whole, he will refer its sale to the National Australia bank to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for investigation.
  321
  Mr. Maude
  The proposed sale of the Clydesdale bank to the National Australia bank is being considered by the Director General of Fair Trading, who is responsible for advising my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the question of reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It would not be appropriate for me to prejudge the Director General's advice by commenting further at this point.

  Fire Retardant Upholstery
  Mr. Stern
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has any plans to introduce legislation to require that upholstery materials used in caravans and caravanettes manufactured in the United Kingdom be made of fire retardant materials.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no current legal requirements for the flammability of upholstery materials in road vehicles. We are trying to get European agreement to a standard as a basis for introducing such requirements in coaches where large numbers of people could be at risk in the event of a rapidly spreading fire resulting from a road accident. There are no plans at present to extend such requirements to other types of road vehicle such as caravans and caravanettes.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Boys' Education
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for initiatives to encourage boys into non-traditional fields of study and employment following the initiatives to encourage girls into the non-traditional fields of science and engineering.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  None.

  Education (Finance)
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table showing such information as he has about how the main cost of public education is financed, respectively, by central, state or local government in each European Economic Community member state.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This information is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  ACCESS Courses
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number of (a) women and (b) men registered on ACCESS courses.

  Mr. Dunn
  This information is not collected by my Department.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Grocott
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the latest cost per pupil of the assisted places scheme.

  Mr. Dunn
  The average cost to my Department per assisted place pupil is £1,759 for the 1986–87 school year.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many posts for speech therapists remained unfilled at special schools in inner London at the most recent convenient date;

  (2) how many special schools in inner London are currently estimated to be without an adequate level of speech therapy.

  Mr. Dunn
  The information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to increase the number of places available for the training of speech therapists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Registration to practise as a speech therapist follows study for a degree in a relevant discipline recognised for the purpose by the College of Speech Therapists. It would be for the National Health Service as principal employer of speech therapists to approach providing institutions if it were considered that numbers on appropriate courses were insufficient.

  Educational Visits
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will issue guidelines to local education authorities as to the recommended ratio of adult escorts to school pupils during educational visits and school journeys; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to issue such guidelines. It would be impracticable to lay down specific ratios since much depends on the nature of the particular visit, the pupils' previous experience, and the type of terrain to be encountered on individual journeys.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many primary, secondary and special school pupils lost their lives during educational visits and school journeys in 1986.

  Mr. Dunn
  This information is not collected by my Department.

  Birkbeck College
  Mr. Fatchett
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will meet a delegation from the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs to discuss the future funding of Birkbeck college.

  Mr. Jackson
  I am ready to consider any requests to meet delegations. However, the funding of Birkbeck college within London University is a matter for the university itself which will, I understand, be reviewing the matter following various current inquiries.

TRANSPORT

  Bus Routes
  Mr. Hardy
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to review the operation of the Transport Act with particular regard to the operation of new bus routes along roads which have not previously been used for this purpose and where residents have objections.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Transport Act 1985 both provide remedies
  323
  in cases where roads are unsuited to bus operation. The expansion of the bus services into new areas has been of great value to many people who do not have access to a car.

  Air Passenger Safety (Smokehoods)
  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when the Civil Aviation Authority expects to report on its research into the use of smokehoods to protect air passengers from smoke and fumes.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Civil Aviation Authority is wholly responsible for the regulation of aviation safety. I understand that it expects to issue a decision on the use of smokehoods by the end of the year when it has completed its current research and consultations.

  November 1982

  June 1983

  November 1984

  July 1986

  1SS

  2R

  SS

  R

  SS

  R

  SS

  R

  percent.

  percent.

  percent.

  percent.

  Rear seat

  Baby (under 1 year)

  213

  30

  648

  45

  423

  49

  429

  55

  Small Child (approx 1–4 years)

  2,083

  40

  3,568

  27

  2,526

  34

  2,433

  42

  Medium Child (approx 5–9 years)

  1,599

  12

  1,985

  9

  1,492

  12

  1,971

  19

  Large Child (approx 10–13 years)

  405

  2

  517

  3

  582

  6

  732

  12

  1 SS = Sample size ie Numbers of children observed.

  2 R = Proportion restrained.

  Two other continuing studies by TRRL have highlighted the benefit of the use of child restraints in cars. An early study showed that the use of child restraints reduces the risk of overall injury by two thirds. The second study, which reported in May this year, showed that in the zero to four age group the use of child restraints reduces the risk of death by about three quarters.

  Current wearing rates are likely to be higher following national and local publicity including the BBC "That's Life" campaign. The rates are likely to deteriorate unless parents of new born children are constantly reminded of the benefits of installing and using restraints.

  Mr. Martlew
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what information he has as to what proportion of registered cars have rear anchorage points but no rear seat belts;

  (2) if he will introduce regulations requiring the retrospective fitment of rear seat belts for cars registered between January 1981 and April 1986.

  Rear car seat occupants by severity of injury and seat belt use: Great Britain: 1985

  Severity of injury

  Seat belt in use

  Seat belt not in use

  Seat belt not fitted

  Child restraint in use

  Child restraint not in use

  Child restraint not fitted

  Restraint unknown

  Total

  Fatal

  7

  10

  240

  4

  —

  14

  58

  333

  Serious

  111

  164

  3,342

  51

  23

  240

  702

  4,633

  Slight

  692

  595

  14,498

  542

  183

  1,941

  2,743

  21,194

  Total

  810

  769

  18,080

  597

  206

  2,195

  3,503

  26,160

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Martlew
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will provide details of the latest research into the effectiveness of seat belt and child restraint use in reducing the severity of injury of children in cars;

  (2) what information he has as to the proportion of children who are currently restrained in the rear of cars.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Surveys published by the Department's Transport and Road Research Laboratory show that between 1982 and 1986 the overall wearing rate for all child occupants in the rear of cars has increased from 26 per cent. to 31 per cent. The highest increase is for those under one year old. The results of the surveys were as follows:

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  About half the cars currently registered have rear anchorage points but no rear seat belts. The great majority of these were first registered between April 1982—when rear anchorages became a mandatory requirement—and April 1987 when rear seat belts became a mandatory requirement. It is not planned to require the retrospective fitment of rear seat belts to these or earlier registered vehicles.

  We do encourage the fitting and use of rear restraints for children and adults.

  Accident Statistics
  Mr. Martlew
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many rear-seat passengers were injured in road accidents during 1986; and if he will provide details of injury severity and restraint use.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The position of vehicle occupants is recorded only for cars. Information for 1985, the latest year available, is as follows:

  Tactile Crossings
  Mr. Allen
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what kinds of tactile designs are used for tactile crossings to help the blind; and if he will take steps to standardise them.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A tactile paving design specifically for use at pedestrian crossings has been developed by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory in close consultation with organisations representing disabled people, including those who are visually handicapped.

  Advice on the design, purpose and layout of the tactile surface was issued to highway authorities in the Department's disability circular DU 1/86 of 13 October 1986. That advice emphasises that the surface recommended should remain distinct from those surfaces used for other purposes.

  Woolwich Ferry
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the current level of service on the Woolwich ferry; and what steps he is taking to improve it.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  As I said in my answer to the hon. Member on 23 June 1986 at column 61, Greenwich borough council is operating the Woolwich ferry as our agent and questions on its day-to-day operation should be addressed to the council.

  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to publish the consultant's report on the future of the Woolwich ferry.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I expect to receive the consultants' final report very soon now. I shall then decide what steps to take.

  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet representatives of the London borough of Greenwich and the staff of Woolwich ferry to discuss its future operations.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  When I have considered the findings and recommendations of the consultants' final report I shall discuss these with the London borough of Greenwich. It is for Greenwich to have discussions with its work force.

  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport on how many days since 1 April the Woolwich ferry has been subject to disruption; and how many scheduled crossings have been lost.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Up to 8 July, disruption has occurred on 93 days. Around 6,600 crossings have been lost.

  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will indicate the numbers of staff employed on the Woolwich ferry in each grade at the most recent convenient date together with the comparative numbers at the same date in 1986, 1985 and 1984.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The staff are employed by the London borough of Greenwich. Questions about staff numbers should be addressed to the council.

  We assumed responsibility for the ferry on 1 April 1986 at which date, Greenwich took over the following complement, which is still operative.
  326

  Number

  Ferry Operatives

  Captain

  5

  Mate

  5

  Engineer

  6

  Leading Deckhand

  6

  Deckhand

  15

  Relief Deckhand

  9

  Shipkeeper

  10

  C/H Traffic Controller

  6

  Traffic Controller

  6

  Relief Traffic Controller

  6

  Car Park Attendant

  2

  Ferry Workshops

  Electrician Chargehand

  4

  Plumber

  2

  Fitter Chargehand

  1

  Fitter

  5

  Shipwright Chargehand

  1

  Shipwright

  4

  Boilermaker

  2

  Painter Chargehand

  1

  Painter

  2

  Semi Skilled Engineering Workers

  18

  Management/Administration

  Assistant Director

  0·5

  Ferry Manager

  1

  Assistant Ferry Manager

  1

  Manager Maintenance and Technical Support

  1

  Workshop Manager

  1

  Assistant Workshop Manager

  1

  Electrical Engineering Assistant

  1

  Marine Engineer

  1

  Vehicle Controller

  0·4

  Senior Administrative Officer

  1

  Administrative Assistant

  1

  Bonus Clerk

  1

  Administrative Assistant/Typist

  1

  Senior Storekeeper

  1

  Stores Assistant

  2

  Stores Clerk

  2

  We have no comparative figures prior to abolition.

  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the current level of service on the Woolwich ferry; and what has been his response.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have received two letters from members of the public. Questions on the day-to-day operation of the ferry are a matter for the London borough of Greenwich as the Department's agent.

  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what comments he has received from the London borough of Greenwich about the consultant's report on the future of the Woolwich ferry.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The London borough of Greenwich contributed to the review by consultants of the Woolwich ferry. We will discuss the final report with Greenwich.

  M1 (Roadworks)
  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport (I) what roadworks are currently being undertaken on the M I motorway between London and Leicester; how long they are expected to last; what further roadworks are planned for this stretch of motorway; whether he will take steps to reduce the delay caused to motorists during the

  327
  carrying out of such works; and whether he proposes to install any additional motorway lighting on the M 1 between London and Leicester;

  (2) what roadworks are currently being undertaken on the M 1 motorway between Leicester and Scotland; how long they are expected to last; what further roadworks are planned on this stretch of motorway; whether he will take steps to reduce the delay caused to motorists during the

  Site

  Scheme

  Start—Finish dates

  J4–5

  Resurfacing

  August 1987–October 1987

  J101

  Overlay

  May 1987–October 1987

  J12–131

  Safety Fence and carriageway renewal

  October 1987–January 1988

  J14–151

  Reconstruction/overlay

  August 1987–January 1988

  JI6–171

  Central Reserve Reconstruction (Reserve Scheme)

  February 1988–March 1988

  JI91

  Construction of Junction for M1–A1 link

  Spring 1988–Autumn 1988

  J23–241

  Reconstruction/overlay

  July 1987–September 1987

  J24–R1 Trent

  Reconstruction/overlay

  October 1987–November 1987

  J231

  Reconstruction/overlay

  February 1988–March 1988

  J251

  Reconstruction/overlay (Reserve Scheme)

  February 1988–April 1988

  J39–40

  Carriageway renewal

  September 1987–December 1987

  1Lane Rental

  Further work will take place in future years, with about 5 per cent. of the route renewed each year. Minor repairs and routine maintenance will also take place from time to time. All reasonable measures will be taken to reduce delays to the road user, including the use of lane rental contracts.

  Additional lighting is proposed between the end of existing lighting near Newport Pagnell and the Buckinghamshire-Northamptonshire boundary to the north. There are no current proposals for lighting the M1 between Leicester and Leeds.

  North Circular Road (Ealing)
  Sir George Young
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he proposes to announce his decision on the public inquiry into the route of the north circular road through Ealing; and what is the reason for the delay;

  (2) when he received the inspector's report on the local public inquiry held from December 1983 to June 1984 on proposed improvements to the north circular road from Pope's lane in Hounslow to Hanger lane in Ealing; when he expects to publish it; why publication has been delayed; and what representations he has received from the local population about this matter.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The inspector's report was received in April 1985. It raised difficult issues which are taking some time to resolve and which my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport are considering. I hope that an announcement can be made before too long, at which time the report will be published. I have not received representations about the delay from local people.

  Sir Barney Hayhoe
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will publish the traffic count in respect of the section of the north circular road between Hanger lane and Chiswick roundabout and roads linking thereto in west London both before and after the opening of the M25, together with counts of traffic now using the
  328
  carrying out of such works; and whether he proposes to install any additional motorway lighting on the M I between Leicester and Scotland.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The following roadworks are currently being undertaken or planned for the remainder of 1987–88 on the M1 between London and Leeds ( where M1 terminates).

  M25 itself in the same sector; and what plans he has for updating counts of traffic flows since the opening of the M25.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I shall write to my right hon. Friend.

  M42 (Northern Section)
  Mr. John Mark Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when the northern section of the M42 is to be completed.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The M42 motorway is now complete and open to traffic from the M5 (southern turn) to Appleby Magna, Leicestershire. An extension northwards to the M I near the east midlands airport will be a dual carriageway all-purpose trunk road, the A42.

  Construction of the first section, the A42 Measham and Ashby bypass, will start on 3 August and take about two years to complete. Construction of the final section, the A42 Castle Donington north, will start in 1989, subject to the completion of the outstanding statutory procedures.

  Remould Tyres
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how his Department obtained samples of remould tyres produced by Arvoland Ltd. referred to in his Department's Press Notice No. 51 dated 30 January 1987; and if he will make a statement on the current situation regarding the recall of remould tyres.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department obtained Arvoland tyres independently from three retail outlets and tested these at the Rubber and Plastics Research Association in August 1986. Further tyres were subsequently supplied directly to RAPRA by Arvoland, as part of a programme agreed with the Department to demonstrate improved product quality, between October and December when the firm went into receivership.

  Arvoland and their receivers have co-operated with the Department in recalling or destroying remould tyres following the launch of a recall campaign in November 1986. It is believed that few, if any, tyres remain on sale.

  Road Accident Statistics
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of fatal road accidents involved drink in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  In 1985, at least 1,400 road deaths—over one quarter —were associated with excess alcohol. In these accidents one or more road users were found to have a blood alcohol content over 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres, the legal limit for drivers. Further details will appear in "Road Accidents Great Britain" ("The Casualty Report") later this year.

  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of serious accidents involved drink in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We do not know. We do know that in 1985, 6·4 per cent. of serious accidents involved a driver who failed the breath test or failed to provide a sample. This figure does not include accidents where the driver was not tested. It does not include drivers who had consumed alcohol but were below the legal limit.

  Burscough Curves Rail Extension (Southport)
  Mr. Fearn
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is considering plans to reopen the Burscough curves rail extension to Southport.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No.

  Mr. Fearn
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received any representations on the reopening of the Burscough curves rail extension to Southport.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I received a written representation last August from my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) but I have not been approached yet by the hon. Member for Southport.

  Mr. Fearn
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if there have been any consultations between his Department and British Rail on whether to restore the Burscough curves rail extension to Southport.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No.

  Railways (Reopening)
  Mr. Fearn
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria he employs when deciding whether to reopen a rail link.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  It is for British Rail to consider the case for re-opening any rail link. Ministers would only wish to be involved in major investment proposals. As a general rule, we expect proposals for additions to the existing rail network to achieve at least a real return of 7 per cent. We would support any worthwhile investment which offered a sound prospect of improving the railways' finances.

  Tourist Attractions (Signposting)
  Mr. Fearn
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many visitors a tourist resort has to attract per year before it can apply to have further words added to local road and motorway signs to attract more people.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Individual tourist attractions which are open for casual visits by the general public may be signed from motorways using the new white on brown 330
  tourist signs if they attract over 150,000 visitors per year, are situated within 20 miles of the nearest motorway junction, have adequate car parking and are open for more than 50 days per year.

  Places providing accommodation and facilities fpr pre-booked customers are not eligible for white on brown tourist signs; if they also cater for casual visitors then their eligibility for signing will be considered on the basis of the number of casual visitors. Where a town, or a rural area, has a number of smaller attractions which in total have 150,000 visitors a year then a white on brown sign may be erected on the motorway directing drivers to an information hoard just off the motorway where they can stop and obtaim details of the various attractions in the area. Major holiday resort towns which are of sufficient traffic importance are already signed from motorways as primary destinations on the standard white on blue signs. The criteria for signing tourist attractions and resorts on local roads are a matter for the local highway authority.

  Mr. Fearn
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria he employs for the designation of a tourist attraction or resort on motorway signs.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The criteria and arrangements for the white on brown tourist signing are set out in circular Roads 3/86. To be eligible for tourist attraction signing from a motorway, the attraction must have over 150,000 visitors a year, be within 20 miles of a motorway, have adequate parking and be open for at least 50 days in the period 1 April to 31 October each year. Caravan parks, camp sites, youth hostels and hotels are not eligible for motorway signing.

  Places providing accommodation and facilities for pre-booked customers are not eligible for white on brown tourist signs; if they also cater for casual visitors then their eligibilty for signing will he considered on the basis of the number of casual visitors. Resort towns, historic towns, or rural areas, which have a number of smaller attractions which in total meet the criteria for motorway signing, may be signed with a white on brown sign on the motorway directing drivers to an information board just off the motorway where they can obtain details of the individual attractions in the area. The individual attractions may be signed as approporiate on the local roads.

  Mr. Neil Allison (Member's Correspondence)
  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport when the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth might expect a reply to his letters of 26 January, 4 March and 6 May, all of which refer to Mr. Neil Allison of Kenilworth.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  I have today written to my hon. Friend to explain the reasons for delay and to send a substantive reply to his query.

  Merchant Shipping (Formal Investigations)
  Mr. Adley
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Christchurch of 6 July, Official Report, column 15, he will now list those formal investigations ordered under section 55 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 which he was including, in his answer of 29 June, Official Report, column 26, as being analogous with his stated policy on non-prosecution in the case of the Herald of Free Enterprise.
  331
  Mr. David Mitchell
  In the past 10 years there have been 11 formal investigations held under the Merchant Shipping Acts, as follows:

  Vessel

  MFV Rotche/MFV Stroma II

  1978

  July 1977

  MV Hero

  1979

  November 1977

  MFV Boston Sea Ranger

  1979

  December 1977

  MFV Do It Again

  1979

  January 1979

  MV Kurdistan

  1981

  March 1979

  MV Pool Fisher

  1980

  November 1979

  MV Union Star and RNLB Solomon Browne

  1983

  December 1981

  MV Grainville

  1983

  December 1981

  MV European Galeway/MV Speedlink Vanguard

  1983–84

  December 1982

  Marques

  1985–86

  June 1984

  MV Herald of Free Enterprise

  1987

  March 1987

  In the case of the Stroma II and Rotche, a prosecution was brought but the formal investigation was not held until after the criminal proceedings had been completed. It would riot he fair to the parties involved for me to comment on whether or not criminal offences were thought to have been committed in the remaining cases, but in none of them did the Department initiate any prosecution.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iran
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will outline the action which he has initiated at the United Nations to protest about the arbitrary execution of members of the Baha'i faith in the Islamic Republic of Iran; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  For the last five years, including 1987, we have co-sponsored the resolution on human rights in Iran at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. These resolutions urged the Iranian Government to respect the human rights standards set out in the instruments to which it is party. The resolutions also established and renewed the appointment of the commission's special representative on Iran, including a specific mandate to investigate the treatment of Baha'is.

  In 1985 and 1986 we also co-sponsored the resolutions on human rights in Iran at the United Nations General Assembly.

  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonweath Affairs (1) if he will raise with the United Nations Human Rights Commission allegations of the use of an electric guillotine to cut off fingers of prisoners during 1986 in the Islamic Republic of Iran detailed in a recent report by Amnesty International;

  (2) if he will raise with the United Nations Human Rights Commission allegations of stoning to death of at least eight people during 1986 in the Islamic Republic of Iran detailed in a recent report by Amnesty International;

  (3) if he will raise with the United Nations Human Rights Commission allegations of the use of torture, including floggings and mock executions in the Islamic Republic of Iran detailed in a recent report by Amnesty International.

  Mr. Mellor
  For the last five years, including 1987, we have co-sponsored the resolution on human rights in Iran 332
  at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. At the next session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in February 1988, we will again make clear our continued abhorrence of all violations of human rights in Iran.

  Diplomatic Representation
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total number of British diplomats remaining in British interests sections of friendly powers accredited to the Syrian Arab Republic, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the People's Socialist Libyan Arab Jamahirya; and what are the equivalent number of persons purporting to be diplomats from those same countries currently based in friendly embassies in Britain.

  Mrs. Chalker
  There are three diplomatic staff in the British interests section of the Australian embassy in Damascus, one in the British interests section of the Italian embassy in Tripoli and one in the British interests section of the Swedish embassy in Tehran. There are three diplomatic staff in the Syrian interests section of the Lebanese embassy in London, one in the Libyan interests section of the Saudi Arabian embassy and one in the Iranian embassy.

  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will list all known examples of involvement in terrorist incidents since 1974 of persons purporting to be diplomats accredited to the embassies in London of the Syrian Arab Republic, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the People's Socialist Libyan Arab Jamahirya, indicating in each case whether any diplomats subsequently returned to their country of origin at the request of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Mr. Mellor
  In April 1984, the staff and occupants of the Libyan people's bureau in St. James's Square were expelled following an incident in which WPC Yvonne Fletcher was murdered by a shot fired from the people's bureau.

  Following the arrest of Nezar Hindawi in April 1986, the Syrian Ambassador was asked to waive the diplomatic immunity of three attaches on his staff to enable police to question them about their involvement with Hindawi. When the Syrian authorities refused to meet our request, we informed the Ambassador that we required the attaches to be withdrawn within seven days.

  On 24 October 1986, following the conviction of Nezar Hindawi, we announced that the United Kingdom was breaking off diplomatic relations with Syria. The Ambassador and the remaining seventeen members of his staff were given seven days in which to leave the country.

  Spain
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens have reported to United Kingdom consular staff that they have been (a) physically assaulted and (b) robbed in Spain in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  I regret that the statistics requested are not available. Only in serious cases, or those in which consular officers are requested to take follow-up action, are records
  333
  kept. Even for those it would require a disproportionate amount of time to provide figures in the categories requested.

  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens have died in Spain in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is not mandatory for the deaths of British nationals overseas to be registered at our consulates, but the numbers of deaths of British nationals in Spain which have been so registered over the past five years are as follows:

  Number

  1982

  295

  1983

  401

  1984

  429

  1985

  350

  1986

  416

  Figures relating to the deaths specifically of British citizens are not kept separately, but they are likely to represent a very high proportion of the figures given.

  Blowpipe Missiles
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on representations made to Her Majesty's ambassador in Moscow by the Soviet Government on Monday 6 July about the supply of Blowpipe missiles to Afghan guerillas; and if he will list each of the specific allegations put to Her Majesty's ambassador and his reply to each.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Soviet Foreign Ministry made an oral statement to Her Majesty's ambassador in Moscow on 6 July. He undertook to report to London.Pravda published the statement on 8 July.

  State Security
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions officials at the British embassy in Washington have had with representatives of the United States National Security Agency about the possibility of legal action to prevent publication of Peter Wright's book "Spycatcher" in the United States.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers that I gave to him on 3 and 10 July.

  Iran—Iraq War
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on his meeting with representatives of the League of Arab States on 9 July regarding the war between Iran and Iraq.

  Mr. Mellor
  At their request, a delegation from the Arab League, led by the Foreign Minister of Jordan, visited London on 9 July to discuss the Iran-Iraq conflict. Similar delegations have visited the capitals of the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. They had talks with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  We emphasised our deep concern over the continuation of the conflict, which threatens the stability of the region and freedom of navigation in the Gulf.
  334
  The delegation expressed gratitude for our continuing efforts in New York, and all were agreed on the value of current United Nations activity aimed at an early mandatory Security Council resolution.

  King of Morocco
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to whether the King of Morocco, or any member of his party, will be meeting representatives of any armaments manufacturers at any stage during his state visit beginning on 14 July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Representatives of a large number of British companies, including some with interests in arms manufacture, have been invited to functions during King Hassan's state visit.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Kilfedder
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will offer his services as a mediator between the Polisario Front and Morocco, with a view to ending the conflict in Western Sahara; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  No. We fully support the efforts already being made by the UN Secretary General to bring about a peaceful solution to the Western Sahara dispute.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members (Bleepers)
  Mr. Barry Field
  asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will consider issuing hon. Members with a world-wide wrist bleeper to enable Parliament to be recalled during the recess in the case of a national emergency.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No. The Services Committee considered the question of radiopaging in its second report of 1986–87 (HC207). The Committee recommended against the House providing its own radiopaging service, but expressed the view that Members who wished to subscribe to such a service in connection with their parliamentary duties should be free to do so out of their office allowance.

  My hon. Friend will no doubt wish to leave word as to his whereabouts with my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary before he goes away.

ENERGY

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Skinner
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to meet the chairman of British Coal about the future of the industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Orme
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal to discuss the future of the industry.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I had an initial meeting with the chairman on 29 June, and intend to meet him regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Mr. Hannam
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss coal prices.
  335
  Mr. Parkinson
  I intend to meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Mr. Ashby
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he intends to lay orders under sections 6 and 7 of the Coal Industry Act 1987.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I hope to do so shortly.

  Mr. Barron
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what issues were discussed.

  Financial Support to the Coal Industry (£ million)

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Total

  Deficit and Operating Grants

  189

  175

  455

  386

  875

  2,225

  50

  290

  4,645

  Social Grants

  62

  79

  120

  134

  270

  189

  513

  594

  1,961

  Pneumoconiosis

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Total Grants1

  251

  255

  577

  521

  1,146

  2,414

  563

  884

  6,611

  RMPS

  16

  16

  49

  81

  191

  202

  566

  614

  1,735

  Total Support2

  267

  271

  626

  602

  1,337

  2,616

  1,129

  1,498

  8,346

  1 Figures are on an accruals basis.

  2 This represents total Government support for the industry and includes RMPS amounts paid direct to redundant mineworkers.

  In addition the Government has supported the following levels of capital investment by the coal industry.

  £ million

  1979–80

  661

  1980–81

  807

  1981–82

  812

  1982–83

  842

  1983–84

  702

  1984–85

  371

  1985–86

  660

  1986–87

  650

  Total

  5,505

  Mr. Knox
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase in labour productivity in the coal mining industry compared with 1983–84.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier today to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton).

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has yet had the opportunity to meet the chairman or board members of British Coal to discuss the future of the coal mining industry.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I intend to meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Mr. Marlow
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his plans for the coal industry.

  Mr. Rogers
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the future of the coal industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The objectives agreed between the Government and the chairman of British Coal, Sir Robert Haslam, were announced to the House on 11 March. They remain valid.

  Mr. Hardy
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to privatise British Coal during the lifetime of the present Parliament.
  336
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend I met the chairman on 29 June, and intend to meet him regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

  Mr. Sumberg
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give details of the Government's financial support to British Coal for each financial year since 1979–80.

  Mr.Michael Spicer
  The information requested by my hon.Friend is as follows.

  Michael Spicer
  We have no such plans.

  Central Electricity Generating Board
  Dr. Michael Clark
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last had a meeting with the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I have met the chairman once since joining the Department and will be meeting him on a regular basis in future.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Meale
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what steps he is taking to promote the development of combined heat and power.

  Mr Peter Morrison
  We are continuing to promote combined heat and power through the energy efficiency demonstration scheme and the energy efficiency survey scheme. We are also contributing to the cost of the studies in the lead cities.

  Mr. Rost
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to meet representatives of the Combined Heat and Power Association.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I have no immediate plans to meet representatives of the Combined Heat and Power Association.

  Gas Bill Vouchers
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy when gas bill vouchers are to be dispatched; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The gas vouchers will be dispatched this week to qualifying shareholders who were on the register on 30 June. Some 1·2 million of the present 3 million shareholders chose vouchers; around 1·8 million chose the share bonus alternative.

  North Sea Oil
  Mr. McCartney
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on future prospects for the North sea oil industry.

  Mr. Waller
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the effects of the recent stability of world oil prices at higher levels on United Kingdom continental shelf oil production and new offshore development.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The signs are that development activity is beginning to pick up again in the United Kingdom sector of the North sea; many oil companies are now concentrating on the longer term and looking on the North sea as a priority area, as clearly demonstrated by the response to the recent 10th round of licensing.

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Stern
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he plans to publish a consultation document on the privatisation on the electricity industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  We are engaged in widespread consultation and will bring forward our proposals as soon as our consideration of the important issues involved is complete.

  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the future of the electricity generating industry.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) earlier today.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss the construction of new power stations.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I met the chairman of the CEGB recently and we discussed a wide range of issues. Applications for consent to the construction of power stations are a matter for the CEGB and I have received no applications either for coal-fired or nuclear stations.

  Mr. Hayward
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to introduce a regulatory system for prices in the electricity supply industry when it is privatised.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Proper regulation will certainly be necessary and will depend on the structure of the privatised industry, which is currently under consideration.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his policy to make competition a priority when determining his plans for the privatisation of electricity.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Yes.

  Mr. Ashton
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the future of the electricity supply industry.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The Government are working to secure a very successful future for the electricity supply industry in the private sector. We are urgently tackling the important issues involved, and consulting widely, and will bring forward proposals as soon as this work is complete.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Couchman
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what potential for improved energy efficiency in industry and commerce he can identify following Energy Efficiency Year.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Energy Efficiency Year was successful because it raised awareness of the cost-effective benefits of improved energy efficiency. Action already under way in industry and commerce is now leading to savings of over £500 million a year and we estimate that further annual savings of £2 billion are still possible through the introduction of cost-effective measures. This can be achieved only if managers and their staff continue to realise that the benefits of increased energy efficiency flow straight to the bottom line—benefiting customers and shareholders alike.

  Offshore Licences
  Mr. Michael Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received concerning the 10th offshore licence awards announced on 18 May.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I have received no formal representations, but many successful applicants in the 10th Round have expressed satisfaction.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Eadie
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what are his plans for privatisation in his Department's area of responsibility.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I shall be bringing forward proposals for privatisation of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales.

  Offshore Energy Technology Board
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if his hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy will continue to chair the Offshore Energy Technology Board.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Yes.

  Nuclear Power Reactors
  Mr. Chapman
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest estimate of the number of foreign and United Kingdom civil nuclear power reactors, respectively.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The data are as follows:

  Nuclear reactors connected to the grid at end-December 1986

  Reactors (No)

  Capacity (GW)

  United Kingdom

  38

  10·2

  Rest of World

  359

  263·5

  Source: IAEA

  Tidal Barrages
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans for the future development of tidal barrages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Secretary of State announced in July 1986 a major extension for the United Kingdom's tidal energy programme. The programme of work on the
  339
  Severn and Mersey tidal barrages and supporting generic studies are well under way and good progress is being made.

  Coal-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Beith
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to introduce new coal-fired power stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  It is for the CEGB to put forward applications for new power stations. I have received no application in respect of a coal-fired station, and it would be inappropriate for me to make a statement.

  Fast Reactor Technology
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made in the European collaborative programme on the development of fast reactor technology; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Joint work programmes have been agreed for over 80 R & D topics and work on these is being taken forward in member countries.

  Radioactivity
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has about recent problems experienced by French nuclear reactors involving leaks of radioactive material.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Nothing significant has been reported to Her Majesty's Government under the bilateral agreement with France about recent problems at French nuclear reactors. Details of these problems are freely available, and are to be found in a bi-monthly bulletin published by the French Ministry of Industry titled "Bulletin Sur La Sûreté des Installations Nucleaires".

  British Gas
  Mr. Leigh
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement on the recent performance of British Gas in relation to profits and standing charges.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Privatisation has brought new opportunities to the company and reinforced incentives for efficiency to the benefit of customers and shareholders alike. British Gas has announced profits on an historic cost basis of £1,293 million before tax.

  At the same time, a 4·5 per cent. tariff reduction has been announced, with both rates per therm and standing charges being reduced.

  The reduction passes on to tariff customers the lower gas purchase prices now forecast by British Gas, as well as efficiency gains, as required by the new regulatory system whose operation is monitored by OFGAS.

WALES

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Ray Powell
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will publish a table showing the level of expenditure on public libraries in Wales in each financial year since 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is as follows:340

  Net expenditure on public library services fall Wales)

  £'000

  1978–79

  9,693

  1979–80

  11,009

  1980–81

  12,915

  1981–82

  14,120

  1982–83

  15,337

  1983–84

  16,233

  1984–85

  16,823

  1985–86

  17,327

  Beef
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the present state of the beef industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The December 1986 sample census figures show that the Welsh beef breeding herd has increased by 4·9 per cent. compared with December 1985 and there was an encouraging increase of 11·4 per cent. in the number of heifers in calf intended for the beef rearing herd.

  The agreement obtained at the December 1986 Agriculture Council secured the beef variable premium scheme, under which £5·3 million was paid to producers in Wales in 1986–87, for a further two years, and took steps to cut back intervention. These changes will bring the regime more into line with market realities and provide producers with greater assurance for the longer-term stability of the sector. In addition, specialist beef producers continue to beneft from the suckler cow premium (increased to £33·40 per eligible animal for 1987–88) which was worth £3·5 million in Wales in 1985–86.

  Out-Patient Waiting Lists
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales to what factors he attributes the 35 per cent. increase in the hospital out-patient waiting lists in Wales between 1979 and 1986.

  Mr. Grist
  The number of people on hospital outpatient waiting lists is determined by two factors: the number of patients referred to out-patient clinics and the number of people seen and thereby removed from the lists. The number of new out-patients seen during 1986 was greater than the number seen in 1979 by 17·7 per cent. The number on out-patient waiting lists rose despite this, because the rate of increase of referrals was faster than the rate of increase of out-patients seen.

  Water Rates
  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing the average household bill for water rates for each regional water authority in Wales for each year separately between 1979 and 1987.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested for the Welsh water authority is as follows:

  Average domestic bill for unmeasured consumers (cash terms/

  £

  1979–80

  49·08

  1980–81

  60·38

  341

  £

  1981–82

  66·76

  1982–83

  81·34

  1983–84

  86·35

  1984–85

  92·77

  1985–86

  103·91

  1986–87

  114·01

  1987–88

  122·61

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing the figures for the numbers of households where water supplies have been disconnected, showing where possible the reasons for disconnection for each year separately between 1979 and 1987.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is as follows:

  Household disconnection for non-payment in Welsh Water Authority area

  Number

  1984–85

  90

  1985–86

  350

  1986–87

  950

  Information on household disconnections prior to 1984–85 is not held centrally.

  Radiation (Monitoring)
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is satisfied with the extent and effectiveness of radiation monitoring conducted by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Yes. Monitoring of radiocaesium levels in sheep is being undertaken on a regular basis at a number of locations both inside and around the boundaries of the restricted areas. In addition, where a producer wishes to move sheep out of the restricted area for marketing or flock management purposes, the sheep concerned are individually live monitored and those that are above the action level are marked to prevent their slaughter.

  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the scientific advice available to his Department on radio-caesium levels in hill land; and if he will give an indication of the latest advice available to him about the time period for which levels are likely to remain high enough to necessitate restrictions on sheep and lamb movements.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 28 April 1987, at column 67. The programme of research and monitoring is continuing and results will be published in the normal way.

  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish details of all radiation measurements conducted by his Department on grassland and sheepmeat since 1 January.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The available data has already been published and copies placed in the Library of the House.

  Sheep Movement Restrictions
  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total value of compensation paid to date to farmers who have been affected by restrictions on movements of sheep and lambs.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  To date, some £2·7 million has been paid to producers in Wales affected by the restrictions on the movement and slaughter of sheep and lambs following the Chernobyl incident.

  Mr. Thomas
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of farm holdings and the number of sheep and lambs currently affected by the order restricting movements; in how many cases restrictions have been extended, and for what reason; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  There are roughly 335 holdings with over 200,000 sheep and lambs within the restricted areas. Restrictions have been reintroduced in an area west of Llanuwchllyn where monitoring has identified readings above the action level in some sheep.

DEFENCE

  Export Sales
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries of the world to which the United Kingdom has exported arms since May 1979.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A list of 121 countries with which contracts for military equipment were signed since May 1979 and which were notified to the Ministry of Defence is as follows. As such, the list, although substantially correct, may not be comprehensive, because not all private orders, particularly those of a minor nature, are notified to the Defence Export Services Organisation.

  Algeria

  France

  Angola

  Gabon

  AR Yemen

  Gambia

  Argentine

  Ghana

  Australia

  Greece

  Austria

  Grenada

  Bahamas

  Guinea (Conakry)

  Bahrain

  Guyana

  Bangladesh

  Honduras

  Barbados

  Hong Kong

  Belgium

  Iceland

  Belize

  India

  Benin

  Indonesia

  Bolivia

  Iran

  Botswana

  Iraq

  Brazil

  Israel

  Brunei

  Italy

  Burkina Fasso

  Ivory Coast

  Burma

  Jamaica

  Cameroon

  Japan

  Canada

  Jordan

  Chad

  Kenya

  Chile

  Kuwait

  Colombia

  Lebanon

  Cyprus

  Lesotho

  Czechoslovakia

  Liberia

  Denmark

  Libya

  Dominican Republic

  Luxemburg

  Ecuador

  Malagasy

  Egypt

  Malawi

  Eire

  Malaysia

  Ethiopia

  Maldive Islands

  Fiji

  Mali

  Finland

  Mexico

  FR Germany

  Morocco

  343

  Mozambique

  Singapore

  Nepal

  Somalia

  Netherlands

  Spain

  New Zealand

  Sri Lanka

  Niger

  St. Vincent

  Nigeria

  Sudan

  Norway

  Surinam

  Oman

  Swaziland

  Pakistan

  Sweden

  Panama

  Switzerland

  Papua New Guinea

  Syria

  Paraquay

  Tanzania

  PDR Yemen

  Thailand

  Peru

  Togo

  Philippines

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Poland

  Tunisia

  Portugal

  Turkey

  PR China

  UAE

  Qatar

  Uganda

  Republic of Korea

  Uruguay

  Romania

  USA

  Rwanda

  Venezuela

  Saudi Arabia

  Yugoslavia

  Senegal

  Zambia

  Seychelles

  Zimbabwe

  Sierra Leone

  Intermediate Nuclear Forces
  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has assessed the implications for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's policy of flexible response of the present intermediate nuclear forces discussions.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) on 6 July, at column 58

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will specify the number of nuclear weapons (a)possessed and (b) operated under dual key arrangements by the United Kingdom in each of the following ranges: (i) 0 to 500 km, (ii) 500 to 1,000 km, (iii) 1,000 to 5,500 km and (iv) 5,500 km and above; and if he will further subdivide each category into land, sea and air-based systems.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Details on the number of United Kingdom nuclear warheads is classified, as is the number of United States nuclear weapons assigned to United Kingdom nuclear delivery systems. However, unclassified information about United Kingdom nuclear forces is summarised in paragraph 404 of volume I of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1986" (Cmnd 9763). I also refer the hon. Member to annex A, volume 1, of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1987" (Cmnd 101-I), in particular figures 15 and 16, which show NATO's nuclear systems according to range.

  Naval History
  Mr. Trotter
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement as to the extent to which naval history is taught at Dartmouth; and if he will take steps to ensure that young officers are adequately instructed as to the traditions of the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Freeman
  The naval history course at Britannia Royal naval college, Dartmouth, is taught during the first term of naval general training. The term is 14 weeks in length and the course is made up of 14 lectures, followed by a written examination.
  344
  Proposals currently under consideration would increase the amount of time available for the teaching of naval history, and allow a more strategic and thematic approach to be adopted.

  Training will continue to include instruction in the values and traditions of the Royal Navy. They are, and will continue to be, an essential part of the training of young officers at Dartmouth.

  Jaguar and Tornado (Accidents)
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, South of Tuesday 30 June, Official Report, column 51, how many civilians have been killed or injured and what is the value of property damaged in Jaguar and Tornado aircraft accidents since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  No civilian injuries or fatalities resulted from the accidents referred to in my answer of 30 June. As the hon. Member will be aware, the Ministry of Defence makes every effort to ensure that members of the public do not suffer loss or material damage as a result of Royal Air Force operations. Anyone so affected is encouraged to submit a claim for compensation under long-standing procedures. A complete record of compensation claims for the period in question cannot be compiled at such short notice. However, since 1982, claims to the value of £30,000 have been settled as a result of Tornado and Jaguar accidents. Claims originating from recent accidents are still under consideration.

  Army Cadet Corps (Inner Cities)
  Sir John Farr
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to establish an Army Cadet Corps unit in Leicester and in other inner-city areas.

  Mr. Freeman
  I will answer shortly.

  El Salvador (Training Facilities)
  Mr. Corbyn
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if there are any plans to extend training facilities to any further cadets or forces personnel from El Salvador and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no current applications for military training assistance from the Government of El Salvador.

  Stornoway Airport
  Mr. Macdonald
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to extend or to reduce housing provision at Stornoway airport; what plans there are for the future military development of Stornoway airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no current plans to increase or decrease married quarter holdings at RAF Stornoway, as the existing houses are expected to be able to cope with the planned manning levels. There are no plans to extend the development or increase the military usage of Stornoway airport.

  Type 23 Frigate
  Mr. Frank Field
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to ask for tenders for the next batch of type 23 frigates.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Decisions on further follow-on orders for type 23 frigates will be made when appropriate.

  Defence Expenditure
  Mr. Bevan
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he will publish his response to the first report from the Defence Committee on "Expenditure on Major Defence Projects: Accountability to the House of Commons", H.C. 340, Session 1986–87; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Younger
  Yes. The Committee has already been notified that I shall arrange for the first defence equipment project report to be submitted to it in 1988. I note that the Committee's proposal in paragraph 33 of its report concerning highly classified projects is addressed to its successor Committee.

EMPLOYMENT

  Women
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment (a)what data are available to indicate that women who may wish to work part-time also wish to be eligible for fewer and lesser employment rights and benefits than women working full-time and (b) whether he will list the data.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I know of no such data, but there is some evidence that current employment protection legislation, including that intended to protect part-time workers, deters employers from creating new jobs.

  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will list the statistical information which illustrates that the YTS has revolutionised the opportunities girls have to obtain vocational qualifications as stated in the Home Office report: "The Nairobi Forward-Looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women: A Review."

  Mr. Nicholls
  YTS is a two-year equal opportunity training scheme aiming to provide trainees of both sexes with vocational qualifications. Suitable qualifications are being identified on behalf of the Manpower Services Commission by a YTS certification board. These qualifications are progressively coming on stream in YTS. Until the board has completed its work and a full range of qualifications is available in YTS, it is not possible to provide reliable statistical data on the general impact of qualifications across YTS. The latest information applicable to one-year YTS indicates that the acquisition of qualifications is equally divided between males and females. The fact that YTS provides widespread and equal opportunities means that the scheme has broken new ground for opening up opportunities for girls.

  Employment and Family Commitments
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether his Department is monitoring the
  346
  extent to which parental leave and flexible working arrangements, designed to help parents combine employment and family commitments, are being adopted by employers in response to the Government's encouragement, rather than a statutory obligation, to do so.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department is not aware of any surveys on the extent to which employers and employees have agreed arrangements specifically for the purpose of helping working parents to combine employment and family commitments. However, it closely monitors all research carried out into the general question of flexible working patterns, and has itself commissioned and carried out studies yielding relevant information.

  Training (Disabled People)
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will give the number of disabled people who have applied for places on the new job training scheme; and if he will express this number as a percentage of the total number of applicants to the scheme;

  (2) if he will give the number of disabled people who have been accepted for places on the new job training scheme; and if he will express this number as a percentage of the total number of people accepted on the scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  Information on the number of disabled people who have applied for places on the new job training scheme is not available. However, research carried out during the pilot stage of the scheme showed that 13 per cent. of trainees had a health or disability problem. A comprehensive follow-up survey of trainees is planned to take place later in the year.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will outline any measures, including any special funding arrangements, available to ensure that disabled people derive maximum benefit from the job training scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  Arrangements have been made to ensure equality of opportunity in the new job training scheme for people with disabilities. Managing agents have a contractual commitment to provide equal opportunities in their scheme regardless of sex, race or disability and will in due course have to satisfy the criterion on equal opportunities for approved training organisation status. The scheme design allows training programmes to be drawn up according to the particular needs and abilities of individuals, including people with disabilities.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how the criteria for a place on the job training scheme co-ordinate with criteria for other programmes, including the youth training scheme, community programme and new workers scheme, with regard to disabled people.

  Mr. Cope
  The new job training scheme is open to all those aged 18 or over who have been signing at an unemployment benefit office for at least the last six months. It is one of a number of MSC programmes which provide a wide range of opportunities for people with disabilities.

  The eligibility criteria programmes vary and overlap depending on the objectives of the individual programmes. Specialist careers officers or the disablement resettlement officers, as appropriate, help disabled people to decide on the opportunities most suitable for them.
  347
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the voluntary organisations of and for disabled people which were consulted prior to the introduction of the job training scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  The Manpower Services Commission consulted a wide range of organisations, including the voluntary sector and organisations dealing with disabled people, before the national extension of the new job training scheme in April 1987. The scheme has also been considered at length by the commission and its advisory bodies.

  Four-day Week
  Mr. Grocott
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the number of full-time employees in (a) manufacturing, and (b) service industries whose terms of employment allow them to work a four-day week.

  Mr. Lee
  Information from which to produce such estimates is not available. Some national collective agreements specify the number of days per week to be worked and details of these are included in the Department's publication "Time Rates of Wages and Hours of Work", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Crown lintel Classification Scheme
  Mr. Gregory
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what results there are to date following the introduction of the crown hotel classification scheme; and how many hotels have failed to meet the specification.

  Mr. Lee
  To date, over 9,800 applications for registration under the crown classification scheme have been received by the English tourist hoard. According to English tourist hoard figures, less than 20 have failed to meet the criteria for registration.

  Mr. Fearn
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to extend the crown rating system to all hotels, guest houses and holiday flats.

  Mr. Lee
  This is a matter for the English tourist board. However, I understand that, as well as the existing voluntary crown classification scheme covering all serviced accommodation and the rose award grading and classification scheme for holiday parks, the board is planning to introduce a verification scheme for self-catering accommodation before the end of the year.

  Tourism
  Mr. Fearn
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment on what criteria grants are provided for tourist projects such as the building of new local accommodation or the funding of tourist attractions.

  Mr. Lee
  The English tourist board can provide financial assistance under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 to help with the capital cost of tourism projects in England which would not otherwise be able to go ahead, either at all or in the planned form or timescale. Projects must be commercially viable and make a positive contribution to employment and to the tourism potential of the area concerned.

  Mr. Fearn
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what help he provides for private enterprise schemes within the tourist industry; and if he will make a statement.
  348
  Mr. Lee
  Private sector tourism projects are eligible for consideration under the section 4 scheme of selective financial assistance run by the English tourist board. In 1986–87, the ETB approved offers of assistance totalling £14 million, the major part of which went to private sector schemes. Private companies can also benefit both directly and indirectly from marketing activities carried out by the ETB and the regional tourist boards in England and, overseas, by the British Tourist Authority.

  YTS
  Mr. Gregory
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the most recent statistics for the number of YTS places taken up in tourism-related jobs.

  Mr. Lee
  There is no precise definition of tourism-related YTS places, but in 1985–86, the most recent year for which information is currently available, there were around 8,600 starts in Great Britain on YTS places which were classified to the hotel and catering industry, which includes tourist accommodation. In addition, the Association of British Travel Agents and a number of individual tour operators run YTS schemes offering over 2,000 places for young people wishing to train in the travel industry.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD)

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Grocott
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate in £ sterling of the average cost per head in the United Kingdom of the United Kingdom contribution to the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The United Kingdom contributes to the EC budget as a whole, rather than to individual items of expenditure, at approximately 20 per cent. abated by the Fontainebleau mechanism.

  The 1987 budget provides for expenditure of 24,174 mecu (£16,670 million) under the common agricultural policy. The forecast of United Kingdom receipts from the CAP in 1987–88 is £1,399 million.

  Intervention Stocks
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table showing the various amounts of particular foodstuffs held in private and public intervention stocks within the European Economic Community; and if he will also publish the comparable totals for each commodity at the same time in each of the previous five years.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [pursuant to his reply, 1 July 1987, c. 121]: A note setting out the volume of Community intervention stocks and private storage stocks, including those of foodstuffs, on the latest available dates has been deposited in the Library of the House, and updated monthly, since January 1985. The most recent note was deposited on 1 July. Comparable information on EC stock levels in years previous to 1985 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Intervention Stores
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been spent on

  349
  maintaining European Economic Community food intervention stores in London by borough in each of the past four years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 July 1987, c. 221]: I regret that records are not kept in a form which enables this information to be readily extracted. Expenditure on storage and related costs in the United Kingdom was

  £000

  1983–84

  48,623

  1984–85

  57,655

  1985–86

  124,595

  1986–87

  1128,521

  1Provisional.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Ministerial Responsibility
  Mr. Franks
  asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list his precise responsibilities for the organisation, management and overall efficiency of the Home Civil Service.

  Mr. Luce
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the recent MPO report "The Challenge of Change in the Civil Service", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  General Medical Council
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Minister for the Civil Service if the Lord President of the Council is satisfied with the operation of paragraph 60 of the General Medical Council (Preliminary Proceeding Committee and Professional Conduct Committee) (Procedure Rules) Order of Council 1980, (S.I., 1980, No. 858) concerning transcripts of proceedings of the professional conduct committee of' the General Medical Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  Yes. My right hon. and noble Friend is satisfied that the General Medical Council's procedure conforms with the rule approved by the Privy Council.

  Central Unit on Purchasing
  Sir David Price
  asked the Minister for the Civil Service if the Government intend to retain the Central Unit on Purchasing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  The joint Cabinet Office/Treasury central unit on purchasing was set up in 1985 for a period of three years. Its future will be reviewed nearer to the end of the three-year period.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Income Tax (Childminding Costs)
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the tax expenditure costs of allowing working mothers to put their childminding costs up to a maximum of £35 a week against income tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The cost of relief for the childminding costs of working mothers would depend on a number of factors such as whether the relief would be 350
  available only for children of pre-school age or for older children as well; whether the relief would be given against the total income of a married couple or would be restricted to the income of the working mother; the treatment of relief for payments made to relatives and the extent to which relief was in practice taken up by mothers.

  As an illustration, if all working mothers of children aged under five received relief on child-minding expenses of £35 per week, the direct revenue cost, in a full year at 1987–88 levels, would be about £350 million. This assumes that, for a married woman, relief would be available against her and her husband's joint income for tax purposes. In practice, the cost would be dependent on the level of take-up of the relief.

  British Petroleum plc
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements have been made for the further sale of Government-held shares in British Petroleum plc; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I announced on 18 March at column 1011 that, subject to market conditions, the Government will sell their remaining shareholding in British Petroleum during this financial year. The proceeds will be received in instalments, of which the first will be in 1987–88. The Government have appointed N M Rothschild and Sons Ltd. as their main financial advisers and are discussing arrangements for the sale with them and with British Petroleum. Further announcements will be made in due course.

  Free Ports
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans Her Majesty's Government have to extend free ports.

  Mr. Brooke
  None at present. The Government will review the future of free ports at the end of the five-year trial period.

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

  Mr. Brooke
  Yes. The free ports regime was established for a five-year trial period to see whether the benefits forecast by the designated operators can be realised. To date, some free ports have made substantial progress; others have been less successful. We will continue to monitor the experiment over the remainder of its five-year life.

  Mr. Parry
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new jobs have been created at the Liverpool free port at the latest date.

  Mr. Brooke
  Approximately 100 new jobs in manufacturing and distribution have been created at Liverpool free port.

  Personal Incomes
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table indicating, on the basis of the most recent information available, what the average pre-tax per capita personal income is in each of the standard regions of the United Kingdom; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1979.
  351
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The estimates of the average pretax personal income per head, in each of the standard regions for each year since 1979 are as follows:

  Region

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  United Kingdom

  3,040

  3,594

  3,941

  4,315

  4,646

  4,971

  5,368

  North

  2,781

  3,345

  3,724

  4,122

  4,344

  4,489

  4,946

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,849

  3,393

  3,661

  4,082

  4,348

  4,420

  4,941

  East Midlands

  2,941

  3,458

  3,800

  4,187

  4,512

  4,886

  5,128

  East Anglia

  2,870

  3,426

  3,731

  4,175

  4,564

  4,919

  5,291

  South East

  3,441

  4,072

  4,511

  4,852

  5,276

  5,692

  6,114

  Greater London

  3,671

  4,314

  4,796

  5,206

  5,691

  6,106

  6,631

  Rest of South East

  3,284

  3,908

  4,322

  4,617

  5,004

  5,421

  5,778

  South West

  2,940

  3,520

  3,832

  4,233

  4,571

  4,908

  5,171

  West Midlands

  2,944

  3,388

  3,618

  3,963

  4,237

  4,620

  5,012

  North West

  2,890

  3,426

  3,760

  4,114

  4,384

  4,735

  5,129

  England

  3,093

  3,659

  4,013

  4,382

  4,721

  5,058

  5,455

  Wales

  2,753

  3,243

  3,482

  3,857

  4,082

  4,256

  4,710

  Scotland

  2,882

  3,403

  3,766

  4,179

  4,537

  4,841

  5,240

  Northern Ireland

  2,503

  2,895

  3,183

  3,595

  3,769

  4,058

  4,341

  Pensioners
  Mr. Marlow
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of disregarding for tax purposes the first (a) £5 per week, (b) £10 per week and (c) £20 per week of occupational pensions for pensioners over 65 years of age.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The full-year costs at 1987–88 levels are estimated to be about £150 million, £290 million and £510 million, respectively. These estimates are on the basis that a wife with a pension in her own right would be entitled to a separate tax exemption.

  Customs Officers (Dispute)
  Mr. Waller
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the effects of the dispute involving customs officers in terms of delays to goods imports.

  Mr. Brooke
  I shall let my hon. Friend have a reply as soon as possible.

  Coinage
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of the consultation process in relation to the proposed changes in the coinage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Grocott
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many full-time employees in the Civil Service have terms of employment that allow them to work a four-day week.

  Mr. Brooke
  The terms of employment for full-time civil servants are such that, wherever practicable, it is standard practice for the conditioned hours to be worked over a live-day week. However, it is possible for 352
  departmental managements to agree to the conditioned hours being worked over a different period. There is no central record of the number of civil servants who may be covered by agreements which allow them to work a four-day week.

THE ARTS

  North-west Region
  Mr. Stott
  asked the Minister for the Arts whether he plans to meet the director of North-West Arts to discuss the level of financial support in the north-west for arts education projects.

  Mr. Cunliffe
  asked the Minister for the Arts when he last met the director of North-West Arts to discuss the level of funding for community arts projects in the northwest.

  Mr. Luce
  I met the director of North-West Arts during my tour of the region last April, when I visited several arts education projects and community arts centres.

  Mrs. Wise
  asked the Minister for the Arts how much is spent on the arts per capita in the north-west.

  Miss Lestor
  asked the Minister for the Arts how much is spent on the arts per capita in the north-west.

  Mr. Luce
  The Policy Studies Institute's publication "Facts about the arts 2" gives the following information:

  Local authority expenditure per head on arts, museums and galleries by region, 1983–84: North-West £1·84.

  Arts Council expenditure per head by region, 1984–85: North-West £0·78.

  These are the latest figures available.

  Mr. Eastham
  asked the Minister for the Arts when he last met the director of North-West Arts to discuss the level of expenditure per head on the arts in the north-west.

  Mr. Andrew F Bennett
  asked the Minister for the Arts when he last visited North-West Arts to discuss the level of arts funding in Manchester.

  Mr. Luce
  On 9 and 10 April.

  Northern Region
  Ms. Armstrong
  asked the Minister for the Arts how much is spent on the arts per capita on the northern region.

  Ms. Quin
  asked the Minister for the Arts how much is spent on the arts per capita in the northern region.

  Mr. Luce
  The Policy Studies Institute's publication "Facts about the arts 2" gives the following information:

  Local authority expenditure per head on arts, museum and galleries by region, 1983–84: Northern £2·27.

  Arts Council expenditure per head by region, 1984·85: Northern £1·13.

  These are the latest figures available.

  National Book Committee
  Mr. Buchan
  asked the Minister for the Arts if he has any plans to meet the chairman and secretary of the National Book Committee.

  Mr. Luce
  I shall be meeting the chairman (Lady David) and other representatives from the literary world at the reception I am giving on 22 July.

  British Film Institute
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Minister for the Arts when he last met the director of the British Film Institute to discuss its future funding.

  Mr. Luce
  I met the director of the British Film Institute when I visited the John Paul Getty Conservation Centre, Berkhamstead, on 31 March.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  asked the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the expenditure on cinema exhibitions by the British Film Institute.

  Mr. Luce
  The BFI made available £842,590 for cinema exhibitions in 1986–87, as follows:

  £472,590 funded directly by the BFI.

  £225,000 via Regional Arts Associations.

  £120,000 cinema capital funding.

  £25,000 Regional exhibitions.

  South-west Region
  Ms. Primarolo
  asked the Minister for the Arts when he last met the director of South West Arts to discuss the level of financial support for community arts in Bristol.

  Mr. Luce
  I met the director of South West Arts during my visit to the region on 19 March and we discussed a wide range of topics, including community arts.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Hannam
  asked the Minister for the Arts how much is spent on the standards of physical access to the arts for the disabled.

  Mr. Luce
  No national figures are available. The Arts Council has published a code of practice in which theatres and other arts bodies are encouraged to do all that they can to improve such access, and other funding bodies are acting similarly.

  Museums
  Mr. Butler
  asked the Minister for the Arts whether he has any plans to seek to alter the powers of museums to dispose of items that are duplicated, surplus to requirements, or not salient to the aims of the museums concerned.

  Mr. Luce
  Most of the national museums and galleries which I sponsor already have limited statutory powers to dispose of items from the collections but I will bear in mind the point made by my hon. Friend.

  Glasgow
  Mr. Maxton
  asked the Minister for the Arts whether he plans to meet the Scottish Arts Council to discuss additional funding for the arts in Glasgow.

  Dr. Godman
  asked the Minister for the Arts whether he plans to meet Glasgow city council to discuss additional funding for the arts in Glasgow.

  Mr. Luce
  I expect to meet the chairman of the Scottish Arts Council when I visit the Edinburgh festival in August. No doubt we shall discuss the funding of the arts in Scotland.

  Public Libraries
  Mr. Haynes
  asked the Minister for the Arts how many public libraries have closed since 1979.

  Mr. Barron
  asked the Minister for the Arts how many public libraries have closed since 1979.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  asked the Minister for the Arts how many public libraries have closed in England and Wales since 1979.

  Mr. Luce
  The total number of service points in England increased from 13,948 in 1979–80 to 17,236 in 1985–86. The number of static libraries decreased from 3,638 to 3,411 over the same period. The reduction has occurred mainly in small libraries opening less than 10 hours a week, reflecting in part a general trend to replace small branches, which provided a very limited service, with mobiles and with larger branches covering a wider area. Responsibility for public libraries in Wales rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Public Library Book Funds
  Mr. Madden
  asked the Minister for the Arts whether he will publish details of the level of financial support for public library book funds in England since 1979.

  Mr. Luce
  Support for public library book funds in England is a matter for the local authorities. Statistics published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, and supplemented by information obtained by my office, indicate the following level of funding:
  355

  £ million

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  Expenditure on books

  38·3

  40·2

  44·0

  49·9

  54·3

  56·2

  60·7

  Number of authorities responding

  108

  106

  108

  108

  108

  107

  108

  Statistics for 1986–87 are not yet available.

  Mrs. Mahon
  asked the Minister for the Arts when he last met the Library Association to discuss the level of funding for public libraries.

  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Minister for the Arts when he last met the Library Association to discuss the level of financial support for public library book funds.

  Mrs. Walley
  asked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received from the Library Association about the level of financial support for public library book funds.

  Mr. Luce
  I last met a formal delegation from the Library Association on 13 January 1986 when our discussions included funding for public libraries. I have since met and corresponded with individual officers of the association on this and other subjects on a number of occasions.

  Business Sponsorship
  Mr. Chapman
  asked the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement about the progress of the business sponsorship incentive scheme for the arts.

  Mr. Luce
  The business sponsorship incentive scheme continues to be successful. It has brought £12·4 million new money into the arts and over 400 businesses have sponsored the arts for the first time.

  As I announced in the House on 12 March, at column 494, I intend to continue the scheme in 1988–89.

  Films and Television
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  asked the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to help preserve classic works of films and television.

  Mr. Luce
  The British Film Institute maintains the national film archive, and, thanks particularly to the great generosity of private donors, it has recently been able to open a new conservation centre at Berkhamsted. In all, the institute spent £5·2 million on the building of the centre and the transfer and preservation of film in 1986–87. Negotiations are in progress about extending the television coverage of the archive. The national heritage memorial fund donated £62,000 to the archive in 1986–87, specifically for the preservation of classic films.

  Tourism
  Sir David Price
  asked the Minister for the Arts if he regularly meets representatives of the tourist industry to discuss matters of mutual interest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I am always happy to meet representatives of the tourist industry to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  My officials regularly attend meetings of the heritage committee of the British Tourist Authority and keep closely in touch with tourism initiatives.
  356

  Wales
  Mr. Rogers
  asked the Minister for the Arts when he last met the Welsh Arts Council to discuss future arts funding for Wales.

  Mr. Morgan
  asked the Minister for the Arts whether he plans to meet the Welsh Arts Council to discuss the level of arts funding in Cardiff.

  Mr. Luce
  I met the chairman of the Welsh Arts Council shortly after his appointment last year and have no immediate plans for another meeting. The level of arts funding in Cardiff is a matter for the Welsh Arts Council.

  Per Capita Expenditure
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Minister for the Arts how much is spent per capita on the arts in Wales, England and Scotland.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  asked the Minister for the Arts what is the level of arts expenditure per head in Wales.

  Mr. Luce
  Central Government and local authority expenditures per capita on the arts in 1983–84 are shown in the Policy Studies Institute's publication "Facts about the Arts 2", as follows:

  Central Government

  Local Authorities

  Total

  £

  £

  £

  England

  3·6

  3·6

  7·2

  Wales

  5·0

  1·9

  6·9

  Scotland

  4·1

  5·2

  9·3

  These are the latest figures available.

  Royal Shakespeare Company
  Mr. Fisher
  asked the Minister for the Arts when he last met the governors of the Royal Shakespeare Company to discuss its future funding.

  Mr. Luce
  I met the chairman, Mr. Geoffrey Cass, recently and discussed with him matters of mutual interest including the company's financial position; but the level of funding to the RSC is a matter for the Arts Council. and I understand that the two bodies are in discussion on the matter.

  Mr. Fatchett
  asked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about the future funding of the Royal Shakespeare Company.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received some representations, but would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the question from the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) earlier today.

  Scotland
  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Minister for the Arts whether he plans to meet the Scottish Arts Council to discuss the level of future funding for theatre in Scotland.
  357
  Mr. Luce
  I expect that the subject will be discussed when I meet the chairman of the Scottish Arts Council during my visit to the Edinburgh international festival in August.

  London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Minister for the Arts whether he will publish a table showing the level of arts funding by each London borough.

  Mr. Luce
  Details of the estimated expenditure of local authorities on leisure and recreation services are published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy in the annual booklet "Leisure and Recreation Statistics". No records in more detail are available to my office.

  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Minister for the Arts when he last met the director of Greater London Arts to discuss the level of arts funding by London boroughs.

  Mr. Boateng
  asked the Minister for the Arts whether he plans to meet the director of Greater London Arts to discuss the level of arts funding by London boroughs.

  Mr. Luce
  On 12 May last.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  asked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about cuts in arts funding in London boroughs.

  Mr. Luce
  I have received a few representations, especially on the decision of Tower Hamlets to cut out all funding for the arts.

  Arts Marketing Scheme
  Mr. Maples
  asked the Minister for the Arts whether independent museums and galleries are eligible for the arts marketing scheme.

  Mr. Luce
  The arts marketing scheme is open to arts organisations, including museums and galleries, in receipt of Government or local authority funding. The primary purpose of the scheme is to encourage better marketing of the subsidised arts, but where regional or group marketing initiatives are involved applications which include independent museums and galleries may be considered.

  Wales (Theatre Companies)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  asked the Minister for the Arts when he last met the Welsh Arts Council to discuss the future of forming theatre companies in Wales.

  Mr. Luce
  I met the chairman of the Welsh Arts Council shortly after his appointment last year and discussed a wide range of matters with him.

  Regional Opera
  Mr. Ashby
  asked the Minister for the Arts when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Arts Council to discuss regional opera.

  Mr. Luce
  I meet the chairman regularly, and opera provision is among the subjects we discuss.

  Northern Regional Arts Association
  Miss Mowlam
  asked the Minister for the Arts when he last met the director of Northern Arts to discuss the funding of the Northern Regional Arts Association.

  Mr. Luce
  In Newcastle, last week.

  Payroll Giving Scheme
  Mr. Rowe
  asked the Minister for the Arts what plans he has to increase awareness of the payroll giving scheme among arts organisations.

  Mr. Luce
  My office has published a guide to the scheme for arts bodies, "Payroll Giving; making it work for the arts", explaining how it operates and what they can do to encourage payroll donations. This has been widely distributed amongst arts organisations, national museums and galleries, regional arts associations, and those individuals who had requested the previous OAL guide "New Tax Benefits for the Arts". My office has also arranged to distribute 3,000 copies of the leaflet in the Arts Council's bulletin this month. Action now rests with arts charities themselves to take advantage of these new benefits.

  Public Libraries (Community Services)
  Mr. Illsley
  asked the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the level of expenditure by public libraries on community services.

  Mr. Luce
  No statistics are currently available on the amount spent by public libraries on "community services". The publication by my office of a model costing system for public libraries, which I announced on 7 July, at column 15, should enable library authorities to cost the specific services they provide.

  National Gallery
  Mr. Knox
  asked the Minister for the Arts when he next plans to meet the director of the National Gallery to discuss the proposed extension.

  Mr. Luce
  I have no immediate plans to do so but I and my officials keep in close touch with the National Gallery over this important development.

  Yorkshire
  Mr. Lofthouse
  asked the Minister for the Arts when he last met the director of Performing Arts to discuss the funding of community arts projects in Yorkshire.

  Mr. Luce
  I met the director of Yorkshire Arts during my visit to Leeds on 2 April, and discussed the funding of the arts in Yorkshire, including the provision made for community arts.

  Leeds
  Mr. Battle
  asked the Minister for the Arts what information he has about the level of employment in the arts in Leeds.

  Mr. Luce
  The Regional Arts Association is aware of over 400 people employed in the arts in Leeds on a regular basis. In addition, several hundred people are engaged on short-term contract work. The major arts employers in the city are Opera North, Leeds Playhouse and the Leeds Art Gallery.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Retirement Pensioners (Television Licences)
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his estimate of the number of retirement pensioners holding (a) a colour and (b) a black and white television licence;

  (2) what estimates are available to him of the cost of introducing (a) a 50 per cent. colour television licence fee and (b) a 50 per cent. black and white television licence fee for all retirement pensioners.

  Mr. Renton
  The latest available estimates of pensioner households with television licences, which are for 31 December 1985. are given in the following table. The estimated annual losses of revenue from introducing 50 per cent. colour and monochrome television licence fees for pensioner households, assuming no change to the current accommodation and residential care concessionary scheme or in the pattern of television ownership, would he of the order of £160 million and £7 million respectively.

  Estimated number of pensioner households1 with television licences

  United Kingdom

  Thousands of households

  Colour

  Monochrome

  Total

  Number of households covered by the current accommodation and residential care scheme

  350

  50

  400

  Number of households with full-rate licences

  5,500

  800

  6,300

  1 Households containing one or more pensioners.

  Police Interviews (Tape Recording)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on tape recording statements; and how soon he expects all statements made to the police by suspects to be tape recorded.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Following the completion of successful field trials last year, my right hon. Friend indicated his desire to see tape recording introduced on a nationwide basis by 1991. Provision has been made in the police capital works programme to enable forces to undertake necessary building work and to purchase appropriate equipment. The need to carry out such work, to provide some further training for the officers who will do the interviewing and to ensure that local arrangements are introduced when other agencies in the criminal justice system are also ready for them, requires that this introduction should be phased. I understand that in a number of force areas, the tape recording of interviews is already taking place in accordance with locally agreed arrangements and that it is working well.

  General Election
  Mr. Forth
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give, for the general election of 11 June, details of those candidates whose election addresses were queried or rejected, for the purpose of Post Office delivery, by head postmasters.
  360
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information of this kind is not recorded centrally. If my hon. Friend has some particular incident in mind, I should be pleased to hear from him.

  Immigration
  Mr. Fraser
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the working of the immigration rules relating to marriage.

  Mr. Renton
  The operation of the immigration rules, including those relating to marriage, is kept under regular review.

  Magistrates Courts (Fines and Fees)
  Mr. Irving
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total income from fines and fees collected by magistrates courts in 1985–86.

  Mr. John Patten
  The total income from fines and fees collected by magistrates courts in England and Wales in 1985–86 was £143,146,000.

  Mr. Irving
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total income from fines and fees collected by magistrates courts since 1985–86.

  Mr. John Patten
  The total income from fines and fees collected by magistrates courts in 1986–87 in England and Wales was £159,045,000; and for the first quarter of 1987–88 it was £43,850,000.

  Syrian Embassy (Bomb Incident)
  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any Arab terrorists were subsequently identified by police inquiries as responsible for the incident on 3 June 1985 when a bomb was placed outside the Syrian embassy in London; and whether any charges were subsequently brought against any person or persons.

  Mr. Hurd
  No one has been charged in connection wit h this incident. A suspect was arrested by the Italian authorities on 2 July 1985 in Rome in connection with the investigation of a number of terrorist offences throughout Europe. He was questioned by the Metropolitan police about the bomb at the Syrian Embassy in London on 3 June 1985. He has since been charged with an offence under Italian law and is at present awaiting trial in Italy.

  Zircon Satellite
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis about the number of officers still working full-time on the case of disclosure of material relating to the Zircon satellite.

  Mr. Hurd
  I am informed that there are no Metropolitan police officers still working full-time on the case.

  Crime
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of homicides involved drink in the last year for which figures are available;

  (2) what proportion of rapes involved drink in the last year for which figures are available.
  361
  Mr. John Patten
  Information on the use of alcohol in connection with notifiable offences is not collected centrally.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many extensions of detention requested by the police under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 have been personally considered and granted or refused by (a) the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (b) a junior Minister for the Home Department, (c) a Home Office official, (d) the Secretary of State for another Department and (e) a junior Minister for another Department.

  Mr. Hurd
  Of the requests by the police for extensions of detention under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 made to the Secretary of State for the Home Department(a) my predecessor and I have personally considered 161 and granted 159 (b) a Minister of State or Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department considered 14 and granted 13 and (c) (d) and (e) none were decided by a Home Office official, or Secretary of State or junior Minister for another Department.

  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are any plans to publish in his Department's quarterly statistics on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts the numbers of complaints made against the police in relation to the Prevention of Terrorism Act which are made available to the Prevention of Terrorism Act Commissioner.

  Mr. Hurd
  No.

  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons excluded under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts were originally detained in London.

  Mr. Hurd
  I shall reply as soon as possible.

  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons excluded under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts 1974, 1976 and 1984 were excluded direct from prison after completing a prison term.

  Mr. Hurd
  I shall reply as soon as possible.

  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are used to decide whether a person requesting a review of his exclusion order made under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974, 1976 or 1984 is granted one.

  Mr. Hurd
  All exclusion orders now in force have been made under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1984. Orders made under this Act have a three-year life. Each order is reviewed about six months before it expires before I decide whether to make a new order on the expiry. In considering a request for a review of an exclusion order before that time, I take into account the factors which led to the making of the order and the time which has elapsed since it was made.

  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons whose exclusion order made under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary
  362
  Provisions) Acts 1974 and 1976 and revoked during the three-year comprehensive review process had attended an interview with the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Hurd
  The information requested is not readily available.

  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals were successfully contacted from 1984 in connection with the comprehensive review of exclusion orders made under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts 1974 and 1976 that were still in force.

  Mr. Hurd
  The information requested is not readily available, I will reply as soon as possible.

  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many excludees had attended interviews with a Home Office adviser prior to having their exclusion order revoked as a part of making representations against their order within the specified period following removal under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 and 1984.

  Mr. Hurd
  Only under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 has someone who made representations against his exclusion order following removal from Great Britain or Northern Ireland of the United Kingdom had a right to an interview with an adviser. There have been six completed cases of representations, against exclusion orders made in Great Britain under that Act, following removal. In two of these cases, in both of which the excluded person had had an interview with an adviser, the Home Secretary revoked the exclusion order.

  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were initially offered an interview with a Home Office adviser as part of the representations against their exclusion order under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts 1974, 1976 or 1984; and how many declined to attend.

  Mr. Hurd
  Twelve people were offered interviews with a Home Office adviser as part of the representations made against their exclusion order made under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974. None declined to attend. Under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 there was, and there is under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, a statutory right for a person who has been served with notice of the making of an exclusion order to include in his or her representations against the order a request for a personal interview with an adviser. Under the 1976 Act, if the excluded person had not been removed with his consent from Great Britain or Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom, he or she had to be granted a personal interview with the adviser. Under the 1984 Act, this right extends to a person who has been removed.

  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals held under the international provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 and against whom an extension of detention was authorised by the Secretary of State were (a) subsequently charged with an offence or (b) deported under the Immigration Act 1971.

  Mr. Hurd
  I shall reply as soon as possible.
  363
  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of international terrorism there have been in (a) the Metropolitan police area, and (b) the rest of Britain during the following periods: (i) 1 January 1981 to 29 March 1984, and (b) since 30 March 1984 to the latest date for which figures are available.

  1981

  May—December 1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  January—June 1987

  Shooting incidents

  —

  1

  —

  3

  2

  3

  —

  Bombing incidents exploded

  9

  3

  4

  6

  2

  2

  —

  neutralised or failed to explode

  1

  2

  1

  4

  4

  —

  5

  Arson attacks

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Kidnappings

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Hi jacking of aircraft

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals arrested on suspicion of involvement in international terrorism since 30 March 1984 were arrested under the ordinary criminal law rather than the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 in (a) the Metropolitan police area, and (b) the rest of Britain.

  Mr. Hurd
  The number of persons suspected of involvement in international terrorism who are arrested under other legislation than the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 is not recorded, and could not readily be obtained.

  Ceremonial State Events (Traffic Congestion)
  Dr. Marek
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on measures taken to minimise traffic congestion arising as a result of ceremonial state events occurring on weekdays.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am informed by the Commissioner that, prior to such events, the police plan alternative routes in consultation with other agencies, and that advance warning of likely congestion is given through signs and notices to the local media, motoring organisations and local businesses etc. On the day of the event, alternative routes are marked by the police and motoring organisations; police officers are posted to direct traffic; and local radio stations are given information on delays.

  Citizenship
  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to exempt from liability to pay the fee for people in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income support to enable them to register as British citizens before the deadline of 31 December.

  Mr. Renton
  No. The Government believe that it is right that those who wish to become British citizens should meet the cost of their registration. The cost of exemptions for some groups would increase the costs to be borne by other applicants.
  364
  Mr. Hurd
  Statistics in the form requested are not available. The following table sets out the terrorist incidents which have taken place in Great Britain since 1981. These do not include incidents apparently caused by extremist nationalist or anarchist groups based in Great Britain, or by extremist animal rights activists.

  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider allowing people in receipt of supplementary benefit and family income supplement to be allowed to pay the fee for British citizenship in instalments beyond the deadline of 31 December.

  Mr. Renton
  I am not persuaded that it would be right to introduce such a system, which would increase costs and the time taken to finalise registration applications. Those who wish to apply for the relevant registration entitlements still have until the end of December to make arrangements to meet the cost of the fee, which has been held at £60 since April 1986.

  Hit-and-Run Drivers (Sentencing Policy)
  Mr. Litherland
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to increase the maximum sentence available to the courts on conviction of hit-and-run drivers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The road traffic law review, which was set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, is examining the scope and definition of road traffic offences and the penalties available. We have no plans to change existing legislation before considering its report, which is expected towards the end of the year.

  Detained Persons (Police Cells)
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many male and female prisoners were being held in police cells in England and Wales on each of the following dates: (a) 29 June, (b) 30 June, (c) 1 July, (d) 2 July, (e) 3 July, (f) 4 July, (g) 5 July, (h) 6 July, (i) 7 July and (j) 8 July.

  Mr. John Patten
  The only reliable figures available are obtained from a weekly census on Fridays. On 26 June, the number of prisoners being held in police cells in England and Wales was 411 males and 95 females; on 3 July, 511 males and 109 females; and on 10 July, 553 males and 95 females.

  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were held in police cells in areas outside the Metropolitan police district during the period 29 June to 8 July.
  365
  Mr. John Patten
  The only reliable figures available are obtained from a weekly census on Fridays. The number of prisoners held in police cells in areas outside the Metropolitan police district on 26 June and 3 and 10 July were 185, 264 and 311 respectively.

  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which police districts prisoners were held in police cells during the period 29 June to 8 July.

  Mr. John Patten
  Prisoners were held in police cells by each of the following police forces at some time during the period 29 June to 8 July:

  Avon and Somerset

  Bedfordshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Cheshire

  City of London

  Derbyshire

  Essex

  Gloucestershire

  Greater Manchester

  Hampshire

  Kent

  Lancashire

  Merseyside

  Metropolitan

  Northamptonshire

  North Wales

  Nottinghamshire

  South Yorkshire

  Staffordshire

  Suffolk

  Thames Valley

  West Mercia

  West Midlands

  West Yorkshire

  Wiltshire

  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many remand prisoners are currently being held in police cells in England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  On 10 July 1987, 648 prisoners, most of whom would have been untried, were held in police cells in England and Wales.

  >Prospective Employees (Police Information)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he will initiate inquiries to see whether information is ever provided by the police to employers in relation to the recruitment of individuals;

  (2) what instructions he has issued to the Metropolitan police about provision of information to the Economic League or its officials.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The principles governing the disclosure of police information to potential employers and others are set out in section 17 of the consolidated circular to the police on crime and kindred matters and Home Office circular 45/1986. A joint departmental circular issued on 17 July 1986 (Home Office circular 44/1986) sets out the arrangements for checks on people seeking positions in local authorities that give substantial access to children. Copies of these circulars are in the Library. We see no need to issue separate guidance to the Metropolitan police on these arrangements, which do not allow for the disclosure of information to private organisations such as the Economic League.

  Economic League
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he hopes to publish the results of his inquiry into contacts between the police and the Economic League;

  (2) why he chose the North Yorkshire police to investigate complaints about contacts between the Economic League and the North Yorkshire police;

  (3) how many police forces were included in his inquiry into contacts between the police and the Economic League;

  (4) how many officials of the Economic League were interviewed in the course of his inquiry into the League; what League records were examined; and whether access was refused to any such records.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It was considered sensible for the North Yorkshire police to undertake this investigation, since the claims about contacts were made in the course of an interview at the regional office of the Economic League in Skipton and were not specifically directed against that force. Since no evidence was found to support these claims, the investigation was not extended to other forces. Six officials of the League were contacted in the course of the inquiry. Records of names were examined; access to other records was not refused.

  The outcome of the inquiry was announced in an answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 30 June 1987, at column 55–56.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the most recent date available, what was the total prison population for England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  On 10 July 1987, the total prison population for England and Wales was 50,381. This does not include the 648 prisoners held in police cells.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, at the most recent date available, how many remand prisoners were being held in custody in England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  On 31 May 1987 about 11,200 untried or convicted unsentenced prisoners were held in custody in England and Wales. This included 355 prisoners held in police cells, most of whom would have been untried.

  Charity Commission
  Mr. Cash
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the report of Sir Philip Woodfield's efficiency scrutiny of the Charity Commission.

  Mr. Hurd
  We are placing copies of the report in the Libraries of both Houses and are arranging for copies to be sent to those who gave evidence to the scrutiny team. Arrangements are being made for printed publication by HMSO so that the report will be available more widely.

  I should like to thank Sir Philip Woodfield and his team for the contribution they have made to this important issue.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Microwave Therapy
  Mr. Steel
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will make a statement on the rules governing the administration of microwave therapy to patients;

  (2) if he has any plans to change the rules governing the administration of microwave therapy to patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The administration of microwave therapy to patients is a matter for the professional practitioners, the physiotherapists. The rules governing this treatment are those of professional practice which are incorporated in training approved by the appropriate professional body — the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. We are not aware of any plans to change the rules.

  The Department has given some consideration to possible dangers arising from unintentional exposure due to the electric and magnetic fields which inevitably surround operating microwave equipment. Work is currently in progress on defining possible risks and setting limits for exposure but to date there is no evidence to suggest that there is any significant risk, provided all persons not receiving treatment remain outside the immediate zone of influence of the operating microwave equipment.

  Departmental Forms (Lewisham)
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the reason for the delay in supplying an order of his Department's invalid care allowance claim forms, supplementary benefit, mobility allowance and attendance claim forms and leaflets to Lewisham social services department; and what is the average time in which such orders are processed.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand that an order was dispatched to Lewisham on Monday 6 July. Over the past few months the demand for leaflets, particularly bulk orders, has been very high and remains at a high level. This increase in requests has affected the normal working of the leaflets unit and has created substantial delays, sometimes running into several weeks.

  I am aware of the many problems this delay can cause. Discussions are currently taking place on various options to overcome these difficulties and include the option to use an outside agency to help clear the backlog of orders. As soon as a decision has been reached it will be implemented quickly.

  per cent.

  November

  July

  April

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  11986

  11987

  Basic pension 2

  single person

  11·4

  19·5

  16·5

  9·0

  11·0

  3·7

  5·1

  7·0

  1·0

  2·1

  married couple

  11·4

  19·6

  16·5

  9·0

  11·0

  3·7

  5·1

  7·0

  1·0

  2·1

  Retail price index

  8·1

  17·4

  15·3

  12·0

  6·3

  4·8

  4·9

  5·5

  1·7

  4·4

  Index of average earnings3

  13·3

  19·1

  17·9

  11·3

  8·3

  7·3

  6·5

  8·6

  5·9

  5·9

  368

  Hip Operations (Waiting Times)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list district health authorities where the waiting time for hip replacements is less than six months.

  Mr. Newton
  I am sorry I cannot give the hon. Member the information he seeks. Reliable estimates at district health authority level cannot be made from the sample information held centrally.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services why there is only one telephone line for each half of the alphabet for all inquiries about the payment of invalid care allowance; what is the average delay in paying back claims; and what improvements he intends to institute to ensure that cases receive their entitlement as quickly as possible.

  Mr. Scott
  Five telephone lines are available for inquiries of the invalid care allowance unit at Preston which currently takes an average of 19·2 weeks to process a backdated claim. We are taking all practical steps to reduce this period.

  Cumberlege Report
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to publish a response to the Cumberlege report entitled "Neighbourhood Nursing—A Focus for Care".

  Mr. Newton
  We are still considering the issues which emerged from the consultations on the community nursing review, and will respond as soon as possible.

  Retirement Pension
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish figures. for each year since 1978, comparing the annual percentage increases in the basic state retirement pension, for each of a single person and a married couple, with increases in ( a) the retail prices index, (b) the index of average earnings and (c) the net earnings (after income tax and national insurance contribution) at average earnings of a single person and a married couple.

  Mr. Scott
  The table shows the increase at uprating dates in each year for each of the items specified.
  369

  November

  July

  April

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  11986

  11987

  Net earnings (Male manual workers)

  single person

  16·4

  21·4

  13·3

  6·8

  6·0

  7·0

  8·5

  6·2

  45·9

  48·3

  married man

  15·8

  20·7

  13·5

  6·4

  6·3

  7·4

  8·8

  6·3

  45·7

  7·6

  Net earnings (all adult males)

  single person

  16·0

  22·2

  16·9

  8·1

  6·3

  7·5

  9·0

  6·8

  46·5

  48·4

  married man

  15·2

  21·3

  17·0

  7·8

  6·7

  7·8

  9·2

  6·9

  46·4

  47·9

  1 Increase since previous uprating date.

  2 Differences in the percentage increases in the pension for a single person and a married couple in 1979 and 1986 are due to rounding.

  3 Average earnings index, whole economy, seasonally adjusted.

  4 Based on provisional earnings figures for July 1986 and April 1987.

  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now supply the information requested by the hon. Member for Walsall, North as to the amount paid in £ sterling equivalent in state pension to the retired in other European Economic Community countries and the amount currently paid out in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Scott
  There is nothing I can usefully add to my reply to the hon. Member on 8 July at column 171

  Supplementary Benefit
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many new claims for supplementary benefit were submitted and accepted during each year since 1980; and how many dependants as well as claimants were involved in each case.

  Mr. Portillo
  The table shows the total number of claims for supplementary benefit, and the total number where a payment was made, in each year since 1980. (These include repeat claims made by the same person; there are no separate figures on the numbers of people who made claims.) I regret that no figures are available on the numbers of dependants involved.

  Claims made

  Payments made

  1980–81

  5,488,399

  4,004,964

  1981–82

  5,653,331

  4,073,740

  1982–83

  5,995,965

  4,374,982

  1983–84

  6,031,233

  4,646,030

  1984–85

  6,175,094

  4,909,437

  1985–86

  5,881,790

  4,307,714

  1986–87

  5,613,323

  4,053,295

  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will arrange for a one-off single payment to supplementary benefit claimants to enable those eligible to register as British citizens before the deadline of 31 December.

  Mr. Scott
  There is no provision in the supplementary benefit regulations for single payments to be made for Home Office citizenship fees. Supplementary benefit is intended to cover necessary living expenses, not the cost of acquiring the rights of citizenship.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will state whether disabled people at present in receipt of supplementary benefit at the long-term rate will continue to receive that rate during training under the job training scheme.

  Mr. Scott
  Yes. The long-term scale rate is used in calculating entitlement to supplementary allowance while 370
  a person participates in the job training scheme if he was entitled to that rate when he started the course or becomes entitled during the course.

  AIDS
  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what advice he has given to the dental profession to prevent the spread of AIDS.

  Mr. Newton
  The Chief Dental Officer issued guidance to all dentists in April last year which stressed the importance of following high standards of cross-infection control when treating all patients, including the use of operating gloves by all dentists and close support staff when treating patients. The advice was in line with previous advice on clinical procedures recommended by the expert group on hepatitis in dentistry in 1979. Following those simple procedures will minimise exposure to the virus during the course of dental treatment.

  The Chief Dental Officer also wrote to dentists in September 1986 advising against the use of jet injectors for multiple purposes by dentists. This guidance too relates to control of cross infection. The need to issue further guidance is kept under regular review.

  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether his Department's statistics on AIDS victims include people other than those suffering from Kaposi's sarcoma and/or pneumocystis pneumonia;

  (2) what are his Department's latest estimates for the numbers (a) infected and (b) dead from AIDS or HIV-related disease.

  Mr. Newton
  Statistics on AIDS are based on reports to the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre (CDSC) and the Communicable Disease (Scotland) Unit (CD(S)U). These statistics include people suffering from conditions other than Kaposi's sarcoma and/or pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, but these two diagnoses form the presenting features in more than half the reported cases. The definition of AIDS established at the Centres for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta, covers a number of other diagnoses, including other opportunistic infections. This definition is currently under review by CDC.

  The number of AIDS cases and people who have died from AIDS as reported to CDSC and CD(S)U was published on 6 July. A copy of the publication has been placed in the Library. There will also be cases of HIV-related illness, and possibly some deaths, amongst people who have not progressed to AIDS. These cases will not be included in the CDSC and CD(S)U AIDS figures.
  371
  I gave our current estimate of the number of people infected with HIV in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) on 7 July at column 123.

  Housing Benefit
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will update the figures given in his reply to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) Official Report, column 541, 2 February, showing the number of recipients of housing benefits since 1979–80; and if he will estimate the effect on the number of people in receipt of means-tested benefit of the proposed community charge, assuming that rate rebates are replaced by community charge rebates.

  Mr. Portillo
  The numbers of recipients of housing benefits since 1979–80, according to the latest available information, are as follows:

  Average number of recipients (Great Britain)

  Thousands

  Year

  Rent rebates

  Rent allowances

  Rate rebates2

  1979–80

  1,205

  220

  3,065

  1980–81

  1,330

  240

  3,350

  1981–82

  1,590

  250

  3,700

  1982–831

  3,050

  260

  5,320

  1983–84

  3,735

  1,015

  7,020

  1984–85

  3,745

  1,080

  7,220

  1985–86

  3,795

  1,175

  7,270

  1986–873

  3,745

  1,190

  7,120

  1987–883

  3,710

  1,200

  7,135

  1 Figures for 1982–83 include those local authority tenants receiving housing assistance in supplementary benefit who in November 1982 were included in the partial start of the housing benefits scheme.

  2 Most recipients of rent rebates allowances also receive rate rebates. Rate rebate recipients include owner occupiers.

  3 Estimates for 1986–87 and 1987–88 are provisional and are subject to revision. Estimates for earlier years may be subject to minor revision.

  The only estimates currently available on the number of people who would be eligible for a community charge rebate are in the Green paper "Paying for Local Rates" (Cmnd. 9714). Annex J of the paper estimates the number at 7,660,000 and sets out the assumptions on which this is based.

  Benefits
  Mr. McLeish
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total number of people in receipt of unemployment benefit in au, Fife, Central constituency at (a)June 1979, (b) June 1983 and (c) June 1987.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested, at the nearest available dates, is given in the following table:

  Number of persons receiving unemployment benefit

  May 1979

  May 1983

  February 1987

  Glenrothes UBO

  873

  1,605

  1,676

  Leven & Methil UBO

  730

  1,308

  1,659

  Resettlement Units
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress
  372
  of the review bodies established to develop alternative provision to the existing resettlement units in England and Wales.

  Mr. Portillo
  In two cases, Brighton and Bristol, proposals for the replacement of units have been agreed and the providers are taking steps to bring the facilities into operation.

  Eight other teams are expected to put proposals forward in the next few months. In seven cases development workers have been appointed or are about to be appointed to help review teams take things forward.

  The Wales review team has produced a consultative document on its plans for replacement provision and this was the subject of a conference in May attended by representatives from the local authority and voluntary sectors.

  Abortions
  Mr. Kilfedder
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total number of abortions which have been performed under the Abortion Act 1967 (a) on persons coming from Northern Ireland and (b) on persons from the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Newton
  The numbers of notifications of abortions carried out under the Abortion Act 1977 from 27 April 1968 to 31 December 1986 to women usually resident in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic are 20,957 and 41,548 respectively.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many vacancies for speech therapists in (a) inner London, (b) Greater London and (c) England and Wales remained unfilled at the most recent convenient date; and what steps are being taken to recruit or train speech therapists.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret that information on vacancy levels is not collected centrally. Recruitment of speech therapists is a matter for individual health authorities. Training of speech therapists takes place within institutions of higher education on courses recognised (under S.I. 1985 No. 47) by the College of Speech Therapists as providing suitable training for work in the National Health Service. The number of people entering employment as speech therapists with health authorities has recently been rising by about 9 per cent. a year.

  Supplementary Benefit and Residential Care
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what conclusions he has drawn from the report of the joint working party on supplementary benefit and residential care.

  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the Firth committee on supplementary benefit and residential care has reported.

  Mr. Newton
  We have received the report and are making arrangements for its publication later this month. We have drawn no conclusions from it, but will be considering it in the context of other studies, including in particular that of Sir Roy Griffiths in relation to community care.

  Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (Session Contract)
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from the call of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists about its session contract in relation to the demands of private practice.

  Mrs. Currie
  None.

  Private Patients
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will give for each year since 1979 (a) in both money terms and real terms the income received from private in-patients and (b) the number of such patients in each payment category;

  (2) what arrangements exist to ensure that no profits accrued from national charges to private patients as a result of health authorities with relatively high private patient costs opting out of the national system and establishing their own charges;

  (3) if he will list (a) those health authorities which have chosen to set their own charges to private patients for all treatment and (b) those health authorities which have chosen to set their own charges to private patients for some treatments.

  Mrs. Currie
  I shall let the hon. Member have replies as soon as possible.

  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information is available to his Department about the impact on consultants' commitment to National Health Service work of the growth of private practice.

  Mr. Newton
  I am not aware of any evidence that consultants' commitment to NHS work has been affected by the growth in private practice.

  National Health Service consultants may hold whole-time, maximum part-time or part-time contracts. Whole-time consultants, who may undertake private practice limited to the value of 10 per cent. of their National Health Service salary, and maximum part-time consultants, who may undertake private practice without specific limit for a slightly lower National Health Service salary, are both expected to devote substantially the whole of their professional time to the National Health Service. Since the introduction of the current contract in 1980, there have been variations from year to year in the proportion of consultants with each type of contract, but over the period as a whole there has been a slight increase in the proportion of contracts which are whole-time.

  HIV Virus
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) which variants of the HIV virus are known to escape detection by current tests; and what are his Department's estimates of their prevalence;

  (2) by what procedures his Department monitors the continuing development of variants of the HIV virus.

  Mr. Newton
  New retroviruses known collectively as HIV2 have been identified in West Africa. They may be variations of the same virus but are distinct from HIV. Test systems in current use for HIV do not reliably detect antibody to these viruses.

  Samples from selected individuals who may have been at risk from infection with these viruses are being
  374
  monitored by the Public Health Laboratory Service and other virology laboratories. This monitoring shows no evidence of HIV2 being prevalent in the United Kingdom.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many unemployed people have been disqualified from unemployment benefit on grounds of voluntary unemployment at each unemployment benefit office in Greater London since the new rules came into operation in October 1986; in how many cases the disqualification was for the maximum period; and what were the comparable figures for a similar period in 1983.

  Mr. Portillo
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.

  NHS Resources
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy towards the proposal from the Institute of Health Service Management, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing that at the minimum Health Service spending should be maintained as a proportion of national income with additional finance to cover demographic change and new problems such as AIDS.

  Mr. Newton
  We are studying the report's analysis and comments, taking account of the fact that the proper measure of the National Health Service is the record and growing amount of treatment and care it provides.

  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the latest percentage estimates of the increased need for the National Health Service resources due to demographic change in each year from 1970 to 1995.

  Mr. Newton
  The following figures are the latest available estimates of changes in demographic demand on hospital and community health services for each year from 1972–73 to 1995–96 (estimates for earlier years are not readily available):

  Per cent. change

  1972–73

  0·0

  1973–74

  0·0

  1974–75

  0·0

  1975–76

  0·0

  1976–77

  0·1

  1977–78

  0·3

  1978–79

  1·0

  1979–80

  1·2

  1980–81

  1·1

  1981–82

  0·4

  1982–83

  0·4

  1983–84

  0·5

  1984–85

  0·6

  1985–86

  1·3

  1986–87

  1·1

  1987–88

  1·0

  1988–89

  1·0

  1989–90

  1·0

  1990–91

  0·9

  1991–92

  0·7

  1992–93

  0·6

  1993–94

  0·3

  1994–95

  0·4

  1995–96

  0·9

  375
  The effect of demographic changes is not identified separately from other pressures for the family practitioner services which are demand led, but changes in population structure, and especially increases in the number of very elderly people, clearly lead to increased demand for these services as well.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will cause to be sent to all doctors concerned with the granting of his Department's benefits a package of up-to-date information on myalgic encephalomyelitis with a particular emphasis on the diagnostic problems.

  Mrs. Currie
  No. It is not the Department's policy to advise the medical profession on clinical practice.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will meet the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association and medical organisations to discuss ways on which general practitioners could be made better informed about the complaint.

  Mrs. Currie
  If they will write to me, I shall be pleased to receive and consider any representations from the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to discover whether people suffering from myalgic encephalomyelitis have problems obtaining his Departmant's benefits because of difficulties in diagnosing the disease.

  Mr. Scott
  Decisions by the independent adjudicating authorities about entitlement to incapacity or disablement benefits depend on medical statements that the claimant is incapable of work or suffers from the prescribed level or type of disablement. Doctors providing such statements are asked to give as full and accurate a diagnosis as the available evidence allows, but inability to provide the specific cause of the claimant's symptoms would not debar him from benefit (except in the case of prescribed industrial diseases). Problems as envisaged by the right hon. Member therefore ought not to arise.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people are receiving invalidity benefit because they are suffering from myalgic encephalomyelitis.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the form required. However, in the 1 per cent. sample of cases taken at 30 March 1985 there were seven people receiving invalidity benefit who were classified according to the international classification of diseases as cases of encephalitis, myelitis, and encephalomyelitis. As the sample and actual numbers are both small, grossing up this number may produce an inaccurate figure.

  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimates are available to him about the number of people suffering from myalgic encephalomyelitis.

  Mrs. Currie
  No statistics about the incidence of this disease are collected centrally.

  Manchester FPC (Ophthalmic Prescriptions)
  Mr. Meacher
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if the audit investigation report into the
  376
  Manchester family practitioner committee concerning ophthalmic prescriptions, as outlined in his letter to the hon. Member for Oldham, West of 27 February is now complete; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We have received a report from the auditors and I expect to write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Nobrium
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received concerning the exclusion of Nobrium capsules from the National Health Service limited list; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  We have received a number of letters about the exclusion of Nobrium capsules from National Health Service prescription under the selected list scheme. I understand that the Advisory Committee on National Health Service Drugs, which keeps the selected list scheme under review, has not considered it necessary to review the position of Nobrium capsules, nor has it received any representations from the manufacturers.

  BT (Total Care Service)
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether health authorities are paying for British Telecom's total care service where this is required by their employees due to on-call responsibilities;

  (2) whether general practitioners and other independent contractors can claim back from the National Health Service the cost of purchasing British Telecom's total care service where this is required to replace emergency fault repair cover;

  (3) what is the total cost to the family practitioner service budget of British Telecom's total care service; and whether this cost has been taken into account in his Department's estimates;

  (4) what is the total cost to the hospital and community health service budget of health authorities paying for British Telecom's total care service; whether this cost is reimbursed to health authorities; and whether health authority allocations have been increased to cover this new cost.

  Mr. Newton
  The total cost (including VAT) to the National Health Service of British Telecom's total care service is not yet known. Discussion will continue with BT on the application of the agreed charging arrangements which allow for the total cost to be influenced by the level of demands made.

  The cost of these BT services to the hospital and community health service will be met by health authorities from within their existing allocations for the current financial year. It is for health authorities to decide whether they wish all or some of their on-call staff to receive this BT service for which the authority would pay.

  Provision for the costs (including VAT) of British Telecom's total care service for priority telephone fault repairs for general medical practitioners (including trainees) and pharmacists in contract with family practitioner committees in England is included in the Department's estimates and central settlement by the Department has been agreed and will be made. To the extent that general dental practitioners and opticians in contract with family practitioner committees take up the

  377
  service any costs arising would form part of the normal remuneration arrangements and he indirectly reimbursed through the NHS scale of fees.

  Hospitals (Planning)
  Mr. Arnold
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the optimal size on clinical grounds in terms of the number of in-patient beds currently recommended to district health authorities when planning new general hospitals.

  Mrs. Currie
  There is no universally applicable optimal size.

  Each proposal must be looked at separately on its merits, balancing a range of factors. Although most district general hospitals now being built range between 400 and 800 beds, exceptions do occur. Factors taken into account would include:

  size and characteristics of the catchment area and its population;

  whether regional or supra-regional services are provided at the hospital;

  whether facilities (eg. geriatric or mental illness beds)
  are already provided elsewhere in the district;

  provision of a large enough range of services to meet the needs both of patients brought in following accidents or emergencies and non-emergency cases from the waiting lists;

  provision for a large enough population of patients in the specialties provided to ensure that staff have sufficient experience to maintain their skills and thus provide a high quality service;

  provision for sufficient patients to provide the experience required by the training bodies in order to employ junior doctors and nurses in training;

  provision for sufficient patients in the various specialties to make economic use of expensive equipment;

  the state of existing NHS stock;

  local social and geographical factors eg difficulties in travelling.

  Clarke v Chief Adjudication Officer
  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what are the implications of the decision of the European Court in the recent case of Clarke v Chief Adjudication Officer for Government policy on eligibility for disability benefits; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what are the implications of the decision of the European Court in the case of Clarke v Chief Adjudication Officer for the entitlement of married women who have been incapable of work since May 1984 to severe disablement allowance, under the passporting arrangements for former claimants of housewives' non-contributory invalidity pension;

  (3) what steps the Government are taking to comply with the European Court's decision in the case of Clarke v Chief Adjudication Officer.

  Mr. Scott
  The European Court's judgment in the case of Clarke v Chief Adjudication Officer was in answer to a question referred by a social security commissioner concerning Mrs. J. B. Clarke's entitlement to severe disablement allowance (SDA).

  The commission now has to give his decision on Mrs. Clarke's claim. It would be premature to make any
  378
  statement about Government action on the judgment in advance of the commissioner's decision. An announcement will be made as soon as possible thereafter.

  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, in the recent case of Clarke v Chief Adjudication Officer, what questions were referred by the Social Security Commissioner to the European Court.

  Mr. Scott
  The question referred for determination by the European Court was:"Does Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC have a direct effect such that a woman can from 22 December 1984 qualify for an invalidity benefit by reason of her having before that date satisfied conditions sufficient to enable a man to qualify for that benefit notwithstanding that she did not also before that date satisfy a further condition applicable under domestic law only to a class of woman of whom she was one?".

  Community Pharmacists
  Mr. Bill Michie
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from community pharmacists in Sheffield and nationally requesting an increase in advance payment to take account of the cashflow problems being caused by the non-processing of claims for refund of value added tax.

  Mr. Newton
  In addition to a number of representations from the Sheffield local pharmaceutical committee, we have received representations from the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, three family practitioner committees and five pharmacists.

  NHS (Annual Report)
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to publish the annual report of the National Health Service.

  Mr. Newton
  Later this year.

  NHS (Employees)
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people are employed in the National Health Service; what was the comparable figure for 1979; and if he will break down both figures to show the tasks for which they were employed.

  Mr. Newton
  The figures requested are shown in the table.

  For non-medical staff, numbers (actual head counts) are not available centrally for 1979 on a consistent basis with those for latter years; we have given therefore a whole-time equivalent (WTE) comparison for 1979 and 1986. Whole-time equivalent figures for September 1986 are still on a provisional basis.

  For medical and dental staff, figures comparable with the available non-medical figures have been used to retain consistency and comparability of England totals.

  NHS directly employed staff—30 September England

  1Whole-time equivalents

  1979

  21986

  Medical and dental3

  39,000

  43,200

  Nursing and midwifery4

  5358,400

  402,100

  Professional and technical (excl. works)

  660,100

  76,100

  Works

  5,600

  5,800

  Maintenance

  20,100

  19,100

  379

  1979

  21986

  Administration and clerical

  103,000

  111,400

  Ambulance

  17,100

  18,900

  Ancillary

  6171,900

  124,300

  Total staff

  775,300

  801,000

  Source:DHSS (SR7) annual censuses of NHS medical and non-medical manpower.

  1 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest 100 whole-time equivalent.

  2 Provisional.

  3 Includes hospital practitioners, part-time medical and dental officers (clinical assistants) and locums.

  4 Includes agency nursing and midwifery staff.

  5 Not adjusted for the reduction in nurses working hours during 1980–81 (from 40·0 to 37·5 hours per week).

  6 Not adjusted to take account of the transfer of operating department assistants (ODAs) some 2,600 wte from ancillary to professional and technical staff group on 1 April 1984.

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Corbyn
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many exceptional cold weather payments were made by region in 1986–87.

  Mr. Scott
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply shortly.

  Food Imports (Radiation Levels)
  Mr. Speller
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what testing methods are recommended or approved for importers to ensure that food imports have not been treated with ionizing radiation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I shall let my hon. Friend have a reply as soon as possible.

  Acute Hospital Services (Liverpool)
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many beds will be provided at the Liverpool royal infirmary following the relocation of services from St. Paul's eye hospital and the seamen's dispensary;

  (2) what are the estimated savings to the Liverpool area health authority from the location of all obstetric and gynaecology services to the former Liverpool royal infirmary; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what will be the estimated cost of the relocation of the St. Paul's eye hospital and the seamen's dispensary to the Liverpool royal infirmary;

  (4) what will be the estimated cost to the Liverpool area health authority of the relocation of all obstetrics and gynaecology services to the former Liverpool royal infirmary;

  (5) how many beds will be provided at the Liverpool royal infirmary site following the location of all obstetric and gynaecology services.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 10 July 1987] The Liverpool health authority's plans for reshaping the pattern of acute hospital services in Liverpool are described in its draft strategy, which was issued for consultation at the beginning of June. Firm plans cannot be properly formulated until that consultation exercise is completed on 31 August 1987. I understand that all Members whose constituencies cover Liverpool have been
  380
  sent copies of the document and invited to comment on the proposals. The hon. Member may therefore wish to write to the chairman of the Liverpool health authority.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Spearing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will set out in the Official Report the figures for the non-emergency patient journeys run under the auspices of the London ambulance service for each of the first two quarters of 1987 in the format of his reply of 5 March, Official Report, column 679, showing percentage change with the respective quarters in 1984.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 10 July 1987] The information requested for the first quarter is given in the table. The information for the second quarter will not be available for several weeks.

  On the introduction of new rotas for ambulance persons in March 1986 extra resources were diverted into the emergency side of the service. This has allowed the London ambulance service to deal with the increased number of 999 calls as well as to cut down the average response times to emergencies.

  Patient Journeys—1st Quarter 1987

  Non-Emergency Service (000's Patient Journeys)

  Division

  Walking patients

  Non-walking patients

  Total

  North West

  39

  38

  77

  North East

  56

  53

  109

  South West

  36

  43

  79

  South East

  34

  52

  86

  Direct Service Total

  165

  186

  351

  Indirect Service

  —

  —

  86

  Total LAS

  —

  —

  437

  Percentage + - on 1st quarter 1984

  North West

  -54·1

  -13·6

  -40·3

  North East

  -37·8

  -18·5

  -29·7

  South West

  -52·6

  -2·3

  -34.·2

  South East

  -55·3

  -14·8

  -37·2

  Direct Service Total

  -49·5

  -13·1

  -35·1

  Indirect Service

  —

  —

  +59-3

  Total LAS

  —

  —

  -26·6

  Patient Mileage—1st Quarter 1987

  Non;Emergency Service (000's Miles)

  Mileage

  Percentage + - on 1st quarter 1984

  North West

  364

  -33·8

  North East

  405

  -26·5

  South West

  308

  -32·6

  South East

  359

  -35·2

  Direct Service Total

  1,436

  -;32·0

  Indirect Service

  574

  +66·4

  Total LAS

  2,010

  -18·2

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Patchett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the target level of accuracy in National Health Service pathology laboratories for dealing with cervical smears.

  Mr. Bradley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what provision he has made to monitor the standards of accuracy of cervical smear tests.

  Mr. Frank Field
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he intends to take to safeguard. in the

  381
  rest of the United Kingdom, the accuracy of smear tests for cervical cancer, following recent errors which have been shown to have occurred in the Liverpool area health authority.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her replies, 30 June 1987, c. 69–70] Monitoring of standards of accuracy in pathology laboratories is undertaken by pathologists themselves, for example, through their participation in external quality assessment schemes. Target levels of accuracy for NHS pathology laboratories are not laid down centrally.

  A revised health circular on cervical cancer screening which is in preparation will include guidance on arrangements for quality control in laboratories in which cervical smears are examined. We shall certainly take into account any lessons that can be learnt from the problems which arose in Liverpool health authority.

  Kidney Transplants
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the latest figure for the change in the number of kidney transplants over a convenient 12-month period.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 30 June 1987, c. 79] Figures for the change over the most recent 12-month period may be misleading because of significant variation within the period. The number of cadaveric kidney transplants reported to the United Kingdom transplant service for a series of six-monthly periods is as follows:

  Number of transplants

  1 June 1985–30 November 1985

  672

  1 December 1985–31 May 1986

  726

  I June 1986–30 November 1986

  766

  1 December 1986–31 May 1987

  646

  These figures refer to National Health Service operations within the United Kingdom. We are currently awaiting the advice of a working party established to examine ways of increasing the availability of organs for transplant. For further details I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) on 9 July 1987.

ENVIRONMENT

  Rates
  Mr. Michael Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the estimated 1987–88 total annual receipts for rates net of rebates in England and Wales; and what percentage this represents of forecast local government expenditure for 1987–88.

  Mr. Howard
  Local authorities' income from domestic and non-domestic ratepayers, net of rebates, in England and Wales in 1987–88 is estimated at £15 billion. This represents 48 per cent. of estimated local government expenditure (defined as local authority net revenue expenditure for RSG purposes).

  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions have taken place with the
  382
  National Association of Parish Councils on the impact of the proposed community charge; and what was the outcome.

  Mr. Howard
  Officials from the Department of the Environment met representatives of the National Association of Local Councils on 5 November 1986 to discuss these issues. NALC wrote to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) in February requesting a meeting to which he agreed; I understand that NALC intend to take up that invitation in due course. I shall of course be happy to honour my predecessor's commitment.

  Mrs. Wise
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many women he estimates will become liable to pay the proposed community charge, despite having no personal income.

  Mr. Howard
  No firm figures are available. However data from the family expenditure survey suggests that there may be about 2·9 million women over the age of 18 with no regular personal income from employment, investment or state benefits (excluding child benefit). Almost all of these are wives not in paid employment.

  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many civil servants in all Departments are currently involved in preparation for the implementation of the poll tax.

  Mr. Howard
  Twenty-one staff in the Department of the Environment, 10 in the Scottish Office and three in the Welsh Office are engaged full time on all aspects of the reform of local government finance. A further 21 staff in the Department of the Environment and 36 staff in other central Departments are involved, as part of their other duties, in contributing to this work.

  Mr. Atkinson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on how the proposed unified business rate and the community charge will affect landlords; and whether they will be required to collect the community charge from their tenants.

  Mr. Howard
  When the new system of local government finance is in operation, landlords will no longer pay rates in respect of the residential property occupied by their tenants. Adult tenants will pay the community charge, in the same way as other adults.

  In the minority of multi-occupied properties, where it would be impractical to register tenants individually for the community charge, local authorities will be able to apply a collective community charge. This will be paid to the local authority by the landlord, who will recover contributions from each adult tenant.

  Mr. Fatchett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will assess the likely cost to Leeds city council of collecting a community charge as opposed to domestic rates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  [pursuant to his reply, 10 July 1987] Our preliminary estimate is that the cost of collecting the community charge may be, broadly, up to twice the cost of collecting domestic rates. However, the cost to an individual local authority will largely depend on how far it is successful in reducing unit costs. We estimate that almost twice as many people will pay the community charge as pay domestic rates.
  383
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning special provision under the community charge for ministers of religion.

  Mr. Howard
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 July 1987, c. 561]: My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about special provision under the community charge for ministers of religion. These include representations from the Churches Main Committee and several diocesan secretaries.

  Inner area programme 1987–88

  Authority

  1Provisional inner area programme allocation

  Bid received

  Date of approval

  £ million

  £ million

  Birmingham

  25·0

  28·7

  13 April 1987

  Hackney

  10·8

  13·9

  Islington

  10·0

  17·6

  Lambeth

  12·8

  20·8

  31 March 1987

  Liverpool

  20·0

  29·8

  Manchester/Salford

  23·8

  37·7

  Newcastle/Gatcshead

  17·2

  20·3

  31 March 1987

  Barnsley

  1·5

  1·9

  12 May 1987

  Blackburn

  4·0

  4·1

  7 April 1987

  Bolton

  4·0

  5·2

  30 March 1987

  Bradford

  4·5

  5·5

  Brent

  4·0

  6·4

  Bristol

  1·5

  1·5

  27 March 1987

  Burnley

  1·0

  1·5

  9 July 1987

  Coventry

  5·0

  6·0

  16 April 1987

  Derby

  1·3

  1·5

  23 March 1987

  Doncaster

  1·8

  2·7

  Dudley

  1·3

  2·0

  Greenwich

  1·5

  1·5

  9 July 1987

  Halton

  1·3

  1·8

  6 April 1987

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  5·0

  7·9

  9 July 1987

  Haringey

  2·0

  3·2

  10 April 1987

  Hartlepool

  1·8

  2·0

  9 July 1987

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1·3

  1·2

  29 April 1987

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  5·0

  6·2

  Kirklees

  0·8

  1·3

  Knowsley

  4·0

  4·9

  16 March 1987

  Langbaurgh

  1·8

  2·6

  9 July 1987

  Leeds

  4·5

  5·2

  Leicester

  5·4

  9·4

  Lewisham

  1·5

  1·5

  22 April 1987

  Middlesbrough

  5·5

  8·1

  9 July 1987

  Newham

  1·8

  2·2

  9 July 1987

  North Tyneside

  3·5

  5·7

  9 July 1987

  Nottingham

  5·5

  7·8

  9 July 1987

  Oldham

  4·0

  4·4

  Plymouth

  0·4

  2—

  Preston

  1·3

  1·7

  8 April 1987

  Rochdale

  4·0

  5·4

  9 July 1987

  Rotherham

  1·8

  2·6

  St. Helens

  1·5

  2·0

  Sandwell

  5·0

  6·0

  6 April 1987

  Sefton

  1·5

  1·3

  13 April 1987

  Sheffield

  5·5

  7·3

  South Tyneside

  4·5

  4·8

  30 April 1987

  South wark

  1·8

  3·5

  30 March 1987

  Stockton

  1·3

  1·4

  Sunderland

  4·0

  5·2

  9 July 1987

  The Wrekin

  0·4

  0·8

  9 July 1987

  Tower Hamlets

  4·5

  9·1

  Walsall

  1·5

  2·1

  16 April 1987

  Wandsworth

  4·5

  6·5

  9 July 1987

  Wigan

  1·5

  1·5

  11 March 1987

  Wirral

  3·5

  5·0

  9 July 1987

  Wolverhampton

  5·5

  7·0

  16 April 1987

  1 Announced by Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction on 30 January 1987 (Official Report, Vol. 109, column 457).

  2 IAP yet to be submitted.

  384

  Inner Area Programme
  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the inner area programme bids submitted for 1987–88 indicating which have been approved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information requested is as shown in the table. I expect to issue further approvals shortly.
  385

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the House of Commons Library the Government's study of the expected numbers of community charge payers as a proportion of those obliged to pay.

  Mr. Howard
  [pursuant to his answer, 7 July 1987, column 140]: My right hon. Friend has not undertaken a study of the kind referred to by the hon. Member. Registration for and enforcement of the community charge will be a local authority responsibility. We intend to give authorities the powers to ensure that this task is undertaken effectively and efficiently, and we see no reason why they should not achieve very high registration and payment rates.

  Greater London
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what (a) ceremonial and (b) other functions flow from the continued existence of the county of Greater London following abolition of the Greater London council; and what is the cost of these to public funds for the most recent 12 months period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Chope
  The functions of the former GLC were transferred to new and existing bodies in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1985. Aggregate information on the cost of providing ceremonial or other functions across Greater London is not available.

  Empty Dwellings
  Mr. Wheeler
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many vacant flats and houses there are in the ownership of the London borough of Ealing.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The latest information available to the Department is for the council's vacant housing within its own area and is in the authority's housing investment programme return for 1 April 1986, which is in the Library.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the most recent list available from his Department's estate action team, of schemes where local authorities have disposed of empty dwellings to property developers; if he will state the purpose of this list, how it has been compiled, and how frequently it is updated; who has been sent a copy of this list; and why they have received a copy.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The most recent list of schemes involving the disposal of local authority empty dwellings to private developers compiled by my Department is given in the table.

  This information is gathered from local authorities and from developers, but is not necessarily comprehensive since local authorities are not required to seek the Secretary of State's consent or to inform the Department when they are disposing of empty housing at the best price.

  This information is assembled by the Department as part of its routine assembly of factual material which is used to assist in the assessment of housing policy and performance. The information has been provided on
  386
  request to local authorities, housing developers and members of the public. The list is updated as and when new information is received.

  Number of disposals of vacant dwellings since 1979

  Local authority

  Number

  Birmingham

  128

  Bolton

  50

  Brentwood

  10

  Bristol

  5

  Burnley

  111

  Calderdale

  96

  Copeland

  47

  Crewe and Nantwich

  2

  Halton

  38

  Kensington and Chelsea

  50

  Knowsley

  204

  Lancaster

  44

  Langbaurgh

  177

  Lichfield

  128

  Liverpool

  344

  Macclesfield

  5

  Manchester

  46

  Newcastle

  134

  North Tyneside

  150

  Oldham

  296

  Preston

  338

  Reading

  135

  Rotherham

  1

  Rushcliffe

  6

  Salford

  384

  Sandwell

  112

  Sefton

  378

  Solihull

  268

  South Tyneside

  150

  Southwark

  191

  Stockport

  4

  Stoke on Trent

  42

  Stroud

  1

  Sunderland

  546

  Swale

  14

  Tamworth

  41

  Thurrock

  90

  Tower Hamlets

  443

  Trafford

  156

  Wandsworth

  981

  Warrington

  52

  Wear Valley

  5

  Westminster

  10

  West Lindsey

  9

  Wigan

  99

  Wirral

  271

  Wolverhampton

  7

  Total

  6,799

  Poll Tax
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about which Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries use a poll tax to finance public expenditure; and which Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries use a poll tax to finance state education.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer my hon. Friend to annex K of the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714), which comments on international comparisons.

  Local Authority Expenditure
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish figures for each local authority, and for the latest available year, setting out the

  387
  main components of local authority expenditure, and showing expenditure separately on education, fire and police in relation to population.

  Mr. Chope
  I have today placed the information in the House of Commons Library.

  Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish, for each class of local authority and for local authorities in total, the percentage increase in current expenditure in cash between (a) 1978–79 and 1987–88 and (b) 1981–82 and 1987–88.

  Mr. Ridley
  The information for English authorities is as follows:

  Percentage increases in net current expenditure

  1978–79 to 1987–88

  1981–82 to 1987–88

  Shire Counties

  136

  52

  Shire Districts

  120

  54

  Metropolitan Areas1

  137

  48

  Greater London Area2

  150

  54

  All England

  138

  52

  1 Comprising Metropolitan Counties, Metropolitan Districts, and Metropolitan Authorities for Police, Fire and Civil Defence and Transport.

  2 Comprising ILEA, GLC, City of London, Inner and Outer London boroughs. Metropolitan Police and the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority.

  Dr Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report, for each local authority in England, the increases in current and total expenditure from 1986–87, revised estimates to 1987–88, showing in each case the political complexion of the authority; and if he will provide overall average figures by political control.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have today placed this information in the House of Commons Library.

  Cayman Turtle Farm
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Government's implementation of the convention on international trade in endangered species conference resolution 2·12 with respect to the Cayman turtle farm in the Cayman Islands.

  Mr. Ridley
  The Cayman turtle farm has not taken turtles or eggs from the wild since 1978 and the Government consider that the 1979 conference resolution 2·12 should not be applied retrospectively to the farm. The operations of the farm are, however, structured to meet the breeding criteria that the resolution lays down.

  New Towns
  Mr. Grocott
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of houses currently managed by each of the new town corporations.

  Mrs. Roe
  On 31 March 1987, the numbers of dwellings for rent owned by new town corporations were as follows:

  Numbers

  Milton Keynes

  13,049

  Peterborough

  6,842

  388

  Numbers

  Runcorn

  9,049

  Telford

  8,742

  Warrington

  4,891

  Mr. Grocott
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the value of the assets of each of the remaining new town development corporations.

  Mrs. Roe
  With effect from the 1986–87 financial year, new town development corporations are required to show information on the value of their property assets in their annual accounts. I will write to the hon. Member with the information requested when the 1986–87 accounts have been received from all the development corporations.

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Anderson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to end the special attractions and advantages to firms which locate in enterprise zones; and whether the cut-off of financial incentive will be immediate or tapered.

  Mr. Trippier
  Under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the designation order for each enterprise zone specifies the period for which the area concerned is to remain an EZ. When that period ends the financial benefits of the EZ will cease immediately.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Ms. Armstrong
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for monitoring the employment effects of urban development corporations.

  Mr. Trippier
  Information on this subject is published in the urban development corporations' annual reports and in the public expenditure White Paper.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about which countries other than the United Kingdom are carrying out research into the disposal of intermediate level nuclear waste under the sea bed using coastal sites.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have information about the disposal facility under the Baltic at Forsmark in Sweden and about preliminary studies for a similar facility in Finland. I understand that France and Japan are also considering disposal under the sea bed near the coast.

  Urban Regeneration Grants
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a comprehensive statement on the operation of urban regeneration grants giving details of numbers approved, paid, and submitted in each region and the proportion the grant is of the projects approved.

  Mr. Trippier
  Urban regeneration grant is one of the measures which the Government have introduced in order to encourage new private investment in cities and towns which have been affected by the loss of employment in traditional industries and to bring derelict or unoccupied
  389
  land or buildings in these areas back into use. URG is paid direct to developers with proposals for the reclamation and redevelopment of large urban sites of 20 acres or more or for the refurbishment of very large buildings or groups of buildings of 250,000 sq ft of floor space or more. Priority will be given to projects which give the best prospects of private sector investment, and minimise the net outlay by the public sector, in those areas which already have priority under the Government's urban programme. I am greatly encouraged by the amount of interest in URG since the scheme was launched in April. A number of sites, located mainly in the midlands and the north, have been drawn to the Department's attention as possible candidates for URG and I hope it will not be too long before I am able to announce the first offers of assistance.

  In the meantime, I would urge private sector developers and property owners with sites which they consider may fit the criteria for URG to get in touch with my Department, from where more detailed guidance can be obtained.

  Housing Legislation
  Mr. Fatchett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department plans to issue a White Paper on the Government's proposals for the reform of housing legislation; when the consultative papers will be published; and what subject areas will be covered.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  These matters are being considered.

  Southgarth West
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be in a position to reply to the letter of 11 May from the hon. Member for South Shields about Southgarth West.

  Mr. Ridley
  As soon as my formal decision on this matter is announced, which is likely to be very soon.

  Housing (Durham)
  Mr. Steinberg
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will tabulate for each year since 1979, at constant 1987 prices, the amount requested by Durham city council for its housing investment programme allocation and the amount actually approved by his Department.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The position has changed since 1979, in that local housing authorities nationally now fund more than half their capital expenditure from capital receipts, rather than from housing investment programme allocations made by the Department. The proposed capital programmes shown by authorities in their HIP submissions cannot therefore be compared directly with their HIP allocations.

  Since 1979 the final HIP allocations made to Durham city council, and its total capital expenditure on housing, have been as follows:

  £ million 1987–88 prices

  HIP allocation

  Expenditure

  1979–80

  4·785

  4·849

  1980–81

  3·279

  3·121

  390

  HIP allocation

  Expenditure

  1981–82

  2·667

  2·589

  1982–83

  3·550

  4·836

  1983–84

  2·650

  4·621

  1984–85

  2·940

  4·712

  1985–86

  2·400

  4·304

  1986–87

  1·913

  25·666

  1987–88

  11·784

  —

  1 Initial HIP allocation

  2 Estimated by the authority on Form HIP2 in July 1986.

  Mr. Steinberg
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from Durham city council about the level of homelessness and the number of houses in poor repair and the implications of this for the level of Government funding for housing in the city.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have not received any recent representations from Durham city council about these matters which are usually referred to in the authority's annual housing investment programme submission. The council is due to send the submission for 1988–89 to the Department's northern regional office by 13 July.

  Performance and Growth
  . Dr. Cunningham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, as in previous years, he will publish expenditure performance and growth tables for 1981–82 to 1987–88, showing also the figures from 1978–79 to 1987–88.

  Mr. Ridley
  I will place these tables in the House of Commons Library shortly.

  Rents
  Mr. Michael Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to introduce legislation to decontrol rents on new lettings.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As soon as possible.

  Historic Buildings (Report)
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment why no reply has yet been issued to the first report from the Environment Committee in Session 1986–87 on historic buildings and ancient monuments, published on 18 February; and if he will now take steps to issue the Government's reply in the form of a Command Paper.

  Mr. Ridley
  Our planned timetable for replying to the report was overtaken by the dissolution of Parliament. I cannot now reply before the Committee is re-appointed.

  Defective Housing
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he is likely to be able to give a decision on the possible designation of Truscon RD 27 houses under part XVI of the Housing Act 1985.

  Mrs. Roe
  We are considering the hon. Member's request concerning the designation of these properties under the housing defects legislation and hope to be able to give a decision shortly.
  391

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the average household bill for water rates for each regional water authority in England for 1986–87, the percentage increase on the previous year and the percentage increase between 1979 and 1986–87.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr. Cunningham) on 29 June 1987, at column 46.

  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the latest figures for the numbers of households where water supplies have been disconnected, showing where possible the reasons for disconnection.

  Mr. Moynihan
  In 1986–87, about 6,500 households were disconnected by water authorities because of nonpayment. Similar information in respect of water companies is not available.

  Drins
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter he sent to the water authorities on 6 March, 932–19, on the European Community proposals on the drins;

  (2) if he will place in the Library the summary note of the first meeting on 28 January of his Department's consultation group on the European Community proposals on the drins.

  Mr. Ridley
  No. The papers referred to are working documents used in the formulation of Government policy. It is not the practice to make such documents publicly available.

  New Parliamentary Building
  Dr. Marek
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to respond to those recommendations addressed to him in the second report from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) on the new parliamentary building (phase 2), HC 378, Session 1986–87; and when he now expects to be able to announce a commencement date for works at No.1 Cannon row.

  Mr. Chope
  I am grateful for the Services Committee report which was published on 1 July. I am considering the recommendations and will respond as soon as possible. I hope to be able to make a full statement about No. 1 Cannon row shortly.

  Gipsies
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made as to whether the Caravan Sites Act 1968 gives local authorities sufficient power to regulate unauthorised gipsy encampments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  The eviction powers available to local authorities designated under section 12 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 were simplified by amendments to the Act 392
  in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. In his announcement on 6 February 1987 of the results of a review of gipsy sites policy, the Secretary of State said there would be no further amendments to the legislation for the present.

  Lead-free Petrol
  Mr. Fearn
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how many petrol stations in the Merseyside area presently have facilities for lead-free petrol.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I understand from the United Kingdom Petroleum Industry Association that there are currently five service stations selling unleaded petrol in Merseyside, at Prescot, Birkenhead, Southport, Wallasey and Maghull.

SCOTLAND

  Travelling People
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice his Department gives to local authorities regarding the siting of travelling people's facilities and their proximity to existing housing developments.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In circular 34/1984 of November 1984, the Scottish Development Department advised local authorities about arrangements for the grant scheme for sites for travelling people and said that, in choosing a location, authorities should take into account the advice in the third report of the Secretary of State's advisory committee on Scotland's travelling people (HMSO, June 1982). That report indicated that a site should be appropriately located in relation to a number of services and to the settled community, but it did not offer guidance on proximity to existing housing developments.

  Stracathro Junction
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now give a starting date for the construction of the proposed flyover at Stracathro junction.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is not yet practicable to give a starting date for the construction of the flyover, as this is dependent on the completion of the necessary statutory procedures, by way of a side roads order and compulsory purchase order, and public reaction to them.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to have estimates for the costs of the proposed flyover at Stracathro junction; and if he will detail the steps so far taken in producing this new development.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I expect to have estimated costs within the next few weeks. Tayside regional council, as agent authority, are working on the design of the scheme and details relevant to the necessary statutory orders. This material will be with the Scottish Development Department shortly.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Batiste
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many civil servants are employed in his Department; and what is its budgeted expenditure for the current year.
  393
  Mr. Rifkind
  At 1 July 1987, 6,618 staff were employed in the Scottish Office, 3,238 in the Scottish prisons service and a total of 2,144½ in the four minor Departments for which I am responsible (Scottish Record Office, General Register Office (Scotland), Department of the Registers of Scotland and the Scottish Courts Administration); the respective running cost limits for 1987–88 are £110·961 million, £61·101 million and £37·040 million.

  Students
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the percentage of students in receipt of SED awards who receive the maximum parental contribution.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In academic session 1985–86, the latest period for which figures are available, 21·1 per cent. of SED award-holding students received no standard maintenance allowance, either because their parents were assessed as liable for the maximum parental contribution or because no claim for maintenance was made.

  Information on parental contributions actually made is not available; that is a matter between the students and their parents.

  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has a target figure for the number of (a) physiotherapists, (b) occupational therapists, (c) clinical psychologists, (d) social workers in psychiatric hospitals and (e) psychiatrists required to work with the mentally ill in Scotland; and if he will state the current numbers employed in each category.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Target figures have not been set for these professions working with the mentally ill, the numbers employed being agreed by local management. 211 consultant psychiatrists work with the mentally ill in Scotland. 150 social workers employed by local authorities work in psychiatric hospitals or psychiatric units. For the other professions, the information is not held centrally in the form requested.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was, separately, the number of men and women in Scottish psychiatric hospitals for each of the years 1980 until 1986.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is as follows:

  Scottish Psychiatric Hospitals1: Residents

  Residents2

  Male

  Female

  1980

  10,260

  11,656

  1981

  9,997

  11,607

  1982

  9,733

  11,452

  1983

  9,519

  11,320

  1984

  9,309

  11,110

  1985

  8,952

  10,967

  1 Mental Illness and Mental Handicap.

  2 At 31 December.

  Information for 1986 is not yet available.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing the Scottish psychiatric hospitals and the number of patients in each hospital on 11 June.
  394
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information for the day in question is not held centrally. Psychiatric hospital inpatients statistics are published annually by health board area in "Scottish Health Statistics", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of patients, and their percentage of the total number of patients in Scottish psychiatric hospitals, who have been in Scottish psychiatric hospitals for (a) under one year, (b) under five years, (c) under 10 years, and (d) over 10 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest information available is as follows:

  Distribution of residents1 in Scottish psychiatric hospitals2 by length of stay: 1985

  Number

  Percentage

  Less than one year

  5,229

  26

  Less than five years

  9,896

  49

  Less than 10 years

  12,085

  61

  10 years of more

  7,834

  39

  Total

  19,919

  100

  1 At 31 December.

  2 Mental illness and mental handicap.

  Occupational Therapists
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of qualified occupational therapists working with people with mental illness in Scotland for each of the years 1980 to 1986.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information collected centrally does not identify separately those occupational therapists employed in the NHS and by local authorities working with the mentally ill some of whom may be having treatment in psychiatric hospitals, general hospitals, local authority accommodation or at home.

  The total numbers of qualified occupational therapists employed by health boards and local authority social work departments are shown in the following table. All figures are whole-time equivalents.

  Health boards (at September)

  Local authority social work departments (at October)

  1980

  304·1

  158·0

  1981

  319·5

  169·0

  1982

  340·2

  175·0

  1983

  371·0

  185·0

  1984

  380·4

  190·0

  1985

  414·7

  196·0

  1986

  469·3

  1198·0

  1 Provisional figure at 6 October 1986.

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of people in Scotland estimated to be suffering from (a) schizophrenia, (b) dementia and (c) severe drinking problems.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is not possible to assess accurately the number of people with these conditions as not all sufferers come into contact with medical or other services.
  395

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of prescriptions for sleeping tablets, tranquillisers and anti-depressants issued in Scotland for each of the years 1980 to 1986.

  1 Therapeutic Classification

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Million 2 1986

  Hypnotics

  1·772

  1·758

  1·831

  1·815

  1·825

  1·770

  1·306

  Sedatives/Tranquillisers

  2·116

  2·098

  2·078

  1·752

  1·651

  1·449

  1·031

  Anti-depressants

  0·592

  0·630

  0·610

  0·602

  0·653

  0·636

  0·542

  Anti-depressants/ tranquilliser combinations

  0·082

  0·083

  0·074

  0·070

  0·056

  0·036

  0·017

  1 Estimated using a sample of approximately one per cent, of prescriptions dispensed in Scotland by chemist contractors (i.e. excluding prescriptions dispensed by dispensing doctors).

  2 January-September 1986.

  Prison Disturbances
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each Scottish prison the number and dates of all disturbances since 1982.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Providing a list of all disturbances, however minor, which have occurred in

  Establishment

  Nature of Incident

  1982

  7 May

  Peterhead

  Major disturbance.

  17 August

  Edinburgh

  Attempt to reach roof.

  1983

  16 October

  Peterhead

  Major disturbance.

  1984

  9–10 January

  Peterhead

  Staff evicted from hall.

  1985

  13 March

  Peterhead

  Staff taken hostage in escape attempt.

  15 April

  Dumfries

  Prisoner taken hostage.

  2 November

  Peterhead

  Staff taken hostage in escape attempt.

  1986

  2–3 July

  Peterhead

  Hostage incident.

  21 October-2 November

  Edinburgh

  Hostage incident.

  9–13 November

  Peterhead

  Hostage incident.

  1987

  5–19 January

  Barlinnie

  Hostage incident.

  Holy Loch
  Mr. Strang
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what planning requirements exist for future developments at Holy Loch base.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Planning proposals for any future development at the Holy Loch base would be brought forward by the Ministry of Defence and would be subject to the planning procedures that apply to all developments by Government Departments. These procedures are set out in Scottish Development Department circular 21/1984, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.
  396
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The following table gives the information for the relevant therapeutic categories. This is abstracted from the annual HMSO publication "Scottish Health Statistics" which is available in the Library. The figures for the full year 1986 are not yet available but those for the first nine months are given.

  Scottish penal establishments since 1982 would require disproportionate staff resources. I am therfore listing only incidents which could be categorised as serious because of the nature of the incident or the extent of the damage caused.

  Health Boards
  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each member of every health board in Scotland, and the source of their nomination.

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

  Mentally Handicapped and Disabled Persons
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if his Department has set a target for the provision of places for the mentally ill or mentally handicapped in each of the following: (a) group homes, (b) hostels and (c) day hospitals;
  397
  (2) whether the Government have set a Scottish target for the provision of places in full-time day centres for (a) the mentally ill, (b) the mentally handicapped and (c) the physically handicapped.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No formal targets for the provision of residential or day care places for any of the three groups mentioned have been set in the recent past. Suggested figures in a 1979 report by the mental disorder programme planning group of the Scottish Health Services Planning Council have served to stimulate progress but have been overtaken by more recent consideration of the subject.

  Local authorities are aware of the Government's view that due priority should be given to the promotion of community care, and in consultation with health boards they are well placed to judge the particular needs of their areas. Considerable progress is being made already, for example in the provision of day care places for the mentally handicapped which have risen from 4,705 in March 1977 to a provisional figure of 6,995 in March 1986.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of group homes or hostels for the mentally ill run by or known to social work departments in Scotland and the number of places they contain.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest available information is as follows:

  Group homes and hostels for the mentally ill at 31 March 1986

  Group homes

  Hostels

  Local Authority

  Number of homes

  25

  4

  Number of places

  110

  40

  Other

  Number of homes

  104

  1

  Number of places

  410

  20

  There are, in addition, four fully staffed homes with 64 places at the same date.

  SHARE Formula
  Dr. Moonie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he now proposes to implement the SHARE formula in full.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The SHARE formula has been fully implemented each year since 1978–79 and this has resulted in a much fairer distribution of available resources to health boards.

  Breast Cancer Screening
  Mr. McLeish
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if the Scottish Home and Health Department has discussed with health boards the steps which have to be taken to establish a breast cancer screening service in Scotland; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if progress has been made in Scotland on the implementation of the Forrest recommendations on breast cancer screening;

  (3) when he expects to announce details of his decision on the 10 centres which were suggested in the Forrest report on breast cancer screening.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Discussions are continuing with health boards and other interested parties about the 398
  implementation of the recommendations on breast cancer screening contained in the Forrest report. Subject to these discussions, I would hope to be able to make an announcement about the location of the first centres in the autumn.

  Breast and Cervical Cancer
  Mr. McLeish
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many women have died of breast and cervical cancer in 1986 in Scotland as a whole and in each of the health board areas.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is given in the table below:

  Deaths from Breast1 and Cervical Cancer2 by Health Board Area, Scotland, 1986 (Provisional)

  Breast Cancer

  Cervical Cancer

  Scotland

  1,313

  199

  Borders

  37

  10

  Central

  67

  8

  Dumfries & Galloway

  31

  11

  Fife

  90

  12

  Grampian

  101

  15

  Highland

  51

  10

  Lothian

  197

  25

  Argyll & Bute

  112

  17

  Ayr & Arran

  85

  20

  Greater Glasgow

  264

  33

  Lanarkshire

  132

  22

  Tayside

  121

  12

  Orkney

  2

  —

  Shetland

  10

  —

  Western Isles

  13

  4

  1 International Classification of Disease Code 174.

  2 International Classification of Disease Code 180.

  Universities (Funding)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when appointments will be made to the Scottish Committee of the Universities Funding Council; and if he will seek nominations from representative groups of Scottish opinion.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It will only be possible to make appointments after the Universities Funding Council has been established, which the Government propose to do by legislation to be introduced during the current session. Appointments to the committee will be a matter for the council, in consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend. We envisage that the committee will include members in individual rather than representative capacities.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state what progress has been made in broadening access to Scottish higher education through wider recognition of the national certificate.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This is a matter primarily for the Scottish Vocational Education Council to take forward as the custodian of the national certificate. I understand that, following discussions with SCOTVEC the Scottish Universities' Council on Entrance has agreed to recommend to individual universities in Scotland that they make sympathetic use of waiver arrangements in the case
  399
  of deserving candidates with national certificate qualifications. SCOTVEC and SUCE have agreed that the performance of first year students gaining admission to universities either solely on the basis of national certificate modules or on a mixture of national certificate modules and other qualifications should be closely monitored.

  To assist admissions officers and staff in the various specialist departments in institutions of higher education in Scotland in dealing with students who hold the national certificate, my Department is funding the appointment of four development officers by SCOTVEC to assist admission staff in better equipping themselves to interpret and make an assessment of the qualifications offered by applicants. This exercise is intended to build on discussion begun at a conference sponsored by my Department last February at which representatives of SCOTVEC, the Council for National Academic Awards, the universities and central institutions met to consider how progression from national certificate to higher education might be enhanced.

  Whatever national initiatives are undertaken, it is, of course, open to individual institutions to make their own arrangements at a local level to encourage national certificate students to move on to higher education. A good example of this is an initiative in the west of Scotland where a working party has been set up, consisting of representatives of Glasgow and Strathclyde universities, Paisley and Glasgow colleges of technology and further education colleges managed by Strathclyde region, specifically to devise national certificate modular programmes which, if successfully completed, would give direct access to first degree courses in business studies and engineering at the two universities as well as to HND and degree courses at the two central institutions. The aim is to construct programmes which will be of particular relevance to young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, to adults without formal qualifications, or to those seeking to enhance their employment prospects through a reorientation of their qualifications. This is an extremely encouraging development which I am sure will be of interest to other institutions.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he received from the general councils, students' representative councils, student unions, student associations and trade unions of the eight Scottish universities regarding future control of Scottish higher education following his statement in the House of Commons on 1 April 1987.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received representations from the general council of the university of Edinburgh.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for the future development of adult and continuing education in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Provision for the development of adult and continuing education in Scotland is made through the normal rate support grant arrangements with local authorities. This allows for flexibility in the allocation of priorities by each region in order to respond to local requirements.

  To establish close links with industry and commerce, additional central government funds are allocated to the joint Manpower Services Commission and Scottish
  400
  Education Department programme of local collaborative projects. Under this scheme, educational establishments collaborate with local industrial and commercial interests to identify particular training requirements in their areas.

  In 1986, the Scottish PICKUP (Professional, Industrial and Commercial Updating) programme was launched to promote the recognition of and the provision of updating courses for people already in employment. This is a rolling programme of projects funded by central Government and extending over three years to 1988–89.

  The Workers Educational Association receives funds annually for the promotion of adult education throughout Scotland and have power to direct their expenditure in accordance with their income.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations relating to the future control of Scottish tertiary education he has received from student organisations, trade unions, governing bodies and individuals in the Scottish central institutions and colleges of education.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Following his statement on 1 April 1987, my right hon. and learned Friend has received representations from the Joint Committee of Principals of Colleges of Education and the Principals and Directors of Central Institutions and separately from the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the General Council of Edinburgh University regarding the control of Scottish higher education; what reply he has sent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has recently received a letter regretting his decision, announced on 1 April 1987 at column 1107, that the Scottish universities would continue to be funded alongside other universities in Great Britain through the new Universities Funding Council; and suggesting that the members of the Scottish committee of the new council should be appointed by my right hon. and learned Friend in consultation with the Scottish universities and colleges.

  My right hon. and learned Friend has replied pointing out the divergence in views between the general council and the university of Edinburgh which, like the majority of the other Scottish universities, did not favour funding of the universities through a Scottish body; and saying that he would consider the method of appointment of members to the Scottish committee in the light of responses to the recent consultative exercise.

  Torness Nuclear Power Station
  Mr. Darling
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if any emergency exercises are to be carried out at Torness nuclear power station before it is fully operational.

  Mr. Lang
  The SSEB has already demonstrated its emergency arrangements to the satisfaction of the NII, and as part of its own on-going programme the board will carry out further emergency exercises during the commissioning period of the power station. This will be independent of any further exercises determined by the Inspectorate in implementation, as it considers necessary, of the site licence requirements.
  401
  Mr. Darling
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects that the Torness nuclear power station will be commissioned and electricity generated for the national grid.

  Mr. Lang
  I am advised by SSEB that they expect that the first reactor at Torness will be commissioned towards the end of 1987. The second reactor is planned to be in operation before the end of the current financial year.

  Mr. Darling
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate to grant consent for the final fuel loading at Torness nuclear power station.

  Mr. Lang
  I am advised by the South of Scotland Electricity Board that it hopes shortly to obtain the necessary approval from the nuclear installations inspectorate to allow fuel loading at the first reactor.

  Mr. Darling
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the modifications to the control rod guide tubes at Torness nuclear power station have been completed; and whether the modifications have delayed the commissioning of the power station.

  Mr. Lang
  I am advised by the SSEB that the necessary modifications to the control rod guide tubes at Torness have now been completed and the approval of the nuclear installations inspectorate is being sought. The requirement to investigate and remedy the problem with the guide tubes has caused some delay to the commissioning of the first reactor, but the station is expected to be fully commissioned substantially to programme.

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Regional authorities

  Borders

  14·86

  18·01

  22·15

  22·31

  22·51

  25·81

  22·56

  28·42

  32·58

  Central

  6·96

  11·75

  16·59

  23·83

  16·79

  16·89

  18·88

  28·42

  29·77

  Dumfries and Galloway

  15·23

  17·53

  18·80

  25·63

  24·65

  24·80

  24·57

  24·69

  24·80

  Fife

  7·44

  14·81

  19·92

  17·55

  20·19

  20·14

  25·06

  22·06

  25·31

  Grampian

  19·21

  23·79

  26·24

  28·75

  29·82

  31·19

  34·12

  36·81

  40·97

  Highland

  15·22

  17·26

  27·16

  29·41

  27·64

  25·96

  26·00

  28·71

  28·87

  Lothian

  10·59

  16·02

  24·23

  24·38

  21·78

  24·65

  26·31

  35·19

  44·87

  Strathclyde

  11·93

  14·48

  19·44

  24·48

  22·18

  24·81

  26·26

  19·78

  26·33

  Tayside

  10·75

  13·02

  17·57

  19·96

  20·10

  20·26

  24·49

  24·63

  27·86

  Island councils

  Orkney

  12·25

  15·86

  20·66

  24·59

  27·20

  28·66

  29·63

  31·12

  35·01

  Shetland

  13·21

  17·11

  12·39

  10·10

  14·67

  7·74

  12·02

  12·19

  10·61

  Western Isles

  10·04

  13·12

  17·16

  20·40

  22·89

  24·24

  24·11

  28·47

  30·16

  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the figures for the numbers of households where water supplies have been disconnected, showing where possible the reasons for disconnection, for each year separately between 1979 and 1987.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally. A water authority (regional or islands council) would disconnect a household's supply only on account of operational reasons. These would include repairing leaks in household plumbing systems or in burst systems, making connections and lining pipes.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, when an application is made for an extension of detention
  402

  YTS (Argyll and Bute)
  Mrs Ray Michie
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people there are on youth training schemes in Argyll and Bute at the moment; and what change there has been over the last year.

  Mr. Lang
  In Argyll and Bute district, 250 young people were participating in YTS at 30 June 1987, compared with 158 participants at 30 June 1986.

  BBC Glasgow (Police Raid
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the procurator fiscal is still involved in consideration of the evidence involved in the police raid on the BBC in Glasgow on Sunday 1 February; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. A number of reports from the procurator fiscal are being considered by the Law Officers. I have nothing to add.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Clay
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the average household bill for water rates for each regional water authority in Scotland for each year separately between 1979 and 1987.

  Mr. Lang
  The table shows the average household water bill for each regional authority in Scotland for each year between 1979–80 and 1987–88.

  for a loyalist suspect by the police in Scotland, it is considered directly by the Scottish Office, as stated by Lord Jellicoe in his 1984 review of the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (Cmnd. 8803: paragraph 30).

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Yes.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Dewar
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the estimated level of personal community charge in each regional and district council area in Scotland that would be required in the current financial year if the Abolition of Domestic Rates (Scotland) Act were in force.
  403
  Mr. Rifkind
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 July 1987, c. 187]The estimated levels of personal community charge required to replace domestic rate income in 1987–88 are as follows:

  Authority

  District

  Region (excluding water)

  Community water charge

  Total

  Borders

  35

  138

  24

  197

  Berwickshire

  33

  138

  24

  195

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  33

  138

  24

  195

  Roxburgh

  39

  138

  24

  201

  Tweeddale

  32

  138

  24

  194

  Central

  57

  152

  16

  225

  Clackmannan

  54

  152

  16

  222

  Falkirk

  45

  152

  16

  213

  Stirling

  81

  152

  16

  249

  Dumfries and Galloway

  34

  138

  18

  190

  Annadale and Eskdale

  36

  138

  18

  192

  Nithsdale

  36

  138

  18

  192

  Stewartry

  34

  138

  18

  190

  Wigtown

  28

  138

  18

  183

  Fife

  45

  171

  17

  234

  Dunfermline

  37

  171

  17

  225

  Kirkcaldy

  49

  171

  17

  237

  North East Fife

  53

  171

  17

  241

  Grampian

  41

  121

  27

  189

  Aberdeen City

  52

  121

  27

  200

  Banff and Buchan

  32

  121

  27

  180

  Gordon

  40

  121

  27

  188

  Kincardine and Deeside

  27

  121

  27

  175

  Moray

  28

  121

  27

  176

  Highland

  32

  154

  21

  207

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  33

  154

  21

  208

  Caithness

  30

  154

  21

  205

  Inverness

  30

  154

  21

  205

  Lochaber

  42

  154

  21

  217

  Nairn

  33

  154

  21

  208

  Ross and Cromarty

  37

  154

  21

  212

  Skye and Lochalsh

  25

  154

  21

  200

  Sutherland

  22

  154

  21

  197

  Lothian

  63

  197

  26

  285

  East Lothian

  67

  197

  26

  289

  Edinburgh City

  67

  197

  26

  289

  Midlothian

  58

  197

  26

  281

  West Lothian

  50

  197

  26

  272

  Strathclyde

  70

  191

  18

  279

  Argyll and Bute

  62

  191

  18

  270

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  80

  191

  18

  289

  Clydebank

  59

  191

  18

  268

  Clydesdale

  55

  191

  18

  263

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  57

  191

  18

  266

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  48

  191

  18

  256

  Cunninghame

  71

  191

  18

  279

  Dumbarton

  73

  191

  18

  281

  East Kilbride

  50

  191

  18

  259

  Eastwood

  61

  191

  18

  269

  Glasgow City

  86

  191

  18

  294

  Hamilton

  66

  191

  18

  275

  Inverclyde

  54

  191

  18

  263

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  59

  191

  18

  268

  Kyle and Carrick

  65

  191

  18

  274

  Monklands

  58

  191

  18

  266

  Motherwell

  53

  191

  18

  262

  Renfrew

  75

  191

  18

  283

  Strathkelvin

  65

  191

  18

  274

  Tayside

  59

  160

  19

  238

  Angus

  40

  160

  19

  219

  Dundee City

  77

  160

  19

  256

  404 405

  Authority

  District

  Region (excluding water)

  Community water charge

  Total

  Perth and Kinross

  48

  160

  19

  226

  Orkney Islands

  0

  75

  27

  101

  Shetland Islands

  0

  95

  7

  102

  Western Isles

  0

  96

  21

  117

  All Scotland

  59

  174

  20

  253

  Notes:

  (1) Figures for regions are averages of their component districts; the figure for Scotland as a whole, is an average of all regions and islands.

  (2) The total charge may not be the sum of the constituent parts, as a result of rounding.

  (3) The figures for Lothian regional council and Edinburgh district council take account of the rate reductions proposed by the Secretary of State in the reports he laid before Parliament on 10 July. The figure for Clackmannan district council takes account of a rate reduction which the Council propose to make, as announced on 10 July.
  406

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Leicester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

Child Abuse: Inquiry
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: 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 set up an independent inquiry into the problem of child abuse with a view to giving guidance to local authorities, health authorities and other bodies on how best to deal with a situation which is causing increasing anxiety.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the Government have concluded that it is not appropriate to instigate a general inquiry into child abuse in present circumstances. Guidance to local authorities, health authorities and other bodies on inter-agency arrangements is in an advanced stage of preparation and will be amended if required following the report of the committee of inquiry into the situation in Cleveland, announced by my honourable friend the Minister for Health on 9th July. Further to that, my honourable friend is announcing today that Mrs. Justice Butler-Sloss, to whom the Government are most grateful, has agreed to undertake this inquiry.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the extra information he has given us. Nevertheless. in view of growing evidence of the increased number of child abuse cases nationally, does the Minister not agree that there should be thinking, additional to the inquiry, as to how much the legislature should interfere in the life of the family and also to what extent we should change our present procedure? Does he not agree that we should look at what happens in Scotland, which has a more informal base for dealing with children's problems, and perhaps set up an extension of children's panels whereby the whole family unit and social workers would be assisted?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I would not go so far as to agree with the thought that, I suspect, underlies the question asked by the noble Baroness; namely, that the law in this area is in a mess. Nevertheless, the Government admit that there is need for change. The Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act 1986, when implemented, will give parents a new right to be made full parties to care proceedings with the corresponding right of appeal. Our proposals in the White Paper The Law on Child
826
Care and Family Services provide for improvement in parental rights when an emergency protection order is made. With regard to comparing the situation with that in Scotland or anywhere else, I know that this is one of the points made in response to the White Paper.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, can the Minister. having said who is to be chairman, also give the names of the assessors? If not, can he say how they will be recruited?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, not yet. However with a bit of luck I hope that I can do so by the end of the week.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that when the individual inquiries into this case and previous cases, for which everyone is grateful, have been carried out, it would be a good idea to look at the overall structure of child care services, which would include the juvenile justice system and preventive work?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that might well be something which comes out of the current inquiry. As I have just pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley, we do not yet know who the assessors will be; still less do we know what the inquiry will recommend. That is something for the future, but I firmly take my noble friend's point.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Minister has ruled out the proposal for a formal inquiry made by my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs, will he consider making available for debate the draft advice that it is proposed to send to the various authorities and professions in connection with child abuse, so that the wisdom of your Lordships and of those in another place may be brought to bear before those vital documents are issued?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, while a debate in this House is a matter for the usual channels, I am of course ready to receive advice, wherever it comes from.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord remind the House of the terms of reference of the inquiry to be conducted by the most distinguished High Court judge? Will he and his right honourable friend not close the door at present to the possibility of a much broader inquiry, even a commission. if the results of that inquiry justify it?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, because I tried to make clear in answer to earlier supplementary questions that our minds are not totally closed. We shall of course have to listen to the results of this inquiry. We have not yet set the terms of reference. These are under discussion with the distinguished High Court judge. The noble Lord gives me an opportunity to express regret that on Thursday I may have given the impression that the inquiry would definitely report at the end of September. I intended to say that we hoped that the inquiry would report then.

Road Construction Statistics
2.38 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many miles of new or reconstructed motorway and trunk roads have been built in Great Britain since 1979.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, since 1st April 1979, Her Majesty's Government have completed some 320 miles of new motorway and over 700 miles of new all-purpose trunk road in Great Britain. Between 1st April 1979 and 31st March 1987, over 530 route miles of motorway have been reconstructed in Great Britain. Over the same period, over 1,380 single carriageway equivalent miles of all-purpose trunk road have been reconstructed in England. Equivalent figures for Scotland and Wales are not available.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. As the construction of motorways and trunk roads also involves the construction of bypasses, has my noble friend any information about the number of bypasses constructed?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, since 1979, 70 bypasses have been completed in England and 23 are presently under construction. In their road building programme, the Government attach the highest priority to the construction of bypasses.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, do the Government have any intention of connecting England and Scotland by motor road?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I was under the impression that England and Scotland were connected, principally by the A.1, which I believe, on the whole, is a fairly high-class road.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister say why there are no figures available for Scotland? It seems extraordinary.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the figures that are not available for Scotland relate only to the reconstruction of trunk roads. This is not recorded as a separate activity in Scotland.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is even more remarkable and extraordinary that there are no figures for Wales?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is the same point.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that I intervened on a somewhat similar Question only a short while ago? Is it pertinent to deal with one particular road; namely, the M.25? Can
828
the Minister tell us the latest position? I was on the M.25 on Friday when the connection from Junction 8, travelling eastwards, was one of the longest crawls on three lanes that I have seen for many years. A substantial number of cars were on the hard shoulder. They had obviously over-heated. Approaching east and north of the Dartford Tunnel there was again a tremendous hold-up. Despite the increased number of booths, is it not time that tolls were removed from such an important orbital road?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not able to answer in detail on individual road schemes. The Government have recently published the White Paper on Policy for Roads in England, Cmnd. 125. The noble Lord and others should be able to find details of our proposals in that document. With regard to the Dartford crossing, the noble Lord will be aware that there is a Bill presently before another place to facilitate the construction of a bridge over the Thames at Dartford to alleviate the problem there. I hope that when that Bill reaches this House it will be given all speed.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, how confident are Her Majesty's Government that a start will be made on all the trunk road schemes included in the time-band 1987 to 1989 in the recently published document, Policy for Roads in England?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I hope very much that what is in the White Paper will indeed be started on time. We have increased our expenditure for investment in the future by a total of 15 per cent. over the next three years and this should allow the present momentum of the programme to be maintained.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, now that the M.25 motorway around London has been completed and shows evident signs of becoming saturated within the foreseeable future, will the Government consider reviving the proposal for an inner ring motorway around London? This issue was precipitately abandoned in the early 1970s by the late GLC.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not have an answer to that question at the moment. However, I recall that the proposals for an inner road around London did not meet with universal favour. So far as I know, we have no proposals to reconsider that matter.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, have the Government any plans to upgrade portions of the A.94 that are not yet dual carriageway?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lady. I cannot answer specific questions on specific roads at Question Time. I shall find out and write to the noble Lady.

Diabetics: Free Disposable Syringes
2.42 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when disposable syringes and needles for diabetics will be available free of charge.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, disposable insulin syringes and needles will be available free for diabetics on prescription from 1st September this year.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, in thanking the Minister, I should like to ask whether he will make sure that this excellent news is officially made known to all sufferers at the earliest possible opportunity as this new procedure will considerably reduce their very trying daily routine.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend about their very trying daily routine. A press notice was issued when my honourable friend the Minister for Health announced on 14th May that disposable syringes would be prescribable by general practitioners from 1st September. All GPs and retail chemists will be sent details of prescribing arrangements during August.
With regard to sufferers from this disease, I shall certainly address my mind to the point.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied that an adequate supply to meet this demand will be available? I understand that it will be in the region of 100,000 needles a year.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes. I am advised that the necessary number of syringes will be available.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, while I warmly welcome the announcement made by the Minister, I should like to ask him whether he will confirm that the Government's estimate of the total cost of supplying syringes—which I understood to number about a quarter of a million rather than 100,000—is £10 million. Is he aware that the British Diabetic Association is of the view that it will not cost that amount? It is very anxious that blood glucose strips should also be made available without payment. Will the Minister consider that? That would be a double benefit for the diabetic population.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am advised that the cost of these disposable needles may well approach £10 million in a full year. However, we shall have to await the uptake to see whether in fact that will be the cost. We should like to make blood glucose testing strips prescribable in due course. But that is a subject, like many others, that will have to be considered with competing demands for National Health Service resources.

Hospital Building Programme
2.48 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many new hospitals were constructed between the years 1976 and 1986, and how many new hospitals are envisaged for construction during the period 1986 to 1990.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, new hospitals are usually built in stages involving a series of building schemes. Information held centrally shows that 262 health building schemes, each costing over £1 million, were completed in the period April 1976 to March 1986. A further 28 have been completed since April 1986, and over 200 more are planned for completion by 1990.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer to my Question. Is he aware that this is an impressive record? Is he further aware that there is far too much publicity given to the old hospitals but not enough to the new constructions?
Perhaps I may ask two supplementary questions. First, will he ensure that the regional health authorities, with the new buildings, do not build too many very large hospitals of 2,000 beds or more, because communication between staff and patients is a problem? Secondly, is the Minister aware that with the very impressive record of new hospitals being built there are too many empty wards? Will he ensure that this matter is dealt with, in particular with regard to the second part of my question?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for recognising that this is indeed an impressive record. In fact, there is more hospital building going on now than ever before. It is also true that health authorities are having difficulty in recruiting sufficient qualified staff in particular locations and specialties. Nevertheless, the total number of nursing and midwifery staff has increased by 40,000 since September 1979. Even allowing for staff required to maintain the level of services following the reduction in working hours in this period, this still leaves an increase of 20,000 for service expansion.
One of the ways in which we are seeking to reduce the problems of staffing in these circumstances is by persuading those trained personnel who have left the nursing service to return. We have also increased the pay of nurses (which under Labour fell by 21 per cent.) by 30 per cent. over and above inflation during the lifetime of this Government.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how many of these new hospitals include secure units of the kind to which courts could send people whom they now send to prison, not because they think that is the right place but because there is inadequate secure unit accommodation in hospitals?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I regret that I cannot answer that question without notice. However, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that these new hospitals—no doubt containing admirable high technology and catering largely for acute cases—satisfactorily replace some of the smaller hospitals which catered largely for long-stay elderly and handicapped patients? In the absence of adequate care in the community, will he consider this aspect of hospital service?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. We are talking on the whole in this rebuilding programme of those patients whom I might describe as the physically disadvantaged. We recognise that small hospitals can make a valuable contribution to the delivery of health care. The building programme includes schemes for the upgrading and refurbishment of small hospitals as well as large hospitals. But it is for the regional health authorities to decide on the proper mix of facilities in their areas.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, apart from the hospitals which were completed between 1976 and 1979, can the Minister say how many of the hospitals built between 1979 and 1986 were both approved and given the go-ahead before 1979?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not sure that I can help the noble Lord very well, but he can probably answer his own question as he was Secretary of State at the time. I can tell the House that information held centrally shows that 213 health building schemes costing over £1 million have been completed since 1979, compared with 120 from 1974 to 1979.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware, in regard to the increase in nurses' pay, that nurses are now very much in favour of having annual general elections? That seems to be the only way they can have their full pay awards made a reality. Can he say whether or not in the construction of new hospitals the Government will take into consideration the need for proper nurses' living accommodation to avoid what happened earlier this year when makeshift accommodation was provided for some nurses? When it became evident that there might be a possible rundown of the nursing profession, the nurses were evicted from these homes. This was a distressing and morale-dampening situation for British nurses. Could proper accommodation for nurses be considered in the construction of new hospitals?
Lord Denham: My Lords, that is a speech.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not sure that I approve of annual general elections if that would result in leaping backwards and forwards to the IMF. On the more serious point that the noble Lord made, it is for the health authorities and the hospital authorities to satisfy themselves that the living accommodation for nurses is suitably placed.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, can the Minister say, either now or later, how many of the 28 new hospitals are for private patients' use only?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we are talking about the public sector.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the new hospital building will include sufficient maternity wards? Is the Minister aware that press reports are saying that women already in labour are waiting in passages because there are no beds available for them? That must be a very unsatisfactory situation for them.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords; I am aware of the press reports. I know that the provision of midwifery services, which includes the beds and so on, is a prime consideration in the planning of new hospitals.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how many of these new hospitals were built in Scotland?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I understood that I was answering a Question about England, but I am sure I can get the information for the noble Lord on that point.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, if the Minister reads the Question he will find that it is not confined to England.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, while I commend the Government's new hospital building programme, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he will consider the number of hospitals that were closed down. Is he aware that not a lot of money would need to be spent to bring them back to life? I admit this is my own hobby-horse, but I give as an example St. Olave's Hospital in Rotherhithe, where there are 200 beds, first-class operating facilities, first-class catering and first-class nursing accommodation available, but it is derelict in the heart of inner London. Why do not the Government spend some money there to bring it back to life instead of building a new hospital?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not think it would be wise for me to comment on a particular case; but nonetheless there are usually—in fact, always, so far as I can tell—very good reasons for providing new hospitals at the expense of closing old ones. However, I am aware of one case in the West Country where a hospital due for closure has been kept open longer to help to reduce the size of the waiting list. So various factors come into play here.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he has been somewhat inaccurate in two responses that he has made to my noble friends? The first is that this Question does not relate only to public sector hospitals, and, secondly, it does not refer to hospitals only in England and Wales.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sorry if I have been inaccurate in my responses in your Lordships' House. What I should perhaps have said was that I took the Question to mean that it related to England and to the public sector.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, accepting that new hospitals cannot operate without adequate nursing staff, will my noble friend the Minister agree, in view of the speeches made by my noble friend Lady Cox, that it is most unlikely that the Government would ignore that aspect of hospitalisation?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Most certainly we shall not ignore that aspect. I mentioned in answer to an earlier supplementary question two of the measures we were taking to help solve it.

Business of the House: Motion, 16th July
2.56 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Lyell to advance his Motion to approve the Electricity Supply (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 from Thursday, 16th of July to Tuesday, 14th of July.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
Lord Ezra: My Lords, before the Motion proposed by the noble Viscount is put to the House, may I point out that the change of date for the debate on this subject has caused some inconvenience to those who want to speak on it? I hope that this may be borne in mind for the future conduct of our business.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord if that is the case. I know that investigations were made through the usual channels to see whether this was appropriate, and I understood that it was. If it is not appropriate to all noble Lords, I can only apologise.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Working of the House: Report
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The House will remember that last session I appointed a working group, under the chairmanship of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees to consider the working of the House and to suggest ways in which it might be improved.
Shortly before the Dissolution of Parliament, the group submitted its report to me and I should like to take this opportunity to thank the members publicly for the excellent work they did. Following consultations with the leaders of the other parties and the convenor of the Cross-Benches, I have decided that the report should be printed so that all Members of the House may consider it. I very much hope that we shall be able to hold a debate on the report some
834
time in early November, following which I shall invite the Procedure Committee to consider ways in which the report's recommendations might be implemented. I beg to move.
Moved, That the report to the Leader of the House from the Group on the Working of the House be printed.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Channel Tunnel Bill
3 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Construction and operation of a tunnel rail link between the United Kingdom and France]:
Baroness Stedman Baroness Stedman moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, after ("operation") insert ("subject to subsection (11) below").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when we were discussing the Bill in Committee I referred to the fact that over the years Parliament has taken an enlightened view about provision for the disabled and that the community at large now accepts that not everyone is able-bodied and some people need more assistance than others to go about their normal business. I commented that it would be sad if such a massive project as the Channel Tunnel were to proceed without there being adequate facilities for the care of the disabled.
In the course of the debate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, reminded the Committee that in previous cases when discussing Transport Acts the practice had been for a code of practice to be required within the Act. The Minister did not take up that point and therefore I have come back to see whether at this late stage a code of practice might be acceptable to the Government.
We need to look at what the ferries now provide for the disabled and what may be available on the ferry services after the Channel Tunnel is in operation. As I understand it, most of the ferries operating out of Folkestone and Dover have passenger lifts and some of the tonnage that was introduced during the last decade has specially adapted lifts for the disabled so that they can carry those who are confined to wheelchairs. This service is provided at the moment by the ferries as a facility for customers and is not a requirement by law. However, disabled passengers who travel by car and who require special treatment from the ferries can have their cars loaded at a specific stage in loading so that they are parked close to or next to the lift, thus reducing any inconvenience to a minimum. They do not have to give advance notice to the ship other than to inform the marshalling attendant when they arrive that they need this special facility. It seems to me that unless Eurotunnel is required to give such a commitment, either by law or through a code of practice, there are unlikely to be adequate or special facilities for the safe embarkation and disembarkation of disabled passengers, and the shuttle will go ahead and will be built without any proper and real consideration for the needs of the disabled.
We talked about the proposed internal dimensions of the shuttle possibly being inadequate to cope with the free movement of able bodied people, let alone those who are in wheelchairs or need to be put in wheelchairs. If Eurotunnel decides long term that it has not the facilities for moving the disabled in the tunnel, using the argument that these facilities are available on ferries, what we have to know before we can agree to that is whether those facilities will still be available on ferries if the tunnel is built. As I understand it, the type of vessel that provides these facilities may have been withdrawn from service due to market forces and some ferry operators are already reported as saying that if the tunnel becomes operational there will be large reductions in the short sea ferry fleet with the result that the main fleet may well consist of freight only vessels. Even if a few passenger ferries are maintained in service after the tunnel has come into operation the intense competition between the ferries and the tunnel service may dictate what extra finance is available for the passengers, and particularly for disabled passengers.
At present there are reasonably good services and facilities for the disabled on most of the ferries, and without the advent of the tunnel I am sure that they would have improved considerably in the future. But at a time when there is a greater awareness and acceptance of the need for special facilities and services for the disabled in all forms of transport, there seems to be just an element of risk that, in crossing the channel at least, a retrograde step will be made; that everything that has been achieved is likely to be lost; and that this facility which is available on the ferries will not be repeated as regards Eurotunnel.
Therefore, I and my colleagues have put down the amendment this afternoon asking for a code of practice to be incorporated in the Act as has happened in other Transport Acts. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is similar to that of the amendment which the noble Baroness put down at Committee stage. It would require Eurotunnel to make provision for the safe embarkation, carriage and evacuation of persons who are disabled. I suggested at that time that she should withdraw it because it was too broad for inclusion in a statute and, as I told your Lordships, Eurotunnel was already giving full consideration to the needs of persons with disabilities. However, many noble Lords obviously consider that there is nevertheless a need for a provision in the statute to ensure that Eurotunnel caters appropriately for the disabled. The amendment now before your Lordships suggests that there should be a code of practice on these matters, and I am glad to say that this approach is acceptable to the Government.
I have to say straightaway that, as so often happens, I am afraid the Government cannot accept the amendment exactly as it stands. There are a number of minor drafting problems—for example, it places a duty on the safety authority which would more appropriately lie with the Intergovernmental Commission. Lawyers are at the moment redrafting an amendment which will deal with these slight
836
problems while having substantially the same effect as this amendment. I can undertake that the Government will put down this amendment just as soon as it is technically possible to do so, which I hope will be tomorrow morning. I shall send the noble Baroness a copy at the same time. In the light of that undertaking I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw the amendment. I shall be in touch with her.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I am shattered. I had not expected to have the first amendment of the day accepted so readily. I am grateful the the noble Lord. I accept that my amendment may be defective in drafting and I accept his invitation to withdraw it now and to look at his proposed amendment tomorrow. I am most grateful and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved].
Lord Mulley Lord Mulley moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to ensure adequate ferry services for trade and tourism.
The Secretary of State shall be under a duty to take all such measures as may be necessary in order to ensure that, at all times after the passing of this Act, cross-Channel ferry services are adequate to meet the need of trade and tourism for those services.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4, but not, as I think has been suggested, to Amendment No. 8, as that concerns a related but rather different point from the general point that we ought to consider in these two amendments. I hope very much that the extremely happy note that the Minister struck in dealing with the earlier amendment will be continued in his general approach.
I can well understand that he may find some difficulty in accepting the drafting of the new clause. It would not altogether surprise me if he argued that what I am seeking could be achieved other than by statutory means. But before the Bill becomes law I feel we should address ourselves to the problems of the ferry companies and the provision of ferries in the interim stage between now and whenever the tunnel is ready. In respect of a mammoth undertaking of this kind very few bookmakers would give other than very long odds that it would not be ready on the due date in 1992.
The Minister, in his reply to the Select Committee and some of the observations that took place during the Select Committee's discussions and consideration of this point, suggested that the ferry business was not in any sense unique, and that in fact they should follow the normal rules that if they did not see the prospect of making a profit they should organise their affairs accordingly.
I have not had any intimate knowledge of, or financial involvement in, the ferry industry, but I should have thought, with the inevitable but difficult to estimate business that will go to the tunnel and the unknown date when it might begin to operate, that perhaps it would be prudent of them not to make any plans to produce new ships. Since it is a highly seasonal industry it would probably be prudent of them to cancel a lot of their services and to take a lot

837
of their ships—and, sadly, a lot of very precious merchant seamen—out of service in the summer or autumn of 1992, because if the tunnel is coming in 1993 that winter would not be a profitable or satisfactory period for the ferries. It is the summer when the cash flow is better. But then if the tunnel was not ready it would be a tragedy in terms of our tourism, and more particularly our trade.
I should like to see a little more tourism coming into this country rather than the present larger percentage of British people who go abroad on these services. Nevertheless, in the case of either freight or tourism it is essential that somebody somewhere—and I can think of no other person—should take on this responsibility, and that should be the Secretary of State.
We are in the happy position of having the Minister for shipping dealing with transport matters for us in this House. I do not know who is likely to be Minister for shipping, if there is one, in 1992, but in the interval maybe the noble Lord will be a member of the Cabinet with some important role, perhaps even Leader of the House. I can think of no other person more suitable than the Secretary of State, in consultation with the industry and the trade unions, to make sure that there is some organised running down of the ferry industry, and that it is not just left to chance so that we might be left in 1992, or even earlier, with an inadequate amount of shipping available to carry out our important trade and tourism responsibilities.
At the moment there probably is more than enough capacity. I think that one of the companies has just put one big ferry into operation, and another is coming along. But both these ferries were planned, decisions were taken, and construction begun before any question of a Channel Tunnel had emerged. I share with many others regret at the failure in 1974–75, under quite different circumstances, of a different tunnel, but this tunnel came through rather suddenly and it may be that they would not have ordered these new ferries had they known about it.
I should be surprised if, with this uncertainty as to the future of the tunnel people were planning orders now for ferries to be delivered in the early 1990s. They will want to wait. It is important that there should be early consultations between the Secretary of State and the ferry operators with a view to seeing whether a tidy and reasonable way can be organised to carry on these services in the interval between the Bill becoming an Act and the tunnel going into operation. I beg to move the new clause in the words on the Marshalled List.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I find some difficulty with regard to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. I have great sympathy with the principle that my noble friend Lord Mulley advanced. Most noble Lords will agree that we want to continue the ferry services as well as having the fixed-link tunnel. However, I wonder whether, before the Minister replies, my noble friend can explain what he thinks could be done.
838
Having laid down firmly in the Bill that there should be no public funds of any kind given to the fixed-link tunnel, including British Rail services going through it, I find it difficult then to talk about giving money to the ferry services to sustain them. It is a question of exactly what my noble friend is suggesting. Is he really saying, "Let us have a meeting between the ferry services and the Secretary of State to see what can be done"? That might be a different point entirely.
If it is a question of public money being put into the ferry services, then we would have seriously to consider our decision about no public funding going to the fixed link. I could be brutal and say, "This is what market forces and private enterprise do when you really ought to have public services."
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy for the point that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has just made. I should not like any excuse, any loophole, however tiny, which would begin public funds or public guarantees having to be given to get this through. It is a private enterprise effort. They have said that they are confident in it. They have said that they can raise the money to see it through, and it would be a mistake to leave even the slightest chink which would give a legitimate excuse for people later to try to justify government support.
Lord Galpern: My Lords, slowly but surely we are reaching the end of the Channel Tunnel saga. Before I support this amendment I should like to preface my remarks by paying a tribute, which the Minister has already paid, to the chairman of the committee, Lord Ampthill. To me he was a most amazingly competent chairman. He was able to have a perfectly happy atmosphere throughout. He dealt with hundreds of petitioners and sent them away satisfactorily, and made life much easier for the Government by his actions. I should have no hesitation in serving another two years on some other form of committee under his chairmanship.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has been successful in getting the Government to accept her amendment that the physically disabled should be catered for. There is another category of disabled person, the psychologically disabled. I have taken the trouble to speak to over one hundred people from different walks of life. I asked them whether, when the tunnel had been constructed—if it ever is constructed at any time—they would be in favour of it, and, secondly, whether they would travel in it. Now, 80 per cent. of them said that they were in favour of the tunnel but they would not travel in it.
They are part of the army of thousands of people in this country and on the Continent who are afraid to go into lifts and who are afraid to go into aeroplanes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, pointed out, the danger is that this tunnel could end up just carrying freight, through the action of the Eurotunnel people, who are naturally out to run it purely for profit without showing any consideration to the many people who are psychologically unable to travel in a confined space.
It would be a tragedy if—because of predatory pricing and the many other devices which could

839
develop and which we heard about during the Committee stage, at least in the Select Committee—people who presently go to the Continent by ferry were to find themselves in the unfortunate position that the ferries had disappeared. Surely we should show some consideration for those people. The Government should give serious consideration to Amendment No. 3 in the order to ensure that thousands of people are not denied the opportunity to travel to the Continent because of the absence of ferries. I think that if the Minister gives further thought to the matter he will come back and tell me that he intends to prepare another amendment that I can see tomorrow morning, and that it will be dealt with at Third Reading.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Galpern, for his extremely generous remarks about me. The noble Lord grossly exaggerates, as the House will be fully aware.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the purpose behind the amendment because it follows from recommendations made by the Select Committee. I have doubts about whether it is right that the amendment should be included in the Bill. I share the misgivings of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. The matter should be watched carefully.
I do not know that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, was germane to what is stated in precise terms in the amendments. The amendment does not support Eurotunnel; it is intended to keep an eye on the situation in which the ferry operators may find themselves. I shall listen with interest to what the Minister says.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend Lord Galpern will not support the amendment. Most of us sympathise with the general proposition that in the long run the ferries ought to be sustained as competition for the tunnel and for aircraft, and to provide for those incapacitated people mentioned by my noble friend. However, there is no place for either new clause in the Bill. There may well be a place for them in some kind of shipping Bill or in a special Bill relating specifically to ferries and marine transport. No doubt they have been spatchcocked on this occasion for good reason. Their main strength, however, is that they give an opportunity to consider and discuss the matter. I do not think that we can carry it further than that; the amendments should be rejected.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like to comment on the assumption that the ferries will disappear. Surely all those who use St. Malo, Cherbourg and Le Havre to travel south-west and to visit Spain and Portugal will continue to use them. We are not burying the ferries, are we?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, will be disappointed if he is hoping for the same response that I gave to the previous amendment. I should first like to comment on the realism of the noble Lord's concern that
840
ferries will curtail investment in anticipation of the inevitable loss of part of their market. The two new clauses after Clause 1 would be objectionable on principle because they would require the Secretary of State to take all necessary measures to ensure that ferry services remain adequate to meet the needs of trade and tourism. That would run counter to the Government's policy on competition, both generally and specifically in relation to cross-Channel transport, to extend special assistance or protection to one particular mode.
The Government's entire approach to the fixed link has been founded on two main principles; first, that they stood ready to facilitate the entry into the cross-Channel market of a new form of transport provided that it was financed exclusively from private capital, and, secondly, that the competition between the new and existing modes must be on the basis of strictly even-handed treatment by the Government. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, remarked on those matters.
Both the proposed new clauses entail intervention by the Secretary of State on the side of the ferry operators in some shape or form, and that is a wholly unacceptable concept. It is not for the Government to say what strategy ferry companies should adopt in anticipation of the opening of the tunnel. Nor would it be right for the Government to predict how the cross-Channel market would be shared between the ferries and the tunnel. The noble Lord, Lord Mulley, was kind enough to refer to the fact that I am Minister with responsibility for shipping. However, I am afraid that the Government have made it clear that they will say nothing on that topic which might be construed as a signal for potential investors in the tunnel.
However, it would not be inappropriate for me to make a few general observations lest it be mistakenly assumed that the Government are indifferent to the fate of the ferry industry or its capacity to meet the demands upon it both in the short and long term. In the past the ferry industry has shown great ability to adapt to changing situations in the market. As the noble Lord said, in moving the amendment, new types of ships have been introduced which are bigger, faster and have new facilities. New companies have entered the market. New services have been opened up, and existing services expanded. Older vessels have been transferred to other routes or sold to other operators. This is a continuous process and there is no reason why it should not continue up to the time when the tunnel opens and beyond. The Government have every confidence that ferry operators will find the means to respond to changing traffic demands. Experience shows that if the demand exists there will be owners of ships willing to meet it.
I hope that my remarks go some way to allay the fear of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I think that it would not be going beyond what I should say to agree with the noble Baroness that some of the long distance routes are unlikely to be affected at all by the arrival of the tunnel. All the evidence is that existing operators are far from despondent about their future. Their representatives were emphatic in telling the Select Committees of both Houses that they were

841
confident, given a regime of fair competition—and the Government are pledged to that regime—that they could beat the tunnel. They pointed to ways in which they believed that they could substantially improve their efficiency and reduce their costs. They cited the new generation of larger ferries now coming into service.
The ports are also investing in new facilities. I note that in his report on the 1986 accounts the chairman of the Dover Harbour Board said:
"The Board is confident that while fair competition obtains, ferry services will continue to be needed on some sort of scale and that they will be able to compete commercially".
He went on:
"The Board is developing its programme of capital expenditure both to accommodate the growing volume of traffic requiring to be moved before the fixed link opens, not least accommodating the larger ferries".
which have just come into service,
"and to provide the facilities which operators will need by the early 1990s if they are to beat the tunnel".
I hope that to some extent that will allay the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Galpern, about the survival of the ferries. Potential passengers who might be frightened of travelling down the tunnel will have an alternative means of transport whether by ferries or airlines, which have not yet been mentioned.
It seems clear to me that the existing operators believe that it will be worthwhile investing to meet demand up to the opening of the tunnel and that they expect to retain a sizeable share of the total market thereafter. Therefore I cannot accept these amendments, which would have difficult consequences for the Secretary of State.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I did not intervene earlier when my noble friend Lord Underhill invited me to say what I had in mind, because I appreciate that at Report stage one can speak only once, except to reply to the debate. There has been a great deal of misunderstanding about the point that I was trying to make. The noble Lord. Lord Harmar-Nicholls, thought that I was talking about giving money to Eurotunnel. This matter has nothing to do with that. If one reads Amendment No. 4, which I was asked to speak to with this amendment, it deals with the relevant period in what I should have thought was plain English. It states that it is a period from the passing of the Act to the opening of the tunnel. That has nothing whatever to do with the question of competition once the tunnel has actually begun. Obviously I endorse completely the need for there to be fair competition in those circumstances.
What I am concerned about is the national interest, if one can be so callous in this House or with this Government as to talk about the national interest. I believe that sometimes it is not served completely by the open workings of what is called the market economy. There are many things that the national interest demands which one cannot necessarily expect when a large amount of capital investment is involved, together with the training of personnel and so on, especially if something were to go wrong and the tunnel were to be perhaps a year late in coming along.
842
I have not proposed detailed measures that I believe the Secretary of State should take, because if I may be excused a pun here with the name of Mr. Morton, who is the man running the Eurotunnel, we are faced with Morton's Fork. If you do not put in details people say, "What do you want to do?" If you put in details then they say that the statute is not the proper place for them to be put and that such things should be for the Secretary of State to determine after consideration.
The simple proposition I am putting is that somebody—and I cannot think of any member of the Government who is more appropriate than the Secretary of State for Transport—should be responsible in this interim period to see that there are adequate provisions in respect of our export trade, which the Government tell us—though I remain to convinced about this—is going to expand more and more every year. Certainly we want to encourage tourism. I envisage that unless someone is watching this matter it could be that many of these ferry services may not be completely adequate at the time, especially, as I say, during the last year or so before the tunnel is open. I appreciate that putting the wording into the Bill may not be relevant, and perhaps a more relevant consideration which might be embarked upon is something we can discuss when we reach my Amendment No. 8. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 3.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
3.30 p.m.
Lord Mulley Lord Mulley moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 1. insert the following new clause:
("Duty to notify Safety Authority of certain incidents affecting safety.
As soon as reasonably practicable after the date on which the Safety Authority is established. the Concessionaires shall provide that Authority with full details of any fires, explosions or other incidents—

(a) which have occurred before that date in connection with the construction of the tunnel system. whether before or after the passing of this Act; and

(b) which required the administration of substantial medical assistance to any person or the use of any fire-fighting or other life-saving equipment.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a rather different and smaller question. I was shocked when my attention was drawn—I confess I am not a regular reader of this paper—to a little item in last Monday's edition of the Daily Telegraph. It is very short and perhaps I may read it to the Committee. It is headed "Chunnel fire", and it says:
"Labourers digging underground on the first stages of the Channel Tunnel had to flee yesterday when fire broke out at Shakespeare's Point, Dover. The fire was said to have been caused by the ignition of oil on the tunnel floor".
I gather that Kent Fire Brigade was called, and when it got there its advice was, "There is not much we can do about it; the best thing to do is to shut it up and when the oxygen runs out the fire will go out". I do not think the safety authority would recommend that approach as a method of dealing with a fire during the construction of the tunnel or indeed when it is actually in operation.
I draw the attention of the House to this matter because various people have said that the idea of a

843
fire in the tunnel is absolutely impossible. Some people have extraordinary faith. In view of the fact that a fire has taken place even at this early stage, I think it is a worthwhile point to make. We know that the safety authority has not yet been officially established. While I imagine it will be informed of this rather small fire at the beginning, perhaps it is not as serious as other matters which may arise during the construction period.
All I am seeking to do here is to place an obligation on the concessionaires to inform the authority, once it is in operation, of any events of this character that involve the use of fire-fighting equipment or personnel, so that when it comes to consider general questions of safety it will have the background of what has happened and will be able to give official cognisance to all these matters. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, perhaps I may just ask the noble Lord whether he was intending to speak to Amendment No. 26 at the same time.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I am sorry: Amendment No. 26 is a paving amendment, certainly.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree that that amendment is consequential upon this one. The first point I have to make is that the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, may be under a misapprehension about the establishment of the safety authority. Although the treaty as a whole is not yet in force, an exchange of letters between the governments, signed at the same time as the treaty and annexed to it in the relevant Command Paper—9745—recorded the agreement of the governments to apply provisionally Articles 10 and 11 and thus to set up the Intergovernmental Commission and the safety authority on a provisional basis.
These two bodies have accordingly been in existence since last year and have commenced their activities. As to the functions of the safety authority in relation to accidents, the authority is empowered under the treaty to,
"examine reports concerning any incident affecting safety within the fixed link, make such investigations as are necessary and report thereon to the Intergovernmental Commission".
Because it is already in existence, the safety authority is able to receive and consider reports on any incidents within the tunnel system which have safety implications and to make all appropriate investigations, using the powers of existing enforcement agencies such as the Health and Safety Executive.
Turning now to the specific incident referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, perhaps I may give the House a few details about the incident which happened in the tunnel workings on 5th July. I can assure the noble Lord that the safety authority has received reports on this incident from the factory inspectorate, which investigated it. The background was that work had been in hand to remove the cutting head of the tunnel-boring machine which was abandoned in site in 1975. The contractors had been using thermic-lance burning equipment to break up the remains of this machine and unfortunately some
844
of the oily residues ignited, producing smoke. Railway staff became alarmed and called the fire brigade.
On arrival the brigade established that there was no danger to personnel or property and the fire was left to burn itself out. The factory inspectorate's investigation established that no enforcement action was necessary. Clearly this was a very minor incident which brought about no risk. I am informed that appropriate changes are being introduced to prevent recurrence. A meeting has already taken place between Eurotunnel, the contractors and the Health and Safety Executive to develop the lessons to be learnt from this incident in terms of improved emergency procedures. A further meeting with Kent Fire Brigade is planned.
I have gone into this incident in some detail because it illustrates that the appropriate machinery for obtaining reports on and investigating incidents is already in place. In my view, this reinforces the belief that the noble Lord's proposed amendment is unnecessary. I hope that, with the assurances I have given, he will be able to withdraw it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I agree that this amendment ought not to be proceeded with. My objection to the proposed clause and its wording is that it could be the beginning of strangling the whole project of the tunnel with bureaucracy. The wording of the amendment as it stands says that the safety authority should be informed of any incidents which would require the administration of substantial medical assistance or the use of fire-fighting equipment, and so on.
In hotels, where similar responsibilities have to be faced, there is an accident book which has to be completed even if it only concerns a commis chef who has cut his finger in the kitchen. The wording of this clause as it now stands means that in such an instance some authority would have to be informed about the incident. The same would apply if it concerned the use of fire equipment to put out a little blaze.
That could signal the beginning of a bureaucratic system which may stifle the efficient running of the whole enterprise. Therefore I am glad that there seems to be every indication that the noble Lord will not proceed with his amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not think that there will be so many fires in the Channel Tunnel as to stifle anyone with bureaucracy. It is a rather terrifying concept which the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, appears to be suggesting: namely. that there will be so many fires occurring that an alarming weight of work will descend upon the safety authority.
So far as concerns our conclusions, he and I agree. We do not think that there is any need for the amendment. It is quite right for the noble Lord. Lord Mulley, to have introduced it: but on the basis of the Minister's reply I suspect that the noble Lord will not press his amendment. I believe that I carry with me most of my colleagues—though I had better not say all in view of the fact that it was not a unanimous report when I say that the majority of us (and any

845
of my colleagues are at liberty to disagree with me if they think that I am overstating the case) are persuaded that Eurotunnel is an entirely responsible company. I think that everything we saw of them confirmed that view. It is only fair to say so and to place it on the record.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I was very surprised at the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. His imagination seems to grow larger every time he speaks. Certainly there is no suggestion that a fire book should be kept at the entrance to the tunnel.
I recall in another place moving a number of amendments to Bills for the sole purpose of eliciting a reply from the Minister, and that is exactly what I have done here. I think that this is not only for the benefit of the House but gives some reassurance to the people outside. Noble Lords will have been impressed by what the Minister said and by the very great care that has been taken over the matter. It is conceded that it was not such a serious point but certainly it is very worthwhile to have the presence of a factory inspector who will report, as it is to have meetings—and indeed subsequent meetings—to improve the emergency measures; and it is something that the world at large should know.
Apart from that very small quotation that I made to your Lordships, I do not think that there has been any publicity at all about this matter. One understands that Eurotunnel does not ask its public relations team to go into bat on such occasions. Lots of things may happen, and there are incidents that do not receive any publicity at all; but the public need to be satisfied about safety. We are indebted to the Minister, and I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 1 insert the following new clause:
("Inland customs clearance facilities.
—(1) The Secretary of State shall consulte with—

(a) the Commissioners of Customs and Excise;

(b) the Railways Board; and

(c) such other persons as he considers to be relevant,

with a view to determining whether it would be desirable for there to be established a network of inland customs clearance facilities for the purpose of enabling certain goods entering and leaving the United Kingdom by means of the tunnel system to be afforded customs clearance otherwise than in the county of Kent.
(2) In determining both the general question and the criteria to be applied in deciding whether a need for such facilities can be established in the case of a particular location, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability

(a) of facilitating the prompt delivery of goods to their ultimate destination; and

(b) of promoting economic growth and employment opportunities throughout the United Kingdom.

(3) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report containing the results of his determination under this section not later than 1st August 1988.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be recalled that an amendment with somewhat similar wording was put forward at Committee stage. On that occasion, the Committee was reminded that during the debate on this subject in Standing Committee in
846
another place an amendment on the same lines was defeated by only one vote. The report of your Lordships' Select Committee (in paragraph 145) heartily approved the general principle that action should be taken on inland Customs clearance facilities. Noble Lords will also recall the recent debate in the other place on the interim report of the transport committee on the innovation in surface transport, which in the last paragraph emphasised the principle of the necessity for inland Customs clearance facilities.
If my memory is correct (and the copy of Hansard will confirm it), when we debated the previous amendment in Committee there was considerable support for it from all parts of the Chamber. At that time the Minister agreed that maximum use of the tunnel must be available to all regions of the country but he added that ICDs (inland Customs depots) were not the key to determining how much freight traffic British Rail would be able to attract. That must surely be a very important factor.
Toward the end of our debate at Committee stage (it will be found in col. 557 of Hansard for Monday, 6th July) the Minister said:
"I have to tell the Committee that Customs and Excise has a considerable amount of experience in operating ICDs which have failed to stimulate the demand that would have justified them. It is something that will be looked at very closely. I apologise for dampening the enthusiasm of Members of the Committee that ICDs automatically generate a tremendous demand for small businesses or for large. It has not always been the case".
I intervened and said:
"The noble Lord is talking about past experience but we are arguing about the new experience of freight trains going through the tunnel into Europe, which is a new situation. We are talking about that and taking advantage of it".
The Minister's last words on this subject were:
"I accept that of course, but that is something for the future. That is why I say that Customs and Excise will want to look at that point".
How does the amendment read? It suggests that the Secretary of State should consult with Customs and Excise, British Railways Board and any other persons that he considers to be relevant. I am not arguing that there must be ICDs, only that there should be consultation, which is the very point made by the Minister in his closing words in the discussion on this matter in last Monday's debate (at col. 558 of Hansard).
The present amendment is different from the one put forward at Committee stage. In determining the general question of whether there should be a network of ICDs, subsection (2) states that consideration should also be given to:
"the criteria to be applied in deciding whether a need for such facilities can be established in the case of a particular location".
I am not saying that there must be a general pattern throughout the country, but that there must be discussions that include the Customs and Excise (which the Minister himself said must take place). There must also be consideration of point (a) and (b) of subsection (2) when deciding whether there should be an ICD at a particular location.
It seems to me that in all respects this amendment meets every criticism that the Minister made about the earlier one. There seems to be no reason at all why he should not give the same heartening response to this amendment as he did to the first one.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, in order to clarify the matter, I should be grateful if my noble friend would confirm that many more of these facilities exist on the Continent that in Britain. That is my first point. Secondly, would he also confirm that the criteria for establishing an inland clearance depot in this country are much more stringent than is required on the other side of the Channel? Lastly, can he say yes or no—and I think the answer will be yes—that at the moment facilities exist in the case of a number of individual manufacturers? Should the answers to those questions be in the affirmative, whether or not the amendment is the right way to achieve it, can he give us an assurance that arrangements will be made to prevent the flow of vital traffic being impeded? I think the Minister will agree with me that that is one of the main objects and principles of the whole tunnel system.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend's amendment. Last week in Committee I moved an amendment which had the full support, as I said then, of the Yorkshire and Humberside regional association. Both sides of industry, all political parties involved in local government in Yorkshire and Humberside were represented in that voice of support. I am not moving the amendment again. However, part of it is covered by my noble friend's amendment in the sense that if we are to develop the industries in all parts of the country—I speak in particular for the industries in the Yorkshire and Humberside region—it is essential that we have facilities in this country comparable with those that already exist in France.
The Minister mentioned last week the individual manufacturers who have their own facilities. With respect, this is not the same as having within a region at least one facility if not more which can be available to all the industries in the area. If we are to spread the benefits of the tunnel, a move along these lines is essential.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we heartily support the principle behind the amendment. I think that the Minister will be giving three yes answers to his noble friend, as I am sure he is aware.
I draw the attention of the Minister to paragraph (1)(c), which states:
"The Secretary of State shall consult with … such other persons as he considers to be relevant".
Within that, I hope that he will be consulting the Minister's noble friend the Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry. It seems to me that, for the regeneration of the inner cities, the building of small businesses and improving exports for the regions of the country, the Department of Trade and Industry should be interested in ensuring that the Customs and Excise facilities are available for goods produced in the North and in Scotland to make sure that these can be easily put on trains and ships into the markets in Europe.
Given our interests on these Benches in making sure that northern industries are given every facility to compete in available markets, which is one of the bases for the tunnel, I hope that the Government will at least support the principle that lies behind the amendment.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, I too should like to support the principle behind the amendment. As the House will be aware, this matter was the subject of a recommendation of the Select Committee. It received what I think was the dustiest of all the answers in the Government's repsonse. This is largely because it was never given in evidence before us that there were 370 traders with Customs facilities on their premises. I think that what we recommended in the Select Committee would not have been so forcibly expressed if we had been aware of that information. Nevertheless, I believe that there is a merit in the amendment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is it possible for people to make their separate arrangements, such as the 370 already have? If they substantiate their case, can they do that? That will achieve the objective of the noble Lord's amendment.
My doubt about the amendment as worded is that it is not necessary at this stage. My noble friend and his advisers have had to deal with this in Committee. Indeed, it was referred to on Second Reading, and they have had every opportunity of ascertaining whether the idea can be accepted. I should say that we are at the point where the Minister can say, yes, we can do it, and announce it, rather than merely agree to consult one or two organisations or people. At this stage I think that it ought to be said that this can be done or cannot be done for the reasons that my noble friend will give.
It would satisfy my concern, along the lines of what the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, said, if individual exporters could make their separate arrangements, as many have already done, so that they are achieving exactly what the amendment has in mind.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, let me assure the House and the noble Lords who have spoken in support of the clause that there is no difference between the Government, British Rail and Eurotunnel about the desire to see the tunnel used for freight services from all parts of the country provided that those services can pay their way on a proper commercial basis. I want to make that point clear at the outset lest my remarks about the specific proposal before the House be misunderstood as implying indifference to the future of either British Rail or the less prosperous regions. The Government's support for British Rail's overall investment programme, and the Government's initiatives in regard to the inner cities are there to be seen, though I grant that they are not the point at issue today.
Turning to the specific proposal before the House, as I explained in Committee it is misdirected on two counts. First, it is not appropriate for the Secretary of State to take the lead in proposing the location of new inland Customs clearance depots. It is up to British Rail either alone or, if the depot is to serve both rail and road freight, in conjunction with other entrepreneurs to identify the places where the provisions of Customs clearance facilities would be advantageous. That done, British Rail must then make its proposals to the Customs authorities.
As regards the position of those authorities, I merely repeat the central points. the resources

849
available for Customs services are not unlimited. It is not possible to provide those services wherever there is demand for them regardless of the pattern of level of that demand. The Customs authorities must deploy their resources in a manner that provides the best practicable service to most traders. To that end the Customs authorities, having consulted the trade associations, have drawn up various criteria for 1CDs, including one that normally there should be a minimum throughput of 30,000 entries per year—just a little under 100 a day. However, that is not a rigid requirement.
Regional factors are fully taken into account when considering proposals for new ICDs. It would be wrong for regional factors to become the primary consideration. To establish an ICD if there is little present or prospective demand in the hope of stimulating economic growth, when all the evidence is that ICDs are not by themselves a major stimulus, would require the diversion of Customs resources from ports and inland depots where there is an actual demand with consequent delay and inconvenience for a vastly greater number of traders. What I have said is, I believe, common sense
To answer my noble friend Lord Holderness's point, there are not as many ICDs as there are on the Continent. I cannot give precise details as to the criteria used on the Continent. The pattern is different, drawn of a long history of transport across land frontiers by road, rail and inland waterways. There are, as my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, said, some 370 traders with individual facilities. I am not certain exactly how those traders go about acquiring these facilities with the Customs authorities. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls asked me for details of that. There are 370 of them.
Small businesses are very likely to get someone like a freight forwarder to arrange their shipment for them. Many of those freight forwarders have direct trader input. Nevertheless, the valid point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in the debate last week and again today that the fact that rail ICDs have not stimulated great demand in the past does not mean that they will not do so when the tunnel is operating.
The Government expect the tunnel to make a substantial difference to the amount of international freight moving to and from the country. It will be important in future to anticipate these changes. That does not affect the basic principle that the Customs authorities must be objective about where ICDs are justified. I hope the noble Lord will accept that the present criteria for ICDs are fair in that they balance the efficient deployment of Customs resources with due regard to regional factors. The Customs authorities arc prepared to examine any proposals for new ICDs that British Rail may submit in accordance with these criteria, and I submit that it would be wrong for the Secretary of State to cut across those procedures by initiating his own study. I hope that I have been able to give some reassurance in my answer this afternoon and I trust sufficient to allow the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
4.00 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, as the chairman of the Select Committee pointed out, the Committee were unanimously concerned about this matter. He was also right in saying, to the best of my recollection, that we were not furnished with quite as much information as we have been given subsequently. But the fact is that basically in all the evidence we received from local and other public authorities, and other organisations north of London, serious disquiet was expressed about Customs and Excise policy so far as these depots were concerned.
The Minister has said to us today, "Well, the Customs and Excise have consulted the trade organisations". No doubt they have done so, but we all know what consultation can mean in certain circumstances. You listen courteously to what is said and adhere to your previous view. That, I suspect, is exactly what is meant by consultation. We have to recognise that a very large number of responsible businessmen working in the Midlands and the North of England are profoundly dissatisfied with the present arrangements and will not feel that anything the Minister has said today has ended their disquiet. It is a pity that the Government have not been able to move in the direction that the Select Committee suggested and I think that is a mistake.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we should be grateful that the Minister agreed in principle with what was suggested in the amendment. However, I think that at that point he must have gained a very clear impression that the agreement of the House and of everybody who has spoken would end. The Minister gave a very disappointing reply. The tunnel is something that is entirely new. It is a very big project. We have been told all through the series of debates, and in the Committee stages in this place and in another place, that the tunnel is a great new venture. Yet the Minister and the department seem content to have the same machinery for discussing this big new venture as we would have in the case of a single customer in a certain part of the country.
Of course firms can separately make agreements and come to arrangements with the Customs, but that is denying the whole argument that was used in selling the tunnel to many parts of the country. We have had this before. One of the major selling points of the tunnel to the Midlands and the North was the fact that containers would be able to go straight on to the railway and go right the way through without any interruption whatever.
I believe that in many ways there is a chicken and egg situation here and a loss leader may be needed. Customs depots may need to be set up, obviously within certain criteria—we would not want them in areas where there had not been some study and some understanding of the trade that was likely to come their way—but falling well short of the criteria which the Minister put forward, at least at the beginning.
If the Minister and noble Lords would look again at the amendment in the names of my noble friend

851
Lord Underhill and myself they will see that we are merely asking that
"The Secretary of State shall consult with:

(a) the Commissioners of Customs and Excise;

(b) the Railways Board; and

(c) such other persons as he considers to be relevant.".

Surely with a big new venture like this one that is asking very little. The idea that it should be left purely to the Railways Board, as was said by another noble Lord, is choosing not to understand how these things are managed. We need an authority such as the Secretary of State for Transport to be leading on a matter like this and to be seen by the Customs and Excise—and particularly by their chiefs, the Treasury—to be very interested.
There will be a fairly big political fight, probably within the Cabinet, as to whether there should be extra Customs in the clearance depots. I hope that the House will take that view very strongly. I do not think it is a question that can be left to the assurance of the Minister, although I believe that he is sincere. It is something much bigger than that. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will agree that this amendment should be put to the vote so that the House can give its views on it.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, may I just add one or two words to what my noble friend has said? At the outset, may I say how grateful I am to the chairman of the Select Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, and to a member of the Select Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for emphasising the overwhelming—and I believe completely unanimous—support of the committee on this principle. We all know the excellent work that was done by that committee.
As my noble friend Lord Carmichael said, this is not a matter which we should just leave BR to decide. It is a matter on which the Government should take the initiative and say, "This is what we want for developing Britain's international trade and we are going to consult with BR, with Customs and Excise and with other relevant bodies to see what can be done, first, on the general question as to whether there shall be a network of ICDs, and, secondly, what can be done in a particular location." We are not saying that if somebody says that there has to be something in a particular location it has to be provided. We are saying that we should consult and consider.
I have had another look at what the Minister said about the Government's response on page 14, paragraph 26 of the report. The Rayner study of ICDs was in 1983—not 1986 or 1987—and a further review took place in 1985. It said:
"The Customs and Excise is pursuing a policy of concentrating resources at those ports, airports and ICDs where there is sufficient traffic to justify full-time facilities."
We do not know what will be the justification for an ICD in a particular location such as the Midlands, the North or Scotland. That is the point of the amendment. There should be discussions with the Customs and Excise, with British Rail and with other relevant bodies.
852
Looking back to the Committee stage, I never pressed this amendment to a Division because it came up at 9.30 at night, which I thought was hardly a suitable time to divide. I completely agreed with the Minister when he said that the resources for Customs and Excise are not unlimited; that we must use their facilities where practicable; and that Customs authorities must be objective in their approach. I challenge any Minister or any Member of the House to say that that is not what the amendment says, because in the consultations there will be an objective approach and there will be the suggestion of using Customs and Excise facilities where they are to the best advantage. It seems to me that everyone who wants to see the tunnel a success, everyone who wants to see the maximum use of the through-freight trains, everyone who wants to see the maximum possible development of export trade in the North, the Midlands and Scotland, must support the amendment. Therefore I hope that the House will declare that view in a Division.
4.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 104.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Leatherland, L.

Airedale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Amherst, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ardwick, L.

Longford, E.

Aylestone, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Banks, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Basnett, L.

McNair, L.

Birk, B.

Mais, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Manchester, D.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Molloy, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Mulley, L.

Brockway, L.

Munster, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Oram, L

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Peston, L.

Carter, L.

Phillips, B

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]

Cornwallis, L.

Craigavon, V.

Rea, L.

David, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rugby, L.

Denington, B.

Russell, E.

Diamond, L.

Seear, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Ennals, L.

Serota, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Somers, L.

Ezra, L.

Stallard, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Stedman, B.

Fitt, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Foot, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gallacher, L.

Toylor of Blackburn, L.

Galpern, L.

Toylor of Mansfield, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Teviot, L.

Gregson, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Underhill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Walston, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

Hunt, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jeger, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ypres, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

853

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Alport, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Arran, E.

Layton, L.

Auckland, L.

Long, V.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lurgan, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

McFadzean, L.

Bellwin, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Beloff, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Belstead, L.

Manton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Marley, L.

Blatch, B.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Borthwick, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Morris, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountevans, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

De Freyne, L.

Onslow, E.

De La Warr, E.

Porritt, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Radnor, E.

Digby, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dudley, B.

Reay, L.

Dundee, E.

Rodney, L.

Effingham, E.

St. Davids, V.

Elibank, L.

Salisbury, M.

Ellenborough, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elles, B.

Sandford, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Faithfull, B.

Sharples, B.

Foley, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Fortescue, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strange, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathspey, L.

Goold, L.

Suffield, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Terrington, L.

Gridley. L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Torrington, V.

Harvington, L.

Trafford, L.

Havers, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hives, L.

Vickers, B.

Hood, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hooper, B.

Westbury, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kimball. L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Walston Lord Walston moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Protection of frontier controls at United Kingdom ports.
The Secretary of State shall take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure—

(a) that the standard of frontier controls existing at the passing of this Act at United Kingdom ports is not adversely affected during the period up to the opening of the tunnel system as a result of the transfer of customs and immigration control staff from such ports to that system; and

(b) that, after the tunnel system is opened, any reduction in the standard of frontier controls existing at any such port before that opening shall be no greater than is necessary in order to take account of any actual reduction in passenger or goods movements at that port.")

The noble Lord said, My Lords, in Committee, I moved an amendment on somewhat similar lines to this one and I was gratified by the amount of support
854
that I received from all quarters of the Committee for the general principle of the amendment. In particular, I am grateful not only to those noble Lords who spoke in favour of the principle but also to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, who made a very constructive suggestion to which I have paid attention in this revised amendment. I am sorry that the noble Lord is not in his place, but I am sure that if he were he would support this amendment because it owes quite a lot to him and to other Members of the Committee on the other side of the Chamber as well as to Members on this side who spoke in broad support of the Bill.
We all know that our frontier services and particularly our Customs services are first class but we also know that they are seriously overstrained. There is no need to go into the evidence for that; it is Well-known to your Lordships. When the tunnel becomes operational there will be a still further strain upon those services, but even before that the strain will be apparent because it will be essential to remove from the ordinary Customs services and from the frontier services in general officers who are at present engaged mainly on ferries in order to train them for the somewhat different job of exercising their responsibilities on trains and in the tunnel as the trains approach and pass beyond the tunnel. In other words, there will have to be a period of training for a substantial number of officers before there has been any increase in the number of passengers carried or the amount of freight carried as a result of the tunnel.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said earlier that the Government were completely wedded to the idea of free and fair competition. I think that all your Lordships will support that. He also said that there should be strictly even-handed treatment by the Government as between the ferries and the tunnel. I wrote down his words and I was delighted to hear them. I was not however surprised to hear them. Quite rightly, that has been the Government's policy all along. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will tell us, as he told my noble friend Lady Stedman, that he sees the force of this amendment and that while he may not accept it in every detail, it is one that he can accept in principle.
Unless this amendment or something very close to It is accepted, provided that the Government stick to their strictly even-handed treatment of ferry and tunnel operators, as I am sure they will, the result will be either a diminution in the efficiency of our frontier services to the joy of nobody except illegal immigrants, terrorists, drug smugglers and other undesirable types, or an equality of misery between ferry and tunnel operators to the detriment and discomfort of passengers and freight carriers. Those are the only options which are open.
What is effectively needed (as I am sure the noble Lord, if not today, then at certain times, will agree) is an increase in the number of Customs officers and frontier officials. I know that that is not his or his department's responsibility. It is the responsibility of the Treasury. I hope that the amendment will strengthen the hand of the noble Lord's department in serving a greater improvement in those services. That is essential, not only because of the tunnel and the increased traffic that will take place between the Continent and ourselves, but also because of

855
increased traffic to other places, although we are not concerned with that.
Essentially, the objective of the amendment is to ensure that there is equal competition, without any favouritism or bias in favour of either the tunnel or the ferry operators; that the efficiency of our frontier controls will be, at worst, no worse than it is at present and possibly show some improvement; and that the equality between the two services will be an equality of speed and efficiency and not an equality of misery. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I explained last week when the Committee discussed an amendment on this subject proposed by the noble Lord, the Government cannot possibly object to the underlying aims of the new clause. The new clause proposed today benefits from last week's debate and is directed all the more effectively at the real issues. Clearly it is most undesirable that Customs and immigration facilities at the ports should suffer before the tunnel opens because officers are withdrawn for training or familiarisation. Equally, one would not wish a port to suffer more than a proportionate reduction in the manning levels for Customs and immigration once the tunnel does open. The difficulty, however, is that in a world where Customs are trying to be as fair as they possibly can to all parties, these things may happen; and the terms used in the noble Lord's draft clause are inevitably rather imprecise, so that the clause is inevitably rather ineffective.
I take Customs as the main example, The majority of Customs officers are at any one time firmly attached to particular ports or airports. But they can be deployed to work at neighbouring ports at short notice, and the remainder of the Customs staff in the regions are considerably more mobile still. They amount to a pool of staff who can be deployed anywhere within a wider area to deal with day-to-day operational needs. The Customs and immigration services are responsive organisations and they aim to put their manpower, week by week, where it is needed—in other words equal treatment, for better or for worse. If traffic rises sharply when the tunnel opens, there is bound to be an adverse effect on everybody, even if only slightly because it is spread around. Therefore, what the clause seeks to do is still to protect the services available to the ferries, whether or not this corresponds to fair and equal treatment.
If I may mention briefly the question of how very difficult it is to formulate a statutory provision dealing with this kind of thing, one may ask how a court would decide if the standard of controls was adversely affected. Does the term mean the same in paragraph (a) of the amendment as in paragraph (b)? How does one judge whether staff have actually been transferred when a substantial proportion of Customs staff form a floating pool anyway? And precisely what periods of time do the "before" and "after" situations refer to?
I believe the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, put his finger on the question when he said that what is really needed is an effective dialogue
856
between HM Customs and Excise and the port operators. I have written at some length to the noble Lord about that. There is consultative machinery at both national level and local level already in place. Questions of the allocation of resources are dealt with nationally in the Joint Customs Consultative Committee (the JCCC) where the British Ports Association represents the ports and the Dover Harbour Board usually also provides one representative. At the local level, there is direct access for the port manager to the senior Customs official and details of basic manning levels can be made available to the manager. But comparisons between ports are not dealt with locally because that would mean divulging information about a neighbouring port's manning levels to its competitors.
The Government and HM Customs and Excise do not argue that these arrangements cannot be improved, and in my letter to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I have suggested how proposals for an improved flow of information might be taken forward if Dover, or the Ports nationally, wish to pursue it. That is offered in a spirit of helpfulness.
To return to the amendment, however, I am afraid that I must simply confirm that the justice of what the amendment seeks to achieve—which is protection for frontier controls at the ports against the tunnel, and not vice versa—is dubious, and that that kind of thing is in any case not susceptible to legal drafting. The Government have given the most binding commitments they can on equal treatment. They can go no further. I must therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Walston, to withdraw the amendment. I hope however that he has had some reassurance from what I have said.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I would be less than gracious if I did not begin by saying that I welcome what the noble Lord has said about trying to arrange some form of dialogue between HM Customs and the port authorities. That is a sensible idea. As the Minister has rightly said, it is contained in his letter to me of 10th July. That is a step forward.
However. I am bound to say that I remain concerned about this matter. I apologise for troubling the House again with an exchange which took place in Committee, but I think it is probably right to do so, given the character of the Minister's letter to me. This passage relates to the examination of Mr. Sloggett, who is the managing director of the Dover Harbour Board. He was complaining to us about the existing delays at Dover. He said that they were getting bad at Easter, and sometimes the delays were of a very substantial character indeed. He feared that the situation would get worse once the opening date for the tunnel approached because some of the existing and in his view inadequate number of Customs officers would be withdrawn for retraining purposes before that eventuality.
His fears have to some extent been borne out by what the Minister has just told us. Having said that it would be unfortunate—I think that is the word he used—if Customs officers were to be withdrawn, he want on to say (I hope I am not misquoting him), "these things may happen". That is not terribly

857
reassuring to the port operators in Dover and elsewhere. As the Minister knows, I am a wholehearted and enthusiastic supporter of the Channel Tunnel, and I think it is right that the operators should receive some degree of reassurance.
We go back to what Mr. Sloggett said to us. I promise the House I will not go through the whole series of quotations I read at Committee stage. Mr. Sloggett said that the harbour board had been trying to find out how many Customs officers were being deployed so that representations could be made to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. I pointed out on the last occasion we debated this matter that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said to him:
"But have you any data which could put before this Committee?"
I quote Mr. Sloggett's reply from the Official Report of the Committee, when he said:
We certainly have data about the delays that are experienced. We have no data about the Customs resources that are available. It has been suggested to me that to collect such data would be against the Official Secrets Act".
A few moments later, in answer to a question I put to him, Mr. Sloggett added:
"I did seek this year to try to collect those statistics, but was warned off, I am afraid."
When we last debated this matter the Minister said it may have been a case of overenthusiastic behaviour by an individual Customs officer. It was a perfectly reasonable point for him to make. I expect that in his situation I should have said something remarkably similar. Indeed, that may be the position because in his letter to me—and this is a very serious matter given the degree of concern shown by Dover Harbour Authority—the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, said:
"On the very specific point you raised in the debate, and also I understand earlier in the select Committee, about the Official Secrets Act, Customs have looked into this and I understand have not been able to trace the source of the story".
I am not altogether surprised about that. It is rather like one of those leak inquiries. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has had the good furtune to be involved in one, but amazingly nobody ever admits to having leaked anything. I suspect on this occasion nobody was very keen to say that they had mentioned the words "Official Secrets Act" to Mr. Sloggett.
I should be interested to hear the answer to one simple question; namely: was Mr. Sloggett approached by the Customs authorities during their inquiries into this particular matter and asked whether he would identify the Customs official who had said this to him? I should be grateful to have an answer to that question.
Owing to the degree of concern shown at Dover about this matter, I think it is necessary to put on the record some of what the noble Lord said; namely:
"It is difficult to see that there would be any advantage to the port operators in Customs disclosing the basic numbers to them in a more formal way, but this is a matter which I intend to take up further with Customs".
I make it clear that I welcome that and I think it is right. I can see no conceivable grounds for the ludicrous secrecy about such questions.
Of course there are sensitive matters involving the Customs. Every now and again a team of Customs
858
officers may want to swoop on a particular airport or port to find out whether or not there are massive contraventions of the drug trafficking Act or something of that sort. There can be no obligation on Customs to tell the port authorities, port operators, Eurotunnel or anybody else if they are going to do that. We are talking about the normal day to day working relationship.
I welcome the fact that there will be talks in Dover. The Minister has indicated that if Dover Harbour Board agrees a senior headquarters Customs official well be made available to attend a meeting in Dover between the Dover collector and the harbour board. That is an advance, but I still come back to the matter which is central to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Walston. There is a substantial degree of concern shown by Dover Harbour Board and by other sensible and responsible people whom we, as members of the Committee, all regarded as sensible witnesses.
We had a number of witnesses whom we would not have described as sensible. Certainly, Mr. Sloggett came into the category of a very intelligent, reasonable man. If reasonable men believe that there is a risk of the present delays being made still worse, it is reasonable to see what form of reassurance can be given that such delays will not take place. It is incumbent upon the Government, as initiator of this piece of legislation, to do more than they have done so far to meet this real and genuine anxiety.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I am sure the House will gladly give leave to the Minister to reply to the important questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, particularly concerning the interpretation of the Official Secrets Act. This is a new facet which the House had not heard of until he raised the matter on previous consideration. When the Minister was speaking at Committee stage, if I remember his speech correctly at one point he said that he and the Government had an open mind concerning this question. That immediately caused me to say that a Minister's open mind usually means a closed purse at the Treasury.
The Minister went on to say that there had to be a severe limit on how much money could be spent on Customs and immigration facilities. That shocked me immensely because in previous discussions—and goodness knows every government have many very trying discussions concerning how the amount of public expenditure should be shared between the various departments and demands—there were two categories of expenditure; namely, one where there was a degree of choice and one known as demand determined expenditure. In other words, you could not put a limit, for example, on a particular social expenditure.
Looking back, I am shocked because under previous Labour Governments when we were arguing about how much money was to be spent on social security and unemployment benefits, we were talking about a fraction of the money now being spent because there are now many more people unemployed and in receipt of social security benefits. I should have thought that Customs and immigration controls came within the category where it is

859
necessary to provide enough funds to see that the transit of passengers and goods is smoothly carried out. The money the Government are spending, or say they intend to spend on trying to improve employment and trade in this country, will be nullified if there are delays because of inadequate Customs facilities. A number of firms get fed up because it involves great cost to have lorries and drivers hanging about for hours at ports. This is a matter which needs rather more attention.
It may be that it is not terribly good to try to write it down in an Act of Parliament. However, I remind the Minister that one of the most extraordinary Acts of Parliament I can recall was at the end of the last Parliament and was called the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act. The Government were transferring not merely by a clause but by a whole Act of Parliament the responsibility for immigration control from the public authorities to the carriers. I imagine that when the Eurotunnel is operating—if the iniquitous Bill has not been repealed meanwhile—they will be liable for £1,000 for each passenger if someone is on the train and comes in. I hope that will be in the prospectus when they go for public subscription.
The Government thought it right to provide for such matters by legislation. If we ask one parliamentary counsel to vet a clause drafted by another, he will always find some fault with it. Perhaps the wording could be better. However, as well as responding to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, perhaps the Minister could be a little more forthcoming and explain how we can have an Act of Parliament which transfers some liability for immigration control and yet the Government cannot make any statutory provision for adequate Customs and immigration facilities not only in the tunnel and on the trains, but also at our ports.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, I share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Walston, on his second attempt at this amendment. It is obviously a great improvement on its predecessor. However, I fear that it is impossible to draft a clause which will deal with this matter.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to answer a couple of the points that have been raised. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, for his remarks, because he has said what I was trying to say in my first speech. This afternoon we are concerned with the equality of misery between Dover Harbour Board and Eurotunnel, if I may put it that way. I have tried to be forthright in my undertaking that we shall be even-handed. The debate has then gone on, as it did last time, into the overall resources available for Customs and Excise and whether or not they are sufficient. The noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Mulley, mentioned that matter. I shall pass on to my right honourable friend, who is responsible for the Customs service, the concern expressed by your Lordships this afternoon. There is scarcely a country
860
in Europe that does not have major Customs delays from time to time.
I cannot answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about Mr. Sloggett and the Official Secrets Act. I shall look into that matter and again write to him if I can find the answer.
The noble Lord, Lord Mulley, referred to the Immigration (Carriers'Liability) Act. I would not describe it as he did, as transferring responsibility from immigration officials to the carrier. Immigration officials still have their part to play. That Act will of course apply to the railways running services through the tunnel. There will be no need to apply it to Eurotunnel on the shuttle services because Customs and immigration controls are to be juxtaposed between France and Britain and therefore the British controls will take place in France before a person is allowed on to the shuttle service, so he will already have been checked by immigration.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, with regard to the equality of treatment between the tunnel and ferries, do the government contemplate having immigration controls in France for people travelling on ferries?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that point has been gone into at some length. The harbour authorities and the ferry operators realise that it would not work very well in that way.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I must confess that I am disappointed by the Minister's response. In his last intervention I think that he once again mentioned the equality of misery. That is a pretty gloomy outlook to be put across by a government spokesman. As I understand it, it means that the Government are encouraging—rightly in my view (I am delighted about it as I think we all are)—the construction of the tunnel, but they are not prepared to provide the necessary Customs and frontier control facilities to make the tunnel an efficient and modern method of travel between the two countries. That is profoundly depressing.
One of the amendment's objectives is to overcome that and to ensure that the Government provide all the necessary facilities, not just physical facilities but sufficient manpower, to make the tunnel a model of travel between the United Kingdom and France and other parts of the EC. The main objection that the noble Lord raised to the amendment was that he did not see how the point could be measured or tested in a court of law; that the standard of frontier controls is not adversely affected up to the opening of the tunnel system, and so on. Surely that does not present any great difficulties.
I do not know whether the statistics are available at present, but undoubtedly some time before the tunnel opens the port authorities could start to measure the length of time involved per passenger or vehicle carried. If it could then be shown that, as a result of manpower being withdrawn for training for the tunnel, the period lengthened, surely any court would accept that as being substantial evidence that the services had been adversely affected.

861
Similar proof could be adduced, if it happens, for the position after the tunnel has opened and is in operation under paragraph (b). The noble Lord's main objection to the amendment—that it is not feasible to test the point in a court of law—does not stand up to close examination. In view of that, I am afraid that I must seek the opinion of the House, and press the amendment.
4.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 120.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Amherst, E.

Lockwood, B.

Ardwick, L.

Longford, E.

Aylestone, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Banks, L.

McNair, L.

Basnett, L.

Mais, L.

Birk, B.

Molloy, L.

Brockway, L.

Mulley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Carter, L.

Oram, L.

Chitnis, L.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Denington, B.

Russell, E.

Diamond, L.

Seear, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Ennals, L.

Stallard, L.

Ezra, L.

Stedman, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Galpern, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hanworth, V.

Underhill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Walston, L. [Teller.]

Hooson, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hunt, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jeger, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Carthcart, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Chelmer, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Coleraine, L.

Ampthill, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Arran, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Craigavon, V.

Auckland, L.

Crathorne, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Bellwin, L.

De La Warr, E.

Beloff, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Digby, L.

Bessborough, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Blatch, B.

Dudley, B.

Blyth, L.

Dundee, E.

Borthwick, L.

Elibank, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elles, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Faithfull, B.

Campbell of Croy, L

Foley, L.

Carnock, L.

Fortescue, E.

862

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Moyne, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Munster, E.

Goold, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Gridley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Onslow, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Porritt, L.

Havers, L.

Portland, D.

Henley, L.

Radnor, E.

Hesketh, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hives, L.

Reay, L.

Holderness, L.

Reigate, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Rodney, L.

Hood, V.

Rugby

Hooper, B.

St. Davids, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Salisbury, M.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Killearn, L.

Sandford, L.

Kimball, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Lane-Fox, B.

Sharples, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Sherfield, L.

Lawrence, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Layton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Long, V.

Somers, L.

Lurgan, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Strange, B.

McFadzean, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathspey, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Suffield, L.

Manton, L.

Teynham, L.

Marley, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Trafford, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mersey, V.

vaux of Harrowden, L.

Milverton, L.

Vickers, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Morris, L.

Westbury, L.

Mountevans, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Mulley Lord Mulley moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 1,
insert the following new clause:
("Integration of cross-Channel ferry and hovercraft services.
—(1) When considering any proposals by ferry or hovercraft operators which would involve the integration or co-ordination of some or all of their cross-Channel car ferry services, the Director General of Fair Trading shall have particular regard to the importance of ensuring that trade and tourism as between the United Kingdom and other countries is not adversely affected by any deterioration in the services offered by any of those operators during the period between the passing of this Act and the opening of the tunnel system.
(2)In this section "hovercraft" has the same meaning as in the Hovercraft Act 1968.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in a sense this is a continuation of the discussion we had on earlier amendments concerning—and I stress this—the period between the passing of the Act and the coming into effect of the tunnel services. I accept the Government's intention that once the tunnel is operating there will be fair competition between the cross-Channel ferry services that remain and the fares and services that go through the tunnel. However, some thought should be given between now and the opening of the tunnel to this matter. There is a history of investigation of the ferry services and the charges that they were making, and a suggestion that there might be some collusion between them with regard to fares and services. There was an inquiry by the

863
Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1974–75. As a result, I believe that several ferry service operators gave undertakings that they would not have any discussion between themselves either for the integration of services, agreement as to fares, or about mergers.
Under the entirely new conditions, with the advent of the tunnel, the operators sought to have the authority of the Director General of Fair Trading to withdraw these undertakings. If there were intentions to try to integrate the services, these would be subject to the agreement of the Director General of Fair Trading and of the Secretary of State. There is no suggestion that they should be at liberty to do other than to apply to the Director General of Fair Trading. However, the director general is very much conditioned and restrained by existing legislation. It would therefore be appropriate for a clause such as this to be inserted into the Bill. It will then be clear to all concerned that the director general will have regard to continuing provision for trade and tourism during the period between the passing of this Act and the opening of the tunnel system.
I underline that fact because on the previous amendment noble Lords thought that I was referring to the period after the tunnel had opened. I was at some pains to stress that it was for the limited period between the Act passing—which I suppose will be quite soon—and the opening of the tunnel in six or seven years' time. I am seeking to follow exactly the recommendations of our own Select Committee which say that operators can approach the director general at any time. Indeed, they did so when this Bill was well on its way through Parliament in the autumn of last year. The director general did not see fit to make any arrangements to permit them to withdraw the undertaking that they had given or to give consideration to the longer term provision of integrated services. Our committee says that it appreciates,
"that the Port of Dover faces the possibility that ferry operators, not presently earning satisfactory profits, may in the six years before the tunnel opens decide to restrict their investment and curtail their services in anticipation of the formidable competition which the tunnel will unquestionably pose from 1993. Any reduction in capacity during this period could severely damage the country's trade in goods and tourism. Accordingly the Committee believe that the Office of Fair Trading should regard applications by ferry operators for integration in the light of these considerations."
It would be helpful to the director general to know that it was the wish of Parliament that he should have these considerations fully in mind. I have had the privilege of knowing the Director General of Fair Trading—I should make clear that it is in other circumstances than his present responsibilities—for very many years. I know he is an extremely diligent, fair and conscientious man. I believe it would be of assistance to him to know of this wish. Perhaps the Secretary of State could do this without the need for the amendment, if he would give an undertaking that he would direct or give such guidance to the director general as he might wish. I do not think it can be left until 1992 to decide how it will be coped with. Simultaneously with the development of the tunnel, there should be discussions to see whether or not, subject as I am sure the ferry operators would agree,
864
to agreement about their fares being subject to approval and the rest to try to ensure that such facilities (which perhaps may diminish as 1993 approaches) are used to the best advantage so that trade and tourism, in the words of our Select Committee, do not suffer damage in the interim period. I beg to move.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with this amendment; but I do not believe it to be necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Mulley, has just said that nothing will happen before 1992. I think in our report in paragraph 80 we made it quite clear that we expected that the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading would keep these matters very much in the forefront of his mind from now on. The ferries already have a problem. They are not very profitable. The part that worries me most—and I think it worried the Select Committee most—is that in the year or two before the opening of the tunnel there will be a sore temptation for the ferry operators to withhold further investment. That gives cause for alarm in that the ferry service might deteriorate rapidly in the year or two before the tunnel actually opens. I have enormous confidence in the director and I am certain that he will keep these things very much in mind from now on.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I appreciate the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, has just made; but it seems to me that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Mulley is one to which we could give general support. Before we knew exactly what was to be the nature of a fixed link, or even whether there was to be a fixed link, we from these Benches were opposed to any possibility of creating a monopoly in ferry operation. But the situation has changed now. Paragraph 80 has been quoted already and my noble friend Lord Mulley repeated these words:
"Accordingly the Committee believe that the Office of Fair Trading should regard applications by ferry operators for integration in the light of these considerations.".
That is a hope; it is a desire that the Office of Fair Trading will do this.
As we have asked so often on Bills before your Lordships' House, is it satisfactory merely to leave matters in the form of a hope that it will be done or that we believe it will be done? We are asking that the Office of Fair Trading will take these factors into consideration. We are not asking for the director general to agree with what the ferry operators want, but that he should take these factors into consideration.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as has been explained, this new clause is concerned with the ferry operators' desire to integrate or to co-ordinate their services so as to be better able to compete with the Eurotunnel service. The new clause would require the Director General of Fair Trading, when considering any such proposals by the companies—
Lord Mulley: My Lords, before the noble Lord proceeds, my point is not to permit them to compete with the tunnel; it is to ensure that adequate services

865
are provided in the interim before the tunnel operates. That is the whole point. I do not think the Minister grasped it when we had the previous discussion.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I did grasp the point, and as I develop my remarks the noble Lord will see that we are well aware of the problem which he is worried about: that is that the Director General of Fair Trading should consider any proposals by the companies especially in relation to trade and tourism in the period before the tunnel opens. I accept that this is an important point. Indeed, it is almost exactly the consideration which the Select Committee recommended should be taken into account by the director general at paragraph 80 of the special report, to which reference has been made.
However, we do not believe that it is necessary to convert this recommendation into a legal obligation on the director general. As I indicated in Committee on 6th July in response to the noble Lord's earlier amendment, the Government's response to the Select Committee report confirmed that in considering any proposals ferry operators may make for integration of their services, the director general will take into account all the relevant factors, including the possibility that the operators may otherwise decide to restrict their investment or curtail their services in the period before the tunnel opens.
I believe that the standing duty of the director general should fully meet the noble Lord's concerns. Moreover, I do not feel that it would be appropriate to single out in the Bill just one of the considerations for the director general. I think the Select Committee recognised that he would need to take many factors into account. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, will accept that the best interests of the ferries and the users of cross-Channel services would not be served by seeking to condition the judgment of the director general in this matter in this rather special way.
The ferry companies are permitted to discuss with each other how they may order their affairs to benefit their customers before the tunnel opens, provided that they do not agree prices or merge. If, however, they have proposals for joint operations, they can discuss these with the director general. The ferry companies are free to discuss anything they like with the Department of Transport. The approach last year by Sealink to be released from its undertaking not to agree prices was an undertaking not to agree prices now. I frankly think it is remarkable that the companies hope that they will be allowed to do that seven years before the tunnel is due to be opened. It was made quite clear that similar application nearer the time would be dealt with on its merits then. The needs of trade and tourism will be one of the factors that the director will take into account.
I hope that in the light of the remarks and the assurances that I have been able to give that the noble Lord will not press his amendment to insert the new clause.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister's assurances. I thought, however, that it might have been in the director general's mind, when
866
the Bill was already well on its way through Parliament in October last year, that he should have given rather more weight to that. Until they are released from their existing undertakings, the ferry companies cannot begin to think about or to put together any suggestions to discuss with the department or with the director general himself. Therefore, they must be released from those undertakings. I find some encouragement from the noble Lord's assurances that they can go and discuss matters with, I imagine, him, as the Minister for shipping, and certainly with the Department of Transport. I understand that what he said will be brought to the attention of the Director General of Fair Trading. He is a very busy man and I doubt very much whether he reads Lords Hansard every day. I wonder sometimes how many Members of this noble House read it from cover to cover every day. If the Minister will give me an assurance that this will be brought to his attention, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I can certainly give the assurance that the director will see what has been said today.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Construction of the scheduled works]:
Lord Mulley Lord Mulley moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 28, at end insert—
("(3A) The Railways Board shall not have power to commence Works Nos. 21, 21A and 21B in Part III of that Schedule, nor the works relating to the passenger station at Waterloo which are auhorised by paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to this Act, until the Secretary of State has issued a certificate to the Board under subsection (3B) below.
(3B) The Secretary of State shall issue a certificate under this subsection if and only if he is satisfied that the proposed arrangements of the Railways Board for the scheduling of international through services are such that it will be possible to provide sufficient peak-time international through services to and from Waterloo station to meet the needs of travellers on such services, without thereby creating any significant deterioration in the standard of domestic rail services to and from that station.
(3C) In this section "international through services" means services for the carriage of passengers by rail by way of the tunnel system, other than shuttle services.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry to burden the House again—and I am sure the Minister will not relish the fact in view of what he said on a previous occasion—with the matter of Waterloo. Although I am not in any way satisfied that the concerns of the residents have been fully taken care of, and although they still feel rather sore that they did not have a proper opportunity to express their difficulties, this amendment is entirely concerned with the provision of services to Waterloo and with the possibility of the international services providing problems for the efficient peak-time commuter services.
The City of London (of which we are all very proud) would be at a standstill if there were any falling away of the rail commuter services into the City every day. We know what happens on the sad occasions when the railways are on strike. People have to stay overnight on camp beds in their offices, or whatever; and in many cases they are unable to get

867
to work. It is a fairly open secret that the French railways understandably want to run a lot of trains that will arrive in London in the peak morning period. That would be a sensible time to time-table trains so that people coming to London for business purposes could arrive at a reasonable hour in the morning in order to get to their board meetings at 10 o'clock or thereabouts, having arrived in the middle of our peak commuter period. Equally, I am sure that British Rail would try to maximize its service by putting on trains that will leave at night in the peak period so as to give people going from London a full working day in London before they travel to Paris, Brussels or to the places on the Continent where meetings are to be held. That will produce a problem. I do not know who will be the arbiter if French railways want to have more trains than British Rail feels it can cope with without damage to the commuter service.
At the very beginning, when the whole question of the tunnel was under discussion, I understand that the British Railways Board gave undertakings that whatever happened it would not agree to any arrangements that would damage the commuter network around London on which so much depends. I hope very much that at the very minimum the Minister can give us an assurance that this undertaking by British Rail is still in place and has not been over-ridden or will not be over-ridden by any other considerations in respect of Eurotunnel, our French partners or anybody else. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, on the basis of what the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, said at the end of his short speech, I assume that he will not press this amendment and that he is looking for some form of assurance from the Minister. Were he to do so, I very much hope that the House would not accept it. I say this for two reasons. First, the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, has had responsibility for nationalised industries and I have not, unless one regards the Metropolitan Police as a nationalised industry which probably one would not. I do not like the idea of giving a Minister a power of this kind to certify whether British Rail is or is not behaving sensibly. It involves a degree of interventionism which I do not think is desirable in the day-to-day management of nationalised industries.
All of us on the Select Committee put these very questions to British Rail because there was undoubtedly genuine concern about a possible deterioration of commuter services. All of us, so far as I am aware, believe British Railways when they said that one of their central objectives was to ensure that there was no such deterioration. I am sure that that is an honest statement of their position. So much for the amendment, my Lords.
Perhaps I may deal with the noble Lord's other point. He has made some very useful interventions during the Committee and Report stages of the Bill, not that one has necessarily always agreed with him. Nevertheless he has raised a number of important issues. One point on which I fear I did not find myself
868
in total sympathy with him was an implication of what he said; that some of the residents of Waterloo—I may have misunderstood what he said and if I did I apologise—believed that they had been unfairly treated in some way by the Select Committee.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, the noble Lord is, I am afraid, under a misapprehension. As I understand it—I have had no close discussions with them although I get things put through my door because I live in that neighbourhood—they were extremely pleased with the attention our Select Committee gave. Their grievance was—rightly or wrongly—a matter for British Rail, and more particularly in another place they did not have the opportunity to present their case. I am glad to say that the noble Lord's committee made up for that.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I would have—beenand I suspect the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, would agree with me—more than mildly mortified if such an allegation had been made. We spent many days listening to the evidence of various groups from around the Waterloo area. We recognise that there is genuine concern and without trying to make any partisan point, we were all—and I use fairly moderate language—disappointed by the attitude of the two local authorities, Lambeth and Southwark. Both had the opportunity to become involved with detailed discussions and both declined to do so. Both have been involved in a rather childish walkout from a meeting presided over by Mr. Mitchell. It does not help the inhabitants of the Waterloo area when the elected representatives of the people behave in this fashion. I very much hope that the two local authorities and the other local authorities which are involved will follow the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee and now involve themselves without further delay in the detailed discussions which are necessary in order to minimize the inconvenience to the local community.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should very much like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has just said. We shall be coming to an amendment a little later on which addresses the position of Waterloo—that is, the terminal rather than, as in this amendment, the scheduling of train services.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said more or less exactly what I was going to say about the job of the British Railways Board in the scheduling of trains. It has never been seen as the responsibility of the Secretary of State, whatever the political complexion of the government, to look at the scheduling arrangements made by the board and to satisfy himself that they are adequate to meet anticipated demands. Those must be management functions and not matters for the Secretary of State.
The amendment, as drafted, would require a radical change in the traditional relationship between Ministers and nationalized industry boards. I am bound to say that it would be extremely difficult to find anybody willing to serve on a nationalised

869
industry board if the principle of the amendment were carried through.
However, I suspect that the noble Lord wants to get a clearer idea of how the inter-relationship between international and domestic trains will work during periods of peak traffic demand. British Rail have never made any secret of the fact that the existing level of domestic traffic would constrain the international traffic which they would be able to carry during domestic peaks. When they first looked at this problem they concluded that they would only be able to run one international train out of Waterloo between 4.45 p.m. and 6.15 p.m. on weekdays. They have since done much more work which has shown that it should be possible to run three international trains an hour during the peak without adversely affecting the domestic service. So far as I am aware the morning trains from Paris are expected to arrive after the peak of the British rush-hour.
Even three trains an hour may not be enough to meet peak demand for international services. British Rail will of course be looking at ways of encouraging people who would otherwise travel during the peak to travel off-peak. That is already common railway practice. British Rail's existing system of saver fares on their Inter City services is already designed to spread traffic outside the peaks, and they will no doubt be looking at similar systems for their international services.
If at the end of the day, and even after the application of peak pricing mechanisms, British Rail find that they have more international traffic during the peak than they can carry, they have made it clear that they will simply not carry it all. British Rail have given repeated assurances that they will not curtail domestic services to make room for international trains. If there is a conflict between the two it is the level of the international service which will have to give.
The noble Lord has said that he would not want domestic services to be curtailed in order to make way for international services. I do not imagine that such a course would be very popular with the commuters either. The noble Lord's amendment is clearly against any deterioration in the standard of domestic services to and from Waterloo.
The amendment would prevent British Rail from providing their terminal at Waterloo unless it had capacity to deal with all the international demand at peak hours as well. That may turn out to be impossible. If it does, British Rail are prepared to sacrifice some of the international passengers. There seems to be no reason why British Rail should not be allowed to build their terminal in those circumstances. I hope that, with the reassurances I have been able to give this afternoon and my fundamental objections to parts of the amendment, the noble Lord will be able to withdraw it.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I am again indebted to the Minister for those reassurances. I am not only concerned about the convenience of the commuters. Obviously one hopes that people can get to and from their work in reasonable comfort. However, the whole of the City of London, on which so much of
870
our invisible earnings depends, relies on people travelling a distance to work and getting away from work at the end of the day.
I am sure that the French railways will not be pleased at the idea that their services are to be restricted to suit the convenience of the domestic services coming into London. But British Rail's undertaking which is now on the record with the backing of the Minister will be of great comfort to people. I accept the point that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, made that perhaps this is not a responsibility that one should place on a Secretary of State, although of course the present Secretary of State is fortunate in having such able assistants as the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, will know that I have an amendment down to try specifically to take care of his particular concern, because the transport consultative committees are particularly charged with reviewing rail services. I hope that I shall have his support when we come to that amendment to Clause 40. With that understanding and hope, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Tevio Lord Tevio moved Amendment No 10:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
("Extension of M2.
The Secretary of State shall construct the works necessary to continue the M2 Motorway from the point at which it terminates at present to the entrance to Dover Eastern Docks.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10. I am most grateful to my noble friend for all his co-operation and for sending me a letter about this subject. The statement that the M.20 and A.20 will serve the Port of Dover as a direct either motorway or dual carriageway standard link from London and the North thus providing the means of fair competition between the port and the tunnel is in many ways not strictly true.
The improved A.20 included in the Bill is being built because it is said that Dover will be at a disadvantage without it on the basis of fair competition. I am told that the truth is that the A.20 Folkestone/Dover link has been in need of upgrading and improvement for many years for general everyday use, and it cannot be just merely classed as a fair competition element.
The need for such improvement exists and has been proved without the presence of a tunnel. The M.20/A.20 will provide the Channel Tunnel with a high standard road link. It will only provide Dover with the same link as a continuation of the tunnel facility. The Port of Dover will not have the same facility as the tunnel and, in the opinion of the Government, will not need it.
In the Select Committee's Special Report on the Channel Tunnel Bill the committee recommended that particular roads in Kent need urgent attention in the light of the tunnel project. One identified is the A.2. Such a recommendation cannot have been made without sound judgment and reason. It must be said that the Government in their response to the special report have either misinterpreted the recommen-

871
dation or have chosen to ignore it for reasons which seem quite clear.
It is possible that by using the appropriate route one can travel from, say, Perth to Lydden on the A.2 almost entirely on dual carriageway road. That distance must be in excess of at least 600 miles. From Lydden to Dover, a distance of six miles or 11.3 kilometres, the road is single carriageway standard. This section of the A.2 is of constant concern to Kent County Council and has been discussed with the Department of Transport on many occasions, and Kent County Council has pressed it to upgrade the road to dual carriageway standard.
The section of the A.2 that we are discussing was out of date before it was constructed. It had been planned prior to the collapse of the 1975 Channel Tunnel project. It was not designed to carry the traffic that it has carried. Similar to the plan that now exists it was the intention to divert as much traffic as possible off the M.2/A.2 to the tunnel via the M.20. The A.2 was expected to cope with 5,000 to 6,000 vehicles a day. Although the 1974–75 tunnel project was cancelled by the incoming Labour Government the road, the A.2, was built to original specification even though it was then known that the amount of traffic it would have to cope with would be higher than proposed.
After the referendum on the membership of Britain of the European Community, the firmer commitment to Europe generated an increase in trade to EC countries which resulted in a massive increase in the movement of heavy freight vehicles far greater than was anticipated. In 1978 Kent County Council were pressing for the A.2 to be widened. Unfortunately that request was refused.
For the nine-year period from August 1977—when this road was opened—to July 1986, on the six mile or 11.3 kilometre stretch of road there were 25 fatal accidents, 56 serious accidents and 67 slight accidents. The high fatal and serious accident rates are directly attributable to the fact that the road is single carriageway, a large percentage of the fatal accidents resulting from head-on collisions. Well over 14 per cent. of all accidents are fatal compared to the national average of 4 per cent. I believe that the Department of Transport has said that the A.2 is no worse than other roads. Statistics prove otherwise. The department's statistics for A roads reflect ·23 accidents per million kilometres travelled. The section of the A.2 between the Whitfield roundabout and Lydden has an accident rate of ·36 kilometres travelled. The Department of Transport's design standards for road construction are that dual carriageway road is considered if the road is proposed to carry 14,000 vehicles per day, with definite dual carriageway to 17,000 vehicles per day.
In September 1986 the average monthly traffic flow from Lydden to the Guston roundabout was 17,000 vehicles per day; from Guston roundabout to the Eastern docks the figure was 19,500. The road from Lydden to Dover was designed to carry from between 5,000 and 6,000 vehicles. Roads are built with a 20 year period of life with the expectation that they will carry X million standard axles. Within the first eight
872
years of its existence, this section of the A.2 had carried the expected life number. In other words, within the first eight years it had carried the estimated traffic forecast for 20 years.
All statistics point to the need for the decline in the A.2 from Lydden to Dover. Recently the opportunity arose for such work to take place. Kent County Council approached my right honourable friend Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Secretary of State for Transport, when he opened the M.25 last year, with a request to improve the A.2. That request was rejected. The A.2 has been under reconstruction for some time, the most recent works commencing last year. Prior to those works commencing, Kent County Council advised the Department of Transport that for an additional £2 million to £3 million in addition to what had been budgeted for the works planned, Kent County Council could provide a sub-standard dual carriageway. That means that the running lanes were slightly narrower than normal. Although a sub-standard dual carriageway would have been provided, it would have been a vast improvement on what presently exists.
If the work proposed had been undertaken, it would have assisted in the future road works of the A.2 by the closure of one carriageway while providing the other carriageway for the movement of traffic. Also, it would have avoided the need to divert traffic to other roads, so increasing the load on those roads and the risk of accident. The dualling of the A.2 would have been an economic project in all senses.
I should like to ask my noble friend why his department turned down that option. Heavy goods vehicles account for 10 per cent. of the total traffic on the roads country-wide. On the A.2 it is 17 per cent. (My Lords, I digress to say that I have taken eight minutes; that is quite respectable.)
I feel that the Government must respond to the Select Committee's recommendation other than to say that they will keep the road under review and decide what the future requires when the tunnel opens. Unless the Government are prepared to act positively on the recommendations of the Select Committee, the whole procedure requires further investigation.
I am very much pro the Bill and the tunnel. However, I feel strongly that to leave this section of the road in its present state would be a travesty. The M.20/A.20 will certainly serve the needs of the Channel Tunnel, and possible the port of Folkestone and other places in that area. That is fine but it is not the answer for Dover. I am afraid that it looks as though Dover will become the poor relation because at the end of the day, in many instances in the case of freight it will be the driver, and sometimes the employer, who will make the decision whether to travel to the Continent by the tunnel route or by the ferry. Equally, the private motorist will have that choice. Surely, situated by the A.20/M.20, the tunnel will be in a favourable position; but if the A.2 is upgraded to motorway standard, which I should like, both the tunnel and Dover will be free-standing. I think that this is a most positive and free-standing amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, this is a splendid amendment but with the small disadvantage that, unfortunately, it has no place in the Bill. It is splendid in that it provides an opportunity to discuss one of the curiosities in the ways in which the Department of Transport decides whether or not a road needs improvement. When one extricates oneself from London, one enjoys eight lanes, six lanes or four lanes until one reaches the village of Lydden, situated between six and seven miles from Dover. At that point the road deteriorates into a single carriageway. In moving the amendment, the noble Lord has sufficiently explained the awfulness of that section of the road.
However, I am mystified by the methods used by the Department of Transport to decide whether or not a road needs improvement. My own belief is that it engages the services of a pair of retired Chief Whips. They stand beside the road with their clicker-counters and count the number of vehicles which are making use of it. The flaw in that system is that they are counting the Contents. The Not-Contents have long since learnt that if they use that road they will encounter the mother and father of all traffic jams. Therefore they divert themselves through the villages and by-ways of Kent and cause all the distress which flows from that.
I regret that the Bill is not the place for this amendment. However, I hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that outside the Bill this House will pursue him over the years to come, unless something is done right away about that section of the A.2. He has said that the Government will review the situation when the tunnel has opened. That is six years away and I am concerned about what will happen to the ferry operators in the intervening years. The Minister has also said that even if the matter was dealt with now improvements to the road could not be made before the tunnel opens. To me that is quite extraordinary and unacceptable. Even though the amendment plays no part in this Bill, I hope that the Minister will feel able to give some encouragement to the people of Kent that something will be done about this most curious situation.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, is entirely correct. I also support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. Anyone who has driven to Dover to catch a ferry knows precisely how horrid is that last stretch of road.
I see that in the Long Title of the Bill there is stated:
"to provide for the construction of certain highways and associated works in the vicinity of Folkestone".
I should have thought, broadly speaking, this section of the M.2 was in the vicinity of Folkestone.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I briefly mentioned the department's intention in relation to the M.2/A.2 in response to an amendment at Committee stage. As my noble friend Lord Teviot has mentioned, I have since written to him. I can quite understand my noble friend's concern about the possible inadequacy of the M.2, and also that of the noble Lords, Lord Ampthill and Lord Tordoff. Traffic on the M.2/A.2 is fully expected to decrease
874
when the final sections of the M.20 from Maidstone to Ashford and the A.20 Folkestone to Dover are completed. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, that the way in which the department carries out its traffic forecasts is not quite as simple as he indicated to the House. Obviously, we try to make them as accurate as possible.
I remind the House that for several years it has been the department's policy that the M.20/A.20 should be the principal route between London and both the ports and the tunnel. Planning of the improvements to the network has taken place on this basis.
I know the stretch of the A.2 which causes the greatest concern is the section between Lydden and Dover. Our traffic forecasts for the narrowest sections of that road assume that by the time the Channel Tunnel opens in 1993 the M.20 will be complete, the new stretch of the A.20 from Folkestone to Dover will be open and most longer-distance traffic to Dover as well as to the Channel Tunnel will have transferred to the M.20/A.20 corridor. I should point out to my noble friend that the proposed A.20 improvement goes right into the middle of Dover and, I understand, right to the eastern docks.
On this basis the narrowest section of the A.2 will be running well within the appropriate departmental recommended standards. Even by the year 2008 and taking an assumption of high economic growth, the road is still expected to be operating within the recommended flow levels for a single carriageway. However, I accept that August flows are likely to be above recommended levels since tourist traffic means that this stretch of road is subject to high seasonal variation. Nevertheless, predicted traffic flows do not at this stage justify major improvement.
However the Government made it clear to the Select Committee of both Houses that if predicted traffic flows are realised we expect by the end of the century to review the standard of the A.2 with a view to some improvement. We must look at the evidence of the relative attractiveness of the A.2 and A.20 corridors for longer-distance traffic, the location of industrial and commercial development in the north-east Kent and the level of port-related traffic through Dover. That is why we have undertaken to keep the A.2 corridor under review when the effects of the tunnel are first apparent.
There is then the question of what happens if the A.20 improvement, particularly the eastern half that is to be done under Highways Act procedures, is delayed, even if our timetable on that is not met. We fully accept that in the event of any major delay to the A.20 improvement we should need to consider the option of improvements to the A.2.
I am afraid that this is not a matter on which the Government should make any firm commitments. We have already undertaken to review the matter when the tunnel is opened but we must plan the national road programme in a balanced way on the best evidence available to us. On that evidence, we could not justify major improvements to the A.2 at this stage.

875
I should like to make three further points very briefly on the A.2. The reason the A.2 ceases to be dual carriageway on the final stretch to Dover docks is that this section is effectively the Dover bypass, and traffic bound for Dover town does not use this stretch of road. It turns off, so that the traffic level is less than it is further north on the A.2. The department's policy to develop the A.20 as the main route to Dover is because the M.2 is already congested nearer to London in the Medway area. The A.2 will therefore carry considerably less traffic once the A.20 is opened. It really is odd to suggest that the A.2 should be developed as part of this Bill, which is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill.
I am sure that noble Lords will accept the need for evenhandedness in the Government's road programme. We shall of course be investing a great deal of money in the M.20/A.20 improvements, which will go right into the middle of Dover. As I have already said, we will keep the situation of the A.2 under review, but to suggest that we should have two main motorway-standard roads right into the middle of Dover is asking for a little bit much at this stage.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. I was rather staggered when he said that 17 per cent. of traffic on that section was heavy goods. Travelling along it, I should have thought the percentage was rather higher. I should like to put to the Minister for consideration that a very cheap way of greatly enhancing the journey to Dover would be to remove from the M.2 a lot of superfluous cones. You can go along that road for mile after mile and see one lane and sometimes two lanes closed for no apparent reason. I gave up trying to do anything about it, but a couple of years ago I gave chapter and verse in a parliamentary Question in your Lordships' House when I asked why seven miles of road were closed for no obvious reason, with not even a shovel in sight. The Answer I got was that it had been closed pending an inspection. I imagine the inspection had not taken place because the person concerned was held up by the traffic congestion.
The fact is that not only on this road but on many others it should be part of the contractor's obligation to take away the cones when no work is going on. Of course they have to be there for the reasonable protection of those who are working on the road; but to put them up days in advance of anything happening or to leave them in place for days after it has happened should not be allowed. To have them removed would be an enormous benefit not only in terms of the ordinary road user but in terms of the economic life of the nation. I think that would be a modest expenditure that would be well worth considering.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I obviously cannot press this any further. I think we have had a good debate and I am very grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken, including my noble friend. However, I
876
should like to make two points. I am glad this issue will be kept under review. He talked about this road being supposed to be only the Dover bypass. Having been given those figures—poor old Dover—it is quite incredible to contemplate how it would have suffered otherwise. The point has been made that this is a heavily overused road and I am sorry I have not been able to get any further on this matter.
In regard to having two roads of motorway standard going into Dover, I do not want to go into an Old Testament comparison of "like with like", but in the North of England there are many upgraded roads like this. These roads in Kent have been grossly substandard, as have the ones in Sussex. I think we have to be realistic about this. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment but I say in the meantime that to look at a map of Kent without this road being improved will be to see a blot on the escutcheon. I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Regulation of tunnel system: application and enforcement of law, etc.]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 12, line 18, after ("sections") insert ("(Controls on board trains engaged on international services,)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11, and your Lordships will see that it leads to the substantial Amendment No. 17. Amendments Nos. 18 to 24 are consequential amendments only.
The Government have proposed this new clause in response to the deep concern shown by the House in Committee when it debated the amendment of my noble friend Lord Teviot on 2nd July, and indeed earlier by the Select Committee. Many noble Lords expressed the view that on-train controls are widespread on the Continent and should be adopted here too. The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, who I am sorry is not in his place, in his usual eloquent way emphasised the great importance of exercising the controls on board trains bound for Liverpool and other points in the North of England and Scotland. As the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, as the former chairman of the Select Committee, has explained, the committee was adamant that trains destined for the North of England must have controls on them.
Accordingly, I undertook to reconsider the Government's view and my noble friend Lord Teviot withdrew his amendment. The Government have since given very urgent consideration to this question, and this new clause is the result. Under this new clause there is a duty laid upon the appropriate Minister—normally the Home Secretary—or the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to ensure that controls are carried out on trains going to points beyond London, subject to certain conditions. The conditions are as follows. The operator (British Rail, for example) of the service in question must have requested on-train controls. Secondly, the operator must provide the necessary facilities on the trains, for example, the special search and interview rooms that will be needed for certain passengers and which are required by the Customs and immigration services so that they may perform their duties effectively.
Thirdly, the checks concerned are those carried out by Customs and immigration officers and they will include checks carried out by Customs on behalf of MAFF, DHSS and DTI, for example, but not security checks to protect the trains and their passengers, which, when they are required, may need to be carried out before the passengers board. Fourthly, the checks cover passengers and their baggage but not goods carried commercially by couriers, which, unlike baggage, have to be the subject of Customs declarations.
Fifthly, under subsection (3) the Customs or immigration officers have the right to exercise the controls off the train in circumstances when they believe that they cannot exercise the controls effectively any other way. That might apply if they had had a tip-off about a particular train and wished to search it thoroughly. They may also remove individual passengers from the train if checks are required—whether special searches or document checks—that cannot be carried out effectively on the train.
The last subsection, subsection (4), ensures that there is the possibility of the Customs or immigration services charging for the exercise of controls if necessary. I explained last week in responding to the proposed new clause of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, which would have required any additional cost of providing controls on board trains to be passed on to the operator, that the Government were not yet ready to decide what would be a fair solution to this question. Therefore, subsection (4) confirms a power to charge by means of an order under Clause 11 of the Bill and does not create a duty.
For the avoidance of doubt, I repeat that this clause does not provide for on-train controls for trains bound for Waterloo. I explained during the Committee stage that the Government believe that for those trains airport style controls would provide a satisfactory and efficient method of control and that the Select Committee had accepted that point. However, there is, of course, nothing in the new clause to prevent on-train controls being introduced for those services if British Rail (or the operator, whoever it is) and the appropriate government departments agree.
I hope that this clause meets the essential concerns expressed during the earlier stages of this Bill without jeopardising the effectiveness of the controls, which nobody would want to do. I believe that it goes a long way in the right direction and should be welcomed by your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, in view of the fact that I was so extremely unkind to the Minister on the last amendment, perhaps I may be the first to congratulate him and thank him very warmly indeed for this amendment. It follows upon the recommendation of the Select Committee, and I believe it goes as far as one could possibly wish to go.
Lord Tevoit: My Lords, having moved the original amendment on this subject, I am grateful to my noble friend for having tabled this one and not only to him but also to his department and others who must have worked very hard, burning the midnight oil in order
878
to get the wording right. I think that it is extremely satisfactory.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, though the amendment does not deal with Waterloo, which my noble friend says will operate on an airline system. I think that the passengers will be at a slight disadvantage compared with people boarding at Brussels or Paris, who will have on-train facilities.
There was one final point with which I did not deal at the Committee stage because I was somewhat sidetracked. People travelling from the West, for example, who may have been unavoidably held up by British Rail may find themselves at Waterloo, having arrived there by the underground system, and not be able to clear themselves and board the train. One is sorry about the situation at Waterloo, especially as it concerns a train operation. However, my noble friend's department has acted urgently and well and I feel that this has resulted in one of the most positive amendments to this Bill that your Lordships have so far had to deal with.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, there are moments when one feels that one has achieved some minor success, and this is certainly one of those moments. We are all grateful to the Government for having taken seriously the comments made both in this Chamber and in the Select Committee and for the amendment that has been tabled. It is clearly an amendment that could not have been set down by anybody other than the Government, because its ramifications are clearly shown in the subsidiary amendments that have had to accompany it.
I hope that it is not churlish of me to go on to say that I feel that we ought to have another look at the situation at Waterloo before the Bill finally passes from this House. There will be an opportunity to do that later in the week. If the French do not find it necessary to put in such facilities in Paris and the Belgians do not feel it necessary to put them in in Brussels, one wonders why it is necessary to put them in at Waterloo.
I understand that the cost of the facilities at Waterloo is likely to amount to something in the region of £7 million, which seems rather a large sum of money. That is quite apart from the extra constriction that will be put on the limited space that exists at Waterloo. Such restriction can be borne only by the existing users. I hope that this will not be the last chance that the Government will have to do something about the situation at Waterloo. I believe that it is perfectly possible to have on-train Customs facilities between Waterloo and the Continent and I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter. Having said that, we are all grateful for what we have obtained so far.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, as one of those involved in the discussion of these matters in Standing Committee, I agree with what has been said so far. First, I welcome unreservedly an amendment which I think improves the Bill substantially. Secondly, like my noble friend Lord Tordoff, I can see no argument whatever in the longer term for having green and red channels at Waterloo.

879
The issue at which the committee looked was the situation north of London. The reason that such a lot of time was spent on that issue was because British Rail announced that if it did not have on-train control, basically there would be no trains north of London—it was a simple as that—because the services would be uncompetitive.
I suspect that that was also the view of Eurotunnel. However, it was made abundantly clear by British Rail, first, that it had to have on-train controls on all trains north of London and, secondly, that it favoured on-train control as a matter of principle. It seems to me rather dismal that once again we have to say that what is possible in France, Germany, the United States and Canada is wholly impossible in this country in terms of trains terminating at Waterloo.
I say that today not because I feel that it would be right to table another amendment at Third Reading of the Bill. I think it is important that this amendment has been approved. However, I hope that this rather weary conservatism of Customs and Excise will be examined critically by Ministers in the future. I have yet to hear a convincing argument to justify the attitude of the Customs. We certainly did not hear one in the Select Committee. I hope that in the longer term this issue will be examined by Ministers in order to find out whether there is a legitimate argument behind it. Up to now none of us has heard it.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, following the words of the last two speakers, noble Lords who looked very carefully at the list of amendments may have noticed that my noble friend Lord Carmichael and I had an amendment which would have enabled the provision to be applied either just to the north of London or even from Waterloo, if that was considered desirable.
We decided to withdraw that amendment immediately the Government's amendment appeared in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, because we took the view that if the Government accepted the opinion of the House that something ought to be done, frankly we should not try to press our amendment. However, the arguments remain.
Of course, one important issue that arises concerns the fact that under the amendment which the Government have introduced the Minister is charged to ensure the implementation of these measures but it will depend upon British Rail, who will operate the service, whether they apply for a particular service. Those of us who believe in this enterprise have to ensure that British Rail make the maximum number of applications for services that run north of London. I join in all the thanks and congratulations to the Minister on his having listened to the views of the House and brought forward this amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment and for the general welcome given to it. On the question of Waterloo, I said that there was nothing in
880
this amendment which prohibited the provision of on-train controls on trains going to Waterloo. I disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Greenwich and Lord Tordoff. Personally speaking, I believe that airport style controls at Waterloo are a better bet than on-train controls, but that is a question which does not need to be resolved at this stage. The Government have certainly not ruled out the possibility of on-train controls at some stage in the future. Anyway, I am grateful for the general response that this amendment has received and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6 p.m.
Clause 11 [Regulation of the tunnel system: application and enforcement of law, etc.]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 16:
Page 12, line 28, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) An order so made may provide for applying any provisions of the order relating to the interest of the former Concessionaires in any movable property or intellectual property rights necessary for the construction or operation of the tunnel system, subject to any modifications specified in the order, in relation to—

(a) any interest in any such property or rights of a liquidator of any company which is, or is included among, the former Concessionaires; or

(b) any interest of any such liquidator of any description specified in the order,

(7A) No liquidator of, or other person exercising functions under insolvency law in relation to, any company which is, or is included among, the Concessionaires shall sell or otherwise dispose of any interest of the company in any such property or rights without the consent of the Secretary of State; and any sale or other disposal in contravention of this subsection shall be void".
Page 12, line 43, leave out from ("or') to ("an") and insert ("this section")
Page 12, line 49, leave out from second ("references") to ("to") in line 50.
Page 13, line 19, leave out paragraph (g)
Page 13, line 28, leave out paragraph (h) and insert—
("(h) "liquidator" means, in relation to a company. a person appointed as liquidator or provisional liquidator of the company under any provision of the Insolvency Act 1986 or exercising in relation to the company functions under the law of France corresponding to those of a person so appointed, and the reference in subsection (7A) above to any person other than a liquidator exercising functions under insolvency law in relation to a company is a reference to—

(i) any person appointed as the administrator of the company under any provision of that Act;

(ii) an administrative receiver of the company within the meaning of Chapter I of Part III of that Act;

(iii) any person acting as supervisor of any voluntary arrangement (within the meaning of section 7 of that Act) relating to the company's affairs; or

(iv) any person exercising in relation to the company functions under the law of France corresponding to those exercisable by any person of a description within any of sub-paragraphs (i) to above; and")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, These are technical amendments to tidy up and improve the complex amendments to Clause 11 which were inserted in the Bill in Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 17 to 24.
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Controls on board trains engaged on international services
—(1) It shall be the duty of the appropriate Minister to secure that, where this subsection applies, controls exercisable in relation to—

(a) passengers carried on a train engaged on an international service on a journey beginning or intended to end at a place in Great Britain other than London or Cheriton, Folkestone or any place between those places; or

(b) things contained in the baggage of such passengers; shall be exercised on the train.

(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, subsection (1) above applies where—

(a) the person operating the service has made a request to the appropriate Minister that the controls in question should be exercised on trains engaged on the service in question;

(b) the appropriate Minister has approved as satisfactory arrangements made by that person for the provision of facilities to enable the controls in question to be exercised on such trains;

(c) facilities enabling the exercise of the controls in question are provided on the train in question in accordance with such approved arrangements; and

(d) the controls are exercised by customs officers or immigration officers.

(3) Subsection (1) above does not apply—

(a) in the case of passengers carried on a particular train or part of a particular train, or things contained in the baggage of such passengers, if in the opinion of a customs officer or immigration officer exercising the controls it is not reasonably practicable effectively to exercise the controls in question on the train or part of a train; and

(b) in the case of any particular passenger or things contained in the baggage or any particular passenger, if in the opinion of any such officer it is not reasonably practicable effectively to exercise the controls in question in relation to the passenger or his baggage on the train.

(4) An order under section 11 of this Act may include provision imposing, or providing for the imposition of, fees or charges on persons operating international services in respect of the exercise of controls in relation to passengers or things such as are mentioned in subsection (1) above on trains engaged on the services.
(5) In this section—
"customs officer" means an officer or other person acting under the authority of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise; and
"immigration officer" means an immigration officer appointed for the purposes of the Immigration Act 1971.").
Clause 12, page 13, line 41, leave out ("section 11") and insert ("sections 11 and (Controls on board trains engaged on international services) ")
Page 13, line 42, leave out from ("matter") to ("the") in line 43.
Page 13, line 48, leave out ("such").
Page 14, line 3, leave out ("that section") and insert ("section 11 of this Act").
Page 14, line 7, leave out ("that section") and insert ("sections 11 and (Controls on board trains engaged on international services) of this Act").
Page 14, line 13, leave out ("that section") and insert ("those sections").
Page 14, line 18, leave out ("that section") and insert ("those sections").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment Nos. 17 to 24 inclusive. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
("Independence of U.K. head of delegation to Safety Authority.
The head of the United Kingdom delegation to the Safety Authority shall be a person who is independent of the government of the United Kingdom.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be recalled that in Committee, with Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, I submitted Amendment No. 51 on this issue, but in very different words. It made suggestions as regards quite a number of the UK representatives on the safety authority. That has been entirely omitted from the amendment that I now move.
In the previous amendment, we propose also that the chairman of the safety authority shall be appointed jointly by the Governments of the United Kingdom and France and be a person independent of those Governments. The Minister pointed out on that occasion that a single jointly appointed chairman would be contrary to what had been agreed in the Treaty. He also explained that the chairmanship of the authority shall be held for a period of one year by the head of each delegation alternatively—the United Kingdom or France. The question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, as to whether the proposal in the previous amendment contravened the Treaty. The noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, had doubts about whether Lord Morris was correct about the contravention of the Treaty.
To avoid all legal arguments on the question of the Treaty, we have omitted all reference to a joint chairman in the amendment. We have dealt solely with the head of the UK delegation to the safety authority who would hold office in alternate years. That man, over whom we have complete authority because we are appointing him and he is the head of the UK delegation, should be completely independent of the Government of the United Kingdom. That view was made clear by the Select Committee. Most noble Lords in Committee emphasised that the independence of the chairman was imperative.
In the amendment, therefore, to avoid any long legal arguments about what is in the Treaty and what it means or does not mean, we deal solely with the head of the UK delegation in the period for which he is chairman in alternative years, who should be a person completely independent of the United Kingdom Government. I beg to move.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I am a little concerned about the amendment because the word "independent" seems to kill it stone dead. Surely no person of sufficient stature to be, as the amendment puts it, the head of the UK delegation could reach the stature required to become that head without a considerable degree of dependence upon the Government. If I am correct, I believe that Major Rose would be the designated head of the UK delegation. As far as I recall, the previous experience of Major Rose has been entirely in the armed services or in the railways inspectorate, which is an element of the Department of Transport.
Since discussions in Committee, I have thought carefully and find it hard to conceive of totally independent people whom the Government could invite to take on such a job. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, did not define the word "independent". As I define it, the amendment cannot stand by its very nature.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I should have thought that this appointment, like any such appointment of this importance, ought to be of the best person capable of leading the delegation. To put restrictions on whether in the past they have been dependent on or connected with the Government has nothing to do with it. Any man appointed to this position because of his personal qualities would surely automatically be independent of the Government in the sense of how he would do the job. To try in statute form to restrict the numbers who might be available to carry out the task would be a grievous mistake. We cannot go wrong, in regard to any appointments included in legislation, to make it a rule that the person chosen shall be the best for the job irrespective of his or her past record in politics or any other sphere.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, this amendment would, I believe, although I cannot be sure, have the effect of preventing the Secretary of State from appointing, as head of the United Kingdom delegation to the Channel Tunnel safety authority, a serving civil servant or such other person who, in any other way, was subject to control by the Secretary of State.
As I understand the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, such a prohibition would presumably meet two concerns: first, that the safety authority would be inhibited in taking decisions which might be unpalatable to the Governments for fear that the chairman would be dismissed; or—perhaps more likely—that the chairman would not be reappointed after the expiry of a fixed term of office should he incur the displeasure of Ministers.
If that is indeed the intention of the amendment, then I fear that its proponents have misunderstood completely the nature of the intergovernmental machinery created by the treaty. To some extent this may be the fault of the Government for not making their intentions crystal clear.
The Intergovernmental Commission and the safety authority are, as the Treaty implies, simply the machinery to enable the two Governments to act jointly. If there were not two countries, and hence two governments, involved there would be no need for such machinery, and the normal agencies of the single government involved would discharge the functions now given both to the commission and to the authority. If only one country was involved, all those functions would be discharged by public officials.
I think it may help the House if I repeat what I said in Committee about the safeguards which already exist to prevent the chairman of the safety authority being overruled at a higher level in Britain or France for commerical or political reasons.
First, there is the fear that the British delegation might be overruled by the French. This safety authority "advises and assists" the Intergovernmental Commission. It is the commission which takes the decisions, and Article 10(5) of the treaty provides that its decisions,
"shall be taken by agreement between the heads of the British and French delegations".
884
There can thus be no question of our views being overruled by the French.
Because the safety authority only "advises and assists" the Intergovernmental Commission, fears have been expressed that the commission might overrule the safety authority. The treaty does of course provide in Article 19(4) that the membership of the commission must include at least two members of the safety authority so they can be sure of making their voice heard. But what if they were to be overruled by the commission? The safety authority can then make its voice heard. Under Article 11(7) of the treaty, the authority has an absolute right to report direct to Ministers. The Select Committee expressed a very proper concern that this might not of itself be enough because Ministers might be in Eurotunnel's pocket. That is certainly not so. I therefore told the House on 28th April that the Government had given an assurance to the Select Committee as follows:
"that should the safety authority bring to the attention of the Secretary of State a fundamental disagreement on an important issue of public safety between themselves and the intergovernmental commission, or should the UK delegation to the safety authority notify a similar disagreement between themselves and their French counterparts, the Secretary of State for Transport will report that fact to Parliament". [Official Report, 28/4187, col. 1474.]
The Government have possibly constructed a trap for themselves by calling the body a safety authority. If one examines the treaty, one sees that the French text refers to the safety committee. During the treaty negotiations, we insisted on a different name in the English text to reflect more accurately the rather different status of the UK delegation.
Unlike the French delegation, which draws its powers exclusively from the Intergovernmental Commission, UK members of the safety authority derive most of their authority from their existing powers. Thus the Health and Safety Executive member acts under Health and Safety at Work Act powers, and the chief fire officer of Kent under his fire authority powers and so on. That is why there is only one clause in the Bill which relates to the functions of safety authority members—that is, Clause 16, which is likely to be used very rarely. It may, of course, be necessary to amend existing powers, by an order under Clause 11, to harmonise them with corresponding powers in France, but the powers of members derive largely from their pre-existing powers.
This does not, I accept, necessarily mean that the chairman has to have such pre-existing powers. But it does illustrate that the overriding qualification for membership of the safety authority is professional expertise and competence in the disciplines likely to be required for the exercise of its functions. That was a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans.
The business of safety authority meetings is exclusively technical. I have made enquiries about recent deliberations of the authority and it is clear that an amateur chairman would be completely out of his depth in discussions which are, typically, about matters such as the flash point of hydraulic fluid.
It may be helpful if I draw a further analogy. The UK delegation to the safety authority is in essence an

885
inter-departmental committee. It would be most odd to bring in an outsider to chair such a committee. As I explained during Committee stage of this Bill, much of the day to day work of the authority does, and will, take place not in committee but in bilateral contact between the French and British experts within each discipline. There is frequent such contact between the two heads of delegation. They must, therefore, be of the same professional calibre.
It would, on reflection, have been better to call this body the safety executive rather than the safety authority, because a better analogy is with the Health and Safety Executive. I can see that the name has misled some noble Lords into the belief that what we have created is a quango. This is clearly not the case, any more than the Health and Safety Executive or the railway inspectorate are quangos.
There are three further reasons why I cannot recommend acceptance of the amendment. In the first place, the meaning of the word "independent" is obscure and I do not believe we should make imprecise law. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls and the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, drew attention to that.
Secondly, if the word has the meaning I described earlier, then in my view the amendment would have no effect, at least in the early years. I have already described the arrangements we are making to appoint the current chief inspecting officer as leader of the UK delegation when he retires later this year. My understanding is that that would put him in a position of independence of the kind sought by this amendment. Until his appointment expires, or until he decides to stand down, there would therefore be no further change in the existing arrangements.
My third objection to this amendment, again if it has the meaning I attribute to it, is that it would needlessly tie the hands of the future governments. As I have explained, the members of the safety authority need expertise and standing. It is, therefore, unnecessarily inhibiting to reduce the already limited field from which such future appointments might be made by ruling out of contention forever serving civil servants.
We do not know what the post will require in future years. Once the tunnel is constructed and has been opened and running safely for a number of years, there may be very little for the authority's members to do. It is clearly sensible that the government of the day should be free to appoint to the authority serving civil servants in a related field—such as the Health and Safety Executive or the railway inspectorate—who are available at all times should a need arise.
For all the reasons I have given, I hope, if I have not been able to persuade the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment, that the House will once again reject this proposal.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, I do not know what the Minister means when he talks about an amateur chairman being out of his depth. But I am rather unhappy with the situation in which we now find ourselves. I am not very happy, as I have made the
886
noble Lord, Lord Underhill aware, with this amendment. I do not believe that it achieves the objective which the Select Committee had in mind, of getting a totally independent man or woman to take on this job. If he is going to be in and out of office in alternate years he will not find himself attracted to take it on.
But my real unhappiness lies with the Minister for what arose at Committee stage. I felt that we were rather bounced into the situation by being given the news only then that a revision of the treaty would be required: no mention had been made of that in the response of the department to the Select Committee's report. I wonder whether I may take up two minutes of the House's time by reading the excerpt from the treaty which refers to this situation.
The treaty is a very slim volume, which is drafted in a curious fashion. I have for sound reasons no experience of drafting treaties, but I am quite sure that a parliamentary draftsman would put on that pained expression which he assumes when a Back-Bencher in this House drafts a clause. The part that matters is Article 11, Clause 4. Article 11 deals exclusively with the safety authority, and it reads as follows:
"The composition of the Safety Authority shall be determined by the two Governments by agreement. Each Government shall appoint half its Members. The chairmanship of the Safety Authority shall be held for a period of one year by the head of each delegation alternately."
In parliamentary language, the first sentence would be the one that prevails. In other words, whatever the governments agree to do can be done, so it is a use of language with which I believe none of us is familiar. However, if, with the leave of the House, the Minister were able to give us any information on this subject, it would set our minds at rest as to the situation which now prevails.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may support what the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, has said. First of all, I am slightly amused by the fact that the French call their authority the Committee of Public Safety, which I thought meant something else some years ago. The recommendation of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House is quite clear on this matter. It says that many concerns expressed in this part of the report might be laid to rest by the appointment of a totally independent chairman.
The amendment which we have before us is not something which some dastardly group of Left-wing anarchists, or even, indeed, Liberal anarchists, has produced in order to discomfort the Government. It is a serious attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, to get round the difficulty with which we were faced on the last occasion, when the noble Lord the Minister suggested that we were going to break treaty obligations if we went down the route that we went down at that time.
I must say that, listening to the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, of that part of the treaty, it does seem to me that the Government have a considerable amount of flexibility in the way in which they operate on this matter, and, although it may be that this is not the way to answer the problem, I hope that the Minister understands that there is still concern that, in a matter as important as this for the

887
safety of the travelling public the independence of the United Kingdom delegation, and of its chairmen, should be absolute. There should be no occasion when they are inhibited in saying things to the Government which are necessary for the safety of the public if there is even the remotest fear that they will be removed from their job, or that government pressure will be put upon them to withhold information that ought to be made public.
Frankly, I do not think that the reference to Parliament at some later stage of the proceedings is really an adequate way around the problem, although I understand that the Government themselves are trying to find a way out of this. I do ask them to reconsider the matter.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, I share some of the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, and earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. It was the unanimous view of the Select Committee that this person in charge of safety matters on our behalf should he independent of the Government. I may say—and I think that our Select Committee report makes this quite clear—that we all had a deep admiration and respect for Major Rose, but it was only because he was not in a position of complete independence of the Government that we expressed the view that we did.
I feel that the arrangement which my noble friend the Minister has suggested about the position that Major Rose will occupy after he retires from his present duties is unanswered by my own anxieties, because Major Rose will then, in my opinion, have the kind of independence from the Government which we think he ought to have. Therefore when Major Rose comes to retire I should like to see that kind of arrangement repeated again. I feel there is substance in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and I hope that he will still be prepared to press it and bring the matter to a conclusion.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I have given the reasons I do not feel that the House should accept this amendment and I do not think it would be for the convenience of the House if I went into all the reasons all over again.
I should like to pick up one point about which the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, asked me. My understanding is that the first sentence of Article 11.4 of the treaty does not override the requirement that the chairmahship should alternate between Britain and France. That is a treaty commitment and is therefore binding. If that does not answer the noble Lord's question in detail I shall have to write to him on it.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, I should be very grateful if the noble Lord would do that, because when he reads Hansard he will find that that does not answer the question I put.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, this is one of those occasions when one believes that the motive is right but one is in some doubt about whether to press the
888
amendment. There is not the slightest doubt that not only the Select Committee but many Members of your Lordships' House are very concerned with the principle, because, as the Select Committee said, we want to remove public anxiety. If there is one thing that people are worried about in connection with the tunnel, it is not whether the trains will run but the whole question of safety and the position of the chairman of the safety authority is of the greatest importance.
That is why we did not wish to get involved in a legal argument about the treaty. What has been said this afternoon, particularly by the chairman of the Select Committee, amplifies the reason we did not wish to get involved in argument about whether the treaty will provide for this. Then when we heard about the difference between the British and the French interpretations we were in a worse mess still. I am grateful for the fact that we have had this further debate, because the Government's assurances are on the record.
Last Monday, we dealt with the composition of the safety authority. The UK representatives would be government nominees, but some would be public officials—officers of the Health and Safety Executive, representatives of the Department of Transport, the chief constable of Kent and the chief fire officer of Kent. These would all be public officials, and we wanted to make certain that the head of the authority was absolutely independent.
I am grateful to the two members of the Select Committee who have amplified the committee's emphasis on this point. The Government's statements both today and last Monday are clearly on the record, and rather than press the amendment I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Supervision by Intergovernmental Commission and Safety Authority]:
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 27:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
("Fire services for the tunnel system.
No passengers or goods shall be carried for reward through the tunnel system until the Chief Fire Officer for the time being of Kent Fire Authority has certified that there have been installed in the tunnel system adequate facilities and equipment for fighting fires in any part of that system and lifting and removing railway engines and carriages in the event of derailments.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that at Committee stage an amendment was proposed in the names of my noble friend Lord Carmichael and myself, which went into some detail about equipment which should be installed in the tunnel to deal with any fires that may occur. In the light of the Minister's comments at that stage, I accepted that the amendment was far too detailed and said that I would consider what had been said and, if necessary, would come back on Report. In addition, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked how far the discussions with Kent Fire Authority had proceeded, and I am very grateful to the Minister for sending me a copy of a very detailed

889
letter which he sent to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, which set out the nature of the discussions which have already taken place.
The amendment before the House does not go into the details of what equipment there shall be, what procedures shall he followed and what training there shall be. What the amendment says quite clearly is that:
"No passengers or goods shall be carried for reward through the tunnel system until the Chief Fire Officer for the time being of Kent Fire Authority has certified that there have been installed in the tunnel system adequate Facilities and equipment for fighting fires",
and also for lifting and removing rail equipment.
Let us put it into the Bill that until the chief fire officer of Kent, who is a competent officer, gives a certificate that the equipment is right and that these other matters have been taken care of, the system will not be regarded as satisfactory. It places the onus upon the chief fire officer of Kent, but as he will be a member of the safety authority and as Kent Fire Authority will have ultimate responsibility if it is called in by the staff of the Eurotunnel system, this amendment seems a reasonable one which I hope the Government will find it possible to accept. I beg to move.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I put my name to my noble friend's amendment because among the concerns of eventual passengers and of the public generally is the risk of fire in the tunnel. It is right that we should not seek to lay down any detailed provision about particular equipment being available, and so on. I recall for your Lordships the fact that, so far as concerns our domestic legislation, this is all provided for by statute. For example, if one has a house that is too large and decides to turn it into two flats, one then becomes liable to have the arrangements approved by the local fire authority. If you neglected to do that, you would find that it registered an objection on the title deeds of the property.
As your Lordships know, very properly you cannot open an office anywhere without the local fire authority giving you a certificate that it is safe for people to work there. I should have thought, if it is necessary to have a certificate if you want to turn your house into two flats instead of having one occupation, then in an undertaking such as the one we are embarking upon it is not unreasonable for there to be a similar obligation on the fire authority to give the kind of approval that my noble friend is seeking. I hope that the Minister, without relying too heavily on the fact that this is very amateur draftsmanship, will accept the amendment. If he does not accept the exact wording of the amendment, perhaps he will bring forward something to similar effect to bring this into line with our domestic legislation.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord whose name was put down to the amendment has indicated that he would be prepared to accept a different wording, because this wording is much too precise. Everyone would agree with what is intended—to have a safety procedure and ensure that it is properly done—but the wording:
890
until the Chief Fire Officer for the time being of Kent Fire Authority has certified
a procedure is much too precise. What will happen if the next chief fire officer of Kent Fire Authority takes a different view? Will that mean another certificate has to be issued? I make that point from my own experience.
On one occasion one of my businesses had to store cellulose. We made an application for the type of building which was required to keep this rather dangerous cellulose safely. One authority to which we applied said that it would not accept the plans we had submitted and that it wanted a building with a certain thickness of concrete on the top and with steel doors. The authority also said that all the shelves inside had to be sealed because if there were a danger of an explosion the authority wanted it to be contained. That seemed reasonable enough and we erected such a building.
Not long afterwards we wanted to erect a similar building 10 miles away in another of our warehouses. We submitted plans for a building with several inches of concrete and steel doors and steel shelving. But the fire officer in that case said that he wanted a flimsy roof and shelving made of wood because in his view giving the substances freedom was likely to be less damaging than constraining them and causing a build-up of gases that was likely to cause an explosion. There was no clear indication of what was required. I took the matter up with the Home Office and asked it what its recommendations were as regards the safe way of keeping cellulose. The Home Office did not know and had no recommendations laid down.
While we want the safety factor to be maintained, to put it in the hands of someone as clearly defined as the person named in the amendment who may be replaced by someone with different views may make the operating of this system intolerable. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was not at the Home Office at the time of my dilemma. I do not expect him to remember that occasion but it serves as an indication that one cannot think that the full answer is in the hands of any individual, however experienced he may be.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me I wish to point out to him that he will see if he reads the text that this is a once only certification. It is not a case of what the next man does. I had not realised until today that the noble Lord was a parliamentary draftsman manqué.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am rather disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has returned to this subject at this stage, as I had hoped that what I said in Committee would have convinced him that the proposal was unnecessary.
I have listened carefully to all the points that have been made. We are on common ground that everything foreseeable must be done to ensure the highest level of safety in the tunnel system, particularly against the risk of fire. But the way to ensure that is not to place responsibility for ensuring that there are adequate facilities solely on the shoulders of the chief fire officer of Kent. I remind

891
noble Lords that because this is a binational project the Channel Fixed Link Treaty provides for the establishment of binational bodies to supervise the construction operation of the tunnel.
The Intergovernmental Commission is the body through which the two governments will exercise their rights and obligations under the concession agreement. The safety authority has been established to advise and assist the commission on all matters concerning safety in the tunnel system. It is the safety authority as a whole and not only the chief fire officer of Kent who needs to be satisfied of the safety of all aspects of the tunnel system.
The crucial point of which your Lordships should be aware is that the chief fire officer of Kent is and will remain a member of the safety authority. That is right and proper since because the tunnel as far as the frontier will be part of Kent his brigade will have the responsibility on the British side. Clearly the safety authority would not approve fire-fighting arrangements unless they were approved by the chief fire officer of Kent and his opposite number on the French side. I therefore suggest to the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Mulley, that the objective of the clause is already achieved in the more appropriate way. In the light of that, I hope the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that further explanation. I should say that this is not amateur draftsmanship. A parliamentary draftsman drafted the amendment at my request and detailed certain points that we wished to include in it.
As my noble friend Lord Mulley has indicated, this is a once and for all occasion and the wording:
until the Chief Fire Officer for the time being of Kent Fire Authority has certified,
is just the same wording as in Bill after Bill where it is stated that the Secretary of State has done this and has certified that. We are using the officer's name in the same way as we use that of the Secretary of State, even though we know that the Secretary of State has hundreds of officials who will work together on the particular issue which we are discussing.
The biggest point that the Minister has made which will cause me to beg leave to withdraw the amendment is the fact that the chief fire officer is a member of a safety authority and he will be able to insist, if things are not satisfactory, that he will not be prepared to give his approval. That has been the determining factor in requesting the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment. Having said that, I do not apologise for returning to this issue, because as I said on the previous amendment fire and safety are regarded by the public as matters on which Parliament must thoroughly satisfy them. I believe that our debates have helped in that direction. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, I have a manuscript amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. This
892
amendment, I should explain, is in substitution for Amendment No. 29 which appears further down on the Marshalled List.
Clause 19 [Bvelaws of the Concessionaires]:
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved the following manuscript amendment:
Page 20, line 8. at end insert—
("() Such byelaws shall deal with smoking in the tunnel.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful for the courtesy of noble Lords in enabling me to move the amendment in the place where it should be rather than in the place where it had appeared, because clearly it is related to the by-laws which the concessionaires may make in Clause 19. We are once again back on the subject of fire and safety. As your Lordships will know, what is at present stated in the Bill is that concessionaires may make by-laws prohibiting the smoking of tobacco in any such premises, place or vehicle.
In Committee, I moved an amendment which I accepted was too wide. In the course of the discussions in Committee I said that I should wish to return to that issue on Report, narrowing down the amendment that I had proposed. On 6th July 1987, in col. 497 of Hansard, I stated:
"What I want to establish is that it is not just to be left to the concessionaires to decide whether there should be a limitation on smoking, whether it is in the tunnel alone or during some other part of the journey … When the Minister was speaking I felt from what he said that it was quite unlikely that the concessionaires would make by-laws to be restrictive in terms of smoking".
However, I said that I would read what the Minister had said. When reading what he had said I realised that I was wrong. He had been extremely helpful. In col. 496 of Hansard he said:
"I should make it absolutely clear that Eurotunnel will be expected to bring forward by-laws dealing with smoking and such by-laws will be"
The Minister used the words:
"will be expected to bring forward by-laws".
I am therefore saying in the amendment I am proposing that it is not just enough to say that it is expected to bring forward by-laws but that it will bring them forward. It is the "shall" rather than the "may" argument. I chose my wording carefully. My amendment states:
"Such byelaws shall deal with smoking in the tunnel"
because that was the nearest wording I could find to the actual words which were used by the Minister.
I have tried to do two things. One was to limit the scope so that the amendment did not deal with workers' canteens or restaurants at Waterloo but dealt simply with the question of smoking in the tunnel. Bearing in mind what the Minister said in the part of his speech which I have quoted, I hope that he and the House will accept this very modest amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we had quite an extensive and useful debate on smoking during Committee stage when we discussed whether it would be reasonable for a comprehensive ban on smoking to be applied throughout the tunnel system.

893
I have listened with attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has said today. But I am afraid that I do not believe there is any reason for me to move from the position I took during Committee stage. I then said that it was absolutely clear that smoking would be prohibited within areas of special fire risk, including the tunnels themselves, though not necessarily the terminal areas and other ancillary facilities.
However, by-laws may not be the most appropriate way of proceeding in such an important matter. The safety authority can recommend to the Intergovernmental Commission that regulations should be drawn up on essential safety matters covering the tunnel system as a whole, and prohibition of smoking may be best dealt with in such regulations. The smoking ban would then be given the full force of law on the British side by an order under Clause 11, and on the French side by equivalent procedures. So by-laws made by the concessionaires are not the only answer, and may not be the best answer.
The noble Lord will notice that I have concentrated on the substance of his argument rather than on the drafting of his proposed amendment which I indeed see as open to criticism. In particular, it does not specify how by-laws should deal with smoking, and to that extent it does not advance beyond the provision in Clause 19(1)(d). It does not specify what is meant by "the tunnel" and I remind the noble Lord that there will in fact be three tunnels incorporated in the tunnel system. I agree with the noble Lord that the amendment, as it was first tabled, was in the wrong place.
As I have said, the important thing is to deal with the substance of the amendment. I hope that I have said enough to convince the noble Lord that smoking will be dealt with in a comprehensive and appropriate manner rendering his amendment unnecessary. I hope that what I have said will be sufficient to persuade the noble Lord not to press his amendment to a Division. If he insists, I hope that your Lordships will reject the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is right in saying that an order under Clause 11 will be a better answer than a by-law of the kind proposed by the amendment. However, I hope that it will be borne in mind that smoking should be prohibited in the tunnel. I personally do not suffer from claustrophobia. However, people in my family have done so and they find it is bad when there is smoking, worse in a tunnel and worst in a long tunnel such as this one will be. For the sake of just those people I very much hope that smoking will be prohibited. I also realise that there are even stronger and more general reasons as well.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for having said that the issue will be dealt with in a comprehensive manner. If he had simply stuck at the phrase that he used in Committee concerning Clause 19 when, at col. 496 of the Official Report for 6th July he said:
"including the prohibition of smoking within areas of any special fire risk".
894
I should not have been satisfied. I think it is impossible to say whether one part of the tunnel involves greater risk than any other part. I gather from what he has said that he envisages an order under Clause 11 which will prohibit smoking within the area of the tunnel itself.
The Minister may be prepared to go further and say that he will ensure that there is such an order. If he says that he will do so, then I shall have no uncertainties left. If he says that such orders will be comprehensive, I should have thought that he could have added that he will ensure that they include what I seek to bring about.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to comment briefly on that matter. I am sure that there will be orders. However, I am waiting for advice from the safety authority, through the Intergovernmental Commission, before I can say that. That is what those bodies are for.
Lord Ennals: Under the circumstances and in view of the very helpful way in which the Minister has dealt with the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston Lord Sefton of Garston moved Amendment No. 28:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
("Insurance cover.
Regardless of anything contained in the Treaty the Concessionaires shall take out and maintain insurance cover for any liabilities incurred by them arising from the construction of and operation of the Channel Tunnel, and shall take out and maintain insurance cover indemnifying the Government against any costs incurred by them arising from sections 24 to 28 inclusive.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will remember that I raised this matter in Committee. It involves whether or not concessionaires are obliged to take out insurance for certain risks. The Minister said that he would write to me and give me the answer. I finally received that answer this morning. If I had received it before then, perhaps the amendment would have been slightly different. I should perhaps have taken out the latter part of the amendment which talks about maintaining:
"insurance cover indemnifying the Government against any costs incurred by them arising from Sections 24 to 28 inclusive".
I should have taken it out because the Government have said that they do not think, first, that there will be any risks and, secondly, that they will be able to recover any costs. I do not believe them. I would not have pressed it because it is only a matter of pounds, shillings and pence. However, I would have pressed the first part of the amendment, which deals with something of greater moment.
That part of the amendment deals with the possibility that we could have a tragedy in the tunnel of great magnitude. We could find ourselves, as I understand it—and I shall come to the reason why I am not quite clear about that later—in a situation in which people lose their lives, are badly injured and suffer in other ways without any insurance cover. If that is true, it would mean that the only cover such people would have would be on the assets of Eurotunnel plc.
I do not believe that, at certain stages in the development of its life, Eurotunnel will have many assets that other people will wish to buy. When I was warned that my belief that the treaty ensured that the risk would be covered both in the construction and operation of the tunnel was not quite what it seemed, I took a close look at it. The treaty says, without dubiety or doubt:
"The Concessionaires shall take such measures as may he be necessary to prevent accidents. The Concessionaires shall be liable for damage caused to users and to third parties".
and further on it says:
"The Concessionaires shall take out and maintain insurance or other financial security, which is adequate and reasonably appropriate to the relevant risk."
Members of the House who have contributed to this tremendous Bill will understand that—or will they? If we read it closely, it does not seem as clear as it did at first reading. It simply says:
"The Concessionaires shall take out and maintain insurance or other financial security".
It does not give us details about what financial security that might be. Is it a bond which is put somewhere? Is it an investment which they make, or a trust deed? There is no evidence of that at all.
I looked further into the matter. Then came the questions of the Minister. I have had his reply. When I pressed the matter again before that, the Minister said in the House that I should look at the concessionaires' agreement, which is not mentioned in the treaty, in particular at Annex III of the concessionaires' agreement. All noble Lords will be well aware of the concessionaires' agreement, and Annex III in particular. Clause 22 says:
The Concessionaries shall,… take out insurance cover described in Annex Ill and maintain such insurance throughout the Concession Period, provided that these obligations shall apply only to the extent that such insurance is available at a reasonable cost."
If someone driving a motor car kills three or four people imagine the outcry there would be when the driver is asked in court: "did you have third party insurance in conformity with the law?" and he said "Well no I did not, the insurance companies were charging me too much". That would not be accepted as a reasonable defence.
Here we are suggesting that Eurotunnel, or somebody—it does not specify whom and I hope the Minister will be able to tell me later—has to decide what is a reasonable cost for taking out the insurance.
We are then puzzled again, because the first part of Annex III says:
"In accordance with Clause 22 of the Concession Agreement … specific insurances are to be arranged to the extent that the same are available at a reasonable cost in respect of the following:"
Then it is specified what the insurance should cover. Annex III continues:
"—any legal liability of Government, Government agencies such as the Intergovernmental Commission and the Safety Authority, their servants or employees, contractors and operators to third parties and Users of the Fixed Link arising out of the construction or operation of the Fixed Link".
The question is: does the first line of that paragraph limit the cover which is necessary? The first line reads:
"—any legal liability of Government. Government agencies"
If so, then again we are left in a very unclear situation.
This morning I received a letter from the Secretary of State. To some extent I was, as the Secretary of State said, reassured. In some ways this is a probing amendment. I want to know where the responsibility lies for covering the risks. I suggest that all members of your Lordship's House and every one in government should want to know quite clearly and unambiguously where the responsibility lies for claiming and paying compensation. The last paragraph of the letter reads:
"It would not he appropriate for the Concessionaires to be required to insure against their own failure,"
I accept that fact.
Had there been time, I would have withdrawn that part of the amendment, but the amendment had already been tabled in conformity with the practice in your Lordships' House. The Secretary of State concludes:
"but I think you may be reassured that all the necessary insurance arrangements will be in place when they are needed".
Nobody knows when they are going to be needed. The persons who are damged by anything that occurs in the tunnel will certainly say that they were needed when they were damaged—I and any reasonable person would say that. The letter does not make that fact clear. However, I shall leave the matter there as I do not wish to take up too much time.
I shall listen with interest to what the Minister says, and subsequently read it in Hansard. If I find that we are going to be in a situation where the compensation payable, (which as I have said before may be of tremendous magnitude) depends on somebody assessing what is the reasonable cost of insurance, then I shall be asking who that person is. I shall also be asking the Government at another stage to say exactly whose is the responsibility to ensure that such people receive proper compensation.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as the noble Lord mentioned, I wrote to him concerning the points he raised on insurance. It is a fairly long, detailed and complicated letter which I have placed in the Library for noble Lords to see.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, for his promotion of me to Secretary of State, although I am afraid it is not quite right! I shall read with interest what the noble Lord has said this evening concerning this matter. I cannot accept the amendment as it stands. It would be unacceptable on several counts. First, in so far as the clause simply repeats requirements that exist under general law or in the concession agreement, it would be otiose. Secondly, to the extent that the clause imposes obligations beyond those in the concession agreement it would require that agreement to be renegotiated with the French Government and Eurotunnel. Thirdly, it cannot be assumed that the blanket cover stipulated by the noble Lord's amendment would be obtained in the insurance market for an economic price, or perhaps at all.
Annex III of the concession agreement is careful to qualify the obligation to take out the specified insurances by the words:
"to the extent that such insurance is available at reasonable cost."

897
Fourthly, insurance against the Secretary of State's hypothetical expenditure under Clauses 24 to 28 of the Bill is neither necessary nor appropriate. I think the noble Lord actually accepted that when he moved the amendment.
The Intergovernmental Commission will be responsible for deciding whether the Eurotunnel has adequate insurance. There is a proviso that that requirement applies only if insurance is available at reasonable cost as I have explained; and I have explained the reason why that is there, and it may not even he available at all. I shall read carefully what the noble Lord has said and if I can clarify any of the points that he has raised, I shall certainly write to him again. In the meantime, I hope he will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I apologise for calling the Minister the Secretary of State. If I had addressed myelf to the person who wrote the letter I would have been talking to the Minister for Shipping, and that does not seem to be appropriate. In any case, I assumed that the Secretary of State would be responsible for whatever the Minister says from the Front Bench.
I shall withdraw the amendment unreservedly, except for saying that the latter part of the amendment will not come back to this House, but unless I am satisfied on the points I have raised, certainly the first part will come back. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 [Approval of trains]:
7 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon Viscount Craigavon moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 22, line 23, at end insert—
("(2) Any such approval under this section shall only be given where the rolling stock can adequately convey the appropriate classes of traffic, including in the case of shuttle trains and through international passenger trains, pedal cycles.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the same amendment that was discussed at the Committee stage last week. The amendment is trying to persuade British Rail to make some provision of space for pedal cycles. The same amendment was discussed in another place in February. Neither since then, nor last week, have any new arguments been advanced against the amendment. Therefore, having had some time to consider these arguments, may I say that I am still not convinced. I am now purposely not continuing earlier arguments about surveys or evidence of need.
I am hoping that the Minister can give us today at least the very firm assurances both for the Department of Transport and on behalf of British Rail. Assurances that once the Bill is passed the department will continue to remind British Rail forcefully of the needs and expectations of cyclists on the new trains, and assurances on behalf of British Rail that it will pay genuine and realistic attention to the provision of at least some space, however flexible, for cycles on their tunnel trains.
Last week I quoted from the current British Rail advertisement the claimed figure of 15 million
898
passenger journeys through the tunnel in the first year. If I say to British Rail I am impressed by that figure, I hope that it will also be impressed by a similar figure of 15 million which, by coincidence, I quoted in my Second Reading speech as being approximately the number of cyclists in this country.
I also said that cycling looked like becoming an ever more popular leisure activity and so we are not dealing with a minority or fading interest. Even if at this stage space is not designated especially for bicycles, it would be madness if the general luggage space—what used to be called the guard's van—were so designed as to be too small to take at least some bicycles.
I hope that British Rail will take note of that widespread feeling, even if the Government allow it to resist any statutory requirements. Some noble Lords may remember seeing a rather unlikely photograph in The Times earlier this year of one of our colleagues on a bicycle— the President of the European Parliament, the noble Lord, Lord Plumb. He was supporting and drawing attention to a special debate to approve a report on cycling in the European Parliament held on 13th February this year. That report, among other things, called on the Commission to prevail upon railway companies in member states to co-operate in removing all obstacles to the carriage of bicycles on international public transport.
The report also called on public transport authorities, particularly the railways, to encourage the use of the bicycle in combination with other means of transport. There was also specific mention that there should be adequate capacity for the carriage of bicycles in the Channel Tunnel.
I mention that example of debate in the European Parliament to show that the concerns that I have been trying to express go wider than those of narrow interest groups in this country. In the same way that conservation has become so fashionable, it would not surprise me if in the next five years while the tunnel is being built, cycling came to play a larger and larger part in recreation and leisure. Given those reasonable expectations, British Rail and the Department of Transport, if they allowed it, could in the years ahead appear rather foolish if their tunnel trains were designed without sufficient space to carry bicycles, if the need arises.
Finally, on a lighter note, as evidence that the hour of the cyclist has come, I shall mention something that was announced last week which led me to believe that the amendment might be looked upon more favourably than it was in Committee. The cycling fraternity has now succeeded in penetrating one of its number, an active and frequent cyclist, to the top and centre of influence in this country. I refer of course to the appointment announced last week of the new Cabinet Secretary, who apparently cycles around Whitehall on a bicycle which is usually described as rusty. I hope that we may now see the mandarins of Whitehall cycling around Parliament Square more often, and that trend and the realisation of the practicality of cycling filtering down the hierarchy of civil servants, not least in the Department of Transport.
More seriously, I hope that the department and the Minister will over the years keep a concerned watch over British Rail's provision for cyclists on the international trains through the Channel Tunnel. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I am mystified by this topic although I admit that I have not studied the matter. Surely Eurotunnel will lose millions of passengers if it does not allow cyclists. I do not see that bicycles will take up much room. They do not use any fuel. Although there are bicycles which have a little engine attached, presumably they would not be allowed. As bicycles do not use fuel and do not take up a great deal of space, I am mystified about this. I hope that my noble friend can explain the great objection to this amendment, which finds favour with me, although I presume that it will not go to a Division.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, there may be some slight confusion in the mind of the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, in that we are talking about British Rail rather than the Eurotunnel shuttles. The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, will recognise that I would have put my name to the amendment on this occasion, as I did on the last, had it not been for the shortage of time, because I support the principle that lies behind the amendment. I presume that he will not press it to a Division.
The important point is that everyone should be aware of the fact that British Rail should not shut off its options. If it relies entirely upon present projections of pedal cycle traffic, it may find itself by 1993 turning away a market which does not exist at the moment. A number of organisations are growing up these days, such as Cycling for Softies—would you believe it?—which encourage bicycling holidays in France in particular. A number of my friends have been on that type of holiday and they find it attractive. I believe that there is a market which can be developed.
We are not merely talking about providing special places for bicycles. On the new trains there will be a need for rather more luggage space than exists on normal passenger trains in this country. If through trains are to attract holiday traffic which presently goes by road—I believe that it can—with ride and drive schemes where people will get on to a train at this end and hire a car at the far end, British Rail should keep its options open. We are asking it to ensure that it does not close down the possibility in the design stage, which will come long before the trains run, of pedal cycles being carried in significant numbers on the new trains.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as the noble Viscount admitted, he tabled the same amendment in Committee, and your Lordships will not be surprised that my response is unchanged. British Rail's international services are to be run on a strictly commercial basis with no support from public funds. This is a matter of government policy, but it is also the object of Clause 41 of the Bill, accepted last week in Committee. It must therefore be for the British
900
Railways Board alone to decide whether it will be economic to provide space for cyclists. It will make that decision in the light of the market research it is now conducting in co-operation with the cycling organisations.
I understand that the latest position on that is that the consultants assisted the Cyclists' Touring Club to draft a questionnaire which was included in a recent issue of the club's magazine. I understand that about 1,000 replies have so far been received. These replies will be analysed together with British Rail's and Eurotunnel's head count of cyclists using both trains and ferries. The results of that research should be available in September; in other words, in plenty of time to be taken into account when British Rail takes its design decisions on its rolling stock. That is the point about which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, was concerned. Although British Rail cannot anticipate the outcome of the market research and the decisions to be taken thereon, it is possible that space will be found for bicycles on some daytime trains when there is less need for space for parcels.
British Rail has assured the cycling organisations repeatedly that it is looking seriously at what it can do for cyclists, and it has taken the subject up with the French railways. British Rail has no interest in not taking advantage of a market if there is a prospect of its being profitable. However, British Rail cannot be expected to make a firm commitment to provide space for cyclists, at the expense perhaps of space for other passengers, until the studies into the likely demand have been completed.
I hope the noble Viscount will accept the good faith of British Rail's assurances. However, as I explained to the noble Viscount in Committee, it would be quite wrong to anticipate the outcome of the studies now in progress by imposing on British Rail an obligation which might—if the studies showed the demand from cyclists was not there—conflict directly with the commercial basis of its international services and cost it a substantial amount in lost revenue. That must be a decision for British Rail to make, using its own commercial judgment. I do not think it is one that we should see put into the Bill.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I am grateful for that answer. I said that I would not enter into arguments about the survey. I dealt with that point in Committee. I cast doubt on what could be proved from the survey, even if it went ahead successfully and on time. What the noble Lord said about providing a little space on daytime services was encouraging. It is also encouraging that British Rail was prepared to make that statement in public, because it has been reticent about committing itself. I am grateful for that.
The noble Lord has put on record the views of his department and those of British Rail. With the help of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, to whom I am grateful I have put on record the views of the cyclists. We shall see in the years to come what will happen. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 [Supplementary provisions with respect to acquisition of land]:
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 29, line 48, at end insert—
("(7) Notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law, in assessing the compensation to be paid in respect of any interest in and acquired under this Act, account shall be taken of any increase in the value of that interest which is attributable to the proposed or actual construction of the facilities mentioned in paragraphs (b) to (d) of section 1(7) of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I moved this amendment at Committee stage and withdrew it on the basis of the certain assurances which were given by the Minister in his reply. I do not intend to rehearse the arguments all over again. That would be a waste of the time of the House.
I should like to say, first, for clarification, that we are not seeking changes in the compulsory purchase powers. It is as regards the terms of compensation that we believe there should be a complete review. We believe that such a review is needed because of the Government's privatisation programme which has brought about a number of commercial companies with inherited compulsory purchase powers but which in fact now have the ability under certain circumstances to purchase land compulsorily at existing use value for a commercial enterprise. If it is for an essentially commercial purpose then we believe that full compensation value should be paid.
The Minister in his reply assured the Committee,
"that I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friends to what has been said in this Committee. I also give an assurance that the Government will take note of the views which have been expressed in this Committee on compensation policy as a whole". [Official Report, 6/7/87; col. 549.]
I very much hope that he can go a little further today and give us a stronger undertaking than he was able to give on that occasion when the amendment received support from all sides of the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, fools rush in where angels fear to tread, and I think that this is an area where one has to be tactful. I have some sympathy with the principles underlying the amendment and with the debate which took place on the last occasion when the Minister pointed out the difficulties of making changes in the system. Nevertheless, I think that the Government have a duty to examine the general situation in the light of the considerable amount of privatisation which is now going on.
A comment was made last time which was not dealt with by the Minister. A noble Lord—I cannot remember who it was—suggested that if the tunnel project were to fail at some stage and the land were to be sold back to the original owners, the owners would have to repurchase it at the developed value. That to me has a smell of Crichel Down about it. I hope that the Minister can refute that suggestion. If that were the fact then a number of us would have considerably stronger feelings about the amendment than perhaps we do at the moment.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I should also like to support the amendment. I want to make it quite clear that I am not doing so in any way as a member of the
902
Country Landowners' Association mafia (if I may describe it as such) because I am certainly not that. However, purely on the grounds of justice it would seem to me entirely unreasonable and inequitable if the Government were to acquire land by a form of compulsion—whether it is by compulsory purchase or in any other way—which they then pass over to private individuals who could make use of it at a high development value and sell it at a high development value without the original owners receiving any benefit.
If the Government wish to acquire the land and to use it for their own purposes then there is no argument to my mind in favour of the higher price being paid to the landowners; and this amendment does not seek to bring that about. However, if other private individuals are to make a profit out of it then it seems to me only just that the original owner should take that profit rather than an intermediary or a final user who has done nothing to enhance its value. For those reasons I think that this is a just amendment and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it.
7.15 p.m.
The Marquess of Salisbury: My Lords, I should also like to support the amendment. I agree entirely with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, about obtaining land at a very low value for purely commercial purposes for someone else's benefit; and the cause of justice, which has been so ably put by the noble Lord, Lord Walston.
These seem to me to be two important points. I should have thought that it was clear that compulsory purchase orders were originally designed for a different purpose than for giving special benefits to commercial objectives. One can argue almost any way one likes on what is the right principle to adopt. There are so many different concepts in different areas. At the Committee stage I quoted the case of a county structure plan where zoning for development, if planning permission is given, enables the owner to derive the full benefit of the value of the land developed regardless of whether it is bought by a public or local authority or a private owner.
I should like to conclude by quoting once again from a speech made during the Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning Act 1959 by the then Lord Chancellor Lord Kilmuir in which he said:
"The Bill will put right what has come to be very widely felt as an injustice—the two price system; one for private sales, the other for public or compulsory purchases". [Official Report, 14/4/59; col. 578.]
Further on in the same speech (at col. 583) he said:
"There is obviously a strong sense of grievance if land is bought from one owner at a low price for some public purpose and it is then sold at a substantially higher price for a different purpose".
We are talking about equity and justice. In its present form the Bill does not provide that. The amendment seeks to do so. I support it.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment in the interest of justice. The Government have said that the Eurotunnel, or fixed link, must be financed by private money. However, by allowing Eurotunnel—or any other company which was proposing to have a fixed

903
link—to buy land at existing use value, they are in a roundabout way subsidising the Eurotunnel. It is also unfair competition from the point of view of the ferries. If the ferries wish to buy land for a warehouse, or for some other use, they have to buy it at an inflated value. That is unfair competition. I support the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should also like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis. I do not wish to repeat the arguments put forward at the Committee stage. However, we have heard some further arguments today which reinforce the case for the amendment.
I think that it would be wrong for us to tolerate the injustice to which reference has been made because—as my noble friend Lord Belstead said on the last occasion—it would he difficult to make a change in the general law in relation to this one case. But if we are not to get an undertaking that the Government will review the present law—in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, has suggested—I think that it would be very difficult to leave the position as it stands.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I think the Minister will find that there is unanimity in the House from all sides in asking him to consider this amendment. As other noble Lords have said, it is a question of equity. There is clearly a need for a comprehensive review of the compensation procedure. The Government's proposals for privatisation bring in a whole new area of possible inequity and perhaps this was not foreseen when the compensation code was drawn up. We all hope that the Minister will be able to offer sufficient reassurance on a review of the compensation procedure that will enable the amendment to be withdrawn.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, when I first saw the brief from the Country Landowners' Association I, too, felt strongly that there was an injustice. Having looked at the terms of compensation under compulsory purchase, I take the side of the Government. My reason is that I am not sure there is an injustice. So far no speaker has mentioned how one approaches compensation under compulsory purchase. There is a procedure under the Section 17 certificate, which my noble friend mentioned during the Committee stage, in which a quasi planning consent exists and it is upon that that a district valuer and the valuer for the landowner will reach some terms for compensation. I believe that compensation will cover what will happen on planning consent.
If a situation arose where a terminal was to take 200 acres of land, three hotels, five restaurants and six motorway developments, I would hope—and I hope my noble friend will answer this point—that compensation will be based on what will happen at the terminal development. I see that the noble Lord shakes his head. I should be very surprised, if I were a valuer acting for landowners, if I were to accept anything other than full compensation for what is to be developed. I think your Lordships will find that a Section 17 certificate covers this aspect. If it does not,
904
then I am wrong; but I hope my noble friend will confirm what I have said.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment which seems to have very wide support now. I must declare my interest, as I did last time, although it is a little different now. I still own land in Folkestone and I formed a trust there some time ago which owns a lot of land in Folkestone. However, since last Monday I have signed a contract for the sale of parts of land to which I referred. I believe that completion, with an amazing amount of hurry on the other side, has taken place today so perhaps I can speak with a great deal more confidence and freedom that I did then.
I am absolutely convinced that a wrong is done here if this remains written as it is in the Bill. The law of compulsory purchase dating from 1961 is all right, but circumstances have changed. They have changed right now with Eurotunnel and they will probably continue to be different and will need a great deal of scrutiny with the privatisations that are to come.
I should like to refer to the business of taking land at existing use value and then passing it on to an entirely commercial concern, which is not really to do with the infrastructure of the country. I am in favour of the tunnel; but one cannot possibly say the tunnel is absolutely essential. It is wrong to put matters in the hands, some way or another, of shareholders in a company which on another amendment my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara stressed was commercial; it was stressed also in the Select Committee. I back up exactly what my noble friend Lord Cornwallis said, that there must be a promise of a really good and proper review, a cast-iron affair if you like; otherwise, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept the amendment or that your Lordships will see to it that on a Division we all accept it.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the words of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, are apposite here, that in many ways we are treading delicate ground—no pun is intended there. But the amendment merely asks that the value of that interest which is attributable to public works should have additional compensation. We and our colleagues in another place believe, as was stated at Committee stage there, that a fairly important principle is involved. I wonder whether the Minister will clear up the question that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, raised, that is, that the increased value is already allowed for in the Land Compensation Act, or whether there was a mechanism of assessing the value properly.
I should like the Minister to explain what will happen if more land is taken in the initial compulsory purchase than is strictly required. What would be the value of the remaining land which obviously would be greatly enhanced because of the public works involved? This is a very important question. The Government's privatisation proposals that are expected will involve huge stretches of land owned by electricity boards and water boards. A great many problems may arise in the future. We are at a stage when a fairly fundamental look at the whole question is required, although this could perhaps be a focus to

905
sharpen the Government's attitude to say whether they will have a close look at the whole question of compensation where public effort has been put in to increase the value of land.
7.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I fully understand the concern which my noble friend Lord Cornwallis has expressed on this point again in the short debate we have had. I also understand the general concern which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has just expressed about compulsory purchase in the general context of privatisation as well as compulsory purchase for other reasons. It seems to me wholly right that your Lordships should return to this subject. It is a difficult one. It is entirely natural for those who own land to be concerned if it appears that they are being required to part with land for compensation which does not reflect the value of the land to those who will use it in the future. But I genuinely believe that the amendment would lead to other difficulties, particularly if the amendment is to be applied as a general principle.
The amendment seeks to draw a distinction between those areas of land which will be used for the tunnel's infrastructure—for which it would be appropriate, as the philosophy of the amendment implies, to pay compensation under the normal code—and those areas on which ancillary activities (such as duty-free shops and the like) will take place. The implied argument is that the profitability of this trade will be such as to increase the value of this land substantially and that the landowner ought to receive the benefit if he had sold the land for the same purpose in the open market.
I repeat that I well understand the thrust of the argument about this matter. But there are a number of difficulties. First, if it were not for the Channel Tunnel project as a whole—which my noble friend I think said on the previous occasion he accepted could not proceed without compulsory purchase—there would be no opportunity for this profitable use which the amendment especially identifies. So we are really not talking about an open market situation. We are talking about compulsory acquisition of land for the Channel Tunnel project taken as a whole.
I suggest to your Lordships that the distinction which the amendment draws between the different kinds of use is a rather artificial one. The Channel Tunnel project consists of the main transport link and the ancillary activities on the land with which this amendment is concerned. But all the land is part of the same project. The ancillary activities could not take place without the link itself and so it is a matter of chance as to whether an individual owner's land is to be used for the link or for the ancillary activities. Whatever the basis of compensation, surely it is only fair that in principle it ought to be the same for all landowners affected by the project.
I am bound to say that I am also unhappy about the general proposition in the amendment that compensation ought to be based on the value given to the land by the use for which it is being acquired. That is all very well for those parcels of land on which
906
a profitable commercial activity is proposed but some compulsory purchases are for purposes which do not enhance the value of land. For instance, if inner city land was being compulsorily purchased for office blocks and open spaces this aspect of the amendment, if it became a new principle, would not do very much for the owners of land having to sell to provide the open spaces.
If it would create considerable difficulties of principle to distinguish between different future uses when considering the compensation which ought to be paid for land, then surely the present compensation code, which assesses compensation by reference to what the landowner is losing rather than to what the purchaser is acquiring, really is fairer to landowners generally than the basis proposed by the amendment, always remembering that the compulsory purchase order compensation includes any hope value and, where appropriate, an increase in value under Section 17, the section which gives the facility for somebody having to get rid of land to apply for an alternative development certificate. I hope that that answer satisfies both my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael.
I realise that after this short debate the matter which most concerns your Lordships is the consideration which was raised by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that the compensation code enables private companies to acquire land at agricultural value and then to develop it for possibly more lucrative commercial purposes. I appreciate the concern here but in the case of the Channel Tunnel I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that it is arguable that one should not just look at the payment which Eurotunnel is going to make to the Secretary of State for any land compulsorily acquired under the terms of the Bill, but also bear in mind the overall transaction under which Eurotunnel is having to provide a major transport link at its own risk and at no cost to the taxpayer.
I confess that these are difficult matters, but what is certain is that the application of the compulsory code for compensation as concerns this project, a project which incidentally your Lordships' Select Committee endorsed as being in the national interest, is the same as it has been over the years for ports, oil terminals, town centres and motorway service areas when they are acquired by compulsory purchase.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, put to me one direct question. He asked whether the terms under which the land would be bought back if the project were to fail were not reminiscent of Crichel Down. Land which has been compulsorily purchased and is to he offered back to the original landowner is governed by the Crichel Down rules. The price at which the offer is made is the market price prevailing at the time of the offer. The rules apply to land which has not been changed materially during the period since compulsory purchase.
The essential point is that the owner receives the market value in the absence of the scheme for compulsory purchase—in other words, the position which we have at the moment—and then pays the current market value when buying the land back. I do

907
not think that what is put in the Bill about repurchase would breach the Crichel Down rules.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. It seems to me that this is a slightly unusual situation. The determination of market value at the end of the day is a matter about which I am still slightly in doubt. After all, the value of the land depends on the existence of the tunnel and of the tunnel project. Therefore if it were to be sold back at that value but the landowner had no possibility of developing the land in a similar way and making a similar profit, it would be getting very close to Crichel Down, would it not?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, he is making a shrewd point, but I think not. The terms in the Bill in no way breach the Crichel Down rules. If one does not adhere to those rules it is very difficult to know which way in all equity one should turn.
Many of your Lordships, and in particular my noble friend, have asked for an assurance that we look at the general principles of how land compensation should apply where the land is being taken in these circumstances. The noble Lord reminded your Lordships that at Committee stage I gave an assurance that the Government woud take note of your Lordships' views on compensation policy. This evening I can and I will try to be more forthcoming.
I give an assurance to my noble friend and to your Lordships that we shall look further at the point which has been made, though I cannot promise that we shall necessarily come to the same conclusions as some of your Lordships. I hope I have also made clear that the existing compensation code which has been the law of the land for so many years is the only feasible way that we can proceed in the context of this Bill. In those circumstances and with the assurance I have given I hope that the noble Lord may feel that it is possible to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I listened carefully to my noble friend. He said that he understood our concerns; that he found it a difficult matter; and he finally finished with the assurance that he would look at this again. So far as I am concerned, looking at the procedures again really does not go far enough. How far are we to go on looking? Are we going to look today? Are we going to look tomorrow? It seems to me that tomorrow never comes for the Government when they do not want it to come unless they are given very considerable encouragement, which I hope your Lordhips will do tonight.
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend one question. Is he prepared to give this House an assurance that the whole compensation procedure under the 1961 Act will be reviewed at some time in the near future? In that event I might be happy, but I cannot go on with tomorrow all the time.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may just ask—
Lord Denham: Order!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I have not spoken yet.
Lord Denham: I am sorry, my Lords.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am perfectly prepared to accept an apology from the Government Chief Whip. It is one of those happy occasions.
What is the character of the review that the noble Lord has just indicated the Government are prepared to indulge in on this question? He said that he will look at it again. That is reassuring, but what precisely does it mean? It means that Ministers will consider the question, as I am sure they will, in the light of what he has said. Will that be followed by a ministerial statement in both Houses? The House will want to know a little more about what the Minister's rather Delphic utterances really mean.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord Harris. At the previous stage of the Bill I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, that the Government would take note of the views that had been expressed by the House. I have come back to the House this evening to say that I can go further than that and that we will look further at the point which has been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked me two questions. He asked me what we would look at. We would look at the issue raised by your Lordships in this amendment. Then the noble Lord said to me, "What would the result of the review be?" Here your Lordships must acquit me of being deliberately unhelpful, because that is not what I am trying to be; but ahead of looking further at a point I could not say, with the best will in the world, what we would come up with. I am afraid I was very honest and had to admit to your Lordships that we then might find we would not be able to reach the same conclusion as the conclusion I know so many of your Lordships would hope we would reach through the moving of this amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord misunderstood the second question. It was whether, as a result of this review and looking at this whole question again, he would now undertake that there would be ministerial statements made on the outcome of that review. That is the least the Minister should offer to us.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, on that point I am afraid that I cannot help the noble Lord.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Lord going to reply to the question of his noble friend Lord Stanley, and will this review take into account the whole question of the procedures under the 1961 Act? It appears to me that the fears expressed are wholly real, particularly with the privatisation programme that the Government are undertaking and are said to be undertaking.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if the House will allow me—and this is Report stage and I am wholly out of order—with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, I think I replied to my noble friend Lord Stanley by saying that we would look at the issue raised by the amendment this evening. Further than that, with the best will in the world I am afraid I cannot go. But it shows, I hope, good will in the process that we have gone through at Committee and now Report stage.
Lord Cornwallis: My Lords, first I thank the many noble Lords who have supported this amendment both tonight and in Committee, and for the various views that have been expressed. The Section 17 procedure that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, brought up is hardly appropriate to an area which has been designated for a specific purpose for the best part of 100 years. Therefore there could be little hope value, etc. in that. I do not think that anybody applying for a Section 17 certificate on that particular land would get any joy.
The situation is not the same for all landowners. It was suggested that it is the same for all landowners, but it is not. People who are on the verge of this particular area and are not actually within the compulsory purchase area are having to be compensated at full development value for any extra land for commercial purposes that Eurotunnel or anybody else may want. Therefore there is a division between those landowners who are within the compulsory purchase areas and those who have been put on the fringe. The ones within it are having their land used for the same purpose but are not getting the same reward. That is what we do not consider to be equitable.
It is largely a question of the principle. At the Committee stage we pointed out that we had been advised before we moved this amendment that this was not necessarily the right place to move it. Equally, where do you move it? As privatisation and development Bills come up one after another it is not going to be appropriate to move it in any of them. This is why we are asking the Government to not just give us assurances but to give us a guarantee of a complete review of the compensation clauses attaching to compulsory purchase. We are not attacking the compulsory purchase clause. We are asking for a complete review of the compensation clauses.
I accept that the review may not come to the conclusions that I and many other noble Lords here may wish it to come to, but that would be the result of the review. What we are seeking is a complete review. If there is not an assurance from the Minister that we can have a total review of compensation clauses by the Government, then I shall be bound to divide the House.
7.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 31) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45: Not-Contents, 71.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Mulley, L.

Airedale, L.

Nicol, B.

Attlee, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Avebury, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Barnett, L.

Radnor, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Carter, L.

Salisbury, M.

Cornwallis, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

David, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Shannon, E.

Ferrier, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.].

Hampton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Ingleby, V.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Lockwood, B.

Tordoff, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Underhill, L.

McNair, L.

Walston, L.

Mais, L.

White, B.

Massereene and Ferrard. V.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Monson, L.

Winstanley, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hooper, B.

Ampthill, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Arran, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Beloff, L.

Lauderdale. E.

Belstead. L.

Layton, L.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Borthwick, L.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Manton. L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marley, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Mersey, V.

Carnock, L.

Milverton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Mottistone. L.

Colwyn, L.

Mountevans, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne. L.

Craigavon, V.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Orr-Ewing. L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Reay. L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sandford. L.

Dilhorne. V.

Sharples, B.

Dundee. E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elton. L.

Strange. B.

Faithfull. B.

Strathciyde, L.

Fortescue, E.

Suffield. L.

Gainford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gridley. L.

Teviot. L.

Harmar-Nicholls. L.

Trafford, L.

Harvington. L.

Trefgarne. L.

Havers. L.

Trumpington. B.

Henley. L.

Vaux of Harrowden. L.

Hesketh. L.

Ward of Witley. V.

Hives. L.

Whitelaw. V.

Holderness. L.

Windlesham. L.

Home of the Hirsel. L.

Zouche of Haryngworth. L.

Hood. V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 32:
After Clause 39 insert the following new clause:
("Review of traffic, flows
The Railways Board shall review or cause to be reviewed in consultation with the London Planning Advisory Committee and the Council of the London Borough of Lambeth and other local planning authorities concerned, the existing and projected traffic flows at intervale to he agreed jointly by the operational bodies

911
sufficiently frequent as to ensure that the Railways Board is able to properly plan and provide facilties for traffic in excess of the maximum operational capacity of Waterloo.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be recalled that at the Committee stage on Monday 6th July my noble friend Lord Carmichael moved an amendment tabled in his name and mine. It proposed a review of the situation at Waterloo with a a view to the possible disperal of international passenger trains starting or ending in Greater London. On that occasion, the Minister in his first reply said that he hoped the amendment would be withdrawn. He added,
"and that we may also be able to put the Waterloo issue to bed once and for all tonight".
In moving this amendment we have not taken his advice because the Minister also said,
"I have more sympathy for the suggestion that further reviews should be carried out after international services to Waterloo have begun".
He continued,
"It is self-evident that if the traffic to the Continent grows from year to year after the tunnel has opened there must eventually come a time when the capacity of Waterloo is exceeded". (Official Report, 6/7/87; col. 571.)
We fully agree with those two statements. I ask noble Lords to look carefully at the wording of the present amendment. In effect, it proposes exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, proposed and had sympathy with at the Committee stage.
The amendment seeks reviews at intervals and the period for such reviews is left for joint agreement with the operational bodies. Its wording agrees with the Minister that a time may come when traffic is in excess of the maximum operational capacity at Waterloo. The amendment is so much in line with the two quotations of the Minister to which I have referred that I believe he could have brought it forward. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment as being in line with what he said at the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I should like to advance a slightly different point of view in relation to this amendment. First it seems to me that to a certain extent the on-train amendment put forward by the Minister this afternoon weakened the agruments made in Committee in favour of this kind of amendment. They made British Rail's ability to spread traffic out of Waterloo much greater. I did not do so at the time but I should now like to join the chorus of approval for the on-train control amendment. Secondly, if Lambeth Council is not particularly inclined to consult now, what reason do we have to believe that it will be inclined to do so at a future date? Indeed, what reason have we for enshrining in statute its right to consult? I am sorry, I cannot accept that argument. The Council has so far been so negative that it seems to me there is no valid reason to give it a statutory ability to consult in the future.
The third reason for which I suggest the House should reject the amendment is that it is intended to ensure:
"that the Railways Board is able to properly plan and provide facilities for traffic in excess of the maximum operational capacity of Waterloo".
912
We cannot at the moment legislate for what might be the maximum operational capacity of Waterloo. That is what the amendment relates to, rather than, as it is presently worded, to infrastructure. That may be what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, had in mind but it is not on the face of the amendment. Traffic at Waterloo is a management matter for the railways and it should not he enshrined in statute.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have already debated the need for British Rail to plan for traffic growth after the tunnel has opened. If traffic grows year after year, there will inevitably come a time when Waterloo reaches the limits of its capacity. As I said in the Committee stage debate, even on the most optimistic forecasts that time will not be reached until 2003 at the earliest.
British Rail will obviously need to plan to meet traffic growth. I do not think it needs a new clause to do that. It is obviously in British Rail's commercial interests to do so, and I cannot believe it is something which it will neglect. The main point of the proposed new clause is to ensure that British Rail consults the local planning authorities in developing its plans. I find it extraordinary that it should be suggested that British Rail needs to be placed under a statutory obligation to consult. It has made repeated efforts to consult Lambeth Council about its current plans for Waterloo. It is Lambeth Council which has refused to talk to British Rail, and which actually walked out of a meeting convened by my honourable friend the Minister of State to bring the two sides together.
It might be more appropriate to place a statutory obligation on Lambeth Council to respond when British Rail consults it, but I am not proposing an amendment along those lines. British Rail has shown every willingness to consult the local authorities. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will not press the amendment. I do not consider that it is necessary or desirable.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I shall repeat what I said in relation to previous amendments. It is surprising that, when the Government wish to insert provisions for consultation, they list all those bodies with which there should be consultation. I have in mind the Airports Act, where the Government listed the bodies. Yet here, where we table a common-sense amendment, the Government resist it. Apparently they have found a principle for showing why the organisations should not be listed. Nobody knows what will be the position of the Council of the London Borough of Lambeth when any such review might be desired. Nobody has made any criticism of the London Planning Advisory Committee or of the fact that the amendment refers to other local planning authorities. The excuse is being made that Lambeth have not talked so far. As I say, nobody can say what the position in Lambeth will be when there is general agreement that there ought to be such a review.
The Minister agrees that the time might come when the operational capacity at Waterloo is exceeded. He says that then British Rail will obviously consult. If we look carefully at the Airports Bill there were certain occasions when common sense would have

913
suggested that there should be consultation. The Government wrote into the Bill a list of all the bodies which should be consulted at different stages in different affairs.
At eight o'clock I have no intention of pressing this matter to a Division; but I believe that the Government are being unnecessarily "sticky" on this aspect. It is such common sense and it agrees with what I said last time: the Minister could quite easily have accepted this so that we would then have had one further amendment which I believe would have benefited the Bill. But just to say that British Rail will do this as a matter of common sense—I believe they should—does not say with whom they should consult, whereas this amendment details precisely that. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8 p.m.
Clause 40 [Railway services: consultative committees and closures]:
Lord Mulley Lord Mulley moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 32, line 19, at end insert ("and, in particular that duty shall include a requirement to consider and make recommendations with respect to the effect of international railway passenger services upon the quality of domestic commuter services in the London area.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we were discussing the possible impact of international traffic on the commuters at Waterloo Station, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich (I think probably quite rightly) said that it was not for Ministers to concern themselves with the details of international or other rail services. But of course it is the duty of the Central Transport Consultative Committee, the area committees and the London Regional Passengers' Committee, to do exactly that. I welcome the fact that this duty is made clear in Clause 40 concerning the international rail services that will result from the tunnel.
It would also he as well if we were to consider the particular problem of looking at the quality of the domestic commuter services in the London area—not merely to Waterloo but to the other important stations. As I have said, the commuter traffic into London is absolutely crucial for the working of the capital city and the City of London. They are on a knife-edge and it needs only a few difficulties to arise, as we know, to put the whole services of London at risk.
The Minister began our proceedings today by accepting the principle of an amendment, if not the actual words; and I hope he will agree that this duty of the Central Transport Consultative Committee and the London Regional Passengers' Committee to look particularly at the effect of the new services on the commuter services in the London area should be enforced. I feel a number of problems could arise otherwise. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the duty imposed on the Central Transport Consultative Committee and the area committees by Section 56 of the 1962 Transport Act requires them to consider and make recommendations about domestic British Rail
914
services. Clause 40 of the Bill extends that duty to international services. The noble Lord's amendment would require them to consider and make representations about the effect of international services on domestic services.
My only objection to the amendment is that it does not appear to add anything to the existing duties of the committees. The Transport Act provides that the committees can make recommendations with regard to any matter affecting the services provided by British Rail. The impact of international services on domestic ones therefore falls squarely within the committees' general duty under the 1962 Act to consider and report on the domestic services. Therefore it is not necessary to spell it out in the way proposed by this amendment.
The committees have shown themselves repeatedly (as I think noble Lords would agree) to be fearless and independent bodies. I am sure they will not hesitate to take action if the international services have an adverse effect on the quality of domestic services. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied that the point he is trying to make is already covered and does not need to be specifically written into the Bill. I hope that he will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for his reply. I would, ab initio, have taken the view that he has just expressed; but anything that we want put into the Bill, the Government apparently say, is totally unnecessary. However, I could give him a long list of things which I would also think were unnecessary but which are in the Bill and that Clause 40 has had to be put in means that it is not covered by the previous Transport Act. That is why I was seeking this particular clarification.
However, at this hour of night I am glad to have his assurances and I hope it will not be asking too much if this duty is made clear to the Central Transport Consultative Committee and to the area committees so that they know that they have this particular power. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 [Interpretation]:
Lord Mulley Lord Mulley moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 36, leave out lines 5 to 8.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should explain to the noble Lord the Minister that I received his very long and careful letter explaining what is meant by the word "enactment" after I had already put down this amendment, which was intended to get more clarity.
In a previous discussion we heard about the question of compensation, and it was said to he wrong to deal with the general principle in a Bill of this character. I may have been particularly unobservant, but I do not recall every Bill having its own definition as to what is meant by "enactment". I thought that was the purpose of the Interpretation Act. In that Act, and in general parliamentary and legal usage, "an enactment" means either an Act of

915
Parliament or some part of an Act of Parliament, and not subordinate legislation. I therefore wonder why it is necessary to put in this Bill subordinate legislation which in certain cases in other parts of the Bill can refer to actions taken by Ministers without reference to Parliament.
We all accept assurances that they will not do this or do that; but, as we well know, no Minister's assurances will bind his successors. We have found that in the course of a single government. So I wonder why this rather extraordinary definition of "enactment" is sought in this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, on this subject, as he has just said; and a copy has also been placed in the Library of the House for any other noble Lord who is interested in this particular point. I gather the principal reason is that "an enactment" is not defined in the Interpretation Act.
The effect of the amendment before us, far from clarifying and providing the normal meaning of the term "enactment", leaves its interpretation open to serious doubt, not only in relation to Clause 2—which I understood previously was the noble Lord's principal concern—but also in connection with Clause 11, which allows enactments to be amended by order. In the absence of a standard interpretation of the term, it was clearly appropriate to produce a definition to suit the particular circumstances and purposes of this Bill, encompassing what the Government felt needed to be included both for the purposes of Clause 2 and elsewhere.
It is our firm intention that Eurotunnel should not be barred from receipt of funds that are equally available to others. The obvious example is the use of suppliers in receipt of regional aid. But who can guess what incentives of one sort or another future governments may make available over the next 55 years?
We need therefore a definition of "enactment" covering all legislation, existing and future, either primary or subordinate, under which such assistance might be given. We need also for the purpose of Clause 11 of the Bill to ensure that "enactment" is defined so as to include certain provisions of this Bill. I can assure the noble Lord, if he is worried about backdoor funding of the concessionaires in the future, that with Clause 2 in place it is our view that if the Government sought to pass new subordinate legislation which, by making funds available only to the concessionaires would frustrate the purpose of that clause, that legislation would be open to challenge in the courts under Clause 2, exactly as intended by the original proponents of this clause.
Thus the definition of "enactment" in Clause 48 properly serves to give effect to the Bill's clearly stated aims. To remove it would simply be to sow confusion. Therefore I certainly cannot be very welcoming to the amendment. I hope that the explanation that I have given together with the letter that I wrote to the noble Lord will in any case clarify the situation somewhat.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, though I remain unconvinced. I was not particularly concerned about Clause 2—there are many provisions in the Bill of which I do not approve—but are we now to expect in every Bill a new definition of "enactment"? Parliamentary draftsmen and the courts have been dealing with legislation for many years and it has not been found necessary to state in each Bill what is meant by the word "enactment". However, if the Government feel that for the purposes of the Bill it is essential to have the interpretation, naturally I shall not press the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 49 [Short title and extent]:
Lord Mulley Lord Mulley moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 37, leave out line 45.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment represents sheer curiosity on my part. It is not tabled because I want to object to any particular part of the Bill; I was simply puzzled and would like clarification on one point. I have been asked by several people why Northern Ireland needs to be included in a Bill concerned with the Channel Tunnel. It would be interesting to have a reply to that question. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to probe into this matter. It is a little difficult to understand why Northern Ireland should be included in this Bill. I shall try to explain. Although it concerns a fairly remote possibility, the Government considered it advisable to cater for it in drafting this Bill. Under Clause 16 the supervisory bodies—namely, the Intergovernmental Commission and the safety authority—can issue directions to any person, carry out investigations and require information to be given. It is impossible to predict the circumstances in which these powers may be used but it is most likely that they would be used in relation to persons or bodies directly involved in constructing or operating the Channel system. However, it is not inconceivable that in investigating an incident or checking upon safe practice it may be necessary to seek information from suppliers of materials or equipment, or even to issue them with directions. There is no reason therefore to limit such provisions to Great Britain because supplies and materials could have come from anywhere in the United Kingdom.
Perhaps I may just make two further points. First, much the same goes for orders by the Secretary of State under Clause 11, which can of course cover a wider range of possibilities than the powers of authorised persons under Clause 16. Secondly, there is also a reference to Northern Ireland in Clause 16(10), which the noble Lord may not have noticed.
In conclusion, I hope that I have given at least two good reasons why this Bill should cover Northern Ireland. I hope very much that orders for equipment will be placed in Northern Ireland, as indeed in all regions of the country. Furthermore, if orders are placed in Northern Ireland I hope that there will not be any cause for complaint which might actually

917
bring into effect this particular part of the Bill. However, that is another matter.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. As I understand it, Northern Ireland does not need this Bill to give the right to buy equipment. One of our worries was that a lot of the equipment would not be bought from this country. If the Minister is giving an assurance that it will be bought either in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland, then indeed we have learnt a great deal from this minute, exploratory amendment. It will give great satisfaction to know that not a penny will be spent abroad. This Act cannot extend outside Great Britain and Northern Ireland to France, Germany, Japan or anywhere else. Clearly, from what the Minister has said the money spent on equipment will all be spent in the United Kingdom, which is most satisfactory.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I must disabuse the noble Lord of that idea. When he reads what I have said, he will find that I did not say at all what he thinks I said.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for having brought this point to my notice. The Minister quoted Clause 16(10). I know that people in Scotland are very law-abiding and I am sure there is a simple explanation for my query. Clause 16(10) states:
"Proceedings for an offence … shall not be brought in England and Wales … or in Northern Ireland except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland".
There is no mention of Scotland, which seems to have been omitted. There may be a simple explanation for that and I should be grateful for it.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I am much obliged for the intervention of my noble friend. I hope that he will pursue this matter at the next stage of the Bill, because at this hour it is a little late for a manuscript amendment to apply. Certainly I have great admiration for Scotland. I am relieved that Northern Ireland was not included in order to be able to investigate the possibilities of IRA interest in the Channel Tunnel. I say again how much we have appreciated the care and the trouble taken by the Minister in dealing with our amendments.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, may I ask if missing out Scotland constitutes a trend? At Question Time today it was very obvious that information was not available with regard to Scotland. Was that because of the election results in Scotland?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House once more, perhaps I may say that I am informed that Scotland is covered implicitly by English legislation. No special provision is needed. All prosecutions in Scotland require the agreement of the procurator fiscal.
As to Question Time today, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, will agree that his point relates
918
to only one very small detail of the Question. Scotland does not keep the same kind of records as England, and that was the only reason that I was unable to answer that part of the Question today. It concerned the difference in definition between "repairs" and "reconstruction". I shall be happy to take up the issue with him on another occasion.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I did not expect my amendment to extend so far in either substance or geography. I now ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Harwich Parkeston Quay Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past eight o'clock.

  NHS: REPRESENTATIONS TO HEALTHMINISTERS
  NHS: REPRESENTATIONS TO HEALTHMINISTERS
  DEVRIMICI YOL: TRIAL
  DEVRIMICI YOL: TRIAL
  CHARITY COMMISSION: SCRUTINYREPORT
  CHARITY COMMISSION: SCRUTINYREPORT
  PRISON RULE 43: STATISTICS
  PRISON RULE 43: STATISTICS
  SECURITY FIRMS: STAFF TRAINING
  SECURITY FIRMS: STAFF TRAINING
  GINI COEFFICIENTS 1986
  GINI COEFFICIENTS 1986