Sitting of 21 July 1987

Preamble
The House met at half past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    MASONIC TRUST FOR GIRLS AND BOYS BILL
    Lords amendments agreed to.

    ESSEX BILL [Lords]
    Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
    Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

    WHITCHURCH BRIDGE BILL
    Read the Third time, and passed.
    HAMPSHIRE (LYNDHURST BYPASS) BILL [Lords]
    To be read a Second time tomorrow.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Training Schemes
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of people gain a job on leaving YTS, JTS and the community programme.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): The latest complete figures show that of those young people who left YTS, some 61 per cent. were in employment three months after leaving and a further 14 per cent. went into further education or training. Information for those leaving the new job training scheme is not yet available. The latest survey of those leaving the community programme shows that some 60 per cent. have had at least one job within 12 months of leaving.
    Mr. Bennett: In view of those extremely disappointing figures, does the Minister accept that the major scandal in this country at the moment is the skills shortage, which contrasts with the very large numbers of people who are unemployed? As YTS was in many cases used as an inefficient substitute for the old apprenticeship scheme, should we not be looking for 100 per cent. of people leaving YTS getting jobs? What will the Minister do to match the chronic skill shortages with the appalling level of unemployment, particularly among young people?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are developing programmes for YTS and JTS. With regard to the success of the schemes, the figures show that very substantial numbers of people coming off YTS, job training schemes and the community programme are going into employment. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and that in my constituency and elsewhere young people are taking up YTS with great enthusiasm and reporting on their success? That means that at last they have an option other than to join the dole queue. Does that not contrast with the position under the previous Labour Government, when there were very few proper training schemes? It ill behoves Opposition Members to complain about YTS.
    Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We have now reached the position where everyone has the opportunity of a YTS place. That is a major step forward that is welcomed by the public.
    Mr. Leighton: Is it not the case that very few people could have obtained jobs after leaving JTS because so few people have gone on that scheme? Is it not also the case that that ill thought out plan has flopped badly and is monumentally unpopular with employers and its potential clients?
    Mr. Fowler: No, I do not think that that is remotely the case. It is very sad that the TUC is not supporting the scheme. Under the old JTS, 67 per cent. went into jobs. The results for the new JTS are not yet available. However, the new JTS offers opportunities to unemployed people and I believe that the mass of the public. if not the TUC, will support the scheme.
    Mr. Waller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the cause of young people who would particularly benefit from the youth training scheme is not helped by the fact that the scheme is continually attacked by opponents of the Government? Will he ensure that it is widely known that the people who really matter — the young people themselves — have shown very clearly in surveys that they think that the training that they have received is good?
    Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is right. All the surveys carried out by the MSC into the effectiveness of the YTS show that those who have had experience of it, as opposed to those who give their views on it, are overwhelmingly satisfied with their training and experience.
    Mr. Meacher: Is not the recent Public Account's Committee's report a devastating indictment of the Government's training policies? How can the Government fill training gaps when they have abolished their main source of information on training by employers? What enforcement do the Government propose to ensure that employers carry out their training responsibilities? Above all, will the Government now repudiate their political motive in extending the JTS before the problems associated with the pilot scheme are fully resolved?
    Mr. Fowler: May I first welcome my eternal shadow to his new Front-Bench job for employment. I regret that he is as way off the mark on employment as he was on the Health Service. The JTS pilot started only last autumn. The JTS is designed to provide not only good training but training leading to good vocational qualifications. The hon. Gentleman would he better employed trying to persuade the TUC to change its attitude to this scheme, which provides a tremendous opportunity for many people.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend consider the position of the community programme,

    191
    especially for those over 50? Although the community programme gives them the opportunity to make a valuable contribution to society, the probability is that, when it ends, they will become unemployed and will remain unemployed. In those circumstances, has my right hon. Friend any plans for extending the community programme?
    Mr. Fowler: As my hon. Friend knows, we have plans under the community programme to give help and training to those who have been continuously unemployed for 12 months. I should like to look more carefully at the position of the over-50s — the precise point raised by my hon. Friend. I agree with his general points.

    Service Industries
    Mr. Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on regional differences in the changes in numbers employed in the service industries since 1979.
    The Minister for Employment (Mr. John Cope): Since 1979 there has been an increase in service sector employment in every region except Wales and the northwest. Since 1983 employment in the service industries has increased in every region.
    Mr. Thomas: Does the Minister accept that the figures for Wales over the 1979 to 1986 period are extremely disappointing? To what does the hon. Gentleman attribute the failure of the Welsh economy to increase service employment on a par with the other nations and regional economies in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Cope: The figures were disappointing, but they are improving now. That was the main point of my answer. As I hope the hon. Gentleman knows, in the past 12 months unemployment in Wales has fallen more rapidly than in any other part of Britain.
    Mr. Roger King: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new position. Does he agree that the service sector, especially tourism, is an essential growth area within some of our older cities and cities such as Birmingham, which has introduced the National Exhibition Centre, the Convention Centre and the August bank holiday super-prix, pointing the way forward for new job creation?
    Mr. Cope: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am grateful to him for his good wishes — it seems popular to stop being a Whip.
    Mr. Sheerman: The Minister knows that no Opposition Member decries the service sector or tourism, but the fact is that there is a regional imbalance. In most of the regions of the north, in Wales and in Scotland manufacturing jobs and opportunities have been destroyed and service jobs have not been able to make up those numbers anywhere. The greatest cause of concern for our country is this failure in the manufacturing sector. We cannot live by service jobs alone.
    Mr. Cope: Of course we cannot. However, in many countries, including ours, service jobs are increasing and manufacturing jobs are declining. That was so under the Labour Government before we took office.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amoryasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the recent labour market statistics.
    Mr. Fowler: In the last year there has been the biggest fall in unemployment since records were first kept. The seasonally-adjusted figures have fallen by almost 300,000 and unemployment is now below 3 million.
    As well as the fall in unemployment there has been a growth of over 250,000 jobs between March 1986 and March 1987. Vacancies are up by 27 per cent. on a year ago, and productivity growth is at its highest for over three years.
    Unemployment, then, is falling without a return to the overmanning of the past.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that that vastly improving employment picture is being greeted with mounting dismay on the Opposition Benches? It is as though the Opposition had a vested interest in bad news. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that unemployment among the under-25s is now lower in this country than in any other Common Market country, and will he call upon Opposition Members to welcome that?
    Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend's initial point is correct. As for the unemployment rate among the under-25s, the latest European Community average—for 1986—is 23 per cent. The United Kingdom rate at that time was 18 per cent. That must be compared with a rate of 34 per cent. in Italy, and 23 per cent. in France. In the past 12 months, unemployment among the under-25s has decreased further to 16 per cent.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Secretary of State tell us when the unemployment level will reach the figure for 1979? In this much-vaunted increase in jobs, how many are low-paid service sector jobs, and how many are in manufacturing? Is it not true that under the Tory regime our country has lost 2 million jobs in the manufacturing industry, and that the Prime Minister has destroyed more factories in our country than Hitler managed to between 1939 and 1945?
    Mr. Fowler: Typically, the hon. Gentleman is wrong in virtually everything that he has said. Service jobs in this country are certainly increasing, and those jobs are real and important. As the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) sought to say a moment ago, that should surely be welcomed by every hon. Member, and I ask the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) to do that.
    Mr. William Powell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when I was first returned by the electors of Corby four years ago unemployment in that constituency stood at 8,000? Last week's unemployment figures showed that it was down to 3,900. Is that not the biggest fall in unemployment anywhere in the country, and is it not mainly the result of Government policies?
    Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The crucial point is that the strength of the economy has meant unemployment coming down throughout the country. It is coming down, not just in my hon. Friend's area, but in all other regions. Some of the biggest falls have been in such areas as Wales, the west midlands and the north-west. It is about time that the Opposition welcomed that trend.
    Mr. Strang: Is it a matter of concern to the Secretary of State that the distribution of job opportunities in the different regions is so unequal? For example, whereas in the south-east there are eight unemployed people for every vacancy, in Yorkshire and Humberside there are 17. Is the Government's attitude to that distribution one of laissez-faire, or do they seek to change the position?
    Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me say to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) that there has been a real fall in unemployment in all regions of the United Kingdom in the last month—indeed, over the past year—and that some of the biggest falls have been in areas such as Wales, the west midlands and the north-west: in other words, in the regions where unemployment had previously been the highest. In addition, we have found that long-term unemployment has fallen by some 61,000 in the last year. That is the largest 12-month fall since records began. Moreover, unemployment has fallen faster in the past year than in any other industrialised country. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

    YTS
    Mr. Andrew Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is taking to ensure that YTS training is of a high quality.
    Mr. Cope: We are working with the Manpower Services Commission to build up the quality of training on YTS so that every trainee will he working towards a recognised vocational qualification from an appropriate examining body. From April 1988 all YTS providers will have to meet the stringent standards laid down for approved training organisations. And the training standards advisory service now provides quality audits of YTS schemes.
    Mr. Mitchell: Given that in my constituency 65 per cent. of young people on YTS have graduated to full-time employment, what steps has the Minister taken to spread this good news more widely?
    Mr. Cope: We do our best — so does the Manpower Services Commission — to spread the news, particularly about the quality of YTS, as much as possible. The best advertisement for YTS are those who have done it. That is the theme of the television advertising campaign that the MSC is undertaking.
    Ms. Armstrong: Does the Minister recognise that there are great regional variations both in the quality of the YTS schemes on offer and in the number of young people who succeed in obtaining jobs at the end of their training, and that in the north we suffer on both counts? What will the Minister do to redress the balance and ensure that young people in the north are given the same opportunities as exist in other regions?
    Mr. Cope: I am afraid that there are bound to be regional variations in everything. That is why we are having this drive to increase the quality of YTS, not only in the south, but in the north.
    Mr. Oppenheim: When my hon. Friend has a moment to do so, will he look at the Labour party's 1979 election manifesto, which boasted that the then youth oppor-tunities programme was the finest training programme in Europe? Why is it that Opposition Members thought that
    194
    that was a fine training programme when its much improved successor, the YTS, is constantly whinged about?
    Mr. Cope: I suppose that it was the best that they could think of in 1979, and I am sorry that they do n at recognise that YTS is an improved version of it.
    Mr. Sheerman: Surely the Minister knows, as we know in Yorkshire, that one gets owt for nowt? Unless we spend more money and resources on youth training, it will never make good the skills deficiencies that arc emerging throughout British industry and that are preventing our manufacturing base from recovering to the extent that it should.
    Mr. Cope: I referred earlier to our manufacturing base. However, we are spending £1 billion a year on YTS, which is a lot of money.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend, who did an excellent job in his last appointment, as I am sure he will in this, ensure that one defect in the quality of YTS is remedied, namely, that if a young person is one day over the specified birth date when he enters the scheme he is kicked out of the two-year scheme after only one year in it?
    Mr. Cope: Wherever we drew the line, I am afraid that there would be somebody who was one day on the wrong side of it. My hon. Friend was kind enough to raise a constituency case that drew attention to this problem. I have undertaken to look into it, and I shall do so.
    Mr. Bruce: Does the Minister accept that within the nursing profession there is concern about the impact of YTS? First, it cuts across the Government's stated objective of providing more professional training within nursing. Secondly, the supervision that is required to ensure the required quality of training takes experienced nurses away from their prime job of looking after patients
    Mr. Cope: I do not think that concern about YTS coming into the National Health Service is justified. We are doing our best to introduce YTS into many parts of the public service, and that is how it should be. To improve the quality of YTS we have introduced approved training organisations and the other measures.

    Tourism
    Mr. David Nicholsonasked the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the progress of the programme for introducing a new system for signposting sites of tourist interest.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): Signposting is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for 'Transport. However, I understand that good progress is being made. Signs have been authorised for about 2,000 attractions and more are about to go up.
    Mr. Nicholson: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. I recognise the importance of these initiatives for the hope of prosperity in my constituency, in other parts of Somerset and in the inner cities. Will he describe what broad criteria are used to designate tourist interest sites on motorways? Will he and his ministerial colleagues pay attention to the desirability of attracting foreign tourists in particular to areas of the country other than the congested sites of London, Windsor and Oxford?
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend represents a lovely part of the country; Somerset has many tourist attractions. At Easter we had a happy family holiday at the Caernarvon Arms near Dulverton, and I strongly commend that part of the country.
    The criteria for signposting are set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. They are, first, where there are over 150,000 visitors a year; secondly, where there is adequate car parking; and, thirdly, where tourist attractions are sited within 20 miles of a motorway junction. I take the point about spreading the benefits of tourism to the many regions that are outside some of the traditional tourist spots.
    Mr. Ashton: Is it not a fact that tourist areas do not need signposting? It is easy to see where they are because they are ankle-deep in litter. Is the Minister aware that it is a year since Mr. Richard Branson, the famous entrepreneur, was appointed to clear up litter, yet it has become worse? Why does he not—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. What does this have to do with signposting?
    Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. UK 2000, which is making satisfactory progress, was not set up to clear litter. With regard to the clearance of litter — I take the hon. Gentleman's point — as Minister with responsibilities for tourism I am campaigning for a spotless Britain. We could do a lot more to clear up the excess of litter. There are too many areas of this country that have too much litter, which is appalling in comparison with many other overseas tourist attractions.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be helpful if senior hon. Members set a good example by sticking to the question.
    Mr. Mans: Will my hon. Friend give the latest estimate of the number of new jobs that have been created in the tourist industry this year and in previous years?
    Hon. Members: Signposting.
    Mr. Lee rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is miles wide of the subject.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of the reduction in the underlying unemployment figures is due to the Government's restart programme and other similar measures; and what proportion is due to an increase in the actual number of jobs available.
    Mr. Fowler: It is not possible to assess separately the effects on the unemployment count of Government measures and of the increasing number of jobs that are available in the economy. Government measures, including the restart programme, are helping unemployed people to compete more effectively in the labour market and take up the new jobs that are being generated.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that people in Wales, in particular, are a bit fed up with the Government's claims that unemployment is falling, when they witness and experience mass unemployment all around them? Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the problem of unemployment will not be solved by
    196
    shuffling people from one register to another or by fiddling the statistics? What we need is an upsurge in manufacturing industry.
    Mr. Fowler: I thought that I had said earlier that one of the biggest falls in unemployment over the past 12 months was in Wales. Surely the hon. Gentleman should welcome that as being the case. The restart programme provides an entry into a number of programmes, such as the community programme, enterprise allowance and job clubs. That is serving a useful and valuable function.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Conservative Members commend the expertise of the staff of his Department? It has played a valuable role in the restart programme. Not only has the programme enabled many people to find work who were finding it difficult to compete in the labour market, but it has also identified those few people who clearly have no intention of working.
    Mr. Fowler: The purpose of restart, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, is to provide regular employment interviews for people who have been out of work for more than six months and to help them find a suitable job. I believe that that has been valuable. I also believe—this goes further than restart—that there is no point in seeking to pay social security payments to those people who are not genuinely unemployed.
    Mr. McAllion: Will the Secretary of State accept that a reduction in the unemployment figures is not the same as finding real work for the unemployed? Will he accept that only one in every 100 of those who go on to the restart programme find real jobs? When are the Government going to start to honour the commitment they made in the 1979 election to create real and not phoney jobs for the unemployed?
    Mr. Fowler: I do not accept for one moment the statistic used by the hon. Gentleman. It is based on a total misunderstanding of the position. The number of jobs has been increasing every quarter for the past four years, and 1·2 million jobs have been created since March 1983. There are over 24 million people in employment in this country. They are significant figures and they are real jobs.
    Mr. Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the vast majority of those who are unemployed are unqualified and unskilled and that the vast majority of jobs available require skills and qualifications, and that the restart programme helps direct people towards training for skills? To that end, my right hon. Friend would be welcome were he to visit the skills shop in Banbury, part of the training access points initiative, where people can walk in off the street, find out what skills are required in the labour market and obtain training for those skills. It has been a great success in helping bring down the unemployment rate in north Oxfordshire.
    Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Restart provides an entry to programmes such as the community programme, enterprise allowance schemes and job clubs. In that respect, it is a valuable way of bringing people back into employment.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Secretary of State accept that, although the restart scheme may be of help to some of the long-term unemployed, it does not create any additional

    197
    new jobs? He may take credit for the reduction of unemployment levels at present, but is that not outrageous in view of the fact that the Government have created the highest level of unemployment and then sit there confidently and claim that they are reducing it, when it is still at an unacceptable level?
    Mr. Fowler: Unemployment is coming down and that is shown not just in the figures for the past month but for the past 12 months. That trend is unmistakable. The number of new jobs created has been increasing in every quarter for the past four years. I would have thought that that was something that Labour Members would welcome.
    Mr. Fallon: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the bulk of the reduction has been through people going into jobs rather than schemes and that unemployment in the north-east has now been falling by 1,500 per month for the past six months? Will he also confirm that evidence of recovery in the region is now unmistakable, even for the professional pessimists in the Opposition?
    Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is right. The same can be said of many other regions of the country. It is true not only for the north-east but for the west midlands and many other areas. The trend is unmistakable and, as my hon. Friend said, it is only the Opposition who are seeking to challenge that.

    Tourism
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are employed in the tourist industry in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Lee: Estimates of the number of jobs supported by tourism spending range around 1·4 million.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that a large number of jobs in tourism are seasonal and, as such, after three years people involved in those jobs will lose their entitlement to unemployment benefit? That not only hits those seasonal workers hard, but distorts the unemployment figures. What does the Department intend to do to ensure that unemployment benefit will be payable to seasonal workers who have been working in tourism for more than three years?
    Mr. Lee: Of course, some of the jobs in tourism are seasonal. One accepts that. If I remember correctly, that was the point made by the hon. Member in the Adjournment debate on tourism about 10 days ago. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the whole range of schemes available under the action for jobs programme, which will provide every opportunity for those who are in seasonal work to seek and achieve other job opportunities in their free period.
    Mr. Soames: Does my hon. Friend accept that employment will not increase in the tourist industry unless we solve our serious litter problem? Will he join me in approaching our hon. Friends to ask them to consider whether a Government litter warning could be placed on every disposable package sold over the counter in this country to try to cure this dreadful curse?
    Mr. Lee: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We should be ashamed of the quantities of litter on our streets
    198
    and our resorts. I agree, too, with the earlier point of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). I shall examine the specific suggestion made by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the Minister accept that in many areas of the country tourism is declining as more people are able to go to areas offering year-round facilities and guaranteed sunshine? Will he use his influence in the Cabinet to push for more indoor all-weather facilities to create, not only more seasonal jobs in tourism, but more year-round jobs of use to the community as a whole?
    Mr. Lee: Cornwall and the west country have many popular tourist attractions and people come to Cornwall for specific reasons. Increasingly, all-weather facilities are being constructed. Indeed, in all, £1 billion-worth of construction jobs are under way in the tourism and leisure industries.
    Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend take an early opportunity to publish in the Official Report the fact that a fundamental change has taken place in the relationship of manufacturing and service sector jobs since 1945? Having accepted, as most sensible people do, that the trend will inevitably continue, may I ask my hon. Friend to examine the ways in which tourism in particular, and the service industries in general, can help the Government to achieve their objective of increased employment opportunities in inner-city areas?
    Mr. Lee: The trends in manufacturing and service employment since 1945–46 are well known and well documented. Often, jobs in tourism and the service industries complement manufacturing, and vice versa. Let us take the example of the construction of a new hotel and the manufactured products that go into it — from building materials to kitchen equipment, furniture and uniforms for the staff. Tourism and manufacturing are in many cases complementary.

    Inner Cities
    Mr. Simon Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Employment what contribution his Department will make to Her Majesty's Government's strategy towards inner-city areas.
    Mr. Cope: Our Department and the Manpower Services Commission contribute an estimated £240 million towards employment, training and enterprise programmes in inner city partnership areas and the 16 task force areas. The inner cities already have a high priority for those programmes and will continue to do so.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister help us to resolve the apparent dilemma that exists in the Cabinet between his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment? The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is reported as saying that it is possible for inner-city residents to win inner-city jobs and that it is legally possible to discriminate in their favour. The Secretary of State for the Environment said that it was not possible to discriminate in favour of inner-city residents.
    Does the Minister think that in future his Department might do rather better than creating bodies such as the London Docklands Development Corporation, which has meant that unemployment in constituencies such as mine

    199
    has increased every year and that jobs have gone principally to people who live a long way outside the inner cities?
    Mr. Cope: The hon. Gentleman asks me to deliberate between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Section 35 of the Race Relations Act 1976, to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred, deals with the restriction applied to members of a particular racial group, of access to education, training and welfare on the ground that that restriction fulfills a special need for improvement in those respects. That in no way contradicts what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said.
    On the hon. Gentleman's second point, he knows that the south London business initiative and the north Peckham task force and other agencies of my Department are doing their best to help in his constituency.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am sure my hon. Friend accepts that the resolution of our inner-city problems does not rest on his Department alone and requires the willing co-operation of the Department of Trade and Industry, the Home Office and others. In his specific contribution to the problem, may I urge him to view with caution the speeches that he will hear from people in the inner cities who claim to represent various groups—they do not—and others who want to help but who should not be let out without a lead? Those people can usually spend vast sums of public money to very little effect.
    Mr. Cope: I shall do my best to identify the people to whom my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Rees: Does the Minister realise that, despite what was just said, few of the people who take the major decisions on the inner cities know much about them, live in them or work in them? Will he ensure that his and other Departments accept advice from those who live and work in the area, because some of the decisions that are taken are palpably foolish?
    Mr. Cope: Yes. The right hon. Gentleman has a lot of experience and will know that we take advice from those who are there and from people elsewhere who can contribute to the inner cities. We must bring expertise and assistance into the inner cities from outside those areas, as well as try our best to encourage enterprise and vigour in the people of the inner cities. We shall try to combine all these things.
    Mr. Leigh: What contribution has been made to the regeneration of inner-city docklands in London and Liverpool by the national dock labour scheme?
    Mr. Cope: I do not have responsibility in the Department for the national dock labour scheme. The scheme undoubtedly has a high priority in some people's minds and less in others. It is extremely difficult to tell what its contribution has been to employment.
    Mr. Heffer: Since, immediately after the general election, the Prime Minister said that her strategy was to win back votes for the Conservative party in the inner cities, will the Minister explain precisely what the Government's strategy is in relation to the inner city of Liverpool?
    Mr. Cope: The Government's strategy has been and remains to do all that we can to revive the inner cities. The
    200
    hon. Gentleman knows that much has been done in Merseyside, to some of which he has contributed. There is a series of schemes to improve it. The Department of Employment provides training and encouragement of enterprise, and other Departments provide urban development corporations, urban regeneration grants, enterprise zones, estates action and a series of other programmes.
    Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend agree that a large measure of the blame for joblessness in the inner cities rests with profligate Labour-controlled local authorities, whose high-spending policies have forced up rates, which in turn have forced out businesses and jobs?
    Mr. Cope: It is noticeable that the problems in the inner cities have grown while many local authorities have been spending a great deal of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money.
    Mr. Meacher: Is it not clear from the Department of Employment's subordinate position in the division of responsibilities that, after eight years of destroying jobs in the inner cities, the Government still have job creation well down their order of priorities? Since the Local Government Bill prohibits contract compliance — the Minister has not answered this question—what incentive will there be for suburban building contractors to take on local labour? What guarantee can he offer to local people in greatest need of training and employment that they will not simply be left on the sidelines?
    Mr. Cope: No one can guarantee the training and employment, but we have targeted our training and employment measures towards the inner cities in particular. The hon. Gentleman knows exactly why we have done that. My Department is working alongside the Department of the Environment, the Department of Trade and Industry and others in trying to solve these problems, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office.

    Tourism
    Mr. Kirkhopeasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the number of tourist visits made to the United Kingdom in 1986.
    Mr. Lee: There were 13·8 million visits to the United Kingdom by overseas residents in 1986.
    Mr. Kirkhope: I welcome that reply by my hon. Friend. What further measures is he considering to encourage an increase in the number of tourists to industrial areas and cities in the north of England, especially Leeds?
    Mr. Lee: The British Tourist Authority is working extremely hard abroad and the regional tourist boards are working very hard in the United Kingdom. I also pay tribute to what the Leeds city council is now trying to do in the area of tourism, and I draw to the attention of the House and my hon. Friend the new playhouse at Quarry Hill, the conference and exhibition centre close to the Dragonara hotel and the construction of the tropical house and butterfly house at Canal gardens at Roundhay park, among others.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Atkinsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Atkinson: With Iran exporting its terror on to the streets of London, Paris and Vienna once again, will my right hon. Friend consider new initiatives with our European allies to combat this form of international terrorism by the Ayatolla that will, for the first time, take into account the substantial and growing resistance to the Khomeni regime within Iran?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that terrorism cannot be tolerated, whatever its source. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been very active, together with his opposite numbers throughout the European Economic Community, in trying to get maximum co-operation on intelligence and all other matters between countries in the Community to enable us the better to fight terrorism. Matters inside Iran are for the Iranian people to deal with.
    Mr. Kinnock: I first of all support what the right hon. Lady has just said about the intensification of anti-terrorist measures. While it is clearly right that the Royal Navy Armilla patrol should act in self-defence if that is necessary, will the right hon. Lady confirm that she will not allow the British Ensign to be flown on any ships other than British ships?
    The Prime Minister: It is the Royal Navy's duty, through the Armilla patrol, to protect ships going through the Straits of Hormuz, and it does. The ships that it protects are ships that fly the British flag.
    Mr. Kinnock: I do not know whether the Prime Minister misheard me. Will she confirm that no ships other than British ships will be allowed to fly the British Flag?
    The Prime Minister: if other ships apply to fly the British flag, that application is considered separately in each case.
    Mr. Kinnock: If the Prime Minister is speaking of registration in Britain, that is one thing. If she is talking about a reflagging procedure, that is entirely another. Will she confirm that she will not follow the course of action followed by the United States Administration and permit the reflagging of ships that are not British ships, with the British Ensign?
    The Prime Minister: For "flagging", let me substitute the word "registration". If other ships apply for British registration, the ordinary conditions apply, and we consider each of them separately.
    Mr. Hill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although there is concern at the moment about the Iran-Iraq conflict, the campaign in Afghanistan seems to be completely forgotten? Is it not time to have another effort, in the United Nations in particular, to resolve the fighting in Afghanistan and to achieve the withdrawal of Russian troops?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, Afghanistan is never forgotten by this country, nor, do I believe, by the whole of the Western free world. We are constantly saying to the Soviets that so long as they are in Afghanistan there will never be any fundamental trust and friendship between our country and theirs. We are also constantly saying that Soviet troops should withdraw and that we would accept a completely non-aligned Afghanistan.
    Mr. Altonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Alton: Is the Prime Minister aware that, whereas the Church of England enjoys exemptions that have enabled it to provide facilities for the homeless, the infirm and the dying, the community charge will cost the Church of England an estimated additional £4 million a year, and that some monasteries, churches and convents will have to find an additional £10,000 a year? In view of that, how can the Prime Minister justify such a crippling burden? Does she accept the charge made by many churches that it is a tax on prayer and care?
    The Prime Minister: I have written—I am not quite certain whether to the hon. Gentleman or to other hon. Members — about the matter. The community charge will be a personal charge. The Church of England would not wish to avoid a charge that all other citizens would have to pay.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's initiative to stimulate scientific research and development will be widely welcomed? Do we not need the full support of the scientific community and industry's wholehearted commitment and investment in research and development, which are vital to their future and to our prosperity?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government's response to the Select Committee on Science and Technology in another place shows the importance that we attach to the subject. She will be aware that the proportion of our national income that we devote to civil research on the part of the taxpayer exceeds that which is devoted in either Japan or the United States. She will also be aware of the strenuous efforts that we have made to bring universities and private business more closely together. The new arrangement ensures that we shall have a committee within the Cabinet, to consider, together with the scientific community, the proper priorities for science and technology and to try to apply them in all the allocations of money to the several Departments.
    Mr. Michael J. Martinasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Martin: Referring to the Prime Minister's earlier reply, is she inviting merchant marine vessels from other countries to sail under the British flag and seek British registration so that they can be protected by the British Navy?
    The Prime Minister: No, nor can the hon. Gentleman interpret anything that I have said in that light.
    Mr. Lawrenceasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if Mr. Gorbachev wants to be seen in the West as a genuine peacemaker, he should show a bit more enthusiasm for the nuclear arms reductions discussions that are now going on and which are beginning to slow down?
    The Prime Minister: It has been said that the Soviet Union was dragging its feet in relation to the arms talks in Geneva. It is important that we take time to get the verification measures absolutely right. They are complicated, particularly if the Soviet Union wishes to retain 100 SS20s further over on the eastern side of the Soviet Union. We would like a global zero of such weapons. That is difficult enough to verify, but the additional retention of 100 would make it more difficult. It is possible to get an agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States by the end of this year. They must all now get down thoroughly to the detailed negotiations.
    Mr. Maxtonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Maxton: In view of the growing speculation that the poll tax in England will be phased in over a five-year period, will the right hon. Lady give an assurance that, first, there will be no reintroduction of phasing-in in Scotland, but that the full implementation of the poll tax in Scotland will be delayed until the full implementation of the poll tax in England and Wales? Secondly, will she give an assurance that the long title of the English and the Welsh Bill will allow for any amendment of the Scottish legislation that might take place?
    The Prime Minister: The legislation as if affects Scotland has gone through all its stages and passed into law through all the proper procedures. It will be implemented in Scotland exactly as it was intended. It is a matter for the United Kingdom Parliament. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is not applying for separatism and is, therefore, prepared to submit to the United Kingdom Parliament.
    Mr. Wells: What was the reason for, and the result of, my right hon. Friend's visit to Jamaica?
    The Prime Minister: I went to Jamaica to discuss the situation there with Mr. Seaga. The country has considerable economic difficulties and a difficult restructuring programme. It is receiving help from the International Monetary Fund. We give it some aid. For example, among other things I visited the police academy there, which receives help and resources from our police. I looked at the way in which Jamaica is fighting the drug problem. We discussed aid for another project because Mr. Seaga is keen to raise the standard of education in schools. We also discussed investment in Jamaica and the prospects for the world economy, among other things.
    Mr. Terry Lewisasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lewis: Now that the right hon. Lady has confirmed that those who care for their elderly at home will suffer under the poll tax, what is she proposing to help to keep those families together?
    The Prime Minister: If those who care for their elderly at home receive only supplementary benefit, as the hon. Gentleman is aware the community charge will first be rebated to the extent of 20 per cent. After that, such people will receive a payment equal to the average community charge for the United Kingdom to enable them to meet the rest. That payment may be above the amount of the community charge, or it may be slightly less. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the principle of the community charge is that adults in all parts of the country will pay the same charge for the same level of services after taking account of the needs of different areas. Therefore, people who receive only supplementary benefit will have that remission.
    Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the litter situation in Jamaica and say whether we have anything—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. As we are approaching the summer holiday perhaps the hon. Lady will rephrase that question. I do not think that the Prime Minister is responsible for litter in Jamaica.
    Mrs. Gorman: Did my right hon. Friend discuss the problem of litter in Jamaica? Will she inform the House whether we can learn any lessons from the way in which that problem is handled there?
    The Prime Minister: The Government of Jamaica — [Interruption]—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: The Government of Jamaica pursue a vigorous policy of privatisation, as a result of which the streets are extremely clean. There is not a piece of litter to be seen. The amount that the local authorities had hitherto spent on street cleaning, under which the streets were not clean, was put out to privatisation as a result of which—I am glad that my hon. Friend asked me this question—for the same amount of money the streets are cleaned privately three times a day, and are clean.
    Mr. Sean Hughesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the widespread disquiet on all sides of the House about the morality of the poll tax, will the Prime Minister accept that she ought to follow the precedent that she established last year and allow it to be decided on a free vote of the House?
    The Prime Minister: No. This was a foremost part of our manifesto. If people pay a high community charge it will be because they have grossly extravagant local authorities, which are frequently taking time to get expenditure down.

Iran-Iraq Conflict
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about yesterday's Security Council resolution 598 on the Iran-Iraq conflict.
My attendance at yesterday's Security Council meeting, together with six other Foreign Ministers, underlines the importance which we attach to this resolution: as well as representing a united approach by the five permanent members, it owes much to British initiative, and is the culmination of many months work.
This resolution, which was passed unanimously by the Council, is mandatory, and demands an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of forces to internationally recognised boundaries without delay. It is carefully balanced and favours neither of the parties more than the other. Both should be able to accept it. In the event of non-compliance, the Council will meet to discuss possible enforcement measures.
The Secretary-General will have a major role in the implementation of the resolution and with bringing the parties to a negotiated settlement of the conflict.
This mandatory resolution reflects the gravity with which the whole international community views the continuing conflict between Iran and Iraq and the consequent threat to stability and peace. The resolution is a determined attempt to tackle the underlying causes of tension in the region.
Attacks on shipping are at present the most dangerous symptom of that tension. I made clear in yesterday's Security Council debate the urgent need not only for a settlement of the conflict as a whole, but also for a halt to attacks on shipping in the Gulf. It is vital to uphold the principle of freedom of navigation, and the Armilla patrol continues to play its part by providing protection for British vessels.
The world has never been more united in seeking an end to this bloody and senseless conflict. The international community yesterday made plain to the parties that it looks for a comprehensive, just and honourable settlement of the dispute through negotiation and diplomacy rather than by force of arms. The United Nations resolution offers both parties the right way forward. I am sure that the whole House will join me in urging them to seize that opportunity.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that Her Majesty's Opposition fully support the unanimous mandatory Security Council resolution? We regard it as right that the Foreign Secretary went personally to the United Nations to advocate it.
Can the Foreign Secretary tell us how long the Government will wait to decide whether there has been compliance or non-compliance? Unless the resolution is speedily obeyed by both sides, we believe that the United Nations must take further action speedily in the shape not of Britain's curious present ban on what it calls lethal arms, but a total international arms embargo.
Britain should take the lead and should immediately examine whether the Iranian arms procurement agency at 4 Victoria street should be allowed to continue its activities. It is vital that nothing should be done to
206
exacerbate a dangerous situation. Will the Government, even at this late stage, discourage the United States from any adventurist plans to escort a reflagged fleet through the Gulf? Such an action is unpredictable and. could lead to uncontrollable escalation and grave consequences not only for peace in the immediate area but for world peace. It could alienate the Russians, whose co-operation is both essential and encouraging.
We support the Government's assertion of the right of self-defence for British warships in the area. Will the Foreign Secretary give the House a firm assurance that the British Government will not go beyond that and take provocative unilateral action? Will he distinguish between the formal registration procedure and the charade of a reflagging procedure — what we might call rent-a-flag? We believe that the Secretary of State for Defence was absolutely right yesterday to say that Britain should keep a non-provocative low profile. Any additional peace-keeping action should not be unilateral action by a single power but should be organised through the United Nations.
Is the Foreign Secretary aware that Her Majesty's Opposition will support firm British action to stamp down on Iranian or other terrorism here in Britain, and that if the perpetrator of Saturday's bomb attack is tracked down Britain must stand firm against any blackmail of the sort that is being used against France? Every effort must be made to keep potential terrorists out of Britain and to throw out provocateurs who are already here. Britain's streets must not be allowed to become a battleground for murderous factions, and Britain must play her part in reducing tension in what is today the world's most dangerous flash point.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: May I begin by welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to his new-found role in foreign affairs? I also welcome the support that he has given to the part played by the Government in the Security Council yesterday. I welcome, too, the vigour with which he expressed his support for appropriate measures against terrorism in all its manifestations in this country. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will look forward to receiving that support from him and his hon. Friends on every appropriate occasion.
It is clearly premature at this stage to give any judgment about the timing of further measures and further consideration because they depend on the progress that is made by the Secretary-General in the days and weeks ahead. The right hon. Gentleman may be assured, however, that Her Majesty's Government already refuse to sell defence equipment to either side if suet equipment would significantly enhance capability to prolong or exacerbate the conflict. That position is firmly upheld and widely respected by other countries around the world. It is recognised as probably being contrary to Britain's economic and commercial interests, but it is undoubtedly morally right. On that basis, I made plain yesterday that we should be willing — if that was judged right — to support a United Nations embargo on arms sales to either party to the dispute if that was thought necessary.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the arms procurement office is kept under the closest possible scrutiny, and its status—not only for compliance with the present state of the law and the present ban — will remain under close scrutiny in the light of changing events.

207
As regards other vessels in the Gulf, the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that not only are United States and British vessels there, but French and Soviet vessels are, too—I think that there are some minesweepers, a frigate and some trawlers. They are all there upholding the vital principle of freedom of navigation.
There is no question of denouncing United States activity for adventurism or anything else, although the phrase, coming from the right hon. Gentleman, did not surprise me. Each country is making its own contribution to upholding the principle of freedom of navigation. The United States has responded today to the Kuwaiti request. Britain has deployed the Armilla patrol since 1980, and, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday said that our ships are maintaining a non-provocative low profile presence. Our forces in the Gulf have the ability to defend themselves if they are attacked, and they have instructions to do just that. In other words, their role is self-defensive in support of British ships and non-provocative.
With regard to the suggestion about a United Nations naval presence, that would raise a number of very substantial complications. So far it has not been canvassed or suggested in the course of the proceedings in the Security Council, but, of course, it is not excluded from the range of possibilities.
Mr. Dennis Walters: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, while the Iran-Iraq war poses the most immediate and serious threat in terms of an escalation of war and that, therefore, while this resolution is much to be welcomed, the whole area continues basically to be destabilised by the Arab-Israeli conflict? Will he now use every endeavour to bring about a settlement in that long-standing and apparently permanent dispute?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the wider although distinct conflict that has caused us so much anxiety for so many years—the conflict between the Arab and Israeli sides. I remind him that we firmly believe that an international conference is the most practical way forward to the negotiations that are necessary between the parties directly concerned. That was fully discussed last week between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Reagan, and I discussed it again yesterday with Secretary of State Shultz. We have made plain our view about progress in that direction. We hope that the United States will take the lead in exploring the way forward to direct negotiations between the parties. It is clear that the next step will depend in large part on agreement within the Israeli Government about an approach to the international conference.
Dr. David Owen: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the Western diplomacy that has made it possible to involve the Soviet Union and China in the Security Council. Has he seen Mr. Gorbachev's statement of only a few hours ago in which he says that he is ready for discussions in any format and to undertake superpower action for peace in this area? In the light of that, and in the light of the British decision to have a non-provocative low profile naval presence in the Gulf, will the United Kingdom make representations to
208
the United States to take very seriously the Soviet concerns about the United States's build-up of naval vessels? That would give a little more opportunity for the Security Council's resolution and the Secretary-General's initiative to take effect.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the support that he expressed in his opening remarks. Like each of the other countries providing some measure of naval protection in the Gulf, the United States is well aware of the dangers of confrontation in the current tense situation. It joins with us in the terms of the resolution in urging restraint and caution on all nations.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's endorsement of the steps that we have been able to take to promote closer co-operation among the five permanent members. It is important for that kind of consultation and co-operation to continue and not for it to be confined to the five permanent members.
Mr. Michael Latham: I welcome the resolution, but will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it is far from the first Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in this war? Since the initial reaction of the Iranians was not very good as they did not attend the debate at all and condemned it, and since both countries are led by extremists, will my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that the two superpowers in particular will do everything possible by diplomatic means to bring pressure on the two leaders of those countries?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with my hon. Friend that this resolution by no means represents a solution to the problem. Even so, it is right to say that previous resolutions have been accepted by Iraq, provided that they are taken as a basis for producing a comprehensive settlement. I trust that Iraq will abide by the new resolution. I also agree with my hon. Friend that it is important for us to continue to urge Iran to respond positively to this new step. I can understand why my hon. Friend may have some doubt about the likely effectiveness of what is taking place.
It is important to remind the House that this is a formidable new step. The resolution is even-handed between Iran and Iraq and has the backing not only of East and West alike but of the non-aligned countries, and includes all five permanent members of that group on the Security Council. It carries the prospect of a further resolution if necessary to enforce it. In my judgment, it represents the best available springboard so far for peace in the area.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Foreign Secretary reflect on the complexity of the issue in relation to the fact that, while he is trying to achieve cooperation within the United Nations, it seems increasingly difficult to achieve co-operation between the four powers with naval vessels in the Gulf, especially on rules of engagement? Without disclosing anything confidential, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether there have been any discussions between ourselves and the United States with regard to determining agreement on rules of engagement and the escort of merchant vessels through the Gulf? In addition, what, if any, additional facilities have the United States asked for in relation to the base on Diego Garcia?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I preface my remarks with the observation that there are a number of matters which it is customary not to discuss in detail. For example, it is not customary to discuss the rules of engagement in detail. However, the presence of the Armilla patrol is intended to be non-provocative and de-escalatory. Its position is constantly reviewed in the light of changing circumstances. The United States Administration are of course well aware of the presence of other naval forces in the area and of the dangers of confrontation in the current tense situation. We keep in close touch with other naval forces in the area, but there is no question of any formal integration.
Sir Ian Lloyd: As the ability of both Iran and Iraq to finance their massive imports of arms is substantially, if not wholly, dependent on their ability to export oil, has the Security Council considered an embargo on the export of oil from those two countries? That would be by far the quickest and most effective way of bringing the war to a halt.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I confess that my hon. Friend is more frequently to be found among the ranks of those drawing attention to the difficulties, if not the improprieties, of embargos of that kind. In fact, the discussions in the Security Council, so far as this point has been discussed, have concentrated on the importance of an arms embargo as possibly the most effective measure.
Mr. A. J. Beith: While the resolution is very welcome, does not the Foreign Secretary recognise that its effectiveness will require not just an arms embargo but a serious attempt to deal with the massive arms trade which is being carried out under his very nose in the city of Westminster at a time when it is reckoned that there may be as many as 500 arms dealers in London?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also consider the fact that the protection of merchant shipping is an international issue, and should we not now consider ways of using the United Nations flag in that role of protection?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman's second point, as I have said, raises a formidable range of difficulties and it has been recognised in the past to do so. It has not therefore been the subject of discussion or consideration in the proceedings in the United Nations. That is why a number of different national forces are playing the parts that they are playing. However, it is not excluded from further consideration.
With regard to activities within this country, the law is enforced in this country. The organisation of transactions in arms sales is not illegal unless the goods concerned are imported into or exported from the United Kingdom in breach of British law. Any rumours or suggestions of breaches of the law in that respect have been investigated and have not been substantiated. Any evidence of illegal activity would be investigated most thoroughly by the appropriate authority.
Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: As Iran has a vested interest in keeping the gulf shipping lanes open and peaceful to operate its terminal at Kharg Island and elsewhere, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the somewhat unhappy juxtaposition of the Irangate hearings and the much heralded reflagging of Kuwaiti ships tends to give the impression to the world that Iran will be the most likely aggressor in the Gulf when history
210
has proved that that is completely incorrect" To ensure that the resolution is given a fair wind, will lie therefore make it crystal clear that apportioning blame in the Gulf about the starting of that war is not possible and that the British Government will remain completely even-handed in any dealings they have with any of the combatants?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Our position is ore of even-handedness without any discrimination between the two parties in relation to our ban on arms sales and in every other respect. One of the components of the Security Council resolution provides for the possibility of an inquiry into the blame for the initiation of the conflict, since that matter has often been pressed by Iran. Beyond that, we press strongly the need for a cessation of all attacks on shipping both ways by both sides. In our judgment, they are the most potentially dangerous components of the present scene. We believe that Iran and Iraq should refrain from any such attacks.
Mr. James Lamond: Is it not rather late in the day for the Foreign Secretary to discover that the sales of arms to other countries is immoral? Does he recall that any time any Opposition Member makes that point he is met by a clamour from Conservative Back Benchers about the jobs that would be lost in this country if we were to take such a moral stand? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman sure that the Prime Minister will satisfy herself that every step along the way towards this peace solution will be verifiable, in view of what we have heard from Colonel North and others in the United States, when it seemed that even the President was not quite sure what was going on with regard to the supply of arms to Iran?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not prepared to follow the hon. Gentleman in the long exploratory disquisition at the end of his last sentence. As for this conflict, our policy is well known. The guidelines were set out by me in the House on 29 October 1985. We refuse to sell to either side defence equipment which will significantly enhance the capability to prolong or exacerbate the conflict. Those rules are scrupulously implemented. They will remain in force whether or not there is a United Nations embargo. Our defence sales policy is a direct result of our impartiality in the conflict.
Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. and learned Friend was talking about the possibility of an international conference on Arab-Israel relations. When does he see that taking place? Does Israel have a veto over it? If it does, what action does my right hon. and learned Friend envisage the international community taking to make sure that this gross injustice is rapidly brought to a conclusion?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is straying rather far from the point of my original statement. We believe that an international conference represents the most practical way forward for negotiations between the parties concerned. We have been pressing the case for progress towards such a conference. We have been pressing our partners, and indeed everyone we can legitimately persuade, to press their case. We can do no more than that.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Because of the appalling implications of an Iranian victory in terms of the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, about which some of us have been warning for many years, why was the right

211
hon. and learned Gentleman not involved in launching such an initiative some years ago, particularly in view of the enormous boost that this conflict has given to the international arms trade? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that, if things get risky or go wrong in the Gulf, he will take the decision as to what Britain's reaction is and that it will not be taken by the Prime Minister under Reagan's instructions?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who often poses rather worthwhile questions, should have allowed himself to be led down the path of fantasy at the end of his question. Her Majesty's Government's policy will be determined by Her Majesty's Government in accordance with the ordinary conventions.
As for the hon. Gentleman's underlying question, he will be aware that we have supported a number of previous resolutions by the United Nations to try to bring the conflict to an end. It was our judgment, which is why we set the process in hand last autumn, that we needed to try to mobilise a resolution carrying in its initiation the support of all permanent members and carrying in its conclusion the support of all members of the Security council, just as we were able to secure it yesterday. That is an important addition to everything that has gone before.
Sir John Farr: Although it is important that the Royal Navy should adopt a non-aggressive, low profile role in the Gulf, will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that should any Royal Navy vessels or any of the vessels that it is escorting be attacked they will in no way be inhibited in or prevented from deploying all their defensive weapons systems to the full?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend raises an important point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has made it plain that the Royal naval ships there are provided with self-defence equipment relevant to the full range of threats in the region. We have every confidence in their being able to defend themselves on that basis.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: If the Foreign Secretary ponders the bellicose remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), will he also bear in mind, and impress on our American friends, that the deployment of larger naval forces in the Gulf, with all the attendant risks that something will go wrong—as it sometimes has, even when adventurism has not been involved—will leave the Prime Minister and the President with little option but to deploy even bigger fleets, with no guarantee that the conflict will not become open-ended?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: We start from the position that it is vital to uphold the principle of freedom of navigation. That is why, in addition to American, French and British ships, there are Soviet Union ships — three mine-sweepers, a frigate and some trawlers — present for exactly the same purpose: to defend shipping in the Gulf. Each country is making its own contribution to upholding that principle. The hazard arises from the continuation of attacks on shipping. For that reason, the Security Council resolution calls for a ceasefire, and we hope that it will lead
212
to a cessation of such attacks. The best contribution to the reduction of tension would be a cessation of attacks on shipping by both sides.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm reports that the Government of Kuwait have made a formal request to Britain to have some of their vessels reflagged under our flag? What will be our policy in response to such a request; and, if it is granted will my right hon. and learned Friend note that to honour it will almost certainly require an increased naval presence, which it will be difficult to see as de-escalatory?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That would not be an intergovernmental matter. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) informed the Kuwaiti Deputy Foreign Minister of that this morning. If there were any question of registering or re-registering a Kuwaiti or any other ship, it would be a purely commercial and procedural arrangement, to be carried out in accordance with the existing law on the British shipping register. There is no need for a formal decision by the Government.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Do not the carefully-worded phrases that the Secretary of State has used time and again mean that we would consider selling some sort of arms to Iran? What sort of arms are so innocuous that that would be allowable?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about the position of private arms dealers in the United Kingdom. Would the British Government at least stop the export of licences for arms bought or procured in this country to Iran or Iraq?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The answer to the second question is that the position is exactly as I have stated. Our law applies to prohibit any illegal transactions in connection with the import or export of arms to or from the United Kingdom. Any allegations of infringements of that kind would be immediately investigated.
I cannot emphasise too strongly that our defence sales policy in regard to both sides in the conflict has existed for a long time. It is absolutely plain and without qualification. We will refuse to sell defence equipment that will significantly enhance the capability of either side, to prolong or exacerbate the conflict. Those rules are scrupulously implemented. They are the result of total impartiality, and are well understood and widely appreciated by the wider international community. That is why our prospective support for an arms embargo is so widely respected. It is well understood and clearly founded.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I must have regard for the subsequent business on the Order Paper, which is heavy today. I shall call those hon, Gentlemen who have been standing regularly.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: It must be the wish of the House to try to bring an end to the war, which has claimed over 1 million casualties. However, will my right hon. and learned Friend be cautious about endorsing a worldwide arms embargo without that embargo being watertight? It may be our definition of our neutrality to supply weapons to neither side, but other countries define theirs as providing both sides with weapons, and they may

213
continue to do so, in defiance of United Nations resolutions. If they supply weapons, including chemical weapons, in secrecy, it may make the position even worse.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the practical difficulties of any embargo, including an arms embargo. I have described the United Kingdom's policy, which proscribes arms sales to either side and has done so for a long time. The possibility of an arms embargo being imposed by the United Nations would have to be considered against whichever of the parties failed to respond to the resolution that we passed yesterday. It has not yet been decided; it is for consideration. It would be effective only if it were to be universally and effectively supported. Therefore, the matter has to be very carefully considered.
If the House wants us to play an effective part in trying to bring this conflict to a conclusion, a worldwide United Nations enforced arms embargo against the non-complying party must be a legitimate weapon of the international community.
Mr. Bruce George: The Secretary of State assured the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) that our ships would be able to protect themselves. Is he prepared to give an assurance that the weapons mix on our ships will he sufficient for them to defend British merchant shipping, which I understand is the purpose of the Armilla patrol? Is he able to say what the Armilla patrol is up to? There are not enough ships to provide convoying. What will be the relationship between the three ships on patrol and British merchant shipping that is transiting the Gulf area?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not prepared to give detailed material about that. The Armilla patrol provides cover for British shipping when it is in the relevant area. It has recently been the subject of some reinforcement and its resources are constantly reviewed. Inevitably some risk is involved in any operation of this kind. All I can say is what I have already said: I offer to the hon. Gentleman the assurance of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that the ships are provided with self-defence equipment that is relevant to the full range of threats in the region.
Mr. Derek Conway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that a company that manufactures main battle tank and other personnel carrier engines in my Shrewsbury constituency has for the last three or four years been prevented from supplying the re-engining of both Soviet tanks for Iran and also tank transporters? That is positive evidence of the Government's determined stand. I support and endorse my right hon. and learned Friend's strong principle, but it is important for all hon. Members to appreciate the definite effects that this has on our economy and on jobs. Wise words have to be paid for by many of our constituents.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. Our even-handed and firm enforcement of our arms embargo, as I have described it, involves the probable loss to British industry of hundreds of millions of pounds worth of business. It brings us no thanks from either side in the conflict, but we have no doubt that it is appreciated—and rightly so—by the wider international community.
Mr. David Winnick: I recognise that the major responsibility for the present crisis undoubtedly lies with the unsavoury régime in Iran, but, to return to an earlier theme, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether there is absolute need for all the powers, particularly the United States, to exercise the greatest self-restraint, without which the crisis could escalate? That would play right into the hands of the leaders of Iran and break the international consensus that, fortunately, was achieved last night by the United Nations Security Council resolution.
Bearing in mind that we are about to enter a very long recess, if the crisis were to escalate, may we have a guarantee from the Foreign Secretary that the House would be recalled at the earliest possible opportunity?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, any question of that kind would undoubtedly fall for consideration through the usual channels, and by the Leader of the House. The United States, together with all the other nations that were represented yesterday, is well aware of the dangers of confrontation in the current situation. That is why the resolution
"calls upon all other states to exercise the utmost restraint and to refain from any act which may lead to further escalation and a widening of the conflict and thus to facilitate the implementation of the present resolution."
Mr. Tony Baldry: Although I am aware of the difficulties that lie ahead, does not my right hon. and learned Friend think that the House may be in danger of losing sight of what has been achieved? With the help and leadership of the United Kingdom, the United Nations has at last come to the united and unanimous resolution to start to take a grip on what for a long time has been an area of international anarchy. At last, with Britain's leadership, the international community is now taking a firm lead and hold on trying to resolve this very difficult question.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is right to say that the resolution that we supported yesterday presents a unique opportunity to end this uniquely horrible war. It is the longest major conflict of the century. The most effective step that would unwind tension immediately would be for both Iran and Iraq to refrain from attacking shipping on either side.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: If I could nag back to the question that was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), may I ask who makes the judgment—and on what criteria do they make it—as to what equipment should not be sold because it enhances the capability? I follow the Foreign Secretary's own wording. Are there contracts outstanding? What equipment is innocuous?
What is the position about the end-user certificate system when the most sophisticated weapons, we understand, can be bought in the bazaar at Peshawar? Has not the time come for an investigation into the end-user certificate system? What does the Foreign Secretary mean when he says that these exports can be investigated by "the appropriate authority"? Who is the appropriate authority?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The control of the export or import of arms is conducted by the Government through their normal agencies—the licensing procedure, as laid down

215
by statute. The appropriate authority in the first instance for the enforcement of that legislation is Customs and Excise.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Notwithstanding our good example, it seems to be abundantly clear that both combatants are finding it all too easy to obtain arms, presumably from those who supported the resolution yesterday. Does this not mean that there will be very little chance of an arms embargo? What can we do to ensure that that happens?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is clear that arms supplies are still reaching the combatants because there is not yet in force an international arms embargo. I have been describing our policy on arms sales to either side. The prospect of a mandatory, worldwide arms embargo is something that would have to be considered at a later stage. Then it would be most important that it should be properly complied with.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I bring the Foreign Secretary back to the question of reflagging? In reply to a question from me on 17 July, the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) said that the reflagging of merchant shipping was a commercial and administrative matter. Surely the Foreign Secretary must understand that when there is any application for reflagging there are also very important political and military considerations that have to be taken into account.
Has there been an application from Kuwait or any of the other Gulf states for reflagging, using British flags? Secondly, will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that, if an application is received, it will be refused? If he cannot give that assurance, will he at least assure the House that in a matter of such military and political importance Government consideration will be given precedence over commercial and administrative considerations?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can only repeat what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister said earlier: any registering or chartering of vessels would be a purely commercial, procedural or administrative arrangement which would not call for a formal decision by the British Government.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Do the Government believe that it is in the British national interest to assert the so-called principle of free navigation wherever a problem arises? Do we have a role as world policemen?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have a role, in regard to the interests of Britain as a power with a substantial mercantile trade throughout the world, in upholding the principle and securing its application wherever we sensibly can for the benefit of the British merchant marine.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What contracts are outstanding? Is there any evidence that the Iranians or Iraqis have developed or are developing a nuclear military capacity?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not know what contracts the hon. Gentleman is asking about. Even if I did, I would not be able to answer the question, nor should I do so.
Mr. Kaufman: In response to the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that a reflagging operation involving Britain and Kuwait was purely commercial arrangement. However, there are defence implications. Therefore, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying, that, if there were a purely commercial reflagging arrangement between British and Kuwaiti interests, the Royal Navy and British foreign policy would be dragged along behind such a private commercial arrangement? If so, the consequences could be grave and incalculable.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman is taking the matter too far. The question of re-registering or chartering a vessel in a different form is, as it has long been, a purely commercial and procedural arrangement in respect of which there is a wide range of legal and other implications that must be complied with.
Mr. Kenneth Hind rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman obviously was not here when I said that I would call hon. Members who had been rising regularly.

Channel Tunnel Bill
4.13 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): I beg to move,
That, in respect of the Channel Tunnel Bill, notwithstanding the Resolution of the Standing Orders Committee of 16th July, the Standing Orders relating to Private Business, so far as not complied with, he dispensed with and the Bill be permitted to proceed.
This is the first time for many years that I have had an opportunity to take part in a Channel tunnel debate. When the Channel tunnel was last counselled by Mr. Anthony Crosland I took part in the debate and spoke for the Opposition, who were aghast at his decision. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) may have shared my view, although I cannot remember whether he was here at that time.
Mr. Peter Snape: I shall put the Secretary of State out of his misery. It is nothing to do with the debate, but on that occasion in 1974 I was a Teller for those who wished to continue with the scheme.
Mr. Channon: I was proud to be counted by the hon. Gentleman on that occasion.
The purpose of the motion is to give effect to the will of this House, which has been expressed on other occasions, and to enable the House to consider later today the Lords amendments to the Channel Tunnel Bill in respect of the road access arrangements to the Folkestone terminal area.
I shall set out the essential procedural background. As the House knows, the Channel Tunnel Bill is a hybrid Bill and, like any other hybrid Bill, it is expected to meet, insofar as it affects private rights, certain requirements of the House relating to private business, that are set out in the Standing Orders for Private Business. These cover important matters, such as giving notice to parties affected and placing advertisements in newspapers.
Deadlines are set which are based on an annual cycle for presentation and deposit of Private Bills. In particular, those who are seeking to promote a Private Bill must deposit the Bill in the Private Bill Office on or before 27 November in the Session concerned.
With regard to the Channel Tunnel Bill it will be within the memory of the House that it was quite impossible to introduce the Bill by November 1985, which was before the Eurotunnel project had been selected by the Government. Accordingly, after the Examiners had reported that being out of time was the only respect in which Standing Orders had not been complied with, the House, by a large majority, gave dispensation from Standing Orders in respect of the Bill on 3 June 1986.
Amendments affecting private rights, which are sometimes referred to as "rehybridising" amendments— that is not the most elegant word in the English language — are also, like a hybrid Bill, subject to certain of the Private Business Standing Orders. There is, therefore, a technical breach of such Standing Orders if the amendments are tabled out of time. Clearly, however, if the Bill is introduced out of time, the amendments must fall foul of Standing Orders in the same way. It is the Government's submission that the House should dispense with Standing Orders in respect of these amendments in
218
exactly the same way as it did for the Bill. However, before inviting the House to approve the procedural motion, I shall refer to the substance of these amendments.
The purpose of the amendments is to alter the arrangements for the access roads to the Folkestone terminal site. This matter first came before the House on 17 July 1986, when my hon. Friend the Minister explained that a number of bodies and individuals had petitioned the Select Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Alex Fletcher, in favour of revised arrangements which would take much less land and would not drive a new road between the villages of Newington and Peene.
The petitioners who were seeking the change included the Shepway district council and the Kent county council. All those who were speaking on that occasion were in favour of the change. Accordingly, the Select Committee was instructed to consider alternative arrangements.
For their part the Government, as promoters of the Bill, issued the necessary notices and made the necessary deposits to conform with Standing Orders, except for being out of time. A new deadline was set for petitioners who were adversely affected by the change, and the Select Committee considered the proposed amendments on 21 October.
The House will recall that in that event the Committee, on the basis of evidence not only from a small number of petitioners who would be adversely affected by the change but also from Eurotunnel about operational implications, decided against making the change. At a later late a new package was put together which was known as the "joint southern access", which made use of some, but not all, of the previously proposed amendments, and therefore raised. no new requirements in relation to Standing Orders. Those revised arrangements received strong support in the Standing Committee and, subsequently, after the petitioners affected had had an opportunity to petition the other place, they found favour with the Select Committee and the Bill was amended accordingly.
The House will recall that last week the House decided to refer these amendments to the Examiners. Subsequently, the Examiners reported that the applicable Standing Orders had been complied with in all respects, except for being out of time. On Friday, however, the Standing Orders Committee decided not to give dispensation.
The Standing Orders Committee is not required to give reasons for its decision, and it is not for me to speculate on them. The Government and I believe that the issue is straightforward. The amendments have very widespread support, although the decision of substance as to whether or not they should be made is one for later today. The effect of the motion, if the House carries it, is simply to enable the House to make these changes. It was impossible for the amendments to be introduced without being given out of time, and I therefore submit that dispensation should accordingly be given.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is unusual, is it not, when a Committee of the House makes a recommendation to the House, for its Chairman not to catch Mr. Speaker's eye and report to the House the reasons why it came to the decision that it did? We are in a difficult position, because it is traditional for the Chairman of Ways and Means to be Chairman of the Committee. I understand, to use the old legal phrase, that he is neither mute of malice nor mute

219
of God, but one might say mute of office. That being the case, will you advise us who will speak on behalf of the Committee, which is chaired by your illustrious deputy, so that the House may know at first hand why the Committee gave the House the advice that it gave, which we are now being invited to reject?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct. The Chairman of Ways and Means was the Chairman of the Committee, but this is by no means an unprecedented motion before the House. Although the Chairman may not be able to give his reasons, there are hon. Members who may wish to speak who were members of that Committee. Therefore, I do not think that that point will go by default.
4.20 pm
Mr. Peter Snape: Two matters arise directly from the motion before the House. The first concerns the rights of the House and the second concerns the rights of individuals who are affected by the project. The Secretary of State, as is his right, did not spend much time on the former and did not mention the latter at all. I propose to spend a few minutes on the former and rather longer on the latter because, regardless of the fact that the debate is being held in what is regarded as prime time, the rights of an individual petitioner to this House or another place ought to be fully debated and discussed. Where those rights have not been upheld by this House or another place, they should be fully debated at this, the last opportunity to so debate them before the Bill receives the Royal Assent.
To listen to the Secretary of State one would think that the decision recommended by the Standing Orders Select Committee on 16 July that the Standing Order relating to private business should be not dispensed with was the same as the decision taken by the Standing Orders Select Committee on 3 June 1986. I submit that it is important—
Sir John Farr: That is totally incorrect. In 1986 the Standing Orders Select Committee was locked, with equal numbers on both sides and the Chairman of Ways and Means, the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker) declined to give a casting vote and asked the House to decide. It was quite different last Thursday. There was no question of equality of view. The Standing Orders Select Committee voted by five votes to three against the proposal.
Mr. Snape: That goes to show the danger of giving way before one has completed a sentence. If the hon. Gentleman had listened properly he would have heard that I said that the implication of what the Secretary of State said appeared to be that the decisions were similar. My next sentence, which the hon. Gentleman pre-empted and, which like the comments of his hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) robbed me of half my speech, was to say that no such conclusion should be drawn from the decision of the Standing Orders Select Committee on 16 July. As the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) correctly points out, on 3 June 1986 the Standing Orders Select Committee declined to come to a decision, whereas on 16 July the Standing
220
Orders Select Committee voted by five votes to three against the dispensation that the Secretary of State seeks in this debate.
I do not know whether this motion sets any great precedent for the House. I leave such matters to the hon. Member for Tiverton who is invariably correct in his interpretation of the rules. I have no doubt that if he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will enlighten both sides of the House on the custom, practice and precedent, particularly on recommendations from the Standing Orders Select Committee. That is all I wish to say about the rights of the House. We should not be misled into thinking that the two decisions that have been taken by the Standing Orders Select Committee are identical. The decision taken on 16 July this year is far more important and fundamental than that taken on 3 June 1986.
The second part of my remarks deals with the right of an individual petitioner, Mr. Barry Pattinson of Mill house, Ashford road, Newington. He owns one of a number of properties that will be affected more seriously by what the Secretary of State has correctly called the "joint southern access" rather than by the original scheme. Hon. Members on both sides who have taken an interest in the matter will be aware that the two proposed accesses to the Cheriton terminal were known respectively as WG1 and WG2. The Select Committee on the Channel tunnel, of which I was a Member, decided that the original proposal—WG1—was the proposal that the Committee would wish to see upheld. It was only subsequently that the alternative proposals were put forward for WG2 and were eventually accepted by the Select Committee in another place.
It is the Opposition's view that the rights of the petitioner to whom I have referred have not been fairly upheld or dealt with by reason of the fact that a decision taken by a Select Committee of this House has been overturned during a debate in the other place. I understand— I rely on Conservative Members who are more expert at procedural matters—that only the hybrid Bill procedure permits such an event to take place. On a private or public Bill, a decision arrived at in this House cannot be overturned in another place. I propose to spend a few moments detailing how and why the Opposition feel that Mr. Pattinson has been shabbily treated as a result of the decision in another place.
On 17 July 1986 the Government moved a motion in this House which had the effect of enabling the Select Committee to make the necessary amendments to the Channel Tunnel Bill in order to give effect to what were known then as the Shepway proposals. During the debate on the motion the Minister of State, Department of Transport said:
"Although the revised option would reduce the amount of land taken in the terminal, it would involve the acquisition of certain land not currently included in the Bill. For that reason, it is necessary to serve notice on land owners and tenants and to publish advertisements in the normal way so that those affected can petition against the amendments to the Bill." —[Official Report, 17 July 1986; Vol. 101, c. 1315.]
On 31 July 1986 the substituted plans in connection with the alternative access proposal were deposited in both Houses and at other offices as required by the Standing Orders. On 1 August 1986, notice to the landowners affected was served on the form required by the Standing Orders. I understand that notices were published in The

221
Times, Dover Express, East Kent News, Deal Express, Folkestone Herald and London Gazette, as required by the Standing Orders of the House.
The petitioner to whom I have referred lives at the Old Water Mill, Frogholt. He was formerly a tenant of the Department of the Environment but some years ago acquired the property from it and has expended considerable time and effort on restoring the mill, which dates from the 15th century.
As I said earlier, the original access proposals contained in the Bill — WG1 — did not involve the compulsory acquisition of Mr. Pattinson's property. However, the amendments that the Select Committee in this House were authorised to make would have necessitated the demolition of his home. Mr. Pattenson petitioned against the proposed alterations and was heard by the Select Committee on 21 October 1986. The Chairman of the Committee. Sir Alex Fletcher, told Mr. Pattinson that the Committee would be considering what view it might take of the alternative scheme within the next few weeks and told Mr. Pattinson that it was
"a 50/50 shot at the moment as far as your home is concerned."
On 18 November 1986 the Select Committee issued its special report. In discussing road access to the Folkestone terminal, the Committee considered that the suggested advantages proposed by Shepway did not justify choosing the alternative scheme, WG2. Accordingly, as was said in paragraph 123, the Committee favoured the "operation-ally preferred" original scheme.
One would assume that, having heard all the evidence and decided to reject the proposed amendment, the Select Committee conveyed not only that message but perhaps a sense of relief to Mr. Pattinson who was told that his home was to be spared and that he could continue restoring and repairing the property. However, following subsequent discussion held between Eurotunnel, Kent county council and the Shepway district council, an alternative to the proposal that the Select Committee had rejected was formulated and it was decided by the Government, in the way outlined by the Secretary of State, to empower the Select Committee in another place to make the necessary amendments to the Bill.
As I said, the alternative scheme—the joint southern access — involves the demolition of Mr. Pattinson's property. On the instructions of the Department of Transport, a letter was sent to him on 18 February 1987 notifying him of the amendments set out in Shepway district council's petition to the House of Lords. He was informed that he had until 27 February to deposit a petition against the proposed amendments — amend-ments which, it must be remembered, had previously been rejected by a Select Committee of this House.
The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): No.
Mr. Snape: The Minister says, "No." But most fair-minded people would agree that, once the WG2 decision had been rejected, Mr. Pattinson and his property had been reprieved and that was that. I concede that there are a few differences between the amended scheme and the WG2 scheme, not favoured by the Committee. I make no complaints about the Minister's work behind the scenes to change the original decision of the Select Committee, and I well understand the reasons for it. However, the fact that
222
the decision was changed by the Select Committee in another place understandably leaves the petitioner with a sense of grievance.
I hope that we shall not have a detailed and convoluted argument about whether the scheme was identical to WG2; I accept that it was not. However, it had the same purpose, the reasons for which escaped the majority of us on the Select Committee. We took it that shuttle train passengers leaving Cheriton would have as their destination London or elsewhere. I shall choose my words carefully so as not to offend the Minister. because I understand the constraints of his office. We took it that those passengers would wish to head not for Folkestone but perhaps for more attractive parts of the country.
The alternative egress accepted by the Select Committee in the other place would head all the traffic leaving the terminal towards Folkestone initially. Passengers would have to change direction somewhere along the egress road if they wanted to head for London or other parts of the United Kingdom. That struck the Select Committee as somewhat illogical, which is why we made our original decision.
I hope that I have not strained your patience too much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I return to the question of the petitioner on whose behalf I am making my plea. A letter was sent to Mr. Pattinson on 18 February notifying him of the amendments as set out in the petition to another place — the petition of Shepway district council. I understand that Mr. Pattinson was not served a formal notice to landowners as prescribed under the Standing Orders. I understand, too, that no notices of the amendments were published in the national or local press or in the London Gazette. As the House will understand, the rehashing of proposals that Mr. Pattinson thought had been swept away by the decision of a Select Committee of this House inevitably caused him a degree of personal mental stress, and I understand that he was compelled to seek medical treatment.
The amendments relating to the joint southern access scheme were accepted by the Select Committee in the other place according to its special report of 6 May 1987, in paragraphs 16 to 27. We believe that, in deciding whether the admitted non-compliance with the Standing Order relating to the amendments should be the subject of a dispensation, all the relevant circumstances should be considered to determine whether it is just and equitable to dispense with the observance of safeguards that are, in large measure, designed to protect individual rights.
Opposition Members believe—it is to be hoped that this is also the view of one or two Conservative Members —that the rights of individual petitioners are worthy of being upheld. They should be upheld despite the wishes of multi-billion pound corporations, district councils or hon. Members of this House, whatever their party views and wishes and regardless of whether they support or oppose the scheme.
If the Opposition's view prevails and the motion is defeated, what can be done? We could of course reconvene what is left of the Select Committee of this House. I am conscious of the fact that we shall be short of a Chairman because Sir Alex Fletcher was not re-elected at the last general election.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: He was a victim of the poll tax.
Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend reminds me that he was a victim of the poll tax. However, perhaps we should not chuckle too loudly, because we are also short of Nick Raynsford, although I do not know whether he was a victim of the poll tax.
Mr. Howard: He was a victim of rates.
Mr. Snape: I do not think that we should argue any more about who was a victim of what. Let us all be grateful that we are back, anyway.
The Select Committee will be short of a couple of its distinguished members, but I do not think that that should stop us. We might have some difficulty in recruiting the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) because I understand that he has been elevated to higher things. However, the rest of us could get together as we did last September, although not necessarily in the opulent surroundings of the hotel in Hythe where we spent a few balmy summer evenings. I suppose that I will have to speak for myself: I am quite prepared to meet in the not so balmy surroundings of this House, in spite of the fact that we will not be right royally entertained during the Recess as everywhere will be locked, bolted and barred.
On my serious point, it is surely for a Select Committee of this House to make decisions and recommendations. Its decisions, in particular, should not be overturned by the decision of a Select Committee in another place. We wish to uphold both the rights of the House and the rights of an individual petitioner. Therefore, I invite those Conservative Members who say a great deal about individuals' rights and freedoms to join the Opposition in voting against the motion.
4.38 pm
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Mr. Deputy Speaker, your appearance in the Chair reminds me of the number of times on which it has been averred that Mr. Speaker, and therefore his Deputies, are not prevented from exercising their rights as Members of the House to address the House on any issue in debate if they so choose. We are in a serious position because, whereas normally the Chairman of a Select Committee which has made recommendations which are the subject of debate in the House would explain the reasons why the Committee came to the conclusion that it did, it is just possible that, despite your presence in the Chair, the House will be without that guidance. Individual Members of the Standing Orders Committee, of which I am one, are not authorised on behalf of their colleagues to speak for the Committee as opposed to themselves.
It so happened that I was in the minority that voted in favour of dispensation, but I did so in the knowledge that Mr. Pattinson would not necessarily be without the redress of being heard by the House before it came to a conclusion on the amendment which would deprive him of his home, rather than merely having been heard in a somewhat peremptory and discourteous manner by a Committee in another place.
The vehicle by which Mr. Pattinson's case could have been put to the House first-hand would have been a Government resolution giving the parliamentary agent acting for him permission to appear at the Bar of the House and there to make a statement in Mr. Pattinson's cause. That is the course which I pressed upon the Government. In practical terms, I know from experience
224
that when the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) was Leader of the House, he refused to allow such a motion to appear above the line on the Order Paper on the grounds that it was not his motion. In that case, it was my motion, but I take the same view on this occasion as I did then: a man should not be condemned unheard, as was the case then, or should not be deprived of his home, as in this case, without due process in this House.
Although I voted with the minority in the Standing Orders Committee for dispensation, in the knowledge that the Government could give that redress if such a motion was recommended to the House, I now discover that no such motion has been put down on the Order Paper. Therefore, my intention is to vote with the majority on that Committee, since the House is invited to dispense with the recommendation of that Committee, which never votes on party lines and which is a quasi-judicial Committee. That is why it is chaired by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rather than by a Back-Bench and non-office-holding Member of the House.
This is a serious issue. The only way in which Mr. Pattinson's case arrives before the Members of the House who will decide later in today's proceedings on the amendments recommended to us by another place is through a Member such as the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) — who put the case accurately, fairly and not at inordinate length — or through other Members of the House. On this issue, I do not admit to there being two sides of the House. This issue is one for the House of Commons, not for a number of political parties. If the House of Commons is not precious of the rights of individuals subjected to this heavy-handed process, the House is selling itself short.
Parliamentary agents and the right to petition exist in the case of hybrid Bills precisely because they are dealing with the rights of an individual in the same way as a private Bill would. But by what can only be described as an extraordinary aberration of procedure—certainly one of which I was unaware—the Standing Orders for private Bill legislation which would have prevented Mr. Pattinson from finding himself in this position, if the peril to which he was exposed was one of a private Bill, do not apply to what is termed a hybrid Bill, which was defined by Mr. Speaker Hylton Foster—I think it was on 10 December 1962, was it not—as a public Bill which has certain characteristics of a private Bill. That is why part of this procedure is the private Bill procedure.
I have sat on the Select Committees which have reviewed public business Standing Orders. A Joint Committee of both Houses is presently reviewing private Bill procedure. No Select Committee which has reviewed the operation of Standing Orders in the House has addressed itself to the anomaly whereby, when it is acknowledged that the protection of the private Bill procedure should apply to someone deprived of his home in this way, by that anomaly, which I had not previously observed, he is deprived of the protection of petitioning and being represented before a Select Committee of both Houses on the measure which this House is being invited to pass today.
I will not accept arguments that Mr. Pattinson has already petitioned once in this House about the value of his homestead, the fact that it was in the Domesday Book and matters of that sort. He is entitled to put before the House, either in person or by parliamentary agent, his case on the issue which the House will decide later today and

225
which has never been before a Select Committee of this House. It has only been before the Select Committee in another place, and I do not believe that anyone who reads the Hansard of that Committee's proceedings will come to the judgment that he was treated other than in a shoddy and discourteous way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman, who is an expert in these matters, knows that he cannot say what he has just said, and I hope that he will withdraw it.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I think I said that if anyone read the record, he would come to that view, not that anyone who has read the record has come to that view.
Mr. Snape: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. He has the most amazing memory of anyone in the House since Lord Wilson of Rievaulx was standing at the Dispatch Box. I draw his attention to column 230 of the minutes of evidence taken before the Select Committee in another place—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not compound what I regarded as the offence of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who was reflecting adversely—as he must not do—on proceedings in another place. The hon. Member for Tiverton is as sharply aware as any Member in the House that he must not do that.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I certainly would not claim that a Member who has read the transcript should express that view, but I am entitled to speculate that, in the hypothetical case, if a Member who has not yet read it wants to read it, he might come to that conclusion. I maintain that, by the thickness of something very thin indeed, I have just — only just — kept within the conventions of the House.
Mr. Snape: Perhaps I can emulate the hon. Gentleman in, I was about to say, the amount of thickness. However, I would be leading with my chin if I were to do so. Mr. Deputy Speaker, without in any way condoning the description that you thought the hon. Gentleman had made of the Chairman of the Select Committee in another place, perhaps I could ask the hon. Gentleman what he would think about somebody—I will not use their exact words —trying the patience of the Committee too far or saying: "We cannot deal with every detail of negotiation. A very handsome offer has been made by Eurotunnel. Accept that with good grace and get on with it." If somebody said that, I would not describe that as the height of politeness.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: A precedent that comes to mind that is an unhappy one is of the attempted compulsory purchase order served on Naboth on behalf of Ahab, his King. He was offered ample compensation. The point of principle was that he was not willing to accept it and do the deal. He came to rather a bad end. However, I do not want to be guilty of irrelevance, so I will return to the thrust of what I wish to say.
It is clear that Mr. Pattinson has not been heard in this House on the question that will be put from the Chair later in our proceedings, if the motion that we are now debating is carried. Members of the House are entitled to take a view about whether the proceedings in another place are an adequate substitute for the rights that Mr. Pattinson would have been at liberty to exercise to a Committee of
226
this House in the normal exercise of private Bill Standing Orders. That is the issue. The issue is not the purely technical one about advertisements at certain dates. Mr. Pattinson knew his home was threatened notwithstanding the absence of those advertisements and the fact that it was impossible, as the amendment only appeared at the point in time that it did, for it to have been deposited by the due date last November. If those were the only issues, I would have no compunction in recommending that Standing Orders be dispensed with. However, the issue is one of substance and will not go away. If we allow it to, we will have done the House a disservice for the future.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is it not correct that Mr. Pattinson did present petitions, was represented before and gave evidence to Select Committees in both Houses of Parliament, and that, in giving evidence, the access to which he takes exception was discussed in great detail?
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The point I made was not that he has not been able to petition against a different amendment that is not to be put before the House today. That is not in dispute. What I assert — it cannot be denied, because it is true—is that the amendment that will be put to the House later today was inserted into the Bill in another place by a Select Committee there and has never been before any Committee of the House Therefore, it is undeniable that Mr. Pattinson has not been heard by any Committee of the House. He cannot have been heard by a Committee that has considered the amendment because, before later on today, that amendment will not have left another place and been transmitted for consideration to a Committee of the House. This is the issue. It is by fudging points of principle that dangerous precedents are created. It is immensely expensive and personally onerous to object even to a private. Bill going through Parliament. To object to a hybrid Bill that has the whole majesty and financial status of the Government behind it is even more oppressive. If we abandon this point of principle, we will have done something that those who come after us will be ashamed of.
4.54 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has spoken with great fairness, persuasive power and knowledge on those matters, as all of us can testify, none so eagerly as myself because I can recall the advice that he has given to the House on a number of those occasions. It does; not mean to say that I think that he is always right. However, I believe that any Government would be foolish rot to listen to what he has to say on such matters, particularly when he has reconsidered his previous attitude. He is not altering the view that he took on the Standing Orders Committee, but he is prepared to come to the House and say that we should look afresh at the matter because we have fresh considerations before us. We owe him a debt of gratitude for the way in which he has put his case, and the Government and the rest of the House would be most unwise not to take account of what he has said. particularly because something special is happening here this afternoon.
The House of Commons never has to apologise for taking time, even at this stage in the Session, to discuss a conflict between individual rights and what the

227
Government or other majorities may think are the rights of others. The most famous debates that have taken place in the House have been about individual rights, from ship money onwards. It is right that we should take up time, even when the Government have their own particular reasons for arranging the business for today in the way that they have.
I am also glad to be associated with my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) in these matters. The Channel tunnel is about the only subject on which I do not happen to agree with him. The only good reason for the Channel tunnel is that it is supported by the National Union of Railwaymen. I differ from the whole project. The whole thing will come to a disastrous end anyhow. However, I am glad to be associated with my hon. Friend on the matter of principle that he, too, like the hon. Member for Tiverton, has insisted must take precedence over the other claims.
Mr. Snape: Does my right hon. Friend accept from me that it is not a question of the project being supported by the National Union of Railwaymen. I quite often disagree with the views of that union. I take the somewhat old-fashioned view, which I hope that he will accept, that if a project is good for the railways, it is good for Britain.
Mr. Foot: I know the high altitude on which my hon. friend always approaches these questions of principle. He never strays from it. Therefore, I can understand that he sees the two things as absolutely indistinguishable. It is a good way to operate. I am merely emphasising that I am especially glad to be supporting the claim that he is making. I believe that it is a very important one for the House to take note of. We are insisting that individual rights be protected and not be swept aside, and particularly not swept aside just for the convenience of the Government at a particular moment in the Session.
Would the motion have been brought forward in this form if the House had not been rising at the end of the week? We might have had a little longer to proceed. The triviality of the reason that the Government have had to bring it forward is emphasised all the more. The Session is not coming to an end. There is no great immediate crisis that demands that this change in procedure should be forced upon us at this time. It is just to suit the convenience of the Government in the management of their business.
There are few things less reputable than a Government managing their business towards the end of a Session. We can see what they are doing. We only have to look at what they are up to. A discussion about members' salaries is coming up. We are not quite sure which way the Prime Minister's mind has turned on that, but that may become more evident when Members vote later on. The Government have said to themselves. "Let us not have it too early on. Let us arrange the business on that Tuesday so that we can have this kind of discussion beforehand. It would suit us to get rid of this awkward case." This motion has been brought forward in this form today to suit the Government's convenience, even though it inflicts such injury on individual rights—as we have heard. That is a disreputable thing for the Government to do.
The Secretary of State has just taken over a new post. I feel sorry for him in this case as it is not his name on the motion—it is nothing to do with him. He has never heard of it before in his life. He would not have dreamt of
228
coming before the House with such a proposition a few weeks ago. The motion is in the name of the Leader of the House, who has not been here at all from the beginning of the proceedings. We have the new Patronage Secretary, but he is a very poor substitute for the Leader of the House. Indeed, when I look at the whole business arranged for today and this motion, I see that it is a Chief Whip job forced on the House of Commons to suit the Government. The real Chief Whip who organised it— the Leader of the House — should have been here to move his own motion. Any previous Leader of the House would have done so. I once took the view that, once a Chief Whip, always a Chief Whip. I took that view about the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) but maybe I was wrong about him. The right hon. Gentleman does not act like a Chief Whip. When we see the casual camaraderie in which he greets everyone in the House he is no longer acting like a Chief Whip. The Leader of the House should try to escape from his old habits. He should not try to force through a motion of this major character at this time of the day. The Government probably thought that nobody would notice or perhaps that there would be only three or four hon. Members in the House.
The House should give full credit to the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) who has fought on behalf of his constituents throughout the campaign so thoroughly and deliberately and who drew the attention of the House to this matter when the business was announced last Thursday. Not many others thought to do so, but even at that stage the Leader of the House thought that he might be able to get away without too much trouble.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me, as a member of the Select Committee on Standing Orders — I do not seek to disparage my colleagues on that Committee—that the decision was taken, not because of the civil rights of Mr. Pattinson, but because the majority of those on that Committee were pathologically anti-Common Market and anti-Channel tunnel. Mr. Pattinson's interests are, in my view, only peripheral to what occurred in that Committee.
Mr. Foot: We all know the state of cool, deliberate, uncalculated equanimity with which the hon. Gentleman approaches every issue. In the light of that, I would not accept immediately his judgment upon his fellow Committee members. I dare say that they were in fuller possession of their faculties than he was when the recommendations were going through.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said that the normal procedures of the House should be accepted. If they are to be broken, they can be broken only on absolutely first-class grounds and when the case has been fully made by those responsible. The case has not been fully made by the Secretary of State. He is not responsible for it. We all know that he would not have dreamed of presenting a motion such as this only a few weeks ago. This motion has been devised by the new Leader of the House of Commons, who should have been here in order to present his case to the House. If individual rights are treated in such a scornful manner and are set aside, and the chief Minister responsible does not think that it is necessary for him to attend the House of Commons on the day that that happens, indeed it is not a good safeguard for the future and not a good augury for the way in which individual rights will be protected in years to come.

229
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East said, I hope that the House of Commons will vote on the issue of whether individual rights are protected. That does not mean to say that we shall pass judgment on the Committee. Indeed, the Committee has not had the chance to present its case. In so far as it has had such a chance, we are overturning the decision that was presented to the House on 16 July—only a few days ago. We are asked to believe that, in the last few days of the Parliament—between 16 July and 18 July— a great crisis arose and that, somehow, if the matter does not go forward, the Government and the machinery of government will be put into great difficulty, so we must be prepared to accept it. The Government will get into further and further difficulties with the Channel tunnel project. That may be the reason they want to rush it through.
The people with money are the ones who are pushing. They are the people to whom the Government listen. Certainly they are most of the people who have the most money. Of course huge amounts of state money are now involved in the Channel tunnel project. Unfortunately, that money will not be spent in my constituency, elsewhere in Wales, in Scotland, or in most parts of the country that are crying out for it.
Mr. Keith Speed: The right hon. Gentleman must know that the first two major contracts were placed in Glasgow and Leeds for the Channel Tunnel Group—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should check this matter before it goes any further. We are here to discuss not the merits or otherwise of the Channel tunnel, but the strict terms of the motion.
Mr. Foot: I was discussing the demerits of the Government's method of bringing it forward. In the proposition that they put before the House, they were persuaded by the pressures of getting the Channel Tunnel Bill through. Whatever we may think of its merits or demerits, I shall certainly be prepared at some other time, if I were in order, to argue how similar amounts of money could be much better invested in other projects that could bring many more jobs. That is not the matter that is to be discussed here. Why have the Government come forward and tried to rush through such a disreputable measure as this, at the fag end of a Session just before we depart for the summer recess? It is because money is at work. Money is saying to the Government, "If you do not get on with the Bill, we shall lose some of our money." That is not a proper reason for overriding individual rights or those of the House of Commons.
5.7 pm
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) has a great sense of the traditions and practices of the House. I am not at all surprised that he has described this miserable little motion as a disreputable proceeding. He is quite right in sensing that the power of money lies behind the motion. Perhaps the power of money is connected even with the timing of the motion. Indeed, it may not be unconnected with one aspect of money that various suggestions seemed to float around the House earlier today to the effect that it might he helpful—I must admit that it is the first time it has been said — if, in the course of the Bill's proceedings, I were to make a long speech. That might not be unconnected with the need to postpone the exquisite
230
embarrassment of discussing our own pay in prime parliamentary time. I am sorry, not for the first time in the Channel Tunnel Bill proceedings, to have to disappoint the Treasury Bench. I shall make a short speech and, I hope, keep entirely in order and to the point.
Of course there are many good reasons for vigorously reiterating the arguments against the French benefit match, which the Channel tunnel project will be, but I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will not permit that. Therefore, I shall concentrate entirely on the notion. It is a purely procedural motion; it is all about an issue of principle, and a thoroughly bad principle at that. Let us remember that the House has many Standing Orders. They are the rules that govern us and ensure fair play inside the House. Certain Standing Orders — the ones that are relevant to the motion—guarantee fair play for people outside the House. Those rules guarantee, for example, that an ordinary citizen, whose livelihood might be lost or whose home might be destroyed or purchased compul-sorarily as a result of legislation such as this Bill, would have due and proper notice served on him within an acceptable and clearly defined timetable.
In plain language, Standing Orders are the rules that protect the rights of the small man against the abuses of the legislative power. We even have a Committee to interpret the Standing Orders because they are so important and because of the way in which they have developed over the years. I understand that it is normal for all three Deputy Speakers to sit on the Select Committee on Standing Orders, as do several senior hon. Members who have procedural expertise, despite tie bizarre imputations that were cast by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).
That Committee has a reputation for being impartial and non-partisan. It goes without saying that its findings are respected and that, until today, they are invariably honoured by the House.
The Select Committee on Standing Orders ruled that the Government had broken the Standing Orders and that no dispensation should be given to them. What did the Government do? In a sudden flurry of expediency, they jettisoned all pretence of making the traditions and principles of the House stand up and instead tabled this disreputable little motion. Let us face it, this motion aims to shoot the ref, to sack the umpires and to move the goalposts. We are being asked to reject Parliament's own rules of fair play which, in the case of these. Standing Orders, were designed to protect the rights of snail home-owners who would be disadvantaged by Eurotunnel's mega-scheme.
We are seeing the first flexing of the muscle of the elected dictatorship that a Government with a big majority can so easily turn into. We are seeing that muscle used to do a favour for the big foreign business men of Eurotunnel and, in the process, to do down a few ordinary Kentish people by overthrowing our own parliamentary rules. That is not an attractive proposition and it is in sharp contrast to all the fine words that were spoken at the outset of the Bill about giving the people of Kent fair treatment and a fair hearing.
I could quote many words, but I remind the House that the then Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said when speaking to the Franco-British Council on 14 May last year:

231
"I firmly believe that it is necessary to allow the doubters and objectors the full panoply of Parliamentary opportunities and to respond to their objections whether they be personal, political or emotional with reasoned answers. Nor must we be seen to be stampeding the Bill through Parliament."
Surely those are words for eating.
Far from leaning over backwards to ensure fair play, this is the third major parliamentary occasion on which the Government have had to apologise, climb down or table a special motion to allow themselves to break their own rules and deny objectors their legitimate parliamentary rights.
The first occasion was on 3 June last year, after a tied vote in the Select Committee on Standing Orders. The issue then was whether Standing Orders had been broken, whether large numbers of petitioners had been denied their rights and whether many people had been stampeded by the Bill. The gut issue was that a number of notices had not been published by the due dates. One memorable example is that in a parliamentary answer a Minister from the Department of Transport said that the Department had placed a certain advertisement, on a certain date, in a newspaper called the Canterbury Times. The advertisement did not exist. It had not appeared on the stated date and the Canterbury Times had ceased publication in 1768. There were red faces all round. As a midnight compromise, the petitioning period was extended and as a result nearly 5,000 ordinary people put in petitions.
One would have thought that, after all that fuss and bother, the Department of Transport would have been careful not to deny petitioners their rights when the issue went to the other place. However, lo and behold, what did we find on the opening day of the hearings of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill? On 2 March 1987, virtually the opening words of Lord Ampthill, the Chairman of the Committee, were:
"The Committee have been most concerned to learn that despite public assurances to the contrary the Department of Transport did not intend to publicise the date 18 February, the day by which the Petitions had to be lodged, and that the Department was not induced to honour its undertaking until halfway through the Petitioning period … one is compelled to return to the leaflet which the Department put out before the proceedings in another place … there is a very clear undertaking made in that leaflet and the Department has reneged."
Mr. Fitzgerald, the Government's counsel, then said:
"My Lord, I take your Lordship's point completely and apologise … So far as Petitioners or potential Petitioners have been disadvantaged, obviously I unreservedly apologise to them."
The Chairman then said:
"Very well, Mr. Fitzgerald, we will not spend any more time on this one; we of course accept your apology but I think it is a matter which the Committee very greatly regrets."
One could not be much clearer than that. For the second time the Department of Transport was caught cheating in a particularly sneaky way, trying to deny petitioners their rights. It had to apologise and to grovel. After twice being caught out red-handed, one might have thought that the Department of Transport could not face another apology, another parliamentary debate or another "putting matters right" special motion.
However, they are procedural recidivists down there in Marsham street when it comes to denying people their rights and to breaking the rules. Here we are again, about to go into recess, about to discuss hon. Members' pay, and the Secretary of State comes along with a motion — I
232
sympathise with the Secretary of State for having to move the motion because it is nothing to do with him—the message of which is, "Whoops, sorry chaps, we've been caught cheating again."
The Department has only three excuses. One is that the big guns want the road that lies behind these amendments. It is true that Eurotunnel, the French, the Government, all hon. Members representing Kent constituencies and even the noisy little pom-pom from Thanet, South want the road. However, the big guns are no excuse when the small man is denied his rights. For almost the first time in such proceedings I agree with every word spoken by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) in his eloquent appeal in defence of the small man's rights.
The gentleman who was denied his rights—how good it is that we are spending so much time discussing them — was Mr. Barry Pattinson, whose house will be demolished as a result of the Bill. The history of Mr. Pattinson's experience is rather like that of a prisoner who is led to and from the scaffold so many times that in the end he does not know whether he will be reprieved or hanged. Under the original Bill, Mr. Pattinson's house was not to be demolished. Under the Government's proposals of July 1986, it was to be demolished. The Select Committee rejected those proposals by one vote. Mr. Pattinson was reprieved and told that his house was safe. The Standing Committee then heard a motion from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who proposed a clause that would have caused Mr. Pattinson's house to be demolished. However, in circumstances of great nocturnal confusion, the Government persuaded my hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment. We then waited until the Lords' proposals were published in May 1987. Under them, Mr. Pattinson's house will be demolished.
Mr. Pattinson has been very badly treated. This time round, no notices were served on him about the new scheme telling him that he was again up for execution and that his house was again due for demolition. The spirit and letter of the Standing Orders were breached. No notices were served on him. Mr. Pattinson, poor man, has had a nervous breakdown or collapse of some kind. However, he was able to rush, virtually unprepared, to the House of Lords Select Committee, where he was given a hearing. I know that I am not allowed to comment on that hearing but perhaps I could develop a comment by simply quoting the words that were spoken. Mr. Pattinson was allowed to give evidence for about eight minutes. Then the Chairman came on rather strongly with these words:
"It is no comfort to you but it is to the Committee that only five houses have to be knocked down as a result of this vast project of the terminal at Cheriton. But that does not do much for you personally but do recognise as I said earlier that the effects of the previous scheme for access to the terminal site would have had really very upsetting effects, a much more enormous upsetting effect on other people".
At that point, Mr. Pattinson's agent intervened to ask whether Mr. Pattinson could be given the help of a house agent in approaching Eurotunnel. The Chairman replied:
"You must not try the patience of this Committee too far. We cannot deal with every detail of these negotiations. A very handsome offer has been made by Eurotunnel, accept that with good grace and get on with it."
Mr. Pattinson said:
"If this Channel Tunnel does not get built, which is quite possible, it will not get built, may I ask that I am allowed to stay in my property or re-gain—"
Mr. Pattinson was then interrupted again by the Chairman, who said:

233
"We really cannot enter that one, I think we really must not enter any more on this subject. I would not work on the assumption the Channel Tunnel is not going to be built, Mr. Pattinson, it is."
Poor Mr. Pattinson tried to get in edgeways, but the Chairman said:
"Go on, Mr. Pattinson, we really must move on to Mr. and Mrs. Fry now."
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) speculated that the Chairman's attitude might have been peremptory and discourteous, and the House can judge that for itself. However, I do not like to see the small man bullied in such a way. I think that the bullying is continuing now. The House of Commons is being made to vote down its own Standing Order so that Mr. Pattinson can be bullied into oblivion and his house can be demolished. It is pretty shameful for an institution founded, as we were, to preserve individual liberties, to go along with this.
Of course I accept that my hon. Friends mean well, but they spelt out their intention clearly last Thursday. They have got to get the Bill through by the Summer recess. Why? The answer is so that Eurotunnel can send in its various money men around the world to the souks of Arabia, the geisha houses of Tokyo, the banking parlours of Libya and Africa and the Bourse of Paris to pass the hat round.
We should not let money rule this thing. Parliament should not go along with the steamroller money men. Parliament should stick to its traditions. Parliament should vote the motion down, which is rightly gravely embarrassing to the Government, and a good thing too.
5.20 pm
Mr. Stuart Holland: I share the concern expressed on both sides of the House, especially that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), about the motion which proposes that Standing Orders relating to private business be dispensed with. I echo what he said about there being two main issues involved—first, the rights of this House and, secondly, the rights of individuals. It has been evident throughout the passage of the Bill that the powers of the House to scrutinise what is done in transport in relation to this project have been severely curtailed. I would like to give you, if I may, Mr. Deputy Speaker, some examples of that, as I am sure you would not wish me to come to the House with merely unsubstantiated allegations.
Ministers have claimed on key issues, to which the House and the Committee have the right to answers, that these are matters for British Rail. It is no surprise that I am especially concerned about the proposal for the overwhelming bulk of the traffic generated by the Channel fixed link to exit at the Waterloo station terminus.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman goes any further, I must tell him that what he is saying is not relevant to the motion and that he must not pursue that line of argument.
Mr. Holland: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am aware that there are amendments concerning that matter which we shall consider later. I am glad that Mr. Speaker has been able to select amendments which I have tabled. I should like, however, to raise a procedural matter concerning the handling of questions put to Ministers by hon. Members.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman ought to address himself to the motion before the House, which is concerned with the decision of the Select Committee on Standing Orders, and whether the Standing Orders ought to be waived in respect of the Lords' amendments. He must address himself to that.
Mr. Holland: I am anxious that we should not suspend the Standing Orders, and that we should be able to give further consideration to the issues raised by the Lords amendments, because we do not have adequate answers to a range of questions concerning them. For example, time and again on the issues raised by the amendments, concerning the dispersal of traffic and other matters which we shall be considering later today, I have pt t questions to Ministers and have been palmed off because they said they were not prepared to answer them, as they are matters for British Rail.
An illustration that is relevant to the dispersal clause—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would rather that the hon. Gentleman did not seek to give illustrations on matters that are not relevant to the motion before the House. We may consider the Lords amendments later today and the matters to which he is referring may be relevant then. However, they are certainly not relevant now.
Mr. Holland: The proposal before us is that, in effect, we should suspend Standing Orders and therefore the House would be unable to consider further the issues raised in Committee.
If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rule me out of order for raising some of those individual issues, it will be extremely difficult for me to make a case against the suspension of Standing Orders. If I may submit — of course I am subject to your guidance—there is a good deal of room for the expression of argument concerning individual cases. Such arguments have already been made by both sides of the House.
We should consider the issues that were raised in the Lords during the debate on the Lords amendments, on Report and on Third Reading. Columns 876 and 1160 of the Lords proceedings show that there is strong support for Customs inspection being undertaken on the trains.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that his line of argument is not relevant to the motion before the House. Perhaps he might hold his arguments to see whether he will have the chance to deploy them when we reach the Lords amendments later in our proceedings.
Mr. Holland: I shall certainly do that, and I might not be as brief as some Conservative Members have been. However, that depends on whether or not I am able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The rights of individuals to submit evidence to the Committee of this House and the Committee of the other place have been severely curtailed. That is true not just for the individual case concerning the person whose house may or may not be demolished, depending on what is agreed at a particular stage of this Bill, and therefore whose personal future is in jeopardy, but also in other respects. A range of questions have been put in Committee, but either they have been ruled out of order

235
by the Chairs of those Committees or, when it came to those relating to British Rail, they have received no adequate answer.
Let us consider the simple, basic question of how much traffic will be generated by the tunnel fixed link. It is intolerable that the answers given display utterly varying orders of magnitude. The Minister gave an answer to a question that I put down on Monday and estimated—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is disregarding the advice I have already given to him. If he persists I must ask him to resume his seat. Either the hon. Gentleman addresses the motion before the House, which he is not doing at the moment, or he resumes his seat.
Mr. Holland: There are a whole range of issues concerning this Bill and I make no apology to the House for raising those concerning my constituency. It has not been possible—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, with or without apology, is out of order if he seeks to persist in raising the matters that concern his constituency, but do not concern the motion before the House. Unless the hon. Gentleman can confine his remarks to the motion before the House I must ask him to resume his seat.
Mr. Holland: With such active co-operation from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to raise one point if I may gain your tolerance. The Lords Committee has been unable to deal adequately with the range of issues in the Bill that affect both individuals and community groups. Certainly we shall be able to address some of those issues later today on some of the other amendments. However, we shall he unable to raise those matters in an adequate manner because some of the most basic figuring concerning the traffic to be generated by the Channel fixed link is still unclear. Widely varying estimates have been given.
I support what has been said by some Conservative Members with regard to the Eurotunnel figures. Those figures are high because it wants support for its flotation and therefore wants to get finance for the project. British Rail's estimated figure is much lower. The feasibility of the higher figure of traffic being sustained by a single terminus—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. If I allowed the debate to continue along these lines, we would have a wide debate about the Channel tunnel in general.
5.30 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: Hon. Members may be relieved to hear that I shall be brief. This is the first wedding anniversary that I have been able to spend in this country and I shall be in trouble with a higher authority if I speak for long.
Unlike the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) I have no objection to any of the amendments themselves but, as you have just reminded us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are not debating them. We are discussing a procedural motion that deals with the suspension of the statutory protections that the House affords to the people of this country. The motion is designed to enable a powerful, potentially monopolistic organisation to ease its way past the individual liberties that the House is here to protect.
236
This is an unseemly motion, papering over an unsound project. It is a feature of quasi-monopolistic, powerful bodies, of the sort that Eurotunnel will no doubt become, that, again and again, they have to come to the House and to other bodies to ask for the rules to be changed so that they can carry on with their business. I suspect that this will not be the last time that a special dispensation is requested. Many of us fought proudly under the Conservative banner, and continue to do so, because we believe that the Conservative party supremely stands for the protection of individual liberties in areas as far removed from the motion as the sale of council houses and the break-up of the monopoly of the trades unions. So it is sad to find that, in a matter such as this, the Government appear at both levels to be moving against individual rights. That is demonstrated by the measure before us and by the underlying fact that we shall be setting up this quango, for want of a better word.
During discussion of the last procedural motion on the Channel tunnel, I reported the deep unhappiness of many of my constituents about the lack of procedures that has obtained in these matters. I have noted the number of people who have told me that they would have liked to make their representations heard but could not do so for reasons that have already been outlined at length by previous speakers. Such people feel justified fears that if their normal rights, as upheld by the House, are suspended, more may follow. Their fears extend to things in the real world outside the Chamber—to the wave of ribbon development that is currently spreading across the garden of England, as it once was.
I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it would be out of order for me to comment on specific issues relating to the underlying effects that the Channel tunnel will have on the area, but it sets a frightening precedent for my constituents once again to see the rules being suspended.
Unlike previous speakers, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) who, I believe, may be speaking in a little while, have not been privileged to take part in the various debates of the past 17 months on this issue.
Mr. Snape: Why not?
Mr. Brazier: We were not Members of the House, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you in your wisdom will determine whether I am in order or not; however, I would not be able to forgive myself if I sheltered entirely behind my constituency interests in saying that I feel profoundly unhappy about this matter. As I said earlier, this is an unseemly motion, covering an unsound project. There is a feature of monopolistic bodies that come to the House from time to time to ask for the rules to be suspended; they tend to do so most often when they are in trouble and losing money. I firmly believe that Eurotunnel will come back to the House because it will get itself into problems which, if I were to describe them in too much detail, would take me beyond the rules of order.
I started my business career with what I believe is the world's largest mining consortium. Should the procedural motion be passed, and should the promoters find themselves this summer in the markets succeeding in raising money, they would rapidly discover that geologists only tell one the bad news after one has started to dig the hole. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover

237
hopes to mention some other ways in which the project is fundamentally unsound, so I will not dwell on them in too much detail. If the procedural motion is passed—and, as a result, we rush through the legislation before it has been fully debated — and the money is raised in the markets this summer, we may find that we have done precisely the reverse of what the Conservative party tried to do and succeeded time and again in doing—namely, reducing the number of powerful and unnecessary bodies in the country. I refer to trade union barons and to some of the state monopolies that have been liberalised.
I am bringing my remarks to a close, as I see no great benefit in length. I fear that we shall find that we shall have built a fundamental frailty into our trading relationships with Europe, based around a sad, sick and unhappy monopoly the legal basis of which will have been pushed through against the rules of the House. It will survive making a miserable loss and competing in a price war against the ferries—ultimately achieving a position that will be bad for Britain's trading relationship with Europe.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have allowed me to go a little beyond the bounds of the motion and I do not want to abuse your indulgence in this matter any further, except to say that I think the House may find that we shall wake up one day to discover that we have built an Achilles heel for Britannia.
Nevertheless, if the motion goes through this afternoon, and the money is raised in the markets, speaking as the hon. Member for Canterbury, for myself and, I believe, for some of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Kent, I may say that there will be no carping or sour grapes from us. Whatever our reservations, and whatever the feelings in our constituencies, we shall work with the organisation to make the best that we can of the project, provided that the Government and Eurotunnel respect the environmental considerations in east Kent.
5.38 pm
Mr. Keith Speed: I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), and to one or two other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate for making it clear that we are not discussing the motion but are engaged in Channel tunnel bashing yet again. I do not object to that, because I have heard similar speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South over the past 18 months. I do not think that they improve much with the keeping, and I expected the speech that he made today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) made some important points. However, let us consider what we are discussing: changes that were designed to meet the overwhelming wish of the majority of people in the area concerned. They were supported by all parties—I stress, all parties—on the Shepway district council. Of course, Mr. Pattinson and, no doubt, one or two other individuals, are important people who are entitled to be heard, but the House must understand that hybrid Bills are hybrid Bills, not private or public Bills. They are special beasts.
Secondly, Parliament includes another place. We may not like to admit it, but there has been a certain element of schizophrenia here today. Hon. Members have said that Mr. Pattinson and others have been able to speak only to another place, and have not been able to get across their point of view about the changed access to this House—as if the Select Committee of another place were some
238
inferior body. As a constitutionalist I do not accept that. The other point of view is that, if one accepts that a Select Committee in another place is part of the procedure, then Mr. Pattinson was given scant and bad treatment. I would be out of order if I commented upon that, but I do not accept that he was given such treatment.
It would be unwise for the House in a frenzy of anti-tunnel, and in one or two cases a frenzy of anti-European, activity to attack a procedural motion designed to try to help local people. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) was certainly anti-European in his speech. The motion is designed to help Eurotunnel, the Government and the local authorities to act n a sensible way to meet what is clearly the overwhelming wish of local people, of the local elected authority and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). He has been working on this with great sensitivity on behalf of individuals and his constituents and also working with all the parties in the Shepway district council. I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend for his work in trying to get the best answer to a very difficult problem.
It is, perhaps, sometimes forgotten that the original scheme would have taken an additional 40 acres of very beautiful countryside and was overwhelmingly unpopular with local people. Those points have to be made because they have not been made before. The House always faces this kind of dilemma when one embarks upon great public enterprises. That applies whether the enterprise is a road, an airport scheme or a tunnel. At the end of the day, some people inevitably lose their property. Sometimes it is not a case of people losing property but of unfortunate people who will be adversely affected by a scheme and will have to live with it. They cannot sell the property and have to live with the traffic or the aeroplanes rushing past. Wherever possible we should take every step to ensure that such people, who are important, are treated properly, sensitively and generously.
Parliament has to decide whether one, two or three individuals can be allowed to hold up major schemes. I do not have to remind the House of the delays to the completion of the M25. Two or three people, quite properly and within the law, delayed the completion of that great motorway. Some people, quite properly, delayed the completion of the M3 past Winchester. One wonders how many people were killed on the existing substandard roads as a result of those delays. People are entitled to object to schemes and a balance must always be struck. I do not know this area as well as does my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, but I know it very well and I know the views of all the parties on the district council. Given those 'actors and the way that my hon. and learned Friend has acted. I am convinced that the House would not be wise if it did not pass the motion. My hon. and learned Friend clearly outlined the proposition to the House.
There is no point at the end of this Session in involving ourselves in great furore against the tunnel. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) mentioned that. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitkin) conjured up visions of Libyan banks and geisha houses in Japan and all sorts of other things. They are good emotive terms, but he knows that the House has been discussing this matter for a long time, as has another place. In a way that is unique, not only in the West

239
but in the world as a whole, Parliament has taken a great deal of time, care and expertise to try to solve all the legitimate problems of individuals.
I certainly hope that people such as Mr. Pattinson can be properly, sensitively and generously compensated for the undoubted loss or disadvantage that they will suffer. There is no question that in a scheme of this kind individuals will suffer. That is inevitable. When the first railway was built individuals suffered, and when the first road was built, whether by the Romans or even before their time, individuals suffered. The argument is for the greater good of all. Of course we must be careful that the greater-good-of-all argument is not used as an excuse to crush individuals.
Our procedures in another place have not operated against individuals. I support the motion. Let us get on with the motion and with the amendments moved in another place. In a period of buoyant optimism, as opposed to the pathetic, negative depression with which some of my hon. Friends seem to regard this project, we can turn into reality what we have been talking about for far too long.
5.45 pm
Sir John Farr: Some hon. Members who spoke were not at the meeting of the Select Committee on Standing Orders last Thursday. It would help the House, and clear up genuine misunderstanding, if I said something about how this quite ancient Select Committee works. It is not a pressure group for or against the Common Market. It consists of 11 hon. Members, and the Chairman is the Chairman of Ways and Means. We meet from time to time to decide whether Standing Orders should be dispensed with.
I am sure that the Minister has not grasped the reason why I feel so incensed about being asked to approve this Government motion. It is that on the Select Committee on Standing Orders we send for witnesses. We listen to experts and have given to us a point of view that, rightly or wrongly, enables the members of the Committee to make the right decision. The Government machinery is asking the House to steamroller aside a decision taken on a five to three free vote in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) who is not in the Chamber, admits that the vote would be six to two if he had to vote again after what he has learned.
The Committee heard the witnesses giving evidence. It is not possible for all hon. Members to have the benefit of hearing the evidence that we heard. It is a tragedy that, within four or five days of the Committee meeting on Thursday morning, the Minister and the Government machine are asking the House to sweep aside the Committee's decision. We may have taken a wrong decision, but I and the other members of the Committee were in a far better position to judge the matter. That is because we heard the evidence from the witnesses and the experts and read the papers that other hon. Members in all parts of the House did not see because they did not have time.
If I may say so without punishment, we are seeing all that is bad in the party whipping system. An awkward little Select Committee has taken an awkward little decision because it thinks that the decision should be taken. That is inconvenient for the Government machine
240
and for that reason the House is being asked to push aside the decision of the Select Committee. I urge my hon. Friends to bear in mind before overruling the decision of the Committee that we took the decision after hearing all the witnesses that we had time to hear.
I have been on the Select Committee long enough with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to know that you attend to your duties in a punctilious manner. In the course of a year we could have 10 to 20 meetings and a whole range of private or hybrid Bills to consider. After hearing the witnesses we are advised by learned counsel whether it is right that Standing Orders should be dispensed with, and we generally accept learned counsel's recommendation.
On Thursday, the Committee decision was taken quite clearly and openly. We feel that an injustice is established in this motion that the House is being asked to approve. By a vote of five to three—which, as I say, would have been six to two—we felt that Standing Orders should not be dispensed with and that Mr. Pattinson had not had a chance to have his case heard by the House. It had been heard before the other place. Over the years, we have established the fact that the ordinary people should have an opportunity to be heard before both Houses of Parliament. Tonight my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is asking us to sweep aside that traditional practice. This is a sad and sorry day for democracy in Britain.
I shall be voting against the motion tonight and I hope that a number of my hon. Friends will join me. I feel most strongly that we took the best decision in the Select Committee as we knew far more than hon. Members on both sides of the House can know because we had experts to advise us. We are now being asked to cast the decision aside. That is intolerable.
5.50 pm
Mr. Michael Fallon: When Sir Alex Fletcher was temporarily absent from the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill last year, I had the privilege to chair that Committee. As Sir Alex Fletcher is temporarily—we hope—absent from the House tonight, I want to say a word about the motion from the vantage point of the Select Committee.
The motion is unusual. Every previous speaker has recognised that. However, I believe that those who have spoken against the motion have ignored the three reasons upon which it is based. We are dealing with a very unusual Bill. It is complex and controversial and, above all, it embraces a number of very important interests which cannot always be easily reconciled one with another. Secondly, the motion arises because the House has been determined from the start of the proceedings on the Bill more than a year ago—I stress that to my hon. Friends who have suggested that we are being stampeded — to ensure that the interests were fully protected and fairly handled throughout the Bill's passage. Thirdly, the motion is worthy of support because the amendments before the Select Committee on Standing Orders arose during the Bill's passage and because of the exceptional trouble that the House took to safeguard the private interests and to reconcile them wherever possible.
I bear some witness to that exceptional trouble because I was a member of the Select Committee of this House which last year sat for 36 days from 10 am to 8 pm during four weeks of the recess. It sat for 220 hours and heard nearly 5,000 petitions against the Bill.

241
The steps that were taken to safeguard the interests with regard to the access to the Cheriton terminal were the most exceptional. That was due in no small part to the determination of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) to protect and advance the interests of his constituents. My hon. and learned Friend and his friends, his local authority and other interested parties came back to persuade the House on 17 July to empower the Select Committee to consider alternative access proposals because the original scheme, inelegantly entitled WG1, did not protect or advance the interests of his constituents. The original version of the alternative access proposals was called WG2.
In the event, the Select Committee was not persuaded in favour of the proposals. However, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe is very determined — just how determined we shall probably find out as this legislative Session unfolds—and he went on to work with his constituents, the district council and other bodies involved to formulate a different version of alternative access arrangements which were then submitted to a Select Committee of another place and were agreed by that Committee to be the joint southern access arrangements.
It should be no surprise therefore to the House to learn that the Select Committee on Standing Orders a week or so ago ruled that the Standing Orders have not been complied with. We predicted that in the debate a few days ago. It was obvious from the start that the various Standing Orders relevant to the deposition and sending out of notices and publication of notices could not possibly have been complied with because the arrangements to which they related were devised long after the Bill had been published and formulated. Having ruled that the Standing Orders had not been complied with, the Select Committee had to decide whether they should be dispensed with.
We cannot satisfactorily answer that question because we have not had the benefit of reading the proceedings of the Select Committee on Standing Orders. We have not had the advice of the Chairman, although we have heard the advice of some of the Select Committee members this afternoon. We are bound to observe that, in moving from the question whether the Standing Orders have been complied with to the further question whether the Standing Orders should be dispensed with, the Select Committee on Standing Orders has moved from an area in which its advice might be useful to the House to an area of decision making where it is beginning to impose itself on the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) constantly referred to a decision that had been taken by the Select Committee. The Select Committee on Standing Orders cannot take a decision on whether the Standing Orders should be dispensed with. Only the House can take that decision. Having agreed that the Standing Orders have not been complied with, the Select Committee on Standing Orders can offer us advice on whether the Standing Orders should be dispensed with. However, the Select Committee on Standing Orders cannot decide that matter for the House. It is for the House this afternoon to decide whether the Standing Orders should be dispensed with.
Sir John Farr: Of course the proceedings of every Select Committee are governed by this House. There were two
242
items of business on the agenda when the Committee met on Thursday. The first was to approve the normal Sessional resolutions and the other was to consider whether the Standing Orders should be dispensed with. We came to a decision about the second. I would say that every Committee decision is a recommendation to the House. Only in most unusual and exceptional circumstances do the Government choose to overturn a decision in this way.
Mr. Fallon: I do not think that we are too far apart. In the second topic of business on the agenda — the consideration—the Committee came to a resolution. It is up to the House to decide very shortly whether to uphold that resolution or to reject it. We would be justified in upholding that resolution of the Select Committee on Standing Orders only if there were private interests affected by the new joint southern access arrangements which were unaware of the arrangements, were taken unawares by them or did not have sufficient or ample opportunity to put their views to Parliament.
The first test cannot be met. No one on either side of the argument is suggesting that Mr. Pattinson or indeed one or two others who are now adversely affected by the joint southern access arrangements could possibly have been unaware of the promoters' proposals. The second test whether Mr. Pattinson and others had ample and sufficient opportunity to be heard by this House—is crucial for the House. I understand that Mr. Pattinson appeared before the Standing Orders Select Committee. He wanted the various Lords amendments, which we shall consider later, to be considered by a fresh Select Committee.
There are three points to be made about that. First, Mr. Pattinson appeared before the Commons Select Committee on 22 October last year. Secondly, he appeared before the House of Lords Select Committee on 12 March this year. Thirdly, if a third Select Committee were established to consider the matter all over Again —Mr. Pattinson has recognised that there would be petitioners for and against the new joint southern access arrangements — it is highly likely that there would be more petitions in favour of those arrangements than against. No useful purpose would be served by setting up a further Select Committee to hear these arguments again.
In the absence of any further reasoning from the Standing Orders Committee — I think that one Committee member has still to speak to us—I submit that the House should not uphold the Standing Orders Committee's resolution, not decision, but should support the motion.
6.1 pm
Mr. David Shaw: At the start of the debate, I was somewhat pleased that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) had spoken up. It seems that he will lead the first official Labour party vote against the Government on the Channel tunnel issue.
Mr. Snape: I know that the hon. Gentleman is new here, but it is important that he gets matters right. The Labour party voted against the Bill on Second Reading on the grounds that the issue demanded a public inquiry. If the hon. Gentleman is implying that, because of my support for the Channel tunnel, I have acted in any way against my party's policy, he is wrong on that, too.
Mr. Shaw: I would not in any way suggest that the hon. Gentleman was behaving improperly and I withdraw any

243
such allegation. But it was of note during the election campaign that Labour party members made many national speeches in favour of the building of the Channel tunnel, although they endeavoured, wherever possible locally in Dover, to deny that the Labour party was in favour of that project. I totally accept that the hon. Gentleman's principles for or against the rights of the individual and for or against political convenience may be called into question occasionally, but, of course, in all instances I would apply the most noble considerations to his motives.
Mr. Allan Rogers: I served on the Channel tunnel Select Committee, as did the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon). My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) behaved in a most proper way during the Select Committee's hearings.
Mr. Fallon: Yes.
Mr. Rogers: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees. Although I disagreed with the Labour party's policy on the Channel tunnel, I was happy to sit in an investigative capacity and to do my duty properly on the Select Committee. It ill becomes an hon. Member, new or old, to impugn motives that are less than honourable. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw his remark.
Mr. Shaw: If I may correct the hon. Gentleman, I said that at all times I would apply the most noble of motives to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East. I would in no way imply that he was being hypocritical in the House, although some hypocrisy was noted in Dover when comparing the various manifestos and literature.
I should like to concentrate on the motion before the House. It is important that we are not sidetracked into considering overall political matters. The House of Commons is a House of political judgment where behaviour should be of the highest standards, as I implied.
Mr. Rogers: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman does not conform to that idea and apologise.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order.
Mr. Shaw: Not only should hon. Members behave according to the highest standards but the House and its Members should comply with the procedures that are published and available to the public. It is the public who have to bear the brunt of our deliberations and decisions.
The procedures on the Channel Tunnel Bill, and this procedure in particular, have been rushed. The constituents of Dover and I are concerned that, if the Channel tunnel is built — there are still many grave doubts about that—it will exist for some 50 or more years. The House should get matters right when considering such a long period.
My hon. Friend the Minister of Public Transport made a slight error last time we discussed this measure. He seemed to be under the impression that I had referred to the Commons Select Committee hearings not being properly advertised in terms of inviting people to petition. In fact, I was referring to the House of Lords Select Committee. It was apparent from Lord Ampthill's comments that the Department of Transport had not given enough notice. He felt obliged to criticise that Department. That has been a source of continual regret to
244
me and many of my constituents who were not able to submit petitions within the deadline, some seven days after advertising.
During the limited time in which I have been a Member I have endeavoured to come to grips with that large volume called "Erskine May". It appears from a number of examples that the procedures followed have been wrong and that advertising did not occur as it should have. Many of those examples referred to that modern means of transport some 100 years after the Channel tunnel was first thought of—the tramway—and to improper advertising. It seems from the various deliberations that, wherever possible, the House required the correction of the procedures that had gone wrong. The problem with this error is that it cannot be corrected. It is not possible to re-advertise and go through all the procedures. There is no time to do so and Mr. Pattinson has already spent an immense amount of money and a whole year on improving his property. The House must search its conscience hard and consider whether it should pass this motion, which rides roughshod over previous decisions. I believe that it should not be passed. This would reveal, not only to Mr. Pattinson but to all the people of Dover, that the House feels strongly that the Channel Tunnel Bill should have gone through the proper procedures and that they should have been enabled to take part in the petitioning process as much as they wished.
6.7 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I shall endeavour to be brief. Like some of my hon. Friends, I have sat for a number of years on the Select Committee on Standing Orders. I believe that I am right in saying — I always bow to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), whose knowledge of these matters is profound and much respected—that the Standing Orders Committee met more frequently and sat longer on the Channel tunnel issue than on any other issue in living memory.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop indicated assent.
Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend nods, so clearly I am right.
To pick up the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), members of that Select Committee, which you chaired with great distinction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had the opportunity to read statements and evidence which perhaps has not been read or appreciated by many hon. Members. I include, for instance, the statement on behalf of Barry Pattinson opposing the application for dispensation with the Standing Orders, Mr. Pattinson's memorial complaining of non-compliance with the Standing Orders, the statement on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in support of the application for dispensation with the Standing Orders and extracts — some long, some short—of proceedings in another place dealing with Mr. Barry Pattinson's evidence.
We have heard some very colourful and emotional speeches this afternoon. I respect the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), and I always come into the Chamber when he speaks because of the entertainment that he provides. He is flamboyant and he is forthright. He feels deeply what he says. However, detail and specifics are

245
not the strength of his speeches. I say that with respect, because I know that he is held in immense respect both inside and outside the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) gave us a well-mustered series of arguments in support of his case, which he has put extremely well time and again, both in the House and to the Select Committee on Standing Orders. However, some of the examples that he quoted were very specific and very limited, and I only wish that he had advanced some of the other matters involved in dealing with this extremely complicated and important issue.
Let me make it perfectly clear that I am going to support the Government when we vote. Along with my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and for Rugby and Kenilworth, I was one of the three who voted in the Select Committee to dispense with Standing Orders. In a moment, I shall endeavour to explain why I did that, and why I believe that the House should vote for the motion.
Let me pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), who in my estimation made the best contribution to today's debate. He spoke factually and from knowledge, which I think will help the House to take its difficult decision. He accurately pointed out that the joint southern access had been agreed by all the local authorities in the area. It has been agreed by amenity societies, and by hundreds of people who are concerned about the Channel tunnel. I therefore believe that the proposal that is the root cause of the debate should be fully understood by the House. It is not simply a matter of Eurotunnel seeking to stampede the House and the Government into a hasty decision. The joint southern access has been agreed between Eurotunnel, Kent county council, Shepway district council, the amenity interests and the other people whom I mentioned a moment ago.
Let me deal specifically with Barry Pattinson. The debate in the Select Committee on Standing Orders and the debate this afternoon have occurred because of that individual, and we respect what he stands for. However, we should take other matters into consideration. Mr. Pattinson petitioned against the amendments in both Houses, and gave evidence in support of his petitions to both Select Committees—in the House of Commons on 22 October 1986 and in the House of Lords on 12 March 1987. He appeared as a memorialist before the Examiners and, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) — who also made a valuable contribution to the debate—he appeared with his agent before the Select Committee on Standing Orders when it met last week.
If we are to deal with the matter properly, we must understand on what grounds the Committee and the House can dispense with compliance with Standing Orders and allow a Bill to proceed. Again, I am referring to papers with which the Committee was provided last week. I understand that a number of factors must be taken into account: delay on the part of sponsors, and the reason for that delay; the public interest; the urgency of the matter; and the extent to which other parties are affected. We have been advised by you and by your Counsel, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and all those matters have been discussed at some length in the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
I think that I am right in saying—in regard to delay — that within two weeks of the House's instruction empowering its Select Committee to consider alternative proposals for access, and to make amendments if it
246
thought fit, the documents relating to the amendments in question had been prepared and deposited. The necessary notices were immediately served, and publication of the public notices began.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East has been consistent and honourable throughout the debates on the Bill, and I support him in many of the reason; for which he supports the Bill. It will be good for British Rail, and therefore good for the country, because it will help communication. I say that to show that there is quite a lot of common ground between us. But, on grounds of public interest and urgency, there is clearly a case for Standing Orders to be waived.
Mr. Pattinson is the linchpin in this matter. I say this with every respect for the forceful case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, but I have reached a different conclusion from him. I believe that Mr. Pattinson has had every opportunity to present his case.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: So that my hon. Friend does not unwittingly place untrue statements on the record, may I ask whether he agrees that the actual proposal on which we are to vote, and which will take away Mr. Pattinson's house, has never been before a Committee of the House? He referred to different proposals and different amendments from those on which we shall vote.
Mr. Winterton: I understand that, while the specific matter relating to an amendment that could demolish Mr. Pattinson's house has, indeed, not been before the House, the access route which will demolish his house has been considered at length in both Houses by Select Committees, and—as the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East has said—has been rejected.
Let me return to a point made earlier in the debate by the hon. Member for Ashford. In any major civil engineering project—and this is perhaps one of the largest such project in the history of the world — it is inevitable that some people's interests cannot be fully safeguarded. However, I can say from knowledge of what occurred in the Select Committee of Standing Orders that Eurotunnel, local authorities and others are doing their utmost to assist Mr. Pattinson. He has been introduced to some 20 properties, but he has found it necessary to reject them. He would have liked to buy one of them, but the lady who owned it ultimately decided not to sell. Everyone is going out of their way to assist him, to ensue that he receives the maximum possible compensation and to give him all the advice and support that they can.
The crux of the matter is that I do not believe that those wishing to oppose the amendments have been prevented or handicapped by the lack of earlier notice. That is what this debate is about. Let me repeat for the benefit of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East that Mr. Pattinson presented his petitions in time, and was represented before, and gave evidence to, Select Committees in both Houses.
Mr. Fallon: Has my hon. Friend considered the logical extension of the points made to him by our hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop): that if every petitioner who was affected by an amendment made to a hybrid Bill in another place were to be afforded a second opportunity to petition against the detail, not the substance, of that amendment, an entirely separate Committee stage would be required in this place to consider the Lords amendments?
Mr. Winterton: I do not need to respond to my hon. Friend, because he has developed his own argument. It would be nonsense; we should indeed need to develop a new Committee stage system. The promotion of any major civil engineering or other project would take so long that it could never be financed, so we should make absolutely no progress.
I have great reservations about the European Community. However, having made an active study recently of British Rail and of the Channel tunnel project, I believe that it will be of immense benefit to this country. The overwhelming majority of the people of Kent will benefit from the tunnel. It would be very unfortunate, therefore, if their future were to remain uncertain. The House would be doing them no service. For that reason, I shall support the Government tonight. It is the only reasonable and rational course to take.
6.21 pm
Mr. Robert Adley: I have listened carefully to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and to those of my hon. Friends. I wonder where else in the world and in which other national legislature Mr. Pattinson would have had such a fair and square deal and such a fair and thorough consideration of his circumstances.
Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is quite right, and we should take pride in that. But the opposite is also true. What other legislature in the world would allow its Government to put through, on a three-line Whip, a motion to do down Mr. Pattinson?
Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend tempts me. Does he seriously suggest that in the Kremlin there would be an airing for Mr. Pattinson? My hon. Friend has not made a very good point. However, he enables me to move quickly to my second point, which has already been referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) and for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). It is that not only members of the Select Committee but all hon. Members have an interest in this motion. Many of my hon. Friends will accept my proposition that I am not the most slavish follower of the advice that is given by the Whips. However, I am perfectly happy to accept the Government motion. I make the point to my new hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) that many of us listened to Sir Peter Rees and to Sir David Crouch making a quite different case on behalf of the constituents my hon. Friends now represent. I am bound to say that I listened briefly to their comments but that I listened at length to those of their predecessors.
Mr. Brazier: In his last speech to the House, Sir David Crouch distinguished clearly and correctly his own views from those of his constituents and made it clear that, though he supported these proposals, the vast majority of the people in his constituency did not do so.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted into going into the merits of the Bill. We are dealing with the procedural motion that is before the House.
Mr. David Shaw: Perhaps you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow me to speak briefly on that point. In my maiden speech I paid tribute to the way in which Sir Peter Rees looked after his constituency interests. After he had left the
248
Cabinet he felt that it was appropriate to disavow the collective responsibility that he had accepted in Cabinet. Consequently, after that date he opposed very strongly at all stages the Channel Tunnel Bill.
Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend the Member for Dover rose on a point of order, and it is not for me to answer it. All I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury is that he has confirmed that Sir David Crouch put what he believed to be the national interest ahead of what he knew was popular in his constituency. Many hon. Members applaud him for doing so.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been a Member of this House for longer than I have, and tonight he will have heard familiar voices attached to familiar faces making familiar points. The Government are absolutely right to bring forward this motion. The House has had plenty of time to make its collective view known. I shall refer to a speech that was made in my constituency by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), because it sums up the opposition to the Bill. One of his constituents said to him recently, "I don't want this tunnel because I don't want all this rabies brought into Britain." My hon. Friend made the point that France is by no means full of rabid dogs, to which my hon. Friend's constituent replied, "Oh, it's not the dogs I'm concerned about; it's the Frenchmen." This is a last-ditch attempt to stop the Bill. I need no encouragement whatsoever to follow my right hon. Friend into the Lobby and vote in favour of the motion.
6.26 pm
Mr. Roger Gale: I apologise to the House for the fact that I missed the earlier part of the debate. I was detained by some rather sombre business in my constituency.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) that this is a last-ditch attempt to frustrate the will of the House. I hope and believe that I have fought as hard as any on behalf of my constituents in my corner of Kent, but the will of the House has been clearly expressed. Therefore it is not for the Standing Orders Committee to seek to undermine the will of the House.
Throughout these deliberations my hon. Friend the Minister of State has listened courteously to our arguments and he has responded to them. We are grateful to him for doing so. We have most certainly benefited from that. The will of the investors has still to be tested. If the Channel tunnel project goes ahead, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) that we shall fight tooth and nail to ensure that the benefits of the tunnel come to north-east Kent and that they do not go to the Pas de Calais. As it is not the business of the Standing Orders Committee to seek to frustrate the will of the House and as the will of the House has already been expressed, I shall support the Government.
6.27 pm
The Minister of Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) referred to the principle involved and to the specific case of Mr. Pattinson. I agree that it is right that this House should be concerned about the rights of an individual. Therefore I shall seek to refer fully to the points that he has raised.

249
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) regrets that the Government have proceeded in the way that they have instead of by invoking an ancient procedure of this House, which I understand was last invoked in 1829 in the case of Sir Jonah Barrington. I shall deal in detail with that point, but in his preliminary skirmish I must say to my hon. Friend—and he is a friend as well as an hon. Friend—that had I followed his advice Mr. Durkin, parliamentary counsel for Mr. Pattinson, would have been heard at the Bar of the House. However, the amendment would destroy four houses on one side of the road. If Mr. Pattinson had won the argument after his counsel had been heard at the Bar of the House, those whose property would have been severely damaged by the alternative proposals should surely have had an equal right to be heard at the Bar of the House. How long, then, would these proceedings have continued and how far and how wide should they have been?
My hon. Friend claims that Mr. Pattinson was never heard in this House, but he was. I hope that I can show the House that he was heard. If my hon. Friends look at page 1605 of Vol. 4 of the meetings of the Select Committee on Channel tunnel, Session 1985–86, Minutes of Evidence, they will find reference to the petition being made. On page 1605 there is the introduction of the Shepway proposal and on page 1606 we have Mr. Pattinson making his points. He was heard in respect of a proposal that the Select Committee did not recommend to the House. That was not on the grounds of the demolition of Mr. Pattinson's house, but that on operational grounds the proposal would not be effective. Therefore, I shall refer to the report of the Select Committee where it deals with this matter. It says:
"Euro Tunnel found WG2 workable but regarded it as 'a second best and very much a second best'. There was no substantial difference in cost. …"
It goes on to say that there was not sufficient length of road for people to be able to weave from one side of the road to the other or to adjust their mirrors. On safety grounds it was unattractive.
It ends:
"We believe that there will be less confusion and a better arrangement for frontier checks if the original scheme is retained in the Bill. We decided that the suggested advantages proposed by Shepway did not justify choosing their scheme. We favoured the operationally preferred scheme."
It was on operational grounds and not on the grounds of the four houses concerned, including that of Mr. Pattinson, that the Committee of the House, having heard Mr. Pattinson—I draw that specifically to the attention of the House—decided otherwise.
A compromise solution was found which was agreeable to all parties. It was agreeable to Shepway district council and Kent county council. Initially, it was not met with great enthusiasm by Eurotunnel, but eventually it agreed. It was agreeable to the joint consultation committee that I chaired, which met in Kent and examined the matter in considerable detail.
When the matter was raised in the Standing Committee of the House I was pressed by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) to make this amendment to the Bill. With some considerable difficulty I persuaded the Committee not to accept that amendment to ensure that Mr. Pattinson had a better opportunity to present his case in the House of Lords, where he would have the opportunity of appearing as a
250
petitioner in front of the Lords Committee. That duly happened; the Lords Committee was made aware of the effect that the amendment would have on this house, but it found in favour of the joint southern access. If hon. Members turn to the Lords evidence they will see that there was considerable discussion and understanding of these points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) helpfully served on the Standing Orders Committee and explained the broader issues that were involved. The amendment must be considered in the context of the widespread support in Kent of those who were involved with it. I hope that we shall be allowed to discuss it later this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) helpfully explained why, as a member of the Standing Committee, he voted for the dispensation. That leads me on to the points that were made by my hon. Friends the Members for Ashford (Mr. Speed) and Darlington (Mr. Fallon) with regard to the area of Folkestone. The godfather of this proposal was my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government. He has attended all of our proceedings but, for reasons of which we are all aware, he is unable to part cipate now. This amendment affects his constituency, but his constituents have demonstrated considerable support for it.
As a hybrid Bill the Channel Tunnel Bill should have been introduced on or before 27 November. Since it was not, and could not be so introduced, Standing Orders have not been complied with, but the House, by a large majority, gave dispensation from the Standing Orders. Since the Bill was introduced out of time, the amendments must inevitably fall foul of Standing Orders in the same way. The amendment with which we are now concerned has received the widespread support in Kent that I referred to, as it has in the Standing Committee of the House and in the upper House, which inserted the amendments.
The effect of this motion will not be to insert the amendment into the Bill, but it will enable the House to consider the amendment later today. It is on that basis that I commend the motion to the House.
6.16 pm
Mr. Snape: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The motion has found few friends from either side of the House. I concede that four Conservative Members have spoken in favour of it, but the majority of Conservative and Opposition Members hare spoken against its terms because of a cross-party desire to uphold the rights of an individual above those of the House.
The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) and I served on the Standing Committee. I think that since I was elected in 1974, I have served on every committee appertaining to the Channel tunnel. I find the view that Mr. Pattinson's case has been adequately considered by a Committee of the House less than attractive. It is possible to argue, as the Minister understandably and justifiably did, that an amendment could have been tabled in the Standing Committee which would have set aside the original decision of the Select Committee and opted for the access and egress scheme. For the sake of brevity I shall refer to it as WG2, as amended. Such an amendment could have been tabled in the Standing Committee, but it would have caused an enormous row, although it would have

251
been accepted because the Government have a majority in the Standing Committee. Their whip would go round—I speak as a former and failed whip — and drum up support for this amendment, had it been tabled in the Standing Committee. However, that excuse will not wash.
We have been continually told that all the local authorities in the area are in favour of WG2 as amended. They may have been knocked into line recently, but we all know—
Mr. David Mitchell rose—
Mr. Snape: —that the Minister for Local Government staked his reputation on getting the original proposals, as accepted by the Select Committee, changed. He was successful in the long term, but that success has been at the expense of the individual petitioner.
Mr. Mitchell: There was no question of local authorities in Kent being knocked into line; it was a case of the Government being persuaded by pressure from people in the locality, Shepway district council, Kent county council, representatives who served on the joint consultative committee and all the local authorities in the immediate vicinity. They wanted this proposal carried through. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East will remember that when he was serving on the Standing Committee we had to suspend it while we looked at whether it was possible to deal with an acceptance of this amendment. I persuaded the committee not to do so to enable people in Kent to have their views accepted. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) proposed this amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Front Benches must observe the rules. We must not deal with the merits of the Bill or any amendments.
Mr. Snape: I am trying to deal with the rights of the individual. I shall not attempt to rehash the debates that we have had.
We maintain that the petitioner, about whom this debate has largely been concerned, has not had a fair deal. He came to give evidence to the Select Committee; we listened to his evidence and the Select Committee made a decision, across party lines — the hon. Member for Darlington and I voted the same way with regard to that decision — to uphold the original scheme, as placed before us—the access-egress known as WG1.
An alternative was brought forward — whether to save the face of the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) or for any other reason, is immaterial—and it was never considered by the Select Committee in the House. It could have been considered by the Standing Committee, as we have said, but it has been considered only by the Select Committee in another place.
The crucial question is, are we to uphold the rights of an individual petitioner as well as the rights of the House? There is no greater supporter of the Channel tunnel project than myself. I have been an officer on the all-party Channel tunnel group for 12 of the 13 years during which I have been a Member of the House. However, I cannot bring myself to vote for the Government motion. The debate has been about what we think about upholding the rights of individuals who are not Members of the House.
252
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) described my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) by saying that detail and specifics are not his strong points. We all know the strong point of the hon. Member for Macclesfield. Good heavens, not for nothing was he known as rent-a-quote in his early years in the House. However, he is a reformed character now and, alas, it has not yet brought him the preferment to which I believe he is entitled. Regardless of his view of my right hon. Friend, regardless of the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent said, this is probably the only issue on which we have disagreed in my comparatively few years in the House and his many years and regardless of personal feelings about the project, it is the duty and responsibility of hon. Members to uphold the right not only of the House against the views of another place but the views of individuals, who may not happen to be our constituents, but who have no other recourse but to ask hon. Members to support them. I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to support that individual petitioner tonight by voting against this motion.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 196.

Division No. 23]

[6.42 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Carrington, Matthew

Alexander, Richard

Cash, William

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Allason, Rupert

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Chapman, Sydney

Amess, David

Chope, Christopher

Amos, Alan

Churchill, Mr

Arbuthnot, James

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

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Ashby, David

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Aspinwall, Jack

Colvin, Michael

Atkins, Robert

Conway, Derek

Atkinson, David

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Cope, John

Baldry, Tony

Couchman, James

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Cran, James

Batiste, Spencer

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Bellingham, Henry

Curry, David

Bendall, Vivian

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

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Benyon, W.

Day, Stephen

Bevan, David Gilroy

Devlin, Tim

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Dickens, Geoffrey

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Dicks, Terry

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Dorrell, Stephen

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Boswell, Tim

Dover, Den

Bottomley, Peter

Dunn, Bob

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Durant, Tony

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Dykes, Hugh

Bowis, John

Eggar, Tim

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Emery, Sir Peter

Bright, Graham

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Evennett, David

Brooke, Hon Peter

Fallon, Michael

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

Favell, Tony

Browne, John (Winchester)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Buck, Sir Antony

Fookes, Miss Janet

Budgen, Nicholas

Forman, Nigel

Burns, Simon

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Burt, Alistair

Forth, Eric

Butcher, John

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Butler, Chris

Fox, Sir Marcus

Butterfill, John

Franks, Cecil

253

Freeman, Roger

Monro, Sir Hector

French, Douglas

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Fry, Peter

Moore, Rt Hon John

Gale, Roger

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Gardiner, George

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Moss, Malcolm

Gill, Christopher

Moynihan, Hon C.

Glyn, Dr Alan

Neale, Gerrard

Goodlad, Alastair

Neubert, Michael

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Newton, Tony

Gow, Ian

Nicholls, Patrick

Gower, Sir Raymond

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

Greenway, John (Rydale)

Onslow, Cranley

Grist, Ian

Oppenheim, Phillip

Grylls. Michael

Page, Richard

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Paice, James

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Patnick, Irvine

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Harris, David

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Haselhurst, Alan

Pawsey, James

Hayes, Jerry

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hayward, Robert

Porter, David (Waveney)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Portillo, Michael

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Powell, William (Corby)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Price, Sir David

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Raffan, Keith

Holt, Richard

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Howard, Michael

Redwood, John

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

Renton, Tim

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Rhodes James, Robert

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Riddick, Graham

Jack, Michael

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Jackson, Robert

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Kirkhope, Timothy

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Knapman, Roger

Rowe, Andrew

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Knight. Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Ryder, Richard

Knox, David

Sackville, Hon Tom

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lang, Ian

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lawrence, Ivan

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Shersby, Michael

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Sims, Roger

Lilley, Peter

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Soames, Hon Nicholas

McCrindle, Robert

Speed, Keith

MacGregor, John

Speller, Tony

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

Maclean, David

Squire, Robin

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stanbrook, Ivor

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Stanley, Rt Hon John

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Stern, Michael

Madel, David

Stevens, Lewis

Major, Rt Hon John

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Malins, Humfrey

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Mans, Keith

Sumberg, David

Marland, Paul

Summerson, Hugo

Marlow, Tony

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mates, Michael

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Maude, Hon Francis

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Thorne, Neil

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Thurnham, Peter

Mellor, David

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Tredinnick, David

Miller, Hal

Trippier, David

Mills, Iain

Trotter, Neville

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Moate, Roger

Waldegrave, Hon William

254

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Wilshire, David

Waller, Gary

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Ward, John

Winterton, Nicholas

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Wolfson, Mark

Warren, Kenneth

Wood, Timothy

Watts, John

Woodcock, Mike

Wells, Bowen

Yeo, Tim

Wheeler, John

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Whitney, Ray

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wiggin, Jerry

Mr. David Lightbown and

Wilkinson, John

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle

NOES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Faulds, Andrew

Aitken, Jonathan

Fearn, Ronald

Allen, Graham

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Alton, David

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

Anderson, Donald

Fisher, Mark

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Flannery, Martin

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Flynn, Paul

Ashdown, Paddy

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Ashton, Joe

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Foster, Derek

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Foulkes, George

Barron, Kevin

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Battle, John

Galloway, George

Beckett, Margaret

George, Bruce

Beith, A. J.

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

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

Gordon, Ms Mildred

Bermingham, Gerald

Graham, Thomas

Bidwell, Sydney

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Blair, Tony

Grocott, Bruce

Blunkett, David

Hardy, Peter

Boyes, Roland

Harman, Ms Harr et

Bradley, Keith

Haynes, Frank

Brazier, Julian

Henderson, Douglas

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Hinchliffe, David

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Holland, Stuart

Buckley, George

Home Robertson, John

Caborn, Richard

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Callaghan, Jim

Howells, Geraint

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hoyle, Doug

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Canavan, Dennis

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Illsley, Eric

Clay, Bob

Ingram, Adam

Clelland, David

John, Brynmor

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Johnston, Sir Russell

Coleman, Donald

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Kilfedder, James

Corbett, Robin

Kirkwood, Archy

Corbyn, Jeremy

Lamond, James

Cousins, Jim

Leighton, Ron

Cox, Tom

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

Crowther, Stan

Lewis, Terry

Cryer, Bob

Litherland, Robert

Cummings, J.

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Dalyell, Tam

Loyden, Eddie

Darling, Alastair

McAllion, John

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

McAvoy, Tom

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

McCartney, Ian

Dewar, Donald

Macdonald, Calum

Dixon, Don

McFall, John

Dobson, Frank

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Doran, Frank

McKelvey, William

Douglas, Dick

McNamara, Kevin

Duffy, A. E. P.

McWilliam, John

Dunnachie, James

Madden, Max

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Eadie, Alexander

Marek, Dr John

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Martin, Michael (Springburn)

Fan, Sir John

Maxton, John

Fatchett, Derek

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

255

Meale, Alan

Shaw, David (Dover)

Michael, Alun

Sheerman, Barry

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Short, Clare

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I & Bute)

Skinner, Dennis

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Snape, Peter

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Soley, Clive

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Spearing, Nigel

Morgan, Rhodri

Steel, Rt Hon David

Morley, Elliott

Steinberg, Gerald

Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

Stott, Roger

Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

Strang, Gavin

Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

Straw, Jack

Mullin, Chris

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Murphy, Paul

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Nellist. Dave

Thomas, Dafydd Elis

O'Brien, William

Turner, Dennis

O'Neill, Martin

Vaz, Keith

Patchett, Terry

Wall, Pat

Pendry, Tom

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Pike, Peter

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Wigley, Dafydd

Prescott, John

Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Wilson, Brian

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Winnick, David

Reid, John

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Richardson, Ms Jo

Worthington, Anthony

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Wray, James

Robertson, George

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Rogers, Allan

Rooker, Jeff

Tellers for the Noes:

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Mrs. Llin Golding and

Salmond, Alex

Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That, in respect of the Channel Tunnel Bill, notwithstanding the Resolution of the Standing Orders Committee of 16th July, the Standing Orders relating to Private Business, so far as not complied with, be dispensed with and the Bill be permitted to proceed.

Channel Tunnel Bill
Lords amendments considered.
Clause 1

  CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A TUNNEL RAIL LINK BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND FRANCE
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 5, leave out "and its supplementary protocols and arrangements"
  6.50 pm
  The Minister of Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5 and 86 and 87.
  Mr. Mitchell: These are purely drafting improvements.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5 agreed to.
  Mr. David Shaw: May I say on Lords amendment No. 2—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The amendments have now been agreed to by the House. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is too late. I have put the Question on the amendments. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is probably dealing with Lords amendments for the first time. If he uses his ingenuity, I am sure that he will be able to make on subsequent amendments the points that he wished to make on the first group. If the hon. Gentleman has not yet obtained a copy of the groupings of Lords amendments, he should find one in the No Lobby, and I am sure that he will find it helpful.

Clause 2

  NO GOVERNMENT FUNDS OR GUARANTEES FOR THE TUNNEL SYSTEM
  Lords amendments: No. 6, in page 3, line 17, at beginning insert
  "Subject to subsection (2A) below,".
  Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords amendments Nos. 7 and 78.
  Mr. Mitchell: These amendments were made by the Select Committee in another place in response to the petition of the British Ports Association. The BPA accepted clause 2(2), which provides that the concessionaires should not be barred from eligibility for the funds equally available to others. However, it was concerned about the Government's power to grant-aid transport projects under section 56(1) of the Transport Act 1968. The Government did not intend that that power should be used to grant-aid the Channel tunnel. We were therefore able to accept the amendment to clause 2 and a similar amendment to clause 40 to prevent the payment of grant aid under the 1968 Act in respect of British Rail's international services.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should inform the House that the amendment involves privilege.
  Mr. Peter Snape: I appreciate that any grant aid under section 56 of the Transport Act 1968 is forbidden under the terms of the amendment. Will the Minister tell me whether that would also preclude any financial assistance to British Rail under any other Act with regard to the provision of adequate railway facilities — both passenger and freight—prior to the opening of the Channel tunnel in 1993?
  I understand that the amendment is narrow and deals specifically with section 56 of the 1968 Act. I hope that the acceptance of the amendment will not preclude British Rail from making proper and full provision for passenger and freight traffic expected and projected in the run-up to the opening of the Channel tunnel. I do not expect the Minister to comment on this, but it is somewhat ironic that the British Ports Association should be so anxious for statutes to be written into law when it was the first to demand that the roads to the ports be improved at each and every opportunity — not at their expense but at public expense.
  There appears to be a little inconsistency here, although I do not expect the Minister to follow me down this controversial road.
  Mr. Mitchell: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about British Rail being able to carry out the investment that it requires to enable it to finance the marshalling yards and other provisions. The Bill as amended makes it explicit that there can be no Government grants to British Rail in respect of Eurotunnel's services, but British Rail is perfectly able to use its borrowing powers and commercial money to make the investments that it requires to carry through what is, for it, a commercial project.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment agreed to. [Special entry.]
  Lords amendment No. 7 agreed to. [Special entry.]

Clause 8

  ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR THE SCHEDULED WORKS AND OTHER AUTHORISED WORKS
  Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 6, line 47, at end insert—
  "(1A) The Secretary of State is authorised by this section to acquire by agreement any land which he is not otherwise authorised to acquire and which is required for the construction and maintenance of the Concessionaires' scheduled works and other works in connection with those works or otherwise for any purposes of the construction or operation by the Concessionaires of the tunnel system."
  7 pm
  Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that this amendment involves privilege.
  Mr. Mitchell: The amendment clarifies an area of legal uncertainty. Some detailed changes have been made to the tunnel scheme, notably at Ashford. Eurotunnel has already purchased additional land by agreement. It will need to seek planning permission in the normal way. If it uses additional land as part of the tunnel system, it is important that it is covered by the same ground rules. The Secretary of State must hold the freehold and grant
  258
  Eurotunnel a lease. The amendment establishes the Secretary of State's ability to acquire the freehold of the land.
  Mr. Roger Gale: The clause would allow the Secretary of State to make available land for the construction of, or for purposes connected with, the construction of the tunnel. I have paid tribute to the courtesy and sympathy with which my hon. Friend has responded to the needs of north-east Kent. I wish that I could pay a similar tribute to Transmanche Ltd. but I cannot.
  When the project was mooted, one of the blandishments that was offered out to Members representing north-east Kent was the prospect of increased employment, not least in the hotels in the area. At one stage, it was suggested that Transmanche Ltd. might need 1,000 bed nights a week for its construction workers and that those beds could be provided in some of the emptier—during the winter—hotels and guest houses in Thanet. British Rail said that it might be willing to lay on special trains from Thanet to Cheriton to convey such workers from our hotels to the construction site.
  As a result of that proposal, the chief executive of Thanet district council wrote to Transmanche Ltd. and made some semi-formal propositions. Transmanche Ltd. replied, effectively saying that it was unwilling to transport workers from the Thanet area. It has said that it is more than willing to bus construction workers from London, from the Medway towns, from Ashford and From pretty well anywhere except Thanet.
  I make the point now because I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond and that he will take great care before granting further land to Transmanche Ltd. until it honours some of the undertakings that it appeared at one stage to have given to use the facilities that are already available in north-east Kent.
  Mr. David Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that matter. He may be aware that it was discussed by the joint consultation committee which meets in Kent. In the light of what he said, I shall ensure that the matter is raised again at the committee's next meeting, when I expect that Transmanch e Ltd. will be represented. I hope that, with that assurance, my hon. Friend will support the amendment.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment agreed to. [Special entry.]

Clause 9

  PLANNING PERMISSION, ETC
  Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 7, line 29, leave out
  ", vehicles or" and insert
  "or of vehicles or other".
  Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. This is a minor drafting improvement.
  Mr. David Shaw: The amendment relates to vehicle movements, and I am worried about the fact that, in Dover, we have a road which is a national disgrace. That is the part of the A2 known as Jubilee way between Lydden and Dover port. Recently, that road has been dug up regularly — I can confirm that it has happened during the past six months — and despite that, it has unfortunately been impossible to add another lane. Traffic

  259
  delays are horrendous when it is being dug up and when it has been in single-lane use. I hope that the Government will consider the full dualling of the carriageway on the final seven miles from Lydden into the port in the not-too-distant future. After all, the road is the main export route into Europe.
  I was pleased when the House of Lords Select Committee realised that the road was needed. But the Department of Transport has said that the requests from Kent county council are "under review" and are receiving "active consideration". As we know, that can be bureaucratic wording meaning that the matter is sitting on a desk somewhere. I hope that the road proposals will soon come to the fore among the papers on that desk and that it will be improved. The accident rate and the traffic rate justify the upgrading to a dual carriageway. The East Kent coroner, who has had to deal with several deaths on the road, will support my words.
  Mr. Mitchell: I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) said about the A2. Traffic on the M2-A2 corridor will undoubtedly decrease when the final secton of the M20 from Maidstone to Ashford and the A20 from Folkestone to Dover are complete. For several years, it has been the Department's policy that the M20-A20 should be the principal route between London and both the ports and the Channel tunnel. The planning of improvements to the network has taken place on that basis.
  As my hon. Friend said, the stretch of road which causes the greatest anxiety 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 M20 will be complete, the new stretch of A20 from Folkestone to Dover will be open and most of the long-distance traffic to Dover as well as to the Channel tunnel will have transferred to the M20-A20 corridor. On that basis, the narrowest section of the A2 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 well within the recommended flow levels for a single carriageway.
  There is then the question of what will happen if the A20 improvements, especially to the eastern half, which will be done under Highways Act procedures, are delayed despite the Government's best efforts. It is highly questionable whether improvements to the A2 could be carried out any sooner than delayed improvements to the A20, if our timetable on that is not met. But in the light of my hon. Friend's comments, I fully accept that in the event of a major delay to the A20 improvements, we should be prepared to consider the option of improvements to the A2. I hope that that assurance at least partially satisfies my hon. Friend.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 11

  REGULATION OF THE TUNNEL SYSTEM: APPLICATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF LAW, ETC.
  Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 9, line 36, at end insert—
  "(aa) for the transfer to, and the vesting by virtue of the order in, any person or persons specified in the order (referred to below in this section as the transferee), on such terms (if any) as may be provided by the order—

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

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

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

  and for securing effective possession or control by the transferee of any movable property or rights in which any interest transferred by the order subsists;"
  Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 19, 20, amendment (a) and 21 to 28.
  Mr. Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) had tabled an amendment to Lords amendment No. 20. Am I wrong?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The position is that that is not an amendment to the amendment that we are discussing. It is taken with a series of other Lords amendments. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) will be perfectly free to speak to his amendment, but he will not be called to move it at this stage. The debate will take place on Lords amendment No. 10, but it will be appropriate to discuss the other amendments which I read out. They were Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 19, 20 plus amendment (a) in the name of the hon. Member for Vauxhall, and amendments 21 to 28. That is the group that we are now discussing.
  Mr. Mitchell: All the amendments are related to the Secretary of State's order-making powers under clause 11. The amendments may appear formidable but they involve only one significant policy change. The majority are essentially technical and drafting improvements.
  Mr. Stuart Holland: I would like the House to consider the amendment that is in my name, namely:
  Line 5, leave out from 'Britain' to 'or' in line 7.
  The amendment will make it possible for there to be controls on board trains engaged in international services. It is important that we should consider the amendment and that the Minister should respond to it. There will be considerable restraints on the use of Waterloo as a Channel tunnel terminus. In the answer to a parliamentary question that I put to the Minister on 19 January, he stated:

  261
  "British Rail estimates that about 70 per cent. of the passengers using its through Channel tunnel rail services will pass through the proposed Waterloo terminal."—[Official Report, 19 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 381.]
  The Minister has indicated in other answers that he has given to me that there would be Customs and Excise facilities at Waterloo and not on the trains. I strongly recommend that he reconsiders that for a range of reasons.
  One reason is the capacity constraints on Waterloo station. In the publicity that British Rail uses concerning the capacity and ability of Waterloo to absorb additional traffic, publicity that it has displayed for passengers at Waterloo—and the Minister knows of my interest—it was implied that the current number of weekday passengers using Waterloo was 180,000. That is well below the fullest capacity of the station at any previous date since the war. The highest was between 1970 and 1971 when it was just over 200,000. In a parliamentary answer that the Minister gave me on Monday, he said:
  "Eurotunnel's estimates of Channel tunnel traffic through rail passenger traffic do not distinguish between Waterloo and other UK locations."
  Such United Kingdom locations are the subject of the Lords amendment that we are considering. He further stated:
  "British Rail's consultants, who concluded that the road and underground systems would be able to accommodate the Channel tunnel traffic at Waterloo, based their assessment on 50,000 extra day-time passengers in 1993 rising to 59,000 in 2003."—[Official Report, 20 July 1987].
  However, information given to me by a Mr. Nick Alexander of British Rail, who is responsible for evaluating the feasible traffic that will be generated, gives different results. British Rail has estimated that the weekday passengers — which term I have learnt from Mr. Nick Alexander means peak August Saturday—in the year 2003 will be some 241,000. However, Eurotunnel, which is concerned to support its flotation and give the impression that the Channel tunnel project will be a great commercial success and will carry a great many passengers, gives a higher figure of 262,000 passengers in the year 2003.
  The additional traffic generated is way over the figures that the Minister has suggested in a parliamentary answer that he has just given me. It will be an extra 61,000 passengers per day instead of the 50,000 in the answer he gave on Monday, according to Mr. Nick Alexander's figures. It will be another 82,000 passengers rather than the 59,000 in the year 2003. This has considerable implications for the exclusive use of Waterloo as a Channel tunnel terminal and for Customs and Excise being located there. The addition of 59,000 passengers would give a total weekday flow in August of 239,000, or 20 per cent. above the previous peak use of Waterloo station at any time since the war. It will be up to 40 per cent. higher if 30 trains per day were used rather than 20 trains per day. This relates to signalling, because if the lines are resignalled, as was maintained by Mr. Southgate of British Rail, there could be 30 trains per day rather than 20 trains per day.
  7.15 pm
  I will not labour the point on those figures as I appreciate that they are not that easy to grasp when stated in abstract. However, when modifying the diagram that British Rail has provided on weekday passengers at Waterloo it is quite clear that the previous peak use on this
  262
  line is around some 200,000 passengers. It simply shoots off the diagram when we take the higher figures estimated by British Rail and Eurotunnel.
  This very much strengthens the case for not having a unique Customs and Excise terminal in London for passengers arriving in London. It strengthens the case for on-train Customs and Excise inspection. That is what we understand will be the case in France and Belgium. I asked the Minister earlier why we should have a flagship terminal at Waterloo if the French do not have one at Gare du Nord. What is the point of having such a terminal when it will constitute a bottleneck for traffic if there is not on-train inspection?
  I ask the Minister to think again, because the real advantage of a rail link versus an air link arises if there is on-train inspection. That is what will make travel time by rail competitive overall with travel by air, when passengers can avoid the inconvenience of having to travel to Heathrow or to Gatwick to go through a Customs check there and so forth.
  Many of us have probably taken a train from Brussels to Paris or to some similar point in our time and know that it is a much more convenient way to travel. Although the overall rail length of the trip from Londor to Paris or Brussels might be longer than the total travel time by going to an airport and catching a plane, the commercial viability of the project could depend on there being on train inspection for Customs and Excise. Lords amendment 20 says:
  "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"
  The whole substance of the clause and of subsections (2) and (3) is to provide facilities for such on-train inspection. It strengthens the case for having on-train inspection rather than a flagship facility at Waterloo.
  We have come a long way with the Bill. When we first started to argue the case for dispersal, it was hardly admitted at all. Since then, the Minister has taken the case on board, and British Rail, to a lesser extent, has also taken it on board. They have made some evaluation—however half-hearted—of the case for dispersal of traffic which, therefore, will not have to go through London. If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall make a point or two on social and traffic congestion costs from increased traffic generated at Waterloo. The congestion caused by a single terminal facility for Channel tunnel traffic at Waterloo will be considerable.
  However disputed British Rail's figures may have been at various times, we are talking about traffic going through Waterloo that will be equivalent to the total traffic of Gatwick airport. If the scheme succeeds, we shall be talking about traffic that is equivalent to a jumbo jet arriving or leaving Waterloo every three and a half minutes. It clearly is evident that if people can leave trains—
  Mr. Mitchell indicated dissent
  Mr. Holland: The Minister shakes his head, but it is precisely the type of point on which we still need clarification. There is a vast disparity between, the figures that have been given by Eurotunnel and British Rail about how many people will use Waterloo. The matter is not at all clear. For example, if lines are resignalled, as has been made plain by Mr. Southgate of British Rail, the number of trains will increase by 50 per cent.

  263
  I urge the Minster to reconsider the matter and consider accepting my amendment. It will facilitate the viability of the project, reduce travelling time for those who use the Channel fixed-link facility and therefore reduce the potential bottleneck at Waterloo. That will be to the Minister's and Eurotunnel's advantage.
  Mr. David Shaw: As has been said, the clause and the amendment to it affect the clearance of Customs procedures on trains. I am particularly concerned about the matter because, last December, I had a meeting with trade unions at the port of Dover. It was apparent to me that many trade unionists felt that the delays that are caused in Dover are related to Customs and Excise and that it clearly is not the men who work for Customs and Escise who are at fault but, perhaps, the systems and procedures that they are required to follow. The systems and procedures are somewhat traditional and, dare I suggest, as old as the original Commissioners would be if they were alive today. Therefore, I pay tribute to the way in which many Customs officers have to wrestle with procedures in Dover and the fact that so many drug smugglers are caught.
  What will happen to the tunnel if the amendment is carried? On-board clearances will give undue preference to the tunnel if such speedy facilities are not available to the port and ferries. The Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 seems considerably to handicap ferries. I recently had reports that, in France and Belgium, ferry operators are unable to check passports and are unable to check that proper visas for entry to the United Kingdom exist. Consequently, there have been massive fines. In the past couple of months, there have been fines amounting to about £200,000 since the Act has been in operation.
  I question the effect of the clause and whether Eurotunnel or concessionaires will enjoy any benefits as a result of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will cover that point in his closing remarks. Certainly, it will be wrong and unfair to the port and ferries for special immigration and Customs clearances to be conducted unless the port of Dover has similar procedures. Surely that is only fair to ferries.
  Mr. Snape: The amendment is significant, and I hope that the Minister will be able to reply in detail. There is confusion about the number of people who will use the terminal at Waterloo once the Channel tunnel scheme is completed. Of course, part of the confusion arose from British Rail's self-inflicted wounds. It originally published an estimate of the number of passengers who will use the terminal in 2003. It said that the estimate will not reach the number of passengers who used Waterloo in the 1960s. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) will tell me if I have that date wrong. The figures were widely publicised and appeared in the exhibition.
  Mr. Holland: It was 1993 and 1971.
  Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend reminds me that it was 1993 and 1971, for which I am grateful.
  The figures appeared in the exhibition that British Rail management subsequently staged at Waterloo station. They had to take them away and confess that, somehow, they managed to count Windsor line passengers twice. It
  264
  is not for me to defend some of the more eccentric decisions that British Rail managment makes. Indeed, I pride myself on my ability to criticise such decisions. Such confusion does not help its case, or the amendments. I shall be grateful if the Minister will clear up the matter by giving some accurate estimates of the likely number of passengers who will pass through the terminal once the project gets under way.
  My hon. Friend talked about the proposed resignalling of the area. He will be aware—no doubt the Minister will tell us — that approval for such a proposal has already been granted. I think I am right in saying that a new signal box will be erected near Surbiton to control the Waterloo station area and a considerable number of route miles also. That, plus the provision of the flyovers and the extra tracks within Waterloo station—the new terminal — will take care of any projected increase in traffic resulting from the scheme. Again, the Minister is the man who has such material at his fingertips and a whole battery of experts to tell him when he has not, so I have no doubt that he will be able to clarify that point.
  I was intrigued by the words of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). He paid tribute to the Customs officers at Dover. It is remarkable listening to hon. Members pay tribute to trade unionists. [Interruption.] I am sorry, I am advised that it was the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). It is remarkable that Conservative Members are paying public tribute to trade unionists. A couple of weeks ago, when there was an industrial dispute at Dover, they were treading on each other's heads to get into the Table Office to table early-day motions deploring those disputes and attacking the unions for being involved in them.
  It just goes to show that there is nothing like a fairly marginal seat to make the advantages of trade unionism even more apparent to Conservative Members than they are to us. [Interruption.] It is a temporary phase. It illustrates the point even better. Regardless of one's majority, if they are one's constituents, one seeks to defend their right to industrial action, although, presumably, being a Conservative Member, he will vote to restrict everybody else's rights in due course when the latest bout of anti-union legislation appears.
  Mr. Holland rose—
  Mr. Snape: I hope that my hon. Friend will not take me down that track, if I may use the industrial metaphor. We might be in trouble with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if he does.
  Mr. Holland: I wish to take up a point regarding signalling and the amount of traffic that may be generated. From Mr. Southgate I have gleaned that resignalling might go ahead. I am not sure whether that refers to what has already been done or to more extensive resignalling. Traffic estimates have not publicly been modified by British Rail. After all, senior management concerned with the project says that, because of resignalling, there could be up to a 50 per cent. increase in the number of trains. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that it is incumbent on the Minister to take that fact into account and to make plain to the House what the implications will be.
  Mr. Snape: I can tell my hon. Friend, because I take an interest in such matters, that the present signalling technology in and around Waterloo dates from the 1930s.

  265
  I can assure him that it is much more interesting than the future, modernistic push-button stuff, but nevertheless, it is soon to be removed. I have no doubt that the Minister will give the figures on the modernistic push-button stuff to which I have referred to the nearest tail lamp or to the nearest electrical multiple unit. Any resignalling scheme would considerably increase capacity in or around Waterloo. I am sure that we shall hear the exact figures from the Minister.
  7.30 pm
  I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Dover — I have got his constituency right on this occasion. He made a constituency plea with a vengeance in saying that if trains are to have on-board Customs, ships must have them also. I advise the hon. Gentleman that there is a slight difference between those modes of transport. Of course it is permissible for hon. Members of all parties to make pleas of special constituency interest — we all do it — but it is fascinating to hear a Conservative Member argue against a more effective deployment of staff. Although on-train Customs clearance is vital in the opinion of many of us, it cashes in on the inherent flexibility and advantage of the through trains between, for example, Paris and Brussels, and Manchester or even Birmingham. To say that because ships cannot have such clearance, trains should not either, is the type of restrictive practice that might have been greeted by applause from Peter Sellers in his parody of a shop steward, Fred Kite, in the 1950s.
  Again it is surprising, although understandable because it is a specific constituency plea, to hear a Conservative Member argue for such an equally inefficient use of resources simply because his own constituency might somehow be disadvantaged as the through trains from Paris to Birmingham thunder underneath Dover, rather than everybody, buckets, spades, suitcases and mothers-in-law, being tipped out, so that those of his constituents who happen to be trade unionists can rifle through their baggage.
  Mr. David Shaw rose—
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait a minute; I have not finished with him yet. I am not quite sure how he will explain to his own divisional association his deviation from the habits and Customs of the Conservative party. However, I shall give him the opportunity now.
  Mr. Shaw: With deference and respect to the hon. Gentleman, I advise him that my trade unionists in Dover are concerned about the sound Conservative principle of fair competition.
  Mr. Snape: I do not see anything especially fair or competitive in denying a new mode of transport the flexibility that would be to its advantage. The Conservative party used to stand for competition but those days are now gone. To deny that flexibility to the new mode of travel does not seem an inherently Conservative virtue. However, I have always found virtue to be considerably lacking in the Conservative party. I hope that the Minister will give us more details about the two issues that have already been raised.
  Lords amendment No. 20 is welcome so far as it goes. We are extremely grateful because it at least amplifies and illustrates the amount of concern that is felt in both
  266
  Houses and across party lines that on-train Customs facilities should be provided. Like my hon Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland), I car not see any good reason why on-train Customs facilities should not be provided on trains travelling to and from London on certain trains, perhaps at specific times of the day or night. I was not aware of the position in France and am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, who is much better travelled than I, for pointing out the position on the other side of the Channel. Perhaps I may appeal to the hon. Member for Dover on grounds of pure British chauvinism, which normally appeals enormously to Conservative Members. I hope that the Minister will not tell the House that the French can do it but that we cannot.
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: This amendment is to be welcomed, although I seek clarification on the issue which the hon. Member for West Bromwich. East, (Mr. Snape) cavalierly brushed over, which is whether equal rights on Customs clearance will apply to all cross-channel operators. The Minister needs to be asked some questions about that. It is highly welcome that we have now introduced into this country the principle of on-train Customs clearance, which will make for a faster and better service. However, it should not be welcomed if it is to be an exclusive privilege for Eurotunnel. As I understand it, clause 11 envisages that operators other than Eurotunnel will be able to organise on-train Customs clearance. However, we should probe the Minister's thinking and I should like to ask him some specific questions.
  First, and in general terms, to what extent has he already sought the co-operation of and had consultations with Her Majesty's Customs and Excise about the drafting of the clauses, and their consenting arrangements for them? My experience of the Customs service is that one can often get a Customs officer down to the water, but one cannot necessarily make him clear the baggage at the speed at which most people would like to see it cleared. Customs officers are sometimes a reluctant service when it conies to innovation. Therefore, I press the Minister to cell us how far he has got in ensuring that Customs officers are not only willing but enthusiastic about the new arrangements.
  Secondly, I ask the Minister for guidance as to what is likely to happen should, for example, the Sally Line, which operates from Ramsgate in my constituency, wish to seek boat trains with on-train controls under clause 11. To a large extent the decision on that seems to be left to the Minister. On what criteria will the Minister decide? Under the clause he clearly has it in mind to give his permission for Eurotunnel trains. Indeed, that is why this clause is included in the Bill. However, ordinary boat trains, using ordinary British Rail rolling stock, travel to the ports every day. Is there any physical or engineering reason why those trains cannot have on-train Customs control?
  Mr. Snape: It is not for me to answer the Minister's question for him. However, I have a pretty good idea that he may give a similar reply, except that his will be more lucid than mine. Would it not be a little stupid to have on-train Customs on boat trains going to Ramsgate when, to requote my own words, husbands, fathers, mothers, kids, buckets, spades, suitcases and mothers-in-law will be detrained at Ramsgate and embark on a boat prior to sailing across the Channel? Would that not make more sense in the case of a through journey from Paris to Birmingham, than for a comparatively small journey,

  267
  which must be broken, from London to Paris, via Ramsgate, to wherever the Sally Line decamps its passengers on the other side of the Channel?
  Mr. Aitken: It is not for the first time that I feel that the hon. Gentleman has something against Ramsgate.
  Mr. Snape: It is the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken).
  Mr. Aitken: There is no need to be personal. I do my best for Ramsgate and for its future Customs controls.
  I simply want to know the criteria on which the Minister will decide when a request comes in for an international service on ordinary trains. Will he be willing to grant his permission in principle? Is it a question of the physical arrangements? What are the general criteria?
  I notice that individual Customs officers seem to have a wide power of decision-making. If I have understood it correctly, a Customs officer may suddenly decide that he will not allow a particular train to be cleared on an on-train basis. The discretion of the Customs officer seems to be quite wide. Under subsection (3)(a), if the train is very crowded, for example, can a Customs officer say, "Sorry, I am not clearing that one today"? I seek clarification as to how extensive the individual decision-making powers of Customs officers are. If I have read the clause correctly, a Customs officer can simply say, "Things are difficult on this train. I will not clear it." That would be somewhat disadvantageous to those who got on the train believing that they would have a thorough immigration Customs clearance during their journey.
  I note that clause 11(4) states that an order under section 11 of the proposed Act can impose charges on the operator. I find that rather worrying because Eurotunnel is paying for its own policing arrangements. I think there is something unsatisfactory about a private company paying for the police and therefore deciding how many police will be around at the Channel tunnel terminal. I also believe it unsatisfactory that Eurotunnel or any other cross-channel operator can decide on how many Customs officers there will be on offer on a train because they are paying the bill. We should have a national service, whether the police or Customs, operating according to national criteria and standards. In that case the Government should lay down those standards and pay for them. However, if standards can be varied because the man who pays the piper chooses the tune, an extremely different quality of Customs service could be provided on the trains.
  With those reservations—which I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will ease with his answers—I give this clause a general welcome, providing, of course, that we stick to the line that there is fair competition for all cross-channel operators and not a special provision for Eurotunnel.
  Mr. David Mitchell: The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) would require the Government to provide Customs and immigration controls on board any train passing through the tunnel if that was wanted by the operator. That would affect shuttle trains as well as through trains.
  Clearly, controls on board the shuttle trains are not a practical proposition. In any case, Eurotunnel does not
  268
  want such controls because the controls are to be juxtaposed at the point of departure at the tunnel terminals.
  Presumably the hon. Member for Vauxhall is concerned about the trains at Waterloo. However, if that is the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's amendment I must say that it is defective. In effect, the hon. Member for Vauxhall has asked why controls cannot be provided on trains to Waterloo if Customs and immigration controls can be provided on trains beyond London. The two situations are different.
  The Government accept that on-train controls are probably essential to the commercial viability of services bound for places beyond London. Therefore, although on-train controls are estimated to require half as many Customs officers again as are required for conventional static controls, the Government are prepared to accept the extra call on the manpower resources implicit in clause 12. However, the Government reserve the right to charge British Rail for those extra resources. The conditions in subsection (2) of clause 12 must also be satisfied. In part that answers my hon. Friend the member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), to whose case I shall return.
  When considering trains to Waterloo, the circumstances are considerably different. If the hon. Member for Vauxhall reflects for a moment he will realise that what we need to do is to ensure that people have as agreeable, fast and efficient a means of getting from one capital city to another as possible. The best way to achieve that is to ensure that people have an agreeable journey.
  The hon. Member for Vauxhall should envisage the likely effect of on-train controls. Suppose the hon. Member for Vauxhall goes to Paris for a business meeting. He gets into the train at Waterloo, which is much less inconvenient than charging out to Heathrow, humping baggage around and all that palaver. The hon. Gentleman has the window seat and is comfortably ensconced. The sherry is brought round before his meal and the soup has just been brought to the table when along comes a Customs officer who says, "Excuse me, sir. Would you be kind enough to identify your baggage'?" The hon. Gentleman must get up and in so doing disturbs the gentleman sitting next to him. Indeed, he probably slops his soup. He must go down the carriage, identify his baggage to the Customs officer and then return to his seat. The same thing will happen to everyone else down the train. It might well be that before such an exercise is over people will be wishing that they had airport-type controls whereby those who have nothing to declare can simply walk through the hall carrying their baggage as they have to do when they leave the train and the platform.
  Mr. Holland: The scenario is very touching. On the extremely rare occasions when I have travelled by train on the continent and had lunch the Customs inspector has said, "May I see your passport? Have you anything to declare? No? Well, have a good meal." There is an alternative scenario to the Minister's point.
  The Minister must appreciate that the trains in question are one and a half times the length of the standard inter-city train and will carry up to 770 passengers at a time. Therefore, it is not just a matter of getting off the train with the luggage and strolling through Customs. Individuals will stroll through Customs with 770 other people. There will not be the same filtering effect as there is at an airport. Whatever we think of the carousel luggage

  269
  arrangement at an airport—indeed, if we get the tunnel, lack of a carousel is one of the things that will make Channel tunnel traffic extremely competitive—the fact that people wait for individual luggage means that passengers are filtered as they approach Customs. But at Waterloo the lack of on-train services may leave 540 people swearing their heads off at the Government's failure to consider that passengers must past other passengers to get out.
  I believe that the Minister has shown us precisely that we need more public scrutiny and evaluation of this issue. We are having an interesting exchange on a substantive matter. However, we are not given any opportunity to consider this issue save for one further amendment concerning a report that British Rail may have to make by 1989. This discussion strengthens the case for that amendment.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Mitchell: It should not be automatically assumed that, for travellers from Paris to London, it is more attractive to have on-train controls than to have off-train controls.
  I accept that, when travelling between one continental city and another, there are few on-train controls. The hon. Gentleman is correct about that. However, that state of affairs derives from the fact that there has been a great deal of standardisation of duties and a whole variety of other things between one continental country and another. However, there is no such standardisation between us and continental countries. Therefore, the benefits of smuggling are much greater for people travelling into this country than they are for those travelling between one continental country and another.
  We must also consider the problems regarding checks on rabies. I am aware that the hon. Member for Vauxhall is anxious to ensure that there is a whole series of ways in which we will be more strict about this matter than they are on the continent. It is right and proper that that strictness should continue. I am sure that Labour Members would be the first to demand that it should continue. Therefore, it is not as easy to make on-train controls without some degree of disturbance. That disturbance is worth making on longer distance journeys, but on the shorter journey from Paris to London such disturbance may not be worth while.
  Mr. Holland: We are members of the Common Market. I appreciate that, a quarter of a century on, we do not have an integrated system within the Market and we do not have an "internal market". Indeed, people wonder whether we are in the Common Market when they are faced with border controls, passport control and so forth. With regard to variations in duty and VAT variations, whether there is 5p, 15p, 50p of £1 duty on a bottle of wine is not the point. We appreciate that rabies and drugs are of serious concern. Customs officers are not looking for someone who happens to bring back half a bottle of Scotch, but who has forgotten that they have left it in their luggage. Customs officers are searching for drugs or for people committing serious offences. Such offences must be dealt with.
  I believe that we need more consideration of these issues if the Bill is to go through the House today. I hope that the Minister will take on board my remarks so that we can obtain a proper evaluation of what will otherwise cause considerable congestion at Waterloo.
  Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Member for Vauxhall interrupted before I said that there are requirements for Customs and Excise to seach carefully for drugs. That means that we must have the facilities on a train to carry out a certain degree of searching.. That is an added problem.
  On a shorter journey from London to Paris, such searches may well involve further disturbance to passengers who have been identified as those who require further searching. All that problem evaporates when people going through the green channel make a declaration of nothing to declare. X per cent. of them are then pulled out by Customs at its discretion for further searching. That can all be easily done in tin facilities at Waterloo with the minimum of disturbance and distraction to the other passengers who are not involved in such checks. The advantage is that it is a matter for the railway companies and Eurotunnel to take that into account.
  Mr. Holland: When someone is suspected of having concealed drugs internally and so on, one does not need a passenger terminal at Waterloo to be able to deal with that. One needs offices and facilities to which persons who have been restrained on the train can be taken and where they can be searched.
  The other point that did not emerge from the exchanges on signalling is that signalling improvements could increase the number of trains—my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is quite right about that. However, they will also increase the number of passengers using Waterloo. I seriously suggest to the Minister that by building in the assumption that there will not be on-train passenger inspection for Brussels —London or Paris—one is likely to create a bottleneck at Walerloo that will mean a deterioration of the service.
  Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to his concerns in that area. I shall bear them in mind and discuss them with British Rail in due course. There is nothing in the Government's proposals that prevents on-train controls to Waterloo if requested by British Rail, if the Customs and Excise can be satisfied on the availability of adequate facilities for its purposes. It is for British Rail to judge which is the most appropriate way.
  I was trying to tell the hon. Gentleman earlier that it is not automatically—game, set and match—true that it is beneficial to have on-train controls between Paris and Waterloo. A judgment must be made, and we shall be better able to form one as time passes and as we gain more information about use, type of passengers and so on.
  Of course, the hon. Gentleman is quite right—if he were not, he would have been corrected by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East — about the advantages of resignalling, the improvement in train times that that would enable one to have, the increase in capacity and so on. I do not dissent from that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) said that equal rights should apply to all operators and questioned the extent of Customs and Excise co-operation. We have had some initial discussions with Customs and Excise, which has been helpful in explaining its requirements, and these matters must be taken further before a final conclusion can be reached.
  My hon. Friend asked about the boat trains for Sally Line and said that it has ordinary British Rail stock. He

  271
  will realise from previous discussions the problem that that poses, as one must have some special facilities for the trains to be able to carry out Customs controls on them. In principle, there is no reason why an approach made by Sally Line for special facilities on the trains should not be considered on its merits. I am not sure whether the chamber of commerce of Ramsgate will thank my hon. Friend for such a proposition, as it would mean that all those uncles, aunts, ladies and various friends of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East would not be able to go on to the beach and spend their money in the shops, because they would be in bond going through from ship to London. I should have thought that my hon. Friend would be anxious that they should get out of the train and spend their money in his constituency.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) raised the issue of equal treatment for the ports. The Government have given explicit assurances that, in the area of frontier controls, the tunnel and ports will be treated even-handedly. That is set out in detail in the Department of Transport's letter to the British Ports Association, reproduced in appendix 32 to the special report of the Commons Select Committee. I do not think that my hon. Friend would want me to quote the whole of that, but if he looks it up he will find it a cause of considerable satisfaction in the matter on which he is pressing me.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 19 agreed to, [One with Special Entry.]
  Lords amendment No. 20 agreed to. [Special Entry.]
  Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 28 agreed to.

Clause 14

  CONTRACT LAW AND ARBITRATION LAW
  Lords amendment: No. 29, in page 12, line 47, after first "notice" insert
  "and
  (b) any Concession agreement other than one so specified shall be taken to be valid and effective at any time on or after the date on which it is expressed to take effect;"
  Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 30 to 38.
  Mr. Mitchell: These are tidying-up amendments. They remove references to concession leases from the clause, and that takes them out of the jurisdiction of the international arbitral tribunal; they will, instead, be subject to English law and the English courts. There is also one technical amendment providing for agreement supplementing a concessionary agreement to the value.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 16

  SUPERVISION BY INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMISSION AND SAFETY AUTHORITY
  Lords amendment: No. 39, in page 14, line 35, after "time" insert
  "(or, in a situation which in his opinion is or may be dangerous, at any time)"
  Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 40 to 43 and 88.
  Mr. Mitchell: Subsection (3) of clause 16 confers on duly authorised agents of the intergovernmental com-mission and the safety authority various powers to enter the tunnel system for the purpose of carrying out inspections, examinations and investigations and to obtain information. These powers are similar to certain of the powers of inspectors acting under section 20 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. However, there are some useful provisions of section 20 of the 1974 Act—namely, power to take samples, to dismantle, to test and detain articles and substances—which are not included at present in subsection (3) of clause 16. These amendments fill that gap.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 17

  INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMISSION AND SAFETY AUTHORITY: SUPPLEMENTARY
  Lords amendment: No. 44, in page 15, leave out lines 39 and 40.
  Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 46 to 48, 50 to 52, 56, 58, 62, 65, 66 and 73.
  Mr. Mitchell: These are technical amendments concerned with clarifying the way in which the legal status of regulations of the intergovernmental commission is reflected in the Bill. As a result of this clarification it becomes possible to delete certain provisions as superfluous.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
  8 pm
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to Lords amendment No. 45, together with the other Lords amendments and amendments to the Lords amendments.
  Mr. David Mitchell: May I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that the right hon. Member for—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry. I should explain to the House that we are in the same situation as we were in on an earlier amendment. In other words, the debate takes place on amendment No. 45 and it will be appropriate to discuss the Lords amendments on the Amendment Paper, together with amendments (a), (b) and (c).
  Lords amendment: No. 45, in page 15, line 41, leave out "or direction" and insert "direction or certificate".
  Mr. Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  "(4) The Concessionaires shall not convey any passengers by means of shuttle trains at any time when there is not in force a certificate issued by the Intergovernmental Commission stating—

  (a) that the Commission are satisfied with a code of practice relating to the conveyance by means of shuttle trains of persons who are disabled which has for the time being been adopted by the Concessionaires; and

  (b) that the code of practice has been published in a manner approved by the Commission.

  (5) Such a code of practice must contain—

  (a) a statement of any description of such persons not intended to be conveyed by means of shuttle trains, with reasons;

  (b) details of provision for ensuring the safety of such persons in the tunnel system, in particular the safety in the event of an emergency of such persons being conveyed by means of shuttle trains; and

  (c) information relating to such other matters affecting the conveyance by means of shuttle trains of persons who are disabled as the Commission may specify.

  (6) Contravention of the restriction imposed by subsection (4) above may be restrained by an order of the High Court made on an application by the Intergovernmental Commission."
  Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 10, at end insert
  `and after consultation with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee'.
  Amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, leave out lines 11 to 13 and insert—
  '(5) Such a code of practice shall be drawn up in consultation with organisations of disabled people and shall require:
  (a) Provisions for the conveyance of all categories of disabled persons; and include;'.
  Amendment (c) to the Lords amendment, line 12, after `persons,' insert
  `who in exceptional circumstances are'.
  Mr. Mitchell: I hope that I shall have the leave of the House to speak again following the speech by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris).
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I rise to speak to the amendments (a), (b) and (c) in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, which are deeply important to Britain's 5·5 million disabled people and their families.
  On 6 July, I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for Transport asking if he would
  "make provision in the Channel Tunnel Bill for adequate facilities to ensure the safety, comfort and convenience of people with disabilities travelling on trains through the proposed Channel tunnel."
  In reply, the Minister of State said that Eurotunnel's original submission to the Governments showed that it realised the need to make provision on their shuttle services for people with disabilities. He said it was now working closely with representatives of disabled people's organisations to establish their requirements and to see how they could best be met. British Rail, he said, had a firm commitment to providing for the needs of passengers with disabilities on all its major services; and the safety authority would need to be satisfied by the arrangements proposed. He concluded:
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient co consider amendments Nos. 49, 53 to 55, 57, 59 to 60. No. 61, in clause 18, in page 16, line 38, at end insert—
  "Provision in the Channel Tunnel Bill is therefore unnecessary."—[Official Report, 6 July 1987: Vol. 119, c. 17.]
  Shortly afterwards the Minister of State wrote to me to say that the Government had changed their mind and that the Bill would be amended. The Bill was then amended in another place and I spoke urgently to the organisations representing disabled people about the adequacy of the Government's amendment. I found that they were anything but satisfied with the amendment, leaving me in some doubt about that part of the Minister's reply to me of 6 July which said that Eurotunnel was
  "working closely with representatives of disabled people's organisations to establish their requirements".
  That ministerial statement, made to this House, very soon proved to be highly questionable. Let me quote, for example, a letter I received yesterday from the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation. It says:
  "We think the Government's new Clause could result in disabled people being refused access to the shuttle trains. We doubt that this is what the government intended but it is crucial that the clause is amended when the Bill returns to the Commons on…21 July."
  The letter went on:
  "The first thing we need to ensure is that the code of practice is drawn up in consultation with disabled people and their organisations."
  The amendments on the Order Paper in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends were drafted in full consultation with the organisations concerned with disabled people and represent their view of what the House should now decide. My amendments will mean deleting a provision that could be used to prohibit people from travelling on the shuttle trains. That is a very serious matter in the view of the organisations I have consulted, and the Minister must now know that to be incontrovertibly true. At the very least the Minister must agree with the first of my amendments, which provides for consultation with the disabled persons transport advisory committee. It was the Department that set up the committee and it should be at once inconceivable and indefensible for it not to be consulted.

  275
  The House needs to know whether the Minister can assure us that the code of practice will not be agreed by the Government unless the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which represents both transport operators and disabled people, is satisfied that it meets the needs of disabled passengers. I urge the Minister to give that assurance in the terms in which I have put it to him.
  As the House knows, people with disabilities want to be a part of and not apart from society. To make that possible was the principal purpose of my own legislation for disabled people, which was so widely supported on both sides of both Houses of Parliament. For new laws to disadvantage disabled people would be unforgiveable and I most strongly urge the Minister to respond positively to amendments which, as I have made clear, have the total support of their organisations.
  Mr. Aitken: I rise at this quiet moment to tell the House and my hon. Friend the Minister that the amendments so ably moved by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) have cross-party support and would be welcome. The right hon. Gentleman's work for disabled people and his tenure of office as Minister for the Disabled are well known and respected throughout the House.
  The right hon. Gentleman may be a little surprised to know that he has run into one of the hurdles in his own field that many of us who have been studying the Channel Tunnel Bill for a long time have encountered before. That hurdle is an announcement by Eurotunnel that it is carrying out consultations. However, when we look closely we see that no such consultations, at least in any meaningful sense, have taken place. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the apparent lack of effective consultation with disabled groups despite an announcement that such consultations were taking place. I am sorry to say that is characteristic of the unfortunate management style and tactics of Eurotunnel in the past and they still prevail.
  If the Bill went through without the right hon. Gentleman's amendment it would be a most unacceptable piece of anti-disabled people discrimination. In certain circumstances disabled people could conceivably be denied access to the trains. The very least that we can do is accept the right hon. Gentleman's first amendment. I have a further point, but as the right hon. Gentleman is not as familiar with the subject as those of us who have been on the Committee he may not appreciate it. If we look closely at the safety measures on these trains we see that one of the most outstanding and worrying features is the apparent lack of exit space for passengers who might have to get out of their cars in a hurry in the event of a fire or explosion or some such disaster on the train. This has troubled people who have studied the matter, and we have always been fobbed off with the announcement that a body called, I think, the Inter governmental Safety Commission or some such elaborately-named quango will get it all right on the night.
  When one looks at the plans one sees problems that are real enough for ordinary people getting out of their cars and entering very narrow corridors and shoving and pushing against one another in an emergency. Those problems are real enough for healthy people, but for disabled people in wheelchairs the safety measures and the
  276
  exits could make matters even more difficult and restrictive and perhaps positively dangerous. I should like to flag this anxiety in conjunction with the right hon. Gentleman's amendments. If Eurotunnel and the safety commission have to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, there is some hope that the sort of fears that I have expressed can be overcome. If the amendment is rejected, there is no hope of that worry being buried. This is a very reasonable amendment and it was expertly moved. I support it and I believe that many of my hon. Friends, if they had been present, would have supported it also. I hope that my hon. Friend and the House will accept the amendment.
  Mr. David Mitchell: It may help the House if, before I address the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), I explain the purpose and background of Lords amendment No. 45. The amendment was tabled by the Government on Third Reading in another place in response to a proposal on Report by the noble Baroness Lady Stedman. Its purpose is to require Eurotunnel to draw up and have approved by the Inter-governmental Commission before it begins to operate shuttle trains a code of practice relating to the carriage of disabled people. Once the code has been drawn up, it must be published in a manner which the commission must also approve. Certain requirements as to what the code of practice may contain are included in subsection (5) of the amendment.
  Whereas the Government proposed the amendment in response to proposals by a Back Bencher in another place, the principle of including a provision of this type in the Bill was accepted by the Government from the time that it was proposed. Equally, we had no difficulty in obtaining the agreement of Eurotunnel or the French Government. It is entirely common ground that it is right that Eurotunnel should provide for the carriage of disabled people and that that should be written into the Bill.
  I now come to the substance of the amendments proposed by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe. Amendment (a) and the first part of the amendment (b) deal with the need to consult representative organisations of disabled people about the drawing up of the code and the manner of its publication. The Government do not believe it is necessary to write these provisions into the Bill. However, I can tell the House that Eurotunnel has undertaken, in drawing up the code, to consult thoroughly representatives of disabled people through the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee as to the content and manner of its publication before submitting the code and the publication arrangements to the Inter govern-mental Commission for approval.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: The assurance that I have asked for, after very close consultation with the organisations of and for disabled people, is that the code of practice will not be agreed by the Government unless the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee is satisfied that it meets the needs of disabled passengers. Can the Minister give that assurance? Is the answer yes or no?
  Mr. Mitchell: There will be thorough consultation with representatives of disabled people through the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. The proposals which flow from that have to be approved by the Inter-governmental Commission. That should reassure the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that the assurances that have been

  277
  given and which I have conveyed to the House and the right hon. Gentleman today, will be sufficient to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that we have taken the matter very seriously. I hope that that shows that we have taken the spirit of what the right hon. Gentleman is seeking and can satisfy him of the reasonable extent that we can move in terms of legislation.
  8.15 pm
  The remaining amendments — the second part of amendment (b) and amendment (c) — concern the question of which categories of disabled people Eurotunnel should carry and which categories it will be permitted not to carry. To put this question in its context, I should remind the House that Eurotunnel's shuttle service is a vehicle-carrying service. It does not carry lone passengers, whether disabled or not, so when we consider the carriage of disabled people, we are talking of disabled people who are drivers or passengers in cars, coaches or minibuses. Subsection (5) of Lords amendment No. 61 then permits the concessionaires to exclude from the code of practice certain categories of disabled people, but if so, they must indicate why.
  Let me make it quite clear that this does not mean Eurotunnel will be permitted to exclude wheelchair users or any other major group of people with disabilities. On the contrary, our intention is that disabled people should be carried on a full and equal basis with other passengers and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe would agree with that. The purpose of subsection (5) is to permit Eurotunnel not to carry those categories of people whose needs in terms of facilities and equipment are so complex that the concessionaires could not reasonably be expected to carry them on shuttle trains, and they must give details of how they will ensure the safety of disabled persons in the tunnel system.
  This indeed is the heart of the question. Throughout the proceedings of this Bill, the need to achieve the safe operation of the shuttle trains and their passengers has been a recurring theme. I do not think it would be consistent with the will of Parliament, expressed so often in debate and in Select Committee, for Eurotunnel to be required to carry passengers who could not be safely evacuated in case of emergency. That is the key point that the Inter-governmental Commission will want to consider. It is only in that narrow area that the question arises of Eurotunnel not carrying disabled persons.
  I have not the slightest reason to doubt Eurotunnel's good intentions in this matter. Subsection (5)(a) is not intended to be a wide-open loophole to frustrate the purpose of this amendment. However, in any case, the matter is not left to Eurotunnel alone. As I explained, it has undertaken to consult representative bodies, including the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, in drawing up the code, and this statutory committee, whose membership comprises people who are expert in both disability and transport, will be able to ensure that a fair and proper balance is struck. When the code is submitted to the Inter-governmental Commission, it will be for the commission to ensure that no disabled people are unreasonably excluded from using the tunnel, and to take the advice of the safety authority as to whether the arrangements for ensuring the safety of those who are to be carried are satisfactory.
  278
  I hope that, on the basis of what I have said and the undertakings that I have been able to give the House, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe will feel able not to press his amendments.
  Mr. Aitken rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman has addressed the House once. He cannot do so a second time.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment No. 45 agreed to.
  Lords Amendments Nos. 46 to 62 agreed to.

Clause 19

  BYELAWS OF THE CONCESSIONAIRES
  Lords Amendment: No. 63, in page 17, line 37, leave out "3" and insert "4".
  Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 64.
  Mr. Mitchell: The amendments are aimed at facilitating the enforcement of the concessionaires bylaws particularly those bearing on safety.
  Mr. Snape: I shall put two points to the Minister. Will he confirm that the amendment will have no adverse impact on clause 19(1)(f) which states:
  "regulating the use or conveyance of vehicles and prohibiting or regulating the conveyance of goods other than vehicles, in particular dangerous goods;"?
  The Minister will be aware that in clause 18 the concessionaires are not common carriers.
  I have two reasons for making these points. The Minister will be aware of the strong concern felt by all of us including those who support the project about safety in the tunnel system. He will be aware of the concern, much of which was inspired by competitors in the cross-Channel business, and concern expressed by many witnesses before the Select Committee about safety and the suggested conveyance of dangerous goods through the tunnel system.
  The Minister will confirm that dangerous goods are prohibited. Will he comment on the fact that, despite the fact such conveyance is prohibited under the terms of clause 19 and the amendment, at the moment one cross-Channel ferry company persists in showing a video of a train fire that took place in the Summit tunnel on the former Lancashire and Yorkshire railway system a few years ago. Will the Minister confirm that the showing of such a video is a deliberate distortion of the fact that the fire in that tunnel was caused by the collapse of the wheel system on a petrol tanker? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that neither that type of tanker nor any other will be permitted to travel through the tunnel system?
  I am sure that the Minister is aware that this propaganda is still being shown on cross-Channel ferries, supposedly on safety grounds. I should have thought that, given that later this week we are to hear about the report on the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster, on good taste grounds alone such a video would not be shown to passengers crossing the Channel. I do not know whether the Minister agrees that to expect good taste from Sealink would be the equivalent of expecting culture from

  279
  Hollywood. We shall not get any good taste. For the benefit of those using cross-channel ferries, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, under the terms of these amendments, that video is deliberately misleading and is a scurrilous attempt to play unreasonably on people's fears and that these amendments and this clause specifically preclude the carriage of dangerous goods through the tunnel system?
  Mr. David Mitchell: These amendments are aimed at facilitating the enforcement of the concessionaires byelaws, particularly bearing in mind safety. They do not impinge directly on the question of goods to be carried. It is for the concessionaire to propose appropriate measures for the prohibition or control of dangerous goods in the tunnel system. Their proposals will be considered by the Inter-governmental Commission. The commission will be advised by the safety authority which has recently established the dangerous goods working group to prepare its position on the transport of dangerous goods through the tunnel in the light of existing national and international requirement and practice. We must wait for that report before we have a definitive list of prohibited goods. I assure the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) that the circumstances which he has described — displaying a film of what happened in the Summit tunnel—have no relevance to the position in terms of the Channel tunnel. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having taken this opportunity to expose what I imagine is a deliberate attempt to mislead people.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 64 to 66 agreed to.

Clause 28

  RESTORATION OF LAND ON ABANDONMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATION
  Lords amendment: No. 67, in page 22, line 14, leave out from "make" to end of line 25 and insert
  "in relation to any land on which work has been done under this Act a scheme for putting it into such a condition as the scheme may provide and shall put it into a condition in accordance with the scheme.".
  Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 152 and 153.
  Mr. Mitchell: These amendments tidy up provisions dealing with the restoration of construction sites and land and restoration in the event of abandonment of a project. They were accepted by the relevant petitioners before the Select Committee of another place.
  Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32

  COMPETITION, ETC.
  Lords amendment: No. 68, in page 23, line 34, leave out from "shall" to "and" in line 36 and insert
  "be deemed to be interconnected bodies corporate for the purposes of the Act of 1976 in relation to any specified channel tunnel agreement, any specified class of channel tunnel agreements, or all such agreements;".
  Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendents Nos. 69 to 72.
  Mr. Mitchell: These amendments are essentially technical. They facilitate the application of competition legislation to the concessionaires and will ensure that the procedures to which they will be subject will be closely aligned with those applicable to their competitors.
  Mr. David Shaw: I tried to catch your predecessor's eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but just failed to do so. I wanted to speak on the amendments to clause 2, but I think that I may represent my constituency well by speaking about some of the aspects which could be related to clause 2 on this clause, which deals with competition.
  In as much as competition concerns consumers and taxpayers, it is of immense concern to my constituents that no public money should go into this project. They are concerned that not only this Government but successive Governments should continue to protect the taxpayers and consumers. There would be unfair competition between the tunnel and the ferries if the tunnel were bailed out by some form of subsidy or sold if it could not meet its financial obligations.
  There are many financial weaknesses in the present project. They stem from high fixed costs and, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) said, the unrealistic and unreliable passenger and revenue projections for this project. Referring to the original Channel tunnel project, Coopers and Lybrand Associates, in its 31 May 1973 report, forecast on page 21 that, without a tunnel, there would be some 29,778,000 passengers using airlines in 1980 to go to and from the United Kingdom and Europe. The actual number was closer to 20 million passengers. There was a massive over-forecast by the traffic consultants who supplied the figures to Coopers and Lybrand.
  Coopers and Lybrand's original forecast suggested that 14 per cent. of airline passengers would transfer to a Channel tunnel if it were built. Because the airline passenger rate was not as high as it should have been, Eurotunnel was forced to put in its 1987 prospectus a figure of 18 per cent. transferring. One wonders whether it was necessary to tweak the financial projections to achieve the right result. I was informed only at the weekend that the latest freight revenue projections show that, far from increasing, there has been a small downturn this year of some 3 per cent. in the freight revenue from ferries. Rail passengers—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The fault may be mine, but I am finding it difficult to relate what the hon. Member is saying to the contents of the Lords amendments. He should relate his remarks more closely to them, or resume his seat.
  Mr. Shaw: I shall try to relate my remarks more closely, as you suggest, Sir. My lack of experience of the House is to blame. I suggest that fair competition is essential. We need fair competition in terms not only of revenue, but, dare I suggest, money raised in the City of London and other such places. Without such fair competition between—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to say again to the hon. Member that I find little connection between his remarks and the Lords amendments.
  Mr. Shaw: The Lords amendments mention the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Having made many representations to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission during my former merchant banking career, I suggest that the MMC, when considering competition, looks to very wide and varied aspects of information. Eurotunnel's prospectus refers to a number of exemptions under various stock exchange requirements and others. This means that information on the shuttle's engineering feasibility and its practicability is not provided. If the Monopolies and Mergers Commission were considering the tunnel on lines equivalent to the ferries or ports, it would surely be extremely worried about that lack of information.
  In 1974, in a report on the Channel tunnel, Accountancy Age said that, although the tunnel was expected to carry 14 million passengers by 1990, the big expansion in journeys to and from the continent would be in air traffic, increasing from 16 million in 1971 to 41 million by 1990. All the 1974 forecast figures about passengers were wrong. Even in 1987, the ferries were carrying only 14 million passengers. I am concerned that, if the tunnel gets into financial difficulties, it will not be able to compete on fair grounds with the ferries. There may be some adjustment to the normal competition rules, which the Monopolies and Mergers Commission would consider.
  8.30 pm
  I feel that I should conclude on a matter that you may feel stretches the imagination somewhat, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in terms of whether I am speaking to the amendment. The British Rail contract recently signed by
  "38A.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Railways Board to prepare a plan stating measures which the Board propose to take, and any proposals as to measures which the Board consider ought to be taken by any person in the United Kingdom or France, with the aim of securing—

  (a) the provision or improvement of international through services serving various parts of the United Kingdom; and

  (b) an increase in the proportion of the passengers and goods carried between places in the United Kingdom and places outside the United Kingdom that is carried by international through services.

  (2) The measures referred to in subsection (1) above are—

  (a) measures relating to the operation of international through services;

  (b) measures relating to the carrying out of works or other developments connected with international through services (including collection and distribution centres for goods and inland clearance depots); and

  (c) measures relating to the provision or improvement of facilities or other services connected with international through services.

  (3) The Railways Board—

  (a) shall prepare the plan under this section not later than 31st December 1989;

  (b) shall keep the plan under review and from time to time revise it; and

  (c) shall cause the plan and any revisions of it to be published in such manner as they think fit.

  (4) In preparing the plan and any revisions of it the Railways Board shall have regard to the financial resources likely to be available to them and to any restrictions likely to be imposed on them with respect to the application of such resources.
  (5) The duties imposed by this section shall not apply at any time when the original Concession, as defined by section 1(4) of this Act, has expired or terminated and no new Concession is in operation.
  282
  Eurotunnel should be examined closely by the public. Certainly, many people in my constituency of Dover will be extremely concerned to ensure that that contract is fair vis-a-vis the ferries, and vis-a-vis Eurotunnel and British Rail. We hope that that can be examined, and will be published very shortly, before the publication of the prospectus in October.
  Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your tolerance in enabling me to raise a number of matters of concern to the port and ferry people of Dover.
  Mr. David Mitchell: I have noted my hon. Friend's points carefully. I can reassure him that no public money will go into the Eurotunnel project.
  Eurotunnel traffic forecasts are a matter for Eurotunnel, which must justify its project to the investors in the financial markets of the world. They are not underwritten or audited in any way by the Government; they are a matter for Eurotunnel, as a private sector operator.
  As for competition, there are certain intrinsic advantages in each method of transport. They will appeal to different groups of people. That is the free working of the market, and I do not believe that we should interfere with it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 74, 75, 76, 96 to 100 and 102 agreed to.

New Clause

  RAILWAYS BOARD'S PLAN FOR INTERNATIONAL THROUGH SERVICES
  Insert the following new Clause after clause 38—
  (6) In this section "international through services" means services for the carriage of passengers or goods by rail by way of the tunnel system. other than shuttle services.".
  Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. David Mitchell]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall consider the following amendments to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 23, at end insert—
  '(aa) shall take account of the social and congestion costs arising from excess use of Waterloo as a terminal;
  (b), in line 26, leave out 'in such manner as they think fit' and insert
  'and laid before both Houses of Parliament.'.
  Mr. Holland: I trust that the Minister will seriously consider the amendments. I appreciate that clause 38A(9) is concerned with provision for the improvement of international through services serving various parts of the United Kingdom. The amendment is clearly related to that, inasmuch as improvement of the international through services would, I believe, be very likely, given the degree of congestion which will probably occur at Waterloo. I also feel that the plan required by the new clause, which the British Railways Board should prepare not later than 31 December 1989, should not be published simply in such a manner "as they think fit", but should be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
  I shall not detain the House for long, because I know that other pressing matters command the attention of those hon. Members who are not in the Chamber to consider congestion at Waterloo. However, this is a serious issue. We debated earlier the question of traffic flows, and what kind of traffic is likely to be generated. I have raised the point that the Gibbs report was based on a past assumption of passenger use at Waterloo, and that several of the projections now given involve a considerably increased traffic flow. Therefore, while the Gibbs report declared itself satisfied that there would not be undue congestion around Waterloo, it is clear that, if we have anything like the projections given by the higher Eurotunnel figures — and, indeed, the 50 per cent. increase made possible by resignalling of track, there could be considerable congestion. One estimate is of at least an additional 4 million vehicles a year in or around Waterloo.
  I said earlier that already some hon. Members crossing Westminster bridge have to negotiate their way past tourist buses which are parked there — not simply to obtain a better view of this place, but because there is nowhere else in the immediate vicinity in which to park such a vehicle. It is not entirely a facetious remark when I say that hon. Members may find the congestion around Waterloo caused by several million additional vehicles a year to be considerable. Attention should also be given to the social costs of undue congestion. The Waterloo area contains an inner-city community struggling to resist commercial development pressures and to safeguard and restore community services and facilities. There is a considerable, if not acute, threat to that from the imposition of a single terminal, rather than dispersal of a higher degree of traffic than the 30 per cent. now estimated by British Rail.
  I appreciate — as I said earlier — that the Minister came to see the position for himself. I know that he is concerned, and realises that there is a viable local
  284
  community in the Waterloo area. However, I submit that the assessment should take account of railway operational matters as well as traffic generation, pollution and other environmental effects, the benefits to international and domestic public transport passengers, including commuter passengers, and the integration of transport facilities.
  British Rail has brought out a conveniently designed cross flow system for escalators designed to separate commuter traffic from international traffic. While the principle is no doubt a good one, in practice the strain on the service is likely to be considerable. It is clear to those of us who are familiar with Waterloo station that the idea of converting what is now a one-way road system, in which taxis have access to the station, to a two-way system will lead to considerable congestion. Those of us who use Waterloo know that if one taxi pulls out the traffic pile-up can involve up to 15 vehicles. On a random representative occasion, I found 15 cabs waiting because one was unloading and the others were piled up behind it.
  The environmental consequences will be considerable. British Rail's original proposal was for the terminal to be at the other end of the station, because it was recognised that increased space might well be needed to avoid congestion. Use of the other side of the station would involve building over areas which at present have housing, and a street market of the kind that the Minister has seen.
  As it has not been possible in the fullest feasible detail to examine these proposals in a Committee of this House, or in the other place, I submit that little would be lost if the amendment were accepted. I cannot anticipate the advice that the Minister may have taken from officials, but I know that he is a man with an independent mind. Were I an official, I might even advise him that the definition of "excess" provides room for manoeuvre over what British Rail might or might not have to consider.
  The Minister has expressed his concern for the community at Waterloo. Earlier he referred to the unwillingness of representatives of the local community groups to take part in the committee that he offered them. I appreciate his disappointment about that, but that issue is now in the past. The Minister has expressed concern and has permitted himself to be better informed about the possible congestion of Waterloo as a flagship terminal. That would imperil the economic viability of the fixed link traffic, if there were not consequential expenditure to facilitate the dispersal of traffic. That might lead to legislation having to be considered on the Floor of the House. Therefore, I urge him to accept both my amendments.
  Mr. David Mitchell: British Rail's choice of Waterloo as an international terminal has been debated exhaustively at all stages of the Bill's passage through both Houses. The misgivings of the Waterloo community about the effect of this development on them are understandable. If, however, the council that they elected to represent them had been prepared to respond to British Rail's repeated offers of consultation, or if they had not made the futile gesture of walking out of the meeting that I had convened to bring them and British Rail together, it might have been possible to put some of these misgivings at rest.

  285
  Critics of the Waterloo proposal have now had every opportunity to put their views before Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament. After considering their views carefully, both Select Committees considered that there was no reason to question British Rail's decision, or to remove the Waterloo provisions from the Bill.
  The hon. Gentleman's first amendment would require British Rail to take account of the social and congestion costs arising from the excess use of Waterloo as a terminal. It would not require British Rail to do this when drawing up its plans for dispersal under the new clause, but I assume that that is the hon. Gentleman's intention. The plan would provide a basis on which local authorities and other interested parties in the regions could discuss with British Rail its plans for the dispersal of services. I do not think that it would be helpful for the plan to be cluttered with discussions about the adequacy or otherwise of Waterloo. That is a separate issue.
  The hon. Gentleman's second amendment would require British Rail's plans to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. The approach to publication that we have adopted is once again inspired by the approach of the original Opposition clause. That clause required the board to publish its plan in such a manner as it considered best calculated to bring it to the attention of those who would be affected by its implementation. This clause uses different words to achieve the same purpose.
  There is no question of the board publishing the plan in a surreptitious manner so that nobody knows about it. The board would have every interest in letting its potential customers know what sort of services it was planning to provide. I have no doubt, therefore, that it will publish its plan widely. However, in response to the hon. Gentleman's request, I am happy to undertake that when the plan is published copies will he placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Holland: I am most grateful to the Minister, and I know that the local community will also be grateful to him for what he has said. Nevertheless, it is important to have an opportunity to discuss the issues. Public display boards at Waterloo gave information that proved to be misinformation. It had to be withdrawn. Consultation chats with British Rail management and members of the local community have not addressed detailed questions such as the mix of private car, taxi and coach use and the congestion during holiday periods and in the week. However, I say again that I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.
  Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40
  NO GOVERNMENT GRANTS TO RAILWAYS BOARD IN RESPECT OF INTERNATIONAL RAILWAY SERVICES
  Lords amendment No. 78 agreed to. [Special Entry.]
Clause 42

  MODIFICATION OF ENACTMENTS RELATING TO COAST PROTECTION, SAFETY OF NAVIGATION AND THE POWERS OF HARBOUR AUTHORITIES
  Lords amendment: No. 79, in page 30, line 12, at beginning insert
  "Subject to subsection (6) below").
  Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 80, 81 and 85.
  Mr. David Mitchell: These amendments give the Dover harbour board greater freedom to carry out blasting operations in or near the harbour without the prior approval of the concessionaires and were negotiated and agreed between the parties at the same time as they agreed the revised protective provisions in part IV of schedule 7. The amendments were submitted to and endorsed by the Select Committee in another place.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 47

  INTERPRETATION
  Lords amendment: No. 82. in page 32, line 13, after "sections" insert
  "shown on Sheets Nos. 1 to 15 and 21 to 34 of the plans and sections".
  Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos 83, 84, 89, 91 to 94, 101. 114 to 132 and 172.
  Mr. Mitchell: These amendments give effect to the decision of the Select Committee in another place to replace the access provisions contained in the Bill on introduction with the joint southern access arrangements that were worked out between the local authorities and Eurotunnel after the original alternative access proposals were rejected by the Select Committee of this House. As the House knows, these revised access arrangements were widely welcomed by many petitioners and by many of the constituents of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who may be regarded as the godfather of these proposals.
  Mr. Aitken: Having had the not very agreeable duty of quarrelling with the Government about the procedural arrangements for the access road, it gives me pleasure to be able to say how strongly I am in favour of this change in the Bill, which I believe to be of environmental benefit, because it will save many acres of the countryside. It will also bring more trade and business to the beleaguered economies of many east Kent towns, including the Thanet towns in my constituency.

  287
  I ask the Minister for an assurance, however, that signposting will be given proper priority. This road, curling towards east Kent, will nevertheless fail in one of its purposes if it is inadequately signposted and if the various tourist and business attractions of east Kent are not clearly marked.
  I join in paying tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) who is indeed the godfather of this group of amendments. They are most welcome. If the Channel tunnel is built, I hope that they will bring some benefit to the economies of those communities who will lose jobs.
  Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend has asked me about signposting. I have taken a personal interest in that subject. It will not have escaped his attention that it was specifically mentioned by the House of Commons Select Committee when it considered the alternative access. It will be on the agenda of the next meeting of the joint consultative committee when it meets in Kent. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's points are taken into account on that occasion.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 90, in page 35, line 27, leave out "the".
  Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 95, 111 and 113.
  Mr. Mitchell: These are drafting amendments.
  Mr. Clive Soley: These are slightly more than drafting amendments. I shall not delay the House long, but this is an important matter that affects my constituency with regard to compensation that is paid for land damage. I shall address my remarks in particular to amendment No. 111.
  The land that I shall refer to is Scrubs wood in my constituency, which will be used for sidings and the toilet-emptying facilities of trains when they are parked overnight. It is a surprising area in inner-city terms. It is a wildlife area and British Rail accepts—the Minister will know this from the debate that we had in Committee—that a large part of it will be destroyed.
  This matter was brought to my attention by a young man who is aged 15 years. Lester Holloway has already received a considerable amount of publicity with regard to the matter. As a result of his work, he has been nominated for the Youth of the Year award in a BBC programme. His work is impressive, and over the years he has collated the wildlife that lives in the area, including his main interest of birds. He has the support of the London Wildlife Trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other such groups.
  The relevant part of amendment No. 111 is the requirement for British Rail to pay compensation. The compensation that is being mentioned is about £36,000. The costing of the amount that will be required to protect the area is about £260,000. Amendment No. 111 refers to damage done, and its effect is to remove those words from the Bill, which should not happen.
  I shall now explain the background to the matter and explain the importance and relevance of it. Lester
  288
  Holloway produced his report and has received a wide degree of support. When he came to see me at the House I drew the matter to the attention of my friend, Nick Raynsford, who was the Member for Fulham and who was on the Committee. The Government accepted an amendment that was tabled by him which called for consultations with the London Wildlife Trust and the London boroughs of Hammersmith, Fulham and Ealing because of the damage that would be done to this unique area.
  It is a unique area because it has evolved over many years, partly as a result of industrial use as a railway siding and partly as a result of having allotments there in the past. According to a number of experts, not just Lester Holloway, it has produced an amazingly wide variety of plant life in a small area, which in turn supports a wide variety of insects, animals and bird life. The area contains semi-mature woodland of several different types, dry heathland, grassland and gorse near the wetter habitats of the canal.
  I have a petition which has been signed by some 4,000 people. It expresses opposition to the development and calls for British Rail to make compensation in the amount that I have mentioned. I shall not go into detail, but in this area an extraordinarily wide variety of birds, animals and insects have been identified, many of which have been unknown to other areas of London. One of the matters that I want to stress to the Minister—I am seeking his support to urge British Rail to increase the compensation for the damage done—is that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has passed regulations that in the new GCSE curriculum all biology students need to do field work and ecological studies. All inner-London and inner-city areas have difficulties in identifying areas for such work. This is such an area, yet it will be destroyed.
  If the worst comes to the worst British Rail must take over this area, but we are asking that it restructures the area to the south. It has offered some £36,000 to do that, but reading between the lines British Rail seems to take the view that it is just a matter of moving the fence back a few hundred yards. It is not; it is a matter of restructuring the environment.
  I shall quote from the House of Lords with regard to this matter. Lord Belstead said:
  "During the proceedings of the Select Committee, the London Wildlife Trust raised the question of extending the consultation requirement to clearance of the land and asked British Rail to give an undertaking that it would not at any time alter the site in any way without adequate prior consultation. The Noble Baroness"—
  Baroness Nicol—
  "said that she thought that British Rail was sympathetic to that course. Indeed, British Rail was able to give an assurance that if the London Wildlife Trust wished to identify a particular species or habitat that it wanted to preserve or remove, that opportunity would be given. I believe that we ought to accept that assurance in good faith."
  Baroness Nicol said:
  "The Minister seems to base his case on the need to trust the undertaking given by British Rail. I am sorry to say that the damage that has been done to the site as a preliminary to survey work has been done within the last two weeks, which is after the undertaking was given. Noble Lords can scarcely be surprised therefore if the London Wildlife Trust and the other local groups feel a little diffident about accepting the rest of British Rail's undertakings. I am sorry to have to undermine the Minister's argument but this is a fact, and somewhere I have photographs of the damage"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 1987; Vol. 488, c. 587 and 589.]

  289
  An excellent report has been made by Land Use Consultants, which is an expert in this sector. It argued that the site can be moved but it must be done well in advance of the work that will destroy the existing area and that the cost will be about £260,000. We must bear in mind that the depot in this area is estimated to cost £41·9 million. British Rail has offered £36,000.
  I ask the Minister to recognise that the amendment that the Lords have inserted has reduced the pressure on British Rail to pay compensation for the damage that everybody acknowledges will be done to a unique inner-city area. If we regard it as important to protect areas such as Kent, which I support and understand, we must consider it exceptionally important to do so in inner city areas, where everyone acknowledges that there are species of animals, bird life and insects that have not been seen not only in the inner city areas but the surrounding areas of London. It is that rare wildlife that is in danger of being wiped out.
  I do not know whether the Minister has seen the report from Lester Holloway, but I am happy to let him have a copy. It details different and rare things that he has spotted, including a swallowtail butterfly, which has not been seen in that area for many years. There is a moth, of which I had no knowledge, called the wormwood shark, which also inhabits that area and is regarded as very rare. I urge the Minister to look again at the amendment or to use his good offices with British Rail to ensure that it makes a more realistic offer to compensate for the damage that everyone acknowledges will be done.
  Mr. David Mitchell: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman but amendment No. 111 has nothing to do with Scrubs wood. It is a drafting amendment to the provisions concerning temporary occupation of land. There is no temporary occupation of land at Scrubs wood. British Rail's offer of £36,000 was accepted by the Select Committee as a reasonable offer.
  Mr. Soley: Obviously, the Minister is right about the terms of temporary occupation. I spotted that years ago. however, the words removed by the Lord's amendment are:
  "in respect of damage arising from the execution of any works, other than damage for which".
  Mr. Mitchell: As I was saying, the sum of £36,000 was accepted by the Select Committee as being reasonable and proper. It is not for me to interfere. I am aware of the work that has been done by the hon. Gentleman's young constituent, Lester Holloway. I was impressed with what I saw of his work. I have written to him to congratulate him on his work and to thank him for having drawn attention to the important ecological aspects to which the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has drawn the attention of the House.
  I hope that with those sympathetic comments, the hon. Gentleman may feel that it is right that we should agree with the Lords in the amendment.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 91 to 102 agreed to.

Schedule 2

  SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO THE SCHEDULED WORKS AND OTHER AUTHORISED WORKS
  Lords amendment: No. 103, in page 43, line 25, leave out, ", water or" and insert "or water pipes,".
  9 pm
  Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 104 to 108 and No. 112.
  Mr. Mitchell: These amendments are protective arrangements agreed between the parties during the Select Committee of another place over the drainage lagoon works in the Bill and the discharges from it. Because of further amendments to schedule 7 made in another place, it is unlikely that the lagoon will be built, but the protection is needed should it be necessary, after all, to build one. The question of the sewer alternative arises under amendment No. 197.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 104 to 108 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 109, in page 46, line 21, leave out from "vehicles" to end of line 22 and insert
  "provided in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) below;"
  Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 110.
  Mr. Mitchell: These are agreed amendments to a private schedule accepted by the Select Committee of another place.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 110 to 132 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 133, in page 57, line 22. leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—
  "(5) Where the construction of any part of the road forming Work No. 17 has been completed the Secretary of State may, if the part concerned was not a highway at the passing of this Act, certify a date on which it is to be transferred to that Council.".
  Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 134 to 142.
  Mr. Mitchell: These are technical amendments.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 134 to 142 agreed to.

Schedule 3

  PLANNING PERMISSION
  Lords amendment: No. 143, in page 59, line 43, at end insert—
  ""spoil" means spoil from tunnelling works; and
  "surplus spoil" means spoil which is not used for the purposes of any of the works authorised by this Act.".
  Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following Lords amendments: Nos. 144 to 148, 151, 154, 155 and 183.
  Mr. Mitchell: These amendments are technical. They will bring together in a more logical order the provisions relating to spoil disposal.
  Mr. David Shaw: Having been negative about some of the amendments, I am glad to say that I welcome certain aspects of amendment No. 184. There is no question but that some of the provisions relating to the control of the way in which spoil is dealt with will benefit the constituency of Dover.
  Nevertheless, I feel that it is appropriate to sound a note of concern. The Government's 1973 paper on the Channel tunnel suggested that only 2 million cubic metres of spoil would have to be dealt with, and that would certainly not need to be dumped at the base of Shakespeare cliff, just out to sea from my constituency. The excess of over 2 million cubic metres is unacceptable. I am also concerned at the impact on the environment of the spoil being moved around near to the council estate of Aycliffe. There could be considerable problems from noise as well as from dust.
  I am concerned, too, about the visual impact on the environment. My wife and I very much enjoy walking on Shakespeare cliff, and clearly the walk will not be as attractive as it has been in the past. Many people from Dover enjoy that walk—
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman should not get too close to the edge.
  Mr. Shaw: I assure the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) that if he likes to come with me, I shall take him close to the edge.
  As I feel certain that the Minister will get the proposal through the House and as this is probably the last time that I shall say anything on the Bill or the amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I know that Opposition Members will be pleased when I sit down; they will be less pleased when I stand up on more political matters at a later date.
  No doubt the Minister will earn his due rewards after the Bill has been passed. Although I have given him many brickbats, I hope that I may also pay tribute and thanks to him for the provisions that he has inserted for the benefit of Dover. Into this thoroughly unacceptable Bill he has managed to insert at least a modicum of provisions to protect the interests of the ports and ferries.
  If the workings are started and the finance is raised—which I doubt—I hope that if there are any problems relating to spoil in the years ahead the Minister will agree to receive delegations of residents perhaps represented by me to discuss them. I refer to problems of excessive noise and visual problems, or restricted walking or anything that may impair the benefits that my constituents are used to enjoying.
  Mr. David Mitchell: I agree with my hon. Friend about the agreeable nature of the walk along the top of Shakespeare cliff. However, unless he walks very close to the edge he will have difficulty in seeing the land reclaimed with the spoil from the Channel tunnel.
  The amendments ensure that the planning authority when considering requests for planning approval for the sea wall may take into account the requirement for other consents in relation to the sea wall contained in schedule 7. Conversely, when approving the sea wall for navigation purposes, they permit the Secretary of State to have regard to the requirements for planning approval. They also
  292
  provide for consultation on the deposit of spoil with the Government's statutory advisers on environmental matters.
  Lords Amendment No. 148 also writes into the Bill the more southerly alignment of the cut-and-cover rail tunnel through Holywell Coombe agreed by Eurotunnel, the Nature Conservancy Council and other environmental bodies, strongly supported by the Select Committee in the other place. It defines a protected area south of which all the construction must take place. This will safeguard the northern of the two most important geological deposits in the Coombe area, which would have been destroyed under the original alignment proposals. I am sure that any noise or visual problems will be raised at the meetings of the joint consultation committee by the Dover representatives, and they will certainly be sympathetically heard.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 144 to 148 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 149, in page 62, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
  "6.—(1) The land associated with any building, facility or work comprised in any authorised development shall be landscaped in accordance with a scheme approved, at the request of the Concessionaires, by the district planning authority.
  (1A) No building, facility or work so comprised shall be brought into use unless—

  (a) a scheme for the landscaping of the land associated with it has been so approved; and

  (b) any landscaping operations required by the scheme to have been completed before the building, facility or work is brought into use have been completed in accordance with the scheme."

  Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this house doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 150.
  Mr. Mitchell: These amendents ensure that provisions of the landscape scheme prepared by the concessionaires and approved by the local planning authority are enforceable by providing a more flexible from of planning condition.
  Mr. Snape: As these are the last two amendments, and this may be the last debate on the Bill—
  Mr. Alan Howarth: No, they are not.
  Mr. Snape: They are the last ones formally set down. I am grateful to the Whip, but the vow of silence that he has taken should be thoroughly enforced.
  Mr. Howarth: Look over the page.
  Mr. Snape: I am sorry that I got involved in this. The Whip is right to say that there are half a dozen more groups of amendments over the page. I apologise to him and to the House for intervening at this point.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 150 to 156 agreed to.

Schedule 4

  THE A20 IMPROVEMENT WORKS
  Lords amendment: No. 157, in page 67, line 29, after "with" insert "the"
  Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 158 and 159.
  Mr. David Mitchell: These amendments simply correct some very small drafting slips.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 158 and 159 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 160, in page 70, leave out lines 25 to 27.
  Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 161.
  Mr. Mitchell: These are simply rearrangements of the footpath and bridleway network affected by the A20 to meet petitioning points made by the Ramblers Association to the Select Committee of this House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 161 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 162, in page 71, line 28, leave out from beginning to "the" in line 31 and insert—
  "6.—(1) On the date on which this Act is passed".
  Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 163 to 171.
  Mr. Mitchell: These are simply technical amendments concerned with the status of the A20 improvement works.
  Question put and agreed ot.
  Lords amendments Nos. 163 to 172 agreed to.

Schedule 5

  SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO ACQUISITION OF LAND
  Lords amendment: No. 173, in page 77, line 46, leave out from beginning to "the" in line 1 on page 78.
  Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 174.
  Mr. Mitchell: The first amendment deletes superfluous words and in doing so creates an inconsistency in the drafting. The second amendment is consequential upon the first.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 174 agreed to.

Schedule 7

  PROTECTIVE PROVISIONS
  Lords amendment: No. 175, in page 85, line 41, leave out
  "constructing or carrying out works of maintenance on"
  and insert
  "carrying out any work for the construction or maintenance of"
  Mr. Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords amendments Nos. 176 to 182 and 184 to 204.
  Mr. Mitchell: Those amendments deal with a variety o matters relating to protective provisions agreed before the Select Committee of another place. They concern water, sewerage, drainage and workings at sea and provide additional protection to the statutory undertakings involved.
  Mr. Snape: I have been assured by Conservative Members that there are no more pages of amendments. Therefore, I take the opportunity on this last group of amendments, on what I hope is the last day of debate on the Bill, to thank the Minister of State for his courtesy and attention to detail over the past year. It has been much appreciated. Sometimes the content of his answers has not been appreciated by Labour Members of by members of the two Committees on which I have served but, despite our political differences, at all times he has tried to meet the various, sometimes conflicting amendments and advice, for which we are all grateful.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I want to briefly comment on the water, sewerage and drainage aspects of the amendments. Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you will appreciate, the Bill wended its way through the House while I was not present. Therefore, I want to place on record my complete opposition to this wretched Channel tunnel venture. It has nothing whatever to do with transport. It is designed to pour huge sums of public money—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot seek to make now the speech that he might have made had he been a Member of the House when the Bill was debated. I hope that he will address his remarks to the amendments before the House.
  Mr. Cryer: I am concerned with the cost of the water, sewerage and drainage facilities that will arise as part of the huge amount of public expenditure for a tunnel that is designed only to link us closer to the Common Market and which is not of advantage to the country.
  Mr. Mitchell: If the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) had been a Member of the House at the time he would have heard those comments made by a number of other hon. Members. I thank the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) for his kind remarks. The Bill has been considerably improved in its passage through the various processes of the House and of the other place, the Standing Committee and the Select Committee, and hon. Members on both sides of the House have played a significant part in achieving that improvement.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Members' Salaries and Allowances
9.19 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—

(a) the salaries of Members not falling within paragraph (b) shall, in respect of service in 1988 or any subsequent year, be at a yearly rate equal to 89 per cent. of the rate which on 1st January in that year represents the maximum point on the main national pay scale for Grade 6 officers in the Home Civil Service, or if that scale ceases to exist, on the scale which for the time being replaces it (disre-garding, in either case, any discretionary pay point on that scale); and

(b) the Salaries of Officers of this House and Members receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 shall, in respect of service in 1988 or any subsequent year, beat a yearly rate equal to 67 percent. of the rate which on 1st January in that year represents the maximum point referred to in paragraph (a).

I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House
if we take together the other motions in my name:
That, in the opinion of this House—
(a) the allowance payable to a Member of this House in respect of the aggregate expenses incurred by him for his Parliamentary duties—

(i) as general office expenses (including expenses incurred in the purchase of office equipment).

(ii) on secretarial assistance, and

(iii) on research assistance for work undertaken in the proper performance of such duties,

should be known as the office costs allowance;
(b) the limit on the office costs allowance should be determined as follows—

(i) for the year ending with 31st March 1988, the limit should be £20,140,

(ii) for the year ending with 31st March 1989, the limit should be the greater of the following amounts, namely the amount obtained by increasing £19,500 by the relevant percentage and £20,140,

(iii) for any subsequent year, the limit should be the amount obtained by increasing the limit applicable to the immediately preceding year by the relevant percentage (so that, if the relevant percentage for any year is nil, the limit remains the same for that year);

(c) the arrangements approved by Mr. Speaker pursuant to paragraph (b) of the second Resolution of 19th July 1983 (payments by Fees Office in respect of secre-tarial and research assistance) should include arrangements for securing that, before any salary or fee is paid to any person in respect of his employment by the Member concerned, the Member—

(i) in the case of a person by law entitled to receive a written statement of the main terms and conditions of that employment, has furnished the Fees Office with a copy of any such statement and has furnished the Fees Office and that person with a statement containing a job description relating to that employment, or

(ii) in the case of any other person, has furnished the Fees Office and that person with a statement containing a job description relating to that employment and has either included in that statement details of that persons's pay and hours of work or furnished the Fees Office with a copy of a written contract relating to that employment,

together with arrangements for securing that, before any other payment is made in respect of services provided by any person, the Member concerned has furnished the Fees Office with invoices specifying the services in question;
(d) the limit applicable to the sum referred to in paragraph (b) of the third Resolution of 5th June 1981 (pension contributions for Members' secretaries and research assistants) should, for the year ending with 31st March 1988 and any subsequent year, be equal to—

(i) 10 percent. of the salary, or (as the case may be) of the aggregate amount of the salaries, payable for that year to the person or persons in respect of whom any such sums are paid, or

(ii) 10 per cent. of the amount which is the limit for that year on the office costs allowance,

whichever is less.
In this Resolution "year" means a year ending with 31st March, and for the purposes of this Resolution—

(i) the relevant percentage for any year is the percentage by which the amount of salary (exclusive of allowances and overtime) payable for that year to a person in the Home Civil service at the maximum point on the scale for Senior Personal Secretaries and in receipt of Inner London weighting exceeds the corresponding amount for the immediately preceding year;

296

297

(ii) any fraction of a pound in the amount obtained as mentioned in paragraph (b)(ii) or (iii) above for any year shall be treated as a whole pound if it is not less than 50 pence, but shall otherwise be disregarded.

That the following provision should be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—
(a) the salaries of Members not falling within paragraph (b) shall, in respect of service in 1988 or any subsequent year, be at a yearly rate equal to 89 per cent. of the rate which on 1st January in that year represents the maximum point on the main national pay scale for Grade 6 officers in the Home Civil Service or, if that scale ceases to exist, on the scale which for the time being replaces it (disregarding, in either case, any discretionary pay point on that scale); and
(b) the salaries of Officers of this House and Members receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 shall, in respect of service in 1988 or any subsequent year, be at a yearly rate equal to 67percent. of the rate which on 1st January in that year represents the maximum point referred to in paragraph (a).
I hope also to cover in my remarks the Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1987 for which we are seeking the House's approval.
The discussion of our salaries is always a peculiarly intimate and sensitive debate. The last time we debated these matters the common theme running through the speeches from both sides of the House was how invidious and embarrassing it was that, year after year, we had to debate and then determine our own pay. The motions in my name would, if approved, lead to automatic adjustments in our salaries for future years without the need for annual debates. I shall deal first with Members' and then Ministers' pay before turning to the motion on the secretarial allowance.
The House last debated Members' salaries in July 1983. On 19 July, while accepting a phased increase in salary up to £18,500 on 1 January 1987, the House voted that, from 1 January 1988, a Member's salary would be linked to that paid to the Civil Service grade which was earning £18,500 in July 1983. That was equivalent to 89 per cent. of the basic maximum of the grade 6 or senior principal pay scale. To become effective, the resolution required confirmation within three months of a new Parliament.
That linkage would give Members a rise of £4,048, from £18,500 to £22,548, to be paid from 1 January 1988. It would also mean that future annual increases from 1 January 1989 and beyond for Members' pay would be linked to the increase for this Civil Service pay point. As some hon. and right hon. Members will recall, the Government did not originally support either the principle of linkage or this particular linkage. We were prepared, as a compromise, to support a different linkage that would have produced a much more modest increase. But the House voted for the increase that I described earlier, and traditionally it is the House which decides the issue. Today it is for the House to decide whether to confirm the linkage in the 1983 resolution. The motions in my name give the House that chance.
Despite our original reservations about the linkage, I now support it. I believe that the Government have a responsibility to listen to the House on such matters and, sometimes, to defer to its judgment. The House has voted for the principle of linkage on three separate occasions—in 1975, 1980 and 1983—and its will is clear. As a workable and, I believe, generally acceptable proposal, the linkage has virtues other than necessity. I am sure that the whole House will be relieved if we can agree upon it tonight.
There are two further points that I should make. First, we believe that it is in accordance with the will of the House to make this linkage with the basic maximum pay
298
scale for this grade, and not to take account of any discretionary pay points that might be added to the scale, but which will not be awarded to the grade as a whole.
Second, I should explain why there are two similar motions on Members' pay. The first motion is framed as an expression of opinion, and can be amended. The second bears the Queen's Recommendation, and cannot be amended. This is required in order to provide for an increase in Exchequer contributions to the pension fund, following an increase in Members' pay. These two motions are the normal way of dealing with the issue If the first finds favour in the House in an unamended form, the second effective motion will be moved. If, however, the House rejects or amends the first motion, we will not move the second motion today, but I shall undertake to return to the House in the near future with an effective motion that reflects the House's view.
I hope, however, that the House will accept the motion in its present form, as the amendment which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has tabled is not one which I could recommend—although I shall, of course, listen attentively to the hon. Gentleman's arguments. I believe that the amendment would bar Members from occupations outside the House, after the next election. I do not think that there is a consensus about this, and I am sure that many Members believe that it can be beneficial to the work of the House if some Members have current experience of outside employment.
The motions deal also with the reduced parliamentary salary payable to my colleagues on the Front Bench, and certain other officeholders. The arrangement proposed is that their reduced parliamentary salary should be linked to a lower percentage of the same maximum on the senior principal pay scale, as was envisaged in 1983 That will give my colleagues an increase in this element of their salary from £13,875 to £16,911.
As far as ministerial salaries themselves are concerned, the Government's proposals are contained in the draft Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1987, which I laid before the House on 16 July and which I hope the House will approve today. I refer the House also to my written answer of Thursday 16 July in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) when I set out in some detail the changes that we envisage. The Government's proposals are simple. We do not believe that percentage increases similar to that proposed for Members would be appropriate for Ministers or other officeholders. At the same time, we do not believe that it would be right for junior Ministers in particular to be worse off than if they had remained Back-Bench Members.

299
We propose, therefore, that all Ministers and officeholders in this House, and in another place, should receive in total the same cash increase of £4,048 as Members of Parliament are due to receive from 1 January 1988.
I turn now to our consideration of the Members' office, secretarial and research allowance. On 16 July last year, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North, (Mr. Biffen), moved a motion which was designed to overcome the anomalous increase that would have occurred in the allowance because of a quirk in the linkage. He accompanied this motion with the assurance that the allowance would be referred to the TSRB for a fundamental overhaul. On that occasion, the House did not accept the wise advice of my right hon. Friend to limit the percentage increase in the allowance for that year to 6 per cent., but accepted the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) that the allowance should be paid as if it had been fixed at £19,000 rather than at £13,211 and should be further increased by 6 per cent. for the following financial year. That gave a maximum of £20,140 for last year.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North none the less referred the office, secretarial and research allowance to the Top Salaries Review Body. Its report was published earlier this year, as my right hon. Friend announced to the House in a written answer on 29 April. The TSRB recommended that the maximum allowance from 1 April 1987 should be £19,500, consisting notionally of £17,000 for staff and £2,500 for office and equipment costs. In view of the decision that the House had already taken that the allowance be set at £20,140, the TSRB recommended that the level should be retained on a mark-time basis until the figure of £19,500, uprated in accordance with the existing formula, reached a level higher than £20,140. The TSRB in addition made recommendations about good employment practice and accountability for claims made on the allowance.
The motion in my name on the secretarial allowance reflects in a number of ways the conclusions of the TSRB's report. It follows the reommendation, which I have just outlined, about the level of the allowance and mark-time arrangements. The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) would overturn those arrangements. I shall listen with interest to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, but I believe the House would be doing itself a disservice if, having preempted the TSRB's review by voting for the present level of allowance, it rejected the TSRB's conclusion that the allowance was too high.
For the future, the Government motion retains the linkage which has previously been in operation with the maximum of the senior personal secretary scale receiving inner London weighting, again as the TSRB recommended. The TSRB believed that the allowance should be renamed the office expenses allowance. I have slightly adapted this recommendation to rename it the office costs allowance. This is to emphasise the point, both to hon. Members and to others, that the payments available are for costs incurred, and do not represent a second general source of income for Members.
The House will see that the motion takes account of the Top Salaries Review Body's recommendation that to promote good employment practice the Fees Office should
300
receive copies of written statements of main terms and conditions of employment for Members' staff. It is, of course, already a legal obligation for Members to supply their staff with such documentation, and it is worrying that the TSRB found some instances where that was not happening. The implementation of this recommendation should rectify the position.
Additionally on accountability, the TSRB recommen-ded that we should consider whether we should adopt in the resolution the Inland Revenue criteria of expenditure qualifying for reimbursement which is "wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred" in parliamentary duties. I considered carefully whether adopting that formula would substantially improve the arrangements for accountability. I accept the spirit of that recommendation, but I am not convinced that the wording of the criteria used by the Inland Revenue is necessarily appropriate for our own arrangements. Indeed, I believe that difficulties might arise if the same wording were used in different circumstances but in respect of the same claims both by the Fees Office and the Inland Revenue.
Finally, I refer to the TSRB's recommendation that Chief Whips should make informal arrangements so that any claims on which, exceptionally, substantial doubts have arisen, and which cannot be resolved by the Fees Office and the individual Member, can be referred to the appropriate Chief Whip. Those arrangements, by their very nature, are not suited to being expressed formally in the terms of the resolution. But I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Patronage Secretary is discussing, through the usual channels, how such arrangements might work.
The motions are, of course, for the House to decide. I believe that they reflect what the House has in mind when we last debated Members' pay, and it is on that basis that I have brought them forward today. On Ministers' pay, I believe that our proposals represent a fair and realistic settlement, while as far as the office allowance is concerned, as I hope I have shown, the motion in my name was drawn up with the recommendations of the TSRB very much in mind. I commend the motions to the House.
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment to motion No. 3 in the name of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I have been unable to select the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), but I have selected the amendment to motion No. 4 in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and his hon. Friends. At the end of the debate I shall put each motion separately and call upon the hon. Members concerned to move their amendments formally.
9.30 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: Both from reading ancient debates on Members' pay and being present at some of the earlier debates in the 1980s I believe that it is fair to say that debates on our pay have always been long on humbug, but short on candour. I hope that the weight of precedent will not mean that I entirely follow what has happened in the past.
In a free vote tonight I am advising my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the motion to increase Members' pay and formalise the linkage, which we agreed in principle. I am also advising my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment to the motion on

301
allowances proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). Although I am sympathetic to the objectives of the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), which would, if passed, abate Members' earnings in relation to their outside earnings, I am extremely doubtful whether the drafting of that proposition is sound. [Interruption.]
Now that I have raised the subject of humbug I would like to get one bit of humbug out of the way — the Prime Minister's stance on this pay increase. There have been many apparent leaks in the newspapers — unattributable briefings — suggesting that the Prime Minister, in some way or other, wishes to block or reduce the proposed increase. In view of the fact that the right hon. Lady claims to be a conviction politician, that cannot be true. If hon. Members refer to Hansard for 19 July 1983 they will find that the right hon. Lady voted, not once, but twice, for the proposition that is before us tonight. Therefore, if any Conservative Members are seeking to ingratiate themselves with the inhabitant of 10 Downing street, I suggest that, rather than rely on the scurrilous rumours in the newspapers, they stick to the written record in Hansard and vote for this proposition for the increase and the linkage in the sure knowledge that they will be doing what the Prime Minister really wants.
In 1983 the Top Salaries Review Body recommended that, from June 1983, Members of Parliament should receive £19,000 a year. The Government refused to accept the recommendation of the independent review body. There were various behind-the-scene deals, in which Sir Edward du Cann, as boss of the 1922 Committee, was portrayed as our shop steward. As a result of his activities the proposed increase of £19,000 was reduced to pay increases rising by instalments to £18,500 in 1987, and an increase in Members' contributions towards pensions from 6 per cent. to 9 per cent.—not a brilliant effort as a shop steward, many hon. Members thought. However, in an extraordinary quid pro quo, it was also agreed that the proposed secretarial allowance of £13,000 should be reduced to £11,000, thus managing to give the impression that hon. Members put number one first and gave little attention to their responsibility for paying decent wages to their staff.
Nevertheless, at that time, with the Prime Minister's support, linkage was agreed, and that is the proposal that is before the House tonight. We welcome that linkage; it has been agreed twice before at a higher grading in the Civil Service than the one being proposed tonight, but it should, as the Leader of the House has said, help us avoid similar debates on this in future.
There have been discussions about the right level of pay for Members of Parliament. They are not really discussions of the principle, because that was decided in 1911, when Parliament was faced with many relatively impecunious Labour Members and decided to pay £400 a year. I am advised that the value of that £400 in today's money would be about £50,000, so we are not paying ourselves as well as was originally agreed in 1911. Some of my hon. Friends may be interested to know that the 1911 decision was an implementation of one of the six demands of the Chartists in 1838, who called for the payment of Members of Parliament
"to enable an honest tradesman, working man, or other person to serve a constituency when taken from his business to attend to the interests of the country".
302
The decision whether Members should be paid has been made, but the level of pay is a matter of judgment.
By way of comparisons, let us consider the sort of people that we, as hon. Members, have to deal with. These include large numbers of members of the staff of the House of Commons. I am advised that 62 of the present staff are on salary scales that start above the present level of ours and a further 49 are on scales that start below ours but end above it. It looks as though we are more or less on level pegging with 100-odd members of the staff of the House of Commons.
We might also compare ourselves with those who report on our activities in the House. It is the duty of hon. Members to formulate what they are going to say and to rely on all sorts of rhetorical attributes to get their message over, whereas the Lobby journalists have the simple and straightforward task of reporting truthfully and accurately what is said in this place. No invention, no embroidery and no imaginative skill are required.
If we examine Lobby journalists' expenses we may obtain some idea of how well we are looking after ourselves. Not a single Lobby journalist working for a national newspaper will be paid less than us if our proposed increase goes through. I am also advised that some Lobby journalists working for Sunday newspapers. and therefore producing at best one article a week, are paid as much as twice what we shall be receiving when the increase goes through—plus, in many cases, a free car and expenses.
Journalists' expenses are not really in the same class as those that we are paid. We must prove to the Fees Office that money has been properly spent on our parliamentary duties, whereas the expenses incurred by many journalists are, shall we say, self-consumed; or, occasionally, their consumption is assisted by hon. Members. Other people that we have to deal with are officials in health authorities and local authorities. Hon. Members will find that a substantial number of senior officers with whom they have to deal in those authorities will continue to be paid rather better than we are.
International comparisons are difficult, but the United States House of Representatives pays its members £50,000 and the Netherlands pays up to about £30,000, depending on the level of outside earnings of members. Again it appears that we are not really feathering our nests. What is proposed now springs from what was originally proposed by the Top Salaries Review Body and ought to be supported by the House because the linkage is extremely valuable.
Some of my hon. Friends think that we are already paid too much and that we should not give ourselves an increase. Self-denial has a long and reputable history, but the emphasis should be on self rather than on forcing denial on others. That applies to hon. Members who do not supplement their incomes from any source outside the House. I do not know exactly what view I take of some Conservative Members who earn or receive substantial sums from outside the House and still say that we ought not to increase our pay. That seems to be extremely close to humbug.
I shall now turn to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. It proposes to abate Members' pay by a substantial proportion of their outside earnings. The amendment is badly drafted and might make the situation worse than it is. The clause would abate the present earnings of, for example, a Tory

303
Member who has been running a small engineering company for 20 years. However, if the income derived from his or her activities or employment as a Member of Parliament, and if the hon. Member was the parliamentary adviser to a Japanese video company, the salary would not be abated by the amount received from that source. That is a silly and unjustifiable position, although I think that there ought to be an abatement of Members' pay related to outside earnings.
I shall now turn to allowances. The Opposition, and I think most Conservative Members, welcome the provision to make the payment of the secretarial allowance subject to the submission to the Fees Office of a statement of the contract of employment of employees. That would clearly be good for the employee and for the reputation of Members, because we could no longer be accused of fiddling.
I do not support the standstill in the increase proposed this year by the Government, even though it was also recommended by the Top Salaries Review Body. The TSRB is not consistent. It says that in view of the increase that went through last year, there is evidence showing that hon. Members are moving towards employing two full-time staff. It says that Members should employ only one and a half members of staff. In a sense the market shows that there is a need for more staff and the allowances should respond to that. We support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West. Setting aside the pay, most hon. Members regard the working conditions of most of our staff as absolutely abominable. The conditions should be massively improved. The only way to do that is to create more office space for the staff to work in. I want to suggest that although the House has not yet had time to debate a report from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) about the new buildings and additional accommodation, the House should seriously consider the possibility of taking over at least some, or possibly all, of Richmond terrace, the Whitehall rehabilitation, and the new buildings, 158,000 sq ft of offices provided at a cost of £36 million, presently earmarked for a large collection of civil servants. There is a greater need for hon. Members to be near to this House than for a large collection of civil servants to move yet nearer to 10 Downing street.
I present an entirely personal view about ministerial salaries. I welcome the Government's decision to abate the increases that would otherwise have gone to Ministers. I believe that Ministers have always done rather well in our system. After all, Cabinet Ministers were receiving £5,000 a year when hon. Members did not get a cent. I believe that it would be better and sounder for our democracy if the differential between Back-Bench Members and Ministers was reduced.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Why?
Mr. Dobson: I will try to explan why. At present if a Minister is feeling a little dissatisfied at what the Government are doing in Cabinet he is faced with the prospect of losing the chaffeur-driven car, his office and status and, in the case of Cabinet Ministers, he faces losing a very substantial chunk of income, as one of the recent victims of the post-election purge explained the other day. It is wholly sound that in our democracy we should
304
encourage people to say what they think in Cabinet, to do what they believe to be right and not to face massive financial penalties if they want to get out. After all, had my proposition existed before, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) would have been able to speak out about the Stalinist regime before he was thrown out of Cabinet.
In summary, I recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the proposed increase and linkage in Members' pay, to support the amendment to raise allowances in line with the comparative pay and support ministerial salaries being held back.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: If I might follow the hon. Gentleman's arguments, if we are to pay Members of Parliament £20,000 or £30,000 or more, is there not more reason for hon. Members to want to keep their Government in office so that they do not risk their jobs? Is that not a better argument to get better Ministers rather than better-paid Members? How do we argue both cases? We either believe in better-paid Ministers or more Members of Parliament.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should it not be in order only for hon. Members to speak in this debate who rely entirely on their salary, unlike the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) who is a senior member of a firm of stockbrokers and a member of many companies, who does not depend on his parliamentary salary and indeed who could do without it?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is aware that there is an amendment on that very matter.
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) puts forward arguments that were put forward by the Tory party in the debate in 1911 when it was suggested that, if hon. Members were paid anything, they would be forced to work even harder to sustain their party in office for fear of the electoral consequences. It was pointed out in that debate that the person who made that suggestion had taken a very large salary as a Minister and, before then, had done public service in the Army and received a substantial salary. It did not seem to affect his work. Despite the fact that the Tory party opposed the payment of Members in 1911, there is precious little evidence that even the rich ones among them did not pocket the 400 quid as soon as it became available.
Finally—this applies to the hon. Member for Selly Oak—if there are any hon. Members who do not want to take the pay increase or who feel that they cannot properly spend all the allowances in providing a service for their constituents, that is their decision. I do not believe that they should obstruct those of us who feel that we could make good use of both.
9.50 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): This is a very important matter and it is interesting that a number of hon. Members are missing, not least some who have a reputation which, I suspect, would enable them to pay for the privilege of having an audience for the many witticisms which they provoke, often from a sedentary position. We need not pay any serious attention to them. I suspect that there are hon. Members present who have taken, either by wit or good fortune, precautions to link their salary or take-home pay to such extraneous matters as the housing market, which

305
will undoubtedly take greater care of them than any cost of living increase will take care of the salary of Members of Parliament in the future. I do not think that we need pay a great deal of heed to them.
There are hon. Members among us who have been in the habit of pouring contempt on what they see as the greed of Back Benchers because they are able to do so with the tremendous confidence that comes from having inherited a great deal from daddy or grand-daddy. That is undoubedly a powerful mechanism for making one immune from any suggestion that the salary paid to a Member of Parliament should reflect his quality.
It is some 20 years since I was a member of the Civil Service. I was a member of the grade to which we shall be linked, bar a mere 11 per cent. I do not believe that my constituents, or indeed many of the public outside, would believe that it was enormously self-seeking of me to vote in support of a motion which would put me back within 89 per cent. of the salary that it was felt I was worth to the public 20 years ago. In the debate about salaries and allowances, it is far too easy to forget the nature of the work which the public send us here to do. Members of Parliament are not simply managers or wage slaves of the ordinary kind. All hon. Members know, many much better than I, that most members of the public believe that anyone could become a Member of Parliament. In a real and precious sense, that is absolutely true, and long may it remain so. Before people become Members of this honourable House, they have to undergo, in nearly every case, a long and arduous apprenticeship. They have to attend meeting after meeting after meeting, usually with very small numbers of people and very small rewards, in either interest or effectiveness. They have to go at all sorts of hours to meetings which last late into the night so that they can make merely the first steps of a recognition that they might be eligible to put themselves forward to represent a constituency. That is not an easy apprenticeship and it is not one which most of our constituents would wish to undertake.
There is another large difference between our position here and that of most members of the general public. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are carrying on private conversations desist or leave the Chamber?
Mr. Rowe: It is also true to say that most members of the public have views on political issues. The thing that singles us out is that at some point in the game we have to be seen to make a decision. We have to be counted in our debates. We have to vote, and that vote is recorded in a way that comes back to haunt many of us later.
It is often said that the best advice that a new Member of Parliament is given is to be his own man — or her own woman. I think that that is absolutely right. However, it is a much more difficult thing to be than most members of the public, and indeed most people who give that advice, are capable of understanding. Because we have to try to be our own person, and because we must at some stage in the game stand up and be counted, and have our opinions recorded, we are in a unique position.
Finally, I believe that, by and large, Members of Parliament in this honourable House have a reputation—deservedly earned—for working hard, for representing their constituents and for engaging, to a degree that is
306
uncommon in the world outside, in voluntary and other activities. The record of nearly every hon. Member is a pre-eminent record of public service.
For all those reasons, I believe that this is an honourable undertaking and a worthwhile profession. I think it wholly improper to suggest that to link ourselves with 89 per cent. of a civil service grade that already contains some 3,700 civil servants is in any way greedy or self-seeking.
9.57 pm
Mr. Stanley Orme: I think that it is time for a change on this subject. I have found over many years in Parliament under both Conservative and Labour Governments that it has never been a right time to pay Members of Parliament or their staff more. In 1964, we received no secretarial allowances, and had to pay for telephone calls outside London. Those things we built up slowly and painfully over a number of years. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to listen in silence.
Mr. Orme: I shall not detain the House for very long. However, I think that this is an important issue. The media are listening, and we know some of the remarks that will be made, but I believe that what we are doing is right, and it is not excessive. That is the important thing. The link is with 89 per cent. of a principal grade. That grade is £25,335. We are not receiving that, because the resolution is for 89 per cent. In 1964, the salary was £3,250. If the increase had been based on a retail price index, that salary today would be £22,780, which is very close to what we shall get. If it were linked to wages, it would be £36,500. That is an indication of what the salary could be.
It is not correct that we are to have a 21 per cent. increase. In 1983, the agreed figure of £18,500 was staged over four years. Consequently, there was no increase during that period. The retail price increase is about 21 per cent. — exactly the increase that we are to receive. Therefore, this provision is right.
I do not agree, however, about secretarial allowances. Hon. Members will be unable to give a pay increase to their staff for the next two years. That is wrong. I understand that the Leader of the House is to refer hon. Members' pensions to a review body.
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to the Motions relating to Members' Salaries and the Motion relating to Office Costs etc. Allowances may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Durant.]

Members' Salaries and Allowances
Question again proposed.
Mr. Orme: Therefore, I support the amendment that stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden).
What the House is doing tonight is right. We have nothing to be ashamed of; we and our staff ought to be paid decent salaries. On that basis, I support the proposals.
10.1 pm
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: As a new Member of the House, it is with some trepidation that I rise to speak in the debate. One is in the Catch 22 situation: if one opposes the motion, one is unpopular with one's colleagues, whereas if one supports the motion one is unpopular with one's constituents.
I support the pay rise, because Members of Parliament are not properly remunerated for what they do. However, I cannot support this motion, because it is linked with pay in the Civil Service. It is wrong for Members of Parliament to be linked with civil servants. Hon. Members have had many arguments used against any increase in their salaries. Writing yesterday in the London Evening Standard, Mr. Enoch Powell suggested that we were gentlemen and that we did not need an increase in pay. I do not know what Mr. Enoch Powell's fee was, nor do I know what Mr. Julian Critchley earns—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should refer to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley).
Mr. Bennett: I do not know what the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) earns when he writes that gentleman are people who have four buttons on their cuffs.
We ought to pay hon. Members a proper salary for the job that they do, to ensure that as wide a range of people as possible enter this House as Members of Parliament. Members of Parliament should not be just rich men with other incomes. I declare that I have no other income but that of a Member of Parliament.
I support the arguments that were used in 1911 when Members of Parliament were first paid, but the idea that our pay should be linked with that of civil servants appals me. It is the duty of hon. Members to control the size of Government and the cost of Government. There will be no incentive for hon. Members to keep down public expenditure if their pay is linked to that of civil servants. Instead, hon. Members' pay ought to be linked to pay in the private sector, where increases are most closely linked with economic prosperity. Our rewards ought to be a reflection of economic success. If private sector pay were to increase because of economic success, our pay would be increased, too. To link our pay with that of civil servants, which we ought to be controlling, would lead to an increase in public expenditure.
10.4 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I wish to speak to my amendment, in line 8, leave out 'and' and insert:
`, except that any income received by a Member, and not immediately derived from his or her activities and employment as a Member of Parliament (a Member's extra-parliamentary income) shall

(i) in respect of service in 1988 or any subsequent year, but not after the next general election, be deducted from the difference between the rate specificied in paragraph (a) herein and the rate payable in 1987, and

(ii) in respect of services in any year subsequent to the next general election be deducted from the rate specified in paragraph (a) herein;

(a) that for purposes of computation and ratification each Member's annual total extra-parliamentary income shall be required to be recorded in the Register of Members' Interests, but shall not be made available to the public;

(b) for the purposes of definition of extra-parliamentary income, fees which are received are wholly and
308
exclusively attributable to a Member's activities as a Member (such as articles and public, radio or television appearances) shall not be included.'.

The Leader of the House rightly said that the substantial point is that, if it were passed, any income that was earned from activities outside the House would be deducted from any increase that we receive tonight or subsequently, and that income that is received from activities outside the House after the next election would be deducted if it equalled or exceeded an hon. Member's salary. The result would be that if an hon. Member's outside income exceeded the £22,000 odd that we may vote ourselves this evening, he or she would receive nothing from the taxpayer.
Mr. Stan Crowther: Will we have to pay money in if we get more?
Mr. Hughes: A quite appropriate supplementary question was just asked from a sedentary position behind me as to whether we would have to pay money to the taxpayer if we earned more on the side. The logical answer to that is that it is not a bad idea, but we must proceed by stages and begin by getting the first principle agreed before we start on what might be regarded as a slightly more penal taxation policy.
There are two supplemental points. First, it is necessary, if there is to be such a proposal, that it is policed. The appropriate police officer would be the Registrar of Members Interests.
Mr. Cyril Smith rose—
Mr. Hughes: I recognise an intervention when I see one. I shall give way in a moment if my hon. Friend will permit me.
The second qualification is that it may be better to include earnings for which one is paid that come from activities such as interviews, as a result of being a Member of Parliament—[Interruption.]
Mr. Smith rose—
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Hughes: That is not a matter of principle —[Laughter.] If the House took a hard line it would be perfectly proper for any other fees to be excluded.
Mr. Smith: I shall ask my hon. Friend two simple points. First, will my hon. Friend explain where or how his amendment would differentiate between earned and unearned income? Will he explain that, because, as I read the amendment, any interest, even from investments, would have to be taken into account? Secondly, may we assume that if an increase is agreed tonight he will waive the extra £4,000, or alternatively resign his practice at the Bar?
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Hughes: I will answer. On the first point, all income would be included as the amendment is at present drafted. On the second point, the amount recorded as being my earnings at the Bar in the past year is about £900—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This sort of reaction merely prolongs the agony.
Mr. Hughes: I cannot resign my profession, but I am certainly willing to agree that any other earnings that I have be deducted from the amount that the House votes itself. It would be inconsistent to do otherwise.

309
This is a matter of substantial importance. When the review was carried out in 1982, 69 per cent. of hon. Members had other income—that was out of the 329 hon. Members, 52 per cent., who replied. The Top Salaries Review Body found that the mean time spent on other activity was 10 hours per week and that other incomes ranged from between £1,000 or less to over £20,000. If the answers received were a fair sample, the median earning was £5,500. That would hardly make a substantial difference in present income because it is almost balanced out by the increase proposed.
Many hon. Members are consultants and advisers but do not have to declare the amount they earn. However, their decisions and activities in the House are substantially influenced by those other income-earning activities. For example, we have only to look at the debate we have just had on the Channel Tunnel Bill. Over 37 Tory Members of this House or the other place have one interest or another in one of the competing companies concerned in the Channel tunnel project. The public can never discover what people are paid for such interests and it is wrong and unprincipled that people can earn substantial sums of money about which the public never find out and which clearly must influence the way in which they conduct not only their decision making in the House but the way in which they spend their time.
This motion is an expression of opinion of the House. It has to he followed by an implementing resolution, which is on the Order Paper. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said that the drafting of my amendment may be defective. I agree that there may be defective drafting, but this is not an implementing motion, it is an expression of opinion. It may not be word perfect and I do not pretend that it is, but the principle is clear even if the drafting is not as clear. It may not catch everybody. It may allow people to hide funds in trusts or allow their spouses to earn on their behalf.
There are other ways of dealing with the same issue. In the United States of America one can lose a percentage of one's income depending on how much one earns elsewhere. However, it is important that we do not bar people from other occupations but that we apply to hon. Members the same rule as applies to Ministers. For example, even if they keep on a solicitorial partnership they cannot earn from that. That tradition has a fine series of precedents. It goes back to the 19th century when directorships were disqualified from being compatibly held by Ministers.
Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Campbell-Bannerman extended that to partnerships, and in the 1930s it was extended again. It is now time to extend it to all hon. Members. There is no doubt that money is influence. There is no doubt that hon. Members are influenced away from representing their constituents by their other interests. Indeed, some openly admit to spending at least a day a week on other duties. If we believe in open government, we should be open about what we earn. I advocate decent pay for staff and hon. Members, but the time has come—
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: If money is influence, what influence did the British School of Motoring exert on the Liberal party?
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has asked that question so often that he should know the answer, which
310
is, none. The matter was unrelated to hon. Members of this House or their activities here. I believe that the time for two-timing and earning two or more salaries is over.
Mr. Ian Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the official spokesman of the Liberal party to talk about—
Mr. Cyril Smith: No.
Mr. Gow: Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for the official spokesman of the Liberal party to talk about principle when his party is totally without principle?
Mr. Hughes: The Leader of the House made it clear that this is a matter for the House. I have expressed a personal view and we shall vote as individuals. We are not pursuing a party line on this side, whatever may be the case elsewhere in the House. The job of hon. Members is unique and their parliamentary salary should he their unique source of income.
10.17 pm
Mr. Cranky Onslow: Until the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke, I proposed to say that the House agreed two matters. Now I think that it is agreed on three. The third is that the point that he has tried to make this evening is an extremely silly one on which the House will not want to waste much time. However, I must say that it is a wonderful recipe for saddling the country with professional politicians who are otherwise quite unemployable and who think that, apart from representing their constituents, their only duty is to go on television and be paid for doing so. That would be a recipe for parliamentary disaster.
The other two matters on which the House remains agreed are, first, that we do not want a long de bate or long speeches and, secondly, that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are glad that the Government have brought forward the idea of linkage to which many hon. Members have been attracted for a long time. I am not one of them, and I make no bones about it. I believe that it would have been much better if, on previous occasions, we had contrived to arrange matters so that the outgoing Parliament voted the salary of the incoming Parliament, without inflation clauses, escalators or linkage — but with responsibility taken uniquely by hon. Members and not shuffled off through some other device. But that option was not open to us, which I can only regret. Others welcome what has been offered to us this evening.
I commend my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the straightforward way in which he brought the proposition before us. I commend the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), on what must be one of his first appearances in that capacity, on many of the things that he said. I also commend the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) in his newly acquired role of shop steward. I will not call him the joint ship steward, because, whatever my predecessor may have done, I do not aspire to be a shop steward in these matters. They are all far too difficult for me, but they will not be too difficult for the right hon. Gentleman. He got the mood of the House right, and I hope to keep it that way by speaking only briefly.
The less time that we spend on this matter, the more our constituents are likely to thank us. I hope that we shall not have to return to the subject for a very long time and that

311
we can move to other and, dare I say it, more important matters. However, some of the things that have been said this evening deserve a passing mention. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was right to say what he did about secretarial allowances, and I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Salford, East commend the decision to refer the difficult question of the anomalies in Members' pensions to the Top Salaries Review Body, because we owe it to some of our older and retired colleagues to sort out the muddles which prevail there. But I believe that we should make a decision on the matter without too much more debate.
10.21 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris: I want to intervene only briefly in the debate to refer to the consequences for Members' widows of decisions by this House to reject pay rises recommended by the body responsible for independently reviewing parliamentary pay. As the House knows, I do so as Chairman of the Managing Trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund and the House of Commons Members' Fund.
The decision to reject the Top Salaries Review Body's recommendations to increase Members' salaries to £19,000 from 13 June 1983 has had a markedly adverse effect on the pensions of Members now in retirement. To take just one example, Members who retired at last month's general election now have a pension 5·21 per cent. below what they would have received if the TSRB's recommendation had been implemented. Thus, a former Member who now receives £8,000 would have had more than £8,416.
The effect on widows has been even more marked, as an analysis of actual cases very clearly demonstrates. Yet the effect on them was not even considered in 1983, nor was there the merest mention of them by Ministers or in media comment on the decision. What was the effect? Three of the widows of Members who died in 1984–85 lost 19·62 per cent., 16·98 per cent. and 13·7 per cent. respectively of the pensions that they would have received if the salary increase recommended by the TSRB in 1983 had been implemented.
The moral surely is that Members can be as self-denying as they like in determining the parliamentary salary, but they should not be unmindful of the effect on those who work largely unseen, but often with much dedication, in the service of the House. In my view, there was a very strong case in 1983, when the House rejected the recommended salary of £19,000, for that figure to be accepted at least for pension purposes.
There was a precedent for that in 1975, when the TSRB recommended a parliamentary salary of £ 8,000 compared with the £4,500 then payable. Although the recommenda-tion was not implemented by the House, with the salary moving only to £5,750, the Government of the day nevertheless allowed a higher notional salary to be implemented for pension purposes. As a result, the widows of Members who died in service were awarded pensions correspondingly higher than would otherwise have been the case. What we did in 1983, and what we should not repeat now, was to cut the living standards of widows whose pensions are, in the view of everyone who knows their value, anything but generous.
312
I think tonight of a very hard-working former colleague who is much missed in the House and whose widow's longterm pension entitlement since his death—she was not a young woman—was under £50 a week.
Mr. Denis Howell: My right hon. Friend is raising a matter of considerable importance which has not previously been touched upon outside the House in the general debate. The colleague he is referring to was one of the most respected Members of the House. His widow, like all wives of MPs, worked freely for the country. That fact ought to be recognised. It is a scandal that the widow of one of our colleagues, after many years of service, had to live on a pension of £50 a week and further lost 19·62 per cent. as a result of the delay of the last rise. Therefore, I hope that widows' pensions will not be a matter that the parliamentary trustees will lose sight of. I hope that the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend, who is chairman, will pursue the matter out of justice to the widows of our former colleagues.
Mr. Morris: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. He will appreciate that it is a statutory scheme. We are bound by the decisions of the House. The House should not forget the plight of widows whose pensions, compared with pensions outside the House, are quite disgraceful. Anything that the trustees can do to help the widows of Members who have died will be gladly done.
The case I mention is the kind of case in which the decision of 1983 resulted in unmerited hardship and which should inform the debate tonight. Whatever the electorate at large may have thought of our decision in 1983 to reject the findings of an independent review of parliamentary pay, the effect on Members' widows has been extremely punishing. If any hon. Member doubts that truth, let him or her read the parliamentary reply given to me yesterday by the Leader of the House about the financial losses sustained by the eight widows of Members who died between 1 March 1984 and 30 April 1987. In that regard, may I say how conscientiously Mr. J. L. G. Dobson and his colleagues in the Fees Office work at all times, far beyond the call of duty, to help those who are bereaved when a Member or former Member dies. That help deserves the admiration of the House.
Hon. Members find it at once very inhibiting and deeply embarrassing to have to decide their remuneration. That is why it was ultimately decided to link parliamentary pay to a Civil Service grade. To undo that decision now would affect not only pay levels for Members of Parliament, but also the incomes of widows. It will be an improvement on our previous debates if their interests are not overlooked in our deliberations tonight.
10.28 pm
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: I recognise that to speak tonight is not popular unless one is saying what it seems the majority of hon. Members wish to hear. This is not a road to Damascus. There will be no conversions on the way to the Lobbies.
It is not that I am against all of us as right hon. and hon. Members being paid properly for the services that we perform. However, on this one issue alone, it is right to ask why we wish to link ourselves to a mythical 89 per cent. of the grade of senior principal. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) that, at the end of the day, this House is the maker of laws and the

313
final arbiter of what is right and what is wrong in our country. Why do we not have the courage at the end of each Parliament to decide the proper pay scale for hon. Members? Why should we vote ourselves 89 per cent. of a principal's grade?
Is it not a fact that each Member of this House—there are only 640-odd of us — is in a unique occupation? We should at least keep some respect for the job that we do. At the end of each Parliament let us have the courage to debate, and for people outside to hear, what we think we are worth.
The only reason why this squalid alternative is brought forward is that hon. Members think that we cannot not argue about what we are worth as Members of Parliament. I believe that we can argue that. However, each time we back away from it. Instead of talking about 89 per cent. of a principal's grade, would it not be better to analyse what other Members of Parliament receive, whether in Australia, America, Canada, or even in Europe, which does not matter—they would receive more if we let them—and is it not better for us to judge, and to let other people judge, what we are worth? Why 89 per cent.? Why not 90 or 91 per cent.?
If it is true that the more we are paid, the better we are, why not be bold? Why not pay us £50,000 per year and receive a service that is twice as good? For those who are willing to take the risk, why not pay £100,000 per year and receive a service four times as good? However, that is not what the matter is really about. It is about this House keeping such matters within itself. If we are the mother of Parliaments, if we are the maker of laws for people, if we genuinely believe that if we said that men were women and that women were men, so in law they would be, and if we believe that if we said that the sky is black and not blue, so in law it would be, why are we unwilling to keep within ourselves the right for each Parliament to vote for what it believes in?
There are two reasons why I shall vote against these motions. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is so bizarre that I shall not vote for that. However, if my colleagues believe with the Government, as I do, that inflation is of the greatest importance, which it is, and if we are to improve manufacturing industry—Opposition Members are always telling us about the importance of manufacturing industry—and say that we believe that we can afford to pay other people only 6 per cent., then on this occasion, because we did not have the courage in the previous Parliament to decide what we should award ourselves, we should vote for 6 per cent. for ourselves and for 6 per cent. for other people. That is what I shall do.
Mr. Dennis Howell: The hon. Gentleman has put forward the proposition that he cannot vote for this increase because it is above the 5 per cent. rate of inflation that he recommends for manual workers. Since he is a stockbroker, will he kindly tell the House which stocks he advises his clients to buy which guarantee that they will not yield more than 5 per cent?
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: With enemies like that I need no friends. If the right hon. Member had not been so keen on spending other people's money he would have recognised that I gave up practising as a stockbroker some five years ago. In common with the right hon. Gentleman, I depend upon others for their advice.
314
If we vote this increase for ourselves tonight — I recognise that hon. Members are worth that increase—could we at least forget the notion of giving up the right for each Parliament to decide what Members get? Let us keep within this House the right to decided so that people know that we do not lack the courage to tell them what we think we are worth.
10.40 pm
Mr. Max Madden: I beg to move the amendment in line 11, leave out from 'be' to end of line 18 and insert
'the amount obtained by increasing £20,140 by the relevant percentage, and
(ii) for any subsequent year, the limit should be the amount obtained by increasing the limit applicable to the immediately preceding year by the relevant percentage (so that, if the relevant percentage for any year is nil, the limit remains the same for that year);'.
There is printing error on the Order Paper because it should read:
"to the end of line 13"
This is a modest amendment and all that it seeks to do is to index the £20,140 for the current year to inflation and to use that figure as the base figure for future years. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said earlier, the amendment will enable all Members claiming the allowance to give their staff a reasonable increase in the current and succeeding years.
If one is described as "a Guardian reader", it is now a term of abuse. Therefore, the House will appreciate my hesitation at quoting from The Guardian editorial of yesterday, which said:
"for all MPs, failure to vote for the rise would mean funking a key opportunity to put Parliamentary pay on a sensible par with civil service salaries. If MPs do bottle out, they will be haunted by their failure. The whole impossible problem will be doomed to return each Parliamentary term, as it has done each term before. Better to be the real villains now and then to have done with it."
I reflected on those sentiments while the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) was speaking. He reminded me of someone who once said of someone else that they knew the price of everything but the value of nothing. I sense that the majority of the House cannot understand why the hon. Member for Selly Oak wishes that, each year, Parliament should go through this process of determining our salaries. We decided that we wanted a link that was clear and objective and took the issue of parliamentary salaries out of this Chamber and out of this political, controversial arena.
The second part of The Guardian editorial said:
"In a better world, MPs would not only put their salaries on a sensible footing, they would also bring their working conditions — their office space, research back-up and modern technological equipment—into the if modern world. That would cost more than tomorrow's pay rise, and it might also be better understood by the public and be better for government."
That is the main burden of my amendment, the objective of which is to enable all hon. Members to employ one full-time secretary, a reseach assistant and be left with sufficient funds to provide adequate modern equipment to enable us to do our job, which is effectively to represent our constituents. In reality, we know that the allowance is not sufficient to meet those objectives.
I have to declare an interest as a sponsored Member of the Transport and General Workers Union. I wish to refer to evidence submitted by the 1/427 branch of that union

315
which represents a large number of staff employed by Members of this House. Some time ago that union branch submitted evidence to the TSRB. Referring to secretaries the evidence states:
"There can be no job to compare to that of working full time for an MP. A secretary or a researcher could be drafting press statements one minute and the next have to switch to being a tour guide, or deal with suicidal constituents, conduct advice surgeries, act as chauffeur, or even arrange for a decorator to paint the boss's flat.
The volume of correspondence is immense. Many secretaries process as many as 400 letters a week. A survey carried out by this Branch showed that during Parliamentary sessions, staff can work upwards of 60 hours a week. Paid overtime or time off in lieu is unheard of."
With regard to research assistants, the evidence states:
"Research assistants are still regarded as a luxury rather than a necessity. The first call on resources is always the secretary and, as a result, researchers tend to be part time and often underpaid".
On equipment the evidence said:
"much of this new technology has been introduced at the expense of staff pay. It is wrong that the allowance is supposed to cover staff and equipment. Staff are often played off against new technology. Or on an even more basic level, staff scrimp and save, terrified of buying a new stapler, typewriter ribbons or correcting fluid as this may affect their pay rise or possible bonus."
Finally, the evidence concluded:
"There is no shortage of people willing—"
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Madden: I will give way in a moment.
The evidence concluded:
"There is no shortage of people willing to work for an MP—paid or unpaid. This has often given raise to low pay and abuse."
That is the view of the union that represents the majority of the staff employed by hon. Members of this House. It is disgraceful in 1987 that this House is at last complying with the law to issue our staff with contracts of employment that were required by law passed by the House in the middle 1970s. I believe that it is disgraceful that new hon. Members elected on 11 June are still in some cases without a desk or a telephone.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree—and here I must confess to almost having an interest as I worked in the House as a researcher until very recently, and in the year before I was elected my earnings were only £5,000—that it is disgraceful that the House should consider putting hon. Members' salaries up to such a great extent and seek to salve hon. Members' consciences at the expense of those who work for us by stating that they will be denied any increase this year to pay for the rise?
Mr. Madden: Traditionally we have had substantial increases in the allowance put forward as a way of depressing parliamentary salaries. Tonight some hon. Members are arguing that an increase in the parliamentary salary should be used as an excuse to depress the
316
allowances. My amendment argues for a modest increase, by inflation, of the allowances this year and to use that as a base figure for the coming years. I believe that that would enable us to employ a secretary, a full-time research assistant and provide proper equipment. Nothing less is permissible in a legislature that is serious and that seriously wants to represent our constituents effectively in 1987. I hope that the House will carry my very modest amendment.
10.43 pm
Mr. Stan Crowther: I want to make two very brief points. First, if there are right hon. or hon. Members who really do not think that the service that they give to their constituents, to this House and to the country is worth £22,500 they may well be right. Perhaps the service that they are giving is not worth that. However, I know that the service that I am giving is worth that much. In fact, I know that it is worth rather more.
I am one of those who are full-time hon. Members of the House. It is a well-known fact not often enough aired in public that many right hon. and hon. Members are not full-time Members; they are part-timers. That is because they are too busy spending time out of the House running businesses, appearing in court, writing highly paid articles for the popular press or perhaps less highly paid articles for the unpopular press. In some cases they are Members of an obscure body called the European Parliament.
Because they earn money from one source or another, many people have to spend time outside the House to justify the substantial amount of money that they pick up. I am not one of those; I am one of the full-time Members. To say the least, it would be grossly immoral for such part-time Members to vote against a pay increase for full-time Members. Indeed, we are working more than full-time because we also take a share of the work that they ought to be doing.
The return of attendances on Standing Committees and Select Committees makes interesting reading. Many right hon. and hon. Members have not been on a Standing Committee for years, and everybody knows it. The rest of us are doing part of their job for them. I repeat that it would be an act of pure immorality for such hon. Members to vote against a pay increase for us. I understand that some of my hon. Friends will oppose this increase on the grounds that they think that we should be paid no more than skilled workers in industry. That is an interesting argument and has been canvassed in the Labour movement for years.
I have carried out a little analysis and prepared a fairly detailed and precise estimate of the hours that I work. Over the year, including recesses and applying a normal industrial analysis—a formula based on a 39-hour basic week, time and a half for overtime during the week and double time at weekends, I have found that if this increase is agreed my hourly rate of pay will go up to £4·35 an hour. That could not be regarded as excessive in any industry. I say to my hon. Friends that it is a strange attitude for any trade unionist to vote against a pay increase.
10.47 pm
Mr. Dave Nellist: This debate is one of the occasions—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has as much right to be heard as any other hon. Member.
Mr. Nellist: This is one of the few occasions when at 10 minutes to l1 the House is full. Possibly within an hour or so the House will vote to raise the salary of a Member of Parliament from £356 a week to £434 a week, an increase of 21·9 per cent. If the House decides to do that, it will take hon. Members even further from the day-to-day conditions of the majority of the population. The £80 rise to be voted on is £3 more than the current take-home pay for a whole week of the civil servants upon whom the Government have just imposed a 4·25 per cent. pay increase. Those civil servants will not get the cushion of the 20 per cent. by which their salaries have fallen in the last seven years which hon. Members intend to claim for themselves.
The civil servants have also been told that regional and flexible pay is to be introduced by the Treasury. Regionalisation is an interesting concept. Apparently the higher the unemployment in a region, the lower the commensurate pay increases ought to be for those public servants working in that region. The concept has been well expressed by education spokesmen and Treasury and Civil Service spokesmen. It is an interesting concept to apply to Tory Members of Parliament in Scotland, Wales, the north, the midlands and in areas where, in the past eight years, unemployment has rocketed. It would have been even more interesting to apply it to a Tory Cabinet that has doubled, if not trebled, unemployment and increased the number of those living on or below the margins of poverty to 18 million, one in three of the population. I do not think that, on a regionalised or flexible pay structure, Tory Members of the Cabinet would be thought to be worth over £1,000 a week.
Many Tory Members think that that is a bit of a joke. The civil servants do not think that regional or flexible pay is very funny. Despite the ballot result during the past week, if the Government intend to introduce for the Civil Service what they are not prepared to introduce for Members of Parliament, there will be a vastly different mood among civil servants, which will be shown in the new ballot which undoubtedly would have to be organised.
The House is supposed to reflect society as a whole. If this rise is agreed, the House will be even less reflective of society than it is. Some 5 million workers, including one in five of all adult women in full-time manual jobs, earn less in a week than the House is considering voting itself as an increase in Members' salaries. Some 500,000 workers earn as much as or more than the £22,500 that hon. Members will receive. In the past six years, the income of the richest 20 per cent. of households has increased from 45 to 49 per cent. of total income and the income of the poorest 40 per cent. of households has fallen from 9·5 to 6·3 per cent. If this rise is agreed, the House will reflect even more only rich sections of society and will in no respect reflect almost the majority of the population, especially those whose share of household income has fallen.
There are many reasons why the House does not reflect the whole of society. Some have already been mentioned. One reason is the degree to which Tory Members have outside interests; and the Liberal amendment deals with that in some respects. There are many Tory Members
318
sitting opposite me to whom whether the salary is £18,500 or £22,500 is largely immaterial. It is just pocket money to them. Unlike Labour Members, 99 per cent. of whom have as their only job that of Member of Parliament and the income that comes from it, the Tories—[Interruption.] All right. I shall come to some of the points later.
Mr. Michael Fallon: It would be honourable if the hon. Gentleman were to make his position absolutely clear. If his argument prevails, will he take the increase voted? If his answer to that is no and if he redistributes any proportion of his money to his constituents, the Labour party or any other interest, will he redistribute a higher proportion?
Mr. Nellist: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I intend to deal with that point in the latter part of my speech. But, briefly, the answer is no. I shall vote against the increase. If the rise goes through, I shall take the increase—
Hon. Members: Oh!
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens rose—
Mr. Nellist: Hang on, I am answering—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Give the hon. Member a chance to finish.
Mr. Nellist: I shall listen to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) in a minute. I am dealing with the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) at the moment.
Then I shall do exactly the same as I have done over the past four years, which is to return some £16,000 of my take-home pay, half of which has gone back to the Labour party and half of which has gone to pensioners' groups, unemployed groups, miners' families, and so on. If the House decides to give me an extra £3,000 after-tax income to distribute to working-class families in my constituency and others, I intend to do precisely that.
Mr. Dickens: For many years, I was a fully paid up member of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers. What the hon. Gentleman has just said to the House is what I used to describe in my trade union days as, "Taking a free ride, brother."
Mr. Nellist: I suspect that members of the AEU who listened to that contribution were as mystified by it as I am. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to explain it further, however, he can do so in his own contribution.
More than 120 Tory Members of Parliament are company directors. In the last Parliament, I discovered the king of company directors—Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, then the Member for Hexham. He had 50 jobs. He was a Member of Parliament; he was a barrister —a QC, in fact—with overseas legal interests; and he held 48 chairmanships or company directorships. I never understood how that gentleman ever had time to turn up here.
On the present Tory Benches there are 40 barristers, 27 company consultants, 21 farmers or landowners, 14 merchant bankers, and a few dozen Lloyd's names. In case you are unfamiliar with that term, Mr. Speaker, it means that those who go down to Lloyd's and do a spot of underwriting must demonstrate that they have £100,000 in liquid cash, and pay £3,000 a year in membership fees.

319
For most Tory MPs, Parliament—this greatest club in Western Europe — is an extension of the life of privilege into which they were born, prefaced in 253 cases by private education and in 172 cases by Oxford or Cambridge. Incidentally, half a dozen Alliance Members have a similar educational background, exactly the same percentage as in the Tory party.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Register of Members' Interests has not yet been compiled, and that the range of Tory outside interests is therefore even richer than he has suggested so far? Does he also accept that we have a register of interests not because of pressure inside but because of pressure outside following the Poulson scandal, in which a number of Tories were wrapped up?
Mr. Nellist: I think that my hon. Friend could well amplify that contribution in a full speech of his own. He is right to point out that the Register of Members' Interests for this Parliament has yet to be compiled. The sources that I used for the figures that I have given so far have been the Register of Members' Interests for the former Parliament, Mr. Andrew Roth's "Parliamentary Profiles" booklets and the Conservative party's own list of Conservative parliamentary candidates, which was issued in May 1986. I am fairly sure that the numbers that I have given are accurate.
For those Tory Members who are effectively moonlighters, a parliamentary salary is an addition to their main sources of income—banking, farming and so forth. They can always attend the odd board meeting, or trip off down to Lloyd's or the Stock Exchange. Those Tory Members, whatever happens tonight, are talking about their pocket money, not a salary on which they have to live. I think that the Liberals' amendment—although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) about its deficiencies — at least raises a question that many Labour spokesmen have tried to raise, particularly in the last couple of weeks in the debate on the Local Government Bill. Far too many Tory Members, when they vote on matters coming before the House—for instance, privatisation in hospitals and local authorities—stand to gain financially. The issue deserves far wider attention in the future.
Let us take an example. Let us say that the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) decides this evening to vote against the rise in Members' salaries, which he may well do. I do not think that that will make much difference to him and to his lifestyle. As of January this year, the hon. Gentleman had £114 million worth of shares in a family grocery business, which makes him the ninth richest shareholder in Britain. The dividends on £144 million worth of shares probably exceeds the £20,000 a week mark, so £20,000 a year is largely irrelevant.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is besmirching the name of an hon. Member of this House.
Mr. Speaker: I am listening with the greatest care. It may have been provocative, but nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said so far was out of order.
Mr. Fallon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is only fair that you should tell us whether the
320
hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) notice that he would be raising that point tonight.
Mr. Speaker: I do not know that.
Mr. Nellist: In accordance with the traditions and rules of this House, it is entirely in order to make points about the background of Members of Parliament. It is not dishonourable for an hon. Member to own £114 million worth of shares, but members of the public who read this debate may draw an entirely different conclusion. That is a matter for them.
It is worth noting that another member of the same family, David Sainsbury, is the chief financial trustee of the Social Democratic party and that he owns £739 million worth of shares. That gives a weekly income from dividends of over £100,000. I predict that within three or four years he will be Britain's first billionaire shareholder. Four members of that family are now among the top 10 shareholders in this country.
Dozens of other Tory Members of Parliament may vote against this pay rise, but I question whether £18,500 or £22,500 means very much to them. I remind those Tory Members who will vote in favour of the pay rise of the arguments that they have deployed while I have been a Member of this House. Since 1983 they have referred to British workers being too highly paid. In February 1986 Lord Young said:
"Rising unit wage costs make it so difficult for Britain to compete in world markets. Over the past five years wage costs have risen in manufacturing by a quarter whilst those of our major international competitors have risen by much less. With raw material costs now falling, a halt to the rise in unit wage costs would enable us to hold prices steady, increase sales and thereby create genuine, long lasting jobs."
If a 25 per cent. increase for manufacturing industry workers in the last six or seven years is too high, how can Tory Members of Parliament justify voting themselves a 21·9 per cent. increase? Whatever happened to the concept of giving a lead?
Mr. Rowe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Nellist: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way. We have crossed swords on a number of occasions. I am anxious to get on and finish my speech.
International surveys show that out of all European countries, British workers are the lowest paid, that they work the longest hours and that they have the shortest holidays. Whatever happened to the Tory argument about the free market economy? What would happen if the Prime Minister were to be run over by a bus tomorrow morning? First, there would have to be the selection of a new leader for the Tory party. Half the Tory Members who are here tonight would probably vote for the bus driver, while the other half would vote for the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). Secondly, about 300 would apply for the job of Member of Parliament for the Finchley constituency. I thought that free-market economics meant that the greater the pressure of those wanting a job, the less the argument for an increase in wages. When that applies to Tory Members it goes out of the window, but that was the argument that was deployed in this Chamber—
Mr. Michael Lord rose—
Mr. Nellist: Just a second.
Almost 12 months ago, in July 1986, we were discussing the Wages Act. Some 500,000 workers under the age of 21

321
years who were on £40 or £50 a week were told that they were pricing themselves out of a job because of the level of youth unemployment.
Mr. Lord rose—
Mr. Nellist: Just a second, I said.
Some 12 months ago the House decided that, as a matter of principle, 400,000 young workers who were on £40 or £50 a week—hairdressers, those who were working in pubs, clubs, shops, restaurants and clothing establishments—were pricing themselves out of jobs. Yet tonight those same Tory Members are prepared to vote for an increase which is—[Interruption]—twice the amount that they considered to be too much for those young workers.
Mr. Lord: The hon. Gentleman is talking about wealth and being wealthy. Does he consider it a crime to be wealthy?
Mr. Nellist: The City seems to have been fairly profitable over the past couple of years.
The single hourly adult rate is all that is left for the wages council to decide. The rate for those over the age of 21 years who work in an unlicenced place of refreshment is £2·10 per hour, which is a weekly wage of £81·90—the same amount that Tory Members intend to vote for as an increase in their salaries.
The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) has said that the increase, is needed to attract the best people to stand for Parliament. How do we define who is best? From 1979 to 1986 the after-tax and insurance earnings of the lowest 10 per cent. of society rose by 3·5 per cent., but the earnings of the top 10 per cent. of society rose by 23·4 per cent. Who says that hon. Members representing the top 10 per cent. of wage earners in society will lead to a better House of Commons than those who represent the bottom 10 per cent.?
Some hon. Members say that we work long hours. That is true; I was one of the 260 hon. Members who were present in the Chamber at 3 o'clock this morning when some of us voted against the cuts in the rate support for two of the largest councils in Scotland. It is true that hon. Members work long hours, but it is ironic that we debated the matter until 3 o'clock this morning, yet on Friday we will have a vote on a three-month recess. Parliament could be organised on a more equal basis and the hours could be shared out over the year. Members of Parliament work long hours, but there are some 3 million shift workers in this country—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) may laugh, but he would not laugh if he wanted to be taken to hospital in an ambulance but discovered that the nurses and ambulance drivers had decided that they would not work shift work any more. What would happen if the steel workers, electricity workers, or those who work for basic industries, decided that they would not work shifts? Those shift workers receive an average wage of £210 a week for men and £142 for women. They work shifts all year, not one or two nights a week out of a possible 32 weeks in the year.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, "Let us vote for the motion because it introduces continuity and we will not have to come back to this argument again." I would be happy to look at that as a concept, particularly if Tory Back Benchers and Tory Cabinet Ministers such as the Minister for Employment
322
who replied to my question today, admitted that if those on youth training schemes had had a linkage system since April 1978 when their allowance was introduced. instead of being on about £28 a week they would be on £49 a week. Those young workers have seen 43 per cent. of their allowance cut because there is no linkage. They have lost some £21 a week because of the freeze. If it is good enough for hon. Members, why does not some Tory Cabinet Minister propose it for the 500,000 youngsters on the youth training scheme?
I shall come to my conclusion—[Interruption] I am sure that Tory Members are happy to hear that. Some have raised, as a justification for the increase jpon which we are voting tonight, the expense of being a Member of Parliament; the need to get taxis after late sittings, the need to eat on the move or the need for secretarial assistance and so on. I should put on record that the allowance for living in London is established at £8,000 a year. Some say that they cannot manage on that. When Lord Gowrie resigned from a £33,000 a year job in September 1985 he said:
"It is not what people need for living in Central London."
How do Tory Members expect young working class couples to live in London? Do they not read the London newspapers? Young people in London have to club together, not just one or two of them but three or four of them, to save up enough of a deposit to buy a two bedroom terraced house. If hon. Members are concerned about the horrendous level of rents and house prices in London they should do something to tackle the source of the problems, not just deal with the effects. The first and most important thing to do is to provide more money for public sector building so that new houses reduce the pressure on the private rented sector which is leading to the escalation of rents.
Living in London is a separate issue from that being voted on tonight, as is transport. If hon. Members have to take taxis home after a late sitting they can claim the mileage component from their travel allowance. I do not claim for taxis when I have to take them from the House. I take the cost out of the profit I make on the general mileage allowance across the whole year, which in my case is about £2,000 a year. That means that I have never charged anybody for a public or political meeting I have done in the past four years. We should tackle the source. We should tackle the late night sittings, not the question of complaining about the prices paid for taxis
The secretarial allowances are still woefully inadequate. Many Tory Members get outside staff assistance from their business arrangements, but Labour Members, particularly those representing inner city areas, have a huge level of casework. They are trying to get to grips with the effects of eight years of decline and desolation caused by the Government, particularly in areas such as Coventry. There are wards in Coventry with over 50 per cent. male unemployment. That results in me receiving nearly 200 letters a week and the same is true for most of my Labour comrades, particularly those in inner city areas. The present secretarial allowance is woefully inadequate. If there had been a motion on the Order Paper to vote for the doubling of that allowance I would happily have done so. Unfortunately the only motion for which I can vote is that tabled by my hon. Friend the, Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden).
I now turn to my Labour comrades and colleagues. In the past four weeks inside the parliamentary Labour party,

323
in our publications and in our Labour party meetings we have been conducting an intense analysis about the result of the general election. If one fact has emerged above all others, it is that a successful four-week campaign that was intensively and professionally presented and packaged was unable to repair the damage of the preceding four years. During our discussions the word most used has been "image". There are 5 million workers who earn each week either the £80 that we are proposing to give ourselves as a rise or even less, and a total of 8·5 million workers who earn less than the Council of Europe "decency" threshold of £125 a week. How will these workers view tonight's decision? What effect will it have on our image? What will these voters think if Members vote for a £80 a week increase? The majority will think, "Once MPs get down in London there is no difference between them. They are all in it for what they can get out of it for themselves."
I have received many letters and phone calls on this issue, but during the past month I have not had one letter or comment from outside the House urging me to vote for the proposed increase. Instead, I have received many representations from those who believe that I should take a stand against the increase. I shall present the House with two examples. The first is from a Labour voter in Shropshire, and she writes:
"Dear Mr. Nellist, I want to thank you for what you said last week on Radio 4 about MPs' pay. I certainly don't begrudge MPs a decent wage, but I do agree with what you said about trying to live at a level similar to that of many of your constituents so that you can really understand their problems. What it does seem is that MPs could do with more sociable hours, especially for those who are parents of young children."
As a parent of three young children, one of whom is only 10 weeks old, I would agree with that.
The other letter from which I shall quote comes from someone in West Sussex. It reads:
"Dear Mr. Nellist, I applaud your attitude to parliamentary salaries that you expressed two days back on the 'Today' programme of Radio 4."—
[Interruption.] My hon. Friends who are commenting from a sedentary position will understand the point of this in a moment. The letter continues:
"I do so all the more when I think"—
An Hon. Member: Sanctimonious.
Mr. Nellist: If there is a choice between sanctimony —
Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be much more helpful to the House if the hon. Gentleman were to get on with his speech and if he were not interrupted from a sedentary position by comments that divert him from his line.
Mr. Nellist: If there is a choice between sanctimony and greed, I know that to which I shall plead guilty.
Mr. George Galloway: That was unworthy of my hon. Friend.
Mr. Nellist: I was responding to the charge of sanctimony. I suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) deals with that.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has been correctly addressing his remarks to me, and he should continue to do so.
Mr. Nellist: All that I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that it would be better to deal with the foul rather than to indulge in retaliation. I shall continue to read the letter from which I was quoting, which states:
"I do so all the more when I think that unlike a great many MPs you doubtless have to actually live on what the nation pays you. I do so also as a life-long Conservative, conscious all too well that many MPs in my party are well off and still demand the new increase! They shock me as a pensioner."
I have given two examples of the way in which millions of ordinary working-class families will view tonight's debate. Despite the efforts that my right hon. and hon. Friends will undoubtedly make—I have no doubt that they will explain what they do with part of their salary, and I have the highest regard for them—the majority of the low paid, pensioners and those on supplementary benefits will read only the reports that will appear in the newspapers tomorrow of an £80 a week increase. They will hear none of the arguments that have been advanced to justify it.
I said earlier that many people outside this Chamber will see no difference between Tory and Labour Members tonight. But there is a difference. Tory Members represent the 3 per cent. of the working population who earn more than £22,500 a year. Labour Members should represent the 97 per cent. of the population for whom £450 a week would be a dream. Few, apart from myself and my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields), Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) and Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) take the principled decision—in my case passed by my constituency Labour party about 10 years ago—that Labour Members should try to live on the same wages as the majority of their constituents and, therefore, reflect similar problems in terms of rates, mortgages, transport, the purchasing of kids' shoes and so on. I recognise that many of my hon. Friends—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) gave much, if not all, of his parliamentary salary to the miners' families during the miners' strike —give away part of their salaries, but none of them takes the principled decision that I have outlined. I make no further criticism of them for that.
To answer the point made earlier by Tory Members, that has meant that I have given £16,000 of my take-home parliamentary salary back to the Labour movement, in addition—to answer the point of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) — to the £1,026 that I have earned during the past four years from television appearances and occasional journalism.
Mr. Cyril Smith: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I ask this question sincerely. I thought I heard him refer earlier to the figure of £16,000, and he has just mentioned it again. Since the parliamentary salary is only £18,000, how can he give £16,000 back to his constituents? I do not understand it.
Mr. Nellist: It is quite simple. It is the figure over four years, and it works out at between £80 and £90 a week of my take-home salary—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This sort of attitude hardly does us justice.
Mr. Nellist: As for the approach of taking only the average wage of the skilled worker, one hon. Member said that, were it applied on an hourly rate, it would mean that hon. Members would be earning a similar amount to the

325
amount that they earn now. My reply to that is that in Britain today there are about 350,000 shop stewards and lay officials of unions who, in addition to full-time occupations, put in many hours of unpaid work representing the members of their unions or their sections. They do not get wages at twice or three times the level of those whom they represent, or holidays of 20 weeks in the year. There are perhaps half a million charity workers who work many unpaid hours outside their normal occupations, raising money for everything from research into cancer to famine relief overseas. The vast majority of them are unpaid workers who do it because they believe that the job must be done. I see no dichotomy in basing my role in life on taking an average skilled worker's wage and on making similar sacrifices to the nearly 750,000 shop stewards, conveners, trade union officials and charity workers by not taking extra money for the extra hours that I put in.
I urge my comrades on the Labour Benches to vote against the increase of £80 a week and, in solidarity with those low-paid workers throughout the country, to vote against the motion. However, if it is passed, I urge them to give at least 5 per cent. of their gross salaries—
Mr. Orme: To Militant.
Mr. Nellist: No Stan, not to Militant, to Walworth Road. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member is coming to the conclusion of his speech.
Mr. Nellist: My right hon. Friend from Salford, East (Mr. Orme) would be in a better position tomorrow morning to say to the National Executive of the Labour party that there would be no need for 40 redundancies and the closure of Labour Weekly, Socialist Youth and New Socialist if 229 Labour MPs each gave 5 per cent. of their gross salary. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend started it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If there is any disagreement between the hon. Members on this it ought to take place outside the Chamber.
Mr. Nellist: Tomorrow morning my right hon. Friend could then attend the National Executive as Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour party and report on additional £250,000 income for the Labour party and stop —[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend started it. He should not joke about Militant. He started it.
Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend is incorrect. I am not a member of the National Executive of the Labour party.
Mr. Nellist: My right hon. Friend—
Mr. Speaker: I was not going to interrupt the hon. Member, but I think that I will. I think the whole House would agree that the hon. Member should now be heard in silence.
Mr. Nellist: In which case, following that helpful suggestion to the House, I will not prolong the argument with my right hon. Friend. I think the message has got through. If the increase goes through, I think the jobs in the three Labour party publications are worth at least a 5 per cent. sacrifice in gross pay by my colleagues. To give them the opportunity, in solidarity with the low-paid, to vote against the increase, I give notice that, at the appropriate time, I shall try to divide the House.
11.28 pm
Mr. David Blunkett: Many of the good points that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has just made would have been enhanced if he had hidden some of his light under a slightly larger bushel, because many of his comments were true. Many of his points were good ones. Lecturing colleagues on how much to give of their pay, however, smacks of the benevolence that some of us have tried to escape from in fighting for decent wages and conditions without receiving the charity of. Conservative Members. I do not know anyone who owns shares in grocery firms. I do not even have any political associates who run PR consultancy firms. I try, as other Members do, to represent people in the House, to do a good job, to learn how to do it better and to try to earn the rewards that I am paid.
I hope that doing a decent day's—and night's—work will be properly rewarded and that the House will have the decency to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), because the treatment of those who work with us is a sign of the kind of people we are and the kind of world we expect for those we represent.
I welcome the assurances of the Leader of the House about tightening up the procedures and monitoring, because if people outside were aware of the poor conditions in which those whom we employ have to work and the pay on which they have to do it they would want us to double the amount that we pay. [Interruption.] I hope that they would, because I think that your words, Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the Session about holding a Government to account can be fulfilled only if hon. Members put in the necessary work and are adequately serviced and supported.
Successive Governments have been happy to ensure that all Back Benchers are inadequately serviced to carry out that task. We have only ourselves to blame. [Interruption.] No, I do not call upon God. I expect elected Members to be big and dedicated enough to provide—for themselves and the electorate they serve—decent conditions in which to do their job properly.
I have no intention of setting up any kind of umbrella organisation to draw in funds. I should be held to account by other hon. Members if I did. There will be no curly-coated advisory service or group for drawing in funds.
I must tell Conservative Members, however, that the ridicule that was poured on the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was uncalled for. If we pay ourselves an adequate wage and we do an adequate job, we should not expect to take other jobs outside the House. No employer, including those who sit on the other side of the House, would tolerate in their employees what the electorate tolerate in us when it comes to other activities and employment. It is not moonlighting that we are engaged in; it is daylighting. I hope that we shall ensure that we do not continue to work silly hours. We must work in the daylight hours to do the job which we were sent here to do.
If we followed market forces and some people's ideas through to their logical conclusion, we would have sponsored Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "We already have"] I know of no trade union sponsored hon. Member who draws from his or her trade union money that goes

327
into a personal bank account. The same cannot be said for Conservative Members who have consultancies and who charge fees for their activities.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves his argument about no other employer allowing an employee to have separate jobs in normal circumstances, would he care to comment on the fact that the motion, with which I disagree but which, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) said, links hon. Members' pay—for the sake of convenience and hiding further debate on the subject—to the Civil Service, yet no civil servant in Britain is allowed to have a second job? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the House seeks that convenience without accepting the obligations of the link?
Mr. Blunkett: I need not reply to that intervention from the hon. Member, because his words were clearly addressed not to me but to Conservative Members.
We can expect the support of the people whom we represent in our desire to be paid decently and have good support services only if they are persuaded that we are doing our job properly and are working on their behalf and serving their interests, not those of various outside organisations. If we all acted in that way, politicians and politics would be more highly respected and Parliament would benefit.
11.36 pm
Mr. Chris Mullin: It was unfortunate that we were an hour and half into the debate before coming across a dissenting point of view. I suggest that if we took a stroll up Whitehall and conducted a straw poll among the first few citizens we met, we should discover that a different view was held by —[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole parliamentary process means listening to views with which we do not wholly agree.
Mr. Mullin: We would find that a different view on this issue is held by the people out there than exists in this rarefied atmosphere.
I shall be voting against the proposed increase, and in doing so I shall be casting no aspersions on the motives of those whose equally sincerely held views lead them to vote in the opposite direction. I shall vote in that way because I believe it wrong, at a time when increases of 3 to 5 per cent. are being imposed by this House on the public sector, that we should vote ourselves an increase of about 22 per cent.
I can think of no action that will more encourage public cynicism and help to undermine confidence in the democratic process than Members of Parliament doing for themselves the opposite to what they would have done to the public. It is fortunate for the reputation of the House that the debate is taking place at this late hour, unwitnessed by many representatives of our free press.
In the last decade we have grown used to appeals from this place for restraint addressed to most sections of the population—to postmen and nurses, for example. It is hypocritical that those who call most often for that restraint should make themselves be immune from it. Our constituents will not understand how, when the living
328
standards of many are lower than at any time in living memory, we should be voting ourselves such a massive increase.
Last week I was approached by a lady who lives on £30·40 per week supplementary benefit. She was not complaining about that. She contacted me because her benefit had failed to arrive and she was faced with destitution.
I have a wages slip from a young woman in my constituency. [Interruption] I hear groans from Conservative Members, but we should confront reality from time to time. We do not do so often, but I think that we should have a bash this evening. That young woman works a 41-hour week at a food processing factory in my constituency. Her gross pay was £52·20 for a 41-hour week. After deductions she received £47·56. That is not uncommon in this country. Many hon. Members could point to similar cases in their constituencies.
As I have said, I cast no aspersions on the motives of any hon. Member. I am simply saying that I am unable to look such people in the eye and to vote myself —[Interruption.] I shall come to that point in a minute. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way".]
Mr. Robert Litherland: My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) said that he would vote against, but accept, the increase. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend whether he will assure the House that although he will vote against the motion, he will not accept one penny of the increase?
Mr. Mullin: I have no problem with that point and I shall deal with it in a minute. [Interruption.] I shall deal with it as robustly as did my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), who, whatever one may think of his views, is one of the people in this place who practises what he preaches.
It has been said that our wages should be pegged to those of senior civil servants. I suggest that if we are interested in future in assessing by how much our wages should rise — I know that it is embarrassing for hon. Members to be called upon regularly to deal with the question of their own pay—and if we are looking for a convenient index against which to peg our wages, the national average industrial wage would be appropriate. I do not suggest that we should accept exactly the national average industrial wage, but that our wage level should be pegged to that rather than to the wage level of some mythical civil servant over the road whose lifestyle has nothing to do with those of most of the people whom we represent.
The question of allowances has been raised —[Interruption.] Conservative Members should keep their hair on. [Laughter.] I shall get there in a minute. It is nice to see the House so full at a quarter to midnight. Only a hanging debate attracts more Conservative Members.
The question of allowances has been raised. Many hon. Members have made the point, which I endorse, that if there is any public money to be spared, or rather any taxpayers' money—Conservative Members so often use that expression—it should go towards providing facilities that would better enable us to serve our constituencies. The point has also been raised, but it bears repeating, that as yet some hon. Members do not have a desk or telephone in the House. If we are here to serve our

329
constituents it is not an inconvenience for the hon. Member concerned, but for the constituents we are here to serve.
If there is extra taxpayers' money swilling around it might at least go towards for example, providing my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) with a desk and an office. Surely that is not a terribly unreasonable demand in this last quarter of the 20th century.
HON. MEMBERS: Is the hon. Gentleman going to take the increase?
Mr. Mullin: I will keep hon. Members in suspense for just a moment longer. They should relax. I will come to my conclusion shortly.
I am in the process of employing 1½ people —[Interruption.] Hon. Members have asked a question and they should listen politely to the answer.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) would be well advised to address his remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Mullin: Hon. Members have repeatedly asked whether I intend to take the allowance and I will now answer.
Hon. Members: The salary.
Mr. Mullin: I propose to employ 1½ people—a full-time assistant in my constituency and a half share of a secretary in London. The salary costs, taken with employer contributions, come to almost £18,000 a year. After paying those costs from the current allowances I am left with about £2,240 for the rent and rates on an office in the constituency. There is nothing remarkable about my plans—many of my hon. Friends and, perhaps, some Conservative Members follow the same practice.
I am left with £2,240 to pay the rates and rent on the constituency office, pay for a photocopier and more besides. I intend to put the proposed increase towards the allowance— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—Yes, every penny of it—to enable me to serve my constituents.
Mr. Hoyle rose—
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South will give way now.
Hon. Members: Yes he will.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Mullin: That is the action that I propose to take—
Mr. Hoyle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am extremely interested in what he has to say. My hon. Friend has said that he will give the increase to his staff. What will my hon. Friend do with his journalistic earnings in addition to his salary?
Mr. Mullin: Thus far, since coming to the House—
Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend has only been here for six weeks.
Mr. Mullin: Thus far I have received £30 for a ludicrous questionnaire, which I donated, instantly, to the constituency party funds.
I have tried to emphasise that I am not seeking to cast aspersions on the motives of any hon. Members who take a different view from me. I cannot bring myself to look in
330
the eye people such as the young woman in my constituency who is paid £47·50 for a 41-hour week while voting myself an increase of £80 a week. I cannot and will not do that.
11.50 pm
Mr. Wakeham: I sense that the House wants to reach a decision on these matters very quickly. We have heard many powerful speeches, but I suspect that hon. Members have made up their own minds.
I want to congratulate the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), on his robust first appearance at the Dispatch Box in his new role. The motions are matters for the House and I have already said why I believe that the House should support them and reject the amendments. However, one or two things need to be said.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and others referred to matters concerning the inadequacy of the accommodation in the House. I appreciate that things are not perfect. The House will be aware of the programme to improve the position. However, I hope that the House will want me to acknowledge that the sterling work of the Serjeant at Arms and his staff in providing accommodation for hon. Members and their staff within the available resources is appreciated by everyone.
The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and others referred to the Members' pension fund. I will refer that matter to the Top Salaries Review Body and I hope to make an announcement about that later this week. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) rightly referred to the effect of Members' salary decisions on the pensions of hon. Members who have left the House and of widows. That is an essential part of the judgment that we have to make. I am grateful to him for his remarks about the helpfulness of the staff in the Fees Office. I know that I speak for the whole House when I endorse that and that they will be grateful for it.
The time has come to decide these matters. The House has an opportunity to put the debates behind us. I recommend the motions to the House.
Amendment proposed to the Question, in line 8, leave out `and' and insert—
`, except that any income received by a Member, and not immediately derived from his or her activities and employment as a Member of Parliament (a Member's extra-parliamentary income) shall

(i) in respect of service in 1988 or any subsequent year, but not after the next general election, be deducted from the difference between the rate specified in paragraph (a) herein and the rate payable in 1987, and

(ii) in respect of services in any year subsequent to the next general election be deducted from the rate specified in paragraph (a) herein;

(b) that for purposes of computation and ratification each Member's annual total extra-parliamentary income shall be required to be recorded in the Register of Members' Interests, but shall not be made available to the public;

(c) for the purposes of definition of extra-parliamentary income, fees which are received and ire wholly and exclusively attributable to a Member's activities as a Member (such as articles and public, radio or television appearances) shall not be included.'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 65, Noes 275.

Division No. 24]

[11.51 pm

AYES

Allen, Graham

Macdonald, Calum

Ashdown, Paddy

McFall, John

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Battle, John

McKelvey, William

Blunkett, David

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Boyes, Roland

Marek, Dr John

Bradley, Keith

Maxton, John

Callagnan, Jim

Meale, Alan

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Clay, Bob

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Morley, Elliott

Corbyn, Jeremy

Mullin, Chris

Cryer, Bob

Nellist, Dave

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

Pike, Peter

Duffy, A. E. P.

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Salmond, Alex

Fatchett, Derek

Sedgemore, Brian

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

Short, Clare

Flannery, Martin

Skinner, Dennis

Flynn, Paul

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

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

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Snape, Peter

Galloway, George

Steinberg, Gerald

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Vaz, Keith

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Wall, Pat

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Wareing, Robert N.

Hoyle, Doug

Wigley, Dafydd

Ingram, Adam

Wilson, Brian

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Kilfedder, James

Lewis, Terry

Tellers for the Ayes:

Livsey, Richard

Mr. Simon Hughes and

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Mr. Matthew Taylor.

McAllion, John

NOES

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Cartwright, John

Amess, David

Cash, William

Arbuthnot, James

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Chapman, Sydney

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Chope, Christopher

Ashby, David

Churchill, Mr

Aspinwall, Jack

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

Atkins, Robert

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Atkinson, David

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Baldry, Tony

Cope, John

Batiste, Spencer

Couchman, James

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Cran, James

Bendall, Vivian

Currie, Mrs Edwina

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

Curry, David

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Dalyell, Tam

Bermingham, Gerald

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

Blair, Tony

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Day, Stephen

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Devlin, Tim

Boswell, Tim

Dewar, Donald

Bottomley, Peter

Dickens, Geoffrey

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Dicks, Terry

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Dorrell, Stephen

Bowis, John

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Dover, Den

Bright, Graham

Dunn, Bob

Brooke, Hon Peter

Dykes, Hugh

Browne, John (Winchester)

Eggar, Tim

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Emery, Sir Peter

Buck, Sir Antony

Fallon, Michael

Burt, Alistair

Favell, Tony

Butcher, John

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Butler, Chris

Fookes, Miss Janet

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Forman, Nigel

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Carrington, Matthew

Forth, Eric

332

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Maclennan, Robert

Freeman, Roger

McLoughlin, Patrick

French, Douglas

Madel, David

Fry, Peter

Major, Rt Hon John

Gale, Roger

Malins, Humfrey

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Mans, Keith

Gill, Christopher

Maples, John

Glyn, Dr Alan

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Maude, Hon Francis

Gow, Ian

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Gower, Sir Raymond

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Mellor, David

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Grist, Ian

Mills, Iain

Ground, Patrick

Miscampbell, Norman

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Hanley, Jeremy

Moate, Roger

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Moore, Rt Hon John

Harris, David

Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

Haselhurst, Alan

Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Hayes, Jerry

Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Moss, Malcolm

Hayward, Robert

Moynihan, Hon C.

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Neale, Gerrard

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Neubert, Michael

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Newton, Tony

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Nicholls, Patrick

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hind, Kenneth

Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Holt, Richard

Onslow, Cranley

Home Robertson, John

Paice, James

Howard, Michael

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

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

Patnick, Irvine

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Howells, Geraint

Pawsey, James

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Portillo, Michael

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Raffan, Keith

Irvine, Michael

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Jack, Michael

Rathbone, Tim

Jackson, Robert

Redwood, John

Janman, Timothy

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Jessel, Toby

Renton, Tim

John, Brynmor

Rhodes James, Robert

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Johnston, Sir Russell

Riddick, Graham

Kennedy, Charles

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Key, Robert

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Robertson, George

Kirkhope, Timothy

Roe, Mrs Marion

Kirkwood, Archy

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Knapman, Roger

Rowe, Andrew

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Knowles, Michael

Ryder, Richard

Knox, David

Sackville, Hon Tom

Lambie, David

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Scott, Nicholas

Lang, Ian

Shaw, David (Dover)

Latham, Michael

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lawrence, Ivan

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Leadbitter, Ted

Shersby, Michael

Lee, John (Pendle)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Lightbown, David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lilley, Peter

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Speller, Tony

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

McCrindle, Robert

Squire, Robin

MacGregor, John

Steen, Anthony

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Stern, Michael

Maclean, David

Stevens, Lewis

333

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Waldegrave, Hon William

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Walden, George

Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

Waller, Gary

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Ward, John

Sumberg, David

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Summerson, Hugo

Watts, John

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Wells, Bowen

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Wheeler, John

Temple-Morris, Peter

Whitney, Ray

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Wiggin, Jerry

Thurnham, Peter

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Winterton, Nicholas

Tracey, Richard

Wolfson, Mark

Tredinnick, David

Wood, Timothy

Trippier, David

Twinn, Dr Ian

Tellers for the Noes:

Viggers, Peter

Mr. Tony Durant and

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Mr. Peter Lloyd.

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—
(a) the salaries of Members not falling within paragraph (b) shall, in respect of service in 1988 or any subsequent year, be at a yearly rate equal to 89 per
That, in the opinion of this House—
(a) the allowance payable to a Member of this House in respect of the aggregate expenses incurred by him for his Parliamentary duties—

(i) as general office expenses (including expenses incurred in the purchase of office equipment),

(ii) on secretarial assistance, and

(iii) on research assistance for work undertaken in the proper performance of such duties,

should be known as the office costs allowance:

(b) the limit on the office costs allowance should be determined as follows —

(i) for the year ending with 31 st March 1988, the limit should be £20,140,

(ii) for the year ending with 31 st March 1989, the limit should be the greater of the following amounts, namely the amount obtained by increasing £19,500 by the relevant percentage and £20,140,

(iii) for any subsequent year, the limit should be the amount obtained by increasing the limit applicable to the immediately preceding year by the relevant percentage (so that, if the relevant percentage for any year is nil, the limit remains the same for that year);

(c) the arrangements approved by Mr. Speaker pursuant to paragraph (b) of the second Resolution of 19th July 1983 (payments by Fees Office in respect of secretarial and research assistance) should include arrangements for securing that, before any salary or fee is paid to any person in respect of his employment by the Member concerned, the Member—

(i) in the case of a person by law entitled to receive a written statement of the main terms and conditions of that employment, has furnished the Fees Office with a copy of any such statement and has furnished the Fees Office and that person with a statement containing a job description relating to that employment, or

(ii) in the case of any other person, has furnished the Fees Office and that person with a statement containing a job description relating to that employment and has either included in that statement details of that person's pay and hours of work or furnished the Fees Office with a copy of a written contract relating to that employment,

together with arrangements for securing that, before any other payment is made in respect of services provided by any person, the Member concerned has furnished the Fees Office with invoices specifying the services in question;
(d) the limit applicable to the sums referred to in paragraph (b) of the third Resolution of 5th June 1981 (pension contributions for Members' secretaries and research assistants) should, for the year ending with 31st March 1988 and any subsequent year, be equal to—

(i) 10 per cent, of the salary, or (as the case may be) of the aggregate amount of the salaries, payable for that year to the person or persons in respect of whom any such sums are paid, or

(ii) 10 per cent, of the amount which is the limit for that year on the office costs allowance,

whichever is less.
334
cent, of the rate which on 1st January in that year represents the maximum point on the main national pay scale for Grade 6 officers in the Home Civil Service, or if that scale ceases to exist on the scale which for the time being replaces it (disregarding, in either case, any discretionary pay point on that scale); and
(b) the salaries of Officers of this House and Members receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 shall, in respect of service in 1988 or any subsequent year, be at a yearly rate equal to 67 per cent, of the rate which on 1st January in that year represents the maximum point referred to in paragraph (a).
Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I think the Serjeant at Arms will accept, I along with other Labour Members shouted "No" quite clearly in order to force a Division on the main Question.
Mr. Speaker: I was collecting the voices and I did not hear a sustained "No". I suggest that the hon. Gentleman maintains his objection on motion No. 5, which will cover the same point.

OFFICE COSTS ETC. ALLOWANCES
Motion made, and Question proposed,
In this Resolution "year" means a year ending with 31st March, and for the purposes of this Resolution—

(i) the relevant percentage for any year is the percentage by which the amount of salary (exclusive of allowances and overtime) payable for that year to a person in the Home Civil Service at the maximum point on the scale for Senior Personal Secretaries and in receipt of Inner London weighting exceeds the corresponding amount for the immediately preceding year;

(ii) any fraction of a pound in the amount obtained as mentioned in paragraph (b)(ii) or (iii) above for any year shall be treated as a whole pound if it is not less than 50 pence, but shall otherwise be disregarded.—[Mr. Wakeham.]

Amendment proposed to the Question, in line 11, leave out from 'be' to end of line 18 and insert—
'the amount obtained by increasing £20,140 by the relevant percentage, and
(ii) for any subsequent year, the limit should be the amount obtained by increasing the limit applicable to the immediately preceding year by the relevant percentage (so that, if the relevant percentage for any year is nil, the limit remains the same for that year);', — [Mr. Madden.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 198.

Division No. 25]

[12.06 am

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Corbyn, Jeremy

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Cousins, Jim

Alton, David

Cran, James

Amess, David

Crowther, Stan

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Cryer, Bob

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Ashby, David

Dalyell, Tam

Ashdown, Paddy

Darling, Alastair

Ashton, Joe

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

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Barron, Kevin

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

Battle, John

Dewar, Donald

Beckett, Margaret

Dickens, Geoffrey

Bell, Stuart

Dixon, Don

Bendall, Vivian

Dobson, Frank

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

Doran, Frank

Bermingham, Gerald

Douglas, Dick

Blair, Tony

Dover, Den

Blunkett, David

Duffy, A. E. P.

Boateng, Paul

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Bowis, John

Eadie, Alexander

Boyes, Roland

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Bradley, Keith

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Fatchett, Derek

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Browne, John (Winchester)

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

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Fisher, Mark

Buck, Sir Antony

Flannery, Martin

Buckley, George

Flynn, Paul

Caborn, Richard

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Callaghan, Jim

Foster, Derek

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Foulkes, George

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Fraser, John

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Galloway, George

Cartwright, John

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

George, Bruce

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Clay, Bob

Golding, Mrs Llin

Clelland, David

Gordon, Ms Mildred

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Gould, Bryan

Coleman, Donald

Gower, Sir Raymond

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Graham, Thomas

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Corbett, Robin

Grocott, Bruce

336

Hardy, Peter

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Haselhurst, Alan

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Haynes, Frank

Miscampbell, Norman

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Henderson, Douglas

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Morgan, Rhodri

Hinchliffe, David

Morley, Elliott

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

Holland, Stuart

Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

Home Robertson, John

Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Mullin, Chris

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Murphy, Paul

Howells, Geraint

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Hoyle, Doug

O'Brien, William

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

O'Neill, Martin

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Paice, James

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Parry, Robert

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Patchett, Terry

Illsley, Eric

Patnick, Irvine

Ingram, Adam

Pendry, Tom

Jack, Michael

Pike, Peter

John, Brynmor

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Johnston, Sir Russell

Prescott, John

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Kennedy, Charles

Randall, Stuart

Key, Robert

Redmond, Martin

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Kirkwood, Archy

Reid, John

Knox, David

Richardson, Ms Jo

Lambie, David

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Lamond, James

Robertson, George

Leadbitter, Ted

Robinson, Geoffrey

Leighton, Ron

Rogers, Allan

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

Rooker, Jeff

Lewis, Terry

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Litherland, Robert

Rowe, Andrew

Livingstone, Ken

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Livsey, Richard

Salmond, Alex

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Sedgemore, Brian

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Sheerman, Barry

Loyden, Eddie

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McAllion, John

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

McAvoy, Tom

Short, Clare

McCartney, Ian

Skinner, Dennis

Macdonald, Calum

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

McFall, John

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

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

McKelvey, William

Snape, Peter

McLeish, Henry

Soley, Clive

Maclennan, Robert

Spearing, Nigel

McNamara, Kevin

Squire, Robin

McTaggart, Bob

Steinberg, Gerald

McWilliam, John

Stott, Roger

Madden, Max

Strang, Gavin

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Straw, Jack

Mans, Keith

Summerson, Hugo

Marek, Dr John

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Vaz, Keith

Martin, Michael (Springburn)

Wall, Pat

Martlew, Eric

Walley, Ms Joan

Maxton, John

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Meale, Alan

Wareing, Robert N.

Michael, Alun

Wells, Bowen

337

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Wigley, Dafydd

Worthington, Anthony

Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wilson, Brian

Mr. Dave Nellist and

Winnick, David

Mr. Graham Allen.

NOES

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Arbuthnot, James

Harris, David

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Hayes, Jerry

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Atkins. Robert

Hayward, Robert

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Baldry, Tony

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Batiste, Spencer

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Hind, Kenneth

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Howard, Michael

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Boswell, Tim

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Bottomley, Peter

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Irvine, Michael

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Jackson, Robert

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Janman, Timothy

Brooke, Hon Peter

Jessel, Toby

Burt, Alistair

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Butcher, John

Kilfedder, James

Butler, Chris

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Carrington, Matthew

Knapman, Roger

Cash, William

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Knowles, Michael

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Chapman, Sydney

Lang, Ian

Chope, Christopher

Latham, Michael

Churchill, Mr

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

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

Lee, John (Pendle)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Lilley, Peter

Cope, John

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Couchman, James

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Currie. Mrs Edwina

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Curry, David

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Day, Stephen

McCrindle, Robert

Dicks, Terry

MacGregor, John

Dorrell, Stephen

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Maclean, David

Dunn, Bob

McLoughlin, Patrick

Durant, Tony

Major, Rt Hon John

Eggar, Tim

Malins, Humfrey

Emery, Sir Peter

Maples, John

Fallon, Michael

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Favell, Tony

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Maude, Hon Francis

Fookes, Miss Janet

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Forman, Nigel

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Mellor, David

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Mills, Iain

Forth, Eric

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Freeman, Roger

Moate, Roger

French, Douglas

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Fry, Peter

Moore, Rt Hon John

Gale, Roger

Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Moss, Malcolm

Gill, Christopher

Moynihan, Hon C.

Glyn, Dr Alan

Neale, Gerrard

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Neubert, Michael

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Newton, Tony

Gow, Ian

Nicholls, Patrick

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Onslow, Cranley

Grist, Ian

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Ground, Patrick

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hanley, Jeremy

Portillo, Michael

338

Raffan, Keith

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

Rathbone, Tim

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Redwood, John

Sumberg, David

Renton, Tim

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Rhodes James, Robert

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

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Riddick, Graham

Thurnham, Peter

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Tracey, Richard

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Tredinnick, David

Roe, Mrs Marion

Trippier, David

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Viggers, Peter

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Ryder, Richard

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Sackville, Hon Tom

Waldegrave, Hon William

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Walden, George

Scott, Nicholas

Waller, Gary

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Ward, John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Watts, John

Shersby, Michael

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Winterton, Nicholas

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Wood, Timothy

Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Tellers for the Noes:

Stern, Michael

Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Alan Howarth.

Stevens, Lewis

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That in the opinion of this House—
(a) the allowance payable to a Member of this House in respect of the aggregate expenses incurred by him for his Parliamentary duties—

(i) as general office expenses (including expenses incurred in the purchase of office equipment),

(ii) on secretarial assistance, and

(iii) on research assistance for work undertaken in the proper performance of such duties,

should be known as the office costs allowance;
(b) the limit on the office costs allowance should be determined as follows—

(i) for the year ending with 31st March 1988, the limit should be the amount obtained by increasing £20,140 by the relevant percentage, and

(ii) for any subsequent year, the limit should be the amount obtained by increasing the limit applicable to the immediately preceding year by the relevant percentage (so that if the relevant percentage for any year is nil, the limit remains the same for that year);

(c) the arrangements approved by Mr. Speaker pursuant to paragraph (b) of the second Resolution of 19th July 1983 (payments by Fees Office in respect of secretarial and research assistance) should include arrangements for securing that, before any salary or fee is paid to any person in respect of his employment by the Member concerned, the Member—

(i) in the case of a person by law entitled to receive a written statement of the main terms and conditions of that employment, has furnished the Fees Office with a copy of any such statement and has furnished the Fees Office and that person with a statement containing a job description relating to that employment, or

(ii) in the case of any other person, has furnished the Fees Office and that person with a statement containing a job description relating to that employment and has either included in that statement

339
details of that person's pay and hours of work or furnished the Fees Office with a copy of a written contract relating to that employment,

together with arrangements for securing that, before any other payment is made in respect of services provided by any person, the Member concerned has furnished the Fees Office with invoices specifying the services in question;

(d) the limit applicable to the sums referred to in paragraph (b) of the third Resolution of 5th June 1981 (pension contributions for Members' secretaries and research assistants) should, for the year ending with 31st March 1988 and any subsequent year, be equal to—

(i) 10 per cent, of the salary, or (as the case may be) of the aggregate amount of the salaries, payable for that year to the person or persons in respect of whom any such sums are paid, or

(ii) 10 per cent. of the amount which is the limit for that year on the office costs allowance,

whichever is less.
In this Resolution "year" means a year ending with 31st March, and for the purposes of this Resolution—

(i) the relevant percentage for any year is the percentage by which the amount of salary (exclusive of allowances and overtime) payable for that year to a person in the Home Civil Service at the maximum point on the scale for Senior Personal Secretaries and in receipt of Inner London weighting exceeds the corresponding amount for the immediately preceding year;

(ii) any fraction of a pound in the amount as mentioned in paragraph (b)(ii) or (iii) above for any year shall be treated as a whole pound if it is not less than 50 pence, but shall otherwise be disregarded.

MEMBERS' SALARIES
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put,
That the following provision should be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—

(a) the salaries of Members not falling within paragraph (b) shall, in respect of service in 1988 or any subsequent year, be at a yearly rate equal to 89 per cent, of the rate which on 1st January in that year represents the maximum point on the main national pay scale for Grade 6 officers in the Home Civil Service or, if that scale ceases to exist, on the scale which for the time being replaces it (disregarding, in either case, any discretionary pay point on that scale): and

(b) the salaries of Officers of this House and Members receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 shall, in respect of service in 1988 or any subsequent year, be at a yearly rate equal to 67 per cent. of the rate which on 1st January in that year represents the maximum point referred to in paragraph (a).— [Mr. Wakeham.]

The House divided: Ayes 407, Noes 34.

Division No. 26]

[12.18 am

AYES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Atkins, Robert

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Atkinson, David

Allen, Graham

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Amess, David

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Arbuthnot, James

Baldry, Tony

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Barron, Kevin

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Batiste, Spencer

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Battle, John

Ashby, David

Beckett, Margaret

Ashton, Joe

Bell, Stuart

340

Bendall, Vivian

Duffy, A. E. P.

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

Dunn, Bob

Bermingham, Gerald

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Blair, Tony

Durant, Tony

Blunkett, David

Dykes, Hugh

Boateng, Paul

Eadie, Alexander

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Eggar, Tim

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Boswell, Tim

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Bottomley, Peter

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Fallon, Michael

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Fatchett, Derek

Bowis, John

Favell, Tony

Boyes, Roland

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Bradley, Keith

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Fisher, Mark

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Flannery, Martin

Bright, Graham

Flynn, Paul

Brooke, Hon Peter

Fookes, Miss Janet

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Forman, Nigel

Browne, John (Winchester)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Forth, Eric

Buck, Sir Antony

Foster, Derek

Buckley, George

Foulkes, George

Burt, Alistair

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Butcher, John

Fraser, John

Butler, Chris

Freeman, Roger

Caborn, Richard

French, Douglas

Callaghan, Jim

Fry, Peter

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Gale, Roger

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Galloway, George

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Carrington, Matthew

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Cartwright, John

George, Bruce

Cash, William

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Gill, Christopher

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Golding, Mrs Llin

Chapman, Sydney

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Chope, Christopher

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Churchill, Mr

Gould, Bryan

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

Gower, Sir Raymond

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Graham, Thomas

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Clelland, David

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Grist, Ian

Coleman, Donald

Grocott, Bruce

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Ground, Patrick

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Cope, John

Hanley, Jeremy

Corbett, Robin

Hardy, Peter

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Couchman, James

Haselhurst. Alan

Cran, James

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Crowther, Stan

Hayes, Jerry

Cummings, J.

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Haynes, Frank

Curry, David

Hayward, Robert

Dalyell, Tam

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Darling, Alastair

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

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

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Heddle, John

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Henderson, Douglas

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

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Day, Stephen

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Devlin, Tim

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Dewar, Donald

Hind, Kenneth

Dickens, Geoffrey

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Dicks, Terry

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Dixon, Don

Holland, Stuart

Dobson, Frank

Holt, Richard

Doran, Frank

Home Robertson, John

Dorrell, Stephen

Howard, Michael

Douglas, Dick

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Dover, Den

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

341

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Howells, Geraint

Martin, Michael (Springburn)

Hoyle, Doug

Martlew, Eric

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Maude, Hon Francis

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Maxton, John

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Mellor, David

Ingram, Adam

Michael, Alun

Jack, Michael

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Jackson, Robert

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Janman, Timothy

Miscampbell, Norman

Jessel, Toby

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

John, Brynmor

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Johnston, Sir Russell

Moate, Roger

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Moore, Rt Hon John

Kennedy, Charles

Morgan, Rhodri

Key, Robert

Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

Kirkwood, Archy

Moss, Malcolm

Knowles, Michael

Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

Knox, David

Moynihan, Hon C.

Lambie, David

Murphy, Paul

Lamond, James

Neale, Gerrard

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Neubert, Michael

Lang, Ian

Newton, Tony

Lawrence, Ivan

Nicholls, Patrick

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Leadbitter, Ted

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Lee, John (Pendle)

O'Brien, William

Leighton, Ron

O'Neill, Martin

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Onslow, Cranley

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Lewis, Terry

Paice, James

Lilley, Peter

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Litherland, Robert

Patchett, Terry

Livsey, Richard

Patnick, Irvine

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Pawsey, James

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Pendry, Tom

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Pike, Peter

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Porter, David (Waveney)

McAllion, John

Portillo, Michael

McAvoy, Tom

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

McCartney, Ian

Prescott, John

McCrindle, Robert

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Macdonald, Calum

Quin, Ms Joyce

McFall, John

Raffan, Keith

MacGregor, John

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Randall, Stuart

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Rathbone, Tim

McKelvey, William

Redmond, Martin

Maclean, David

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

McLeish, Henry

Reid, John

Maclennan, Robert

Renton, Tim

McLoughlin, Patrick

Rhodes James, Robert

McNamara, Kevin

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

McTaggart, Bob

Richardson, Ms Jo

McWilliam, John

Riddick, Graham

Madden, Max

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Madel, David

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Major, Rt Hon John

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Malins, Humfrey

Robertson, George

Mans, Keith

Robinson, Geoffrey

Maples, John

Roe, Mrs Marion

Marek, Dr John

Rogers, Allan

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Rooker, Jeff

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

342

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Rowe, Andrew

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Temple-Morris, Peter

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Ryder, Richard

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Thurnham, Peter

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Salmond, Alex

Tracey, Richard

Scott, Nicholas

Tredinnick, David

Sedgemore, Brian

Trippier, David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Viggers, Peter

Sheerman, Barry

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Waldegrave, Hon William

Shersby, Michael

Walden, George

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Walley, Ms Joan

Short, Clare

Ward, John

Sims, Roger

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Watts, John

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

Wells, Bowen

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Snape, Peter

Wheeler, John

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Whitney, Ray

Soley, Clive

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Spearing, Nigel

Wiggin, Jerry

Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

Wigley, Dafydd

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

Squire, Robin

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Steen, Anthony

Wilson, Brian

Steinberg, Gerald

Winnick, David

Stern, Michael

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Stevens, Lewis

Winterton, Nicholas

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Wolfson, Mark

Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

Wood, Timothy

Stott, Roger

Worthington, Anthony

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Strang, Gavin

Tellers for the Ayes:

Straw, Jack

Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Alan Howarth.

Sumberg, David

Summerson, Hugo

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Livingstone, Ken

Ashdown, Paddy

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Meale, Alan

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Clay, Bob

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Cousins, Jim

Mullin, Chris

Cryer, Bob

Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

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

Redwood, John

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Skinner, Dennis

Gordon, Ms Mildred

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Gow, Ian

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Hinchliffe, David

Vaz, Keith

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Wall, Pat

Illsley, Eric

Irvine, Michael

Tellers for the Noes:

Kilfedder, James

Mr. Dave Nellist and Mr. Harry Barnes.

Knapman, Roger

Question accordingly agreed to.

MINISTERIAL AND OTHER SALARIES
Resolved,
That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 16th July, be approved. —[Mr. Wakeham.]

Corporal Michael Owen
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
12.34 am
Mr. Patrick Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to you for giving me the opportunity this morning to raise on the Adjournment the case of the late Corporal Michael Owen. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces for his trouble over the case during the past year and also for his attendance tonight. The case was brought to my attention by Mr. and Mrs. J. J. Nooney, who live in Hellesdon in my constituency of Norwich, North.
Corporal Michael Owen was in the 8th Field Workshop, REME, at Colchester, and was admitted to hospital on 15 June 1985. In this distressing case, as it turned out, he was terminally ill, and he died on 2 October 1985, having returned home just one or two days before he died. At that time he was still a serving soldier, although in normal circumstances if he had not taken ill he would have left the Army on 22 July 1985, with a terminal grant. In the event, because of his illness, his time in hospital and because he was still a serving soldier, he received a gratuity which, according to a letter that I received from the Under-Secretary on 9 July 1986, was payable to
"his widow, provided that she was not separated from him at the time of his death. If no eligible widow exists it is paid to any eligible child or children".
Corporal Owen was separated from his wife, and divorce proceedings, as far as I am aware, were under way and still in progress at the time of his death. Therefore, through this gratuity, money was paid by the Army to his 18-year-old daughter, Joanne. In the months during which I have been dealing with the case, it has become clear to me that Corporal Owen's definite intention was that his estate should be left to his mother, Mrs. Irene Muriel Nooney, who, as I said, lives in my constituency at 34 Coppice Avenue, Hellesdon. Corporal Owen signed an Army will form, of which I have a copy, on 22 June 1985, and made it clear to his family that he had done this and that it was his intention that any money that came into his estate or that he received would go to his mother.
The question whether Corporal Owen's service continued beyond 22 July 1985 is important. According to a letter from the Ministry of Defence to Mrs. Nooney's solicitor dated 20 March 1987, if a serving soldier is in hospital at the time that he is due normally to leave service in the Army, he can be retained on full pay until treatment ceases or after five months from the period that he was last on duty, in which case a medical board is called and a decision taken as to whether the soldier is then discharged or kept in hospital for further treatment and remains a serving soldier before ultimate discharge. Further boards can be called at intervals of a maximum of 18 months.
In this case, if Corporal Owen had remained in hospital and had not died, a board would have been due after five months—on 22 December. If Corporal Owen had lived after that five-month period, his case would have been due for further examination by a medical board and a decision would have been taken whether to extend his time in hospital, extend his service or discharge him from the Army. On my reading of the regulations and the letter from the Ministry of Defence, Corporal Owen could, if he
344
wished, have requested an earlier board and obtained release while receiving medical care, and the moneys due to him.
I believe that Corporal Owen was in total ignorance of this fact and that he was fully confident that the intention of his will, made in June, would be carried out. I want to stress that I think that it is important that Corporal Owen was under that firm impression.
A further and more serious complication arose, which makes the case more difficult to judge. The Army was definitely at fault in its handling of the case. My hon. Friend the Minister has expressed regret—he apologised when he wrote on 6 October 1986. According to the Army, Corporal Owen signed a form to extend his service from 22 July 1985 to 22 December 1985. It may be a coincidence, but this is also a five-month period —identical to that which I mentioned earlier.
Nobody can establish why Corporal Owen was asked to sign such an extension of his service. It was not relevant because, if he had stayed in hospital, he would have remained a serving soldier and if, after a medical board, it was decided that he should be discharged, he would have been discharged. I am not clear even now why he should have wished to fill in the form, or why anyone else, including the Army, should have wished him to fill it in. There appear to have been serious errors.
The date on the form—the certificate of amendment to terms of service—of which I have a copy here, is 28 September. That is the date on which the form was supposed to have been signed by Corporal Owen and countersigned as witness by Captain Powers. It was signed by the commanding officer somewhat later.
According to the family and all of the evidence that I have, Corporal Owen returned home—a sick man about to die—on the day before, that is 27 September. In the letter from the Ministry of Defence to the solicitor of 20 March, it was stated that the witnessing of the signature did not take place when the form was signed but that it was signed in Otterburn — miles from Colchester — by Captain Powers, who had apparently satisfied himself that Corporal Owen's signature was the correct one. Goodness knows how he did that.
In the words of the Ministry of Defence, this could have been better organised. That is the understatement of the year. Somewhat later, the commanding officer countersigned the form saying that he was satisfied that Corporal Michael Owen had been interviewed and fully understood the implications of completing the extension of service form. As, after many months of study, I am still baffled as to how the form was remotely relevant. I fail to understand how Corporal Owen could have been interviewed, let alone how he could have understood the implications of what was going on. I reject that explanation and believe that there was a serious error of administration which throws the competence of the Army into doubt.
Filling in the form had no direct bearing on whether Corporal Owen was a serving soldier. If and when he signed the form—there is some doubt about it in the family—it is clear that he had no idea that it could have had any effect on his intention to leave money due to him to his mother.
The Army regulations, as quoted in the "Army Pensions Warrant," refer to terminal grant, which a soldier gets if he leaves the Army in normal circumstances, or a

345
gratuity if he dies in service, as happened here. The "Army Pensions Warrant" says that in the case of a gratuity, which happened in this case
"the widow of an officer or a soldier who dies while serving on full pay on the Active List or after 31st March 1973 may be granted a gratuity which will either be the amount of the terminal grant or gratuity to which her husband would have been eligible had he been invalided from the Army."
I stress the word "may" there because there is an element of discretion to which the Army did not appear to give even a moment's thought when considering Michael Owen's case. It is worth noting in passing that it makes it clear in that passage that the amount of money involved is not different if we are talking about terminal grant or gratuity, so that is not a factor in this case.
The "Army Pensions Warrant" adds in section 14:
"Subject to any exception which the Defence Council may approve, a gratuity shall not be granted to a widow who was separated from her husband at the time."
That was appropriate in this case because the separation was in effect, and thus the section applied. It goes on in paragraph 260:
"Where the officer or soldier did not leave a widow eligible for an award under this section, but a child or children, the Defence Council may at their discretion award a gratuity to the child."
As we know, that happened; the 18-year-old daughter was awarded a gratuity. But again, the word "may" appears and it is at the discretion of the Defence Council.
I have seen no evidence in this case of any exercise of discretion having been involved. From my reading of the papers and letters, what happened occurred automatically, as though the regulations said, "This shall happen", rather than "This should be given some thought before a final decision is made."
To sum up, there is uncertainty in the law and the regulations. Does the Minister think that that uncertainty can be cleared up? I am not necessarily opposed to the intention of the regulations, which is to look after dependants in the event of the death of a soldier during his time in the Army. But the provision should be clarified, and I hope that the Minister will comment on that when he replies.
Then there was administrative bungling. Apologies have been received by the family from the Ministry of Defence on that count, so perhaps the Minister need not comment at length about that, except in so far as it has a bearing on the equity and fairness of the case, and in so far as it relates to the confusion which was clearly in the mind of Corporal Owen, who believed, until he died, that what he wanted to happen would happen. In my view, nothing happened to make him believe anything to the contrary.
Some compensation should be paid to the mother, to the family, because they and Corporal Owen were effectively, if not deliberately, misled, and at the time and since that has caused great distress and uncertainty to the family, certainly for the two years or so since Corporal Owen died.
I hope that the Minister will be positive in response to the three major points I have made—the uncertainty of the law, the bungling of the administration involved and the need in equity for some compensation for Mrs. Nooney. I look forward to his reply.
12.49 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate my
346
hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on securing this Adjournment debate and I pay tribute to the considerable interest he has shown in this case and to the support he has given to Mrs. Nooney and her family. I am sure she is most appreciative of all the efforts he has made during these months — indeed, almost a year—in pursuit of her interests and those of her late son.
My hon. Friend has raised a number of wide-ranging issues relating to the "Army Pensions Warrant" and the armed forces policy concerning personnel who become ill, particularly in respect of retention in service and financial guidance. Before dealing with the specific points raised by my hon. Friend—and I shall, in the time available, deal with them as fully as I can —I will set out briefly the history of this sad case concerning some of the points raised by my hon. Friend.
Michael Owen was a Corporal in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, who was due to leave the Army on completion of a 22-year engagement on 22 July 1985. As my hon. Friend knows, when a service man completes 22 years' reckonable service he is eligible on discharge to be granted an immediate pension and a non-taxable terminal grant. Corporal Owen was admitted to hospital on 15 June 1985, about five weeks before he was due to leave the Army. In these circumstances and in accordance with normal practice, he was automatically retained in the Service on full pay. I think my hon. Friend will agree that that practice is generous and humanitarian.
Sadly, Corporal Owen died of cancer on 2 October 1985, while still on full pay. He was never discharged. His widow would have been granted a gratuity, equal to the amount of the terminal grant, for which he would have been eligible had he been invalided from the Army on the date that he died. However, as he was separated from his wife, he did not leave a widow eligible for the award and, in accordance with the provisions of the "Army Pensions Warrant", the money was paid to his daughter.
As my hon. Friend stated earlier, the problem arises over the fact that Mrs. Nooney considers that the gratuity paid on her son's death should have formed part of his estate and, as such, should have been paid to her as the named beneficiary of her son's will.
Those briefly are the facts. However, there are two or three points that I should like to go into in more detail and some questions raised by my hon. Friend which I would like to answer rather more fully. I hope it will become clear that everything done by the Army during the last few months of Corporal Owen's life was done with his best interests in mind.
I shall deal first with Corporal Owen's retention in the Army past his due date of discharge. For compassionate reasons, it is our practice to postpone a soldier's discharge if he is in hospital on the due date. This is to the clear benefit of soldiers and their dependants. The soldier continues to receive his full pay and all the support the Army can provide. If he is married, he remains entitled to a married quarter. Although in Corporal Owen's case he would immediately have become eligible to be granted his pension if he had left the service this would not be the case for a soldier who had not given 22 years' service.
We certainly would not wish to introduce a system which resulted in all individuals who were unfit on the date that their engagement was due to terminate being discharged forthwith. Wherever possible we want to see them restored to full health before they return to civilian

347
life. I know that my hon. Friend agrees with that principle. Of course, if a soldier in hospital, who had completed his engagement, requested his immediate discharge, no obstacle would be placed in his way. He would be medically boarded and would then be released to pension and lose his service pay, of course, although still entitled to service medical care. However, at no time did Corporal Owen ask for a medical discharge. Indeed, he expressed a clear wish to the doctor in charge of his case that he wanted to remain in the Army.
Service medical regulations stipulate that an individual who is in hospital on the date of his normal termination of service is to be retained on full pay until in-patient treatment ceases to be required or five months have elapsed since he was last on duty. By the five-month point it is normal—this can be delayed—for a medical board to be held, which will either recommend a medical discharge or, if the individual is only part way through his engagement and has a good chance of recovery, the continuance of treatment with periodic future boards up to a maximum of 18 months. Under this system Corporal Owen would have been due a medical board by November, but an earlier board could have been arranged had he requested it. If he had been medically discharged he would have received an invaliding pension and terminal grant and may also have been eligible for a war pension from the Department of Health and Social Security.
My hon. Friend has raised the matter of the element of discretion in the relevant articles of the "Army Pensions Warrant". Where these state that
"a gratuity may be granted"—
my hon. Friend stressed the word may—that should not be taken to imply any discretion other than to pay or withhold the appropriate sum. Furthermore, that discretion itself can be exercised only within certain limits. Article 250 of the warrant provides that where there is an eligible widow a gratuity may or may not be paid to her. No further discretion is allowed for save that the Defence Council may divert a part of that sum to any eligible children.
Article 260 provides that where there is no eligible widow a gratuity may or may not be paid to an eligible child or children. Where there is no eligible wife or children Article 177 provides that a lump sum may be paid to a soldier's estate. It should be noted that the discretion to make such a payment arises only in those circumstances. If there is a wife or child the only choice is whether to pay them or not.
The Army is very much aware that it has a great obligation towards its sick and injured and to their dependants. By definition soldiers may be required to risk their lives for their country and they are entitled to expect the best support possible for them and their families, including immediate payment of pensions and gratuities where appropriate. Were the rules to be changed so that any benefits owing would pass under the deceased's will, it would be necessary in all cases to demand that probate, or letters of administration, be obtained before the terminal benefits could be paid. This would inevitably involve the dependants of soldiers in additional worry, delay and expense. Obviously we would not wish to move in this direction. However, I assure my hon. Friend that I have asked that consideration be given to the possibility of introducing a limited option which would allow
348
divorced soldiers without dependent children, if they so wished, the opportunity to nominate a particular individual to receive their death benefit. My hon. Friend will appreciate that this is a matter which requires careful study and, of course, it will not benefit in any way the estate or dependants of the late Corporal Owen. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome the initiative that the Ministry is pleased to take.
We know that on 27 June 1985 Corporal Owen signed a will leaving all his estate, including his service benefits, to his mother, Mrs. Nooney. The evidence suggests he was not aware on 27 June that under the "Army Pensions Warrant" if he died in service his service benefits would go to his daughter, not his mother. If he had been aware, he could have initiated steps to change matters. That is common ground between my hon. Friend and myself.
In view of the issues which this case has highlighted, I am instructing my officials to re-examine the procedures for financial counselling of patients in hospital, including formal communication in writing. It will be appreciated that this is a subject that needs to be considered with great care in view of the possible psychological effects on a patient, particularly on one whose death could be imminent. I have therefore asked for consideration to be given to how best patients can be made aware, on being admitted to hospital, of the ways in which they might be financially affected, including the implications of remaining in the service and the consequences of being medically discharged; and to how further financial counselling might be made available on request.
One other point that has emerged from our inquiries is the fact that Corporal Owen was asked to sign a form whilst in hospital to extend his service. My hon. Friend referred to that in some detail. That incident has caused his mother a degree of concern as she feels that it was the real reason why she did not receive the death gratuity.
It is true that while in hospital Corporal Owen was asked to sign this form which deferred the termination of his colour service until 22 December 1985. That was requested purely as an administrative tidying up exercise by those responsible for maintaining his record of service. As an in-patient there was no requirement for him to sign such a form. The procedure was invalid since extensions of service must be agreed before the completion of the earlier contract, the completion of Corporal Owen's period of engagement. The form is designed for use in the unit where it can be witnessed at the time of signature by an authorised officer. Although there has been some difficulty in establishing exactly when Corporal Owen signed the form, we know that, when he had done so, the form was returned to his former unit which was on exercise at Otterburn where it was countersigned and dated by the administrative officer. That was some two months after the due date of his discharge.
I apologise to my hon. Friend for that incorrect procedure. While it is regrettable that Corporal Owen was asked to sign the form, I assure my hon. Friend that it made no material difference. As I have said, the evidence suggests that Corporal Owen wished to remain in the Army and not be discharged. However, to avoid any recurrence of that situation I issued appropriate instructions. In September 1986 those instructions were reissued to all manning and records officers to prevent any such unfortunate recurrence.
Various questions have been asked about whether Corporal Owen understood the implications of remaining

349
on full pay. The service medical authorities are, however, very clear that Corporal Owen specifically stated that he did not wish to be discharged. Against this background, the medical staffs formed the view that to initiate a medical discharge could, in Corporal Owen's case, have had a harmful psychological effect which might have further undermined his health.
Corporal Owen's finances do not appear to have suffered in any way. While alive he remained on full pay rather than pension and when deceased the gratuity payable equalled the terminal grant that he would have received on discharge. As the terminal grant is calculated on the basis of length of reckonable service, the amount payable actually increased as a result of the extension of his service.
To sum up, taking first the broader issues raised, I must thank my hon. Friend for raising this debate and providing the opportunity for me to examine the procedures and rules governing discharges and related payments. I am satisfied that in general terms the procedures are just, humane and serve the armed forces' needs very well.
350
However, there is room for improvement and as a result of the investigations arising out of this case, I intend to review the question of counselling service men in hospital at the time of their discharge date, and, as I have said, to examine the possibility of introducing limited nomination schemes under the "Army Pensions Warrant". I have already issued instructions that the form mentioned by my hon. Friend should not be used for service men in hospital. All those are improvements to deal with cases such as that raised by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend has also stated that Corporal Owen's mother considers that she should receive a payment equal to the sum paid to her granddaughter on the grounds that her son's intentions were thwarted by the provisions of the "Army Pensions Warrant". I have listened carefully to all the points raised this evening and, although I am already very familiar with this case, I give my hon. Friend the assurance that I will read the record again and seriously reflect on it. I shall write to my hon. Friend in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute past One o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Commission (VAT Proceedings)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the decision of the European Economic Community Commission on initiating proceedings in the European Court of Justice against the United Kingdom on its zero rating of goods and services in respect of value added tax; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No. This is a legal dispute between the Commission and the United Kingdom. It is not a matter in which the European Council has any locus. This legal dispute should not be confused with recent tax harmonisation proposals submitted by the Commission to the Council, on which the Government's position is clear.

  Kenilworth
  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to Kenilworth.

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

  Broadwater Farm Estate
  Mr. Grant
  asked the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit the Broadwater Farm estate.

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

  Leith
  Mr. Ron Brown
  asked the Prime Minister if she will make an official visit to Leith.

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

  Stockport
  Mr. Favell
  asked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Stockport.

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

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Prime Minister if, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 2 July, Official Report, column 144, she will list the precise objectives of Her Majesty's Government's policy on Afghanistan, the precise methods used to achieve those objectives, the precise nature of the contacts between Her Majesty's Government and the Afghan resistance movement and the view, expressed to Her Majesty's Government by leaders of the resistance since March 1986, about supplies of weapons to them by the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the Most Gracious Speech from the Throne to both Houses of Parliament on 25 June, at columns 38–40; to the answers 110
  that I gave him on 2 July, at column 144; and to the statement adopted by European Community Foreign Ministers on 13 July.

  The Wrekin
  Mr. Grocott
  asked the Prime Minister whether she has any plans to visit The Wrekin.

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

  Submarines
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Prime Minister when she now expects Her Majesty's Government to place the order promised to Scott Lithgow at the time an order was awarded to Vickers, Barrow-in-Furness for the construction of conventional submarines; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The position remains as set out in my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 5 May, at column 317. It is the Government's wish to place these orders with Scott Lithgow, provided the company meets the terms outlined by my hon. Friend on 28 January 1986, at column 449. Negotiations are still continuing with the company.

  Northern Region
  Mr. Fallon
  asked the Prime Minister when she next expects to visit the northern region.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to visit the northern region.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  asked the Prime Minster if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 July.

  Mr. Stern
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 July.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 21 July.

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

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mr. Shersby
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the current difference in eligibility for mortgage interest tax relief between (a) married and (b) cohabiting couples on (i) revenue to the Exchequer, (ii) house prices and (iii) household structure.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  A married couple are entitled to mortgage interest relief on up to £30,000 of the loan to buy their main home, whereas single people sharing the purchase are each entitled to relief on up to £30,000. The direct revenue cost in 1987–88 of the additional mortgage interest tax relief which is available to sharers is estimated to be about £25 million.

  Many factors affect house prices and household structure and it is not possible to identify separately the effect of the additional mortgage interest relief which is available to sharers.
  111
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amount spent on mortgage tax relief in Wales, Scotland and each of the English regions in each financial year since 1979 both at outturn and 1987 prices.

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

  Hansard Press
  Mr. Leighton
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provisions there are for the retraining of staff at the Hansard Press displaced by direct input from the House.

  Mr. Brooke
  No specific provisions have been made to date. Retraining options will be discussed with representatives of the trades unions involved in the event of any change which affects jobs.

  Mr. Leighton
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what commitment about their future the Hansard Press gives to those of its existing staff who are to be affected by technological changes.

  Mr. Brooke
  No commitment can be given at this stage. If changes were to occur, Her Majesty's Stationery Office would discuss the issues with the trades unions involved and do all it can, within the constraints of good business practice, to mitigate the effect on jobs that any changes might bring.

  British Petroleum
  Mr. David Nicholson
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made on the sale of the Government's residual shareholding in British Petroleum.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The board of BP has today announced its intention, subject to shareholders' approval, to raise approximately £1·5 billion through the issue of new ordinary shares. The shares will be issued in conjunction with the Government's sale of its remaining shareholding in BP, which was announced on 18 March. To facilitate this joint offering, the Government plan to subscribe for the new BP shares on a fully-paid basis and to sell them together with their existing shares. The subscription will take effect when the sale of the new and the old shares is fully underwritten. It is intended that shareholder's pre-emption rights will be protected. The 112
  sale is planned to be in the autumn and the proceeds will be payable in instalments. Further details of arrangements for the offering will he announced in due course.

  It is intended that the Government's subscription for the new BP ordinary shares will be met from the proceeds of the joint offering. A token Supplementary Estimate for class XIX, vote 16 will be presented to secure parliamentary approval for the expenditure and authority for the appropriation in aid of a corresponding amount of the proceeds. If necessary, pending that approval, the estimated expenditure on the subscription for BP shares of approximately £1·5 billion will be met by a repayble advance from the Contingencies Fund.

  Tax Consultative Committee
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions in the past three years officials from his Department have been involved in meetings of the tax consultative committee; which officials were involved; with whom they met; what was the purpose of the meetings; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Royal Mint
  Mr. Wheeler
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has determined a new financial objective for the Royal Mint.

  Mr. Brooke
  Yes. In accordance with the Government Trading Funds Act 1973, a new financial objective has been determined for the Royal Mint covering the period 1 April 1987 to 31 March 1990. A Treasury minute stipulating the new objective is being laid today. The objective is to achieve an annual rate of return which, when averaged over the period as a whole, will be equal to not less than 10 per cent. per annum in real terms.

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office (Privatisation)
  Mr. Speller
  asked the Chancellor to the Exchequer if he will seek powers to privatise Her Majesty's Stationery Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  My Right hon. Friend has no present plans to privatise Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the categories of organisations qualified for nought per cent. value added tax rating on purchased equipment.

  Mr. Brooke
  No organisations enjoy blanket VAT zero-rating for purchases of equipment. A limited range of specified types of equipment may be zero-rated when supplied to certain charitable or other organisations; these are covered by groups 4, 10, 14, 15 and 16 to schedule 5 to the VAT Act 1983, as amended.

  Mr. Amess
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to reduce the purchase of equipment for hospital radio stations to nought per cent. value added tax rating; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  No. The Government fully appreciate the valuable work done by the hospital broadcasting associations, but to grant relief here would make it necessary to consider similar treatment for other equally deserving organisations and would in the long run be unacceptably expensive in revenue terms.

  Hansard Press
  Mr. Leighton
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any of the staff of the Hansard Press are to be made redundant as a result of technological changes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Editor of the Official Report is contemplating changes in his method of collecting data. If realised these changes may result in debate copy being supplied to Hansard Press in machine-readable form. The possible effects of any changes on the operations at Hansard Press would of course be discussed with representatives of the trades unions involved.

  Mr. Leighton
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provisions there are for the retraining of Hansard Press SOGAT staff.

  Mr. Brooke
  No specific provisions have been made to date. Retraining options will be discussed with representatives of the trades unions involved in the event of any change which affects jobs.

  Company Finance
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on whether the Inland Revenue will use section 38 of the Finance Act 1976 to deny an interest reduction where the debt is created solely as a result of the unwinding of a dual resident company as a result of the provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Bill affecting such companies.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 July 1987]: The rearrangement of financing, to transfer the borrowing of a dual resident investing company (as defined by clause 63 of the Finance Bill) to a company resident only in the United Kingdom, would not by itself lead the Inland Revenue to seek to apply section 38 of the Finance Act 1976. If there were any other tax effects of the rearrangement, these would also be taken into account in determining whether section 38 should be applied.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Clay
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish for each company privatised since 1979 the number of shareholders holding 500 shares or fewer following privatisation and the latest information available.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 July 1987]: I regret the information requested about the number of shareholders holding 500 shares or fewer in privatised companies immediately following privatisation can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Equivalent numbers for current shareholdings are a matter for the registrars of the companies concerned.

  Publicity (Departmental Expenditure)
  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total spending by his Department on press and public relations in 1986–87; and what is the estimated expenditure for the current year.

  Mr. Brooke
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 July 1987]: Expenditure on press and public relations totalled £534,600 in 1986–87, and the estimated expenditure for the current year is £605,900.

  Mr. Dobson
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total spending by his Department on television, radio and newspaper advertising and other promotional literature in 1986–87; and what is the estimated expenditure for the current year.

  Mr. Brooke
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 July 1987]: The expenditure for 1986–87 was £33,000, none of which was on television or radio advertising, and the budget for the current year is £35,000. There will also be advertising and promotional spending in 1987–88 in connection with the forthcoming BP share sale. Token provision for these costs has been taken in class XIX, vote 16. Parliament will be informed of these costs along with the other costs after the sale has been completed.

THE ARTS

  Acceptances in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Faulds
  asked the Minister for the Arts why his answer of 9 July to the hon. Member for Warley, East giving a list of allocations during the half year ended 30 June of works of art accepted in settlement of inheritance tax omitted Constable's painting "Stratford Mill"

  Mr. Luce
  On 19 March I announced, at column 561, that Constable's painting "Stratford Mill" had been accepted in principle in lieu of tax. The details are still to be finalised, since personal representatives of the late owner have not been formally constituted; as a result the painting has not yet been permanently allocated. Meanwhile, the painting is, of course, on public view at the National gallery.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Inventors (Awards)
  Mr. Baldry
  asked the Minister for the Civil Service what are the arrangements for making awards to inventors who are civil servants or public sector employees; and if he will make a statement.
  115
  Mr. Luce
  These arrangements form part of the model Civil Service suggestions scheme and are set out in detail in the "Civil Service Pay and Conditions of Service Code", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Awards may be made in recognition of benefits to the Crown, derived either through direct use of an invention by a Department or through the exploitation of the invention outside Government. Three modifications have recently been made:

  (a) the commercial exploitation income, by reference to which any award is calculated, will henceforth be assessed in ways that take account both of inflation and of cases in which actual income to the Crown is less than the gross commercial exploitation income;

  (b) the number of tranches in the sliding scale on which awards are made has been reduced and the value of tranches will be indexed against inflation, in order to restore them to, and maintain them at, the levels originally intended;

  (c) inventors may be paid awards in instalments when exploitation is spread over a number of years.

  These modifications will maintain awards made in respect of commercial exploitation of inventions at the levels originally intended and encourage greater awareness of the need for more effective transfer of such inventions into industry.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Mr. Philip Agee
  Mr. Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Mr. Philip Agee is now free to enter the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  No. Mr. Agee remains the subject of a deportation order.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Holt
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases have been referred to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in each year since 1980; what is the average length of time between the crime and payment; and how many cases remained to be determined as at 30 June.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information on the number of applications received by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board from 1980–81 to 1986–87 is given in the table. Information is not available on the length of time between the injury and payment of any compensation awarded by the board. On 30 June 1987 the board had about 68,000 uncompleted cases. These included a number in which the board awaited the result of inquiries and about 10,000 cases in which an offer had been made by the board but a decision on whether to accept the offer, or a hearing by the board, was awaited.

  Financial year

  Number of applications

  1980–81

  24,700

  1981–82

  26,500

  1982–83

  29,400

  1983–84

  31,900

  1984–85

  34,900

  1985–86

  39,700

  1986–87

  142,300

  1 Provisional.

  Race Relations
  Mr. George
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has had discussions with the Indian Government over the consequences for United Kingdom race relations of the incidence of communal violence in that country.

  Mr. Hurd
  No.

  Citizenship
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were naturalised as British citizens from the United States of America in the past five years.

  Mr. Renton
  The number of citizens of the United States of America granted certificates of naturalisation as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies in 1982 or as British citizens in 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986 were 73, 49, 68, 76 and 77 respectively. The total numbers granted British citizenship, including those entitled to register as such, are published annually in a Home Office statistical bulletin. The edition for 1986 "Citizenship Statistics, United Kingdom 1986" will be published around the end of August.

  Drugs
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards reaching international agreements with other countries to fight the importation of narcotics into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  At the international conference held last month in Vienna, Ministers from all regions of the world committed themselves to intensifying their efforts against drug abuse and illicit trafficking. Earlier this month the United Kingdom played an active part in an intergovernmental working group to discuss the first draft of a new United Nations convention to combat illicit drug trafficking. We are in regular discussion with countries which arc a source of transit route for drugs coming to the United Kingdom, and have opened negotiations with several countries which have comparable legislation with a view to concluding bilateral agreements under section 26 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986.

  Prevention of Terrorism
  Mr. Chris Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons excluded under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provision) Acts 1974, 1976 or 1984 and who made representations against their exclusion order as part of the review of the order (a) were offered an interview with the Metropolitan police at a venue other than Castlereagh holding centre, (b) where those interviews were held and (c) how many of those individuals declined to attend.

  Mr. Hurd
  (a) Fifty people are recorded in Home Office records as having had interviews with the Metropolitan police as part of a review of an exclusion order made in Great Britain under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts 1974 or 1976. All but one of these interviews took place at Castlereagh RUC

  117
  station (which is a separate building from Castlereagh holding centre(b) The other location was the British embassy, Dublin. (c) None.

  Immigration
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the adequacy and standards of the facilities for women detainees on board the Earl William at Harwich;

  (2) what is the number of (a) women and (b) men presently held on board the Earl William at Harwich.

  Mr. Renton
  Female detainees are accommodated in twin-bunk cabins, with integral showers, wash basins and toilets. The cabins are in a separate area of the ship from that of the male detainees. The public rooms, which are for the use of all detainees, provide ample space for relaxation and visits by relatives, friends and lawyers. The facilities on board include pay telephones, television and video, other recreational facilities, laundry and drying machines, hot and cold drinks machines and a shop.

  As at 16 July there were eight women and 77 men detained on the Earl William.

  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were detained under Immigration Act powers for a period of more than two months on completion of a custodial sentence during 1986.

  Mr. Renton
  Nineteen persons who completed a custodial sentence in 1986 were so detained under deportation powers. I regret that similar information relating to illegal entrants is not available.

  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passengers were detained in prison department establishments under Immigration Act powers during 1986.

  Mr. Renton
  Until 1 May 1987 central records of passengers detained were kept only where detention under Immigration Act powers exceeded one month. The number of such cases detained in Prison Department establishments in 1986 was 104.

  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown by nationality of the number of passengers seeking political asylum who were detained under Immigration Act powers in 1986 (a) in prison department establishments and (b) in immigration detention accommodation.

  Mr. Renton
  Until 1 May 1987 central records of passengers detained were kept only where detention under Immigration Act powers exceeded one month. The details of these in 1986 were as follows:

  Nationality

  Prison Department Establishments

  Immigration Service Detention Accommodation

  Afghanistan

  2

  —

  Albania

  1

  —

  Angola

  1

  —

  Chile

  1

  1

  Ghana

  1

  2

  India

  3

  —

  Iran

  19

  12

  Morocco

  1

  —

  Pakistan

  4

  3

  118

  Nationality

  Prison Department Establishments

  Immigration Service Detention Accommodation

  Somalia

  1

  —

  South Africa

  1

  —

  Sri Lanka

  45

  13

  Tanzania

  1

  —

  Turkey

  2

  2

  Uganda

  4

  1

  Nationality Doubtful

  3

  1

  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide, for the latest convenient date, a breakdown by individual place of detention of the number of passengers seeking political asylum who are detained under Immigration Act powers.

  Mr. Renton
  Records of passengers detained are kept centrally only where detention under Immigration Act powers exceeds 14 days. On 1 July 1987 the total of these seeking political asylum was 147, who were detained at the following places:

  Place of detention

  Number detained

  Harmondsworth

  36

  Latchmere House

  26

  mv "Earl William"

  80

  HMP Pentonville

  3

  HMP Canterbury

  1

  HMP Winson Green

  1

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juveniles have been tried for criminal offences other than in juvenile courts in each of the past five years.

  Mr. John Patten
  In 1985, the latest year for which information is available, there were 63,773 juveniles tried at juvenile courts, 4,708 at magistrates' courts and 1,830 at the Crown court. Corresponding figures for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Prisons
  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any proposals to investigate the possibility of introducing minimum standards to prisons.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. We do not consider that a code of minimum standards for prisons would advance the programme the Government have in hand for improving conditions.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the rules on possession of fountain pens by prisoners are uniform throughout Her Majesty's prisons.

  Mr. John Patten
  Prison standing order 4 includes pens in the list of items which prisoners may normally retain in their possession. The standing order does not distinguish between different types of pen and the extent to which any local restrictions may need to be imposed in this respect
  119
  is a matter for the governor to determine in the light of his responsibilities for the security and good order of his establishment.

  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will list all those prisons which provide (a) one set of clean clothes per week, (b) two sets of clean clothes per week or (c) more than two sets of clean clothes per week.

  Mr. John Patten
  The scales of issue of personal clothing to prisoners provide for at least two sets per week. Some prisons are able to provide for more frequent changes within those scales, and frequency is varied from time to time depending on local circumstances. Full details of the practices in each prison are not kept centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to make all educational correspondence courses free of postal charges for prisoners.

  Mr. John Patten
  Where approval has been given for a prisoner to follow a correspondence course, it is normal practice for the postal costs to be met from public funds.

  Feltham Youth Custody Centre
  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will undertake a survey into the difficulties for visitors of travelling to and from Feltham youth custody centre in view of the restricted public transport facilities.

  Mr. John Patten
  Although we are sympathetic to the needs of visitors, I see no reason to undertake such a survey.

  Deportation
  Mr. Soley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were recommended for deportation with no custodial sentence during 1986; and in how many cases the courts directed release (a) subject to conditions and (b) without conditions.

  Mr. Renton
  In 1986, 338 persons were recommended for deportation by a court with no custodial sentence being imposed. Of these, 92 were released subject to conditions requiring them to report to the police and 103 without such conditions.

  Licensees (Assault)
  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the law so that any person convicted of acts of violence against licensees and their staff should receive an automatic minimum sentence of one year's imprisonment.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. Minimum sentences would reduce the court's ability to take account of the widely varying circumstances of different cases. The Court of Appeal has drawn attention to the need, in sentencing, to protect licensees and their staff as well as others whose work makes them vulnerable to assault.

  Adoption
  Miss Lestor
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will state the number of children from abroad who have been accepted into the United Kingdom for adoption;

  (2) if he will list the countries from which children have been admitted into the United Kingdom for adoption during the last 12 months, with the number of children in respect of each country.

  Mr. Renton
  Information is not available in the form requested, as the statistics collected on passenger admissions do not separately identify those children who come to the United Kingdom for adoption. However, 85 children were recorded as having been granted settlement in the United Kingdom in 1986 on the basis of their adoption by a person already settled here. Their nationalities are shown in the following table:

  Acceptances for settlement by reason of adoption

  Nationality

  Number of children of each nationality

  Brazil, India

  7

  Columbia, Pakistan

  5

  Nigeria, Philippines, Salvador

  4

  West Germany, South Africa, Spain, Thailand, United States of America

  3

  Denmark, Ghana, Jamaica, Peru, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania

  2

  Bangladesh, Bolivia, China, Cyprus, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Greece, Guyana, Indonesia, Israel, Korea, Panama, Portugal, Yemen (Arab Republic), Zimbabwe, British Dependent Territories citizen, British overseas citizen

  1

  85

  (1) Includes three children whose nationality is not uniquely recorded on the computer system.

  Notting Hill Police (Inquiry)
  Mr. Vaz
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what stage the Police Complaints Authority inquiry into the policing at Notting Hill has reached; how many officers based there have been suspended; and if police constables David Jud, Andrew Chows and Douglas Brooks are still on duty at the Notting Hill police station.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Police Complaints Authority is supervising the investigation of allegations related to Notting Hill which were raised in television documentaries in April and May 1986. I understand that the investigation is still being pursued and that it is not possible, at this stage, to say when it is likely to be completed. No officers have been suspended from duty as a result of the allegations. The disposition of individual officers within the Metropolitan police district is a matter for the Commissioner; it is not his practice to discuss such issues publicly.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assistance has been given by his Department in the past five years to local authorities in campaigns to increase the numbers of electors on registers.
  121
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allan) on 20 July.

  Mr. Tony
  Banks asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any studies are being undertaken by his Department on the impact on electoral registration of the possible introduction of the poll tax.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what efforts are made by his Department to monitor or assess the accuracy of electoral registers.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In 1981 the Home Office and the Scottish Home and Health Department commissioned a detailed study of electoral registration in Great Britain by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. This was published in December 1982. The Home Office subsequently commissioned a survey by the OPCS of electoral registration in a selection of inner city areas where the problems are known to be greater. This will be published shortly. More recently we commissioned a survey into the effectiveness of electoral registration procedures, the report of which was published on 2 April. This produced practical proposals for improvements which we are looking at very carefully. As a first step we have asked OPCS to conduct an annual exercise to gather systematic information from all electoral registration officers in England and Wales about current methods and their effectiveness. This will provide a further basis for initiatives in this area.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department has made any assessment of the number of votes lost in the most recent general election because of (a) wrongful inclusion in or (b) omission from electoral registers.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on 10 July, at columns 304–5.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representation he has received from electoral registration officers concerning the accuracy of registers used in the most recent general election.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  Personation
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of personation in the most recent general election are known to his Department.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  One apparent case of personation has been brought to our attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills). Information about the number of persons prosecuted for this offence in 1987 will not be available until the end of next year.

  Housing Revenue Account Income Amounts (£ million) [at 1987–88 prices using GDP deflators]

  Area

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Scotland

  900·749

  899·704

  868·918

  840·438

  795·218

  797·565

  762·954

  761·874

  760·819

  Berwickshire

  3·757

  3·813

  3·507

  3·221

  3·035

  2·917

  2·888

  2·417

  2·342

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  5,343

  3·389

  4·790

  4·252

  3·859

  3·979

  3·953

  3·350

  3·347

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of 5p concessionary television licences issued in the last year for which figures are available; and what proportion of those licences are held by pensioners.

  Mr. Renton
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 July 1987, c. 212]: I am afraid that while the figure given in my earlier reply was believed to be correct at the time, a subsequent retotalling of the manually maintained records of licensees by the National TV Licence Records Office—carried out for another purpose—has shown the correct figure for those benefiting from accommodation for residential care licences to the end of May 1987 to be 705,257, rather than the figure of 690,629 given.

SCOTLAND

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Steel
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the lack, under the community charge system provided for in the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, of precise equivalents of the reliefs available under the domestic rating system.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have received 32 representations from church organisations and individual churches and some 50 further representations from other charities about the implications for them of the community charge proposals. I have also received a number of representations from individuals about the position under the proposals of particular groups living in accommodation provided by charities or otherwise benefiting from rating reliefs at present.

  Housing Grants (Edinburgh)
  Mr. Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an immediate and favourable response to the request from the City of Edinburgh district council for an increase in the £4,800 eligible grant level for improvement and repairs grants to home owners.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We are not yet in a position to respond to the council's request, but hope to do so shortly.

  Housing Revenue Accounts
  Mr. Steel
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the amount of money held in housing revenue accounts by each local authority in Scotland in each year since 1979 in real terms at 1987–88 prices.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information is given in the table:
  123

  Area

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Roxburgh

  6·611

  6·627

  6·776

  6·336

  6·468

  6·852

  6·824

  6·545

  6·523

  Tweeddale

  1·327

  1·333

  1·337

  1·195

  1·133

  1·194

  1·172

  0·966

  1·222

  Clackmannan

  8·903

  8·262

  7·555

  7·271

  6·890

  7·164

  7·127

  7·077

  7·255

  Falkirk

  30·501

  28·791

  27·031

  26·622

  25·656

  25·438

  23·565

  25·308

  24·832

  Stirling

  11·516

  12·634

  12·505

  11·942

  11·685

  11·330

  10·874

  11·052

  10·525

  Annandale and Eskdale

  4·864

  5·340

  5·436

  5·526

  5·673

  5·974

  6·056

  6·227

  6·009

  Nithsdale

  5·399

  5·181

  5·197

  5·273

  5·344

  5·485

  5·907

  6·098

  5·989

  Stewartry

  2·448

  2·555

  2·584

  2·399

  2·490

  2·787

  2·579

  2·543

  2·602

  Wigtown

  4·224

  4·241

  3·945

  4·075

  3·935

  4·161

  4·571

  4·543

  4·474

  Dunfermline

  20·548

  20·419

  19·333

  18·224

  17·257

  17·226

  16·236

  16·324

  16·540

  Kirkcaldy

  23·623

  21·796

  21·789

  19·862

  19·263

  19·605

  19·310

  19·963

  21·584

  North East Fife

  6·619

  6·819

  7·027

  6·921

  6·629

  5·962

  5·721

  6·358

  6·541

  Aberdeen

  39·887

  40·757

  39·596

  37·191

  36·062

  36·186

  33·617

  32·870

  31·674

  Banff and Buchan

  14·447

  14·650

  13·877

  12·810

  11·969

  11·824

  11·593

  10·974

  10·858

  Bardon

  8·554

  8·379

  7·796

  7·044

  6·614

  6·546

  7·095

  7·564

  7·953

  Kincardine and Deeside

  3·905

  3·742

  3·452

  3·356

  3·270

  3·529

  3·714

  3·921

  4·131

  Moray

  13·871

  15·463

  14·799

  13·298

  12·505

  12·217

  12·015

  10·211

  10·080

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  1·554

  1·558

  1·532

  1·487

  1·469

  1·492

  1·488

  1·489

  1·472

  Caithness

  4·158

  4·197

  3·889

  3·820

  3·814

  4·010

  4·086

  4·063

  4·187

  Inverness

  7·906

  8·108

  7·685

  7·665

  7·647

  7·755

  7·434

  7·507

  7·541

  Lochaber

  5·266

  4·845

  4·984

  4·936

  4·530

  4·624

  4·578

  4·728

  4·630

  Nairn

  1·120

  1·098

  1·234

  1·141

  1·135

  1·125

  1·083

  1·152

  1·193

  Ross and Cromarty

  10·974

  10·846

  9·657

  8·783

  8·408

  8·674

  8·820

  8·818

  9·110

  Skye and Lochalsh

  1·003

  1·113

  1·123

  1·121

  1·153

  1·240

  1·309

  1·409

  1·570

  Sutherland

  2·062

  2·052

  1·822

  1·810

  1·749

  1·849

  1·858

  2·169

  2·084

  East Lothian

  15·275

  16·048

  14·733

  13·241

  12·264

  12·225

  12·209

  11·981

  12·382

  Edinburgh

  56·026

  51·988

  51·927

  52·536

  48·004

  51·535

  42·969

  42·255

  44·048

  Midlothian

  13·227

  12·175

  11·220

  10·722

  10·167

  9·488

  8·999

  9·246

  9·165

  West Lothian

  21·108

  19·685

  18·229

  17·028

  17·319

  17·778

  16·250

  16·353

  16·058

  Argyll and Bute

  11·537

  11·393

  10·710

  10·953

  10·438

  10·121

  10·179

  9·197

  9·503

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  2·112

  2·247

  1·866

  1·872

  1·728

  1·595

  1·547

  1·703

  1·753

  Clydebank

  12·324

  11·958

  11·063

  11·442

  11·267

  11·174

  11·085

  11·495

  11·865

  Clydesdale

  7·541

  7·376

  6·799

  6·565

  6·315

  7·111

  7·378

  7·424

  7·362

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  3·871

  4·259

  3·870

  3·876

  3·718

  4·048

  4·126

  3·809

  3·747

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  8·272

  8·081

  7·539

  7·792

  7·612

  7·634

  7·557

  7·582

  7·590

  Cunninghame

  21·657

  20·548

  19·144

  18·493

  16·419

  17·023

  18·320

  17·050

  17·095

  Dumbarton

  12·566

  11·286

  11·309

  10·598

  9·524

  10·730

  9·506

  9·550

  10·160

  East Kilbride

  1·661

  1·694

  1·618

  1·530

  1·463

  1·541

  1·537

  1·509

  1·460

  Eastwood

  1·954

  1·683

  1·561

  1·359

  1·239

  1·276

  1·263

  1·274

  1·332

  Glasgow

  205·825

  219·261

  217·234

  213·403

  191·948

  184·776

  176·507

  176·087

  173·247

  Hamilton

  23·499

  22·253

  21·851

  20·329

  20·616

  20·413

  18·009

  19·136

  19·167

  Inverclyde

  20·796

  20·262

  19·118

  18·321

  16·895

  16·672

  16·003

  14·930

  14·616

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  16·349

  15·336

  14·697

  14·594

  14·067

  13·287

  12·651

  13·108

  12·816

  Kyle and Carrick

  15·799

  15·012

  14·110

  14·413

  15·072

  14·538

  14·412

  14·198

  13·616

  Monklands

  25·016

  25·642

  24·292

  24·133

  23·190

  25·125

  22·805

  24·290

  24·071

  Motherwell

  35·169

  35·824

  34·750

  32·959

  32·374

  31·985

  30·858

  30·560

  30·219

  Renfrew

  32·661

  30·445

  29·470

  30·205

  29·391

  29·560

  27·145

  28·547

  28·055

  Strathkelvin

  9·935

  10·353

  10·341

  9·956

  9·478

  9·613

  8·741

  9·177

  8·401

  Angus

  14·533

  14·604

  14·134

  12·262

  10·547

  10·474

  9·882

  10·263

  10·320

  Dundee

  35·611

  32·757

  31·729

  29·692

  29·149

  30·796

  30·127

  29·047

  30·092

  Perth and Kinross

  13·589

  13·415

  12·397

  12·018

  11·839

  11·676

  11·857

  11·056

  11·084

  Orkney Islands

  3·096

  2·824

  2·565

  2·235

  2·161

  2·367

  2·537

  2·217

  2·137

  Shetland Islands

  5·320

  6·974

  5·841

  5·537

  5·874

  6·714

  7·519

  8·123

  7·921

  Western Isles

  4·033

  4·314

  4·544

  4·795

  5·500

  5·149

  5·497

  5·060

  5·273

  Notes:

  (1) Figures for 1979–80 to 1983–84 are based on audited accounts.

  (2) Figures for 1984–85 to 1986–87 are based on authorities' near actual returns.

  (3) Figures for 1987–88 are authorities' estimates.

  Mr. Steel
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the amount of money held in housing revenue accounts by each local authority in Scotland since 1979 in cash terms.

  Housing Revenue Account Income Amounts (£ million) [current prices]

  Area

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Scotland

  518·093

  613·832

  651–037

  675–359

  667·514

  698·197

  708–784

  729·067

  760·819

  Berwickshire

  2·161

  2·601

  2·628

  2·588

  2·548

  2·553

  2·683

  2·313

  2·342

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  3·073

  3·677

  3·589

  3·417

  3·240

  3·483

  3·673

  3·206

  3·347

  Roxburgh

  3·803

  4·521

  5·077

  5·092

  5·429

  5·999

  6·340

  6·263

  6·523

  Tweeddale

  0·763

  0·909

  1·002

  0·960

  0·951

  1·045

  1·089

  0·925

  1·222

  124
  Mr. Rifkind
  The information is given in the table.
  125

  Area

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Clackmannan

  5·121

  5·637

  5·661

  5·843

  5·783

  6·271

  6·621

  6·772

  7·255

  Falkirk

  17·544

  19·643

  20·253

  21·393

  21·536

  22·269

  21·892

  24·218

  24·832

  Stirling

  6·624

  8·619

  9·370

  9·596

  9·808

  9·919

  10·102

  10·577

  10·525

  Annandale and Eskdale

  2·798

  3·643

  4·073

  4·440

  4·762

  5·229

  5·626

  5·959

  6·009

  Mithsdale

  3·105

  3·535

  3·894

  4·237

  4·486

  4·802

  5·487

  5·835

  5·989

  Stewartry

  1·408

  1·743

  1·936

  1·927

  2·090

  2·440

  2·396

  2·433

  2·602

  Wigtown

  2·429

  2·894

  2·956

  3·275

  3·303

  3·643

  4·247

  4·347

  4·474

  Dunfermline

  11·819

  13·931

  14·485

  14·644

  14·485

  15·080

  15·083

  15·621

  16·540

  Kirkcaldy

  13·588

  14·870

  16·326

  15·961

  16·170

  17·162

  17·939

  19·104

  21·584

  North East Fife

  3·807

  4·652

  5·265

  5·562

  5·565

  5·219

  5·315

  6·084

  6·541

  Aberdeen

  22·942

  27·807

  29·667

  29·886

  30·271

  31·678

  31·230

  31·455

  31·674

  Banff and Buchan

  8·310

  9·995

  10·398

  10·294

  10·047

  10·351

  10·770

  10·501

  10·858

  Bordon

  4·920

  5·717

  5·841

  5·660

  5·552

  5·730

  6·591

  7·239

  7·953

  Kincardine and Deeside

  2·246

  2·553

  2·586

  2·697

  2·745

  3·089

  3·450

  3·753

  4·131

  Moray

  7·978

  10·549

  11·088

  10·686

  10·497

  10·695

  11·162

  9·771

  10·080

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  0·894

  1·063

  1·148

  1·195

  1·233

  1·306

  1·383

  1·425

  1·472

  Caithness

  2·392

  2·864

  2·914

  3·069

  3·201

  3·511

  3·796

  3·888

  4·187

  Inverness

  4·547

  5·532

  5·758

  6·160

  6·419

  6·789

  6·907

  7·184

  7·541

  Lochaber

  3·029

  3·305

  3·734

  3·966

  3·803

  4·048

  4·253

  4·524

  4·630

  Nairn

  0·644

  0·749

  0·928

  0·917

  0·953

  0·985

  1·006

  1·102

  1·193

  Ross and Cromarty

  6·312

  7·400

  7·235

  7·058

  7·058

  7·593

  8·194

  8·439

  9·110

  Skye and Lochalsh

  0·577

  0·760

  0·842

  0·900

  0·967

  1·086

  1·217

  1·348

  1·570

  Sutherland

  1·186

  1·400

  1·365

  1·454

  1·468

  1·618

  1·726

  2·076

  2·084

  East Lothian

  8·786

  10·949

  11·039

  10·640

  10·294

  10·702

  11·342

  11·465

  12·382

  Edinburgh

  32·225

  35·469

  38·906

  42·217

  40·295

  45·114

  39·918

  40·436

  44·048

  Midlothian

  7·608

  8·307

  8·406

  8·616

  8·534

  8·306

  8·360

  8·848

  9·165

  West Lothian

  12·141

  13·430

  13·658

  13·684

  14·538

  15·563

  15·097

  15·649

  16·058

  Argyll and Bute

  6·636

  7·773

  8·024

  8·802

  8·762

  8·860

  9·457

  8·801

  9·503

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  1·215

  1·533

  1·398

  1·504

  1·451

  1·396

  1·437

  1·630

  1·753

  Clydebank

  7·088

  8·159

  8·289

  9·194

  9·458

  9·782

  10·298

  11·000

  11·865

  Clydesdale

  4·337

  5·033

  5·094

  5·275

  5·301

  6·225

  6·854

  7·105

  7·362

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  2·227

  2·906

  2·899

  3·114

  3·121

  3·544

  3·833

  3·645

  3·747

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  4·758

  5·513

  5·649

  6·261

  6·389

  6·683

  7·020

  7·255

  7·590

  Cunninghame

  12·456

  14·019

  14·344

  14·860

  13·782

  14·902

  17·020

  16·316

  17·095

  Dumbarton

  7·228

  7·700

  8·473

  8·516

  7·994

  9·393

  8·832

  9·139

  10·160

  East Kilbride

  0·955

  1·156

  1·212

  1·229

  1·228

  1·349

  1·428

  1·444

  1·460

  Eastwood

  1·124

  1·148

  1·170

  1·092

  1·040

  1·117

  1·174

  1·219

  1·332

  Glasgow

  118·387

  149·593

  162·762

  171·486

  161·123

  161·754

  163·975

  168·505

  173·247

  Hamilton

  13·516

  15·182

  16·372

  16·336

  17·305

  17·870

  16·730

  18·312

  19·167

  Inverclyde

  11·962

  13·824

  14·324

  14·723

  14·182

  14·595

  14·866

  14·287

  14·616

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  9·404

  10·463

  11·012

  11·727

  11·808

  11·631

  11·753

  12·544

  12·816

  Kyle and Carrick

  9·087

  10·242

  10·572

  11·582

  12·651

  12·726

  13·389

  13·587

  13·616

  Monklands

  14·389

  17·495

  18·200

  19·393

  19·466

  21·995

  21·186

  23·244

  24·071

  Motherwell

  20·229

  24·441

  26·036

  26·485

  27·175

  28·000

  28·667

  29·244

  30·219

  Renfrew

  18·786

  20·771

  22·081

  24·272

  24·671

  25·877

  25·218

  27·318

  28·055

  Strathkelvin

  5·715

  7·063

  7·748

  8·000

  7·956

  8·415

  8·121

  8·782

  8·401

  Angus

  8·359

  9·964

  10·590

  9·854

  8·853

  9·169

  9·180

  9·821

  10·320

  Dundee

  20·483

  22·349

  23·773

  23·860

  24·468

  26·959

  27·988

  27·796

  30·092

  Perth and Kinross

  7·816

  9·152

  9·289

  9·657

  9·937

  10·221

  11·015

  10·580

  11·084

  Orkney Islands

  1·781

  1·927

  1·922

  1·796

  1·814

  2·072

  2·357

  2·122

  2·137

  Shetland Islands

  3·060

  4·758

  4·376

  4·450

  4·931

  5·877

  6·985

  7·773

  7·921

  Western Isles

  2·320

  2·943

  3·404

  3·853

  4·617

  4·507

  5·106

  4·842

  5·273

  Notes:

  (1) Figures for 1979–80 to 1983–84 are audited accounts.

  (2) Figures for 1984–85 to 1986–87 are authorities' near actual returns.

  (3) Figures for 1987–88 are authorities' estimates.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures for Scotland and the Dundee travel-to-work area for the last available date, and figures in May 1979, June 1983 and June 1987, compiled on a similar basis.

  Mr. Lang
  In Scotland the labour force survey is conducted by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and the General Register Office for Scotland on behalf of the Department of Employment and the European Community. The 1986 labour force survey is the most recent of which results are available, but the sample size is too small for reliable estimates to be produced either for Dundee or for the Tayside area.

  Universities and Colleges (Funding)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what attempts were made to find out the views of the students, staff, and graduates on the STEAC recommendation for the funding of universities and colleges.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  When the STEAC report was published in December 1985 the Government issued a public invitation for comments on the report's recommendations.

  Scottish Committee for Planning of Higher Education
  Mrs. Fyfe
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what criteria he based his decision that appointments to the proposed Scottish committee for planning of higher

  127
  education in Scotland will be made by the Universities Funding Committee in consultation with himself; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish committee of the Universities Funding Council will advise the council on higher education in Scotland, and its views will be available to my right hon. and learned Friend. As the committee will consider issues affecting other sectors of higher education besides the universities, it seems appropriate that the composition of the committee should not be left solely to the UFC.

  Woodilee and Stoneyetts Hospital
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of Woodilee hospital and Stoneyetts hospital.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As I explained when I met the hon. Member on 7 July, the Greater Glasgow health board is conducting a strategic review of psychiatric services in the Greater Glasgow area as a whole and any decisions on the future roles of these particular hospitals will be dependent on the outcome of that review. The board will he issuing a consultative document about its proposals later this year.

  Monofilament Gill Nets
  Mr. Maclennan
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received advice from the European Commission regarding the validity under Community regulations of the Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Carriage of Monofilament Gill Nets) (Scotland) Order 1968; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Before the order was laid the Commission of the European Communities was consulted on its terms. The Commission indicated that the order was compatible with Community law and in conformity with the common fisheries policy.

  Nonach Mor Ski Project
  Sir Russell Johnston
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to make an announcement about the Nonach Mor ski project.

  Mr. Lang
  Letters conveying my right hon. and learned Friend's decision not to support the project have been sent to the hon. Member, Lochaber district council and Highland regional council. The Highlands and Islands Development Board has also been informed that its proposal to provide assistance to the scheme has not been approved.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Adult Education
  Mr. Turner
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the report by Her Majesty's inspectors on "Aspects of Educational Provision for Unemployed Adults in Wolverhampton"; and whether he will adopt this scheme as a national model.

  Mr. Dunn
  It is for individual local education authorities to determine their policy on educational 128
  provision for the unemployed adults in their area, taking account of advice and information available under the Department's REPLAN programme and from other sources. In reviewing their policy, they may well find it useful to study the report by Her Majesty's inspectors on educational provision for unemployed adults in Wolverhampton and to note the comments and advice offered in it.

  Co-operative Awards (Science and Engineering)
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many and what percentage of co-operative awards in science or engineering allocated to universities in 1986 remained vacant by 30 June 1987.

  Mr. Jackson
  In 1986, 1,035 co-operative awards in science and engineering projects were approved at universities, and of these 324 (31·3 per cent.) had not been taken up by 30 June 1987. Awards approved in 1986 will be available for take up until March 1988.

  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many co-operative awards in science or engineering there were from polytechnics in 1986; and what proportion of these were rejected.

  Mr. Jackson
  In 1986 there were 102 proposals for cooperative awards in science and engineering from polytechnics, and of these 55 per cent were rejected.

  Spina Bifida
  Sir Bernard Braine
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, in view of the official recognition now given by the Committee on the Safety of Medicines that Pregnavite Forte F is an effective means of preventing high-risk mothers from hearing spina bifida afflicted children, if he will state why the Medical Research Council is continuing its folic acid trials which involve giving placebos to women known to be at risk of bearing an afflicted baby.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand that the Medical Research Council has not seen the evidence presented to the Committee on Safety of Medicines. The council is unaware of any new evidence which suggests that preparations such as Pregnavite Forte F are an effective means of preventing high-risk mothers from bearing children afflicted with spina bifida. The M RC still holds the view that the value of vitamin supplementation in the prevention of neural tube defects is unknown and that it is important that the clinical trial which it is supporting be continued.

  Sir Bernard Braine
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report full details of the Medical Research Council's trials on folic acid and the results so far.

  Mr. Jackson
  The council has informed me that at present there are 29 centres in five different countries and over 1,000 women participating in the trial. It is not normal practice to release results publicly before a trial is completed. The results from the trial, and any evidence from other sources, are regularly reviewed so that the trial can be stopped if clear evidence regarding the efficacy of vitamins in preventing neural tube defects emerges.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Furniture (Code of Practice)
  Mr. Holt
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimate he has made of the likely effect of his new code of practice on jobs in the furniture industry.

  Mr. Maude
  It is estimated that employment in the United Kingdom in the manufacture of upholstered furniture is about 22,000 and employment in the supplier industries is about 14,000. A substantial proportion of upholstery fabrics used in United Kingdom manufacture are imported.

  It is difficult to estimate the effect on employment of the introduction of new regulations based on the code of practice proposals.

  I do not anticipate that there will be significant adverse effects on employment in furniture manufacturing. One supplier of fire-retardant fillings has estimated that the development of these materials, which the code of practice approach will encourage, will lead to substantially enlarged employment in that sector, amounting to several thousand new jobs. The code of practice also provides opportunities for import substitution in the fabrics sector. Overall, the effect on employment in the furniture industry and its suppliers is likely to be beneficial.

  Financial Services Act 1986 (Exemptions)
  Mr. Barry Field
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will grant exemption under section 46(1) (a) of the Financial Services Act 1986 to those members and officers of local superannuation administering authorities which are using external fund management organisations to take the day-to-day investment decision provided that the authority's own investment strategy satisfies the requirement of superannuation regulation P3;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the protection enjoyed by members and pensioners of local superannuation administering authorities under the Financial Services Act 1986, in cases where the whole council, the committee or investment panel members, or county treasurers have not sought authorisation under the Act.

  Mr. Maude
  Under the provisions of section 191 of the Financial Services Act, members and officers of local superannuation administering authorities who use external fund managers are not likely to require to be authorised, provided that those managers take the day-to-day investment decisions. So the question of granting an exemption does not arise.

  Fund managers who take day-to-day investment decisions will have to be authorised and will be subject to the appropriate conduct of business rules drawn up by their authorising bodies. Contributions to those funds will thus have the same degree of investor protection as is available generally under the regulatory regime.

  Garment Imports
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action is being taken by the Government to ensure that imports of garments made from ramie are restricted through EEC quotas under the multi-fibre agreement.
  130
  Mr. Alan Clark
  With the co-operation of Her Majesty's Customs my Department has been closely monitoring imports of garments made predominantly of ramie under an import surveillance arrangement which provides provisional figures at 10-day intervals. After significant levels of imports at the beginning of the year, the volume has fallen back sharply. At present the levels do not justify consultations with supplying countries. However I am aware that ramie mix garments are seasonal in nature and imports may again increase. We have alerted our Community partners and the European Commission to this possibility and my Department will continue to monitor imports and is ready to take action as necessary.

  Bursett and Hallanshire Holdings plc
  Mr. Ashton
  s asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why Bursett and Hallanshire Holdings plc, of Careta road, Worksop, Nottinghamshire, has not been asked to produce a report under the EEC code of conduct for companies with interests in South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Full reports under the EC code of conduct are sought from United Kingdom companies with a controlling interest in a South African company. Other companies with a minority shareholding are expected to make efforts to ensure that the principles of the EC code are implemented and to report to the extent that they are able to do so. My Department's dealings with Bursett and Hallanshire Holdings plc have been in line with the code's requirements.

  LAUTRO Rule Book
  Mr. Butterfill
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the extent to which the proposed revisions to the LAUTRO rule book permitting pension quotations to be made in both monetary and real terms (a) may lead to investor confusion and (b) will permit investors to make an adequately informed choice between competing products; and what observations he has received on the above proposals from the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Mr. Maude
  No assessment of any proposed rules of the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation (LAUTRO) has been made because LAUTRO has yet to submit an application to become a recognised self-regulating organisation under the Financial Services Act. When it does so, it will be for the Securities and Investments Board to determine whether LAUTRO meets the criteria for recognition laid down in the Act, including whether its rules provide investors with at least equivalent protection to SIB's own rules. The Secretary of State will however have to be satisfied that LAUTRO's rules are either not significantly anti-competitive or are no more anti-competitive than is necessary for the protection of investors. In reaching this decision, the Secretary of State will have regard to a report on the effect on competition of SRO's rules which the Director General of Fair Trading will be making.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Educational Provision
  Mr. Radice
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to make available the report of Her Majesty's Inspector on the effects of local authority expenditure policies on the education service in England in 1986.

  Mr. Kenneth Bakeer
  [pursuant to the oral reply of the Leader of the House, 16 July 1987, c. 1281]: The HMI report on the educational provision made by LEAs in England, and the quality of response to that provision, as observed in the autumn of 1986 has been published today. Copies are available in the Vote Office. This is the seventh report to be published since this Government decided that HMI findings should be made generally available. Over that period the nature of the report has undergone several major changes. However, it is still based on inspections carried out in just one term. I have therefore asked the senior chief inspector to consider whether an annual report can be produced for publication which will distil the lessons to be gleaned from Her Majesty's inspectors' observations of teaching and learning in schools and colleges over the full academic year. The report should aim to offer local education authorities, teachers and parents an independent view of the nature, quality and effectiveness of the education provided in schools and colleges.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Ships' Crews
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is being taken by Her Majesty's Government to ensure that ships operating from British ports are crewed with 75 per cent. British nationals.

  Mr. Gummer
  It has not been the Government's policy to require British fishing vessels to be crewed with 75 per cent. British nationals.

  The British Fishing Boats Act and Order 1983 require any British fishing boat fishing in British fishery limits to be crewed with 75 per cent. British citizens or nationals of another member state of the European Community.

  From 1 January 1986 vessels over 10 m have been subject to new licence conditions designed to ensure that vessels fishing against the United Kingdom quotas under the common fisheries policy had a real economic link with this country. These conditions include requirements that the vessel should operate from the United Kingdom, Isle of Man or Channel Islands and that 75 per cent. of the crew should be British nationals or nationals of a Community member state (other than, until 1 January 1993, Spain and Portugal under transitional arrangements on the free movement of labour in the treaty of accession) ordinarily resident in this country. These licence conditions have been the subject of judicial review proceedings and of references to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under article 177 of the treaty of Rome as to their compatibility with various provisions of Community law.

  Farmers, North Devon
  Mr. Speller
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the price supports, subsidies, grants and specialist help available for sheep farmers in North Devon;

  (2) if he will list the price supports, subsidies, grants and specialist help available for dairy farmers in North Devon;

  (3) if he will list the price supports, subsidies, grants and specialist help available for beef farmers in North Devon;

  (4) if he will list the price supports, subsidies, grants and specialist help available for the mixed farm farmers in North Devon;

  (5) if he will list the price supports, subsidies, grants and specialist help available for the horticulturalists in North Devon.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Farmers in North Devon, together with those in the rest of the United Kingdom, benefit from the support provided under common agricultural policy market regimes. In the dairy sector, this includes intervention arrangements for butter and skimmed milk powder, protection from low-priced imports by means of the levy system, and refunds to enable the Community to export to world markets. Substantial compensation is available to milk producers who take advantage of the outgoers schemes and for suspension of part of their quota.

  Support for the beef producer is provided through the beef variable premium scheme; premium is payable on steers and heifers and young bulls sent to slaughter, provided they meet certain standards as to quality. At its current level the premium is worth about £51 per head—over 11 per cent. higher than it was a year ago. In addition, beef producers benefit from the operation of the intervention system and from the protection afforded to the internal market by levies on imports from third countries. Specialist beef producers (those with no dairy cows) may also benefit from the suckler cow premium scheme, receiving an annual premium of £33·40—an increase of 35 per cent. on a year ago.

  Sheep farmers benefit from the support arrangements of the Community's sheep regime. These include the payment of sheep annual premium on breeding ewes in the United Kingdom flock: and, in Great Britain, a variable premium on clean sheep going for slaughter. Sheep producers also benefit from the wool guarantee arrangements operated by the British Wool Marketing Board.

  Hill livestock compensatory allowances are payable annually to producers with breeding cattle and sheep in the less favoured areas of North Devon.

  The Community's common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables provides for compensation to be paid to recognised producer groups which withdraw certain products from the market. Of products grown in the United Kingdom; cauliflowers, tomatoes, apples and pears are eligible for such compensation. There is also a system of reference prices and countervailing charges to prevent imports into the Community at unduly low prices.

  Support under these and other regimes is also available to the mixed farmer. In particular, cereals growers with fewer that 100 hectares of arable and grass may be eligible for the small cereal producers aid scheme. Additionally.

  133
  potato producers will benefit from the market support arrangements administered by the Potato Marketing Board in Great Britain.

  Under the agriculture improvement scheme, grant is available on a wide range of capital investments to small and medium-sized farms, including farms in North Devon, which put forward an acceptable improvement plan. A narrower range of grants is available to all farms for certain investments in horticulture and in works which are environmentally beneficial. The rates of grant vary from 15 per cent. in the lowlands to 60 per cent. in the less-favoured areas of North Devon.

  Various grants are also available to co-operatives under the Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Scheme, EC Regulation 1035/72 and EC Regulation 355/77.

  A full range of ADAS advisory services, including free general advice on conservation, rural diversion and animal health and welfare is available to farmers in North Devon. They also benefit from the plant health measures administered by my Department. Finally, my Department sponsors a wide range of research and development which is intended to be of benefit to the agricultural sector.

  Intervention Statistics
  Mr. Bradley
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the latest available figures by commodity for the total amounts of food taken into European Economic Community intervention by the United Kingdom Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce; and if he will break these figures down by region.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  At 31 March 1987 intervention stocks in the United Kingdom were:

  Tonnes

  Cereals

  Beef

  Butter

  Skimmed milk powder

  England (Regions)

  Northern

  208,164

  6,912

  28,190

  1,034

  Midland and Western

  719,285

  4,795

  67,934

  3,840

  South-West

  226,230

  1,133

  45,190

  4,306

  Eastern

  993,024

  8,477

  26,143

  —

  South-East

  81,073

  1,774

  15,880

  —

  Scotland

  467,048

  4,374

  13,589

  321

  Wales

  19,033

  69

  16,789

  2,365

  Northern Ireland

  —

  27,852

  9,440

  7,140

  Total

  2,714,127

  55,386

  223,155

  19,006

  EC (Commodity Withdrawals)
  Mr. Bradley
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what amounts, by commodity, of fruit and vegetables have been withdrawn from the market under European Economic Community regulations in the United Kingdom so far in the current year, and each year for the past seven years; what proportion of that amount has been destroyed or left to rot; and what proportion has been put to some use.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The figures requested are given in the table:134

  Withdrawn (tonnes)

  Marketing year1

  Used for human or animal food

  Destroyed

  Total

  Cauliflowers

  1987–88 (to date)

  91

  606

  697

  1986–87

  4,100

  20,000

  24,100

  1985–86

  800

  4,100

  4,900

  1984–85

  560

  7,800

  8,360

  1983–84

  25

  575

  600

  1982–83

  110

  8,100

  8,200

  1981–82

  nil

  nil

  nil

  1980–81

  400

  675

  1,075

  Tomatoes

  1987–88 (to date)

  nil

  nil

  nil

  1986–87

  nil

  nil

  nil

  1985–86

  1

  20

  21

  1984–85

  5

  125

  130

  1983–84

  nil

  180

  180

  1982–83

  nil

  54

  54

  1981–82

  nil

  5

  5

  1980–81

  nil

  4

  4

  Apples

  1987–88 (to date)

  nil

  nil

  nil

  1986–87

  3,550

  3,560

  7,110

  1985–86

  2,100

  8,500

  10,600

  1984–85

  7,800

  15,200

  23,000

  1983–84

  2,300

  3,600

  5,900

  1982–83

  8,400

  13,850

  22,250

  1981–82

  160

  300

  460

  1980–81

  5,400

  19,000

  24,400

  Pears

  1987–88 (to date)

  nil

  nil

  nil

  1986–87

  230

  33

  263

  1985–86

  735

  142

  877

  1984–85

  600

  130

  730

  1983–84

  515

  260

  775

  1982–83

  535

  30

  565

  1981–82

  nil

  40

  40

  1980–81

  45

  140

  185

  1 Cauliflowers: 1 May—30 April

  Tomatoes: 1 January—31 December

  Apples: 1 July—30 June

  Pears: 1 July—30 June

  Mr. Bradley
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by commodity, town of location, and amount in each store, the stocks held in European Economic Community intervention by the United Kingdom Intervention Board for Agriculture Produce.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) on 15 July.

  Food Aid
  Mr. Bradley
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the final figures of the amounts of food distributed in the United Kingdom under the free food for the needy scheme, broken down by region and by commodity.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information is as follows:

  A. Products released from intervention stores: final figures (Regional breakdown by location of store)

  tonnes

  Butter

  England and Wales

  8,959·2

  135

  tonnes

  Scotland

  1,571·0

  Northern Ireland

  3,093·5

  United Kingdom total

  13,623·7

  Beef

  England and Wales

  336·602

  Scotland

  146·475

  Northern Ireland

  557·752

  United Kingdom total

  1,040·829

  B Milk and milk products on which reimbursements were claimed by 10 July 1987 (regional breakdown by location of charity claiming reimbursement)

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom Total

  Whole milk (litres)

  2,989,537·45

  497,444·96

  1,409,501·07

  4,896,483·48

  Semi-skimmed milk (litres)

  228,154·38

  551,279·04

  nil

  779,433·42

  Cheese (kgs)

  7,385,251·42

  1,427,402·56

  1,401,875·77

  10,214,529·75

  Concentrated butter (kgs)

  81,777·93

  3,360·00

  nil

  85,137·93

  Farm Rents
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average rise in farm rents per hectare, for farms which experienced a rent change, for tenants in each of the English regions during the last full year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 July 1987]: Based on the results of the annual rent inquiry conducted in autumn 1986 the average changes in farm rents between 1985 and 1986 in the English regions are presented in the table:

  Average changes in farm rent for farms with a rent change

  Region

  Percentage change 1985 to 1986

  Northern

  +14·7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  +14·2

  East Midlands

  +10·8

  East Anglia

  +10·1

  South-East

  +8·3

  South-West

  +10·0

  West Midlands

  +14·4

  North-West

  +18·3

  England

  +11·5

TRANSPORT

  London-Amsterdam Route (Passenger Statistics)
  Mr. John Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the change in the number of passengers using the London to Amsterdam route since it was liberalised.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The liberal air services arrangements with the Netherlands were introduced in June 1984. Traffic between London and Amsterdam in the year ending April 1987 was 35 per cent. higher than in the year ending April 1984.

  Ship Registration
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the number of ships under British registry during each of the past five years.
  136
  Mr. David Mitchell
  The number of ships of 100 gross registered tons and above under the British registry at the mid-point of each of the past five years is as follows:

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  United Kingdom

  2,754

  2,503

  2,386

  2,298

  2,173

  Crown Dependencies1

  72

  67

  82

  80

  83

  Dependent Territories2

  641

  729

  788

  864

  963

  Totals

  3,467

  3,299

  3,256

  3,242

  3,219

  1 The Crown Dependencies are the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

  2 The Dependent Territories are Anguilla, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Montserrat, St. Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands and the British Virgin Islands.

  Car Transporters
  Sir Julian Ridsdale
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether he will make a statement concerning the recent incidence of accidents on the M25 and the M5 motorways involving car transporters;

  (2) whether he is satisfied with the operation of the regulations relating to avoidance of danger for car transporters on roads;

  (3) whether he will consider including car transporter vehicles in a code similar to the code for vehicles carrying dangerous loads;

  (4) whether the Health and Safety Executive is enforcing the tying-down of cars to transporter structures on a national basis;

  (5) now that many transporters are being introduced with three decks, whether he is satisfied that all the new designs are adequately tested and approved;

  (6) whether he is satisfied with the operation of the law with regard to new triple deck transporters over tying down; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are aware of only one recent accident involving car transporters. This was on the M5 on 10 July. I shall write to my hon. Friend about this when more information is available.

  Car transporters with three decks have been used safely for many years. There are no statutory design requirements for these vehicles beyond those that apply to heavy goods vehicles generally.

  The construction and use regulations require loads to be carried so as not to be a danger or nuisance to others. This is backed by the Department's code of practice on the safety of loads on vehicles which gives general advice for the securing of vehicles on other vehicles. The police, not the HSE, are responsible for enforcing the law governing the carriage of loads on vehicles.

  Earls Court (Relief Road)
  Mr. Carrington
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received the report of the consultants examining the feasibility of the relief road for Earls Court; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I have received the consultants' technical report on the feasibility of options for the western environmental improvement route. Arrangements are being made for it to be published as soon as possible.
  137
  Copies of the full report will be placed in libraries in the area of the proposed route when it is available. In the meantime I am arranging for a free summary to be issued.

  We shall consider the report carefully. The consultants have more work to do before the Department decides which options to put forward for public consultation which is planned for next spring.

  The Department will be continuing discussion with the boroughs and operators, in particular about the traffic management elements of the package.

  Traffic and Parking Regulations
  Mr. Chapman
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Government are considering any changes to the law on traffic and parking regulations.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The traffic and parking working group, comprising officials from this Department and local authority association representatives, has drawn up a set of proposals to simplify and improve the legislation and procedures governing traffic and parking regulation. Its report is published today as a consultation document. It gives the views of the working group rather than the Government's own position. I am placing copies in the Library.

  London Assessment Studies
  Mr. Evennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what comments he has received on the draft terms of reference for stage two of the London assessment studies; what changes he proposes to make as a result; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have received comments from the local authorities concerned and from a wide range of other organisations. A number suggested that the studies should be expanded on a Londonwide basis, with a joint steering group with the London boroughs and transport operators, which would evaluate alternative strategies for London as a whole. Others asked that the studies should

  Persons accepted

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Aberconwy

  151

  203

  159

  130

  99

  167

  74

  153

  Alyn and Deeside

  301

  250

  205

  237

  251

  239

  427

  366

  Arfon

  80

  59

  50

  55

  61

  38

  62

  51

  Blaenau Gwent

  333

  361

  388

  464

  459

  453

  444

  493

  Brecknock

  69

  114

  86

  157

  152

  134

  217

  162

  Cardiff

  690

  1,410

  973

  1,053

  730

  862

  1,646

  1,751

  Carmarthen

  187

  160

  152

  127

  192

  136

  218

  165

  Ceredigion

  94

  102

  92

  103

  149

  203

  149

  140

  Colwyn

  55

  40

  42

  72

  55

  60

  71

  102

  Cynon Valley

  898

  1,018

  965

  985

  1,207

  959

  840

  942

  Delyn

  175

  151

  264

  240

  197

  255

  297

  391

  Dinefwr

  49

  34

  35

  108

  31

  67

  104

  93

  Dwyfor

  138

  60

  106

  74

  69

  124

  126

  142

  Glyndwr

  56

  54

  63

  39

  37

  52

  64

  55

  Islwyn

  189

  175

  159

  68

  118

  143

  139

  136

  Llanelli

  133

  100

  140

  179

  219

  213

  227

  371

  Lliw Valley

  113

  129

  134

  140

  119

  204

  158

  205

  Meirionnydd

  369

  489

  235

  145

  159

  106

  106

  147

  Merthyr Tydfil

  454

  392

  272

  238

  253

  232

  225

  179

  Monmouth

  515

  380

  532

  434

  475

  447

  717

  664

  Montgomeryshire

  124

  110

  125

  89

  83

  58

  52

  97

  Neath

  481

  483

  624

  NA

  1,016

  963

  806

  793

  Newport

  864

  1,110

  1,358

  1,300

  1,218

  1,199

  1,513

  1,254

  Ogwr

  338

  343

  517

  736

  599

  448

  826

  1,667

  Port Talbot (Afan)

  170

  133

  94

  112

  160

  226

  164

  304

  Preseli

  135

  164

  130

  97

  96

  78

  148

  108

  138
  address the need for additional road capacity. There was widespread concern that the studies should consider options for both road and public transport improvements assessed on a comparable basis. There were also a number of detailed comments.

  The assessment studies cover four areas which suffer from particularly severe transport problems. The studies are intended to identify practical options for tackling them within a reasonable time scale. They are only one of the measures we are pursuing to improve transport in London, including the existing programmes of trunk and local road improvements and support for more attractive and efficient public transport services. They are not intended to be a vehicle for reviewing policies for London as a whole. I have, however, amended, the draft terms of reference to make it clearer that the studies are concerned with all modes of transport, not just roads.

  We shall be inviting the authorities concerned to join a consultative group for each of the studies. While we do not see the need for a formal joint steering group, we shall be glad to discuss wider issues at any time with the local authority associations and other representative organisations. There will be consultation on the stage two reports when they are completed.

WALES

  Homelessness
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are homeless in each district authority area in Wales; and what were the corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  Information relating to the number of persons homeless at a point in time is not collected' centrally. The numbers of persons accepted as homeless by each local authority for each year since 1979 are shown in the following table.
  139

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Radnor

  19

  38

  45

  14

  19

  34

  54

  23

  Rhondda

  569

  834

  1,164

  1,049

  852

  479

  317

  323

  Rhuddlan

  237

  139

  172

  257

  268

  204

  242

  249

  Rhymney Valley

  534

  720

  510

  284

  418

  344

  629

  643

  South Pembrokeshire

  143

  188

  181

  202

  230

  280

  224

  165

  Swansea

  1,604

  1,838

  2,820

  1,887

  1,416

  1,396

  762

  685

  Taff-Ely

  390

  253

  200

  188

  158

  176

  186

  278

  Torfaen

  1,049

  978

  723

  790

  675

  421

  531

  958

  Vale of Glamorgan

  620

  749

  636

  1,314

  896

  726

  570

  427

  Wrexham Maelor

  235

  471

  353

  212

  238

  439

  411

  467

  Ynys Môn

  137

  83

  33

  26

  44

  54

  50

  62

  Note: Homelessness data by number of persons for Neath in 1982 are not available.

  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many families are housed in temporary accommodation in each local authority area in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The numbers of homeless households in temporary accommodation at 31 March 1987 are shown in the following table.

  Homeless households in temporary accommodation at 31 March 1987

  Number

  Aberconwy

  11

  Alyn and Deeside

  18

  Arfon

  7

  Blaenau Gwent

  25

  Brecknock

  2

  Cardiff

  81

  Carmarthen

  9

  Ceredigion

  1

  Colwyn

  0

  Cynon Valley

  59

  Delyn

  15

  Dinefwr

  11

  Dwyfor

  1

  Glyndwr

  0

  Islwyn

  20

  Llanelli

  18

  Lliw Valley

  24

  Meirionnydd

  2

  Merthyr Tydfil

  4

  Monmouth

  41

  Montgomeryshire

  3

  Neath

  24

  Newport

  105

  Ogwr

  10

  Port Talbot (Afan)

  42

  Preseli

  10

  Radnor

  0

  Rhondda

  1

  Rhuddlan

  1

  Rhymney Valley

  103

  South Pembrokeshire

  9

  Swansea

  0

  Taff-Ely

  1

  Torfaen

  8

  Vale of Glamorgan

  46

  Wrexham Maelor

  0

  Ynys Mon

  0

  Wales Total

  712

  Housing
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many houses are available for rent in (a) the public sector and (b) the private sector, in each district authority area in Wales; and what were the corresponding figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.
  140
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many houses in (a) the private sector and (b) the public sector in each district authority area in Wales are unfit, or in a serious state of disrepair; and what proportion of the houses in each sector this number represents.

  Mr. Grist
  Reliable estimates of unfitness and disrepair in each local authority district will not be available until the results of the 1986 Welsh house condition survey are published.

  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many more homes than households there are in each district authority area in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The following table shows how many more dwellings than households there were in Wales on a country basis, as at June 1986:

  Number

  Clwyd

  7,000

  Dyfed

  9,000

  Gwent

  7,000

  Gwynedd

  15,000

  Mid Glamorgan

  8,000

  Powys

  4,000

  South Glamorgan

  1,000

  West Glamorgan

  5,000

  Similar estimates are not available at a local authority district level.

  These figures are not directly comparable with statistics given to the hon. Member by my hon. Friend on 22 January, at column 683.The statistics in the reply to the hon. Gentleman's earlier question omitted concealed households—namely, married couples and lone parents living within a household headed by another person. Comparable figures which include concealed households are as follows:—

  Dwellings minus households

  Number

  1979

  27,000

  1980

  27,000

  1981

  46,000

  1982

  51,000

  1983

  55,000

  1984

  56,000

  1985

  57,000

  1986

  56,000

  Pensioners
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many people of pensionable age in Wales live alone; of

  141
  those, how many are over 75 years of age; and, in each case, what proportion of the population of that age group each represents.

  Mr. Grist
  The latest available information derives from the 1981 census. At that time there were 139,268 people usually resident in Wales who were of pensionable age in single person private households in permanent buildings; they represented 27·6 per cent. of usual residents in that age group. Equivalent figures for the age group 75 and over were 58,591 persons and 36·9 per cent.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many disabled persons are living in accommodation unsuited to their needs in each local authority area in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The required information is not available centrally.

  Number of residents aged 65 and above accommodated in residential homes1

  Local authority homes

  Private and voluntary homes

  1979

  1986

  1979

  1986

  Number of residents

  Percentage of population aged 65+

  Number of residents

  Percentage of population aged 65+

  Number of residents

  Percentage of population aged 65+

  Number of residents

  Percentage of population aged 65-

  Clwyd

  877

  1·4

  875

  1·3

  571

  0·9

  1,813

  2·7

  Dyfed

  1,031

  1·9

  1,134

  1·9

  87

  0·2

  458

  0·8

  Gwent

  989

  1·7

  961

  1·5

  59

  0·1

  277

  0·4

  Gwynedd

  821

  2·1

  842

  2·0

  162

  0·4

  645

  1·5

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,163

  1·6

  1,231

  1·6

  134

  0·2

  361

  0·5

  Powys

  381

  2·2

  386

  2·0

  26

  0·2

  172

  0·9

  South Glamorgan

  932

  1·7

  800

  1·4

  394

  0·7

  1,004

  1·7

  West Glamorgan

  794

  1·4

  900

  1·5

  139

  0·3

  309

  0·5

  WALES

  6,988

  1·7

  7,129

  1·6

  1,572

  0·4

  5,039

  1·1

  1 Figures are based on the number of residents aged 65 and over in residential homes for the elderly, blind, physically handicapped, mentally ill and menially handicapped.

  Information on the number of residents accommodated in nursing homes is not available centrally, but the numbers of private nursing home beds designated for the elderly at 31 December 1985 were as follows:

  Private Nursing Home Beds Designated1 for Elderly

  Number

  Number per 100 population aged 65 and over

  Clwyd

  655

  0·97

  Dyfed

  8

  0·01

  Gwent

  —

  —

  Gwynedd

  202

  0·47

  Mid Glamorgan

  —

  —

  Powys

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  140

  0·24

  West Glamorgan

  351

  0·59

  WALES

  1,356

  0·30

  1 Excludes beds designated for general use but occupied by elderly people.

  Comparable information for 1979 is not available.

  Wales Railway Centre
  Mr. Adley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the proposals for and the development of the Wales railway centre.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Cardiff Bay Development Corporation is currently considering proposals put forward by the Butetown Historic Railway Society to establish a Wales railway centre in Butetown, Cardiff.

  Nursing and Residential Homes
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many and what proportion of the retired population of each county of Wales are accommodated in (a) local authority owned and (b) privately owned nursing and residential homes; and what were the corresponding figures for 1979.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 July 1987]: The required information for residential homes is given in the following table.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Miss Heather Sinclair
  Mr. John David Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has made any representations following the kidnapping in Sudan of Miss Heather Sinclair from Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are making every effort to secure Miss Sinclair's release. I have raised the matter at the highest level with the Sudanese authorities, which have assured us that they are doing all in their power to help.

  South Africa
  Mr. Ashton
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further discussions he has had with European Economic Community Ministers on banning imports of coal from South Africa via other countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  None.

  Foreign Compensation (USSR) (Registration and Determination of Claims) Order 1986
  Mr. William Powell
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the response to the advertisement about the Foreign Compensation (USSR) (Registration and Determination of Claims) Order 1986.

  Mr. Eggar
  The closing date for claims in respect of bonds was 31 March 1987. The total number of bonds received was 849,863, with a face value of £30,229,474. The closing date for claims other than bonds was 30 June 1987. At that date some 1,850 claims had been received by the Foreign Compensation Commission. It will be some time before an estimated value can be placed on these other claims.

  European Community (Directives and Regulations)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total number of directives and regulations, respectively, produced by the European Economic Community in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures in each of the previous 10 years.

  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the number of European Economic Community directives which have been applied in the United Kingdom in each year from 1979 to 1986 and 1987 to the most recent practicable date.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [pursuant to her replies, 7 July 1987, c. 89 and 9 July 1987, c. 210]: Although no official statistics are available, the following table indicates the number of directives and regulations adopted for the years shown. All directives and regulations are applicable equally to all member states according to the timetable laid down in each of them. The Commission's records do not distinguish between new regulations and those which update or amend regulations already in force, for example, by changing dates or adding new items to a list. Figures for 1987 are not available.

  Royal Navy

  Royal Marines

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  Year of and age of entry

  Number

  Per cent..

  Number

  Per cent..

  Number

  Per cent..

  Number

  Per cent..

  1981–82

  Age 16

  214

  15·5

  47

  23·4

  1,921

  23·7

  18

  8·5

  Age 17

  101

  14·3

  25

  17·5

  229

  21·5

  91

  8·6

  1982–83

  Age 16

  96

  13·7

  13

  14·1

  1,081

  20·3

  19

  6·9

  Age 17

  103

  10·1

  26

  19·1

  238

  20·0

  78

  7·6

  1983–84

  Age 16

  205

  16·3

  21

  25·9

  1,617

  23·8

  83

  12·1

  Age 17

  143

  12·7

  35

  31·5

  900

  24·4

  216

  9·8

  1984–85

  Age 16

  217

  17·0

  52

  30·2

  1,550

  21·8

  23

  5·8

  Age 17

  155

  14·5

  73

  26·7

  1,055

  25·1

  126

  7·9

  1985–86

  Age 16

  171

  16·1

  79

  33·1

  1,737

  23·8

  28

  6·9

  Age 17

  176

  17·3

  82

  33·1

  927

  27·6

  138

  9·3

  144

  Council regulations

  Council directives

  1986

  514

  61

  1985

  476

  66

  1984

  377

  54

  1983

  409

  43

  1982

  449

  44

  1981

  480

  45

  1980

  443

  64

  1979

  374

  51

  1978

  428

  66

  1977

  476

  48

  1976

  494

  57

  1975

  415

  49

  Source: Secretariat-General of the Council of the European Communities.

DEFENCE

  Stonefield Military Vehicles Ltd.
  Mr. Aitken
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the Defence Export Services Organisation in support of the attempts by Stonefield Military Vehicles Ltd. of Rochester, Kent, to sell vehicles to the army of Thailand.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement held a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) yesterday, and will write to my hon. Friend on this matter.

  Armed Forces (Statistics)
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the numbers of young soldiers who have left the Army before completion of their training in each of the last five years; and what are the comparable figures for the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Freeman
  Details of the numbers leaving the Army before completion of their training are not available. The table shows, however, for each service, outflow of male service men recruits within the first six months of their service, which is the period during which they may claim their discharge as a right. The table shows, for those who entered the services during each financial year from 1981–82 to 1985–86 and were aged 16 or 17 on entry, all exits during the first six months. Both the numbers leaving and the percentage they represent of the numbers entering at each age are shown.

  Armed Forces (Bullying)
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many incidents involving allegations of bullying or brutality have been investigated in each of the armed forces in the last three years; how each incident was drawn to the attention of the authorities; what was the result of the investigations; if he will take steps to encourage reports of bullying and brutality; and if he will investigate the incidence of such behaviour in each of the armed forces.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on 7 April 1987, at columns 172–73. I also refer him to answers that he received on 7 April 1987, column 173 and on 2 April 1987, at column 565. I must apologise to the right hon. Member for the fact that an incorrect figure was included in the answer that I gave him on 7 April; the correct figure for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines for 1984 is 10. The figure for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines 1985 is 5: this figure was not available when the question was answered.

  Any form of bullying or ill-treatment is not tolerated in the armed forces. Reports and allegations of such treatment are always immediately and thoroughly investigated and where the allegations are substantiated firm disciplinary action is taken against those responsible.

  Nuclear Materials (Transport)
  Mr. Ashley
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what assesment he has made of the risks to the local populace of the transport of nuclear materials to and from Swynerton; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  For security reasons it has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on the transport of defence nuclear materials. All aspects of safety remain under review, but the regulations applied by my Department are at least as stringent as those governing the movement of civil radioactive material, which were set out by my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for Transport on 25 July 1983, at column 289.

ENERGY

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his Department's research into renewable forms of energy.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department is supporting comprehensive research, development and demonstration programmes aimed at exploiting the significant renewable energy resource in the United Kingdom. Over 240 projects valued at nearly £60 million are under way, and a substantial number of new projects will be commissioned this year. Over £106 million has been invested by the Department since 1979 and strong support will continue to be provided to ensure that the renewable technologies will make the maximum environmentally acceptable contribution of which they are economically capable.

  Increased attention is being paid in the programme to technical transfer and information dissemination aimed at stimulating increased commercial involvement in development projects as the technologies move towards commercialisation.

  Hydroelectric Power Research
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current status of hydroelectric power research by his Department.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department's small-scale hydro energy research programme is primarily aimed at supporting innovative devices which have the prospect of achieving the cost reductions necessary for the technology to become commercially attractive in the United Kingdom energy market, and at continuing to explore the potential for small-scale hydro energy in the United Kingdom. A study has recently been commissioned of the potential of small-scale hydro resource in England and Northern Ireland, and a review of the potential in the United Kingdom generally. The cost of the work is £156,000 and it will be completed in 18 months' time.

  Geothermal Power
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on his Department's research into geothermal power.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  In June 1986 it was announced that the hot dry rock geothermal programme in Cornwall would be extended for a further two years from October 1986 at an additional cost of £5·85 million. A further £1 million was allocated to support work at other centres. The aim of the work in Corn wall is to develop understanding of the nature, technical requirements, economics, and potential of hot dry rock technology sufficiently to make decisions whether to proceed to further experimental work leading to commercial exploitation at depths of up to 7 km.

  Coal Mining Subsidence
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give the reasons why his Department has not yet responded to the recommendations of the Waddilove committee on the subject of compensation for coal mining subsidence.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The committee made a very large number of recommendations on issues of concern to a wide range of interests. The Government have taken these all into account in preparing their response, which will be published as a White Paper shortly.

  Bradwell Nuclear Power Station
  Dr. Michael Clark
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has received the independent nuclear installations inspectorate's assessment of the Central Electricity Generating Board's review of the long-term safety of the Bradwell nuclear power station.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I have today received from the chief inspector of nuclear installations, the findings of the inspectorate's assessment of the long-term safety review of the Bradwell power station. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Ashton
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many tonnes of coal were imported into the United Kingdom in total in 1986; and how many of these were from (a) Holland and (b) South Africa.
  147
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Total coal imports into the United Kingdom in 1986 amounted to 10·6 million tonnes (9·2 per cent. of total inland consumption); of which 218,000 tonnes (0·2 per cent. of total inland consumption) were imported from the Netherlands and 312,000 tonnes (0·3 per cent. of total inland consumption) from South Africa.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Chapman
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make it his objective to make the United Kingdom the most energy-efficient nation in Europe.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My objective remains to make the United Kingdom the most energy-efficient nation in Europe. I am currently reviewing with my right hon. Friend how best we can achieve this.

  Onshore Petroleum Licensing
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has for a further onshore petroleum licensing round.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses a copy of the notice inviting applications for exploration licences in a second round of landward licensing. The notice, to be published in the official gazettes on 28 July, specifies that applications should be made on 27 October or 28 October 1987.

EMPLOYMENT

  Tourism
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the first six months' operation of the "Great English City Breaks" programme, promoted by the English Tourist Board, in terms of bednights and revenue.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I understand that since the launch of the "Great English City Breaks" campaign in September 1986 some 26,000 bednights have been sold as a result of the campaign and that the cities involved in the programme estimate that over £1 million of spending by tourists has been generated.

  Mr. Roger King
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made for the growth rate of jobs per year in the tourism sector.

  Mr. Conway
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the trend in the number of employees in the tourist industry.

  Mr. Lee
  Employment in tourism-related industries rose by 149,000 between March 1984 and March 1987, an average increase of 50,000 per year.

  Mr. Bowis
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action is being taken to alleviate the impact on incoming tourists of passenger delays at Heathrow and other United Kingdom airports.

  Mr. Lee
  Neither my Department nor the British Tourist Authority is aware of any major delays being experienced by incoming passengers at Heathrow or other United Kingdom airports this year.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  asked the Secretary of State for the Employment if he will make it his policy to publish
  148
  an annual list showing the most popular tourist attractions in each region, distinguishing between those with (a) paid and (b) free admission.

  Mr. Devlin
  asked the Secretary of State for the Employment if he will make it his policy to publish an annual list showing the most popular tourist attractions in each region, distinguishing between those with (a) paid and (b) free admission.

  Mr. Mans
  asked the Secretary of State for the Employment if he will make it his policy to publish an annual list showing the most popular tourist attractions in each region, distinguishing between those with (a) paid and (b) free admission.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for the Employment if he will make it his policy to publish an annual list showing the most popular tourist attractions in each region, distinguishing between those with (a) paid and (b) free admission.

  Mr. Lee
  Statistics on the most popular tourist attractions identifying those with free and paid admissions are available in the "English Heritage Monitor", published by the English Tourist Board (ETB) and "Visits to Tourist Attractions", published jointly by the ETB and the British Tourist Authority. Both identify the location of the attractions listed and are published annually.

  "Visits to Tourist Attractions" lists attractions, broken down by category, separately for England, Scotland and Wales.

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on progress being made with regard to the programme of introducing a new system of signposting sites of tourist interest.

  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on progress towards introducing a new system of signposting sites of tourist interest.

  Mr. Lee
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply given earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson).

  Mr. Neale
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the significance of tourism for the United Kingdom economy.

  Mr. Lee
  Tourism is a £15 billion industry which supports significant and growing numbers of jobs and is a major earner of foreign currency. In 1986 tourism spending was equivalent to about 4 per cent. of gross domestic product, and latest figures show that jobs in the hotel, catering and leisure and recreational centres were 46,000 up in the year to March 1987.

  Mr. Bevan
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has as to the forecasts by the British tourist authority of the number of overseas visitors to Britain in 1987 and as to the estimated expenditure by such tourists.

  Mr. Lee
  Information gathered from the tourism industry by the British Tourist Authority suggests that over 14·5 million visitors will come to Great Britain in 1987, and that expenditure by overseas visitors during the year will be over £6 billion.
  149
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has as to how many regional tourist hoards (a) have or (b) propose to set up commercial member groups.

  Mr. Lee
  Of the 12 regional tourist boards in England, seven have formed commercial members groups. They are Cumbria, North-West, Yorkshire and Humberside, East Midlands, East Anglia, West Country and South-East. I understand that there are no plans at present to set up similar formal groups in any of the other regional boards, although all the regional boards already have a substantial number of commercial members.

  Mr. Fearn
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest estimate his Department has made of the number of full-time and part-time jobs to be created in the tourist industry.

  Mr. Lee
  Between March 1984 and March 1987, the number of, males and full-time females employed in tourism-related industries rose by 105,000 to 725,000 and the number of part-time female employees rose by 45,000 to 514,000. Separate figures for part-time male employees are not available.

  Community Programme
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the community programme.

  Mr. Pawsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to make the community programme full-time.

  Mr. Fowler
  We plan to improve the community programme by making it full-time and paying a premium over and above social security entitlements. This will make the programme much more attractive to long-term unemployed people with families. We also propose to enhance significantly the training content of the programme.

  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to extend the community programme.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to increase the number of places on the community programme.

  Mr. Lee
  The community programme will provide valuable work experience for some 300,000 long-term unemployed people in 1987–88, the same level as in 1986–87.

  Mr. Fisher
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to alter the rules of the community programme.

  Mr. Lee
  We are considering a number of changes to the operation of the community programme. We have already decided that from 1 October all entrants to the programme must have been continuously unemployed for at least 12 months and that priority will be given to those aged under 50 who have been unemployed for more than two years.

  Mr. Andy Stewart
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to encourage married men with children to undertaken training and work experience on the community programme.
  150
  Mr. Lee
  We are planning to make the community programme much more attractive to long-term unemployed people with families by making it full time and by paying participants a premium over and above their social security entitlement. In addition, we propose to enhance significantly the training and job search content of the programme.

  Mr. Maclennan
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the balance in provision of community programme places relative to the number of eligible long-term unemployed.

  Mr. Lee
  Community programme places are allocated to regions and areas in the light of both national priorities set out in MSC planning guidance for 1987–88 and priorities determined locally in consultation with area manpower hoards. This process takes full account of the distribution and concentration of long-term unemployed and I am satisfied that it results in a fair balance of provision throughout Great Britain.

  106. Mr. Harry Greenway asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the community programme.

  Mr. Lee
  The community programme is successfully providing worthwhile opportunities which enhance the employment prospects of some 300,000 people a year. There have been important improvements in the quality of projects and there is now a closer focus on priorities such as inner cities, enterprise, and national initiatives like crime prevention, energy efficiency and tourism.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mrs. Wise
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any recommendations to make to local authorities and Government Departments on equal opportunity employment practices in inner-city areas.

  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether his Department is giving any advice to local authorities, private employers and Government Departments on equal opportunity employment practices in the inner cities.

  Mr. Nicholls
  As a Government we are fully committed to the promotion of equal opportunities in employment. Our policy, reinforced by equal opportunities legislation and the codes of practice produced by the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission, is to persuade public and private sector employers that recruitment, training and promotion practices should be based solely on merit and potential.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the present level of job vacancies registered at jobcentres in the west midlands area.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 5 June 1987, the number of unfilled vacancies at jobcentres in the west midlands region was 21,300.

  Mr. Bruce
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will produce an analysis of the figures for employees in employment to show the number in full-time and the number in part-time jobs.
  151
  Mr. Lee
  At March 1987 the latest estimates for employees in employment in Great Britain showed that there were 16·1 million full-time jobs and 5 million part-time jobs. This represents an increase of 121,000 full-time and 607,000 part-time jobs since March 1983. Over the same period there has been an increase of 378,000 full-time and 117,000 part-time jobs in self-employment.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment.

  Mr. Fowler
  Unemployment in the United Kingdom now stands at 2,905,000. The seasonally adjusted total has fallen 12 months in a row to the lowest level for three and a half years.

  Over the last year we have experienced a fall in unemployment of almost 300,000, the largest drop in unemployment since records were first kept. There has also been a growth of over 250,000 jobs between March 1986 and March 1987.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current levels of unemployment in the local authority areas of Liverpool, Sefton, Knowsley and St. Helens.

  Mr. Lee
  The latest figures show that the number of unemployed claimants in the local authority areas requested was as follows:

  Number

  Liverpool

  52,537

  Sefton

  19,028

  Knowsley

  17,437

  St. Helens

  13,108

  Mr. Redwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the number of people unemployed in the United Kingdom.

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

  Mr. Lee
  On 11 June 1987. The number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 2,905,325.

  Mr. Burns
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received relating to the fall in unemployment over the last six months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  I have received no such representations. Unemployment has fallen more quickly over the past six months than in any equivalent period since similar figures were first collected.

  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the level of unemployment in Leicester in June 1979 and at the latest available date assessed on a comparable basis.

  Mr. Lee
  On 11 June 1987, the number of unemployed claimants in the Leicester local authority area was 17,209. Figures for local authorities are derived from the ward-based system and are available only from June 1983.

  Mr. Latham
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the trends shown by the unemployment statistics.

  Mr. Lee
  Over the past six months seasonally adjusted adult unemployment has fallen by a record average of 152
  more than 32,000 per month. Unemployment has now been falling continuously for a year, and the fall of 287,000 since June 1986 is the largest for any 12-month period since similar records began in 1948.

  Ms. Short
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many (a) full-time and (b) part-time employees there were in 1979, 1983 and at the latest available date.

  Mr. Lee
  For the dates specified the numbers of employees in full-time and part-time jobs in Great Britain were as follows.

  Full-time

  Part-time

  June 1979

  18,033,000

  4,578,000

  June 1983

  16,029,000

  4,527,000

  March 1987

  16,192,000

  5,065,000

  Mr. Favell
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures for Stockport.

  Mr. Lee
  On 11 June 1987 the number of unemployed claimants in the Stockport local authority areas was 12,188.

  Mr. Loyden
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of unemployed in the Merseyside travel-to-work area for June 1987.

  Mr. Lee
  On 11 June 1987 the number of unemployed claimants in the Liverpool travel-to-work area was 95,322.

  Mr. Grocott
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were unemployed in Telford (a) in May 1979 and (b) on the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lee
  On 11 June 1987, the number of unemployed claimants in Telford and Bridgnorth travel-to-work area was 10,518. Statistics of unemployment for travel-to-work areas are derived from the new ward-based system, and are available only from June 1983.

  Mr. McLeish
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people under the age of 25 years were registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom, Scotland and Fife, Central constituency at (a) June 1979, (b) June 1983 and (c) June 1987; and if he will also give the number of people on Government employment/training schemes on the same dates and for the same areas.

  Mr. Lee
  The table shows the numbers of unemployed claimants aged under 25 years in all the areas requested on 9 April 1987—the quarterly unemployment figures by age are not available for June—and in the United Kingdom and Scotland on 14 April 1983. Unemployment statistics for parliamentary constituencies are compiled using the ward-based system and are available only from June 1983. For April 1979 the figures given are the numbers of unemployed registrants in that age group.

  Unemployed aged under 25 years

  Registrants

  Claimants

  Claimants

  5 April 1979

  14 April 1983

  9 April 1987

  Central Fife Constituency

  n/a

  n/a

  1,955

  Scotland

  67,844

  137,441

  131,672

  United Kingdom

  451,371

  1,191,760

  1,025,939

  Comprehensive information on the number of people on Government employment and training measures is not available in the form requested. A breakdown of the total

  153
  number of people who have benefited from the main employment, training and enterprise measures in 1979–80, 1983–84 and the estimate for 1987–88 is as follows:

  1979–80

  1983–84

  11987–88

  Adult training

  110,538

  109,850

  2478,600

  YOP/YTS

  216,400

  353,979

  373,000

  YWS/NWS

  —

  130,000

  25,300

  CI

  5,806

  9,612

  8,000

  STEP/CP

  22,400

  136,968

  300,000

  JRS

  68,164

  44,045

  24,700

  JSS/JS

  —

  656

  1,000

  EAS

  —

  28,453

  102,500

  1 Estimate.

  2 Includes JTS.

  Mr. Ashton
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current number of people in full-time jobs compared to July 1979.

  Mr. Lee
  In March 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 18,653,000 full-time jobs in the employed labour force in Great Britain. In June 1979—there are no estimates for July—the figure was 19,950,000.

  The employed labour force is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed, and members of Her Majesty's forces.

  Mr. Speller
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many job vacancies there are in the Barnstaple and Ilfracombe areas at present; how many are listed as unemployed in this area; and how he intends to improve jobs opportunities there.

  Mr. Lee
  On 5 June 1987, the number of unfilled vacancies at Barnstaple and Ilfracombe jobcentres was 371, and increase of 57 per cent. on the June 1986 figure; and on 11 June 1987 there were 2,830 unemployed claimants in the Barnstaple and Ilfracombe travel-to-work area; a fall of 150, or 5 per cent., since May, and 9.7 per cent. over the year.

  The Government will continue to pursue policies of sound financial management designed further to reduce inflation and to promote investment, enterprise and increased employment in Barnstaple, Ilfracombe and throughout the country. These policies have so far produced more than 1 million new jobs nationally since 1983.

  My Department and the Manpower Services Commission operate over 30 employment, enterprise and training measures described in the "Action for Jobs" booklet, all of which are available in Barnstaple and Ilfracombe. In addition, we are actively working with the local authorities in north Devon and the national and regional tourist boards to maximise the tourism potential of the area.

  Mr. Flannery
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average percentage of unemployment throughout the United Kingdom; and what is the percentage in the Sheffield travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Lee
  On 11 June 1987, the number of unemployed claimants in the Sheffield travel-to-work area, expressed as a percentage of employees in employment plus the unemployed was 15·1 per cent. The comparable rate for the United Kingdom was 11·7 per cent. Expressed as a154
  percentage of the total working population, the unemployment rate in the United Kingdom was 10·5 per cent.

  Mr. Ron Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people under the age of 25 years are currently unemployed in Britain.

  Mr. Lee
  On 9 April 1987, the number of unemployed claimants under the age of 25 years in Great Britain was 981,345.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Bellingham
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his responsibilities for small firms.

  Mr. Cope
  Our Department is responsible for encouraging the growing contribution of small firms to the economy and especially to employment, and ensuring that it receives proper recognition within Government. Since 1980 the number of businesses has increased at the rate of 500 per week with a net increase of 29,000 in 1986 alone according to VAT statistics, and small firms created 1 million extra jobs between 1982 and 1984. We aim to build on this success.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the prospects for the small firms sector.

  Mr. Stevens
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the growth of small businesses in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Kings Lynn (M r. Bellingham). It remains the Government's intention to ensure that there should be a strong and expanding small firms sector in the United Kingdom economy.

  Minimum Wages
  Miss Lestor
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take action to seek to establish within the Council of Europe agreed recommendations on a minimum wage rate.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. A minimum wage rate would raise employers' costs and threaten jobs, including the jobs of those it was designed to help.

  Adult Training
  Mr. Gale
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will sponsor further schemes to offer unemployed adults training and jobs similar to the Open Door 87 scheme operated by the Hotel and Catering Training Board and London employers.

  Mr. Cope
  The Manpower Services Commission is already funding a number of programmes, similar to the Open Door 87 scheme operated by the Hotel and Catering Training Board, under the new job training scheme which offers unemployed adults the opportunity to gain relevant skills and recent work experience to increase their chances of getting a job.

  Restart Programme
  Mr. Hayes
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further measures are proposed for the restart programme.

  Mr. Lee
  We are extending the restart programme in order to provide regular help to every long-term unemployed person. The Government's intention is that interviews will be offered at six-monthly intervals to everyone who has been unemployed for more than six months.

  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what study he has made of the benefit gained by those who have undertaken restart courses.

  Mr. Cope
  Restart courses are designed to help long-term unemployed people reassess their skills and abilities, and improve their presentation and job search techniques. A survey in 1986 found that 76 per cent. of participants considered restart courses to be useful or very useful.

  Mr. John Browne
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the restart programme.

  Mr. Lee
  By the 29 May nearly 2 million long-term unemployed people had been interviewed under the restart programme.

  The Government's intention is that an interview will be offered at six-monthly intervals to everyone who has been unemployed for more than six months.

  Since the programme began a positive offer of help to get back to work has been made to nine out of 10 of the unemployed people who have been interviewed.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to increase financial support for apprenticeship training in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Cope
  The Government already make available substantial resources to support apprenticeship training as a part of YTS and have no plans to change this. The Government have already made available more money than ever before for the training of young people through YTS, amounting to around £1,100 million in 1987–88. The introduction of YTS, and its extension to a two-year scheme in April 1986, has increased the opportunities for all 16 and 17-year-old school leavers to benefit from the sort of structured programme of training and work experience which was previously available only to those undertaking apprenticeships.

  Amber Valley
  Mr. Oppenheim
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to visit Amber Valley.

  Mr. Fowler
  I have no present plans to do so.

  Safety at Work
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to promote safety at work by encouraging the wearing of protective clothing and footwear; and if he will make a statement.
  156
  Mr. Nicholls
  In promoting safety at work, the Health and Safety Commission and Executive, in general, give priority to the control of hazards at source. Where this cannot be achieved, the use of protective clothing and footwear may be required in regulations, a considerable number of which have been introduced. Their use is also promoted, where appropriate, in approved codes of practice and an extensive range of advisory publications of the Health and Safety Executive.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Hunter
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how the number of jobs lost in manufacturing industry from 1979 to 1987 compares with losses from 1969 to 1977.

  Mr. Lee
  There are no figures for job losses and job gains.

  Between June 1979 and March 1987 the size of the civilian employed labour force in manufacturing industry in Great Britain decreased by 1,960,000.

  Between June 1971 and June 1977—there are no comparable estimates prior to 1971—there was a decrease of 705,000.

  Some of the recent decrease in the number of employees in employment in manufacturing will be the result of reclassification of jobs, such as industrial cleaning, catering, computer services and road haulage, previously done by manufacturers' own employees and now done by subcontractors. This developing feature of our economy has the effect of exaggerating the extent of the move from manufacturing to service sector employment.

  The civilian employed labour force is the sum of employees in employment and the self employed.

  Mr. Livsey
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the trend in unemployment in manufacturing.

  Mr. Lee
  The information is not available. The claimant count of unemployment cannot be analysed by the industry in which the claimant last worked. However, current indications are that compared with a year ago manufacturing output has increased, the rate of reduction in manufacturing employment has slowed, and overtime hours have increased.

  Self-Employed People
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the number of self-employed people in Britain.

  Mr. Cope
  In March 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, there were an estimated 2,643,000 self-employed people in Great Britain.

  YTS
  Mr. Wood
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on Government funding for YTS.

  Mr. Cope
  The Government have made available substantial resources for two-year YTS, amounting to around £1·1 billion in 1987–88. This reflects the Government's commitment to offering young people the
  157
  better start in working life that YTS provides and to producing a better trained, better motivated, more adaptable work force.

  While making this considerable contribution, the Government also expect employers to bear a fair share of the costs of training young people, in recognition of the benefits they will gain from a better trained work force.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many companies have been involved in the YTS programme to date.

  Mr. Cope
  We estimate that over 100,000 employers' establishments are involved in YTS, mainly as work experience providers. Surveys indicate that as many establishments again have been involved at some time in the past.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what number of young people have refused a place on YTS in each year since the scheme was launched.

  Mr. Cope
  The Manpower Services Commission has estimated that around 20,000 to 30,000 from each year's cohort of 16-year-old school leavers have remained unemployed despite the availability of YTS places.

  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the level of first year YTS allowance if it was uprated in line with the rise in the value of earnings since the introduction of YOP in 1978.

  Mr. Cope
  The youth opportunities programme allowance in April 1978 was £49·00 if adjusted to take account of increases in the index of average earnings between April 1978 and April 1987. YTS allowances are lower to reflect the fact that trainees are still learning, and YTS provides substantially upgraded training compared with the youth opportunities programme.

  Mr. David Porter
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the placement rate of YTS.

  Mr. Cope
  The latest figures show that about three quarters of young people leaving YTS are in jobs or further education or training three months after leaving their scheme.

  Mr. Robert Hicks
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any proposals to alleviate the situation of individuals who, having completed their two year YTS, are unable to find permanent work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The Manpower Services Commission carries out a survey of all trainees three months after they leave the scheme. The latest figures show 75 per cent. in job or further education of training and 22 per cent. without work; many of those who are unemployed at the three-month point may in addition find a job at a later date.

  In addition, young people can benefit from a range of other opportunities available after they leave YTS, such as the new workers scheme and the enterprise allowance scheme. In particular, the new workers scheme helps young people aged 18 to 20, who might otherwise be out of work, into full-time permanent jobs by offering employers an incentive to recruit young people.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people have so far taken up places on the two-year YTS.
  158
  Mr. Cope
  The Manpower Services Commission currently estimates that around 360,000 young people joined YTS in 1986–87; a similar number are expected to join in 1987–88.

  Voluntary Part-time and Temporary Work
  Ms. Quin
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he envisages a decision being reached on the proposed EEC directives on voluntary part-time work and temporary work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  These draft directives have not been discussed by the Council of Ministers since 1985 and 1982 respectively. No further discussion is currently planned.

  Dundee
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many full-time jobs he estimates have been created in Dundee as a result of the various pilot projects initiated by his Department in Dundee.

  Mr. Lee
  The pilot projects initiated by my Department in Dundee, which include the new job training scheme, restart and jobstart, are not job creation schemes; they are designed to give training, advice or other help to long-term unemployed people to enable them to compete more effectively in the labour market.

  Hotel and Catering Industries
  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about youth training in the hotel and catering industries.

  Mr. Cope
  I have received no representations on this matter.

  Mr. Butterfill
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many organisations in the hotel and catering industry have so far been recognised by the Manpower Services Commission as approved training organisations.

  Mr. Cope
  Fifty-three organisations in the hotel and catering industry have so far been fully recognised by the Manpower Services Commission as an approved training organisation, and 28 have been provisionally approved.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his definition of low pay; and what percentage of the full-time employed population in the north-west region fall below that level.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I do not believe any single definition of low pay would be generally supported. Nor do I believe that the introduction of a definition by the Government would serve any useful purpose.

  Trade Union Ballots
  Mr. Prescott
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what response has been received from the Confederation of British Industry, the Engineering Employer Federation, the Institute of Personnel Managers and the Trades Union Congress on the proposals for balloting contained in the Green Paper on trade union legislation.
  159
  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department has received representations from each of these organisations. In addition, Ministers have met the CBI, TUC and the Engineering Employers Federation. All four organisations have made their comments public.

  Job Training Scheme
  Mr. Darling
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average number of hours of training provided to participants in the job training scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  Trainees may spend between three and 12 months on the new job training scheme. In an average length programme of six months a trainee would have the opportunity to undertake at least 300 hours directed training.

  Trade Unions (Reform)
  Mr. Ashby
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on his plans for further reform of the trade unions.

  Mr. Jack
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received seeking further trade union reform.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Department has received 122 comments on the Green Paper "Trade Unions and Their Members", which sets out a number of legislative proposals. Eighty-four of these expressed approval of one or more of the proposals, or of the general thrust of the Green Paper. Further trade union reforms have also been suggested in a small number of other letters.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to be in a position to publish details of his plans further to extend democracy within the trade unions.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Following consultations on the Green Paper "Trade Unions and Their Members" our manifesto set out proposals to strengthen the democratic rights of individual members in relation to their unions. It is now clear that these command widespread popular support and we shall introduce legislation later this year to fulfil our commitment.

  I intend to publish the details in due course.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to tackle the severe discrimination faced by black people and minority ethnic groups in employment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government are firmly committed to the elimination of all unlawful discrimination and to the promotion of equal opportunities in employment for all workers regardless of race.

  To this end the Department of Employment's race relations employment advisory service gives help and guidance to employers on issues concerned with the equality of treatment for all workers both as regards to access to work and progress within employment. In recent years the service has been advising on the provisions of the Commission for Racial Equality's code of practice on the elimination of discrimination in employment.
  160
  The policy is also pursued through the Manpower Services Commission which seeks to ensure equal access for people of different races to all its public employment and training services and also supports language training to improve the employment prospects of members of ethnic minorities.

  In addition the Department is playing a full part in implementing the Government's policy of ensuring equal opportunity in the Civil Service for people from the ethnic minorities, both at the recruitment stage and in their subsequent careers.

  The reduction and elimination of racial discrimination in employment requires not only action by the Government but also the support of employers, trade unions and the community in general.

  Worker Co-operatives
  Mr. Michael
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what responsibility he has for encouraging the development of worker co-operatives.

  Mr. Cope
  My Department sponsors the National Cooperative Development Agency which, amongst its responsibilities, seeks to encourage the growth of the cooperative sector by providing help and advice to existing co-operatives and to people wishing to set up such enterprises. Co-operatives may also benefit from my Department's wide range of policies to encourage the growth of small firms. The number of co-operatives has increased from 300 in 1980 to more than 1,500 at present.

  Mr. Turner
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state his Department's current policy on work co-operatives.

  Mr. Cope
  Worker co-operatives can be wealth-creating enterprises which contribute to the economy and create jobs. Co-operatives are therefore entitled to Government assistance on the same basis as forms of business, provided they meet the necessary criteria. In addition, the Government seek to encourage the growth of cooperatives through the sponsorship of the National Cooperative Development Agency.

  Disabled Persons
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the best available estimate of the level of unemployment for disabled people.

  Mr. Lee
  On 3 April 1987, the number of unemployed people with disabilities who were registered at jobcentres and careers offices in Great Britain was 60,997.

  "Pleasure, Leisure and Jobs"
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made in implementing the action points in "Pleasure, Leisure and Jobs."

  Mr. Lee
  Last July the Government published a report "Action for Jobs in Tourism", which provided a detailed review of progress on the action points in "Pleasure, Leisure and Jobs". It is our intention on 27 July to publish "Tourism 87" a similar report setting out further progress.

  Factory inspectors
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment, what was the number of factory inspectors employed in 1979, 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The numbers of factory inspectors employed by the Health and Safety Executive are as follows (1 July figures).

  Factory Inspectors

  General

  Specialist

  Total

  1979

  741

  210

  951

  1983

  648

  197

  845

  1985

  645

  198

  843

  1986

  1622

  1202

  824

  1987

  1609

  1214

  823

  1 Before April 1986 some inspectors now classed as specialists were categorised as general inspectors.

  Recruits from a recent competition for general factory inspectors will shortly be joining the inspectorate.

  Young Persons (Employment)
  Mr. Steen
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to ensure that the jobcentres in South Hams are taking all steps to see that unemployed young people are encouraged to take up work that is available.

  Mr. Lee
  Young people under the age of 18 are required to register at either the careers office or the jobcentre as a precondition for the receipt of state benefit. Vacancies are matched against the youngsters registration details and they are notified of suitable opportunities. In addition, all young people leaving full-time education in the 1986–87 academic year who are eligible for YTS are guaranteed an offer of a suitable YTS place by Christmas.

  Young people aged 18 to 25 are treated in the same way as any other older job-seeker and registration at the jobcentre is not compulsory. The majority of vacancies are filled through the operation of self-service displays. However, anyone who remains unemployed for six months or more will be interviewed by a member of the restart team at which stage all suitable opportunities will be brought to their attention. Priority is also given to the 18 to 25 age group on the new job training scheme.

  As with all unemployed job-seekers a young person who fails to follow up a suitable opportunity of work may be disqualified from receiving state benefit for up to 13 weeks.

  Earnings
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the best available estimate of the number of people paid less than two-thirds of the average wage in 1979, 1983 and at the latest available date.

  Mr. Lee
  It is estimated that about 3·5 million full-time adult employees in Great Britain earned less than two thirds of average full-time earnings in 1979. The corresponding estimates for 1983 and 1986 are 3·75 million and 4 million respectively.

  Unemployment (Trend)
  Mr. John Greenway
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how the trend in unemployment in the United Kingdom compares with that of the other major industrialised countries.

  Mr. Lee
  Over the past year the unemployment rate has fallen faster in the United Kingdom than in all other industrialised countries.

  Pay (West Yorkshire)
  Mr. O'Brien
  asked the Secretary of Stale for Employment what action he intends to take to seek to raise the average level of pay in west Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Pay in west Yorkshire or elsewhere is entirely a matter to be negotiated between the employers and employees concerned except in those industries covered by wages council orders.

  Unemployed People (Assistance)
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what additional help he intends to provide for the long-term unemployed.

  Mr. Lee
  As we promised in our election manifesto, we shall (1) guarantee to provide a restart interview at six-monthly intervals to everyone who has been unemployed for six months or more; (2) aim within a year to guarantee a place on the job training scheme or on the enterprise allowance scheme or in a jobclub for everyone aged between 18 and 25 years who has been unemployed for between six and 12 months; (3) aim over the next five years to offer everyone who is under 50 and who has been unemployed for more than two years, a place in the job training scheme or in the new community programme, in a jobclub or in the enterprise allowance scheme.

  Mr. Watts
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress is being made in providing further assistance for the unemployed.

  Mr. William Powell
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further measures are being proposed to help the unemployed.

  Mr. Lee
  We are continuing the successful economic policies which have secured six years of uninterrupted economic growth, helped to create more than 1 million new jobs since spring 1983 and brought unemployment down by nearly 300,000 over the past year.

  In addition,. we are continuing to develop, in accordance with our manifesto commitments, our programme of employment and training measures which help unemployed people to become self employed or compete more effectively for jobs in the labour market.

  Mr. Knapman
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what further help will be given to the long-term unemployed in the 18 to 25 years age group.

  Mr. Lee
  Within a year we aim to guarantee a place on the new job training scheme, enterprise allowance scheme or in a jobclub to all those aged 18 to 25 who have been unemployed for between six and 12 months.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Cox
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to increase training schemes for men and women now over 50 years of age and out of work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  There are no current plans to increase training schemes for unemployed people over the age of 50. All the adult training schemes run by the Manpower Services Commission are open to anyone who is over the age of 18 and can satisfy the other eligibility conditions.

  Employment Prospects
  Mr. Leigh
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement upon the future prospects for employment in the east midlands.

  Mr. Lee
  The Government will continue to pursue sound economic policies designed to further reduce inflation and promote the growth of enterprise and investment in the east midlands and elsewhere which have so far created 1 million new jobs nationally since 1983. As part of this overall strategy, my Department and the Manpower Services Commission operate over 30 employment, training and enterprise measures which are described in the "Action for Jobs" booklet.

  Over the last two years the number of employees in employment in the east midlands has increased and we see no reason why this trend cannot be maintained.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about employment prospects for young people in Birmingham.

  Mr. Lee
  The Government will continue to pursue policies of sound financial management designed further to reduce inflation and to promote investment, enterprise and increased employment in Birmingham and throughout the country. These policies have so far produced over 1 million new jobs since 1983. We have been encouraged to note the fall in the youth unemployment in the Birmingham travel-to-work area, from 6,641 in April 1986 to 4,987 in April 1987, and are confident that this trend can be maintained.

  Dock Work Regulation Act
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will seek to repeal the Dock Work Regulation Act.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There has been no change in the Government's position with regard to the legislation governing dock work.

  Training Access Points Project
  Mr. Baldry
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the training access points project.

  Mr. Cope
  The Manpower Services Commission's training access point, (TAP) initiative is designed to provide direct public access via computer terminals to information about education and training opportunities backed by personal advice and further help. It aims to raise awareness about the training and education opportunities available and to help people to help themselves in making 164
  well-informed choices in this area. The feasibility of the project is being studied and the initiative will be evaluated carefully under a widening variety of operating and market conditions in order to determine the most appropriate way for TAP to develop nationally. Early usage figures for the TAP terminals, developments in the provision of supporting advice services, and technological developments stimulated by the initiative itself are encouraging.

  Women (Employment)
  Mr. Chapman
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the increase in the number of women seeking (a) full-time and (b) part-time employment outside the home, in the last five years and 10 years, respectively.

  Mr. Lee
  The available information, which is from the labour force survey conducted in spring 1981 and spring 1986, shows that the number of women unemployed and seeking work in Great Britain rose by 176,000 between these two dates. Details of the type of work sought are as follows:

  Change in numbers of women unemployed and seeking work between spring 1981 and spring 1986—Great Britain

  Estimate

  Seeking work as full-time employees

  -73,000

  Seeking work as part-time employees

  +157,000

  Seeking work as employees with no preference between full and part-time

  +71,000

  Seeking work as self-employed1

  +21,000

  1 People seeking self-employment were not asked whether they sought full-time or part-time work.

  Comparable figures showing the change over the 10 years to spring 1986 are not available.

  Disabled and Mentally Handicapped People
  Dr. Moonie
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to increase employment opportunities for disabled and mentally handicapped people on Manpower Services Commission schemes.

  Mr. Lee
  The Manpower Services Commission (MSC) provides a range of special schemes particularly designed for people with disabilities. In addition, people with disabilities, including those who have a mental handicap, have access to the full range of MSC schemes. In many cases the criteria for people with disabilities are relaxed. The MSC is keeping under review what further improvements are required to increase the opportunities for people with disabilities.

  Employment Trends (Northern Region)
  Mr. Fallon
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest trend in employment in the northern region.

  Mr. Lee
  The civilian employed labour force in the northern region has increased in each of the last three years to December 1986.

  The civilian employed labour force is the sum of employees in employment and the self-employed.

  Conference Market
  Mr. Atkinson
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the value of the United Kingdom conference market in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lee
  Estimates by the English Tourist Board of the total value of conference business in the United Kingdom up to and including 1984, the last year for which figures are available, are:

  £ million

  1981

  500

  1982

  600

  1983

  655

  1984

  735

  YTS (Eccles)
  Miss Lestor
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people in Eccles are on YTS schemes.

  Mr. Cope
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. On 30 June 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 1,758 young people on YTS in Salford local authority district which includes Eccles.

  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Miss Lestor
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many redundancies have been notified at privatised royal ordnance factories since privatisation.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information given to the Department under the redundancy handling provisions of the Employment Protection Act 1975 and the redundancy provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 is given in confidence and remains confidential until made public by the company concerned.

  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Mr. David Martin
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the introduction of the technical and vocational education programme in Portsmouth.

  Mr. Cope
  The Hampshire local education authority, which covers the Portsmouth area, has indicated its intention to submit to the Manpower Services Commission a proposal to extend its technical and vocational education initiative pilot project from September 1988. The authority has until 1 October 1987 to submit such a bid.

  Subject to the proposal being accepted by the commission, the authority will be responsible for phasing in the extension of the TVEI amongst the individual schools and colleges in the county which will take part. This process will normally take three years from the extension starting date.

  Mrs. Kathleen Toothill
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment when a decision is likely to be made on the entitlement to unemployment benefit of Mrs. Kathleen Toothill, formerly of 4 Long Cross, Bessacarr, Doncaster, now of 14 Hillside, Lichfield, which was first submitted on 7 May.
  166
  Mr. Lee
  Mrs. Kathleen Toothill claimed unemployment benefit on 11 May 1987. Payment was suspended, and the question whether she had voluntarily left her last employment without just cause was referred to the independent adjudication officer for a decision.

  I understand that the adjudication officer has requested further information from Mrs. Toothill and will make a decision as soon as these inquiries have been completed.

  Professional and Executive Register
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment when Her Majesty's Government intends to privatise the professional and executive register; if opportunities will be provided to outside organisations and companies to bid for it; and what was the financial performance of the professional and executive register in the most recent year for which figures are available.

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

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McGrady
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the present employment and unemployment figures for the offices of Downpatrick, Ballynahinch, Newcastle, Banbridge and Newry.

  Mr. Viggers
  At 14 May 1987. the latest date for which unemployment figures are available, the numbers were as follows:

  Social security office (including sub-offices)

  Number of unemployed claimants

  Downpatrick

  1,635

  Ballynahinch

  865

  Newcastle

  1,176

  Banbridge

  2,169

  Newry

  6,411

  It is not possible to give recent employment figures for the areas served by these offices. However, preliminary estimates based on the 1984 census of employment suggest that the numbers of employees in employment working in the district council areas in which the offices are situated were as follows:

  District Council areas

  Number of employees at September 1984

  Down

  12,650

  Banbridge

  8,450

  Newry and Mourne

  18,300

  Purdysburn Hospital
  Mr. Beggs
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has with regard to the religious persuasion of (a) nurses admitted for nurse training to the Central School of Psychiatric Nursing at Purdysburn hospital in each of the last three years for which records are now available, and (b) the nursing administration at Purdysburn hospital.
  167
  Mr. Needham
  Information about the religious persuasion of staff in the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland is not held.

  Diabetics
  Mr. Beggs
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action has been taken to ensure that diabetics in Northern Ireland will be able to obtain disposable insulin syringes and needles free on prescription when the new scheme is launched on 1 September.

  Mr. Needham
  Under the scheme, sterile single-use U100 insulin disposable syringes, needles and needle-clipping devices will be made available from 1 September 1987 on general medical practitioner prescription to insulin dependent diabetics. To ensure that this equipment will be in sufficient supply to meet demand at the introduction of the scheme, the Department of Health and Social Services has already been in contact with the main wholesale distributors in Northern Ireland.

  In early August, in keeping with the time scale for the rest of the United Kingdom, all general medical practitioners on the medical list and all pharmacists on the pharmaceutical list will, through the Central Services Agency, be given details of the scheme. Each pharmacist and dispensing doctor will also receive copies of a leaflet which offers guidance to diabetic patients on the safe disposal of injection equipment.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Kilfedder
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the most recent figure for output in manufacturing industry; and how this compares with 1967 and 1977.

  Mr. Viggers
  The most recent figures available from the annual census of production and construction for Northern Ireland show that for 1983 the gross output of all Northern Ireland manufacturing establishments employing 20 or more persons was £3,797,785,000. Net output (which is gross output less costs of purchases of materials and fuels and cost of industrial services received) was £1,144,624,000 in the same year.

  Figures of gross output and net output at current prices for 1967 and 1977 are as shown. They are not strictly comparable with the 1985 figures since a new definition of manufacturing industry was introduced with the 1980 census of production and the 1967 figures relate to manufacturing establishments employing 25 or more persons.

  Year

  Gross Output (£'000)

  Net Output (£'000)

  1967

  775,201

  230,227

  1977

  2,642,565

  771,174

  Companies
  Mr. Kilfedder
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new companies registered for value added tax in 1986; how many companies were made bankrupt in the same year; and how this compares with 1966 and 1976.

  Mr. Viggers
  In Northern Ireland in 1986 there were 3,245 new registrations for value added tax. Regional 168
  analyses of VAT registrations are not available for the period before 1980. There was no VAT in 1966. Statistics on the number of companies commencing liquidation are as follows:

  Year

  Number of companies

  1966

  76

  1976

  87

  1986

  220

  Doctors
  Mr. Beggs
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many doctors who are not citizens of the United Kingdom were permitted to register at hospitals in Northern Ireland in the current year.

  Mr. Needham
  The number of doctors who obtained their primary medical qualification in Northern Ireland in 1987 who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and who obtained pre-registration house officer posts in Northern Ireland is 17.

  Mr. Beggs
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many doctors who were Northern Ireland graduates in 1987 were unable to register at a Northern Ireland hospital in the current year.

  Mr. Needham
  Two doctors who have obtained their primary medical qualifications in Northern Ireland in 1987 did not obtain pre-registration house officer posts at hospitals in Northern Ireland. Both subsequently were offered posts in Great Britain.

  Clandeboye Shopping Centre, Bangor
  Mr. Kilfedder
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the fire brigade was able to use the fire hydrants during the fire at the Clandeboye shopping centre, Bangor; and whether it was necessary to take water from elsewhere to fight the fire.

  Mr. Needham
  In fighting the fire at the Clandeboye shopping centre on 3 July 1987 the Northern Ireland fire brigade used fire hydrants located both within the shopping centre and outside it. Water supplies from the six hydrants used were more than adequate and no other supplies were needed.

  Flooding (Castlereagh)
  Mr. John David Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has received any representations about flooding in the vicinity of 79 to 106 Newtownbreda road in the borough of Castlereagh on 10 July; if there has been any previous concern expressed about the inadequacy of the storm drainage in the roadway at this location; and if he has any proposals to improve the existing drainage system.

  Mr. Needham
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 July 1987]: The Department of Environment (Northern Ireland) received telephone complaints about flooding in the vicinity of 79–106 Newtownbreda road at 1745 and from 1800 hours onwards on 10 July 1987.

  The site in the area of 79–106 Newtownbreda road is in a hollow with three gullies on one side of the road and two

  169
  on the other. The water service investigation revealed that all their manhole installations were intact and that the sewerage system was not at fault.

  The roads service investigation found that exceptional rainfall on 10 July 1987 over a short period had washed debris into and interfered with the road drainage system. However the flooding had subsided when roads service staff reached the site. The road gullies were cleared and further work to ensure free drainage was undertaken on the following day. The system is also being checked for any further defects.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Janner
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hospital beds in England and Wales, and in Scotland, respectively, are at present closed, due to shortages of nurses or the absence of other resources.

  Mrs. Currie
  Operational management of hospitals is a matter for local health authorities. Whilst from time to time we become aware of temporary bed closures, which may occur for a variety of reasons, there is no central record for England or Scotland which is either comprehensive or detailed. A record is maintained for Wales: at 31 December 1986 (the latest record) 316 beds were closed because of shortages of nursing staff or other resources.

  Claimants
  Mr. Frank Field
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the number of unemployed claimants who have a partner in full-time work and the number of unemployed claimants who have a partner who is also unemployed.

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

  Civil Servants (Strike Action)
  Mr. Holt
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many days were lost through strike action by civil servants in the North of England, in the six months ended 30 June.

  Mr. Portillo
  In the six months ended 30 June the days lost through strike action by civil servants in the Department in the north of England (north-eastern region, north-western region, Newcastle central office, North Fylde central office) totalled 115,302.

  Disablement Services Authority
  Mr. Cartwright
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many members of the Disablement Services Authority have a disability; and who was consulted about the appointment of its members.

  Mr. Scott
  Two members of the Disablement Services Authority are disabled—one is an amputee and one is a wheelchair user. The chairman, Lord Holderness, and the vice-chairman, Professor Ian McColl, were consulted about the appointment of the members.

  Adoption
  Miss Lestor
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the local authorities that are paying the adoption allowance and the number of adoptive children to whom it applies.

  Mrs. Currie
  The Secretary of State has approved adoption allowance schemes submitted by the following local authorities in England.

  London Borough

  Barnet

  Bexley

  Brent

  Camden

  Croydon

  Ealing

  Enfield

  Greenwich

  Hackney

  Haringey

  Harrow

  Havering

  Hillingdon

  Hounslow

  Islington

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Lambeth

  Lewisham

  Merton

  Newham

  Redbridge

  Sutton

  Tower Hamlets

  Waltham Forest

  Wandsworth

  City of Westminster

  Metropolitan District

  Barnsley

  Birmingham

  Bolton

  Bradford

  Bury

  Calderdale

  Coventry

  Doncaster

  Dudley

  Kirklees

  Knowsley

  Leeds

  Liverpool

  Manchester

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  North Tyneside

  Rochdale

  Rotherham

  Salford

  Sandwell

  Sheffield

  Solihull

  St. Helens

  Sunderland

  Tameside

  Trafford

  Walsall

  Wirral

  Wolverhampton

  County Councils

  Berkshire

  Buckinghamshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Cheshire

  Cornwall

  Derbyshire

  Devon

  Dorset

  East Sussex

  171

  Essex

  Gloucestershire

  Hampshire

  Hereford and Worcester

  Hertfordshire

  Kent

  Lancashire

  Leicestershire

  Norfolk

  North Yorkshire

  Northamptonshire

  Oxfordshire

  Shropshire

  Somerset

  Suffolk

  Warwickshire

  West Sussex

  Wiltshire

  A further 16 schemes have been submitted for approval.

  Information on the operation of the schemes and the children who have benefited will be available next year from a research report commissioned by the Department from the National Children's Bureau.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Wigley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total amount spent in each district authority area in Wales on housing benefit in each year since the inception of the scheme, at outturn and 1987 prices.

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

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Charles Morrison
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has made of the extra cost of social security payments arising from the introduction of the community charge.

  Mr. Scott
  In the only estimate so far made on this subject, the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714, paragraph 5·26) estimated that the full replacement of domestic rates by the community charge would lead to an increase of 4 per cent. in expenditure on housing benefit in Great Britain.

  Child Abuse (Cleveland)
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he can now give further details about the judicial inquiry into child abuse in Cleveland.

  Mr. Newton
  As I announced last week Mrs. Justice Butler-Sloss has agreed to chair this inquiry. Her assessors will be Mr. John Chant, director of social services for Somerset county council, Professor David Hull, professor of child health, the medical school, Nottingham university and Mr. Leonard Soper, recently retired as chief constable of Gloucestershire.

  The terms of reference will be:—
  "To examine the arrangements for dealing with suspected cases of child abuse in Cleveland since 1 January 1987, including in particular cases of child sexual abuse, and to make recommendations."

  The purpose of the inquiry will be to establish what has taken place in Cleveland with respect to reported cases of suspected child abuse, and to establish what, if anything, has gone wrong in the arrangements for detecting and handling such cases. The inquiry is not intended to judge
  172
  whether abuse has taken place in any particular instance. Where such cases are being heard by the courts it is for the courts to decide such issues. The preliminary hearing will take place on 4 August.

  Mentally Handicapped Children
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many children, by yearly age breakdown, are living in mental handicap hospitals in each health district; and how many of these children now have been jointly assessed by the appropriate local education authority, health authority and social services department.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 7 July 1987, c. 129]: I cannot supply my hon. Friend with the information in the form requested as it is not centrally collected. The table shows the number of children resident in NHS mental handicap hospitals and hospital units in England on 31 December 1986. The breakdown shows the figures by four age bands for each health district, and includes children admitted for short-stay or respite care, but excludes children in small NHS units in the community.

  Information on the number of such children who have been jointly assessed is not available centrally, but local education authorities have a responsibility under the Education Act 1981 to make joint assessments of children with special educational needs including those in mental handicap hospitals.

  Children—resident patients in mental handicap hospitals and hospital units at 31 December 1986

  Health Authority

  Aged under 2

  Aged 2–4

  Aged 5–9

  Aged 10–15

  Total under 16

  England total

  2

  19

  82

  289

  392

  Northern RHA

  0

  2

  6

  20

  28

  Hartlepool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Tees

  0

  2

  3

  6

  11

  South Tees

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Cumbria

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Cumbria

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Cumbria

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Darlington

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  Durham

  0

  0

  2

  5

  7

  North West Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South West Durham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  1

  4

  5

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Newcastle

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Yorkshire RHA

  0

  0

  4

  21

  25

  Hull

  0

  0

  2

  6

  8

  East Yorkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grimsby

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Scunthorpe

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Northallerton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  York

  0

  0

  1

  4

  5

  Scarborough

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Harrogate

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bradford

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Airedale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Calderdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Huddersfield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dewsbury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leeds Western

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leeds Eastern

  0

  0

  1

  2

  3

  173

  Health Authority

  Aged under 2

  Aged 2–4

  Aged 5–9

  Aged 10–15

  Total under 16

  Wakefield

  0

  0

  0

  4

  4

  Pontefract

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Trent RHA

  0

  1

  10

  49

  60

  North Derbyshire

  0

  0

  2

  2

  4

  Southern Derbyshire

  0

  0

  1

  7

  8

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  0

  6

  6

  North Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  0

  5

  5

  South Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bassetlaw

  0

  0

  1

  2

  3

  Central Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Nottingham

  0

  1

  1

  10

  12

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rotherham

  0

  0

  2

  11

  13

  Sheffield

  0

  0

  3

  3

  6

  East Anglian RHA

  0

  0

  3

  10

  13

  Cambridge

  0

  0

  2

  5

  7

  Peterborough

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  West Suffolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Suffolk

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Norwich

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Huntingdon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North West Thames RHA

  0

  0

  4

  7

  11

  North Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  1

  2

  3

  South Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North West

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  3

  2

  5

  South West

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Barnett

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ealing

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Brent

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Paddington and North Kensington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Riverside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North East Thames RHA

  0

  0

  1

  13

  14

  Basildon and Thurrock

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mid Essex

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  North East Essex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Essex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Southend

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  0

  0

  0

  4

  4

  Hampstead

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bloomsbury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Islington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  City and Hackney

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Newham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Enfield

  0

  0

  1

  6

  7

  Haringey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  South East Thames RHA

  1

  2

  11

  31

  45

  174

  Health Authority

  Aged under 2

  Aged 2–4

  Aged 5–9

  Aged 10–15

  Total under 16

  Brighton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Eastbourne

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hastings

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  South East Kent

  0

  0

  4

  6

  10

  Canterbury and Thanet

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Dartford and Gravesham

  0

  2

  3

  4

  9

  Maidstone

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Medway

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tunbridge Wells

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  Bexley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Greenwich

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Bromley

  1

  0

  3

  12

  16

  West Lambeth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camberwell

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South West Thames RHA

  0

  0

  4

  30

  34

  North West Surrey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South West Surrey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mid Surrey

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  East Surrey

  0

  0

  3

  8

  11

  Chichester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mid Downs

  0

  0

  1

  5

  6

  Worthing District

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Croydon

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  Kingston and Esher

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wandsworth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Merton and Sutton

  0

  0

  0

  12

  12

  Wessex RHA

  1

  7

  9

  38

  55

  East Dorset

  0

  5

  4

  18

  27

  West Dorset

  1

  2

  3

  12

  18

  Portsmouth and South

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Hampshire

  0

  0

  2

  8

  10

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Winchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Salisbury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Swindon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bath District

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oxford RHA

  0

  3

  14

  28

  45

  East Berkshire

  0

  0

  0

  6

  6

  West Berkshire

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Aylesbury Vale

  0

  1

  0

  6

  7

  Wycombe

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Milton Keynes

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kettering

  0

  1

  7

  4

  12

  Northampton

  0

  1

  7

  11

  19

  Oxfordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Western RHA

  0

  3

  8

  17

  28

  Bristol and Weston

  0

  1

  5

  2

  8

  Frenchay

  0

  1

  1

  9

  11

  Southmead

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  175

  Health Authority

  Aged under 2

  Aged 2–4

  Aged 5–9

  Aged 10–15

  Total under 16

  Exeter

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Devon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Plymouth

  0

  1

  2

  5

  8

  Torbay

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cheltenham and District

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Midlands RHA

  0

  1

  2

  19

  22

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Herefordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kidderminster and District

  0

  1

  1

  5

  7

  Worcester and Shropshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mid Staffordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Staffordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South East Staffordshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rugby

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Warwickshire

  0

  0

  0

  5

  5

  South Warwickshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Central Birmingham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Birmingham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Birmingham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Birmingham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Birmingham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Coventry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dudley

  0

  0

  1

  7

  8

  Sandwell

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Solihull

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Walsall

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Wolverhampton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mersey RHA

  0

  0

  0

  5

  5

  Chester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Crewe

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Halton

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Macclesfield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Warrington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Southport and Formby

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  South Sefton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wirral

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Western RHA

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Lancaster

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Preston

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Burnely, Pendle and Rossendale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Lancashire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Chorley and South Ribble

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bolton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bury

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Central Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Manchester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oldham

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Salford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Stockport

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tameside and Glossop

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  176

  Health Authority

  Aged under 2

  Aged 2–4

  Aged 5–9

  Aged 10–15

  Total under 16

  Trafford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wigan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Special RHA

  Bethlem Royal and Maudsley

  0

  0

  5

  0

  5

  Liverpool Royal Infirmary
  Mr. Parry
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if the site of the former Liverpool royal infirmary has been cleared of asbestos; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 20 July 1987]: The former Liverpool royal infirmary, like many other hospitals, contains asbestos insulation to pipes and certain equipment. Earlier this year vandals disturbed an area of insulation which was subsequently stripped and fine cleaned at a cost of £40,000.

  The building is vacant, but entry is now strictly controlled by security staff. Part of the building has been declared free of asbestos and certificates have been issued to that effect.

  A team of chemical analysts is currently at work in the remaining part of the building to investigate the extent of asbestos and whether asbestos particles are present in the atmosphere. The team is to prepare a report for the Mersey regional health authority and will make recommendations for any further necessary work.

  The hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of Mersey regional health authority for further information.

  Derriford Hospital, Plymouth
  Miss Fookes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if there has been any change in the timetable for the planned expansion of Derriford hospital, Plymouth, announced by his Department in February, especially with regard to the start date;

  (2) if he will make a statement about the prospects for a maternity unit at Derriford hospital.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 20 July 1987]: I understand that South Western regional health authority has reviewed the timing of its capital programme in the light of progress on projects already under construction. The phase II expansion to Derriford hospital has been rescheduled for start on site in March 1989 and completion in November 1992 instead of April 1988 and March 1992 respectively.

  The adjustments to the programme have been made in such a way that should the position on the programme change, the originally proposed start date for the phase H scheme could be reinstated.

  Both the region and the district health authority are committed to the provision of a new maternity unit at Derriford subject to the outcome of detailed planning work now under way and the outcome of an approval in principle submission to the Department, scheduled for submission in September 1987. If approved present plans would mean a start on site in November 1990 and completion in February 1993.

  Motor Cyclists and Pedestrians (Injuries)
  Mr. Sheerman
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide details of (a) the annual cost to the National Health Services, (b) the percentage of emergency orthopaedic admissions, and (c) the average length of stay in hospital for the treatment of (i) serious injuries suffered by pedestrians and (ii) serious injuries suffered by motor cyclists.

  Mrs. Currie
  [pursuant to her reply, 20 July 1987]: The treatment of serious injuries suffered by pedestrians is estimated to have cost the National Health Service £26 million in 1985–86, and the treatment of serious injuries suffered by riders and passengers of motor cycles, scooters and mopeds is estimated to have cost £25·7 million. These figures are for England only and are based on an average length of stay for all seriously injured casualties of road traffic accidents of 12·5 days. I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Member the information he seeks in respect of emergency orthopaedic admissions in precisely the form requested. The latest available information for all road traffic accident cases is given in the table.

  Road traffic accident cases (RTA) treated in NHS hospitals, 1985, England

  Estimated numbers

  RTA cases as percentage of emergency cases

  Cases treated in Traumatic and Orthopaedic departments

  3,200

  12·0

  Cases treated in other departments

  2,387

  1·1

  Average duration of stay in days (all departments)

  12·5

ENVIRONMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Riddick
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the level of unemployment in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lee
  I have been asked to reply.

  On 11 June 1987, the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 2,905,325.

  Charitable Housing Associations (Tenants)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he is satisfied with the working of the Housing Corporation's home scheme for tenants of charitable housing associations; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans his Department has for the future of the Housing Corporation's home ownership scheme for tenants of charitable housing associations; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) whether his Department intends to consult the Housing Corporation over the working of its home ownership scheme for tenants of charitable housing associations.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The home ownership scheme for tenants of charitable housing associations was introduced in September 1984 to help tenants who were excluded from 178
  the right to buy. It has proved popular, but demand outstrips the resources available. I shall keep the operation and effectiveness of the scheme under review in consultation with the Housing Corporation.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when his Department last provided additional funds for the Housing Corporation's home ownership scheme for tenants of charitable housing associations; and how much was provided

  (2) whether he intends to provide additional funds during the current financial year for the Housing Corporation's home ownership scheme for tenants of charitable housing associations.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The funding of transferable discounts under the home ownership scheme for tenants of charitable housing associations has to be accommodated within the Housing Corporation's cash-limited approved development programme. In 1986–87 expenditure on the scheme amounted to £17·58 million; a further £19 million has been allocated for the current financial year.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new home owners are estimated to have been assisted by the Housing Corporation's home ownership scheme for tenants of charitable housing associations; and how many are now on the waiting list.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Since the scheme was introduced in September 1984, approximately 4,300 properties have been purchased. Over 1,100 applications have been made since the current waiting list was started on 1 October 1986.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to seek to amend the way in which the Housing Corporation's home ownership scheme for tenants of charitable housing associations operates to take greater account of regional differences.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The scheme already takes account of regional variations in house prices, and the Housing Corporation allocates funds to its regions on the basis of local demand for the scheme.

  Improvement Grants
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to announce modifications to the improvement grant procedure following the consultation he carried out with the publication of the Green Paper, "Home Improvement—New Approach".

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Shortly.

  Flags
  Mr. Robert Sheldon
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the cost of the new flags of the United Kingdom currently flying over the Treasury.

  Mr. Chope
  The 11 United Kingdom flags currently flying above the Treasury have been provided from existing stock and are not new. Their approximate replacement cost is £1,400.

  Spectrum Arena
  Mr. Hoyle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much is due to the Warringon and Runcorn development corporation from the former lessees of the Spectrum arena, the Birchwood project.

  Mrs. Roe
  The outstanding debt was extinguished on the surrender of the lease.

  Mr. Hoyle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if any specific proposals have yet been made by the Warrington and Runcorn development corporation to his Department about the amount and nature of investment in new facilities at Birchwood.

  Mrs. Roe
  The development corporation has sought the Department's approval for the construction of an indoor tennis centre at Birchwood and to its disposal on concessionary terms to the borough council. These proposals are being considered.

  Mr. Hoyle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the losses involved in the operation of the Spectrum arena.

  Mrs. Roe
  The losses of the Birchwood Project (Warrington) Ltd. and its subsidiary the Birchwood Project Trading Company Ltd. are set out in the companies' accounts which are open to inspection under the Companies Acts.

  Mr. Hoyle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if there have been any discussions between Warrington borough council and the Warrington and Runcorn development corporation concerning the sale of the Spectrum arena; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  Discussions took place before the closure of the Spectrum arena last year.

  Mr. Hoyle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Warrington and Runcorn development corporation proposes to consult Warrington borough council over the future of the Spectrum arena.

  Mrs. Roe
  Yes.

  Mr. Hoyle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider an increase in the rate support grant to Warrington borough council to assist in financing the purchase of the Spectrum arena; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  Local authorities' need to spend on recreation facilities and on the financing of capital expenditure is already recognised in assessments of their grant-related expenditure, which is a major factor in determining their entitlement to block grant.

  Mr. Hoyle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider a transfer of other assets from Warrington and Runcorn development corporation to Warrington borough council to offset any of the costs incurred by Warrington borough council in running the Spectrum arena; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  The development corporation has submitted no such proposal to the Department.

  St. George's Hospital
  Mr. Chapman
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how long the St. George's hospital building, Hyde park corner, has been
  180
  unoccupied; what initiatives he will take to ensure this grade II building is adequately protected from any further deterioration which might necessitate its demolition; and what further initiatives he will take to ensure this building will be restored to its original design.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I shall answer this question shortly.

  Rental Purchase
  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if his Department currently gives any funding or financial subsidies to companies involved in rental purchase schemes; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what recent representations he has received regarding Bradford Investments plc; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what recent representations he has received regarding rental purchase schemes; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what is his Department's policy with regard to rental purchase schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This Department does not currently give any financial assistance to rental purchase schemes. Representations have recently been received from one local authority and from Shelter on rental purchase schemes in general and Bradford Investment plc in particular. The Housing Act 1980 extended to occupiers under rental purchase agreements certain rights under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. The Government are keeping the use of rental purchase under review.

  Thamesmead
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give a full and detailed account of the terms of the sale of Thamesmead to Thamesmead Town Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Roe
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) on 20 July.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has exercised his rights to nominate tenants to accommodation at Thamesmead; and what will happen to his nomination rights if Thamesmead is sold to Thamesmead Town Ltd.

  Mrs. Roe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been content to leave the London area mobility scheme to agree suitable arrangements with the London residuary body and Thamesmead town while Thamesmead has been vested in the LRB. When Thamesmead is transferred to Thamesmead town his nomination rights will cease. Thamesmead town has, however, undertaken to make some vacancies available to the scheme.

  Ministerial Cars
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total cost of providing chauffeured cars for Ministers in each of the past five financial years; and if he will break down the total according to Department.
  181
  Mr. Chope
  Costs for the years 1982–83 to 1985–86 were provided on 23 February 1987 at column 95. Costs in 1986–87 were £2,450,000. Breaking these down between Departments would involve disproportionate cost.

  Housing and Planning
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when section 6 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986 will come into effect; why its commencement has been delayed; why he commenced section 9 of the Act before section 6; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Section 6, which concerns consultation before the disposal of housing subject to secure tenancies, is unconnected with section 9, which relates to redevelopment and disposal with vacant possession. It is planned to bring section 6 into force at the same time as section 8, which concerns the preservation of the right to buy, when regulations relevant to that section are ready to be made. They are currently in draft.

  Albert Memorial
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has of the likely cost of restoring the Albert memorial; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I shall answer this question shortly.

  Local Authorities (Professional Services)
  Mr. John Mark Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received seeking the inclusion of professional services including architectural and engineering services within the ambit of those services for which local authorities will have to seek tenders within the terms of the Local Government Act.

  Mr. Chope
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 July 1987]: The Department has received several representations arguing for the inclusion of further services in the list of those subject to compulsory competition.

  There has been one formal representation about the inclusion of professional services since the Bill was published.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers— Read by the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

British Gas plc: Progress Report
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will report on the progress of British Gas in the private sector.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords. it is not the normal practice of Her Majesty's Government to report on the progress of private sector companies. The Chairman of British Gas, Sir Denis Rooke, made a preliminary announcement of the 1987 results on the 17th June. He reported profits of £1,293 million before tax on an historic cost basis and announced a 4·5 per cent tariff reduction, with both rates per therm and standing charges being reduced. British Gas's report and accounts will be sent to shareholders, currently numbering some 3 million, later this month.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl very much for that excellent reply. I have been requested to ask whether the changes in gas prices could possibly be altered more consistently, as they change too often and it is difficult for horticulturists. Is that possible?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, every effort will be made to ensure that gas prices are stable. Your Lordships will be aware of the regulatory system which is now in force and which is monitored by Ofgas in order to make sure that price increases are always less than inflation.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, is not one of the problems of privatising essential utilities that this House and Parliament generally lose any influence and control over their affairs?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, this House continues to have an influence, as naturally does the other place, over our affairs; but now the decision has been taken to put British Gas in the private sector it is obviously up to British Gas itself to manage its own affairs.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend pass on the excellent example of British Gas in reducing prices after privatisation to those companies or organisations still remaining in the public sector?
The Earl of Dundee: Yes, indeed, my Lords, I shall pass on my noble friend's remarks.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that we believe that he has set a desirable precedent today in answering and apparently taking ministerial responsibility for a private industry? Can he also say whether the reduction of 4½ per cent. in gas tariffs is not rather mean, bearing in mind that oil prices have fallen by 16p over the last couple of years? Is British Gas not giving more attention to shareholders' interests than consumers' interests?
The Earl of Dundee: No, my Lords, I would not agree with that. I think that the consumers' interests are the interests which are mainly taken into account. I very much welcome the recent 4.5 per cent. cut in tariffs. The reduction passes on to tariff customers the lower gas purchase prices now forecast by British Gas, as well as efficiency gains, and this is of course required by the new regulatory system whose operation is monitored by Ofgas.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister accept that he is not answering for private industry but is answering a Question in your Lordships' House?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether the Government have received complaints from certain industrial consumers about the pricing and contract policies pursued by British Gas in view of its strong market position, and, if so, what they propose to do about it?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I think perhaps that is another Question.

Job Creation in the Countryside
2.40 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what encouragement is being offered to create jobs in the countryside.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in England the Development Commission, with its subsidiary the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas (COSIRA), is the Government's main agency for creating jobs in the countryside. Details of other agencies in England, and in Scotland and Wales, are provided in the Government's booklets on Rural Enterprise and Development, Action for Rural Enterprise and Rural Scotland, published on 10th March. A wide range of assistance is given to assist job creation, including provision of premises, advice and assistance with finance.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that satisfactory reply. Can he give further details of what has been achieved, first, by the Bill, and, secondly, by the Agricultural Training Bill which was passed at the end of the last Parliament?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, government departments and agencies are carrying forward many successful job-creating initiatives. For example, through its 100 per cent. finance workshop programme, the Development Commission has provided about 10,000 job opportunities in England since 1981.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether, in addition to jobs being created in the countryside, some action will be taken to create jobs in the inner cities in order to start erasing the grim effects of the neglect of the past seven or eight years?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that question is very wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that forestry is a major contributor to employment in the countryside? It now employs 40,000 people. Therefore may I have an assurance that there will be continued government support for an expanding forestry policy in both the public and the private sector?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is well aware of this Government's support of forestry. However, I feel that the broader part of his question is very wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to remind the Minister that it is the European Year of the Environment. Is the Minister aware that many jobs can be created in the environmental field in rural areas, as well as in other parts of the country: for example, cleaning the beaches and the rivers; pollution control technology; boosting rural tourism; increasing access to the countryside; and energy conservation'? Many jobs can be created in this way and it would be suitable if they were created during this environmental year. Are the Government pushing this matter?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, this Government are extremely concerned about the countryside and about employment there. However, I feel that some of the points raised by the noble Baroness will be dealt with by local authorities rather than by the Government.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that small or medium-size industrial estates can be of real value in the countryside generally?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's comments. Decisions on such matters are taken by the planning and local authorities.
Lord Sainsbury: My Lords, is the Minister aware, as I am sure he is, that very little of the food produced in our countryside reaches the consumer in the form in which it leaves the farms? Will the Minister agree that there is a fine opportunity to locate the processing of food—food that needs manufacture—in rural areas?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships are grateful that this matter has been brought to our attention. The Government are well aware of it, and are particularly keen to see farmers add value to products by producing those which are closer to what will appear on the shelves of supermarkets.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in one of his replies the noble Lord was good enough to make a welcome reference to Wales—albeit a passing reference. Is he aware that the development of the countryside in Wales is the responsibility of the Welsh Development Agency and the Mid-Wales Development Corporation? Is the noble Lord further aware that there is general complaint in Wales, where unemployment is very high, that both those agencies are underfunded? Can the noble Lord say whether the Government have it in mind to increase the funds so that something can be done about the unemployed people?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am not in a position to answer that question because I feel that it does not have regard to that on the Order Paper today.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, when the noble Lord comes to answer Questions of this general kind about the United Kingdom, will he make certain that he briefs himself about Wales?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the same question applies to the Islands and Highlands Development Board and the Scottish Development Agency? Will the noble Lord say—and it is entirely in line with the Question—whether jobs created under the new scheme equal the loss of jobs in agriculture over the past year?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord in respect of that question.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Isle of Wight receives much less support from central government than does either Wales or Scotland? Is he further aware that it has a higher unemployment rate?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, 1 am unable to answer questions on specific areas of the United Kingdom.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that two factors make this problem extremely urgent? The first is the imminent changes in farming, which will certainly mean a great deal of land being taken out of production; and the second is the continuing growth of technology in farming, which will mean fewer people being employed. Do not those two factors make the problem probably as important

1267
as that of the inner cities, and ought not the Government to attach more priority to it?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we are aware of the changes that are occurring in agriculture. Accordingly, we have increased expenditure to cope with the problem.
Lord Walston: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that if this problem is to be met, it must be possible for people living in rural areas to move easily from their own village to another village or small town where there is employment and that public transportation in rural areas can play a vital part in this process?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am not in a position today, unfortunately, to answer questions on transport.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the last 10 years real incomes in farming in this country have declined by 40 per cent. whereas, in the European Community, there has been an average decline of about 25 per cent.? Is he aware that at the same time the number of jobs lost in this country in agriculture has been 70,000? If the squeeze on farm incomes that we are now experiencing continues, would he not agree that there will soon be a surplus of farm labour as well as of cereals?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, one of the reasons why we have increased expenditure on the Development Commission is precisely that.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that this Question and the one preceding it, with all respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, are really not suitable as Questions of the starred type and that it would be far more suitable if such very general Questions were the subject of either Unstarred Questions or short debates?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, my experience in this House, as the noble Earl is probably well aware, is extremely limited. I would not feel it right or proper to pass comment.

EC: Budget Discipline
2.52 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they propose to make to the Economic and Finance Council of the European Communities in order to secure the imposition of annual cash limits on the Commission's "compulsory" (or "obligatory") expenditure.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the agricultural guideline limit within the Community's existing
1268
budget discipline agreement provides for expenditure on agriculture to grow no faster than the Community's own resources base. As the recent European Council recognised, the guideline needs to be reinforced by changes in the agricultural regulations to enable the Commission to keep the level of expenditure within the budget provision. The Government have suggested some ideas for stabilisers to restrain expenditure in individual commodity regimes.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware of the view, which has been expressed by the Commission itself, that the existing phrase "a budget discipline" covers a complete farce lacking any control whatever over the financial expenditure of the Community?
Is the noble Lord further aware that almost immediately following Fontainebleau it was agreed by the Council of Ministers that the Economic and Finance Council members should always be present with the agricultural ministers when price fixing took place? Is he also aware that when, on the last occasion, the finance ministers absented themselves, the Agricultural Council was left free from the financial constraints that would otherwise have applied in determining agricultural price levels?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords, I am not aware that the present regime is a farce. I am aware that there are difficulties: that is why we have suggested stabilisers. This is a Community-wide problem and it must be dealt with by the Community as a whole.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the proposed schemes. I assume he was referring to the excellent Ministry of Agriculture proposal for a voluntary set-aside scheme without which we shall never reduce the surplus of cereals. Can the noble Lord say what progress has been made in putting that scheme forward?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the specific Question referred to the concept of stabilisers which I hope will come into being in order to limit specific commodity over-production. It is a very difficult problem; one that must be addressed by all members of the Community. We must look at mechanisms whereby gross over-production of farm produce within the Community can be redressed in a sensible and sustainable way.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that while a question of this calibre concerns the entire Community, someone has to initiate new ideas? I recall during my years in Europe that Britain initiated many things. Do the Government intend to do any initiating on this particular problem?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that is exactly what we have been doing at the last two councils.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, before the noble Lord pursues the matter further, will he please consult his right honourable friend the Prime

1269
Minister whose views on this aspect would appear, on the face of it, to coincide more with mine than with his?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord must form his own conclusions. They are not mine.

"Observer" Article: Alleged Offences
2.56 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why no charges have been brought in respect of the allegations contained in the article in the Observer, page 41, of Sunday 5th July, written by Melanie McFadyean and Ole Hansen, and what action is proposed in the matter.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Havers): My Lords, a file of evidence concerning alleged offences of gross indecency and indecent assault by Mr. Oliver Grieveson against: his three sons was submitted by the Cleveland Constabulary to the Cleveland branch of the Cleveland/North Yorkshire Crown Prosecution Service in December 1986. The three sons—Mr. Oliver Paul Grieveson, Mr. Barry Grieveson and Mr. Philip Grieveson—are now aged 38, 32 and 22 respectively.
The last incident complained of occurred in 1974. Having regard in particular to the staleness of the offences, the Crown Prosecution Service decided that the public interest did not require proceedings and accordingly advised that no further action be taken in the matter.
A further file of evidence was submitted by the Cleveland Constabulary to the CPS in June 1987, incorporating additional material supplied to the police by Mr. Oliver Paul Grieveson, Mr. Barry Grieveson and Mr. Philip Grieveson. The CPS reviewed the case again but found no reason to alter its previous decision to take no action in the matter. I should also add that, contrary to the impression given in the newspaper article, Mr. Grieveson has received the advice of a consultant psychiatrist.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that long and detailed reply. However, would he not agree that lay people, reading the facts of the case about what took place some years ago, might find it difficult to understand that there was obviously evidence against the father, substantiated by three sons, and yet it now appears that the noble and learned Lord is saying that no action is to be taken, simply on the basis that it is out of time?
It is really out of time? Is it not possible for the matter to be reconsidered, bearing in mind that this area of the United Kingdom is under the spotlight with the present chief of police decrying certain
1270
people for not helping the police in this type of prosecution? I leave it at that.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it really is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service. Staleness is of course an important factor which it took into consideration. But there would be many others. For example, I think of the present ages of the three sons concerned, and their having to give evidence at least 14 years after the event.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not important to remember that the question of whether or not to prosecute in any given case is not truly a government responsibility but a responsibility under the supervision of the Attorney-General in his professional—not his ministerial—capacity?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend. I have a sort of reciprocal arrangement with my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General. It was usually me, as Attorney-General, acting as the agent; but in this case it is the other way round. I think we are right in setting up the CPS to give a great deal of independence to those running the local branches.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sorry to have to come back. But surely when a matter like this is made public it is the duty of people holding public office to question whether the right procedures have been followed. Mistakes have been made in the past and can be made in the future. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor if he would cast his mind towards the part of the report stating that it had been suggested that the three sons could bring a private prosecution against their own father? If something is tragically wrong, surely this is a last resort, and it ought to be done by the DPP.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have little to add. As I have said, we have delegated as far as possible. It is interesting that in the newspaper article to which the noble Lord referred it was said by the sons that they had done this in order to force their father to have psychiatric treatment. He has now taken that advice.

Business
3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the Iran/Iraq conflict.

Coroners Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Coroners Acts 1887 to 1980 and certain related enactments, with amendments to give effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended on Thursday next to enable the Motion on Lords' expenses to be taken before the Motion to approve the Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1987.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Western Isles Islands Council (Vatersay Causeway) Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

British Shipbuilders (Borrowing Powers) Bill
3.5 p.m.
Brought from the Commons, and read a first time.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 16th July):
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is short and technical. It concerns British Shipbuilders borrowing limits which is a statutory ceiling on the corporation's borrowing placed by the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Act 1977. The borrowing in question covers the funds that British Shipbuilders may acquire from the Government in the form of public dividend capital and also loans from the commercial market.
The limit on the corporation's borrowing stands at £1,400 million as a result of the British Shipbuilders Borrowing Powers (Increase of Limit) Order, which was debated in another place in December last year. This limit will be breached imminently—in fact, by the end of this month. The Bill that is before your Lordships' House proposes an increase in the borrowing limit to £1,550 million and makes provision for further increases to £1,800 million subject to affirmative resolution in another place.
I should make it clear that the borrowing limit does not apply to the intervention fund paid in support of individual orders; neither does the Bill actually vote any money to the corporation. It simply provides British Shipbuilders with the power to receive money. The provision of funds in the form of public dividend capital is a matter for Parliament to decide through the normal procedures for voting money.
In recent years the world shipbuilding market has remained severely depressed. The major European shipbuilders and the Japanese have had to restructure, and even the Koreans are now feeling the
1272
pinch. Orders placed last year totalled 9 million tonnes throughout the world, which is only half of what could have been built if all yards had been working to capacity.
Against that gloomy picture British Shipbuilders has had to exert itself to the utmost to win orders. I am glad to be able to say that all the yards have work, and with the China order for container ships at Govan and the Danish ferries at North-East Shipbuilders the large yards have work until 1989. Considerable government help was required in the present market to secure those orders, so let it not be said that this Government have no interest in supporting the industry.
The corporation's approach is to strive continually to improve efficiency which ranges from securing better components at cheaper prices through the whole spectrum of organising the workforce's tasks and providing them with the most advanced manufacturing systems. The Government have done all that they can to support British Shipbuilders—with public dividend capital to meet the needs of the business, intervention fund support to help win orders and the diplomatic support necessary for challenging new markets such as China. Whatever help we may give, the survival of British Shipbuilders depends in the main on itself, its own efforts to win orders and to build ships to time and to cost. However, for the immediate future the corporation must have an increase in its borrowing limit by the end of the month in order to continue to trade. I commend this Bill to your Lordships and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Beaverbrook.)
3.8 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, for introducing the Second Reading of this Bill, which we on this side of the House support. I shall not detain your Lordships for very long but there are one or two points that I feel I ought to make because this Bill gives us what is more or less an annual opportunity briefly to review the state of the British shipbuilding industry.
I should like to ask the noble Lord to deal with a technical point when he comes to reply for the Government. Clause 2(2) of the Bill says, "This Act extends to Northern Ireland". Does that affect in any way the relationship between British Shipbuilders and Harland and Wolff? There have been some difficulties between the two manufacturers and indeed some chasing of orders which may be allocated to the one or to the other, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord could spend a little time developing that relationship for us.
As the noble Lord has pointed out, the general state of shipbuilding in Britain is not particularly happy. We are now coming up to the tenth anniversary of the creation of British Shipbuilders. Britain used to have 25 per cent. of world orders; it now has 2 per cent. of world orders. Half of the yards in Europe that have closed in the past 10 years are in the United Kingdom. The 70 yards and facilities that British Shipbuilders inherited have declined to seven;

1273
the workforce of 80,000 that it inherited has become a workforce of somewhat less than 6,000. Other European Community countries suffered job losses of approximately 30 per cent. to 50 per cent.; the United Kingdom has suffered job losses of somewhere around 300 per cent.
I refer the noble Lord and your Lordships to a remark that was made by a Minister formerly responsible for shipbuilding who is now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in another place when two years ago he said words to the effect that British Shipbuilders employed fewer than 12,000 people in merchant shipbuilding and engine building and that if it declined much further it would simply disappear—the road would run out. Since then the workforce has more or less halved.
We accept what the noble Lord said about international competition and that the Government and British Shipbuilders have an exceedingly difficult task in obtaining their share of world orders at the present time, which is a particularly difficult period since, as I understand it, South Korea is still expanding capacity and the Japanese have announced that as long as there is an ocean to sail on they will build ships to sail on it.
What can he done? First of all, there is the question of competition between various members of the European Community. I understand that that is now governed by the sixth directive. I should like to ask the noble Lord how he regards the position of the Brittany Ferries order, which was diverted from Govan shipbuilders to a French shipbuilder, through intervention from the French Government. This is perhaps the first real test of the sixth directive and I should he grateful if the noble Lord would tell us whether the Government wish to pursue this to the furthest point that they possibly can.
The second question that I have of the noble Lord is this. How far is it possible in the Government's view to persuade British shipowners, who are less willing to buy ships at home than shipowners of other nationalities, to do more for British yards? So far as I am aware, the Japanese since 1947 have built 100 per cent. of their merchant fleet in Japan. In our case I understand the figure to be 50 per cent. Even with the rise of South Korea, Japanese shipowners seem to be determined, for various reasons which no doubt are explicable, to build in Japan. Is it not possible to consider, since your Lordships debated the parlous state of the merchant marine only the other day, some sort of scrap and build programme such as we had in the 1930s under the British Shipping (Assistance) Act, which was of very great help to yards at that time?
My last question concerns a particular region of the United Kingdom which of course is Scotland. Scotland has developed with government encouragement a new capability for servicing the oil industry in the North Seas. It appears now that UIE, and possibly other Scottish yards, are under severe constraint and are possibly threatened with closure. I do not have to point out to your Lordships, or indeed to the noble Lord, that were that to happen it would have a severe impact on the Scottish economy. If oil prices recover, and if there is more exploration
1274
activity in the North Sea, then it would seem only sensible that the Scottish effort in this direction should be supported and not allowed to fail. If it does fail, the inexorable decline forecast by the former shipbuilding Minister that I quoted a minute ago would undoubtedly take place and would have dire effects on the Scottish economy.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships longer. The noble Lord has been kind enough to explain the purpose of the Bill. We support it and we wish it well. I hope that the noble Lord will take my remarks in the friendly and constructive spirit in which they are meant, because we wish the Bill to go forward.
3.12 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I first apologise for not having my name on the speakers' list, but I assure your Lordships that I shall be brief in the observations I make. Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, we are also grateful to the Minister for his clear explanation of this Bill, which we support. In view of the lucid and practical approach of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I do not wish to press the matter any further. But I should like to mention one aspect which it appears to me the Minister considers to be of some importance in regard to the shipbuilding industry generally. As I understood him, he mentioned the importance of spare parts.
I should therefore like to ask the Minister —if he is not able to answer me now, perhaps he will do so later—whether he knows that there is a Bill threatened to come before the House where the position of spare parts for equipment which is used for shipbuilding purposes may be the subject of rather draconian legislation in regard to designs. Where there is no patent protection or design protection of spare parts, they should be capable of being manufactured by any firm. I understand that there may be a large loss of jobs if the Government go on with their proposals for new design rights in the intellectual property Bill and the innovation Bill, which I understand are coming before the House after the Recess.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend how the £1,800 million maximum borrowing here compares with the equivalent situation in Japan? Also is he in a position to say what the interest on the borrowing is likely to be here compared with Japan?
3.15 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in our short debate on this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, the corporation has considerable difficulties but there can be no expectation of a blank cheque. British Shipbuilders has a new chairman of only two months' standing. He is reviewing the industry and looking at how all its problems can be tackled. He has promised a corporate plan in the autumn which Ministers will be considering very carefully indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked me how this Bill extends to Northern Ireland. The Bill provides scope for British Shipbuilders to borrow and there

1275
are entirely separate arrangements for the financing of Harland and Wolff. The fact that this Bill extends to Northern Ireland is thus largely a technicality. Harland and Wolff is not affected in any way by the Bill. Also we would try to ensure that there was fair competition between British Shipbuilders and Harland and Wolff on any particular order.
With regard to the noble Lord's question about the fairness of the Brittany Ferries' order, we cannot prevent the French, and nor can the Commission, from keeping the order in France. In this case the French are in a uniquely strong position to determine where the order is to be built. I should point out that the Commission is now looking at this matter. It is looking not only at the aid package offered by the French but also at the aid package which we had offered for the building of the ship in the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord also mentioned ship scrapping. Ships are already being scrapped at a rate much higher than new orders are being placed. Last year alone 31 million gross tonnes of ships were scrapped and only 9 million tonnes were ordered. There is clearly no sense in subsidising a process that is already taking place on a major scale.
With regard to the industry and Scotland, as I have already said, of course the Government are doing everything they can to help the industry and the areas in which it is concentrated. There are considerable assisted areas in the North of England and in Scotland, and the Government want to see the yards do the very best they can in the circumstances of the world economic situation in shipbuilding. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, on the point that he made. I have not had notice of that question and perhaps I can come back to him on the subject.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls asked me the position as regards borrowing by the Japanese industry. I do not have any figures on that. If I can find out any, I shall again write to him. Meanwhile, I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, in addition to what the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, asked, could he find out whether assistance in Japan and in Korea is by borrowing or by grant?
Lord Beaverbrook: Yes, my Lords, I shall look into the matter and write to the noble Lord. Perhaps he would like to have a copy of the letter.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him again on Brittany Ferries whether the Government are prepared to pursue this matter according to the terms of the sixth directive, under which, as I understand it, there is no aid to European shipyards without the Commission's approval.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I understand on this particular order, as a result of the investigations, that no one can now provide state aid to secure it without the Commission's approval. So, yes, we shall do everything we can to pursue the order for this country but it has now attracted the interest of the Commission, which is looking into it.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 16th July), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Finance Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Building Societies Investor Protection Scheme (Maximum Protected Investment) Order 1987
3.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Building Societies Invester Protection Scheme (Maximum Protected Investment) Order 1987 laid before the House on 2nd July be approved. This draft order fulfils a commitment given in another place earlier this year during the passage of what was then the Banking Bill. I am pleased to be able to honour that commitment.
The Building Societies Act has created a scheme, the investor protection scheme, whose purpose is to ensure that, should any building society become insolvent, investors in that society do not lose all their money. This scheme provides for a fund to be created out of levies on all other societies, from which payments can be made to investors in the insolvent society. The scheme covers up to 90 per cent. of each investor's investment, but subject to an upper limit of £10,000. The Banking Act contains similar provisions.
This draft order varies one part of the scheme. It increases the maximum cover to £20,000. If approved, the maximum possible payment to investors will double from £9,000 to £18 000. Investor protection is a much debated matter. During the passage of the Building Societies Bill, I was pressed to increase the limit we are debating today. Similar pressure was applied during the passage of the Banking Bill, and the Government decided that it was now the right time to make the increase for both sets of legislation. This order reflects that decision for building societies.
It is right briefly to consider the purpose of protective provisions of this sort. Each indvidual investor has an obligation to consider where best to place his funds. No protection scheme should provide 100 per cent. cover. Investors' primary protection is the quality of society management, backed by the

1277
supervisory regime set out in the Building Societies Act, and now being given effect by the Building Societies commission. But deposit-taking institutions form a vital part of everyone's lives. It is right that small investors in them should be protected.
The £10,000 limit was introduced in banking legislation in 1979. An increase to take account of inflation would put the limit at over £18,000 today. So an increase to £20,000 provides broadly the same level of protection in real terms as that in 1979. In that time, there has been an increase in the size and number of larger scale investments by the public. At the end of 1984, only 4 per cent. of society share accounts held over £10,000. By the end of 1986, the figure was 6.2 per cent. The figures are probably larger still now. So the Government believe that it is now right to increase the limit.
The investor protection board has been consulted about this proposal, as required by the Building Societies Act. It endorses the change. It is likely that the new figure will remain in place for some while. But it will be kept under review as the pattern of investment by small investors varies. The relevant provisions of the Banking Act are intended to come into effect on 1st October this year. We propose therefore that this order take effect on the same day. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd July be approved. [1st Report from the Joint Committee—(Lord Brabazon of Tura.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Lord for having given a short introduction to this order. We also thank him for indirectly paying a tribute to my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, who in the course of the passage of the Banking Bill and also the Financial Services Bill urged precisely this course upon the noble Lord and was rebutted at the time.
We are grateful as Her Majesty's Opposition to play such a constructive part in persuading the Government to do the right thing and we are most grateful to the noble Lord. He mentioned that he had approval but he did not mention what the attitude of the building societies themselves was in this matter. Perhaps he could give us some information as to whether building societies are now satisfied with the position as they see it.
We on this side know perfectly well the pressures that have been placed upon building societies owing to the withdrawal of funds for investment in TSB and for investment in some of the newly privatised interests. We should like the noble Lord's assurance that in view of the massive withdrawals that have taken place for investment in those types of equities he is completely satisfied with the position as he has now presented it to the House. Otherwise, we on this side of the House completely support this order and trust your Lordships will approve it.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to say a few words. I suppose that I must declare a past interest as I was until April of this year the chairman of a building society, although I have now
1278
retired as I am over the statutory age required by the Building Societies Act 1986.
In addition to what my noble friend Lord Bruce has said about the representations made by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, I also venture to remind your Lordships that I raised this matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, well remembers, during the passage of the Building Societies Act through this House. I thought at that time that it was inconsistent to have an amount as small as £10,000 when there is absolutely no ceiling now on the amount that investors can invest in building societies. It used until recently to be £30,000 and the ceiling was removed by the Government quite rightly in my view. I therefore thought that the amount of £10,000—in actual fact it is only £9,000, as the noble Lord has said—was very small and almost derisory. The noble Lord, on behalf of the Government, resisted that amendment and I should therefore like to know why what was not acceptable to the Government last year is now acceptable.
The noble Lord implied that it was because of the falling value of money, but on the other hand the Government are very proud to remind us continually, almost daily, that they have got inflation under control; so that argument does not seem to me to be valid. Therefore I should like to know why the noble Lord would not accept what I proposed and why he is putting it forward now.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Strabolgi, for their general acceptance of the order laid before your Lordships this afternoon. In answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I understand that building societies are content with the order and its contents. In regard to giving the noble Lord an assurance that withdrawals made from building societies to pay for applications for privatisation or indeed any other kind of share issue mean that the building societies remain in a position to fulfil their part of the order laid before your Lordships, that is a matter for the commission. I am sure that the commission will watch out for that but I think that in actual fact the amounts of money about which we are talking are relatively small in comparison with the overall figures for building society investments, especially when one takes into account the amount of money which goes back after unsuccessful applications have been taken account of.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and I well remember how on 3rd July last year he moved an amendment to raise the limit to £30,000. He has asked me a difficult question as to why we have changed our minds within just a little over 12 months. I did not say in my opening remarks that it was due to the falling value of money during the past 12 months. In fact, the value of money has fallen very little during the past 12 months but it was generally a pressure put upon us during the passing of the Banking Act and it is only natural that this limit should go hand in hand with that in the new Banking Act.
Perhaps the noble Lord had some influence in the fact that we changed our minds. As a Government we

1279
are flexible, as noble Lords will be aware. Therefore, I think that we have done the right thing. We have not gone quite so far as the noble Lord's amendment would have wished. That amendment of a year ago mentioned £30,000. However, we have met the noble Lord half way between £10,000 and £30,000. Therefore, I beg to move.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to say that it is refreshing to have a Government who in answer to sound arguments are prepared to change. That is what I call good, sensible government.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1987
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th June be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Hooper is currently attending a Commonwealth education Ministers' conference in Kenya, it is my pleasant task to explain to your Lordships the amending regulations governing the administration of the assisted places scheme.
They are on this occasion entirely concerned with good housekeeping and need not, I hope, detain your Lordships long. The assisted places scheme was established in 1981 for the purpose of widening the educational opportunities of able children from less well-off families. It provides their parents with assistance towards the fees of some of the best independent schools in the country. That assistance is on a sliding scale, depending on parental income, and the regulations before your Lordships are mainly concerned with annual revision of those scales. The amendments are therefore of a procedural rather than a susbtantial nature.
Regulation 1 is concerned with title and timing and does not, I judge, require detailed comment. Regulation 1(2) essentially allows school bursars to use parental income scales ahead of the start of term for determining a child's eligibility for the scheme and assessing fee remission questions for existing assisted pupils.
Regulation 2 increases the allowance for dependent relatives from £900 to £950. That is the amount which can be disregarded from gross income for the purposes of deciding the relevant income against which parental contributions towards fees are assessed. Regulation 3 arises from the Finance Act 1986 and brings up to date the references to the relevant income tax legislation in Schedule 1 to the principal assisted places regulations. Income applied on donations under a payroll deduction scheme and reinvested dividend income under personal equity plans are to be included in the computation of relevant income.
Regulation 4 provides for the updating of income scales used for assessing the amount of parents' contributions towards fees. The threshold at or below which parents pay nothing towards fees is raised from
1280
£6,806 to £6,972, with consequential rises in the other income bands.
The amendments which I have just described are essentially necessary revisions for the continued smooth running of this successful scheme. If any noble Lords require further clarification on any point, I shall do my best to answer them in closing. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th June be approved. [1st Report from the Joint Committee.]—(The Earl of Arran.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to face the noble Earl across the Table on this first occasion. I am sure that both he and I would rather be with the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in Nairobi than here.
I accept the assurances given by the noble Earl and am convinced by the arguments which he has put forward that this is merely a housekeeping amendment. We have seen this amendment for the last couple of years and it is necessary to update the figures in the assisted places scheme every year. We entirely accept that and we shall not oppose the order.
However, it would not be right to let the occasion pass without saying that we still feel that the assisted places scheme encourages educational apartheid rather than the best educational system for all the school children in our country. Had we had the opportunity, we should have been seeking, without any detriment to the interests of those already taking part in the scheme, to run it down gradually to a close.
It is also necessary to say that when the Education Bill comes before us, as we understand it, there will be proposals to extend the numbers of children to benefit from the assisted places scheme. That will be a move which we shall certainly oppose. In the meantime, these regulations can be seen as consequential on existing legislation and we do not oppose them.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his particularly clear exposition of the new regulations, to which we on these Benches also have no objection. I have the impression that the only times at which I have had the honour to speak on this subject in your Lordships' House previously have been during the dinner hour or at some other time when attendance was a bit sparse. As the stalls are now a bit fuller, I should like to say from these Benches that we also regret the necessity for this scheme.
We feel that it was the first step in the process which will be carried further in the impending Education Bill, whereby the Government, instead of saying to the lower 40 per cent. in our education service, "This is our education service; we are attempting to make it the best in the world. We hope that you will benefit from it and that it will fulfil your needs", are saying to the top 40 per cent., "We know our education service is not good enough for you and here are some ways of getting out of it". I feel that the fortunate few tend to benefit and the less fortunate

1281
many will suffer proportionately. The scheme also tends to accentuate and perpetuate differences of which we already have too many in this country.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister three questions. If he cannot answer them now, perhaps he will be kind enough to write to me. First, I should be interested to know the estimated number of assisted places for the forthcoming year both in terms of those offered and those taken up. Secondly, can the Minister tell me the ultimate maximum? Perhaps I should know that but I hope that he will be kind enough to confirm the figure for my information. Thirdly, is he able to tell me the costing per child when compared with what that child's education would cost in the state sector? Perhaps the noble Earl will be kind enough to answer in due course if not immediately.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, may I intervene briefly and declare a small interest? I am chairman of the Independent Schools Joint Council. I welcome the regulations, as did the Opposition spokesman, as procedural or housekeeping. I had hoped that we should not get involved in the greater and more philosophical argument about the value of the assisted places scheme to the education system of this country.
I do not propose to involve myself in that argument. However, I must be allowed to express regret that Opposition spokesmen, having said that this is a housekeeping change, then proceed to make statements which in my opinion are absolutely wrong. I shall reserve my position, if I may, and say that I propose to counter those statements when we come to consider the Education Bill.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I find it somewhat distressing, and it now appears to have become traditional, that noble Lords opposite criticise such regulations. I must express disappointment that they continue their opposition to this obviously successful and popular scheme, which is now in its sixth year.
There are now over 24,000 pupils benefiting from it. Out of those, approximately three-quarters come from families with incomes under £10,500 per annum. The scale for determining the amount of fee remission is intentionally a stiff one and only those families with incomes currently below £6,807 qualify for completely free places. Even so, in the current school year, nearly 40 per cent. of all assisted pupils are eligible for full remission of fees.
It is quite clear that the scheme is squarely benefiting those lower income families for whom it was originally devised. Furthermore, the scheme is not a means of supporting those families, albeit of lower income, whose children would have entered the independent sector without the aid of an assisted place. Under the principal regulations, participating schools must ensure that at least 60 per cent. of their assisted pupils attended state schools immediately before taking up their assisted place. In practice, and with very few exceptions, this requirement has been met and with a good deal to spare.
The assisted places scheme is plainly achieving its objective of opening up some of the best independent schools to children who almost certainly would not
1282
otherwise have been able to look to them as an option. That can only be to their and this nation's advantage.
As regards the three questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, the estimated number of places is between 24,000 and 25,000; the estimated maximum is 35,000 places; and the cost per child is £1,759. I hope that I have answered the points which have been raised. If, when I have studied Hansard, I find that I have missed any, I trust noble Lords will allow me to write to them with the answer.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Iran-Iraq Conflict
3.42 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement about yesterday's Security Council Resolution No. 598 on the Iran-Iraq conflict which is being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"My attendance at yesterday's Security Council meeting, together with six other Foreign Ministers, underlines the importance which we attach to this resolution: as well as representing a united approach by the five permanent members it owes much to British initiative, and is the culmination of many months' work.
"This resolution, which was passed unanimously by the council, is mandatory, and demands an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of forces to internationally recognised boundaries without delay. It is carefully balanced and favours neither of the parties more than the other. Both should be able to accept it. In the event of non-compliance the council will meet to discuss possible enforcement measures.
"The Secretary-General will have a major role in the implementation of the resolution and with bringing the parties to a negotiated settlement of the conflict. This mandatory resolution reflects the gravity with which the whole international community views the continuing conflict between Iran and Iraq and the consequent threat to stability and peace. The resolution is a determined attempt to tackle the underlying causes of tension in the region.
"Attacks on shipping are at present the most dangerous symptom of that tension. I made clear in yesterday's Security Council debate the urgent need not only for a settlement of the conflict as a whole, but also for a halt to attacks on shipping in the Gulf. It is vital to uphold the principle of freedom of navigation, and the Armilla patrol continues to play its part by providing protection for British vessels.
"The world has never been more united in seeking an end to this bloody and senseless conflict. The international community yesterday made plain to the parties that it looks for a comprehensive, just and honourable settlement of the dispute

1283
through negotiation and diplomacy rather than by force of arms. The UN resolution offers both parties the right way forward. I am sure the whole House will join me in urging them to seize that opportunity"
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. We welcome the initiative of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the part he played in the discussions in the Security Council. The Iran-Iraq war has continued for almost seven years, and we understand that about a million lives have been lost during those years. Therefore, we welcome most warmly any initiative which attempts to resolve this dangerous situation and to end this cruel and pointless war.
Can the noble Lord say that although the resolution of the United Nations has been accepted by Iraq, Iran has not yet agreed to it? The Foreign Secretary is quoted in The Times this morning as saying that if either side does not agree, then,
"this Council will use all its powers under the Charter to make the resolution effective".
Can the noble Lord clarify that point? What sanctions does the council consider appropriate and effective? It may be a premature question and perhaps we may have to come back to it later. However, if the noble Lord can say anything now we would be grateful.
The resolution which has been agreed by the Security Council calls upon all states to exercise the utmost restraint and to refrain from any act which may lead to further escalation. Do the Government believe that the decision of the United States to re-flag Kuwaiti ships is affected by this part of the resolution? Do the Government further believe that the continued existence of the Iranian procurement office in London is compatible with that part of the resolution? That is a matter about which we have had a good deal of doubt for a long time, as the noble Lord knows. However, in the present critical position, perhaps further thought should be given to the matter.
As regards the reference to attacks on shipping, can the Minister say how many British protection vessels are now deployed in the Gulf'? Do the Government have any plans to increase that number? What ships will be entitled specifically to protection by British vessels?
Finally, the Gulf war has global implications as the House knows. The Iraq attack on USS "Stark", Irangate, the beating up of Edwin Chaplin and the cold relationship between France and Iran at the moment are all examples of what is a very dangerous situation. I agree that the resolution is balanced and fair. I am glad it is mandatory. As the Statement said, it provides an honourable solution which both these countries should be prepared to accept forthwith.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, on these Benches, we associate ourselves with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in congratulating the Foreign Secretary on his part in obtaining the resolution, and
1284
also the British permanent representative and his staff in New York. It has been a long haul and it has been well done. It is clearly for the good of the world.
I have one question to add to those put by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, which I ask out of real puzzlement and not in a critical way. Can the Government comment on the flagging of the Kuwaiti tankers? Is the Soviet proposal to lend tankers to Kuwait to be put under the Kuwaiti flag still going forward? Also, what is the meaning of the American plan, which is now in operation, to put Kuwaiti tankers under the American flag?
Why has the United States chosen to send the tankers in the following order; first, the 400,000 tonne-plus "Bridgeton", which is one of the biggest ships in the world, and, consequently, if lost in an attack by the other side will create one of the biggest fusses in the world; and secondly, a much smaller liquid natural gas carrier which, if hit, would result in the biggest possible explosion in the world possibly releasing a cloud of unexploded natural gas and constituting one of the major uncontrolled hazards imaginable in the world? What is the state of play of the Soviet plan and what is the meaning of the American plan? In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government how do the answers to those two questions reflect upon the likely success of this admirable resolution?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Kennet, for expressing their satisfaction with the achievement yesterday in New York. I am also grateful for the welcome they have given to the Statement of my right honourable and learned friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked about acceptance of the resolution by Iran in particular. It is true that the Iranian Government have not yet accepted and we urge them to comply with it. The noble Lord asked about enforcement measures. We must first hope that they will not be required. There are various alternatives which can be used and an arms embargo is perhaps the most obvious and relevant measure in this case. I doubt whether other measures would be generally acceptable. The details remain to be carefully discussed, but at the moment we have to see whether the resolution will be adopted by Iran. Clearly it is a little early to say at the moment. There are a number of different possibilities for the enforcement measure which the noble Lord is thinking about.
As for reflagging, that is basically a commercial matter and does not affect us in quite the same way as perhaps the possibilities of enforcement measures. The changes which have been made in flagging are, I understand, commercial.
As regards the Iranian military procurement office in London, I am aware that allegations have been made concerning its activities. There have been various rumours and accusations of breaches of United Kingdom law. These have been investigated but they have not been substantiated. Any evidence of illegal activity will be investigated most thoroughly by the appropriate authorities. I cannot usefully add to the facts which in the past have been made plain to your Lordships by my noble friend Lady Young.

1285
As for the Armilla patrol, at present it consists of three vessels, as I explained on an earlier occasion. It is in the area to offer reassurance and help to British ships in an emergency. We keep the operations of the patrol under constant review in the light of changing circumstances. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence said last November that the patrol would be spending more time in the Gulf. In January of this year it was deemed necessary temporarily to deploy the third warship to the area to assist or substitute for Armilla ships as necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, raised a number of different questions associated with reflagging. He also asked for explanations about why the United States had chosen to send in vessels in a particular order or including a specific type of vessel. Those are matters for the United States to answer and not for me. In respect of flagging, while I understand the concerns raised, they are largely matters for commercial decision and not for the Government. In conclusion, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the welcome they gave to the resolution achieved in New York yesterday.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this is a superb resolution? It is rather late in coming from the United Nations, but another good aspect is that for once the Security Council seems to have achieved a new-found unity and we in this Chamber most certainly should put on record that a magnificent speech was made by Sir Geoffrey Howe. I think it had a colossal effect on the thinking of the Security Council and we should acknowledge that.
What now is the possible danger? Is the Minister able to give some indication of the probability that the Iranian Government will step up their hostility towards Iraq? They might now use all kinds of obscene weapons and endeavour to wipe out the Iraqi nation, because they can compel even children to go to war for absurd reasons.
Despite this remarkable resolution and the tremendous contribution made by Sir Geoffrey Howe, can the Minister say that the Government are aware that other action may have to be contemplated not only if Iran does not agree with the United Nations resolution but, indeed, if it undertakes some form of action in direct opposition to it?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome of my right honourable and learned friend's speech yesterday at the United Nations. The possibility of Iran either not accepting the resolution or, indeed, as the noble Lord suggested, perhaps escalating the conflict in some other way, is hypothetical. The important point surely, and our first priority, as I believe the noble Lord will agree, is to persuade the two sides—Iran and Iraq—to accept, or at least not to reject, the resolution. I am certain that the message which goes out from all in your Lordships' House is that both sides should comply with it at once.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, as one of the few surviving drafters of the Charter of the United Nations I need hardly say that I greatly welcome this
1286
possibly unique occasion on which the charter is apparently, largely owing to the splendid efforts of the Foreign Secretary, being applied in accordance with the original intention.
The present resolution, welcome thought it is, is presumably only a first move, or it may only be a first move. It seems doubtful, to say the least, whether it will be accepted by both sides and notably by the Iranians. Let us hope that it will be, but it seems doubtful.
What will be really important, and indeed epoch making, is if it is then followed by actual provisions for an enforceable prohibition of arms supplies to both sides. If such a resolution receives the votes of the five permanent members and a few others— there is no need for unanimity under the charter—then it will become legally binding on all members of the United Nations. In that event of course it will be the duty of the Security Council to take all means, including presumably first of all a blockade, to see that it is abided by.
I suggest that rather than in effect taking what might be the equivalent of enforcement measures on their own, the United States would be well advised, if possible, to wait and see, first of all, whether the present resolution is complied with by both sides and, if not, whether another resolution is passed on the enforcement issue. If it is passed we shall presumably do our bit to help the enforcement. If it is not passed and the present resolution is rejected, it is presumably open to all states to protect their vessels passing through the Gulf to the extent to which they are capable of so doing.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think the noble Lord will agree that the move to enforcement, if that proves necessary, must he very carefully thought through and it must be prepared. These are matters which will have to be discussed among the other permanent members. I feel that neither side in this conflict can expect to flout for long the wishes of the international community, as expressed by the Security Council, without serious repercussions. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, we have to see what happens. An arms embargo is the most obvious measure. I note what the noble Lord said about protection of vessels.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not particularly gratifying that the resolution was both unanimous and mandatory? Should we not be making a mistake if we were to anticipate the possible reaction of either of the two combatant powers to its mandatory character? Should we not be making a mistake also to pursue hypothetical questions about the protection of ships in the Gulf, which would become unnecessary if both parties accepted the resolution?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that my noble and learned friend is quite right. He highlights two very important words, "mandatory" and "unanimous". I quite agree with what he says.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, this is an extraordinarily satisfactory development in what is a most dangerous

1287
situation. Can the Government give us any indication of how opinions can be brought to bear on the Iranian Government? So few of the great powers seem to have any effective means of talking to the Iranians now. Do the Government know how the Secretary-General of the United Nations is proposing to develop the resolution, because presumably he could go back to talk to President Khomeini if he was impressed by anything—about which one is not sure?
Finally, may I ask whether the Government agree that the rather quiet means by which the British have been convoying their ships seems not to have been very effective? Would it not have paid us to adopt a higher profile, as the Americans are now doing? If we had done that, might it not have discouraged the extremely dangerous development of the situation in the Persian Gulf?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not think that it is wise to consider hypothetical questions about how we might or might not have approached the task of the Armilla patrol in setting about its work over the last months. I am not sure that that is helpful. The important point is that the Gulf must be free for shipping of all kinds.
So far as monitorng compliance with the new resolution, the United Nations Secretary-General is charged to send observer teams, and he will be discussing the modalities of that with Iran and Iraq. Those teams, as I understand it, could be dispatched at very short notice. It is up to the Security Council on receipt of a report from the United Nations Secretary-General to determine whether the resolution is being complied with.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, may I put a question to the Minister about the British naval vessels in the Gulf? It was announced yesterday that these ships had been authorised to defend themselves if attacked. As a former naval officer I find that a most extraordinary thing to say. Surely the Royal Navy does not need any such authority to defend itself if attacked. Can the noble Lord give any further indication of the instructions to the captains of these vessels?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Lord is referring to what is known as the rules of engagement. We do not discuss these in detail, so I am afraid that I cannot tell him what he wants to know.

Meat and Livestock Commission Levy Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1987
4.5 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th April be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this scheme is presented in accordance with the requirements of Section 13 of the Agriculture Act 1967, as amended by the Agriculture Acts of 1970 and 1986. The order replaces the existing levy scheme set out in the
1288
schedule to the Meat and Livestock Commission Levy Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1979 and varied in 1981. It provides for a new scheme, which has two features. First, the current joint levy, to which both producers and slaughterers equally contribute, is retained. This joint levy raises money to meet the MLC's general expenses just as in the past. Secondly, the order introduces a new levy to fund species promotion. This will be payable by producers alone. In both instances the levy scheme stipulates the maximum amount that can be charged. However, the actual amounts within these maxima will continue to be determined by the MLC in consultation with the appropriate representatives of the industry.
Your Lordships may find it useful to recall the background to the development of this new promotional levy, sometimes called the "bolt-on" levy. Over the years there has been a growing awareness within all sectors of the British meat and livestock industry that production and marketing must be more fully integrated and that marketing requirements must be explored and assessed and production systems geared to meet consumer demand if meat promotion is to be really effective. Nevertheless, meat promotion is a difficult area. It is an area where there are differing views on the best mix of promotional activities and how they should be funded. This was why the MLC set up an independent review team in 1984 to review the promotion of British meat.
The resulting Webb Report proposed that the existing levies should continue to be used to support the MLC's general activities and its campaigns to promote the positive image of meat. Funding for this should remain shared equally between producers and the meat trade. But the report also recommended that producers alone should be enabled to contribute, through a new and additional statutory levy element, for theme and species promotion. This is the "bolt-on" levy. The conclusions of the Webb Report were generally accepted by the industry, and last year the Government brought forward legislation in the Agriculture Act 1986 to provide the necessary framework to permit the new element in the levy to be raised. This too was widely welcomed by the House.
The Commission's draft scheme would give effect to the Webb recommendation on species promotion. The proposed species promotion levy has been the subject of very wide consultation with the industry over recent months. Organisations representing the prospective levy payers welcome it. Indeed they are anxious for funds to be raised as soon as possible so that the promotion councils established for the different species of meat can press ahead with enhanced promotion campaigns for beef, lamb and pork this year.
The draft scheme also retains the existing maxima for jointly funded levy. The Commission announced last August that the actual rates for general levy would not be increased in the current financial year so as to minimise the increased burden on livestock producers. In fact the MLC has not raised general levy rates since 1983/84, despite inflation, and has maintained its level of activity by increasing efficiency.
I am pleased to pay tribute to the Commission's responsible and professional approach in successfully presenting the case for meat and meat products as part of a balanced and healthy diet. The MLC has worked co-operatively and successfully with health authorities to get over the message that meat continues to be an excellent source of protein, vitamins and minerals. The Commission's response to the Webb Report, its implementation of a new marketing strategy and the reorganising of its meat promotion effort have all been commendable and importantly have been carried forward with a strong measure of support from producer organisations, whose members will be paying the new levy. I understand they are keen that collection for the new levy should start as soon as possible—a strong endorsement. Clearly the present order will help the MLC to continue its valuable work on meat promotion and much else besides. I ask your Lordships to support the Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th April be approved. [19th Report from the Joint Committee] —(Lord Hesketh.)
4.9 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord for introducing so clearly the details of the order. In one respect, as he says, it breaks new ground; namely, the introduction of the species promotion levy. It was gratifying to hear that producers apparently are in great haste to see the levy introduced and, indeed, to pay it. That is a novel situation in the meat trade so far as I am concerned. I hope that the producers will be satisfied with the outcome of the expenditure for which the levy now provides maximum rates in respect of cattle, sheep and pigs.
I noted that the maxima vary over the general expenses levy in certain respects. No doubt there are good reasons why the cattle species promotion levy should be 40p more, the sheep levy 4p less and the pig levy remain the same. I shall not ask the Minister to tell us now why all these things are as they are but in due season he might care to let me know.
Perhaps we may whether, in introducing this new form of generic advertising, which I think is what it is, there will he the maximum co-operation between the Meat and Livestock Commission and the producer for which it is acting as well as the Food from Britain organisation. One has felt for a long time that much of what is being done in this area; if properly co-ordinated, could at the end of the day serve better the needs of producers and the consumer.
I should like to raise one further point with the Minister. Although the general expenses levy is not being increased—and, as he has said in his remarks, it has been held at 1983–84 levels—the collection of the levy falls in the main on slaughterers acting as agents on behalf of the Meat and Livestock Commission but with an obligation both to collect and account for the money. Some years ago the Meat and Livestock Commission attempted rationalisation of slaughterhouse capacity in England and Wales which was felt at that time to be
1290
excessive. There were indeed a number of small slaughterhouses operating at less than capacity. It tabled as a basis for discussion and after study three schemes for the industry to consider. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us if anything positive emanated from that initiative. One would not expect to have a reply to such a question without notice this afternoon but perhaps at some future time he might care to let me know. We welcome the levy and again thank the Minister for the manner in which he introduced it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, we on these Benches would like to welcome the order. I should like to pay tribute to the work of the Meat and Livestock Commission in general which I think is of great value. Only this morning before I left home the Minister will be pleased to hear that I was reading some of the costings of the schemes for grazing cattle. I shall be going home after we rise to read the general work on the pig industry. This is all very important and is much appreciated by farming as a whole.
I welcome the new order and the new payment and will be very happy to pay it. However, I have always been a little puzzled about why the producers should pay the whole of the promotional levy. Perhaps the Minister can explain a little further why the manufacturing and retailing industry, which takes more out of the public by way of cash than does the primary producer, is unwilling to pay its share or has been excused from paying its share. I know that producers generally have welcomed the order but they thought when it was being discussed that perhaps the trade—manufacturing and retail—might well pay its share. Perhaps the Minister could tell us why it is not so doing.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Meat and Livestock Commission has a wide brief. At the centre is the furtherance of the British livestock and livestock products industry. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshic, asked why more people were not contributing to the new promotional levy. It would probably be quite difficult to persuade the retailers to engage in this and the vast majority of producers are in agreement that we want to get the marketing of the product improved as fast as possible.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, as I said to the Minister, in the case of the normal levy there is no difficulty in collecting it from both sides.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie knows, this levy is in addition to the normal levy. However, it has been welcomed and I hope that we shall see the benefits of it sooner rather than later.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, referred to the collection of the levy by slaughterers. The MLC has several times considered appropriate means of collecting the levy but has always come back to the levy at slaughter point as the most effective and practical way. I am sure that it will continue to investigate it because, as with any levy, those who have to collect it do tend to complain and feel that others could also do it.

1291
I was grateful that both sides of the House welcomed this move and I hope it will be seen as a positive one for the industry as a whole. It is clear that the producer organisations attach considerable importance to the new levy in their efforts to promote British meat. I feel sure that the MLC can co-ordinate these efforts to good effect, working through the promotion councils it has set up. I ask your Lordships to support the Motion.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may ask him one question. If the levy is to be used for the purposes of promoting the livestock products, especially beef, could he draw the attention of those who are drawing the levy to the fact that the British services, especially the Navy, which obtains Uruguayan beef, utilise and are provisioned by foreign beef? Surely it is about time the commission carried out its task and promoted British products for the services of this country.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall most certainly draw this to the attention of my right honourable friend.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Supplementary Benefit (Requirements and Resources) Amendment Regulations 1987
4.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th July be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I trust that it will also be for the convenience of the House if I speak at the same time to the second Motion in my name.
The draft regulations order put into effect amendments to the supplementary benefit regulations dealing with the payment of benefit to people in residential care and nursing homes. It also uprates the amount of the student grant that can be disregarded in respect of books and equipment. We are always being told that not enough money is spent on student books, and this is a practical way to ease the problem.
The draft regulations are a lot more complicated and deal principally with the payment of supplementary benefit to people in small residential care homes; that is, homes with three or fewer residents which cannot register with a local authority. People living in these homes can get supplementary benefit up to the same limits as registered residential care homes. The intention was that this should only happen where the care given was clearly equivalent to that given in a registered home and thus the costs of the home justified higher benefit levels. However, there is doubt as to whether the current regulations actually achieve this aim. There has also been widespread concern that the present benefit provisions positively encourage the setting up of small homes regardless of the services provided.
The amendments in these draft regulations restore the original policy intention. The new definition, at regulation 2(b), takes the provision of staff of a reasonable calibre as a proxy for additional costs. The higher limit will apply where the home provides personal care and there are at least two people with relevant experience employed in providing that care. At least one of those people must be available throughout the working day and one must be on call throughout the night to care for residents. Residents must also have free access to the home at all times.
This new definition should ensure that rates of benefit bear a defensible relationship with costs. It should also be simpler to administer than the present provisions. Specifying the requirements for the higher limit provides a system which will be clearer for adjudication officers who will have sharply defined parameters within which to work, claimants who will know what help they can expect and those providing care for whom the position will be much clearer.
Your Lordships will have observed that a few claimants may already be receiving higher rates of benefit which would be considered inappropriate under the new provisions. Regulation 3 protects their position. Their benefit will remain unchanged until there is a relevant change in their circumstances.
The amendment regulations also include, at Regulation 2(a), a new definition of a "nursing home". This is a technical amendment to make it clear that references to nursing homes in the supplementary benefit requirements regulations are to registered homes.
Finally, on the amendment regulations I should mention Regulation 4 which deals with a quite different aspect of supplementary benefit. Regulation 4 reflects the increased rates of student grants for the academic year 1987–88. Within the new rates of grant there is an increased allocation for books and equipment. The supplementary benefit regulations provide a specific disregard for this element of the student grant and the purpose of this regulation is to uprate that disregard to the new level.
I turn now to the Pensioners' Lump Sum Payments Order, which provides for the payment of the £10 Christmas bonus. It provides for the payment of a non-taxable Christmas bonus of £10 in the week commencing 7th December to retirement pensioners and to recipients of the other qualifying benefits specified on the Pensioners' Payments and Social Security Act 1979.
As we look forward to our summer holidays it must inevitably strike your Lordships as inappropriate that the House should be called upon to debate the payment of a Christmas bonus some six months in advance. I am pleased therefore to be able to remind the House that this is in fact the last time that such a debate will be necessary. From next year payment of the bonus will be made automatically as one of the very welcome administrative simplifications resulting from the Social Security Act 1986.
I firmly believe that pensioners budgeting for Christmas need the assurance of that contribution to their expenses which this payment provides. That is

1293
why we have paid the bonus every year we have been in office, why we gave pensioners statutory entitlement in 1979 not taking it away on a temporary basis when economic circumstances dictate as they did in 1975 and 1976 and why, as I mentioned before, we have now made receipt of the bonus an automatic right in primary legislation.
I am proud that this year we are paying the bonus to a record number of pensioners at an estimated cost of around £114 million. I accept that this is only a small part of the £22 billion that pensioners receive in benefit. This is right and proper, for what pensioners need most is day-to-day support. That we are clearly giving them, not just through the social security system but through protecting that part of pensioners' incomes which they have built up independently. Pensioners who have set aside money for their retirement, either through occupational or private pensions schemes or in the form of savings, can now enjoy the benefits of this foresight without fear of the effects of inflation. The result, as I hardly need remind the House, has been a substantial increase in pensioners' incomes. Between 1979 and 1985 their average weekly net income from all sources rose by almost a fifth in real terms. These are of course average figures and there are still some pensioners less well-off than we should like to see.
The result of this is that pensioners as a group have seen their living standards rise over twice as fast of those of the population as a whole. That is what matters to pensioners and that is what will enable them to save for a comfortable and happy Christmas. The order before the House today provides a worthwhile contribution towards that end and I commend it, together with the draft Supplementary Benefit Amendment Regulations, to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th July be approved. [1st Report from the Joint Committee.]—[Lord Skelmersdale.]
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, we are glad to welcome these regulations in principle. Some months ago we raised the question in your Lordships' House about more control being needed in small homes with four or fewer people. It might seem a bit churlish, having asked for these controls to be brought in, to ask the noble Lord a few questions, but if we do not get the details right today we shall be laying up difficulties for the people who will have to implement what the Minister agrees are very complicated rules.
We need to know whether in homes with fewer than four persons that number could go down to three, two or one. Moreover could one put up one's decrepit old parents in one's house and call that a home within the terms of these regulations? In paragraph 2 it is stated:
"Those responsible persons [must] have at least one year's relevant experience in caring for persons in need of the category of personal care for which the establishment provides such care".
I simply cannot understand what that means. Does it mean that in one of these small homes there are a diversity of disabilities? One person might be blind, another may have arthritis, another may have senile
1294
dementia and another might be suffering from some other disability. How can we define care for persons,
"in need of the category of personal care"?
Does it mean that these small homes must take only one kind of disability? That would cause difficulties and would undo some of the intentions of the regulations.
Sub-paragraph (iii), to which the Minister referred, provides:
"at least one responsible person is available throughout the day".
Does that mean that the same person has to be available throughout the day, because that might involve longer hours than would be considered desirable? I ask this question particularly because in the next paragraph, (iv), it states:
"throughout the night, at least one responsible person is on call".
Is it not meant in sub-paragraph (iii) that throughout the day at least one person should be on duty? There is no inference that it should be the same person. If the noble Lord agrees with me, then I suggest that sub-paragraph (iii) should read "throughout the day". I know these are details but I am thinking of the people working in the homes who will want to know about their working conditions.
In paragraph 3 I notice that the transitional provisions, which we all welcome, are to be applied where the adjudication officer had made the decision before 27th July. I must ask what happens if a person had applied before 27th July, but because of delays—we know that there have been all sorts of staff problems in overworked social security offices—the decision was not reached until after 27th July. Will there not then be some unfairness to the persons concerned. Why or how are all these regulations to be implemented? I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that there will be considerable increases in staff especially for adjudication officers.
We welcome the slight improvement to the student disregard. I am curious as to how the figure of £210 was arrived at as an increase over £187. Was it a question of inflation or does it take into account the fact that the price of books has increased vastly more than the general cost of living index? Perhaps while we are on this point the Minister can give us some information about student support. The fifth report of the Social Security Advisory Committee is anxious that student support should be taken out of social security. A House of Commons Select Committee on Education, Science and Art, said in its report last December (at paragraph 24):
"In our view it is right that the Government should seek to remove student support from the social security system".
I understand that the Secretary of State for Education is taking a long look at the whole subject of financial support for students. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us how that study is progressing. I should be happy if student support could be totally separated from social security because at the moment it causes confusion, a double lot of work in two departments and is not really the way to go about these things.
I shall be very short in my remarks on the pensioners' lump sum payments, though I appreciate that the Minister had to use the opportunity for his

1295
party political comments. I shall be happy only when all our old people are living in such comfort and well-being the whole year round that they do not have to depend on a Santa Claus hand-out at Christmas.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I too should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his explanation of these regulations and this order. Dealing with the regulations first, Regulation 4 relating to students is immediately acceptable, although whether or not the revised disregard is adequate is another matter. It is related to the general question of the adequacy of students' grant which falls rather outside the scope of our debate this afternoon.
It could be argued that the object of Regulation 2 is to effect a reduction in spending. The fact that the transitional protection is provided for those residents currently in small care residential homes which will no longer meet the definition of such a home supports the view that a cut, however small, is being made for the future. Have the Government any estimate of the numbers likely to be affected and in the long run the sum likely to be saved?
Of course the Government say that standards are being tightened and control is being extended and we can only welcome that intention most warmly. However, we are bound to ask whether penalising claimants is the fairest way to control institutions. Is it not perhaps better to place any necessary regulations directly on the institutions, requiring them to maintain certain standards, rather than to penalise a claimant who finds himself being cared for in an institution which does not reach the required standard? Finally on this question, can the noble Lord say when the report of the DHSS local government working party, chaired by Joan Firth, is to be published?
Turning to the Pensioners' Lump Sum Payments Order, as the noble Lord explained to us, that provides for the payment this year of the £10 Christmas bonus, and of course we do not oppose that. However, we are bound to repeat our complaint, which has been voiced many times, that the Government are allowing the value of the bonus to decline each year. If particular social security benefits are thought by the Government to be necessary, they should be index-linked, or convincing reasons should be advanced why a lower real value of benefit is now appropriate. We have seen this gradual decline happen with other benefits, and 1 think particularly of the death grant. The Government allow the benefit to decline and then they say that it is not worth continuing it and that it would cost too much to restore it to its original value.
In the recent Alliance election manifesto we proposed a double pension in the first week of December, which of course at current rates would mean that a single person would receive £39.50 and a married couple £63.35. We reckoned that the net cost of that would be £268 million. Of course that is an item in a budget of over £40 billion. It was part of the package of improvements to social security that we
1296
put forward and that we intended to pay for in part by restricting mortgage interest relief to the standard rate, and replacing the personal allowances against income for tax purposes by an allowance against tax which would have been worth the same at all levels of income tax.
If the pensioners' Christmas bonus is to be continued into the future, then some form of indexation will surely be necessary. The noble Lord spoke about the position of pensioners generally and indicated that it had improved over recent years, which was partly due to the fact that in the early days of the Government there was a link with earnings. Now the Government have broken that link with earnings and it is a fact, is it not, that earnings are increasing faster than prices? Is it not also a fact that the Government's future estimates are all worked out on the assumption that that situation will continue? If that situation does continue, will not the position of pensioners deteriorate and any advantage that there may have been be wiped out?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful both to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord for their general welcome of this order. Clearly there are some detailed questions about which I shall do my best to talk. Equally clearly there are some points which will need a second look, especially those of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, who of course is an acknowledged expert in this particular subject whereas I, equally clearly, am not.
We have had an interesting debate and a large number of points have been raised. The provisions of the regulations dealing with very small homes represent a necessary tightening up of the present arrangements. They ensure that higher benefit limits will apply only where the level of provision and the costs of the home would justify those higher levels.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked me whether a better way of controlling these homes would be through the registration system rather than through, as he suggested we were doing, the social security system. In fact we do indeed control them through registration which is why this order is only concerned with the very small homes: the ones to which the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, referred as those with one, two or three persons. I agreed very much with her implied comment on the social mix that is needed. I do not approve of homes being specialised because the residents happen to have arteriosclerosis, or whatever particular disease it happens to be. That probably is my answer to her question on paragraph 2(f)(ii). So far as what "throughout the day" and "on duty at night" mean, they mean that there must be someone available in the flesh, as it were, during the day but during the night they are allowed to be asleep as long as they are on call and can respond to whatever emergencies are thrown up.
The noble Baroness also asked what "relevant experience" meant for staff in very small homes. This will, as it is now, be a decision for the relevant adjudication officer. The chief adjudication officer will be advising that "relevant experience" should be regarded as experience in caring for the category or categories of persons for whom the home provides accommodation. These may be found in the same person or possibly not, but it will be for the relevant

1297
adjudication officer to make that decision. In reaching it he, or she, may seek the opinion of the local social services authority or other professional bodies. The regulations specifically exclude a close relative from hoarder status, so that is the answer to the noble Baroness's question about a decrepit relative. Equally a claimant must be a boarder before he, or she, can receive residential care rates.
I do not think that this is the moment to get into a tremendous educational-financial debate, but I take the points that have been made about the review of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science of the financial benefits for students. As to how far that has gone I am afraid that I cannot at this moment advise the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked about the adequacy of the disregard for students. Clearly, it is not the be-all and end-all of the matter, and indeed in my opening speech I did not claim that it was. I said that this is a practical way to ease the problem. I readily admit that it will be nice to go further when circumstances and financial arrangements allow.
Not surprisingly, both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord turned to the lump sum payment order and the Christmas bonus. I accept that the value of the bonus has fallen since its introduction. That is because successive governments have put resources where, as the noble Baroness and I agree, they are most needed —into improving weekly benefits and services for elderly people. An increase of £1 in the Christmas bonus, or in any other payment being made to the same number of people, would cost £11 million, and restoration would cost £400 million at today's prices.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred to the Alliance manifesto. At the time I noted it with interest, especially the promise to pay a week's double pension at Christmas. However, I had difficulty in understanding it as it was phrased. The noble Lord's comments will help me understand it once I have taken the matter on board.
The great problem is that any lump sum payment will be made indiscriminately, whether people need it or not. I agree that it is equally welcome to both groups, but there is a certain indiscrimination which I do not find attractive. As regards the linking of basic pension increases to earnings, the present Administration came to office with a commitment to increase pensions in line with the movement in prices. This has been done despite the fact that pensions are being paid to many more pensioners than in 1978. However, I cannot emphasise too strongly that pensioners' living standards cannot be mentioned in terms of the basic pension alone; a point which I made fairly strongly in my opening speech.
Last, but by no means least, I was asked whether the draft regulations represented a cut. As far as I am able to establish, the answer to that question is no, but if I am wrong I shall certainly write to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pensioners' Lump Sum Payments Order 1987
4.43 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th July be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th July be approved. [1st Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Skelmersdale]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Inner Urban Areas
4.44 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they propose to deal with the deteriorating situation in inner urban areas.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should first like to explain briefly why I am putting this Question to the Secretary of State. I should also like to offer the noble Lord my belated congratulations on appointment to his new office. With no sense of sarcasm, I wish him success in that office, because it is an onerous and heavy burden. A difficult problem faces us as a nation. The noble Lord has the job of dealing with it.
We have just come through a general election which the Secretary of State's party won quite convincingly. Nevertheless, that carries with it serious responsibilities. The Government's manifesto, the words of the Prime Minister, the gracious Speech and subsequently the strong support in a completely non-political sense of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, encapsulate the concern of all about this difficult problem.
Noble Lords will be aware that over the past two years this and related subjects have been dealt with in depth in this House; more so than in another place. We had a first-class debate nearly two years ago on the report of the Duke of Edinburgh's commission on housing when contributions were made from all parts of your Lordships' House. The Motion was moved eloquently and with great feeling by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm whose name I am glad to see on the list of speakers today. That was followed in February by the debate led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in relation to the publication Faith in the City, the Runcie Report.
Both those reports homed in on the problem with which we are now concerned. There was a great deal of agreement on what ought to be done. I do not want to go through the list of figures as regards the financial requirements required to deal with the problem. The figures have been printed and quoted over and over again. Because of the time factor—there is another Unstarred Question on the Order Paper—I do not think that there is any point in repeating the exercise. I shall refer to one matter towards the end of my remarks but I shall be quite brief.
Although the Question refers only to the inner cities, one cannot deal with an inner city problem on its own in a city. I take the view that the inner city is the pulse, the engine-room, of that city. I believe as do the Government—and I think that if my party had won the election we should have had to accept the fact—that the private sector has a considerable role to play in the refurbishment of the inner cities. I have been talking to a number of people about this subject. I gain the impression, as I have said before in your Lordships' House, that the Government may have to weigh their input much higher than that of the private sector. I repeat that I am now talking about the inner cities and not the rest of the cities.
I was surprised when I saw quotes in the Sunday Times, as I am sure was the Secretary of State at about the time of his appointment, stating that the Government were hoping to attract £4 of private sector money for every pound that they spent. I thought that that figure was optimistic; but on examination I found it not to be so and that the private sector has exceeded that input.
That is the inner city problem. I am a resident of a large city. I was brought up in another large city which has a tighter knit community. I visit my home city now and again and I do not like what I see. The heart is dying and there is talk of renewing it. However, there is a form of arterio-sclerosis spreading outwards. I left Manchester in 1982. I lived in a nice area about three-and-a-half to four miles from the centre, on the border of Denton. When I now visit that area, which is not very often, I can see deterioration setting in. Unless the Government take full cognisance of this disease, which is spreading outwards, we shall be swamped by it. I believe that it must be done concurrently with the issue about which we are talking today.
How is the problem to be tackled? I believe that it would be fatal if the Government attempted to impose a solution on local authorities. I think they certainly ought to ask the local authorities to participate and give them the chance to do so. It may well be that local authorities who were foolish enough to be obstructive have to be bypassed but I urge the Government, before it comes to that, to take local authorities into their confidence, discuss matters with them and give them a chance to make an input into their own situation. I am sure the Secretary of State is aware that although the docklands redevelopment and refurbishment scheme has been a success, it has not been free from substantial criticism by the people who traditionally lived in that area. They have complained about being given no part in decision-making, of being bypassed and of being priced out of the areas where historically they have lived for a very long time.
Having said that, obviously one of the largest problems in the inner cities and the near-inner cities is housing. In the main I am talking about the public sector where we are in a difficult situation. I do not think the Government's policy of offering participation or allowing tenants to opt out of local authority control will work, because in most of the areas we are talking about 50 per cent. or so of the tenants either receive social security benefit or feature
1300
in the housing revenue account to a substantial degree. I do not see them wanting to form their own housing associations unless somebody (such as the Government) will pick up the bill, because the type of person I am talking about will not have the money to do it. As I say, it is on record that 50 per cent. or more of such people are in a large number of inner city areas.
Therefore I put two questions to the Secretary of State in an objective manner. I know he has not been long in his present job but he must know of some ideas emerging about action to be taken. Is it the Government's intention to restore some of the cuts? I say "some" because I would not ask for all of them to be restored. If that could be done it would help local authorities to deal with their housing problems, and if it is not done in conjunction with the redevelopment of the inner cities it will be very difficult. The two are interdependent and should be done together.
However, I am not talking just about the public sector, because the area of housing which is causing most concern at the moment and which is deteriorating faster than any other is the owner-occupied sector. Sixty per cent. of the people in this country are owner-occupiers and the properties are deteriorating faster in the private sector because of the lack of finance on the part of the owners to keep their properties in a reasonable state of repair.
I am aware of the time factor, but before I close I should like to refer to another area of revenue which has always been available to local authorities. It is an historical fact that since 1979 the rate support grant to local authorities in general has been cut by £21.5 billion. I do not subscribe to the belief that local authorities in the main spend money stupidly. There are some local authorities who do some very silly things, but in terms of the whole picture the number is miniscule and has had no effect whatever on the situation we are faced with today.
If I may, I should like briefly to quote from two independent bodies who have given recent assessments of what has happened. The first quotation comes from Private Housebuilding in the Inner Cities, a report from an independent commission prepared for the House Builders Federation. The report is very extensive but I shall give a brief quotation:
"Whilst we note the Government's new inner city initiative, we were forcibly struck by the fact that urban regeneration, of which new private housebuilding is an essential part, requires very much more investment than at present. Increased private sector investment on the scale needed will be forthcoming only if there is, first, substantially more public investment".
That is not a political document: it comes from a report prepared for the House Builders Federation and it underpins what we have been saying.
I also have here a document entitled Charter for Jobs. This report was issued during June and it says that in housing alone in this country an urgent need for £85 billion can be identified at present. The point I am trying to make is that one cannot expect the Government to wave a magic wand and produce something of that order. However, unless we start to mean what we say, to put our money where our mouth is and start to attack this deterioration in the inner cities that is now spreading outwards, we are

1301
doomed to failure. The social and financial costs of that will be both colossal and unbearable.
I have tried to put my questions to the Secretary of State in an objective manner. I am grateful to your Lordships for the intense way you have listened to what 1 had to say, and on the basis of that I am looking forward to the contributions of my colleagues and to the response by the Secretary of State at the end of the debate.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, we must all thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for introducing this subject, which is one of the utmost importance and one which we should pick up from time to time in this House. As he said, we last discussed it on 2nd February in a debate initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. It was to me an extremely important and useful debate. I should like to add that I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean, in his reference to the fact that we are not talking about inner cities only. Many of the outer cities suffer from the same problems as the inner cities, but this is now a term of art and when we talk about "inner cities" we mean also other areas suffering from deprivation. I should also like to say how glad I am to see the noble Lord, Lord Young, in his place today to answer this debate.
In the debate on 2nd February the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, emphasised two particular points for our attention. The first was the importance of partnership, in particular partnership, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, said, between the Government and local authorities. Whatever the Government's plans, in my view they will not succeed unless they establish a proper partnership between central government and local authorities, which are after all the elected representatives of people living in the area.
I was looking today at a publication just issued by the Department of the Environment with the title Managing Work Spaces. I was looking at it in our leisure space in the Library and I found, briefly, that it bore out the point that in almost all the schemes which it studied and to which it gave particular praise the partnership between the Government and the local authority was very close and useful.
The second point to which the noble and learned Lord drew attention was the very real danger of alienation from what he called the mainstream of British life on the part of those who suffer most from the disadvantages of living in our inner cities; that is to say, the ethnic minorities.
On the same occasion the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury emphasised the view of his commission that the nation is confronted by, "a grave and fundamental injustice"—those were his words—in urban priority areas. In the light of that debate, of what was said then and of what has been said just now by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, I welcome the Government's interest in this problem of our inner cities. If it has been inspired, as some cynics suggest, by the desire to get votes in those areas, it does not shock me in the least. That, after all, is how democracy works.
1302
Votes are to politicians what money is to businessmen. It was an American politician in the 19th century who said:
"Politicians are not men. They are hogs and you must hit them on the snout".
If one wants to hit a politician on the snout the way to do it—unless he is a Member of this House—is to vote against him. If the Government's response to a rather poor vote in the last election from the inner city areas is to pay attention to them, all strength to their elbow.
However, in looking at those policies we must examine and probe the means that the Government intend to employ, their intentions and, if I may say so, their misconceptions. I do not want to be beastly to the noble Lord, Lord Young, but in answer to questions put to him by some Members of this House about the efficiency of British Telecom he said that it had produced a great deal more cellular telephones in the past few years since privatisation. I say in reply that cellular telephones or their analogues are not matters of great interest to the inhabitants of inner cities.
The criteria by which we must judge the Government's plans for the inner cities are those of public service and public interest. Those are the four words by which their policies must be judged. I should be happier if I heard them rather more frequently used by members of the present administration.
It is not true, as is sometimes said, that inner city problems have suddenly hit us in the past 20 years. They have been with us ever since cities developed and since the 18th century and the "rookeries" in London. Nor, I should add, are they confined to this country. They exist in the Bidonvilles of France, in Naples in Italy and above all in New York and Chicago.
In the debate on February 2nd, the noble Lord, Lord Young, did not convince me that there was any real connection between the amount of local authority housing and the intensity of inner city deprivation. What is true and undeniable is that in the United Kingdom, the United States and France the chief victims of inner city deprivation are the ethnic minorities.
It is the case—and this is the area on which I should like to concentrate—that unemployment among the ethnic minorities overall is double that found among the rest of the population. Further among ethnic minorities unemployment in the group aged between 16 and 25 is of the order of 60 per cent. in many inner cities. It is a pretty serious and formidable problem and one that we must confront.
Hence, when we consider the Government's plans and those plans become clearer, we must ask ourselves whether they will substantially change the disadvantage suffered by ethnic minorities in our inner cities. Some of those disadvantages are shared by other groups who live in the inner cities but some are due to racial discrimination. If those policies do not correct what the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury called the "injustice" which those people suffer and do not take into account the huge public interest that is involved in

1303
dealing constructively with the problem, they will have failed and the danger of alienation from the mainstream of British life to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, drew attention, will come much closer.
Race relations legislation is sometimes blamed for having failed to deal with the problem. I believe that that is to misunderstand the purposes and the expectations which the introduction of that legislation intended to achieve. It was hoped to state a position taken by society as a whole which condemned racial discrimination, and to provide governments—the present and successive governments—with a platform or launching pad to base and launch other policies. It was hoped that that legislation would be followed up by the Government setting an example in their own practice in the Civil Service, the nationalised industries and elsewhere, and that by setting such an example they would be able to lead industry, the trade unions and others to take positive steps to deal with this very serious and enduring problem.
That did not happen. For example, the introduction of monitoring in the Civil Service has only recently taken place, and I think I am right in saying that it was introduced in the Armed Services as late as last year. Another way in which the Government could have set an example would have been by insisting in contracts that they entered into with industry that the firms with which those contracts were concluded should pursue equal opportunity policies. This is particularly important in connection with inner city plans, especially the Local Government Bill, which was introduced by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Arising out of that Bill I should like to put two questions to the Minister. First, will that Bill or will it not make it possible for a local authority offering a contract to insist on the employment of local people? That is one important question. Secondly, and equally important, will that Bill or will it not allow the local authority to carry out its obligations under Section 71(b) of the Race Relations Act 1976:
"to promote equality of opportunity and good relations, between persons of different racial groups"?
Those are two crucial questions. If the answers are in the negative the objectives that lie behind the Government's inner city policies will be called into question and a great opportunity will have been missed.
I hope therefore that the Minister will be able to tell the House whether either the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster or the Secretary of State for the Environment is correct in the differing interpretations of the Local Government Bill as recently reported in the Guardian and other newspapers. I believe that his answer will tell your Lordships how serious the Government are about tackling the problems of our inner cities and about promoting equality of opportunity irrespective of race, colour or national or ethnic origin. I hope that the Minister will give the House a clear and unequivocal answer to those questions. In my view that answer is crucial to the future civility of our society.
5.7 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for providing this opportunity, before we go into recess, to register with the Government some points to which we believe Ministers need to pay attention as they go ahead with various initiatives in the inner cities. I am grateful also for the opportunity that is thus presented to me to say on behalf of my fellow Bishops and indeed perhaps on behalf of the General Synod of the Church of England how glad we are that the Government have made that very important declaration of intent about the inner cities.
We do not claim any credit at all for it, not only because we depend upon grace and not upon works, but also lest it should discourage the Government, as they seem to feel from time to time that our interventions are a little off-putting. So we do not claim any credit, though we note the initiatives, encourage them and wish to be critical collaborators in their progress, in the hope that the Government will move in a positive and permanent direction. We are aware, as has been said, that the problems that we are tackling are intractable. We are not dealing with problems that have built up over five years; they extend over 100 years.
We are therefore not concerned with five-year projects to solve those problems but with initiatives that must become part of the plans and patterns of our national life for all the foreseeable future. It seems to me therefore that it is all the more important to place the initiatives which the Government are proposing to take and are developing in the broadest possible context and neither to expect too much of them nor to suppose that they will be sufficient or successful on their own.
I should like to draw attention to three problem areas, two of which have already been touched on, which I suggest the Government need to note and give very careful attention to as they carry on with their plans. First, surely, all ideology, political theorising and philosophical preferences apart, it must be absolutely clear that the thrust of private enterprise alone—and I stress the word "alone"—cannot be sufficient to rejuvenate our inner cities and our outer suburban housing estates and other troubled areas.
To build a viable and worthwhile society for the 21st century, out of what we must surely call the debris of the various industrial and political initiatives of the 19th and 20th centuries, must require a great deal of state activity and public investment as well as private enterprise. I should like to illustrate this once again from the housing area, because that happens to have come my way also lately, but also because I think it illustrates the wider issues.
For instance, in the speech of the president of the House Builders Federation there is this paragraph which I find echoed elsewhere:
"in many urban areas, where de-industrialisation and unemployment constitute the main constraints on the housing market, the public sector must also play a major role. The private sector cannot operate in areas where the existing residents cannot afford either to buy or to pay a full market rent. Nor can it create markets and attract people back to urban areas in which the environment is depressed, disfigured and presents no hope of change".

1305
This note is also sounded and made more broad in some notes which I took the chance of getting out of a local authority next to where I live, because I had recently been discussing with them how they and the church could collaborate in tackling some of these problems. This is part of the note I received:
"The Government implies that private developers can and will build the new homes needed in inner city areas. The Council has actively encouraged such private investment, by making available land and carrying out extensive works to improve the surrounding environment. Despite this, the private sector is loath to invest. Unlike the Docklands most inner areas are characterised by low, even negative land values, which render private investment schemes high risk, which even the Government's Urban Development Grant scheme has been unable to overcome.
The cycle of deprivation is matched by a cycle of declining investment leading to disinvestment. Local businesses and private investors look to Government agencies and local government to generate the 'environment' in which to invest. The reduction in public sector expenditure in inner cities is providing exactly the wrong signal".
That is from a local authority that I know to have been actively engaged in collaborating with private funds and so on in developing things.
There is also the same point made in the report to which the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, referred, where there is the remark that,
"The effective demand for new housing at market prices is low in most inner city areas. The fundamental need is for low-cost 'affordable' housing for the low income and unemployed groups who live there, and this in general means subsidising housing to rent.".
This is a further point of great importance. The report goes on:
"In areas where the economy is buoyant the ability of inner city dwellers who are prospective owners to afford their own property is reduced by the increase in prices caused by the demand for new or refurbished houses from people on higher incomes."
How do the Government intend to deal with what we might call the problem of "Yuppification"? It is clear that it is useless to behave as if the problems of the inner cities and the outer housing estates can be solved simply and solely by making money. Making money has its own very grave problems especially for people who simply cannot get in on the act either immediately or indefinitely. So the construction of a viable 21st century society must require very substantial state activity and very substantial continuing public funding, even if, or precisely so that, the market may do all that it can.
That leads me to my second point, which is that the revitalising of our inner cities and our outer housing estates must include a vital and continuing element of local trust and local collaboration. That is a point that has already been made but I feel it very urgently from my part of the world and I should like to stress it again. That must include a positive approach to, and a positive role for, local authorities.
Of course there are clashes of approach and principle—there are bound to be—and sometimes these clashes are foolishly and obstructively maintained on ideological grounds. But surely an aggressive approach to this, which looks as if it is equally ideologically motivated, is hardly the way to continue and is certainly not the way to build up the trust, the confidence and the working together which is essential. After all, all ideologically-determined policies and programmes risk stupid mistakes.
1306
Secondly, central politicians and bureaucrats are not necessarily any wiser than local politicians or bureaucrats. If I may comment theologically in this House, it seems to me to be a matter of solidarity and sin. Central people sin centrally and local people sin locally, just as, I might add, religious people sin religiously. So there must be consultation and sharing and give and take, or things will go badly wrong.
Moreover, the people who are now in the depressed and deprived areas must have a voice, and must have a voice before they have the money to pay for their choices. Otherwise there may very well be great distress in such matters as inner city unrest and outer city vandalism. In any case, and even more importantly, surely we must mobilise the resources of all our people, which requires wide consultation and wide collaboration. So I would urge the Government to restore partnership to local authorities and be very careful to listen to local people.
That leads me to my final point, which is this. We all know that the problems of the inner cities will take a lot of solving and a lot of moving forward. While we are doing this, in collaboration, I hope, with the Government—critical collaboration, but collaboration nonetheless—I would urge the Government to pay particular attention to others of their policies which affect the people who are suffering now in these deprived areas.
The point that I should like to make is not political but strictly pastoral, and it is this. Will the Government please pay attention to what is actually going on in many inner city areas, because of the effects of the social security reviews, the new regulations and so on? They are undoubtedly making the difficult life of poor people very much more difficult. And will the Government please think very hard about the poll tax? Maybe they are clear about the principle of it and should press forward with it. But will they please think about the implications and applications, and see that it does not make worse-off people worse off in the name of a responsibility which, in any case, they cannot possibly exercise?
Will the Government please listen and consider the way housing benefits actually work? I simply have to testify that there is no doubt at all that on housing estates in places such as Tyneside, Sunderland, Cleveland and many other places in my diocese, as well as right across the country—this is not a North-South divide—the conditions of people in inner cities are being made worse by the application of government regulations. Therefore I hope that while we search forward in these difficult matters, the Government will urgently consider the balance of private enterprise and continued public funding which is required, the restoration of local authorities to positive roles and the need to be very sensitive about what is happening now to people who can do nothing but wait.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, it is a convention of the House that noble Lords sit in accordance with their political beliefs and allegiances. If anyone were to propose that that should be afforded as a privilege to the right reverend Prelates I should be glad to second

1307
it. I do not see why they should not have that same opportunity.
The opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, was very good. It was temperate, responsible and touched on the problems that concern us. As your Lordships may know, he comes from Leeds. That must be very much to his credit and advantage. He made a telling point. I wonder whether he appreciated quite how telling it was. He said that he used to live in Manchester and that when he goes back there now from time to time he is unhappy at the deterioration that he sees. I am sure that he is quite right about that. I am glad that he did not talk about the deterioration in Leeds, because it has not deteriorated. It has its problems, as have so many other areas—I shall touch on that in a moment—but it has not deteriorated. It has become and is becoming better.
That is a key point, because over the last years one of the great problems which has bedevilled all matters pertaining to local government is that the situation varies so much in different areas. Trying to legislate to apply the same policies to each and every one in itself is a great problem, because that often means that one does things which need not be done and fails to do other things which need to be done. This problem is not easy to cope with, as I know so well from so many years of having tried to do so.
I find it hard to get away from the habit of trying to pick up on what previous speakers have said. Noble Lords may know that I did that for a long time. Therefore before I make my few remarks, while I also keep an eye on the time, I must say how much I agreed—unlike in the last debate-with so much of what the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, especially when he talked about ethnic minorities, discrimination and the need for equal opportunity. No one in your Lordships' House would quarrel with the points that the noble Lord made. The problem is how we do things to make happen what we all wish to see brought about. It is not easy, because when one discriminates positively one is still discriminating. People do not like discrimination, whichever way it may go. I am sure that the Government will take heed of what the noble Lord said on that because he made a fundamental point about something which is a great worry for everyone.
I have only one point to make as regards the noble Lord's remarks and I wish I had made it in the last debate on faith in the inner cities. My point is that there is still scope for people to help themselves. I think that history will show that other immigrant communities did a great deal to help themselves. People within them helped each other. They were obsessed with education. They came to a country deprived and with nothing, but they wanted to help themselves. They were very grateful for being received and for the help that they were given, small though it was, but they also helped themselves. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, will not think ill of me for making that point because I believe it very passionately and it is part of the debate.
Where do we go from here? There can be no doubt that the problems exist and in some places they are worse than in others. This is not a political debate as
1308
such and I am anxious not to make political points if I can avoid it, but I am bound to say that there are areas where the deprivation and dereliction are at their worst and where, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, authorities do not always help themselves. If we are saying that money is essential, and of course it is, the authorities also must help themselves by making sure that their priorities for spending are on those things which really count, such as dealing with empty houses and other dwellings. That to me is a priority. But to be able to do that the authorities must look at such matters as collecting the rents that are owed. An authority cannot help people by allowing them to run into debt, because that upsets the whole of people's lives and it means that an authority is not carrying out its function correctly.
There are authorities where as much as 60 and more per cent. of rents go uncollected. The authority needs that money for various things yet it allows that to happen. My plea is that that too is part of this debate and should not be overlooked. If we turn away from it and we say that it is a political point, we are missing something fundamental and I hope that we shall not do that.
When I look at the thousands of empty houses in the London borough of Lambeth and the hundreds that are empty in Wandsworth I have to ask why that is so. They are neighbouring authorities. Why is it that one authority can achieve something and the other cannot? The answer is that one of them makes spending on empty houses a priority while the other makes other matters a priority. The other authority makes as its priority other things that no one in this House would support as being fair and reasonable, especially if we are to be concerned about what I think the right reverend Prelate referred to as public service and public interest. That is also what being in local government is supposed to be all about. It is a pity that it is not always concerned about that.
What do we have to see being done? What must we say to government? Of course they must continue with their initiatives. No one initiative solves the whole problem, but there have been many of them and in many cases they do a lot of good, although they do not solve the whole problem. The Government have paid out £3,000 million in the last eight years as direct urban grants. That has produced another £1 billion or £2 billion from the private sector and in my view it will produce more in the future. That is important and must continue, although it is not the whole of the answer. However, it is the extent to which the Government can induce others to come along and play their part that is important.
But the initiatives themselves, the task forces, the enterprise agencies, of which I am told there are more than 300—and I had the privilege of opening the second one—have produced thousands of jobs in a small way. They have not tried to replace the declining industries, but nevertheless thousands of jobs have been created. The enterprise zones have been much decried by some but not by others. They have not been decried by those who are working in areas where previously they could not find work. The enterprise zones are not the whole answer to the problem but they are a part of it.

1309
The business in the community project, the inner city enterprises, the urban development grants and the urban regeneration grants all have a part to play and all contribute something towards solving this one problem. Everyone who has spoken so far, and I suspect those who will speak later, will agree that there is no one solution. As we say in Yorkshire and as I have said in your Lordships' House before, we have got to get them in singles. But we have got to get them and one way in which we shall do it is by a whole series of enterprises and initiatives.
I want to say a few words on housing, which, as everyone will agree, is the key to this problem. The Government must do something. They must ensure that land is made available. The land registers arc there but they are not being used as they should he. There is much more scope for government to do more to ensure that both authorities and other statutory public bodies make land available. The document from the House Builders Federation which was referred to by previous speakers mentions again and again the need for land. The Government have a marvellous derelict land grant scheme and I submit to them that a priority for that should be in the inner cities to a greater extent than it has been hitherto.
The Government have to look at land and at the money being spent on infrastructure. Land is the key. Ask any builder, public or private, and any householder. It is the key and it is what the Government must concentrate upon.
The Government must look at the way their urban development grant schemes are working. It is natural for civil servants and bureaucrats to be concerned about the spending of every penny. They have to account for the money and that is understandable. However, that is contrary to what a private developer does when he takes a risk. He wishes to take a risk and other people wish to make sure he does not take a risk. How can grants flow quickly, freely and smoothly in the face of that dilemma? I had the same problem when I was in the department and I ask my noble friend the Minister to look carefully at it. The system works slowly and it frustrates and discourages people who want to do things and who may walk away time and time again.
Local authorities have their part to play in housing. They have to make land available and they must call in the private sector to help them. The part they have to play is not the only part, but it is a critical one. They should be brought in, encouraged, worked with and enabled to do the job. They should be told the kind of housing we want. It is not a question of building housing at the top end of the scale, and no one proposes that.
If we work together with local authorities we can produce housing for rent. The Housing Association tells me, to my great pleasure, that it is putting up £30 million of Housing Association money and bringing in £70 million in private sector money for assured tenancy housing for rent. It can be done if the will and imagination are there. I hope that they are going to be there. My plea to my noble friend is for flexibility. If at the moment 30 per cent. is all that can be put towards it, let us keep an open mind. Flexibility is essential in this debate.
1310
Concerning the docklands, I wish to say a few words about the criticism that what is involved is not housing for the people. Perhaps I may cite a few figures which astounded me. In 1981 there were 14,000 local authority houses in docklands. Since then 12,000 dwellings have been built; some 7.600 are on LDDC land and the rest are on private sector land. Of the dwellings built on LDDC land, 59 per cent. have been sold for less than £40,000. That is housing which is not for rent but for sale. I do not think that anyone would say that those figures represent expenditure beyond the pocket of a great many people. That should be borne in mind. The current programme is for a further 16,000 dwellings on LDDC land and 9,000 on private sector land. It is very encouraging when one looks at the dereliction which has existed there for decades. One may not like everything that is being built there but one must compare it with what was there before. It is dynamic and it is bringing in jobs. The jobs now are measured not in thousands but in tens of thousands.
This is a big subject. It has been debated a number of times and no doubt will be again. I am sure your Lordships are aware of the various proposals for urban development corporations. They are not the answer everywhere but they are a help in some places. The problem is vast and did not come about overnight. It will not go away overnight. But I now have the feeling that there is a wish in all sectors to work together, along with all the voluntary agencies, to make it happen. The Government have clearly stated their determination that it will happen. I have great confidence that there is a new feeling about this problem. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for giving us the opportunity once again to debate it.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, when I heard the Prime Minister's positive statement that something was to be done for the inner cities, I felt very pleased and very happy. Then, in a funny sort of way, I began to think. I thought: "My God, this is probably just another gimmick, very much like Branson cleaning up London". I thought of the things which this Government have done in the past eight years which have made the inner cities worse.
I therefore wish to ask the Minister whether the proposals for tackling the problems of the inner cities means a change in policy on behalf of the Government. Unless it does, we are being fooled. Over the past eight years, the Government have made inner cities worse, first, by their attitude to the rate support grant. The Government deliberately reduced central government contributions to local government expenditure. As a consequence, the local authorities have had nearly £3 billion less in rate support grant than they would have had.
However, that is not all. The Government adopted a policy of penalties. What are they called?
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Clawback.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: As a consequence, the rate support grant to many of the worst areas was reduced. As I have said before, if we have a formula which, when it is put into the computer, produces the

1311
worst and most deprived areas as areas of overspending, the formula must be wrong. The Government have never accepted that. The consequence is that most of the poorest areas in this country have had the worst treatment from the Government in terms of rate support grant. I hope that the proposal of the Government to tackle the problems of the inner cities means that their policy is going to be changed.
The second matter is housing. The Government have had a myopic view of housing policy. Their policy has been to increase home ownership. There is nothing wrong with that. However, we need to provide enough houses for people in need. That has never been done. Over the past eight years we have had a steady reduction in the amount of housing being provided. It is a fact that we have had a steady reduction in the number of houses being provided. What is worse is that we have had a steady increase in homelessness. We have had a policy by which local authorities have been allowed to use their revenue expenditure to put such people in bed and breakfast accommodation. At the same time, they were being forbidden to use the capital receipts in their possession to build houses in which they could house such people.
We have also had a steady attack, as we have had tonight from the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, on empty houses. In London, the largest number of empty houses are Government owned. The next largest number of empty houses are privately owned. The local authority owned group are the smallest. I do not defend the fact that local authority houses remain empty. I am chairman of Shelter and our literature shows that we have spent a lot of time attacking local authorities for having their properties empty. Therefore, I am not defending it, but I am saying that you can be positive rather than negative. The Government have regarded this situation as a nice piece of propaganda and therefore have never attempted to co-operate with the local authorities to reduce the number of empty houses. Instead time is spent attacking the local authorities for having empty houses. I hope that the plan, the suggestion that we are to deal with the inner cities, means that these policies are to be changed.
I am glad that my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter raised the question of ethnic minorities. There is no way of tackling the problems of inner cities without dealing with that particular problem. Although only 4 per cent. of the population of this country are from ethnic minorities, a large percentage of the population of inner cities are people from the ethnic minorities, and there are some areas where the figure is as high as 30 per cent. Even worse, they form a much higher percentage of the unemployed than should be represented by their percentage in the population. They form a very much higher percentage of the homeless than should be represented by their population. If we are to tackle the problem of the inner cities, we have to tackle the problem of disadvantage based on race, which is basic to many of the problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, talked about self-help. When these chaps came here from the
1312
Caribbean there were plenty of jobs and they came here because the country needed their labour. Unemployment was never a problem. However, they could not find anywhere to live and there were plenty of notices which said "No blacks allowed" or "No blacks accepted". That situation has changed. They had to buy houses together, co-operatively, and they then rented them to each other.
Of course they then found discrimination at every level. They had trouble in borrowing money because the building societies and the banks discriminated against them. Even worse, they often found that they were exploited. For example, if they bought a house with a sitting tenant they found that the sitting tenant was the owner. These are all experiences that they have had. However, the situation has changed. But in those days waiting lists were long and because people had to live a certain length of time in a borough before being put on the waiting list it was not possible for them to get local authority housing.
With a lot of self-help they adopted methods which enabled them to manage. At the moment many of them are living in very dilapidated housing as owner-occupiers. However, as to whether owner-occupation is a great policy, that needs a lot more thought. Again, I speak from knowledge. Many old people who own their own houses cannot repair them. Much of the deteriorating property that we have is as a result of old people owning houses that they cannot repair. One needs policies covering all sorts of matters and again I am not condemning the right to buy. It is a nice enough policy if it is accompanied by other policies which balance it out. We have not had the width of policies in housing that are required, and the width of policies in the relationship between local authorities and central government which would enable local authorities to play the part they should be playing in dealing with these problems.
There is a local government Act which is aiming to stop local authorities doing what I have suggested many times in your Lordships' House central government should be doing; namely, using their power as an employer or contractor to make sure that the people they employ and the people with whom they have contracts respect the Race Relations Act and in so doing respect the Commission for Racial Equality code of practice. If that is made a condition, many of the barriers preventing people of ethnic minorities getting jobs will be broken down.
As I have said before in your Lordships' House, that can be achieved through an executive order. This did much more to reduce discrimination in employment in the United States than the Act that followed years later. All they did was to insist through an executive order that in federal employment there should be equal opportunities. There is nothing to prevent this government doing the same. Many local authorities have done just that. What is the situation now? We have in the other place a Bill which would prevent the local authorities doing so. They must have contacts only on commercial terms. So once contracts are seen to be only on commercial terms they are barred. Also, the provision of local labour for many of the schemes we are talking about will be barred because the terms are not commercial.

1313
Therefore I am hoping that when the Minister replies he will tell me that the statement that the Government are going to attack the problems of the inner cities means that they will change their policies in these matters. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Dean for initiating the debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some reassurance.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, we should indeed be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for raising this timely debate.
Your Lordships may wonder why someone who is known to be chairman of a government body deeply concerned with helping to create jobs in rural areas should wish to speak in a debate on our inner cities. It is because I believe there are many important lessons to be learnt from the social cohesion that is found in villages.
In many respects villages represent social patterns that have remained unchanged over the ages. There are natural communities where people know their neighbour (even if they do not necessarily love him) and where community spirit is such that people will quite automatically come to the aid and comfort of those in distress, keep an eye on the elderly, or box the ears of the young when they are up to no good. In other words, they are a settlement pattern that works in the wider sense of the word. This is a pattern that does not throw up many of the intractable social problems found in our urban cities, or when these occur they are on an infinitely lesser scale per head of population.
I now turn to towns and the self-inflicted wounds that society has brought upon itself, not least in that dreadful period in the 'sixties when planning concepts went unquestioned, when comprehensive redevelopment destroyed our inner cities and with it destroyed the social cohesion and civic pride that went with the old urban village. Prior to that many cities had, by quite natural social evolutionary processes, moulded themselves as a series of urban villages, places where people lived and worked, places as in rural England where people know their neighbour, could call upon him and could rely upon him. That is not the case now, where so often people live anonymously and abandoned at the top of tower blocks. The road to social disintegration is indeed paved with good intentions and for the best of reasons. It was considered wrong that people should live in close proximity to their work, and in many ways at the time this reasoning was right. Houses sheltering under the gasworks or next door to the steel mill gave a ghastly existence to the inhabitants.
But zoning was carried too far. We enforced commuting so that people had to cross town to their place of work in the industrial estate. At weekends those areas became silent and uninhabited save for the presence of teenagers or others hell-bent on vandalism.
The natural employment created by the exchange of local goods and services was made much harder. By destroying the local economy we destroyed jobs. But there is hope. Technology dictated the life patterns of people because it was necessary for them
1314
to live cheek-by-jowl to the mill or the mine in which they worked. Yet technology can come to our rescue by allowing production on a scale and in a manner which again enables people to live in closer proximity to their work under conditions that are environmentally wholly acceptable.
Some argue that zoning is still right and that work and jobs should be separated. Yet here in London some of our most expensive houses are to be found in mews cheek-by-jowl to the pub on one side and the repair garage on the other. Such houses are in high demand; so, obviously, someone wishing to live there does not mind the village atmosphere, the social life and the bustle that permeates the district both on weekdays and at weekends.
The point I am trying to make is that we have to re-create the urban village along the settlement pattern of the old rural village. Of course, many other major issues in this important debate have been very ably dealt with tonight by other noble Lords. I wish to concentrate on this particular point. If we wish to get social cohesion, self-policing, good neighbourliness and a strong sense of community, we must build our towns in such a way that their fabric encourages this. We must make them user-friendly.
Modern small-scale technology is now no less environmentally detracting than were the butcher's, the baker's and the candlestick maker's activities in both the urban and rural villages. I urge all those associated with urban redevelopment to plan deliberately to build some houses with small workshops—craft homes, if you like—or buildings where people can live and work on the same spot; places in which the small plumber can keep his equipment, the artist can have his studio and the dressmaker can make her dresses while keeping an eye on the children. They would be places in which a million small-scale economic activities, subject to sensible environmental safety and fire regulations, can take place and by which means people can earn a living, employ themselves and create jobs for others.
Such places will increasingly meet the changing work patterns and demands of our time. Of course, this is not the answer alone, but I believe it to be one very important answer. It will require planning that consciously allows the development of such mixed hereditaments—workshop homes that people can own as well as rent, because where nobody really owns nobody really cares.
It may mean, in order to get the concept rolling, giving the same rate reduction treatment or other priorities which are offered in enterprise zones. I see nothing wrong with that. Somehow, we must begin to plant the social roots of urban village life and recreate small-scale society where jobs become interdependent, are locally based and where people take in and out their own laundry, so to speak. In this way our towns will return to being whole communities. People will naturally trade with each other and so will help to create the fabric that provides social cohesion, self-help, self-reliance and civic pride.
There is nothing particularly new in my suggestion—is like rediscovering the wheel—but I believe that the recreation of the urban village is the

1315
key to recreating prosperity in our inner cities. It is the natural, social and economic pattern to which human beings aspire. Jobs are created in rural areas in this way; they always have been. We must encourage the same sort of development in our urban areas. Therefore, I congratulate the Government on giving such high priority to urban redevelopment in their new programme and I urge them to promote this concept.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I make no apology for speaking once more about housing. I do not propose to go into any details of facts and figures because that has been done ad nauseam in the past. In this House we had a long debate on the Duke of Edinburgh's commission. We have had publications like Faith in the City and we have had the latest report from the House Builders Federation. Therefore, I am not going to weary your Lordships with any of those figures.
In my opinion, and I think in the opinion of everybody else, the situation is intolerable. It is still deteriorating and everybody is asking: why have successive governments not taken the necessary steps, not necessarily to greatly improve conditions, but to stop them deteriorating further? I see very little sign of that at the present time.
I ask myself what are the reasons? Is it because they just do not care? I believe that to be absolutely untrue. They care a lot, and I believe that this Government care a lot. I have come to the conclusion that it must be for reasons of finance. I have looked at this a little more carefully and I have done a few back-of-envelope calculations. My first conclusion concerns what is called the PSBR which seems to crop up quite irrelevantly in such a situation. By the time the current privatisation plans are completed the Government will have taken about £18 billion of private sector savings. Apparently that is not looked upon as inflationary. As far as we know, the money has not been used necessarily for capital purposes; but still it is not looked upon as inflationary.
I believe that the public of this country feel so strongly about housing that they would support a national housing loan of many billions, raised on commercial terms. It would not be inflationary. It would have no effect on the PSBR. But it might well give an opportunity to start making a major attack on the housing situation. I give one small example. I am told that there are many youngsters who have been given money to pay £65 a week for bed and breakfast. That is £3,380 a year. If considered as 10 per cent. of capital, that means £33,800 is being used to supply bed and breakfast for one person.
I am also told that if you want to build a hostel, shall we say, to a modest university standard, with perhaps two people to a bedroom, this can be done for between £7,000 and £10,000 per unit per bedroom. On my calculations, therefore, for every £30,000 spent, it would be possible to house not one person but somewhere between six and eight. That makes a lot of sense to me and I have the feeling that it is one of the most important things that we can now do. To build hostels for the young homeless would result, I believe, in an economic saving to the country.
1316
The next point I make has been made previously, but I think it is worth stressing. Housing for rent is becoming more and more necessary not simply for the poor but also for the mobility of labour and for various other perfectly obvious reasons. In this connection, I mention a proposition which has come forward recently—that people should be entitled to let spare rooms in their houses without any restriction. That would bring in possibly £60 a week for a couple of rooms and it should be tax free. It should have no effect whatever on the receipts of the Exchequer. It would not cost anybody anything; it would bring unused assets into use; and it could make a real impact on the mobility of labour.
I ask the Government three questions. First, does the Minister accept that the housing situation is desperate and getting worse? Secondly, does he agree that finance can be raised without causing inflation or having any effect on the PSBR? Finally, does he agree that there is plenty of slack in the construction industry and that a massive attack on the crumbling infrastructure could make a significant impact on reducing unemployment?
When I wound up the debate on the Duke of Edinburgh's commission, I said that from the beginning of all time, happiness has depended on satisfactory board and lodging. By "board", we mean food and, my goodness, we have enough of that. By "lodging", we mean a watertight and warm home for everyone and, my goodness, we do not have that.
6 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, one of the problems of being half-way down the list in a debate of this nature is that one looks at one's original notes and wants to throw them away, so it is fortunate when a noble Lord refers to an item already in one's notes because that gives one an "in".
It is very wrong to keep referring to people outside the Chamber. May I try to remove some of the myths and delusions of today that appear to centre on the problem of inner city areas? First, as has been said, the problem is not new. It goes back years, and it changes in its nature. In Liverpool, it changed from handling the immigration of the Irish as a result of the potato famine to dealing with a situation that was so insanitary that Liverpool became the first city to appoint a medical officer of health because of the danger that threatened the wealthier members of the community.
Now there is another problem. It arises because of some of the things that occurred in other periods. Some experts on inner city problems seem to have no knowledge at all of it. I listened to the president of the RIBA the other night, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, appears to have been listening also. Indeed, the speech of the noble Lord may well have been written by the president of the RIBA.
I take one point from the speech—that the 1960s failed. Failed to do what? No answer. The 1960s was a new problem created out of a very old problem. If there was one place in which this national disease was centred, it was Liverpool—and I like to think that I know a little about Liverpool. If the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, looks up the history of Liverpool, he

1317
will see that in the 1960s we were taking out sand from basement dwellings put there by the medical officer of health to prevent the poor Irish from going back to insanitary conditions. That was the problem we were trying to solve in the 1960s.
I do not see why I should boast about what Liverpool did between 1945 and 1953 because in the main it was run by the Conservative Party.
The 1960s failed? Tell that to the people in Bidder Street. Bidder Street was a very famous street in the 1950s. Bessie Braddock in another place told of the reality then of bug-ridden, cockroach-infested dwellings that were built by private enterprise to ensure that dockers were on top of the job, to be able to tumble into work and tumble out of work into the pubs owned by the same people. That is what the 1960s were designed for.
The president of the RIBA and those people who carry out nice little schemes of 120 houses which they then tart them up with little coloured porches that make no contribution at all seem not to realise what the housing problem of the country was. It was of tremendous magnitude. There is a block of flats in Liverpool's dockland called Logan Towers, named after one of the serving Members of Parliament in that area; he was Father of another place. The Logan family—I opposed it—were pleased that that block of flats was built because the alternative to getting rid of the slums and not erecting that kind of building was to send people out into the green fields of Netherfield or Kirkby, and they did not want to do that.
We were pressured not by architects but by central government because, under the stupid arrangement about the financing of local government, they completely ignored the fact that, if one exported the population to give them decent housing in green fields, rate support was lost for the government of the day. That is another problem that the RIBA does not face up to. Go and tell it to the people of Bidder Street. Above all, go and tell all those people who are living in excellent conditions in some of the finest housing built under Nye Bevan on the outskirts of Liverpool and in the suburbs of Liverpool that the houses built in the 1960s were a failure. You would be torn to pieces if you went there and tried to do it.
Very happy communities were built in Liverpool. I resent the suggestion of these johnny-come-latelies that they know all there is to know about the problems. The problems of people in inner areas, as the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said, will not be solved until they are in a position to help themselves. Do not tell somebody who owes rent in a local authority house, "Go and help yourself". If a person on supplementary benefit has a choice between buying the kid a new pair of shoes and paying the rent, the shoes are going to come first. Do not tell these people to go and help themselves. That is what they are doing—helping themselves, helping the kids to shoes as an alternative to paying the rent. One may well blame the local authority for not being strict enough in enforcing collection of the rent, but I do not, and I make no apologies for it. If it were left to me to say to somebody, "The kid goes without shoes and you
1318
pay the rent", I am sorry, but I should not make that choice.
Local government in those days in trying to tackle housing was dealing with an outdated system. Let me give an example. The inner area problem arises because of the congestion created within the inner area to keep the economy going. It was vital to the interests of the shipping industry in Liverpool that people should be housed right by the docks. It was also vital that, instead of water being given to people in houses, it should be provided for ships. That is what made Liverpool famous—a copious supply of clean, pure water so that ships could sail long distances throughout the world. The water was taken to the docks, not to people's houses; so that left another problem.
Because of this congestion and its effect upon the rich shipowners just outside the city centre, the rich shipowners left Liverpool. What happened? All the money on which they lived was generated in the city of Liverpool. Where did they spend it? Not in Liverpool;—oh, no. They took it to the Wirral, to Southport, into the rural areas of Lancashire and spent it there, denying the city of Liverpool the resources that its people had themselves created.
That is the fundamental problem of the inner city areas. While it affects Liverpool, it is not only Liverpool, because Liverpool is the nation writ large. Let me ask the Secretary of State a question. I congratulate him on his new responsibilities and I sympathise with him in the task he has. I have already asked him some questions to which I have not had answers. I made a statement that more money is put into the South-East of England than is spent on the whole of regional aid for the rest of the country. I may be wrong. It would not be the first time I have been wrong. I should like to see the Secretary of State get the figures out and then add on the amount of money that is spent on subsidies to people who are employed in the South-East. I refer to money spent by the private trade—banks are paying an extra £3,000 over and above anywhere in the North—and the extra money the Government have to pay to keep staff in London.
Several steps could be taken to cure the problems in Merseyside. We could create 402,000 square feet of office space in the Merseyside area and people it with employees. Overnight that would solve the Merseyside problem. In 12 months 402,000 square feet of office space was occupied by this Government in an area from St. Albans to Newbury and down to Horsham. They took it last year. The year before it was nil. What are the Government doing? Are they helping Merseyside? Are they helping the North? I ask the Secretary of State another question. Perhaps he will write to me with the answer. Is it vitally necessary that the people employed in that 402,000 square feet of office space should carry on their profession in those areas? Could they not be moved, as was once proposed by central government, to another part of the country and so help distribute the plentiful resources of this country? That kind of argument can be repeated over and over again.
I wonder what the nation would say if I said there were 10,000 vacancies for railway workers in the North-West. There are 10,000 vacancies for railway

1319
workers in the South-East. Why? It is because the congestion in the South-East is now similar to the problems of congestion that were caused in places like Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds. If we want to do something about it, we can. I do not know whether noble Lords accept the simple premise—I accept it utterly and completely—that the standard and quality of life that a person enjoys depends in the main on his economic circumstancs. If it does, why do we not redistribute some of the wealth that is hanging around in the South-East of England and then leave it to the people of Merseyside, Manchester, Birmingham and the rest to apply those resources to cure the problems? They will cure them.
We hear from the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales. They are very concerned and are starting new ideas—trusts and so on. We do not want them. We do not need them. Liverpool has a history as long as your arm of that kind of thing. Tomorrow morning I shall be meeting the general secretary of the Young Persons' Housing Association in Liverpool. Over the past quarter of a century it has taken Victorian blocks in Liverpool, which were deserted by the wealthy people, the cultured people, who went out to Southport when the bombs started dropping, and has converted them into good housing. We do not need the Prince of Wales or the Duke of Edinburgh. We have a long history of doing such things. Such improvements have now been going on for 40 or 50 years. Merseyside Improved Housing has taken houses that were in multi-occupation and has cleaned them up and provided flats. Maritime Housing, the secretary of which was a responsible Member of the House of Commons, has been doing the same thing. We have the know-how. If you want to become modern then go to the Eldonian Association, which has had enough publicity lately—Liverpool born, Liverpool bred and producing a very good job indeed.
I make no apology for coming down to the basic requirements for solving some of the problems of the inner cities. I know there is a problem in London, but match the problem that obtains in regard to unemployment in London against the 10,000 vacancies and the vacancies elsewhere in the South-East. The problem in the South-East is the proper distribution of opportunities. That does not come from London Docklands. Go and tell some of the people on supplementary benefit that they have to pay only £45,000 for a house and they can have one in docklands. That shows the gap that exists between Parliament and the suffering of ordinary people. My Lords, £45,000 is a fortune beyond the grasp of hundreds of thousands of working class people, yet we talk about it lightly here: "It is only £45,000".
Let the Government set up a Select Committee—perhaps the Secretary of State will examine that proposition—to see how they can get rid of some of the staff in Victoria Street and put the MPs there instead of talking about putting their offices in Westminster Hall. Let them see how many people out of the Ministry of Employment they could move nearer the customers in the North. They do not all need to be here. They do not all come running over to see Ministers. The heads do so keep them here. There are hundreds of other jobs. Fundamentally the
1320
Government are saying to the private sector, "Please look at the possibility of diverting your resources and investing in the North". That is what they are saying, so let them put their money where their mouth is. I say to the Government, "Look at the problem". I do not say, "Do it"; I merely say. "Look at the problem". Somebody is looking at his watch.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, that is the problem.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, perhaps I may say this to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. The Church of England is the established church and is part of our community. It knows what the problems are because it has a good many bishops up in the North who know them. Perhaps the right reverend Prelate can answer the question. When it was proposed that they move their offices, why on earth did they not move them out nearer the people? If they did that perhaps the people would then begin to realise that somebody was concerned about the North and about the people.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, took us back in time to Liverpool in the 1960s in order to correct any sense of parochiality. I hope I shall be forgiven if I remind the House that in the 1820s Lord Liverpool, whose electoral achievements we have been reminded of recently in a significant manner, remarked to the then French Ambassador, Monsieur Chateaubriand:
"What are we to do with these enormous towns? One false step and we are lost".
In the 19th century there were a number of developments; gas lighting, Victorian morality and an innovation, which at the time was resented as something imported from France—namely, the police. I should like to try in this perceived new crisis to echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that this problem is not unique to this country at this time. We ought to be willing to consider some historical and geographical lessons. We should notice how this country was the first country in the world in the middle of the 19th century to have a majority of its population living in urban circumstances. This has happened in all other countries since that time but we were the first. Naturally, we have some problems which derive from that not desired pre-eminence. That is particularly so since the collective approach to housing, although philanthropically intended when it was begun, often resulted in geographical immobility in our cities which, had that collective approach existed before the rise of those cities, would probably have prevented those cities from rising in the first place.
Some of the effects of other housing policies were put particularly brilliantly by my noble friend Lord Vinson, whose speech I shall read with great attention, as will other noble Lords. In particular we ought to bear in mind what he said about the effects of commuting. The fact is that the ease of commuting and weekending—which are consequences of prosperity—have often had the effect of making cities leaderless half the time. We should also be willing to learn from our European partners, with whom we are now economically so closely associated, even our

1321
Latin partners often in places poorer than either Liverpool or Glasgow. Perhaps particularly we can learn from our Latin partners—pace the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter—whose citizens and leaders have gone to immense efforts to try to try to preserve and expand local activities of dazzling variety, which may not necessarily have brought prosperity but which at least have maintained or extended civic morale and pride.
I regret the absence of the right reverend Prelate, but I should like to ask Church leaders in particular, whose dimensions and interests have evolved so considerably in the last generation, whether in the next generation they could not devote some of their ample energies and intelligences to see whether—I must put this carefully—their post-reformation distrust of such manifestations as carnivals with a religious basis could not in modern circumstances be re-examined. Sometimes in Latin cities good strict Protestants mutter the word "paganism" as they see great processions pass in the Mediterranean countries in Easter week. Paganism? It is life itself, usually inspired by private endeavour, private dedication and with a minimum of public money.
Your Lordships may think that I am teasing the Secretary of State with my Latin ways. I am not. As a resident of Notting Hill—indeed I am proud to say that my title designation derives from Notting Hill—I know the benefit of the Notting Hill carnival in summer. I walked through Toxteth Park soon after the last famous riots there. Of course, as your Lordships will be aware, the housing in that suburb of Liverpool is decayed. The people were undoubtedly shabby; nevertheless the housing was not irredeemable and the people were not starving. That was not the problem. When I was there a prosperous West Indian said to me, "It is not money these people want; they can get it. It is not even work, because most of them get some of it. They are bored. What they want is a bit of life". That is perfectly true of ordinary white Anglo-Saxon Protestants as much as it is true of West Indians.
We as a nation are often looked on as experts in preserving the continuity of ceremonial and celebration. The survival of your Lordships' House with its marvellous rituals reminds us of that. The survival of the fashionability of Oxford and Cambridge attest to that. The success of the Jubilee celebrations reminded us of that, but the surviving sense of ceremony, so important in people's lives and so important in preserving civic pride, affects only a tiny minority and too rarely.
6.25 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, over the weekend I visited many of the inner city projects being carried out in the Handsworth area. I was thrilled with many of the things that I saw and disappointed with some that were not moving as fast. Yesterday reading the Guardian I found that there might be a form of new money coming from the Government from the possible use of new town commission sales which might boost the income which the Government could spend on the inner cities. I felt that perhaps we were on the right road. But one reads this morning on the front page of the
1322
Guardian that at the Chancellor is considering plans to reform taxation which would cut the tax dues of many rich people living on unearned income.
It seems a strange paradox that on the one hand the Government are saying that there is not enough money—therefore those who are living in the inner cities will still continue to suffer—and on the other hand are giving it to the very wealthy. That is a dichotomy if ever there was one.
I have been interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said. I am always interested in Lord Bellwin and his comments because he was a local government man. When he sat on the Government Front Bench it was obvious in many debates that he sympathised with the noble Lords, Lord Sefton and Lord Stallard, and others including myself who knew all about local government. He was sympathetic although he had government policy to put through. As the noble Lord quite rightly said, each of the urban areas presents different problems and different strategies are needed. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, that there are large tracts of land in Liverpool because docks are not used now. We see the same in London where huge tracts of land could be used for reviving not only the economic but the housing situation.
Then we come to other areas. It is a difficult term to use but I am thinking particularly of the Black Country. For those people who do not know the Black Country, it is the area surrounding Birmingham, which includes Wolverhampton, Dudley, Walsall and Sandwell. The nomenclature "black" does not come from the inhabitants but originally from the smoke and filth that came from the steelworks and furnaces in that area. Perhaps the only good thing about the steel furnaces and other works closing down is that the air is now clearer.
In the Black County area there are very serious problems of land derelection. Where steelworks are being dismantled and mine shafts are being removed the land is covered with furnace slag and toxic substances that have penetrated the soils and is thus delaying the progress of building on those sites.
I ask the noble Lord, Lord Young, whether one ought not to consider very seriously a greater concentration of derelict land grant in those areas. There are certain problems to be overcome. In Birmingham the largest tract of open land we have is where the Saltley gasworks was. The whole area has been worked over and over for the last two years in an endeavour to get the soil into a reasonable state before it can be built on. When I mentioned the Saltley gasworks that seemed to cause a smile to cross the face of the noble Lord, Lord Young, and he passed his comment on to his noble friend next to him. People lived and still live cheek by jowl with the gasworks, because some people always have to live the wrong side of the tracks. Perhaps it will not be those who will profit when the Chancellor benefits those on unearned incomes. Therefore in Birmingham there is not a problem like the one we find in Liverpool or in London. The inner city problem in Birmingham is that of money to maintain the homes we already have rather than building more.

1323
There are no factories in the Handsworth area; there never were factories in that area. There is a huge Victorian park, the largest in the city. On the fringe of Handsworth, where the area borders the city centre, there was a large factory that made jewellery for Samuel, but it is now closed down. That is not therefore the problem in Birmingham.
I must remind the Minister that Birmingham's core area now consititutes the largest and most severe concentration of deprivation in the city. Unemployment in the city has to be put in graphic terms. For the decline in employment in Birmingham has been more marked than anywhere else in the country. Since 1971 the city has experienced employment losses of 190,000, nearly twice that of Scotland and Wales put together. The majority of those jobs were in manufacturing. Most of the people lived near the city centre where all the large factories were located.
It is important to recognise that Birmingham provides perhaps the widest range of policies that can be brought to bear on inner-city problems. The noble Lord, Lord Young, will know that the Minister of Trade and Industry, on a visit to Birmingham yesterday, complimented the city again on the refurbishment of houses there. It is important for the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter—who is not here—to recognise that Mr. Clarke was pleased that the city, through the building contractor, has taken on a considerable number of coloured persons in that area not as labourers but for training so that they become competent on the job.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has said, that might not be possible in the future. It appears that the Environment Secretary has different opinions to those of the trade and industry Minister. It is important to recognise that Tarmac, a large building contractor, has acted with the compliance of the local authority.
Then there is the housing crisis. I tried to do my homework before preparing these notes. In the Library there is a reference sheet called The Urban Programme. Since May 1968 somebody, somewhere, in various departments to do with inner cities has been talking a lot; but I am not sure that the action has really worked. From local government grants in 1969 to community development projects, urban deprivation units, inner-city studies and comprehensive community programmes, so it goes on for page after page. There are the urban development corporations. Then, following the riots in Toxteth, we decide to re-hash our programmes, and Ed Berman, a director of Inter Action, is appointed by the Secretary of State as a special adviser to the inner cities.
It goes on and on. But all the time what we are doing is just changing the name of the money we are putting in. We are not doing anything else. As the name is changed the amount of money becomes smaller. The noble Lord shakes his head as he did when the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, spoke. I wonder sometimes whether the Government have figures. The local authorities have figures. I can give figures for Birmingham which prove conclusively—I am not
1324
going to use them—that although a great deal of money was received under the urban aid programme, Birmingham is not as well off as it was five years ago.
The noble Lord will find figures to disprove what I am going to say. He will not give the whole figures. That is how figures are bandied around. Local authorities are often accused of intolerable delays in the planning mechanism. I ask the Minister to examine the length of time it takes for development grants to be processed in Whitehall. I ask whether the process has been slower since regional offices ceased processing the grants? Is it because development grants are not now being processed in Birmingham and have to come down to Whitehall that the whole process has become slower?
I am informed that in January of this year the local authorities put in their claims under the urban aid programme and are still awaiting replies. These include several enveloping schemes. If they are not started before the end of the year the money is lost. I would ask the Minister to examine the situation, bearing in mind that local authorities are normally the ones that are criticised.
Since 1979 the underlying problems of the inner cities have gradually grown worse. Those of us who live in these areas know it. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, that public sector funding through local authority main programmes has been reduced, and of course unemployment has taken its place. Therefore, people who are living in the inner cities need a great deal of encouragement.
When I was a Member of the other place, somebody said that people have to learn to stand on their own two feet. People are a bit more cheeky in the other place, and somebody shouted out, "But what if you haven't got any feet?" Some people living in the inner cities are becoming morally despondent. And of course ill-health is now creeping into those areas.
Ministers who want to see for themselves should consider coming overnight and having working breakfasts and working lunches. Before going out on their visits, they would have the opportunity of speaking to people in the area—the CBI, the chamber of commerce, trade unions and local councillors. Ministers would hear what people have to say. They would be told of the problems and find out the things that were going wrong; and then they could go round and get the publicity in seeing what was being done.
I should like to make an urgent plea to Ministers to do without their limousines and police escorts. It does not endear them at all to people in the inner cities. There has been mention of the report of the building trade. It is important to note the remarks of the president of that organisation when he says that he can see the need for a housing ministry. He states:
"Therefore I firmly believe that housing, to be given the consideration and priority it merits, must be taken away from the… budget-slashing DoE and established in a separate Housing Ministry, with its own unequivocal priorities".
On that note, I thank noble Lords for being patient with me.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Dean for posing the Question to

1325
the Minister. The Question asks Her Majesty's Government:
"how they propose to deal with the deteriorating situation in inner urban areas".
It is encumbent on all noble Lords who participate in the debate to point to some of the areas of deprivation if possible. Previous speakers in the debate have done just that.
Most speakers have referred to the fact that the problems are not new. The problems of our inner cities have been universally acknowledged for many years. Millions of words have been written and spoken in reports, surveys and debates in this House and elsewhere, and many more words will be spoken in the months to come as legislation unfolds. In his eloquent speech my noble friend Lord Pitt pointed to many incidents of deprivation and deterioration in our inner cities. I too welcomed the Prime Minister's initial reaction to winning the election when it was stated in the Independent on 13th June, (and I say this to prove that I am trying to be impartial):
"Mrs. Thatcher had only one substantial political point to make to her party workers. She told them, for the first time explicitly, what the education, housing and urban improvement policies which form the most radical planks of her third term manifesto are all about".
She said:
"from Monday, we have got a big job to do in those inner cities…".
Like the noble Lord, I welcome those remarks. I was pleased to hear that and I hope that she meant it. However, I should have been happier if she had not gone on to say:
"because we want them, too, next time".
I thought that that set the wrong note for a debate on the problems of the inner cities which will range nationwide for a long time to come. In my view that is not the right foot on which to set off.
It is true that many initiatives have been taken and tried. There have been many successes over the years, particularly since the 1977 paper on the inner cities and the initiatives put forward by the then Secretary of State, the right honourable Peter Shore. Many successes flowed from that programme and we should be churlish to say that there have been no successes in the programmes that have been initiated by this Government, as far as they have gone. It is strange that in tabling this Question it can be said that conditions have deteriorated since 1979. I hope to give a few examples.
An article I read recently in a Town and Country Planning Association publication summed up the matter by stating that the conditions of our inner city areas:
"are characterised by the communities suffering from acute collective and personal deprivation across the full range of social, economic and environmental necessities".
That is not a bad summation of what happens in inner areas such as the one in which I live. The article went on to ask:
"What kind of priority for inner city areas is it that creates a situation whereby the funds made available under the Urban Programme have been massively exceeded by the funds lost through reductions in Rate Support Grants…?".
I am not reading from a Labour Party publication. The article states that both the rate support grants and the housing subsidy have been reduced. For example, in the case of inner London a recent report
1326
prepared for a GLC conference on inner city policy showed that during the period from 1979/1980 to 1983/1984 inner London gained £261 million in urban programme funding while losing £865 million in rate support grants. Speakers, such as the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, quote only the first part of those figures but we must have the whole picture. Of course they have received money from the programme but they have lost massively in excess of that amount because of rate support grants. We must look at all the figures if we are to understand the situation.
This applies not only to London because Manchester City Council gained an extra £9 million in real terms from the Urban Programme between 1980/1981 and 1984/1985 while losing some £100 million in rate support grant settlements within the same period. If we wish to understand the deterioration those statistics are important. They are massive sums of money to take away from local authorities particularly when, as has been said before, the reductions have affected most of the areas with the greatest level of need and the greatest deterioration in circumstances.
In addition the co-ordinating and overview role of local authorities, which we have all known and participated in, has and is being shifted to non-elected bodies such as the urban development corporations. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, mentioned such a corporation but this is raising further problems and we have not yet heard the end of them. As more and more corporations are set up other problems will develop and we could have a chaotic and dangerous situation if the protests from the first experiments are not heeded. I know that most noble Lords are well aware of the problems that have been raised by the LDDC as well as other points which have been raised.
One of the advantages of being placed lower down on the list of speakers is that almost everything has been said. However, by now it has been forgotten and perhaps I can say it again—or some of it! I should like to concentrate my final remarks on the question of housing and the homeless. I have spent many years in that field and was very active as chairman of the all-party child group. In that area there have been some of the most fierce deteriorations in the inner cities. With the financial cuts have come cuts in the public housing sector. Public housing is probably the only source accessible to the kind of people we are discussing in the inner cities. The public housing programme was cut by 40 per cent. The housing association movement is working at half the level at which it was working in 1979. The figure is down from 40,000 dwellings at that date to about 18,000 now. That is deterioration and that is what we are speaking of in this Question.
Further deterioration and disrepair of existing stock has been equally dramatic and I should like to relate some of the effects of the programmes on the homeless. We are talking of people to whom the right to buy is a meaningless slogan, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Sefton. We are not talking of people who could even contemplate buying. In my area they could not even contemplate renting at £85 to £150 per week. If noble Lords do not believe me, they should buy the Hampstead and

1327
Highgate Express where advertisements appealing to the homeless are laid out by the dozen at that rent. To those people the right to buy and other such slogans are empty words.
For the first time in the post-war period the number of officially classified homeless households has topped 100,000.
There are record numbers of homeless families in bed and breakfast accommodation. The cost in financial terms, to say nothing of the social cost, has rocketed. I do not want to weary the House with too many statistics but I should like to give one or two statistics in regard to bed and breakfast accommodation. In my own area, which I know fairly well—the London borough of Camden—in 1981 there were 69 families in bed and breakfast accommodation. In March 1987 that number had gone up to 1,258—a fairly massive increase. In 1981 they were spending £211,865 on bed and breakfast accommodation and in 1986–87 that figure had gone up to £12 million.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, who gave some suggestions as to how that ludicrous situation could be prevented. In the London borough of Hackney conditions were similar. In June 1981 there were 92 in bed and breakfast accommodation and in 1987 that number had gone up to 473. In 1981 the cost was £482,000 and in 1986–87 it was £6,157,000. In Tower Hamlets the number in bed and breakfast accommodation in 1981 was 46 and in 1987 it was 930. The cost has risen from £414,000 in 1981 to —17,292,000 in 1986–87.
In anybody's figures those are massive increases and they represent a massive deterioration in the circumstances of many people. Over 8,000 families are living in appalling conditions and they live there for months or years. Nearly 10 times as many households as in 1981 are involved and it is costing 15 times as much to keep them in those hotels now. That is excluding money spent by DHSS. If that was added, the sum would be colossal. That is an example of the deterioration since 1979. I have chosen the years 1981 to 1987.
There are still thousands of others, including the single homeless, who do not qualify for housing and they are not on any authority's housing list. Many of them are excluded from priority need under Part III of the Housing Act 1985, and that was a deterioration too. They have no roof at all. Many people involved in this field know that "cardboard city", as we call it, is extending, and the situation, even for those people who already have nothing, is getting worse, if that is possible. If I could take some of your Lordships on trips that I go on you might begin to understand some of the deprivation and deterioration that exists. At one point last year I invited the noble Lord to come with me on a visit to Hackney. He declined, and he has not been since. I think they invited him too but he would not go. It is an important area if he is talking about the inner cities and he ought to understand it. I imagine the invitation is still open.
All these problems continue to deteriorate. In inner London four-fifths of the properties available for the homeless, according to another survey, lacked
1328
satisfactory means of escape from fire. We have made numerous suggestions for improvement over the past few years but have met with a blank reply. These are potential death traps. The cost of upgrading and putting right disrepair in the London area alone was estimated to be between £1,350 million and £1,691 million. So the programme gets bigger and bigger and the deterioration is there for all to see. I say it is mainly the Government's responsibility because, first, we have their ideology, their dogma. The Government have abandoned any belief, if they ever had it, in the criterion of need for housing. They have abandoned that altogether. In fact, they do all they can to dismantle local housing authorities and to shackle housing associations, whose whole approach to housing has been based on meeting housing need.
Secondly, as has been mentioned, it is now just over two years ago since the Government brought in that disgusting and shocking piece of legislation on board and lodging regulations, forcing young homeless people to become, as the Government were warned would happen by their own Social Security Advisory Committee, virtually an army of young vagrants wandering all over the country.
I should like to end by giving two further examples of current attitudes towards the homeless, because this situation of deterioration and deprivation in the inner cities is also having a backlash effect on the homeless. People are adopting harder attitudes to them. It seems to be an intractable problem. They do not want to face it. Attitudes are hardening against these unfortunate people. That is something that I deprecate. One example has been much publicised and we all know it. In Tower Hamlets the council is seeking to declare a large number of homeless families intentionally homeless on the grounds that one partner has connections in Bangladesh. I hope some solution will soon be found to that problem.
The other example concerns Westminster. The council recently announced the policy of transporting its homeless families outside the borough's boundaries. Again, I can do no better than quote very briefly from the press release issued by the Bayswater Hotel Homelessness Project. It says:
"In the same week that Westminster City Council started transporting its homeless families outside the borough boundaries, it slashed the number of council flats which will be available to let to people in priority housing need. In a new 'designated sale' policy, Westminster councillors earmarked 9,300 of its flats. As soon as a flat becomes vacant it will be kept empty until it can be sold. The Council intends to sell off at least 500 flats a year, in addition to sales to sitting tenants under the 'Right to Buy' scheme. The Council's report spelt out that this will lead to more people kept in temporary accommodation at an extra cost of £1·7 million per year; substantially reduced ability to meet the needs of homeless people; most priority housing categories closed; and drastic reduction of housing for top medical priority cases. The Council took the decision contrary to the recommendations of a private consultants' report which they had commissioned which stressed the increased need for social housing in the city."
So I hope that somebody is listening. I hope that the last few words of the Prime Minister's remarks to her party workers at the end of the election were just made in the heat of the moment and that she did not really mean that was going to be the Government's aproach to this problem because if she did mean it, then God help the people I have tried to describe to your Lordships tonight.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend, Lord Dean of Beswick for raising this important Question, particularly at this stage. It is of course the topic of the moment, as a number of speakers have pointed out. We have had a wide-ranging discussion with many extremely thoughtful contributions from many noble Lords. I am sure that the noble Lord the Secretary of State will have a lot to chew on when he goes away and reads Hansard carefully, as I am sure he will.
I do not intend to follow certain other speakers in talking about the problem of housing. That is not because I belittle the problem—it is certainly one of the central problems in the inner urban areas—but it is because there have been a number of distinguished contributions this evening from the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Durham, from the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and from my noble friends, Lords Stallard and Sefton and Lady Fisher. So I do not wish to burden the Secretary of State with an analysis of housing. However, I look forward to hearing the response he will make to the questions put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, on the connection between housing finance and the public sector borrowing requirement. The Secretary of State's response is something from which I think we could all learn. Nor indeed do I intend to follow the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, down the road of carnivals and religious processions. I am sure that there is a contribution to be made by such events but I do not believe that they are essential to the problem. However, to a certain extent I do follow him when I come to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, abut the necessity to build communities with the same kind of village solidarity as one is used to in the rural areas.
The Secretary of State has undertaken a job, and I shall be asking him exactly what job it is. Not only have the inner cities been a subject of considerable concern from the days of Lord Liverpool onwards but they have been the subject of considerable Government action. After all, in 1968 my noble friend Lord Wilson of Rievaulx announced an urban aid programme which was followed in 1969 by a community development project, itself followed by the setting up of an urban deprivation unit by the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, when he was Home Secretary. In 1974 the then Labour Home Secretary, Mr. Roy Jenkins, launched a comprehensive community programme and my right honourable friend Mr. Peter Shore, as my noble friend Lord Stallard said, produced what I think was the last major statement of public policy in the 1977 White Paper entitled Policy for the Inner Cities. Since then we have had a series of initiatives under different names.
As my noble friend Lady Fisher said, we have had a special adviser to the Secretary of State to advise on ways to encourage entrepreneurial activity in the inner cities. We have had city action teams, employment task forces—which I believe have now become inner city task forces—and other initiatives. There is no shortage of names or expressions to describe the various arrangements that governments of both parties have made.
1330
The point that has been made, which I must make again, is that we welcome any initiative in the inner cities or the urban areas that is not just another gimmick or something wrapped up in a different piece of paper. We must ask the Secretary of State exactly what is new about the Government's proposals. Indeed, we must ask him to tell us what the Government are proposing because at the moment we have simply a declaration of intention without a very clear idea of exactly what policies will be put in place.
There are three points that I should like to make about those policies when they arrive and some further points to be made on behalf of the Opposition. There are also some questions that I should like to ask the Secretary of State to answer. The first point is that we must accept the very important observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, who said that no problem of one inner city is the same as another; there is enormous variation between urban areas up and down the country. indeed, my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick rightly went somewhat further when he said that there is no clear definition of an inner city and that the problems of inner cities areas tend to spill over into the suburbs and vice versa.
I must also make the point—and this subject was broached by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter— that the role of local authorities and communities in any urban area action scheme is absolutely essential. I very much appreciated the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, who rightly said that there was a whole mass of schemes but that the central point about them was that they involved local authorities and local communities in particular. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to the document entitled Managing Workspaces recently published by the Department of the Environment. He pointed out that most of the projects cited in that document were the product of the urban programme operated through the local authorities.
I do not want to detail them all and I give only one or two examples: Hackney Enterprise Workshop is financed through the urban programme via the Hackney Council; Nottingham Enterprise Workshop is financed through the urban programme by way of the Nottingham City Council; Aire Street Workshop, Leeds, is financed through the urban programme and Leeds City Council; Chelmsford Borough Council has financed the Globe House Workspace in Chelmsford. I shall not go through the whole list. As the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said, the important theme that runs right through this study is that the relationship between the various governmental institutions—and I mean central and local government—and the community and the desire of people to help themselves are fundamental to any programme. In so far as the Government adopt that strategy, we shall certainly support it.
I come to my second point. It is very easy for Members of this House and people living in the prosperous South-East and rural areas of the country to be patronising about people who live in the inner cities. It is easy to say that they should help themselves, get off their backsides and generally offer

1331
to the community a contribution of the type that we make. That is a very dangerous attitude and a perilous trap to fall into. I believe that self-help is important. I also believe that we have to treat people as part of the same community to which we ourselves belong. It is no good looking down on people and saying, "Here is our charity; you can take this to help yourselves". We have to regard any job or task that is given to people or that people undertake for themselves, as a task that we ourselves undertake. We are all part of the same community. If there is to be a programme along those lines, again we support it.
The third point that I wish to make comes back to something said by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson. We have to create inner cities or urban areas—whatever one chooses to call them—in, to use a French expression, la dimension humaine (the human dimension). We can no longer afford to consider such great tracts of land and buildings as the right environment for people of the 21st century to live in. If that is helped by small firms, as Mr. Trippier recently announced, then so be it. If large firms can help—not, as I think the Secretary of State has said, by investing in inner cities, because that probably will not happen but by sourcing from small firms in inner cities, by doing what BAT has done in one of the projects cited in Managing Workspaces, by contributing to the establishment of a small enterprise—then that is something that must be welcomed and encouraged.
Nevertheless, having said that, I think we must come back to the very important comments that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, about something the Americans know as "contract compliance". I believe that we must have a clear statement from the Government that where projects of a largish scale are embarked on by Government with government funding. there must be proper protection for the local community to make sure that the jobs go where they are needed. We cannot have people moving in, completing a contract and moving out again. That is an important and fundamental point.
So far as the Opposition is concerned, we are looking forward to hearing what the Secretary of State has to say about current government policy. He will have to satisfy us on six points, the first being that this is not an elaborate political exercise to undermine elected local authorities. Secondly, he must satisfy us that the Government will work with local communities rather than against them, and that the character of the community will be preserved and encouraged.
Thirdly, we need to be assured that small firms of all kinds will be encouraged—and we make no distinction between service industries, manufacturing, craft industries or whatever they might be—while safeguarding the conditions of the people who work in them; in other words, that there will be no sweatshops; and there must be fair opportunities for the ethnic minorities in the inner cities. Next, we need to be satisfied that the financial institutions which the Government intend to use as vehicles are adapted to the task. We like the idea of development agencies and local enterprise boards.
1332
We believe that the urban programme, working through local authorities, has been successful. We should like to see those initiatives continue.
Next, we need a clear line of responsibility. I understand that the noble Lord the Secretary of State has been given the task of co-ordinating the inner city programme. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether that is true and, if it is true, what the expression "co-ordinating the inner city programme" really means in fact. Who is in charge? What we cannot afford is another public relations exercise of the Mr. Richard Branson type. For personal reasons, I would hate to see the noble Lord the Secretary of State disappear under a balloon of hot air and land uncomfortably in the Irish Sea. So what is the new policy, who is in charge, what is to be the role of the local authorities and what financial framework have the Government in mind?
There are major questions that the Government have to answer and we believe that it is time for a major statement of government policy. We would prefer to see this in a White Paper. If the noble Lord the Secretary of State can announce today that there will be a White Paper, the Question put down by my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick will have achieved a great deal.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for giving us the opportunity of having what I thought was billed as an Unstarred Question, but which has turned out to be a not inconsiderable debate into the problems of the inner cities. It is inevitable with a problem of this dimension, which so exercises our interest, that a number of views have been aired. The diversity of those views is important for there can be no mechanical solution to the problems of the inner cities. Tackling those problems requires the contribution of many people and groups within our society.
The great danger in debating such problems is that it leads people to believe, first, that there is a set of identifiable solutions, and, secondly, that the Government can provide those solutions. But those traditional tramlines, along which too often people's thoughts run, have not solved the problems of inner cities in the past and I think that such beliefs have prevented the development of new approaches.
I should be the very first to say that resources are important, and of course the right structure of government is important too. I can give many examples of the new initiatives which the Government have been developing over the past few years, which have put financial resources into the inner cities and have tried new ways of co-ordinating government activities. But the most important step forward is the recognition that the key to tackling the problems of the inner cities lies in people and in participation. Neither is a certain identifiable solution. Both depend upon what actually happens on the streets of the inner cities. But each is fundamental to any durable approach to inner cities.
The people philosophy is central. Personal initiative and self-reliance are just as important to the economic life of the inner cities as they are to

1333
community life. Individual responsibility and commitment are crucial to the new projects and initiatives which we are setting up in urban areas, and it is in engaging people on the ground that our initiatives will either succeed or fail. This approach is sometimes misinterpreted. I do not believe that every individual can run a business or that self-employment is the only way to tackle inner city problems. But I do believe that in generating the self-confidence and the dynamism which people need to run their own businesses, we will see many more businesses than we do today and that those qualities will help in all jobs.
Neither is this the policy of leaving people alone to sort out their own problems. Education, training, financial and community support are all essential ingredients to break through the circle of deprivation and poverty which have prevented people from realising their own potential. But we must never forget that we are helping people to realise their own potential. Perhaps it is apposite that I should quote Canon Barnet, who worked in the east end of London and observed, "Careless giving has made the poor poorer". It makes people poorer by taking away their will and drive to succeed themselves. Money alone makes people poorer in spirit and our job is to enrich those spirits. I am sure that in that one simple statement is something with which all sides of your Lordships' House will have no difficulty in agreeing.
Partnerships too are crucial. We need better partnerships within central government. Better targeting and co-ordination for policies at a local level has been the objective of our city action teams and is an important part of the work of our inner city task forces. What is important is not to run programmes as discreet unrelated activities but to focus them around the problems of people in the local area. Better partnerships are needed between central and local government. Most local authorities work happily with us, but, alas, there are times when political philosophy can get in the way. The immensity of the problems which we face in inner cities should override such considerations.
Better partnerships between local authorities are needed too. A coherent strategy has sometimes been prevented as inner cities are covered by a number of local authorities. I hope that the use of urban development corporations and the new mini-urban development corporations will help to speed up the process of development and bring derelict land back into use.
Finally, better partnerships are of course essential between the public and the private sectors. We are continually looking for ways to bring private enterprise into the inner cities. Urban development corporations are proving an important way to achieve that. Many companies are now participating with us in the inner city task forces, and the activities of organisations such as Business in the Community greatly add to the success of these initiatives. So people and participation are the basis of our approach to the inner cities. Within that approach can be identified a number of the policies about which noble Lords spoke during our debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, was, I am glad to say, happy to agree with me about the importance of the private sector and of partnerships
1334
with local authorities. Indeed, he referred time and time again to the importance of the housing sector. We are committed to restoring the housing sector, but not necessarily just the public housing sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, in an aside which I did not quite follow, said that I referred at one time to the importance of cellular telephones. He did not quite see the relevance of that to the inner cities. Of course it is the relevance of wealth creation to the inner cities that I was talking about. The noble Lord referred to ethnic minorities and said how unions should co-operate better with governments. He regretted the fact that it had taken so long to introduce ethnic minority monitoring into the Civil Service. But it was the very Civil Service unions that prevented us from introducing ethnic minority monitoring and there were considerable bouts of industrial action before we could bring that in.
The noble Lord also talked quite passionately about ethnic minorities in the inner cities. It is a subject about which I lay some claim to personal knowledge. My own father arrived in this country some 82 years ago and lived in an inner city. He was part of a wave which followed wave upon wave of people of different ethnic origins who came to our country, who came to the inner cities and then, having progressed, moved on. I too was born in an inner city area.
What we have today is another wave of people of ethnic minorities who have come in in the past 20 or 30 years. Fifty or 80 years ago, there were no government schemes to get people out of the inner cities, but it was accomplished. What we have to do today is to recognise not only that circumstances have changed but also that it is not at all possible to leave all this to he done by government. We must have a partnership between those who live in the inner cities and the Government themselves.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said that private enterprise would not be enough. Of course the state is important in this regard but we cannot leave matters to the state alone. That is a point that I should like to return to later, for if we look at the contributions of the state in clearing some of the inner cities we should realise that over the past few decades we have created far more harm than good in many ways.
The right reverend Prelate referred to some difficulties in social security and housing benefits. If the right reverend Prelate has details of such difficulties I hope that he will write to me and let me know about them, and I shall deal with them. He referred to the poll tax. The arrangements for the community charge are that those who are on social security will receive a rebate of 80 per cent. and the balance of that payment will be adjusted by an increase in their social security. We are not going to impose a tax on people who are not in a position to pay it, but the community charge is an important development. I have no doubt that all noble Lords will have an opportunity to comment on it in the coming months.
My noble friend Lord Bellwin gave us some wise words. He referred to different areas and to different problems. He said that different problems demanded different solutions. He is absolutely right in that. One

1335
of the reasons that we have 16 inner city task forces is that we are looking at different areas in parts of our inner cities to find different solutions so that we can learn from that and progress and start to find the quickest and the best way to help to solve the difficulties we have.
My noble friend also referred to bad housekeeping by local authorities. There can be little doubt that in the past many authorities have not proved themselves to be model landlords either in looking after their housing or in collecting their rents. That is a problem which I hope our current housing Bill will attempt to address. My noble friend also referred to a whole series of enterprises and initiatives and made a plea for flexibility. I certainly accede to that and I hope that we shall find ways of being flexible in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, asked whether the Government had changed their policies. I must assure the noble Lord that in one respect that he mentioned we have not, alas, changed our policies. He accused us of cutting rate support grant and of wishing to give indiscriminate amounts of money to local government. A number of noble Lords have referred to a reduction in rate support grant. That reduction was accompanied by a vast increase in rating on those who lived within the inner cities. That was one of the most powerful reasons for driving employment out of inner city areas and for making them pockets of unemployment and helping them, one upon the other, to breed further bad conditions.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, that is very much the point. It is the Government's reduction of the rate support grant plus their use of penalties which has caused a lot of the increased rates in the inner London areas. However, it is not only the inner city areas in London that I am talking about. That is the point that I was making and I am afraid that the answer the noble Lord gives me does not meet that point.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I shall not enter into private debate with the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, but the very word "penalty" is there for a purpose. It was because of the amount of spending by local government that the Government reduced the rate support grant.
I well recall—I have referred to this matter before in your Lordships' House—that about seven years ago officials from the GLC came to me about the provision of workshop accommodation in inner London areas. They said that it would be perfectly possible in Wanstead but not in Lambeth because of the level of rates which already prevailed in that area. The rating policy of many local authorities made employment deserts in our great cities. That is entirely another problem.
My noble friend Lord Vinson made the wise point that the social cohesion of the village was something that we should try to recreate in the inner city. Recreating small-scale societies and making communities whole again is very much part of the policy of the Government. We do not believe in the vast monolithic structures which have come about so often. We believe very much that we should try to recreate small-scale employment and give people the
1336
responsibility and opportunity of working for themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, asked me three questions but, alas, my only answer to him is, no. There is no way yet known in which one can create money. So if one wishes to spend more money on housing, that must have an effect on either inflation or interest rates or on other matters. The noble Lord also suggested that we could do something about helping employment or the economy by building many more houses. I am sure the noble Lord is aware that at the present time we have run into one of those periods of brick shortages and skill shortages. I hope very much that we shall see more houses being built, but we have to have the conditions in which we can obtain the skills of those who are needed to build the houses. I hope very much that as part of the policy of the programme which the Government have been following we shall see many of those conditions come about.
I shall be brief with the rest of my remarks. The noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, asked how the 'sixties had failed. It is the monolithic, almost Stalinist housing estates that we created in the fifties and the 'sixties in many of the suburbs of our great cities which today are pockets of unemployment and the areas which are now known as the inner cties.
My former Parliamentary Private Secretary, who is now a junior Minister in my Department, Mr. Robert Atkins, was chairman of the housing committee which received a Civic Trust award in 1971 for a place called Broadwater Farm, where 15 years later there was a riot. It is that structure of living which we are seeking to break up. The housing Bill will break that up by giving people tenancy opportunities to choose their own landlords.
I have just one aside. The noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, said that the Department of Employment should take its civil servants out of London. The department has thousands of civil servants in Sheffield and in Bootle. Over 90 per cent. of the 60,000 people who work for the Department of Employment work well outside London. I suspect that about half of them work in the North.
My noble friend Lord Thomas of Swynnerton invited me to come to the carnival. The great thing about the Notting Hill Carnival is the sense of identity which it gives. I believe that anything of that nature can only serve a good purpose.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, was worried about something she had read in the Guardian. I am often worried about matters that I read in the Guardian but I wish to reassure the noble Baroness that it may not come to pass. The noble Baroness referred to the industrial dereliction in the Black Country. I agree with the noble Baroness that that is one of the areas which are now described as the inner city. It is one of a vast number of areas of our country which served the nation well in the Industrial Revolution but which today are scenes of considerable industrial dereliction. That is why I am very glad that we have established an urban development corporation in the Black Country and I believe that it will have good effects.
I wish to pay tribute to the way in which the local authority in Birmingham is working with the

1337
Government. We shall initiate many good schemes together and considerable progress will be made in Birmingham. I hope that Birmingham may serve to be a good example for other authorities which are less co-operative.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, also gave me a list of authorities which have imposed large increases for bed and breakfast accommodation. Although specific authorities may have had those increases I shall he very interested and I shall look at the figures in London as a whole to see what effect that has had. But it is sometimes difficult to take particular authorities and not see the effect on their neighbours.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, gave me a historical survey which ended up with a number of the schemes which I, alas, am responsible for introducing. I hope that they will prove to be successful. The noble Lord accused me of falling into a trap into which we have definitely not fallen. We are not condescending about the inner cities. We do not believe that their misfortunes serve them right and that they should get off their bottoms and work for themselves. But we do believe in helping people to work for themselves. I regretted the slightly cheap joke at Mr. Branson, who is working very hard and is creating a number of jobs round the country. I gladly welcome all those who come in from the private sector and volunteered their time and effort to work in government schemes to help specifically long-term unemployment. I do not regard that as a matter to be laughed at.
There are many other areas which could be discussed. However, I ask your Lordships to bear in mind two short facts. First, ideas to help inner cities can only be effective in a successful, growing economy. Inner cities are sharing in our economic success. Unemployment in the main conurbations of London, Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle and even Liverpool has fallen by around 8½ per cent. in the year to May 1987. Unemployment in the areas covered by the eight original inner city task forces fell by more than 9 per cent. Unemployment nationally has fallen by a fraction over 9 per cent. So there have been benefits to the inner cities and I believe that those benefits will continue.
I should be the first to accept that economic growth alone will not be sufficient to tackle the problems of the inner cities. Therefore I should like to assure all noble Lords that they should not be misled by media reports of disagreements between different departments or Ministers. We are working together very happily. But we are also looking at new ways to tackle the problems of the inner cities.
I am glad to say that English Industrial Estates, which up to now has been concentrating on building factories in the North-East, the North-West and many other development areas and has been very active in providing small industrial units and developing science parks, will now be looking to develop and run managed workshops in inner city areas to help people to work either for themselves or in co-operatives and in partnerships. I believe that that process of participation of the private sector, the churches and voluntary organisations will play a critical role.
1338
I commend to your Lordships' House just one example of the sort of initiative which I hope will grow in the years to come. In Leeds, Chappletown Harehills Enterprise Limited is being set up and guided by a board of businessmen and local community leaders. It is supported by central government and the city council. Imperial Chemical Industries is also helping to provide finance. The main aim will be to encourage greater independence among the local community by running employment and training initiatives and by promoting enterprise through providing starter units and enterprise training. That is one way in which central government, local government, the public sector, the private sector, local businessmen and those who live in the inner cities can work together for the greater good.
I hope that the result of the policies of the Government during the course of this Parliament will be that when we have a similar debate at a future time, noble Lords opposite will accept that the policy towards inner cities is working, and working well.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he be so good as to answer a specific question which I put to him in the course of my speech? My question concerns contract compliance. Is the interpretation of the new local government Bill by the Secretary of State for the Environment correct; or is that which is alleged to have been put by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster correct? In other words, in connection with contract compliance, will the Bill allow a local authority offering a contract to insist on the employment of local people, or, even more, will it allow them to carry out their duties under the Race Relations Act of promoting equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different groups? That is the whole point of contract compliance.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, although I have the privilege of speaking for a number of government departments in your Lordships' House, the Department of the Environment is not one of them. That Bill will come before your Lordships' House in due course and I assure the noble Lord that there will be nothing in it to prevent the operation of the Race Relations Act. However, I suspect that the details are better left to be explored at that time.

Broadcasting Authorities: Responsibilities
7.35 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the broadcasting authorities discharged their statutory responsibilities during the period leading up to the general election.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my intention, so far as it may prove possible to achieve it, is to consider this issue outside the narrow context of party political confrontation. Broadcasting, and more especially television, is, for better or worse, the medium by which the great majority of people in this country receive information and form their opinions.

1339
It therefore seems to me that the standards set by the broadcasting authorities should be a matter of serious concern to intelligent people right across the political spectrum.
My Question this evening arises partly from an answer given by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, when he replied to a Question which I asked on 29th June. In the course of replying, the noble Earl said, on the subject of impartiality, that,
"taken as an overall spectrum, I gather that the results from the BBC would perhaps be judged to be fair".—[Official Report, 29/6/87; col. 27.]
In the light of certain events which took place during the general election and in the light of certain comments made as a result, I thought that that was a judgment of very considerable significance. I should like to explain why.
It seems to me that in answer to the Question which I have tabled today, there are, for practical purposes, three ways in which the body politic, as represented in your Lordships' House, might react. The first is that there might be a general expression on all sides of the House of complete satisfaction with the way in which the broadcasting authorities discharged their responsibilities, If that were the case, I should be driven to the conclusion that my own doubts were unfounded and unjustified.
The second possibility is an expression from all of dissatisfaction and criticism. That would be a somewhat different matter. In the past, we have had experience of broadcasting spokesmen, when faced with universal disapprobation, replying along the lines of, "If we are attacked on all sides, we must have got something right". A moment's examination of that kind of fallacy will show it to be totally empty. It was disposed of by no less a person than Mr. Alan Protheroe who was, until recently, the assistant director-general of the BBC. In a paper which he prepared for the General Advisory Council of the BBC in 1983 he wrote:
"Such complacency no longer serves as a defence in a society which is increasingly complex".
He was right. If a broadcasting organisation, enjoined by its statutory obligations to balance and objectivity, is attacked on all sides for lack of those qualities, it is not getting something right; it is getting everything wrong.
The third possible reaction is a mixed one. One side of the political spectrum might profess itself to be satisfied with the performance of the broadcasting authorities and the other side might profess itself to be dissatisfied. If that were the case, it would seem to me that there is at least a presumption of some kind of lack of balance and objectivity. It is in that spirit that I wish to air the matter briefly today.
I begin by reminding the House of the relevant statutory obligations to which I referred. The most important is contained in the licence and agreement granted to the BBC by the Home Secretary subject to the terms of the Royal Charter and renewed, as your Lordships will recall, in April 1981. Clause 13 of that licence provides that,
"The Corporation shall at all times refrain from sending any broadcast matter, expressing the opinion of the Corporation on current affairs or on matters of public policy".
1340
That seems to me a very straightforward injunction. A similar duty is laid upon the Independent Broadcasting Authority in the Broadcasting Act in the following words:
"It shall be the duty of the Authority to secure the exclusion from the programmes broadcast by them of all expressions of opinion by the authority or their subsidiary, or by any programme contractor, on matters other than broadcasting which are of political or industrial controversy or relate to current public policy".
That is the same injunction in somewhat different words.
When an election is pending, those prohibitions are reinforced by Section 93 of the Representation of the People Act which deals mainly with the appearance of candidates in broadcast items. Having reminded the House of those statutory obligations, my question is whether there is general satisfaction on all sides of the political establishment of this country that those obligations were fully discharged specifically in the period leading up to the general election earlier this year. My own impression is that, to say the very least, there is room for doubt. I say this especially in respect of the BBC. It seemed to me, from my own experience of the broadcast matter during the election campaign, that independent television made a much greater effort at impartiality than the BBC, even if in some cases it was not always entirely successful.
If my perception that the BBC departed from the highest standards of balance and objectivity is justified, what was it that went wrong? Clearly, the BBC (and those who run it) know what is expected of them. In a resolution of the board of governors in 1981, annexed to the licence and agreement when it was issued by the Home Secretary, the following declaration appears:
"The Board recall that it has always been their object to treat controversial subjects with due impartiality and they intend to continue this policy".
As recently as June 1987, in its booklet, the BBC endorsed the view that it should have no editorial views of its own and went on to repeat the responsibility of the corporation for reporting political and other matters objectively, fairly and impartially. Such sentiments are unexceptionable. However, I seriously contend that during the recent election campaign those sentiments were ignored to a very disturbing extent. As I watched and listened to what I thought was super-saturated cover of the election, it seemed for a while that there was nothing else happening in the world except a general election in the United Kingdom. Often, during that coverage, I had some difficulty in recognising the commitment to fairness and impartiality. However, I had much less difficulty in identifying the editorial view of some of the BBC producers, interviewers and presenters.
I fully expect, indeed I know, that the corporation will be able to produce some convincing evidence based on fairly meticulous stop watch-work, that every one received a fair allocation of time. Of that I have no doubt. That is not the whole story. Anyone with any experience of television—from either side of the camera—knows what can be done by a producer with camera angles, reaction shots or the running order of a news programme. We may hear more about that before our brief exchange concludes this evening. We know how an aside by a radio reporter,

1341
or a knowing smile by a television interviewer, can colour the whole content of an interview or programme. And, of course, a great deal can be learned about the political leanings of an interviewer from whether or not his or her questioning is friendly or hostile.
No-one who shares my view that the BBC's output was less than scrupulously fair during the election is likely to be altogether surprised. I suggest that one of the reasons is that the BBC as a whole seems to have decided there is no longer any merit in one of the basic tenets and principles of serious journalism; namely, the strict distinction between fact and opinion. Nowadays, on broadcast programmes, the most inexperienced reporter or presenter is permitted, indeed, encouraged, to introduce his or her own opinion into what should be a straightforward account of facts and events, which is what a news programme is supposed to be. Mr. John Birt, the new deputy director-general of the BBC, has accepted that too many programmes in the past have taken sides. He also expressed a refreshing view when he said:
"a programme should inform, not tell the listener or viewer what to think".
Again, that is an unexceptionable point of view. However, if he really means it and if the new regime which we are told is operating in the BBC intends to put these principles into effect, may we now expect that the corporation will, for example, cease to make its editorial views known about the situation in South Africa? Mr. Alan Protheroe, when he was still assistant director-general of the BBC, in answer to a question, said:
"No, the BBC is not impartial as regards apartheid".
We must be absolutely clear about this matter. I am entitled to express my views about apartheid and have done so many times in the past. Any Member of this House, or the other place, is entitled to express views on South Africa; as is any newspaper, or private citizen. But, my Lords, the BBC is not. It is forbidden by its licence to do so. When the assistant director-general expresses such views, he is in direct breach, at least of the spirit, if not of the letter, of the licence issued to the BBC by the Home Secretary.
The same applies to official secrets. The assistant director-general— I am sorry to get at poor Mr. Protheroe so much, but he was assistant director-general at the time—said in a broadcast on Radio 4 in February 1987,
"the Official Secrets Act is really a dreadful piece of legislation, which I don't think should remain on the statute book".
Now that to use the words of the BBC's licence, is broadcasting an opinion on a matter of public policy. The Official Secrets Act is an Act of Parliament passed through both Houses of Parliament. It is not for the BBC to comment on such matters. If I wish, I can say that the Official Secrets Act is a piece of nonsense, as indeed can any of your Lordships, the head waiter at Claridge's or the publican at the Cross Keys. But the BBC may not. It is forbidden to do so by the terms of its licence.
Given the fact that we now know the editorial views of the BBC about the Official Secrets Act, it is perhaps not surprising that it commissioned to play
1342
a leading part in a series of television programmes dealing with national defence, intelligence and security, a notoriously disaffected journalist who is known to have been obsessively concerned with revealing to the public official secrets which successive governments of both parties have regarded as being better left unrevealed. I wonder what the aims were of the people who engaged this man, and what conclusion we are to draw from the statement made by the assistant director-general of the BBC who, when questioned about the matter in a radio programme, said, apparently seriously,
"I do not know whether Duncan Campbell is Left-wing or not".
I wonder where he has been. It may be said that this is all old-hat or past history. It is not quite past history. Noble Lords reading their newspapers this morning may have noticed a small item concerning a new series which the BBC is about to introduce, addressed to our Asian community. We learn that the presenter is to be Valerie Vas. I do not know whether the director-general knows the political opinions of Valerie Vas. I do. She has been the chairman of the police committee of the Ealing Borough Council. On two occasions she has delivered herself of some very interesting comments. She said, for example, that the police can now only be seen in the context of another branch of capitalist agencies in collusion. She went on to say of this country and of her borough:
"Let us make no mistake. Police state South Africa style is only a heart beat away."
That was said by the new presenter of a programme directed to the Asian community in this country.
The dangers of this must be fairly obvious and perhaps they might best be summed up if I may mention one more case—the celebrated case of Mr. Vincent Hanna. Some of you may know Mr. Hanna from his work on the Programme called "News-night". It is reliably reported that Mr. Hanna is to cover the party political conferences for the BBC this year. Last November, on behalf of an independent production company with which he is involved he wrote to several trade unions offering the services of that company. Part of the letter which he wrote reads as follows:
"Once you know the techniques of TV presentation, you can use the medium to infiltrate and control people's lives. It has been a source of irritation to me that the Trade Union movement has not had the advantage of using these techniques".
It is true that you can infiltrate people's minds and their lives by manipulating a medium. I think, however, we are entitled to be somewhat surprised that that should be a statement made by someone employed by the BBC to cover party political conferences.
It would be interesting indeed to speculate how many other media practitioners share Mr. Hanna's view of the role of television in a democracy. I know we shall be told that the BBC now has a new team at the top and that it will institute much needed changes. I say at once that I share the regard that was expresed in this House only a few days ago for the new chairman of the board of governors whom I know well and whom I have admired over many years. But I will watch with interest some of the key decisions that are going to have to be taken. For example, on production decisions, will Mr. Ian Curteis's play on

1343
the Falkland Islands now appear on BBC television? It was, we were told, moved only because of the proximity of the election. Or will it be replaced, as I rather suspect it will, by another play of a Mr. Charles Wood called "Tumbledown"? If your Lordships wish to know something about "Tumbledown", I quote from Mr. Charles Wood talking about his play. He said that he wrote it because,
"the Falklands War should never have happened; the fact that it did happen is a reason for shame, regret and anger".
I do not think one need be in any doubt as to what the general message of that play is going to be. Mr. Ian Curteis whose play, for some people, was a little too admiring of the performance of the armed forces in the Falkland war, has been told by the chairman of the BBC that the BBC is under no obligation to proceed with his play. That is the decision I shall look forward to with very great interest because I think it will tell us a lot about the new dispensation at the BBC.
It may well be that what is wrong at the BBC cannot by put right simply by appointing a new chairman and a new director-general and making some changes in the top management. If we take television and broadcasting seriously in this country we must ask a few more fundamental questions. Should we not now end the domination of television output by two enormous giant monopolies? Should the BBC—and I ask these questions not rhetorically but in the hope that the Minister may be able to answer them now be decentralised and broken up into smaller and separately accountable units which can be not only more efficiently administered but also kept more usefully under editorial control? Should there be an independent regulatory body to ensure that the statutory obligations are discharged? Do we need, as Professor Richard Clutterbuck of the University of Exeter has suggested, an institute on the lines of the General Medical Counil or the Law Society to impose professional standards upon broadcast practitioners? I ask the noble Earl who is to reply to examine the text of Sir Denis Forman's Dimbleby lecture delivered last week in which he will find some interesting material.
Television and radio are communications media of enormous influence and importance. As I have said, for a great majority of people nowadays, television is the principal and, perhaps for some people, the only source of news, views, and opinions. It formulates their tastes, habits, prejudices and political opinions and it forms them instantly. It is beyond doubt the most potent and significant medium of communication and it is likely to remain so for a very long time.
I conclude with these words. I believe it is developing, expecially in the case of the BBC, into an acute example of a modern tendency which has been called "adversary journalism". This is a concept of journalism in which all existing institutions are regarded as alien, hostile and threatening. In the old days of serious journalism, reporters and commentators examined political and social problems almost as though they were thinking carefully as to how they would solve those problems
1344
themselves if they were responsible and as though they were searching, as serious journalists, for measures and solutions which they might, in other circumstances, be putting into effect. Adversary journalism, on the other hand, is something quite different. It is instinctively destructive. Its purpose, quite simply, is to criticise, oppose and attack.
The BBC was once the standard bearer of serious journalism; it was synonymous with balance, objectivity, journalistic integrity and the highest standards of language, sensitivity and concern for the public which it served. There is no reason why it should not be so again. I ask the Minister to bear those considerations in mind when he comes to answer the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I think we owe a debt of gratitude for the immense amount of work which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has put into that Question and the points which he so forcefully and accurately made.
I am on record, over a period of more than 50 years in involvement with television, as supporting independent public service broadcasting. I wish to see standards and integrity restored. It does not need restoring among a large number of loyal producers. Their professionalism and their standards are not those of the younger generation who used to be called young Turks, but who are now getting rather more senior but not more responsible.
I shall not repeat the quotations and the obligations which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has so ably put before the House. However. I draw attention to a new book which was published last month by the BBC called Fairness and Impartiality in Political Broadcasting. On page 1 of the preface—line one, in parliamentary terms—it says:
"The BBC has no editorial view of its own.It may not, and does not wish, to, express an opinion on matters of public polio.. Parliament has down the years, confirmed its opinion that the BBC, as a public corporation, should not have its own editorial opinion. The BBC's task is to report political and other matters objectively and dispassionately, fairly and impartially".
There will not be one noble Lord or noble Baroness in this Chamber who would not say, "Hear, hear". Every one of us believes exactly in that. It was prepared in reply to a case brought by the Alliance against the BBC and, incidentally, was signed by the late chairman and the assistant director-general, by their legal adviser and by the editor of BBC television news. It is on the record and carries out what is laid down by statute. However, our purpose is to question whether the above statements have lost some of their meaning for some of the day-to-day conduct of BBC news and current affairs. I was sad to see that these two will be merged in a new headquarters under the same staff because, once and for all, this makes a muddle between what is comment and what is news. That, I think, is unfortunate.
Although I shall concentrate more on BBC television programmes, that is not because IBA programmes are perfectly balanced, but they seem to make more effort to achieve impartiality. The ITV

1345
companies have an independent regulatory authority of their own to examine any errors that they may commit.
Moreover, the BBC is a public service with 25,000 employees and an annual income from the licence of £1,000 million a year. It is an immense organisation. On another occasion one might say that it is far too big to carry out its functions with efficiency, economy and effectiveness.
I want to re-examine briefly the statement
"The BBC has no editorial view of its own".
However, the views of producers and presenters seap through into many programmes, as those of us who listen assiduously will have noted. If the BBC let us know how many complaints it received about "Newsnight", "Panorama", "Today" and so on, the extent of public disquiet would be clear, but it publishes none of this.
The BBC has abandoned its policy of no editorial views in a number of areas, and I shall select three briefly. I shall not repeat what the noble Lord said about South Africa. As an individual I am totally opposed to apartheid. I would fight it wherever I could. However, that is not the task, and the BBC is not allowed to take up a position on that. I thought that it was interesting to see what happened when media control was imposed in South Africa. When this was first announced by the BBC it mentioned no fewer than 10 times—at the behest, by the way, of the National Union of Journalists—in one programme that this was now controlled and therefore it was not free to say what it wanted to. However, its correspondents in every Soviet country, in every Soviet satellite and in 100 countries throughout the world which have dictatorships and not parliamentary systems are always under control. It chooses only South Africa to say that it is inhibited in what it says.
Another area in which the BBC has opted out is tobacco smoking. I am not a smoker. If one starts selecting items in regard to which one does not feel bound to abide by the charter, the licence and the conditions laid down by Parliament, where is it to stop? There was a programme on BBC Radio London about which the producer was admonished. It was quite clear that he was totally against smoking, and he went on and on against it. That is taking an editorial viewpoint on a BBC station.
Incidentally, the BBC imposes its own standard on the tobacco companies in regard to sport and advertising. A voluntary agreement was reached between the industry and the broadcasting authorities as to how much advertising on the boards round Lord's and other places was allowed on television and what size it should be. The BBC goes further than any of that: it imposes its own standards. Incidentally the IBA imposes even stricter standards. Once one is on this slippery slope—the Official Secrets Act was the third area, but I shall not repeat what my noble friend said—it seems to me that one may go much further.
I am not at all sure that the anti-American anti-Reagan bias in many programmes is not a sign that
1346
in this area the BBC is beginning to feel that it is exempt from its statutory obligations. Has any noble Lord or any Member of Parliament ever heard the BBC put forward arguments in favour of the strategic defence initiative, SDI? Is the abuse of the USA the main preoccupation of the foreign desk of the newsroom, as some allege? In times of crisis—one remembers well Suez, the Falklands and Libya —does the BBC adopt a knee jerk anti-government policy initially, although it may modify its views later? It is sometimes argued by the BBC's supporters that, because the majority of the national newspapers lean to the Right, it is the BBC's duty to restore the balance. If the BBC staff take this view and the programmes reflect it, they are totally ignoring the responsibility laid on the BBC by Parliament.
We now have news bulletins. In the old days the news was sacrosanct; it was straight. In Sir John Reith's day it had to be read on the radio by a gentleman in a dinner jacket just to show he was a very responsible person. Until recently, it was straight news. Now it has progressively become a mish-mash of news, views and comments by carefully selected people to produce the result that the producer wants, sometimes interspersed with slices of investigative journalism hung on some small peg that may have occurred in the news.
Now that 90 per cent. of newsreaders are journalists, there is an increasing tendency to finish an item by adding a barbed and loaded remark. Perhaps this is to prove their journalistic prowess, perhaps to please their like-minded editors. I notice that a newsreader publicised last week that she is to receive £50,000 a year from ITN when she leaves the BBC and goes to the IBA. For £50,000 a year, one must be a pretty good journalist and newsreader. We are muddling the two tasks. One is comment and one is news.
There was a classic example of the barbed additional item that I noted and reported at the beginning of November. The main item was the decision by the International Olympic Committee to choose Barcelona and not Birmingham for the 1992 Olympic Games. At the end, the newsreader added some words in the following sense: "You could count this as one more casualty as a result of Margaret Thatcher's attitude to sanctions against South Africa". Honestly, my Lords, how can one possibly put that tag on a news item about the selection of Barcelona by the International Olympic Committee?
The rules and regulations laid down by the BBC are clear. They seem to be somewhat disregarded lower down the line of responsibility. Let me quote one incredible letter written by a senior assistant, Mr. Richard Dunn, in the director-general's secretariat in response to a viewer complaint about the lack of balance. I have the letter.
"A party which is in government is bound by its nature to be making controversial decisions every day. The taking of such decisions is the exercise of power, and in a democracy such as ours, it is the job of the BBC to question whether that power is being exercised in the best interests of society."
But who gave them the right on society's behalf?
He followed up by writing this:
"You will appreciate that it is the job of an independent organisation like the BBC to question the actions of politicians. When

1347
those politicians are in power, that questioning must be even more rigorous, and when the party is as active and radical as the present government, it is natural that the BBC finds that it has many areas of government action to examine on behalf of the democracy."
The director-general's secretariat I suppose is the equivalent of a Minister's private office. This gentleman must therefore be reflecting a general view in that office. In the election campaign a temporary secretary with Tory sympathies was working there. She was amazed to find that every morning when they gathered the conversation was, "What can we do to help defeat the Tories today?" This is the perfectly balanced, objective, unbiased BBC.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I have restrained myself in most of this speech, particularly on the remarks about South Africa.
The noble Lord is quoting from somebody who he has not even named. He is mostly using hearsay and gossip. There is a great deal of nitpicking but very little substance to this. I think that we would prefer to hear something realistic and practical.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I shall be delighted to name him. I do not think he will ever be admonished, but I shall be delighted to name him. He is Mr. Richard Dunn and he is described as senior assistant secretary. Does that satisfy the noble Baroness? Perhaps I may now go on.
During the campaign my wife and I used to stop canvassing at 8 p.m. for our son who was standing, hopelessly I may say, in Middlesbrough. We therefore had a chance of seeing the Nine o'clock News. My admiration for the slickness of the Labour Party's production was considerable but the loading of the news and the reporting was to me definitely biased. I have now had an opportunity—and, my gosh, it is boring—to sit through 50-minute programmes of video tape. I have examined these, especially those concerned with the last 10 days or fortnight of the campaign. There are many ways of achieving balance, and I am sure that in the timing the BBC was careful. But you can slant a programme, as I know only too well, by the selection of items, by the selection of witnesses or by the production techniques. A dominant part can be played by the order in which you cover items from the three different parties. This is particularly important when a programme goes on for 50 minutes. I cannot get any statistics on this but from my personal poll I suspect that half the audience—and it was expected to start at 10 million—probably switched off after 10 minutes, and probably another half after a further 10 minutes. So if you were not the first item you suffered.
On Monday 1st June the lead item was the Kinnock campaign. On Tuesday 2nd June the lead item was the Kinnock campaign. On Wednesday there was an exciting analysis of opinion polls, and Jon Snow could not hide his delight that the Labour Party was progressively closing the gap. On Thursday there was tremendous and extensive treatment—it was the main item—of Labour's claim about the health service and the well prepared story about the sad case of a boy who had been waiting so long for
1348
a heart operation. And so it went on. On several occasions the Alliance Party came second and on one occasion came first ahead of the Tory Party. No wonder the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was moved to write his article in the Daily Express on 5th June and no wonder so many members of the public supported him.
I come now to public accountability. The assistant director general said on Feedback on 20th February:
"The BBC's responsibility lies directly to Parliament and to the public at large".
Yet there is absolutely no evidence that this is being carried out meticulously. My Lords, 140,000 letters are received by the BBC a year. Not all of them are complaints. Two-thirds are about television. Many people who write feel that it is a frustrating occupation and find they do not get the attention or make the impact that they should. I think the BBC sees itself as representing the public. It should certainly listen more carefully and more sympathetically to the views of the public on a whole host of subjects.
The new regime seems to be tackling its gigantic task with dedication and guts; and it needs both. Professional standards have been slipping progressively over 30 years and it will take many years to restore them. Unless the chairman, governors and management take action to live up to their statutory obligation and their stated intentions, the pressure will mount for an independent regulatory authority. Any government of any complexion may be forced to create such an authority. Perhaps this will have to be done in any case as new forms of broadcasting by satellite, cable and pay-as-you-view emerge. Unless the new BBC regime succeeds, no government could continue to allow it to be hostile to public criticism and to be the only part of the media to remain judge and jury in its own case and invariably to conclude that it is not in error.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I echo the thanks of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for introducing this interesting and important subject. Indeed, by putting his Unstarred Question in the manner in which he has done, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, had done us another service. He had demonstrated beyond all possible doubt that the fact that a noble Lord sits on the Cross-Benches should not be taken to indicate that he is impartial; nor should it indicate that somehow the noble Lord should be placed somewhere in the middle of the political road. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I say that, from what I have heard him say on this occasion and on many others, it seems to me that he belongs to the authoritarian wing of politics of which, I am sure noble Lords will accept, there are two—one at each extreme of the political spectrum.
I have watched with great interest over something like 30 years the noble Lord's career. It seems to me that he has progressed slowly from the one wing to the other. But be that as it may, I do not question for a moment the perfect right of the noble Lord to raise

1349
these criticisms and to voice his anxieties. Indeed, I think that is a duty—a duty which he shares with everybody who is concerned about the freedom, the impartiality and the independence of broadcasting. We should all make our views known and we should criticise when we wish to do so; but I am bound to say, having listened most carefully to the noble Lord's speech—and I shall read it with care again in case I missed any points—that his individual criticisms were not all that strong. Some of them (and others that have been made by people with whom I know the noble Lord is in touch) are answered thoroughly and excellently by a BBC publication which came out very recently, Fairness and Impartiality in Political Broadcasting. It goes in great detail into some of the matters which have been raised, and answers those matters to my satisfaction if not to the noble Lord's. It seemed to me that his criticisms were aimed not so much at the broadcasting authorities which are referred to in the Unstarred Question but at individual people employed by those authorities. On that I think he is on rather dangerous ground.
The noble Lord appeared to want all the people who appear on televison as interviewers and presenters to have no opinions at all about anything. I do not want my television screen to be monopolised by people who do not have any opinions; but what is important is that enough variety of opinions must be expressed and must be expressed in different programmes. The noble Lord seemed to be talking about individual programmes presenting a view as if each programme should present a precise balance. There was time when the IBA operated in that way and appeared to suggest that every programme should be balanced within the individual programme. In my own case many years ago I was prevented from presenting a programme on smokeless zones, and the need for them, by the intervention of the Independent Broadcasting Authority's officer in the north who said that I could not do that unless I could drag along a reluctant representative of a backward local authority which did not believe in smokeless zones.
When the noble Lord, Lord Hill, became chairman he swept that away and required balance overall rather than balance in the individual programme. While the noble Lord is right to ventilate his criticisms, we do not want people who have no opinions. Of course they must have opinions. He has named some of the people who we know have opinions. But that to my mind does not take away from their ability to be broadcasters. What we really need is enough variety of people operating with enough autonomy and independence that we make sure that the whole spectrum of different views is adequately represented.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I intervene only to make the point that my main criticism was based upon the fact that the BBC itself expresses editorial opinions. I am not against people having individual opinions, but the BBC is debarred by its licence from expressing opinions as it has done.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, that of course I entirely support. I understand the terms of its licence and I endorse that fully. The BBC must not have an editorial view and must not express one. I note what the noble Lord said about what the BBC is reputed to have said about apartheid. It is right that these criticisms should be made. That is part of the price of the freedom of our broadcasting institutions. It is right that the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority should listen to these criticisms and consider them carefully. I think that the BBC has considered many of these criticisms carefully and has answered them. I would say this. When this kind of criticism is made in one or other of the two Houses of Parliament the broadcasting authorities should listen but I hope they will not automatically support what is said.
I have to remind your Lordships (and I think all noble Lords know) that we have gone to great lengths in this country—and rightly in my view—to distance the control of broadcasting from Parliament in general and from government in particular. It is immensely important that we keep broadcasting free from the control of both central and local government. We were absolutely right some years ago when we insisted that local government should have no stake in local radio. Local radio should be the critic of the local council not its mouthpiece and the same applies to central government.
We have set up with the charter the governors of the BBC and with the Independent Broadcasting Act the chairman and members of the authority. They operate under the Act, which has been described by the noble Lord, and under the charter and have a statutory duty to fulfil those obligations. They also have statutory duties under the Representation of the People Act, as the noble Lord rightly said, but in the main people who might be in breach of that during a pre-election period would be candidates rather than the broadcasting authorities. The broadcasting authorities have a duty to ensure that they do not knowingly lead candidates into breaches of the Representation of the People Act. I am not aware that they have done so.
There is a problem in relation to balance and political impartiality with regard to the governors of the BBC and the members of the Independent Broadcasting Authority. That arises from the fact that the chairman and governors of the BBC and the chairman and members of the IBA are all appointed by the government of the day. These people serve for a comparatively short period. It seems that governments now last for a much longer period. In the past six months five new members have been appointed to the Independent Broadcasting Authority. I have no doubt that these are all excellent people; but I believe there is a possibility—bearing in mind that it is the Government who appoint the governors and the members of the Independent Television Authority—the time could come when a government lasts for a very long time and when we have both those bodies packed with people who are perhaps rather more responsive to the views of the government of the day than some of us might regard as being wholly satisfactory.

1351
The same kind of thing is happening in another context in the United States of America where we now find that the Supreme Court is giving judgments wholly in accordance with the views of President Reagan—not surprisingly, for he has appointed them all. The same kind of thing happened in the old days under President Roosevelt when that Supreme Court came in the end to reflect his views. I mention this because I believe that if we finish up with members of the authority who are a little bit too favourable to the government of the day, whatever that government is, we shall possibly begin to undermine the very elaborate system we have devised (I believe it is an excellent system) whereby we ensure the independence of broadcasting from government.
Another problem arises from the relatively short tenure of members of these bodies, the governors of the BBC and the members of the authority. It seems to me that just when some of these people are beginning to learn a great deal about the broadcasting off they go. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred to the excellent Dimbleby lecture given by Sir Denis Forman last week, which I did not have the pleasure of hearing in person, but I read it in full in The Listener and I commend it to noble Lords. It makes some valid and important points. Sir Denis says that he believes that,
"The old English convention of gentlemen and players (amateurs on the board, professionals running the show) needs a fresh look".
We need on these boards governors and members who are a proper mixture of the great and the good, but we need also people with detailed professional knowledge of what is a very professional matter. We may possibly see some changes in that direction as time goes on.
I have voiced my anxieties; but I feel a little alarmed by the tendency of some members or former members of the present Government appearing to wish to intervene rather more in editorial matters than was formerly customary. I could have said the same 10 or 11 years ago when a similar thing was happening under another government. Here I quote again some words of Sir Denis Forman in his Dimbleby lecture. He said this:
"If the government of the day does not resist the temptation to get its hands on to television, we shall be on a downward spiral towards the French model of almost direct political control. The ultimate effect of this will be to ensure that a change of party means a change of person in television right down to the editor of the news".
We should think about that very carefully. I feel the greater threat to broadcasting in Britain—I have not the slightest doubt that our television and our radio is pre-eminent in the world and is far and away the best—is not the threat of political interference or political lack of balance. It is the threat of market forces, in that with an increasing number of channels, with satellite and so on, we are pushing the broadcasting authorities into the possibility of a mad rush for ratings and perhaps for money. Thereby broadcasting standards could suffer.
The noble Earl who is to reply to this debate has a formidable task. Perhaps he will forgive me for reminding him that nobody has done more than the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to maintain standards in broadcasting. I accept that partiality
1352
and balance are absolutely essential, but I believe that the maintenance of our standards in broadcasting is even more important. I venture to suggest that some of those matters are under threat.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, is to speak shortly. He chaired a most distinguished commission which brought out a wonderful report, but I think I am right in saying that it too showed a little more anxiety about standards than it did about balance and matters of this kind. It is essential that we maintain total freedom from government control of broadcasting and of those who broadcast.
I conclude again with some words from the Dimbleby lecture by Sir Denis Forman. He said:
"To our political masters of whatsoever party, I would say: first, be calm, be cool about broadcasting. Abuse each other on the screen as much as you like, but please do not move behind the screen and take over the controls".
To that I say, "Hear, hear".
8.27 p.m.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, I confess that I find it a little difficult to relate some of what the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said to the precise Question on the Order Paper. However, there is no doubt that this is an extraordinarily difficult subject because it is always productive of subjective views. It is almost impossible to have a completely objective view about the content of broadcasting and the motives behind it. When I was, for an unhappy period, allegedly in charge of government communications, I always received a great many letters from constituents of all parties complaining about the bias of the BBC and the other broadcasting authorities against the party which they supported. So I had all these broadcasts carefully monitored and found that over the period in question the political balance of the programmes was impeccable.
I came to the conclusion after some thought and after studying the correspondence that what happened was that when the listener heard something being said by a spokesman of his own political persuasion he really took no notice of it at all. It went over his head: he regarded it as plain common sense and did not really feel impressed one way or another. But if he heard a strongly expressed or tendentious view from somebody from another party, his blood pressure rose appreciably. At once, he reached for a pen and wrote to the BBC complaining of bias against his party. In fact the bias is, nine times out of ten, subjective. It is in the ear of the listener.
I feel a little sad that I should be criticising the BBC, because my relations with its interviewers and producers have always been excellent ever since I made my first sound broadcast rather more than 35 years ago. But I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing have a point in what they have been saying. It was not only during the election campaign that this bias was perceptible. In my view, it preceded the beginning of the election campaign.
I could not help noticing, for example—and I do not suppose for a moment that this was in any sense a breach of the BBC's charter of obligations—that for quite a long time before the election campaign

1353
began or even before the election had been called, when the Government had taken some action or made some important statement the normal procedure, at least on the radio after the 10.30 news (or during the 10.30 news, because, as my noble friend said, news and comment are not always rigidly segregated) was to have an interview with the Minister (and I would not criticise that; the questions were probing without in any sense being unfair) which was followed by equal time being given first to a spokesman of the Labour Party and then to a spokesman of the Alliance.
The psychological effect was obvious. The Minister had his innings, but then twice as long was taken up with Opposition spokesmen rubbishing what the Minister had said, and the Minister had no right of reply at all. The effect left on listeners was often that the Government must have been wrong. I have no doubt at all that this does not offend against the rules in any way, but there was no doubt what the psychological effect on the listeners was, and I do not believe that that effect was created unintentionally.
There are quite a lot of other things that one could quote.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I dislike interrupting the noble Lord, because I agree with some of the things he has said. What does the noble Lord propose should be the answer to this? There is a party grouping, the Alliance. Should they not have their say? I did not want to lose that point because I did not know what the noble Lord's answer to this was going to be. This is the way our electoral system works.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, I take the noble Baroness's point. I am not sure what the answer should be. All I am saying is that the effect of having a three or four minute interview with the Minister, however fair it is, and then having two consecutive interviews with spokesmen who oppose it and are trying to prove it wrong, with no right of reply from the Government, however brief, leaves an impression adverse to the Government. It cannot fail to do so.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me? Would this difficulty not arise from the attempt to balance the programme within an individual programme, rather than present perhaps several different unbalanced programmes?—the kind of thing that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, objected to.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, I see all this, but the fact is that for many months before the election campaign started this had been going on, and it became more noticeable the more obvious it became that an election was going to be called. I do not pretend to know exactly the answer to this. The answer is probably that if you give four minutes to a Minister and then four minutes to a
1354
Labour spokesman and four minutes to an Alliance spokesman to rubbish him, you ought to give the Minister one minute to reply. That seems to me to be a way in which some semblance of balance might be achieved.
However, there is not much doubt in my mind—and I think I am a pretty impartial viewer and listener; as I said, I have always had the best relations with the BBC and I respect it enormously— that a general anti-government atmosphere seemed to be developing. Of course it came to a climax on polling night when the BBC's election programme was introduced by a beaming David Dimbleby who announced, almost rubbing his hands, on the basis of one entirely inaccurate exit poll that this was going to be a very close-run thing, and obviously was delighted with it. But this sort of bias had been showing all the way through.
It really is not any good saying, "Ah, but the BBC was not offending against its charter or against the rules laid down for it". Technically it may not have been. But anybody who has listened to the views of ordinary electors around the country or canvassed people of different parties knows that the general impression was that the BBC was not being impartial in its treatment immediately before and during the election campaign.
What one is to do about this I am not sure that I know, but I think that the new dispensation at the BBC have to think seriously about it. Since we hope that they have another four years or so to think out how to handle the next general election campaign, they had better start now and do this seriously, whether by means of a committee or commission of some kind I am not sure. Commissions and committees do not always come up with sensible answers.
I am certain that there is point in what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing said. Unless we grasp this fact as a reality and bear it in mind and try to do something about it, the situation is only too likely to get worse because people who stray just beyond the bounds of propriety and get away with it will stray even further beyond the bounds of propriety if they are not checked.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Renwick: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for bringing up this subject. I make no apologies for taking one or two minutes to mention my past history because I had experience some time ago when my father was chairman of an independent television company. I had some opportunity then of talking to the senior directors and executives of that company on the formation, the running and the birth of "Independent Television News".
I remember well one conversation which stuck in my mind because, funnily enough, the problems of impartiality came up then with one of the directors who became a good friend of mine. He likened it to being the editor of a newspaper. I remember him saying that every night the news had to maintain a

1355
factual presentation without being boring and that there should be the due responsibility of an editor of a newspaper.
I was tempted to intervene when I heard the response from my noble friend the Minister to Lord Chalfont's Question on, I think, 29th June because I too found it difficult to understand how anybody could have failed to notice bias among newscasters and among interviewers on the lead-up to the election, and definitely in the pre-election period.
I watch quite a lot of television. I respect—and I think everybody respects—that the newscaster and the interviewer should certainly have political views of their own. I believe that a lot of people who watch some of the main and respected and experienced newscasters might for some time not be aware of an individual's own political bias. I was pleasantly surprised by the fair treatment given to political leaders in many interviews. The politician on either side was asked many strong questions and was allowed good time to give his views. Unfortunately, we look and listen to other interviewers and newscasters who are not aware that there is a restraint upon them as regards bias. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, is right in saying that they are out for ratings and are competitive for viewers. That applies to both morning television and radio programmes. There is no doubt in my mind that some interviewers use political bias and antagonism to gain viewers and that that is expected of them. That is a sad statement to make.
I am in danger of incurring the wrath of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, if I am not specific in naming names. My father and her husband were directors of ATV and worked together in the old days. I well respect the noble Baroness's husband as having experience in this field, much of which I am sure has rubbed off on the noble Baroness. I am looking forward to hearing her comments.
To return to the election night, my noble friend Lord Maude was quite right in what he said. I attended two parties that night. At the first party after dinner we turned on ITV and the exit poll showed an immediate lead of 40 for the Conservatives, increasing to 60 within a few minutes. I then went to another party, arriving after about an hour. It was attended by many people who, after having dinner, were watching BBC. I thought I had entered a different world. I had come from a party where we were happy and confident that we would have a majority of at least 50 or 60. However, at this party I saw a noble Lord who was in this House earlier and I said to him, "What is the matter? Haven't you heard the news? Don't you realise that it is now 11.30 and we are well ahead? The first two results have come in and the Conservatives are well ahead". He said, "No, is it true?" I asked him what had been happening and he said that they had been watching BBC for the last hour and a half. The news filtered through and we had a good party, but it took some time.
I do not want to take up any more of your Lordships' time except to ask: what is there to do? I agree that it should not be government policy to have
1356
too tight a rein, or any rein at all, over broadcasting. In talking about broadcasting are we talking about the distribution of information or the production of programmes? I believe that the new management of the BBC should carefully look again at the original role for which it was established in the 1920s. Things have changed and we have a totally different media environment. We have an international information industry which is growing up and needing a system of distribution. The BBC runs one of the methods of distribution of news and information; the IBA runs another; there is cable television and there should be DBS.
That is for the future and there may well be argument that the whole system should be examined in order to form a clearer idea of the role and responsibilities of the national broadcasting corporation. Is there still a need for one? I only ask and I believe that a re-assessment of the situation is in order.
I am aware of the Peacock Report and others but I am not sure that they have fully taken into account the enormous multinational and international industry of news, current affairs and information dissemination. If we have worries of political bias in the current constitution of the BBC, we should also be worried in future about bias in other forms of information. As the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, rightly said, television is the most powerful medium and an enormous former of opinion. It goes right into one's front room. It has an audio and visual impact far stronger than radio, and if one is watching television one is hooked and its views are impressed upon one. As such it has a responsibility of which the Government must be aware, and the Government should create the environment in which, in the future, we can be happy and satisfied that undue influence and bias cannot exist.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, a few moments ago the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, was mildly rebuked for going further than the scope of the Question. It seemed to me that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, went far wider in asking the Question and opened up all kinds of problems which we are now trying to debate. I came to your Lordships' House thinking that we should be talking about the coverage of the general election. It is difficult for someone outside party politics, such as myself, to understand why this should be a problem. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he has any information from the BBC or IBA indicating that they have received formal complaints from any political party about the coverage. I find it difficult to believe that the Government have heard from the authorities that they have been accused of bias of that kind.
I do not see how either of the two major parties could complain. Everyone agrees that the Labour Party fought a competent and brilliant campaign and I cannot believe that it would consider that the medium was biased against it. Equally the Conservative Party won the election with a far greater majority than was forecast before the result. I cannot believe that it would consider itself hard

1357
done by and that it lost many votes owing to the bias against it. I do not know what the Alliance feels. But I must put it to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that one must have massive research on the election coverage in order to make his case; namely that there has been substantial bias on one side or the other. You would have to run the whole coverage; you would have to get a panel of three impartial people to look at it and to make judgments. So, as I said, I was surprised that we strayed so far from the original Question, and I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, whether during the election he looked at Channel 4, because his speech was almost entirely about the BBC. Channel 4 is something for which I have a very soft spot in my heart. I think it is an excellent channel. But if you ask me, "Does it have any particular complexion politically?" I am bound to say that I think it has a complexion which favours the Left rather than the Right. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was going to weigh in about Channel 4.
I like Channel 4 because I think it does something which Mr. John Birt, who is now in a very responsible position at the BBC, advocated long ago. He said then that there was in the news a bias against understanding. If you just give the bare facts and nothing more it is very difficult sometimes for the public at large—of course I do not mean your Lordships, who are extremely well informed—to catch the import of the news. I think that is one of the reasons why the BBC has taken to having a member of its staff who, after the newscasters have given an item of news, will make a comment on it. It is perfectly clear that it is a comment and not just a news item. I think that was done perhaps to meet the point that Mr. Birt made before he ever went to the BBC.
There is another thing to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. Much play has been made about the BBC having an opinion about South Africa and apartheid. Should the BBC, or any other broadcasting organisation, have an opinion about communism and democracy? I ask because there are some things in our political life in which it seems to me that we have a rooted assumption in our political life. We say: "This is the way we believe the world should he ordered and that is not the way that the world should be ordered". Can a broadcasting organisation completely ignore an assumption of that kind?
Of course I take the point about South Africa, which I imagine Lord Orr-Ewing had in mind: the question of how South Africa moves—if it ever can move—from the kind of political setup it now has to one which all parties in this country believe is desirable. How that is to happen is indeed difficult, but I think that to say "no broadcasting organisation has any right to express an opinion about apartheid itself", is going to land you in deep and troublesome waters.
When I spoke of Channel 4, I had in mind the fact that all broadcasters when dealing with items of current affairs, are going to appear to those in authority to be hostile to authority. As someone who
1358
sometimes has been in a position of authority myself, I know exactly how disagreeable that is. You try and talk to the press and express your point of view; and you are then amazed that they show no disposition to believe you at all. And yet it is very important that those in authority should realise that people are going to be sceptical of the explanations they give.
If you look at the broadcasters' flagships—"Panorama" for the BBC and "World in Action" for ITV or at the output of Channel 4—you will find that they question authority. I think, too, that one has to recognise that people who are in the broadcasting organisations do not regard themselves as speaking with the voice of the BBC or of the particular commercial independent company of which they are a member. They think of themselves as speaking with the voice of the programme that they are on. I think here that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was somewhat unfair to the broadcasters. He was entirely within his rights when he criticised Mr. Prothero, because Mr. Prothero was speaking as a senior official of the organisation. But on the programmes themselves you have to recognise that the people in them have a particular role in the programme.
It is true that broadcasters can go far too far in their criticism of politicians and I think there is one important case to bear in mind. I have this case in mind when I remember a statement which was made about a former Prime Minister. I cannot quite remember the exact words but it was something like:
"When his lips are moving you know he is lying."
Yes, it may sound funny, I know. But it was in fact calumny. The quotation I want to read to your Lordships comes from a famous case of Entick v. Carrington in 1765, when Lord Chief Justice Camden said:
"All civilised governments have punished calumny with severity; and with reason; for these compositions debauch the manners of the people; they excite a spirit of disobedience, and enervate the authority of government; they provoke and excite the passions of the people against their rulers, and the rulers oftentimes against the people."
So I think that in fact there are cases where broadcasters go far beyond the limit which I believe is permissible and which can do very grave harm. I think also that the broadcasters have got to realise that they are public service broadcasters whether they are in independent television or the BBC.
Let me try and meet the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I, too, have criticised the BBC in recent years. It is not two years ago since I gave a long talk on Channel 4 in which I criticised the BBC severely for the attitude they took for instance on the Falklands War when reporters in radio went to interview the widows of those Welsh guardsmen who had lost their lives when their ship was struck by a missile in order to find out what their opinion now was of the war. That seemed to me to be totally inadmissible.
I also criticised the BBC at that time for the injunction to use the phrase "British troops" instead of "our troops". The nation was at war and it was a war which was supported by all the political parties, though of course there were dissidents who thought that the war was wrong. It seems to me that the BBC as a national corporation has a duty to remember that it owes obligations to the nation.

1359
I think that the BBC has in recent years got into great difficulties. There was the "Real Lives" controversy. I said in public that I thought that the then Home Secretary had behaved most unwisely. However, so did the staff of the corporation. There was no sense of obligation to the corporation and to my mind the strike by the journalists was a disgraceful affair which did great harm to the BBC and to Britain in the world east of the Iron Curtain.
It is not that I think that the BBC has been and remains without fault. I think some things went wrong. The libel suits showed lamentable error of judgment. Jeremy Isaacs once said about journalism: "Comment is free but facts come very expensive". That is something which all broadcasters ought to remember.
We now have a new deal at the BBC. We have a new chairman, a new vice-chairman, and a new director general and deputy director general—and, I might add, quite a number of other new faces are beginning to appear. There has been a very substantial reshuffle at the corporation and we ought to pay tribute to the new chairman, deputy-chairman and board of governors who are taking very seriously the criticisms that have been made in the past. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, rather pooh-poohed that fact. He went on to say something that I deeply deplore; namely, that the time had perhaps come to break up the corporation and to destroy something which is the admiration of the world.
The BBC is far more important than a few silly, mistaken ignoramuses among the junior staff, who will always make mistakes. The BBC is something for which this country is still enormously admired not merely for its presentation of news and comment on news but for its remarkable artistic output and for what it does for the arts in the country as a whole. I very much hope that the understandable irritation that is sometimes felt about the corporation will not be developed into a venomous attack on its very existence.
9.3 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, like all other noble Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for tabling this Unstarred Question. Memories can grow foggy about facts and events shown on screen and therefore it is especially important and salubrious that the noble Lord has paraded chapter and verse of so many very relevant happenings.
People such as I who cannot get about much are indebted to the BBC for bringing to us sporting events, wonderful scenery, documentaries, drama and much else. Basically we are its allies but not to the extent of being blinded to the bias that has been displayed in recent months and years. Credibility as regards its impartiality has been stretched too far.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, doubted whether it would be possible to measure the balance or imbalance of any particular programme, but I should like to give just one illustration of that. One morning
1360
during the general election campaign Sue Lawley presented a phone-in programme which featured Norman Tebbit. The questioning on such a programme is generally tough and the questions need close and individual attention. Mr. Tebbit was answering pretty well in what was perhaps a rather gentler manner than is his usual wont when the presenter, Sue Lawley, started to interrupt him, which she did over and over again. To his great credit Norman Tebbit remained calm and cool. He answered a series of hostile questions most effectively despite being chivvied and bombarded throughout with what was an apparently aggressive barrage of interruptions from Sue Lawley. She kept telling him that he was not answering properly, and that line persisted until the end of the programme.
From my slight experience on the fringe of broadcasting I know that it is pointless to make a charge of bias unless one can prove imbalance. After three other shocked viewers had contacted me I drew my courage together and telephoned the BBC where I found an Ansaphone ready to take a message. I said that Miss Lawley had shown a lamentable and horrifying degree of bias and added that I proposed to make a judgment about balance when I had compared the programme with the way in which she dealt with Mr. Kinnock on the same programme the next day. The result of that test was that we saw Mr. Kinnock interrupted once or twice but it was done in a helpful and co-operative, if not to say encouraging manner. Measuring those two programmes for bias, there cannot be the slightest doubt where it lay.
The BBC's election polls provided some very interesting figures. Its forecast was for a majority of 26 against what turned out to be the reality of 101. Later it was promised to set up an inquiry to discover the reason for the discrepancy, and I hope that the public will soon be told the outcome.
Many of the BBC's old allies, as I am, want to be shown that partial mischief and suggestion in BBC broadcasting is on the way out. For this and many more fundamental reasons I wholeheartedly support the tabling of this Question.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has raised this Question in his usual buoyant manner. Unlike many noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, I have not been interviewed in this country on either sound radio or television. The only experience I have had was in New Zealand in 1971 when, three hours after landing at Mangere airport in Auckland on an official visit, I was interviewed by a fairly aggressive commentator for half-an-hour. He wanted to discuss the Common Market but that I refused to do, because Sir Geoffrey Rippon had just returned to this country having negotiated the deal. But I did answer a number of other questions and I had an example then of some fairly tough interviewing. As I said, since then I have never been invited to submit myself to the media.
I have taken part in five election campaigns, at least three of which were before the media really took an interest in electioneering as they do now. I take a

1361
rather different view of this matter from some of your Lordships, because, thank heavens, an election campaign is a short campaign and during that time the media have a very tough job to do. If I have a criticism of the media, it is about the overkill in an election campaign.
I remember that two weeks or so before the campaign finished, my dear wife, who was in politics before I was, said to me at 11 o'clock on a Monday evening, "For heaven's sake, dear, find something else besides these damned politicians." Three channels failed to provide an alternative and the fourth channel was showing a rock concert. Anything was better at that time of night than electioneering.
What we really have to do is to think of the future. What we are discussing now is somewhat déjà vu. In the words of the famous song from the Lilac Domino,
"What is done, you never, never can undo."
So what has been done during the last election campaign cannot be undone, but we have to think of the future. As a fairly compulsive viewer of television, particularly during the election campaign, I mourn the death of the Swingometer and Robert Mackenzie, because we then had a fairly impartial view of the campaign. We now have a surfeit of commentators.
I must say that during the election campaign I spent most of my time on business in Scotland, and latterly on the Isle of Man at a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference. Election night was spent in a hotel in Douglas with parliamentarians from Gibraltar, Cyprus and the Channel Islands, and what we saw was a whole lot of comment, particularly on the BBC, with an irritatingly measly ration of results.
My complaint—and I think it is the complaint of a lot of people—is not so much about the political bias of the campaign, but about the fact that the commentators themselves spent so much time discussing the various positions of the political parties, whereas what people wanted to know was the result in Eastbourne or Edinburgh, South. My message to the broadcasting authorities, and particularly to the BBC, would be to put that matter right and let us have more news about what is going on in the constituencies.
I like to switch, particularly during an election campaign—I did not get an opportunity this time—between the BBC and ITV, with half-an-hour of each. One can then get a rather fascinating insight into how the programmes are conducted. I do not possess video, so I have not had an opportunity six weeks later of recalling how the campaign went, and can only go by what went on at the time.
One suggestion which could be made—and Australia did this for a time—is completely to ban opinion polls during an election campaign. During the whole of our election campaign and well before it we suffered from a surfeit of opinion polls from all kinds of esoteric organisations. That is the main criticism of the campaign. I do not know whether opinion polls sway the electorate. I rather doubt whether they do but they are very irritating. I shall go almost further and say that for the last week of the campaign at least there should be a virtual ban on
1362
party political broadcasts. By then the electorate have made up their minds.
I conclude by saying that tonight in much that has been said during the debate, for which we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, we have very largely been discussing the past. Whatever our views may be, there is much to learn for the next campaign in four years' time.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, I shall not come between the House and the noble Baroness for more than a few moments, but perhaps it may be helpful, even to the noble Baroness, if I make a few short comments on what has been said. The debate is rather apt both in origin and timing. Its mood comes from a speech which was made from the Cross-Benches by a noble Lord who has a very deep knowledge of a very difficult branch of journalism that is particularly concerned with defence. The noble Lord made a remarkably powerful speech which certainly deserves the deepest consideration by those new men who are now in charge of broadcasting in this country.
I must say that I share with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, a certain concern. It seems to me that we may be faced with a position in which the new masters of the BBC really succeed in gaining control of that organisation. But I agree that that would be difficult and could not be done quickly. But either that shall happen or some new as yet unspecified solution has got to be found. I share with the noble Lords, Lord Annan and Lord Chalfont, a very strong prejudice in favour of the first solution.
The debate is also apt in its timing. I said in this House a month or two before the general election that I regarded the lady as unstoppable and she was. I did not realise quite how unstoppable she was going to be, I must confess. But with great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, there is really nothing that could be said by the BBC which had very much effect.
A rather rough interview that took place between Sue Lawley and a character as tough as Norman Tebbit was not going to change the course of history. In fact the Conservative Party had the tide well under it and one of the finest leaders that it has ever had and that interview was not going to affect it.
As regards the news bulletins which have been commented on, one never knows quite what their effect will be. I agree with what has been said about the impression they gave. There was a soft lens on Mr. Kinnock. Everybody praised the campaign which Mr. Gould had worked out. Mr. Kinnock was seen kissing everybody in sight and changing a baby's nappy. I thought that that was a brilliant idea. In my day it was much more difficult to change a baby's nappy because one had to hold a great pin and half the audience would be hoping that one swallowed it.
Nevertheless it was a brave stroke and I saluted Mr. Kinnock for doing it. Much later during that programme one heard a little of Margaret, but one mostly heard attacks on her. She was always shown right in the middle of some awful storm over one thing or the other. I am not complaining because in

1363
fact the public did not want to have their nappy being changed. The public wanted something very different. It wanted to see the leader who was under attack and who knew what she was going to do. On the whole, rather than criticise the television coverage, I believe that it rather helped us. Perhaps fortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, cast his speech rather wider than the actual question of the election. I believe that the important thing is that the BBC should read again what their licence says and what it is that they are really licensed to do.
If I may catch the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for a moment (I do not wish to interrupt an important conference) no one is saying that the people in the BBC should not have opinions. They would not be there unless they had some opinions. A man must think about something or other. The important thing is that when he gets on the air, he should not reveal to us what his opinions are. He should get on with his job. We are not asking for nonentities. We are asking for men with a certain amount of background, knowledge and self-control.
People in the BBC can always have opinions. However, when they start expressing their opinions and letting us see what they are, apart from anything else the programmes get so dull, if I may say that to the noble Lord, Lord Annan. Is there anything duller than a BBC programme on Africa? And what a subject! It is a great, exciting and deeply tragic continent. With all its beauty and all its bitterness, one would think that some reporter would be enthused about presenting to us all the arguments and calling people in front of us to present them. But when one gets some rather drab, middle-aged gentleman who has obviously made up his mind long ago, there is no longer any excitement.
I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and I are asking is whether, in this time and with these new leaders, we could not get the leaders of the BBC to do something about educating their staff on how to conduct such programmes. I admit that what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, calls adversary journalism is very much in vogue. It is much easier to slam everything; every institution, every political party, every politician and everything in sight. In a way, one does not have to think because all that simply bubbles up. It is far more difficult to stand back and take a more balanced view and to think, as one looks at Africa, whether anyone could govern it. That was the first thought that struck me when I had been there for any length of time. It seemed to me to
1364
be an almost incredibly difficult problem. It bristles with opportunities for examination and for great men of all views to put them forward.
I also agree with what has been said about the Official Secrets Act. There is a case for not having such an Act or for amending it. However, amending it is probably even more difficult and is desperately hard. The need for, and dependence upon, people keeping the secrets they learn in government and in the Secret Service is a powerful case indeed. Instead of simply putting it out that they do not believe in the Official Secrets Act, why do they not argue that great moral issue and get people to argue it out in front of the public? It would make the BBC a far more interesting medium to listen to.
In a way, we all ought to be on the same side in this matter. At the moment the BBC staff may be, broadly speaking, a bit Left. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that Channel 4 is probably even "Lefter". It is my favourite programme. I do not know what that says about me or about Channel 4, but there are such views.
The situation is changing and new generations are coming along. There will be a new generation of young men and women in the BBC who will share the views of Mrs. Thatcher, Mr. Gorbachev and others who think that corporatism and collective stuff is rather out, and that the new idea of the private sector, enterprise and the market is really in. We do not want them to take charge and say that collectivism is like apartheid, which we are all against. Once you open the door to such people it becomes very dangerous indeed. Once you allow them to judge what subject they think they can have a policy on, there is no knowing where it may stop.
In this debate I am left with a very deep concern. The case that is made out is sufficiently serious to warrant great thought by the BBC. I hope that in his reply the noble Earl will indicate that he will read the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, at dictation speed to the top levels in the BBC and ask them to really think about it. It is not a matter which they can dismiss. We are all concerned because we want that great institution to go on within the terms of its licence. We do not want to see something else introduced; we do not want to see governments interfering; and we do not want to see outside organisations monitoring it. Those would be bad ways of solving the problem. The solution lies with the BBC, but it is urgent, and the BBC should be told so.
9.26 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I apologise for jumping in, but I reached London only at lunch time. There is one specific point which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, did not mention which I feel it is my duty to mention. He read from Clause 13 of the licence and agreement. I have done so before in this House. Looking at the Question before the House, I do not believe,
"that the Broadcasting Authorities discharged their statutory responsibilities during the period leading up to the General Election".
Why is that so? It is because "Today in Parliament", a well-recognised programme with approximately 200,000 listeners, used to be repeated the next morning as "Yesterday in Parliament". At that time of the day the listeners numbered a couple of million. But the BBC's "Yesterday in Parliament" is no longer a repeat of "Today in Parliament". The construction of "Yesterday in Parliament" is prepared by the producer, whereas "Today in Parliament" is produced by the parliamentary staff.
As I have said before, I feel that the House has been diddled by the BBC through its not repeating in "Yesterday in Parliament" the details broadcast in "Today in Parliament". In that respect it did not comply with the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
9.29 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the genesis of the debate is quite interesting and strange. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in a Question on 29th June, asked the Government to set up an independent inquiry into the manner in which the Broadcasting authorities discharged their statutory duties. Tonight we are debating whether they fulfilled their statutory responsibilities in the period leading up to the general election, which is really a different question. As has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, the debate has gone all over the place. Some noble Lords have kept to the aspect of the general election while others have talked about broadcasting in general terms. What I find rather amusing about the whole thing, in view of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, is that a former chairman of the Conservative Party spoke in, I might say, perhaps more generous terms about the BBC than the noble Lord from the Cross-Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, appears to be to the Right of the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way for a moment? In what way is criticism of the BBC Right wing? That is a most curious remark.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, made appeared in an article that he wrote on, I believe, 5th June published in the Daily Express. His comments were constantly decrying people who were anti-Thatcher and anti-Conservative, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, brushed that aside in an amusing way.
It is worrying that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has not produced very hard or specific evidence for
1366
the accusations that he has made. He has repeated what appeared in the article in the Daily Express about the odd smile, the attitude and the movements, but we have been given no specific instances. It is quite wrong to put forward matters in this way. That applies also, I am afraid, to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, who treated us to a great many generalisations.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way again? I have looked at all the tapes. I specifically obtained the videos and laboriously went through them. I was not speaking without having studied them, timed them, and listed the order in which people batted. I took immense trouble, as did my noble friend who was quoting facts, and very often BBC facts.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord should allow me to finish the sentence. I was about to say that what has worried me is that he and other noble Lords in this debate have quoted themselves as being quite impartial viewers and listeners. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, I felt, was taking a better line when he admitted that these perceptions were subjective, and went on to say that he was an impartial viewer and listener. Not one of us is an impartial viewer and listener. The great thing is to recognise our own partiality or prejudice.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, I do not think I claimed to be impartial. I am not impartial and I never have been.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I respectfully suggest that the noble Lord reads Hansard tomorrow. I have written down the words, "impartial viewer and listener". I think he will find that he said that. I may be wrong, but I do not think so. I wrote those words as he said them. I thought that contradicted his point about being subjective.
In the Daily Express the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred to the resistance of the British public who are suffering from being brainwashed. That is the word he used in the article. It has been pointed out several times, as we are all aware, that if this were true the eventual result of the election points to a very strong resistance on the part of the British public.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, spent such a miserable hour or so. I was switching from one channel to another. I was among a very Conservative group of people, because they were practically all Tories, and they did not seem to be at all upset. In fact, they were distressingly happy, almost from the beginning when the results began to appear. They seemed to have cottoned on. Comments have been made, for instance, that Peter Snow looked pleased when there was a Labour gain, or something like that. He was like that all the way through the election programme, like a small boy playing with trains. He loved the jumping round and

1367
working it out. It did not seem to be a question of who was or was not winning; the game was the important thing.
To be serious, what I find worrying is that the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, rest very much on his subjective perceptions. They are not backed by what I would call real evidence or proper analysis. This makes the debate somewhat pseudo. It is only natural for some to suspect that the real reason lies in the rather unfortunate attempt to influence broadcasters by using Parliament as a base for engaging in what amounts to unsubstantiated attacks on the integrity of broadcasters and journalists by the BBC and independent television.
We have all heard about Sue Lawley's interview with Norman Tebbit. It is obviously not right, whoever is being interviewed, that people should be hectored or interrupted. I have no qualms in agreeing with that immediately. Politicians or interviewees should be able to look after themselves. Those of us who have been interviewed, of whatever party, have found that interviewers can often be very sharp and at times almost impertinent. However, one always has the right to say if one wants, "Enough of this", and get up and go; or, as Harry Truman put it, if you do not like the heat you must keep out of the kitchen.
Broadcasters sometimes fall short of what I would call professionalism, which is why some of them behave in this way. They can be a touch too aggressive or interruptive. It is wrong when they are, whoever they are interviewing or whatever their personal beliefs; but we must recognise that they are only human and like the rest of us therefore given to mistakes and errors. Indeed, this has been recognized—I do not apologise for repeating what has been pointed out by several noble Lords—by the newly appointed director-general of the BBC, Mr. John Birt, who has responsibility for the corporation's news and current affairs output. He has instituted a review of methods of interviewing as part of his general re-examination of the journalistic output of the BBC. With respect, it would have been far better to await the result of the other initiatives that are being taken within the BBC and of its inquiry into the conduct of the election before embarking on such a debate.
In the last election the BBC set up an election advisory unit at the highest level. The unit met twice every day, was available for consultation by news and current affairs staff all over the country and was on call 24 hours a day. This is the first time that such a unit has worked in an election. Independent television, which did not have as great a political coverage as the BBC, nevertheless asks viewers whether they feel that television provides a fair and unbiased view of news and current affairs programmes. The BBC and ITV, it seems to me, are doing the best that they can, saving the odd mistakes that are made.
I go back to where we started. If television and radio were not impartial, where were they partial and in what direction? If they were lacking in balance, to which end of the electoral scale did they gravitate? If they failed to be objective, whose subjective
1368
judgments did they articulate? To whose tunes were they dancing?
With the exception of two or three speakers in tonight's debate, it has been clear which side they were on. Everybody else seems to have been absolutely convinced that the whole emphasis was against the Conservative Party and on the side of Labour. That is the way it has come over in this debate. If such partiality and imbalance cannot be expressed in very much tighter terms—and I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has said—it does not really add up to a case for government taking extreme action that would be quite calamitous.
What we have to accept is what any reasonable person will accept, and does accept—that broadcasters discharged their statutory and other responsibilities. That is not to say that their coverage was perfect, that there were not areas for improvement and that at times there was not too much coverage or too little. But to identify room for improvement or suggest areas that might be dealt with in different and perhaps better ways is quite different from laying the ground for the kind of implicit and occasionally explicit condemnation in which the noble Lord who initiated the debate has indulged.
There is ample evidence, as we all know, that the public rely more on television for their information than on any other medium and there is also ample evidence that they trust that information more than any other; certainly, on the whole, more than the press. There is evidence in research undertaken by the Broadcasting Research Unit that the last thing the public want or expect is for the broadcasters to roll over like a pet poodle at the feet of their political masters. The public expect and demand searching, inquiring and critical questioning of all politicians; and on the whole, with perhaps a few lapses, that is what they got during the election campaign.
I must also point out that the phraseology of the Unstarred Question was not quite right. It is of course true that statutory obligations attach to the commerical television system—that it be impartial, objective and balanced—but the situation with the BBC is rather different. No such statutory obligations attach to it, though it has historically been the case that the BBC has recognised that it should be committed to such principles and has articulated this through a series of memoranda which have been issued and have been in force for many years now, and also in the conditions of its licence. Its actual statutory position is rather different.
It is important to be precise and clear in stating the problem, if that is what it be, and in discussing the details which are encapsulated by the problem.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will give way for one moment while I ask her whether she does not regard the BBC's licence as imposing a statutory duty upon it.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, that is what I said, though the position is rather different from that of the IBA and the ITV companies.
Sir Denis Forman, in his Dimbleby lecture last week, from which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, quoted, said:

1369
"Today the role of broadcasting authorities—the BBC and the IBA—is under threat. There is, for instance, the threat of political interference born of the desire of politicians the world over to have broadcasting say what they want it to say".
He went on to mention other threats. I feel that this constant carping at the broadcasting authorities when the criticisms are so fragilely based is an encouragement, unfortunately, for some of them to take more cowardly action than they might in presentation, a discouragement to experimentation unless we are very careful, and thoroughly bad for the health of our democratic society.
With all its faults, we are blessed with a first-class broadcasting system. Both parts are regulated, though one is commercial and the other is the BBC. Let us be very careful that we do not inflict harm on the broadcasting authorities, ourselves or our country. Let us be very careful what we do before taking any actions such as those that have been suggested tonight.
9.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we have had a most useful debate and are particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for instituting the debate tonight. It is right that I make clear at this stage of the debate that I am not here to defend the broadcasting authorities. They are quite capable of defending themselves on any allegations made against them.
I have listened with great interest to what has been said this evening some of which has been familiar and some less so. I should like to answer some of the points that have been made and some of the questions that have been raised. But before doing so, I should like to remind your Lordships about the arrangement which we have for broadcasting in this country and in particular the special place of the broadcasting authorities.
The broadcasting authorities—and I am referring here primarily to the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority—are appointed to protect the public interest in broadcasting. They owe their existence principally to the fact that, unlike other forms of publishing, broadcasting is a monopoly. This fact is forced on us by the shortage of radio frequencies. In the words of the 1925 report which led to the establishment of the BBC, the broadcasting authorities are the trustees for the public interest. Their responsibility is a very large one. Every day, each day of the year, our four television channels broadcast about 100 different programmes. In addition, there are four national radio networks and about 100 local radio stations, many of which broadcast 24 hours a day. All this adds up to something like 20,000 hours of television broadcasting each year, and several hundred thousand hours of radio broadcasting. Even if we confine our attention to the period of the general election campaign, we are still talking about thousands of hours of broadcasting.
The words of the Broadcasting Act 1981 require the IBA to be satisfied so far as posssible that their programmes meet certain standards. The BBC must meet similar standards. We have discussed in this House on a number of occasions what those
1370
standards are. They include questions of taste, decency and offensiveness; the need for accuracy and due impartiality in the presentation of the news; and the need for due impartiality in the three areas: in news and news features; in matters of political or industrial controversy; and in matters of current public policy. I remind the House that the Broadcasting Act 1981 states that impartiality may be judged over a series of programmes taken as a whole, of which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, reminded us earlier.
The words "due impartiality" are important, because a broadcaster is not required to be impartial on matters such as drug trafficking, cruelty and racial intolerance, for example, on which society is virtually unanimous. Because of this the importance of good management is highlighted so that that line is not crossed.
The broadcasting authorities have a daunting task. It is clear that the individual members of the governing boards of the broadcasting authorities cannot, and do not, watch and listen to everything which their authority broadcasts. Still less do they vet programmes in advance, although from time to time this happens when the subject matter is particularly controversial. Their job is to see that working systems are in place to ensure that the obligations are fulfilled. At the most basic level this means that there should be staff in post of sufficient calibre and authority to be able to take difficult editorial decisions; that there are proper arrangements for referral upwards of awkward programmes; that programmes and programme makers are chosen from a range of backgrounds and points of view; and, most importantly, that producers, particularly in the area of current affairs, understand and respect the responsibilities that each of them bear.
Every year sees a substantial growth in the number of programmes broadcast in the United Kingdom. Not only do we have more terrestrial television channels, but each of those is broadcasting for more and more hours each day and night. We are now about to see the start of satellite broadcasting and we already have the beginning of a cable network capable of delivering an unlimited number of television channels.
The Government have recently put forward proposals for radio that would allow the development of many hundreds of new local stations. Clearly, if it is already impossible for the members of the broadcasting authorities to watch and hear every programme for which they are responsible, it is going to become increasingly so in the future.
However, should we be unduly anxious about this? The Government believe that subject to proper safeguards to ensure that single point of view does not dominate, the more voices that are able to be heard the better. The views of those at one extreme will be cancelled out by the views of those at another. This is the principle which we have accepted for many hundreds of years so far as the printed word is concerned, and I have no doubt that in the future, as and when the monopoly of the airwaves by the BBC and the IBA is diminished, so we shall increasingly come to accept it for broadcasting. That is the challenge that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, put to

1371
me as something of excitement for the future and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, took the opposite view and feared the same challenge.
However, in the meantime, while broadcasting remains a monopoly, the broadcasting authorities have important responsibilities. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, asks whether the Government are satisfied that they have discharged them properly. This question reminds me of the riddle of Juvenal—and I do not go into Latin because Latin was a language that I never got on with at school—and the English translation is, "who will guard the guards themselves?" The answer, I think, is that it is not the job of the Government to second guess the individual decisions or broad policies of the BBC or the IBA. That would be to fly in the face of Parliament's wishes and would be tantamount to saying that the Government knew better than the broadcasting authorities how they should fulfil the role which Parliament has laid upon them; or that the Government were more fully acquainted with the programmes shown during this period than the broadcasting authorities themselves. It is of course unrealistic to assume that that would be so.
We would not presume to tell the broadcasting authorities how to do their job, just as we would not tell the newspaper publishers, the Director of Public Prosecutions, or the Director of Fair Trading how to do theirs. There is only a very small number of people in government responsible for broadcasting matters and they are not paid to watch and monitor television programmes but to advise on the broad thrust of policy. Where the Government do have a role is in keeping in touch with opinion in the country and in Parliament about people's perception of broadcasting in the United Kingdom and whether the generality of opinion is that the present arrangements are producing the results which Parliament expected of them.
The public are not slow to write to the broadcasters, to Home Office Ministers or to their MPs when they have seen things on television which they consider are wrong, unfair or improper. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Maude recounted the days when he was responsible and did such a good job for Her Majesty's Government when he was in charge of broadcasting, and he has much more experience than I have on these matters. He reminded the House of the letters that he got.
If one compares the complaints received in the Home Office about an average cause célèbre with complaints about the coverage of the last general election, it seems clear that the latter was not an issue of major public concern. Complaints received in the Home Office in relation to a sexually explicit scene in Dennis Potter's "The Singing Detective" were 85 from members of the public and seven from MPs. On the general election coverage there were no complaints from members of the public and only three from MPs. Of these three, two were about ITN announcing the result of individual counts before the returning officer and were not therefore relevant. The one relevant complaint was from one MP about alleged bias by Cleveland Radio. I also could answer the noble Lord, Lord Annan, by saying that as far as
1372
I am aware there has not been a complaint by a political party. There were of course complaints received by the broadcasting authorities from the general public.
As on this test these figures show that no complaints from the public reached the Home Office, it can be argued that this was not a matter of great public concern, and that television had, by and large, a good election. It can be argued, as indeed it was by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that it was perhaps spoiled by some overkill and by one or two instances of boorishness on the part of television journalists Even if this latter criticism is true, it is certainly no grounds on which to condemn the whole system. None of us would suppose that, in all the hours of general election coverage, there was not the occasional programme which was unfair to one side or another, which trivialised the issues, or in which an interviewer behaved in a high-handed manner. It is easy to forget that, not only during a general election but throughout the year, our broadcasting arrangements regularly produce informative programmes of high quality, with serious attempts at analysis of complex issues.
I am sure that the House will join me in expressing a debt of gratitude to the broadcasting authorities for the work that they carry out. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, mentioned the dangers of political bias among members of the broadcasting authorities because they are appointed by governments. I am sure that the noble Lord was talking about a hypothetical situation rather than the present situation under this Conservative Government, where we have a chairman of the IBA and a vice-chairman of the BBC who are both distinguished former Labour Ministers.
It would be a particularly un-listening Minister not to have noted that most of your Lordships believe that there may have been an element of bias in the broadcast coverage of the election, but we must bear in mind the caution of my noble friend Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon about the dangers of a subjective judgment in this area. Although some references were made to the attitude of some employees of the broadcasters, I did not note much in the way of specific example of bias in the election coverage itself. If there are some examples which noble Lords have in mind they should take their specific complaints to the broadcasters themselves. I am sure that the broadcasters will listen to the opinions that have been expressed tonight. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, it is up to anyone concerned about the matters to make specific complaints.
I should remind the House that the governing boards are directly responsible for hiring and firing all senior managers within the broadcasting authorities. Recent events have shown that they are not slow to use these powers when they think that it is appropriate. They are also responsible for issuing detailed guidance for programme makers and editors on the standards which they expect their programmes to meet. In view of what I said earlier, I reiterate that where there is specific complaint it should be made to the authorities as the responsible body. I am sure that those authorities will take due note of anything that

1373
your Lordships say; as I believe they have taken due note of the recent Richard Dimbleby lecture given by Sir Denis Forman, mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord Winstanley, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk.
Clearly broadcasting is an important and complicated subject. I would not wish to argue that our present arrangements for regulating it are perfect or that mistakes are not made. However, it is clear from tonight that the House is on the same side as that which my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft desires. The arrangements of the authorities must meet the objectives which I believe we all agree are necessary: of independence from government; freedom of expression within the law; safeguards on matters such as taste and political impartiality; access to adequate sources of funding; and at the same time produce programmes of genuine quality and originality.

London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Whitchurch Bridge Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
Masonic Trust for Girls and Boys Bill
Reported from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Essex Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments were considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes before ten o'clock.

  POLICE HOUSES: SALES
  POLICE HOUSES: SALES
  SUNDAY TRADING
  SUNDAY TRADING
  ELECTRICITY PRIVATISATION PROPOSALS
  ELECTRICITY PRIVATISATION PROPOSALS
  CEGB POWER STATION PROCESS REQUIREMENTS
  CEGB POWER STATION PROCESS REQUIREMENTS
  EC: AGRICULTURAL STABILISERS
  EC: AGRICULTURAL STABILISERS
  PACKAGE HOLIDAYS: CUSTOMER PROTECTION
  PACKAGE HOLIDAYS: CUSTOMER PROTECTION
  "KOWLOON BRIDGE": REPORT
  "KOWLOON BRIDGE": REPORT
  JUDGE ARGYLE: LORD CHANCELLOR'S REPRIMAND
  JUDGE ARGYLE: LORD CHANCELLOR'S REPRIMAND
  EUROPEAN AGRICULTURAL GUIDANCE AND GUARANTEE FUND: 1986 REPORT
  EUROPEAN AGRICULTURAL GUIDANCE AND GUARANTEE FUND: 1986 REPORT
  HOUSING BENEFIT: ALARM SYSTEM
  HOUSING BENEFIT: ALARM SYSTEM
  CHILD ABUSE INQUIRY: CLEVELAND
  CHILD ABUSE INQUIRY: CLEVELAND
  EYESIGHT TESTS: COSTS
  EYESIGHT TESTS: COSTS
  DEVONPORT DOCKYARD WORKFORCE
  DEVONPORT DOCKYARD WORKFORCE
  TAFF-ELY BARRAGE PROPOSAL
  TAFF-ELY BARRAGE PROPOSAL
  TRIDENT
  TRIDENT
  NATO: NUCLEAR WEAPONS POLICY
  NATO: NUCLEAR WEAPONS POLICY
  BRITISH TELECOM CHARGES
  BRITISH TELECOM CHARGES
  VAT REVENUE ESTIMATE
  VAT REVENUE ESTIMATE
  HEVENINGHAM HALL
  HEVENINGHAM HALL
  IMPORTED WASTE: CONTROL MEASURES
  IMPORTED WASTE: CONTROL MEASURES