Sitting of 9 March 1987

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

    Offshore Supplies Office
    Dr. Godmanasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to increase the staffing and extend the role of the Offshore Supplies Office; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I shall continue to ensure that the Offshore Supplies Office is sufficiently staffed to enable it to fulfil its important role.
    Dr. Godman: Does the Minister agree that the role and staffing of the OSO should be increased over the next few years to deal with what will be the Petroleum Act? Is the Minister satisfied with the OSO's role in securing contracts for United Kingdom companies? Naturally, I am primarily concerned with the fortunes of Scott Lithgow.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I pay tribute to the staff at the OSO who are hard-working and dedicated, and who are ensuring that British industry has a full and fair opportunity to win orders. I expect that for 1986, United Kingdom firms will have gained more than 80 per cent. of the orders available. That demonstrates the success of its work. I want that to continue, as I know the hon. Gentleman does. I am grateful to him for what he said.
    Mr. Rowlands: Given the admission by the Government that 20,000 jobs have been lost in the oil industry in the last 12 months or more, and given the awful announcement today of the loss of highly skilled jobs at Huntings, one of our most internationally renowned consultancies, should the Government not be bringing forward more positive measures to stimulate development and exploration of the North sea, instead of this misplaced confidence and attitude that the Minister has shown today?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman does not appear to have noticed that there has been a substantial drop in the price of oil, which has a great effect on the industry. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not acknowledge that.
    The situation is difficult at the moment because of the drop in the price of oil. The hon. Gentleman has also overlooked the fact that at the end of last year we improved the industry's cash flow by some £300 million through the early repayment of advance petroleum revenue tax. The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that action has been taken.

    Oil and Oil-Related Construction Activity
    Mr. Kennedyasked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current level of oil and oil-related construction activity in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The total contract tonnage associated with current developments on the United Kingdom continental shelf which has been awarded to United Kingdom construction yards, is around 200,000 tonnes. That construction work takes place over a period of time related to each project schedule.
    Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Minister for that reply, but may I underline—I know that he is very conscious of this—the extremely depressing effect that the oil slump has had on construction-related activity in the Highlands? Will his Department be sympathetically disposed towards accepting evidence from, for example, the Highland regional council as to the related impact which the regional development cuts have had on the oil-related construction

    3
    sector in the Highlands, which has acted as a double blow against it, and which also underlines the need for further tax concessions in the forthcoming Budget?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Highland regional council has been in touch with my Department and I am sensitive to what the hon. Gentleman says. In my own area, Grampian regional council has said the same thing. Both councils have taken the opportunity of giving evidence to the Select Committee on Energy which is looking into these problems. I accept that there are much wider repercussions to the economy of these areas, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is aware of the problems and shares my concern.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an update of onshore exploration and development, particularly that which is related to sensitive areas of the south of England?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Onshore activity has continued and there was considerable interest in the first onshore licensing round. It provides opportunities for smaller British firms to get involved, but I know that my hon. Friend acknowledges that, as I have said previously, any activity is strictly controlled under planning legislation and environmental considerations are involved. That must be right.

    Nuclear Power Stations
    Mr. Jack Thompsonasked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received about the Government's long-term policy towards nuclear power stations; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I have received a number of letters, principally in relation to Sizewell B.
    Mr. Thompson: The Secretary of State's response was very brief. Bearing in mind the fact that since the publication of the Sizewell B report, the chairman of the CEGB has said that he wants to press ahead with nuclear power stations in other parts of Britain, will the right hon. Gentleman carefully consider the folly of the proposition that a group of nuclear power stations should be built on a coastal strip of Northumberland, adjacent to a profitable and extensive coalfield and close to a coal-fired power station, which is owned by the CEGB and is ripe for coal-fired development?
    Mr. Walker: From the statements by the CEGB chairman that I have seen, I know that he has mentioned the board's interest in new coal-fired stations. However, I have received only an application for Sizewell B and that is the only one on which I can comment.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a PWR is urgent and would be competitive and timely as the only power station that is likely to be commissioned before 1995 when it will be required?
    Mr. Walker: I cannot comment on such matters until I have made a decision on Sizewell B.
    Mr. Dormand: Will the Secretary of State go further than he went in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) and address himself to the unemployment problem in the north-east? Productivity is greater than ever in our coalfield and it would be a suitable
    4
    place for a coal-fired power station. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that it would be cheaper to build and run a coal-fired station than a nuclear power station.
    Mr. Walker: I know that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that I cannot comment on his final point until I have made a decision on the report that I have received. I believe that the coal industry in the north-east has considerable importance for the future and I am pleased that the enterprise company is bringing new jobs to the region. I hope that that will be on an ever-increasing scale. I am certainly aware of the unemployment dimensions of the problem.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Among all the representations about the future of nuclear power, has my right hon. Friend received any that point out the need to conserve hydrocarbon fuels, particularly as they will be chemical feedstocks in the future and will be a source of man-made fibres, fertilisers and plastics, as well as premium fuel for aviation use?
    Mr. Walker: I have received representations on almost every aspect of energy and every possible use of energy. The factors mentioned by my hon. Friend deserve careful consideration.
    Mr. Orme: The Secretary of State mentioned that the CEGB has been talking about new coal-fired power stations. Will he comment on reports in the press and elsewhere that the Treasury is very much opposed to that type of development?
    Mr. Walker: I read with amazement the newspaper report that a debate was taking place between the Treasury and myself. No such debate was taking place.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: As the CEGB will be applying later this year to build a PWR at Hinkley Point in Somerset, will my right hon. Friend ensure that, while safety requirements must be rigorous, the planning inquiry will be more narrowly focused and that it will take less than a year to reach a conclusion?
    Mr. Walker: As I have not been informed of any such application by the CEGB, I cannot comment on it. I know that people in Somerset or any other area will want the proper planning considerations to take place, and that should be done within a limited time scale, which gives enough time for objectors, but does not delay important decisions.

    Dismissed Miners (Review)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Energy if the chairman of British Coal has kept him informed about the results of his review of cases involving dismissed miners; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): On 8 September 1986, the chairman of British Coal announced a final internal review that would look at all outstanding cases of alleged unfair dismissal arising from the National Union of Mineworkers strike. The result of that review is not yet available, although I understand it is now nearing completion.
    Mr. Eadie: Since it was in October last year that the chairman of British Coal promised a review of the cases of the dismissed miners, is it not time that we knew the results of that review? Is the Minister aware that, despite

    5
    the fact that the strike has been over for two years, 113 Scottish miners are still dismissed? Is the Minister aware that the dispute will never be over until justice is seen to be done and these men from all over the country are reinstated?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the dismissal and re-employment of employees is a matter for British Coal. Indeed that would be the case with any employer. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that, of the 1,014 members dismissed as a result of that tragic and unnecessary strike, over half have been taken back. I plead with the hon. Gentleman for one moment to lift up his eyes from his normal Scargill brief and to recognise that the barriers to progress, which have been built up over the years by negative attitudes and entrenched by restrictive practices, are coming down all over the coal industry. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman recognised that the only power left to Arthur Scargill appears to be the control that he exercises over the Labour party's energy policy.
    Mr. Hannam: When discussing coalfield manning will my hon. Friend congratulate the chairman of British Coal on the acceptance by the South Wales miners at Margam, as a result of their vote last Thursday, of the six-day shift system? Has my hon. Friend noted that that vote took place exactly two years to the day after the end of the coal strike?
    Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend is right to point out that a far better topic of conversation with the chairman of British Coal would be the important meeting on Margam. My hon. Friend is right that that vote took place exactly two years to the day after the tragic and unnecessary strike.
    The industry has moved on and I wish that Opposition Members would recognise that. The industry has moved away from the political strikes of the past and from the negative, confrontational style of Arthur Scargill and towards the most positive attitude to productivity ever seen by the nation.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Minister agree that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) was less than helpful? Our concern is for miners who have been dismissed— in some cases for reasons that would not have warranted dismissal in normal circumstances. Some of the cases for dismissal result from stealing a bit of coal and the Minister and I would have done that if we had found ourselves in similar circumstances. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members would not have done, they have forgotten their marriage vows. Does the Minister agree that it would be a good stroke for industrial relations to make a magnanimous gesture in these cases?
    Mr. Hunt: As well as hoping that the hon. Gentleman will regret some of his words, I wish to make it clear that what I was protesting about is that Opposition Members are aware that these are matters for British Coal and that a review is being carried out. Over half the miners concerned have already been taken back. It is not a matter for Ministers.
    Mr. Pollock: When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Coal will he take the opportunity to congratulate, through him, the management and the work
    6
    force on achieving record levels of productivity? Surely, it is that productivity that offers a better prospect of security and continuity of employment for the work force?
    Mr. Hunt: I believe that the enthusiasm and determination of the men and management in pushing through the new productivity records will take the industry into a stable and viable future. It will ensure good markets and job security.

    North-East Leicestershire Coalfields
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last discussed the development of the north-east Leicestershire coalfields with the chairman of the Coal Board.
    Mr. Hunt: My right hon. Friend and I have regular meetings with the chairman of British Coal to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that pits in northwest Leicestershire are closing down rapidly and that it is vital that new pits are opened in north-east Leicestershire? There has been exploration and an inspector's report approving a pit additional to Asfordby. Will the new pits be opened in time to preserve the jobs and the work of the excellent Leicestershire coal miners?
    Mr. Hunt: I understand that British Coal is still considering the future of the rest of the Belvoir coalfield, and it is for it to assess the relative attractions of potential investment projects. British Coal is discussing a six-day shift in south Wales and the good news is that discussions have been going on with the trade unions on mulit-shift workings at Asfordby. If the discussions reach a successful conclusion, the mine will be uprated to production of 3·5 million tonnes a year and the number of jobs available will be in excess of 1,500.
    Mr. Ashby: Will my hon Friend give priority to the south Leicestershire coalfield miners, who have endured a number of job losses and worked in extremely difficult circumstances? They are known to be some of the best miners in the country. I ask my hon. Friend to recall that in the south midlands coalfield production is at a record level. The miners in this area would be a tremendous enchancement to the mining industry if they were kept on and given priority for jobs within the Leicestershire coalfield.
    Mr. Hunt: Decisions on the manning of these pits must be a matter for British Coal. My hon. Friend is right to recognise the men's tremendous effort in his area— in Leicestershire and in the south midlands. These successes are being built on as we move from one productivity record to another, and that must be the best possible news for the future.
    Mr. Orme: I wish to support the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for further development in this area of the mining industry. I visited it recently and it was impressed upon me that the original decision was that there should be three pits in the area. Can the Minister give an assurance that development will take place very soon in north-west Leicestershire?
    Mr. Hunt: These are matters for British Coal. I am pleased to hear that Asfordby is on schedule and that the

    7
    upcast shaft and the downcast shaft are now 300m and 180m down, on schedule, on cost and within budget. There is also the important development of south Warwickshire, where I understand tha discussions are proceeding on multi-shift working.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that, bearing in mind the needs of the Leicestershire miners, it would make more sense to develop the Witham coalfield in Nottinghamshire, which is adjacent to the present site of West Burton power station, and will also be the site of the next coal-fired power station in Britain?
    Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on the last part of his supplementary question. As for the first part, I shall pass his remarks to the chairman of British Coal—[Interruption.] I remind Opposition Members as they heckle me, that productivity measured by output per man shift fell each year under the previous Labour Government, compared with a 4 per cent. per annum improvement envisaged in "Plan for Coal". We have seen record productivity under this Government.

    Mersey and Severn Barrages
    Mr. Ron Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Energy what meetings he has had on a regular basis with interested bodies concerning the Mersey and Severn barrage schemes.
    Mr. David Hunt: My colleagues and I have met representatives of the Severn tidal power group and the Mersey Barrage Company. It is my right hon. Friend's policy to ensure that the organisations carrying out these studies consult fully all interested bodies.
    Mr. Davies: Will the Minister confirm that neither of the bodies to which he has referred has an obligation to consider the environmental impact of the schemes, despite both areas being of international wildlife significance? Will he take steps to establish appropriate advisory bodies to ensure that research takes place? Will he give an undertaking now to continue formally to consult the voluntary organisations, which have already expressed their concern about the environmental impact of the schemes?
    Mr. Hunt: I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that environmental studies are recognised as an essential feature of barrage studies and that a significant proportion of the present expenditure on the two estuaries will be devoted to environmental studies. Full environmental appraisals will not be possible, especially for the Severn, until a decision is made to progress the scheme beyond the scope of the present studies.
    Mr. Marland: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents in west Gloucestershire on the banks of the river Severn accept his undertaking to consult all the interested bodies as being thoroughly responsible? We are concerned not only with the environmental aspects, but with the full impact of the cost of construction, since the Severn barrage could be one of the most expensive civil engineering projects ever undertaken.
    Mr. Hunt: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to other right hon. and hon. Friends who have pressed my ministerial colleagues and I on what I believe is one of the widest work programmes and consultation arrangements that the country has ever seen into what is, after all, one of the most promising of our renewable energy resources.
    Mr. Corbett: I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). Can the Minister say what timescale is involved in taking a decision, particularly on the Severn barrage? To my knowlege, the decision-making has been going on for about 30 years. The proposal presents a viable alternative to the further development of the nuclear energy programme which will not provide anywhere near as many jobs as the Severn barrage scheme stands a chance of providing.
    Mr. Hunt: Without commenting on the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we are seeing remarkable progress on both the Severn and Mersey barrages. Indeed, I heard only last week that the Mersey barrage studies are well ahead of schedule and part I of the study is expected to be finished later this year. On the Severn barrage, we are now in the midst of a two-year programme, jointly funded by the Severn tidal power group, the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Department. I have every optimism that the studies will be completed ahead of schedule.

    Nuclear Power Industry (Accidents)
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Energy how many fatal accidents there have been in the civil nuclear power industry in the United Kingdom in the last 10 years; and what was the number of fatalities.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): There were 10 accidents, each involving one death, in the 10 years to February 1987. None involved radiation.
    Mr. Chapman: Although one fatality is one too many will my hon. Friend confirm that the figures that he has given the House compare favourably with accidents in other major energy-conversion industries? For example, will he confirm that in the coalmining industry the figure is over 300, and does he agree that safety is an important factor in assessing how we meet our energy demands in the future?
    Mr. Goodlad: I note what my hon. Friend says. He is correct that there were, sadly, 388 fatal accidents in the coal industry in the 10 years to 1985. The Government and the nuclear industry are fully conscious of the importance of both site and environmental safety, and the industry's record in that respect is excellent.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware that the figures—I do not challenge their accuracy in any way—are totally misleading? A fatality in the mining industry is a tragedy for the individual concerned and his family, but it is totally unlike incidents in the nuclear power industry which have implications for the local community and society at large? There is no relevant comparison between figures.
    Mr. Goodlad: The important point is that the industry is conscious of its safety responsibilities.
    Mr. Yeo: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will keep in mind the importance of maintaining the excellent safety record when he arrives at his decision on the possibility of constructing Sizewell B? Will he assure the House that approval for Sizewell B will be given only if his Department is satisfied that there is every prospect of maintaining the safety record?
    Mr. Goodlad: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister confirm that all information relating to the Windscale fire in 1957 has now been published and will he accept that one of the problems for the supporters of nuclear power, such as myself, is that the industry is clouded in a cloak of secrecy? If we could remove that secrecy I believe a majority of the British people would wholeheartedly support its development.
    Mr. Goodlad: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that full publication has been made of the details relating to the Windscale fire. I agree that openness on the part of the industry is extremely important and I believe that the industry is very open with information. All incidents at nuclear installations, however minor, must be reported by law to the nuclear installations inspectorate. Any incident that might give rise to a significant radiological hazard, either to the public or to a member of staff, is also promptly notified to Ministers. The details of all significant incidents are published regularly by the Health and Safety Executive.

    Shetland Islands
    Dr. Michael Clarkasked the Secretary of State for Energy how much oil has so far been brought ashore to the Shetland Islands; and if he will make a statement about the future involvement of the Shetlands in North sea oil development.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Up to the end of 1986 the total amount of crude oil brought ashore to the Sullom Voe terminal was 351·6 million tonnes. There is continuing opportunity for the Shetlands.
    Dr. Clark: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware that the Select Committee on Energy recently visited the Shetland Islands. Will he acknowledge the co-operation that the Shetland Islands have given the North Sea oil companies over recent years? Will he also ensure that his Department does all that it can to let the companies that have business in the North sea know that they will be welcome in the Shetland Islands, so that the expertise and technology that has been built up there can be used to full advantage?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, Sir. The Shetlands have some good facilities, not only at Sullom Voe, which I mentioned in my answer, but in the Lerwick base and at Sumburgh airport. In the longer term, the geography of the Shetlands is such that they could find themselves strategically placed for developments in the northern North sea or in the area to the west of the Shetlands where prospecting is taking place.
    Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister of State acknowledge that one should be wary in the House and elsewhere of speaking for the Shetland islanders because they are pretty good at speaking for themselves? Does he concede that one of the things to which he should turn his mind, with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, is the ring fence arrangement for taxation in the North sea, so that development for satellite fields can be assessed as new development to step up the rate of activity both east and west of the Shetlands and in the North sea as a whole?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Having for many years had dealings with the Shetlanders on fisheries and oil and gas
    10
    matters, I believe that no one respects more than I do the independence of the Shetlanders, but, so far as I am aware even the Shetlanders have not claimed a ring fence for those islands.
    Mr. Wallace: It may not necessarily follow from the Minister's departmental responsibility, but does he accept that the reform of local government finance will have an important influence on future oil developments in the Shetlands, not least on the terminal at Sullom Voe? Has his Department been in touch with the Scottish Office on the importance of that, the necessity for the arrangements that will follow from the changes to the non-domestic rate, and any implications for possible pooling of non-domestic rates?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I hope that, like the rest of the House, he will welcome the interest that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) showed following the enterprising visit by the Select Committee on Energy to those islands. I very much welcome the interest taken in the House in the important role played by the Shetlands in the economy as a whole, particularly in relation to oil.

    Coal-Fired Power Stations
    Mrs. McCurleyasked the Secretary of State for Energy how many applications for the construction of coal-fired power stations have been submitted to hint or his predecessors by the generating boards since May 1979; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Walker: No applications for coal-fired stations have been made by the CEGB since May 1979, although for much of the period since then the largest coal-fired station in western Europe has been under construction at Drax. It was completed last year to time and budget at a cost of some £900 million.
    Mrs. McCurley: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. As he has given us assurances that the Treasury will not interfere in any approvals that his Department gives for the construction of coal-fired or, indeed, nuclear power stations, can he also give an assurance about the conversion from oil-fired to coal-fired stations, especially now that the oil-fired station at Inverkip desperately needs that conversion, and needs it quickly?
    Mr. Walker: I note my hon. Friend's remarks. On no occasion in my ministerial life have I ever, alas, been able to say that the Treasury will not interfere in anything. I can only say that no discussion or debate is going on between myself and the Treasury on those matters because only one application is before us. Conversion schemes or any other application by the CEGB will be carefully and quickly considered.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: When the Secretary of State is considering alternative forms of power generation, will he bear in mind that there is a very wide consensus of support for coal-fired power stations and that the power generating industries that make and design much of the power station equipment for nuclear and other types of power generation can also generate jobs and wealth in designing and commissioning a coal-fired power station?
    Mr. Walker: I am well aware of that. If the Government had not recognised the continuing importance of the coal

    11
    industry, we would not be investing £2 billion in that industry over the next three years. We have invested far more over recent years than the Labour Government that the hon. Gentleman used to support. In return, I hope that he will give careful consideration to the 150,000 jobs that are involved in the nuclear industry, particularly in the north-east.
    Mr. Holt: In considering Sizewell B, will my right hon. Friend recognise the importance of the coal-fired industry particularly as it relates to NEI Parsons in the north-east of England where any further loss of jobs would be quite untenable? Until those orders come from the Government, nothing further can he done. We wish for a lead in that respect.
    Mr. Walker: Orders come from the CEGB, not the Government. The Government do not own or run any power stations. I understand that applications must come from the generating industry, depending upon requirements. My hon. Friend knows that the CEGB has been examining a number of sites for coal-fired power stations. It will undoubtedly be considering what future strategy to pursue. I can only repeat what I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley), that as soon as any applications come in they will be carefully and quickly considered.
    Mr. Orme: Is it not a fact that, because there have been no orders for any type of power station over the past eight years under this Government, there is now a shortage of capacity, particularly in the south-east and south-west of England?
    Mr. Walker: The Labour Government, who made the decision in 1978 on the Drax power station, decided to compensate the CEGB because they decided that the power station had been ordered ahead of time and the capacity was not needed.

    Coal-fired Power Stations
    . Mr. Gryllsasked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss the ordering of new coal-fired power stations.
    . Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for Energy what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board about the ordering of coal-fired power stations.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I meet the chairman regularly and we discuss a wide range of issues. Applications for consent to the construction of power stations are a matter for the CEGB, and I have received no application in respect of a coal-fired station.
    Mr. Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that unless orders for new power stations are placed quite soon there will inevitably be more redundancies in the power construction industry? Does he accept that that could be very serious, because it could damage one of our most successful industries not only in its capacity for building power stations in Britain, but all over the world?
    Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend is well aware of the way in which the Government have given quite considerable assistance to the industry in obtaining overseas orders. He will also be aware of the manner in which we have
    12
    organised credit facilities and so on for power station projects on a considerable scale. My Department has done all in its power to obtain those overseas orders. My hon. Friend will also understand that, as the CEGB applies to me to meet its capacity needs for the future, these matters will be quickly and carefully considered, as I have already said.
    Mr. Beith: Is it not a matter of serious concern to the Secretary of State that the CEGB should not have submitted applications for coal-fired power stations to him? Does he not recognise that that was part of the strategy to get Sizewell through? Will he not now recognise that his overall responsibilities for energy require him to ensure that we have investment in coal-fired power station building quickly because that would be of immense importance to industry in the north of England?
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman should be more objective in his study of capacity needs. It is not true that capacity needs will not be met at present. Quite reasonably, before deciding on its overall strategy, the CEGB should know whether the availability of nuclear power stations is part of that strategy. That is a perfectly reasonable decision to take. The CEGB has not delayed decisions so that there will be a lack of capacity. Therefore, I do not agree with any suggestion that it has done that.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the difficulties in ordering a coal-fired power station before the 1990s is the technical problem of getting rid of nitrous oxide, which is a real problem in the industry?
    Mr. Walker: It is a problem, but it can be tackled.
    Mr. Skinner: If the Government wish to improve the manufacturing base, would it not be sensible to start to build a coal-fired power station immediately and to follow it with another? Does the Secretary of State accept that a coal-fired power station, or stations, should be built adjacent to the coalfields and that he should make an early start by siting one in the north midlands and south Yorkshire area as quickly as possible to provide some jobs?
    Mr. Walker: It is important that the CEGB should decide how best to meet its capacity needs, and in terms of employment those needs must he dealt with efficiently and effectively. The improvement in the productivity of the coal industry will considerably assist it in making people believe that it deserves the orders that it requires. The industrial dispute which the hon. Gentleman supported so enthusiastically considerably damaged the coal industry.
    Mr. Favell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only are coal-fired power stations important to British manufacturing industry but that civil nuclear power stations are important, especially to the north-west and to William Fairey, which he will visit next week? Has my right hon. Friend read the report in The Sunday Times yesterday? Will he confirm that he will not be bullied by the French and other EC members, but will continue to support British manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Walker: As for the report in The Sunday Times, as far as I am aware, no official complaint of any description has been made by the Commissioners of the European Community, so I cannot comment on the issue. The

    13
    Labour party's decision to eradicate the nuclear power industry during the next 20 years will be disastrous for jobs, especially in the north-east and the north-west.

  THE ARTS

    Scotland (Expenditure)
    Dr. Godmanasked the Minister for the Arts what is the current level of expenditure on the arts in Scotland.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): The Arts Council of Great Britain has allocated £13·52 million to the Scottish Arts Council in 1986–87. In addition, the programme of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland provides for £80 million expenditure on arts and libraries this year.
    Dr. Godman: The Glasgow citizens theatre is anxious to extend its season from 35 to 52 weeks at an additional cost of £250,000. This will help tourism and jobs in terms of the garden festival in 1989 and the city of culture in 1990. Will the Government and the Arts Council help in this laudable endeavour?
    Mr. Luce: I acknowledge the remarkable range of arts facilities in Glasgow, including the citizens theatre, and I am glad that in 1990 Glasgow will be the cultural city of Europe. I hope that will bring many tourists and give much help to Glasgow. The allocations of funds is a matter for the Scottish Arts Council, which this year will receive a 4·6 per cent. increase in its overall grant. It is for the council to decide how precisely to allocate that money.
    Mr. Maclennan: Has the Minister made any assessment of the effect upon expenditure on the arts of the transfer of responsibility for leisure and recreation from the regions to the districts? Has central Government funding taken any account of that effect, especially to offset the damage that has been suffered in rural areas because of the withdrawal of funding from the arts?
    Mr. Luce: What I can say—I can only speak for the arts—is that the Scottish Office has provided an extra £600,000 for this financial year and the coming financial year to help the national arts organisations for Scotland. A formula has been operating for many years to allocate the total sum of money to the Scottish Arts Council, whose policy is to spread the money as widely as it can and to make the arts as accessible as possible to as many people in Scotland as possible.
    Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister understand that the feebleness of his answer will greatly disappoint people in Glasgow and in Scotland in general? The Glasgow garden festival and the year of culture will need positive investment by the Government if their potential for the arts and for the people of Scotland is to be realised. Is the Minister aware of the possibility of a substantial Scottish arts presence at the 1989 Toronto arts festival, and does he accept that the Government must invest in that if the potential is to be realised? Will he again allow these opportunities to slip because of the feebleness of the Government's arts policy?
    Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. When the cities made their bids to become the culture city, it was made quite clear that there would not be funding from central Government, that we would look to them to take the lead, and that it was a test of their good
    14
    intent and plans to do a good job in providing arts facilities in their city as a cultural centre. It was precisely on that understanding that Glasgow was chosen and Glaswegians have shown their confidence in their city by saying that they can set aside, to add to local government and private sector money, enough resources to enable the city to be a great success in 1990.

    Acceptance-in-lieu
    Mr. Hanleyasked the Minster for the Arts if he has any plans to change current arrangements for acceptancein-lieu of works of art.
    Mr. Luce: I continue to keep the arrangements under review in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
    Mr. Hanley: Will my right hon. Friend say how much was spent last year securing pre-eminent works of art for the nation and whether he believes that the £2 million reserve in his Department and the £10 million reserve at the Treasury are adequate for this purpose and also whether co-operation between his Department and the Treasury is adequate?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the important new arrangements for acceptance in lieu, which means that we can now draw on a contingency reserve to the tune of an extra £10 million in addition to the £2 million that my Department gives. Overall, in this present financial year, just over £3 million has been drawn upon. There have been only seven acceptances in lieu this year and the opportunities for more are very strong. The more people who take this up, the better.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will the Minister bear in mind that, with the recent escalation in prices at auctions, what might have been adequate a year ago is no longer adequate? Does he accept that these sums need to be revised to take account of changing circumstances.
    Mr. Luce: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the rates of inflation of some objects of art are very high, and that is a factor to be taken into account. As I have already said, the contingency reserve has not been fully drawn upon for this year and opportunities to draw upon it are still available. He will be aware of other arrangements, including the private treaty sale and the douceur, all of which are mechanisms for making it cheaper to purchase important objects of art and to save tax for the seller.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: I acknowledge the substantial contribution that the Government have already made to enable the National Trust to acquire Kedleston hall., but is my right hon. Friend aware that the trust is still about £1·5 million short of the funds it needs to enable it to preserve the contents? As the origin of the problem is very much bound up with capital transfer tax obligations, will he look urgently to see whether there may be further scope, perhaps by drawing on the contingency fund that he has mentioned, to help by way of the AIL arrangements, or, if that is not appropriate, by some other route?
    Mr. Luce: Many of these matters are for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My hon. Friend will recognise that the new arrangements for acceptance in lieu have been operating for only a short time and that the

    15
    full contingency fund has not been adequately and fully drawn upon. The opportunity is still there, and I urge people to take full advantage of it.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: We appear to be less and less able to compete with American galleries and foundations in our attempts to retain art treasures in Britain. Does the Minister agree that one way in which he could assist in the retention of such treasures would be for him to take a much more generous view of the valuation of such treasures which may be given in lieu of tax?
    Mr. Luce: There are very clear mechanisms and we bring in expert advisers to assess values. I am satisfied that those arrangements are working well. As regards the selling of treasures abroad, the export review committee, which has been in place for over 30 years, does an extremely good job in recommending what should or should not have a stop put upon it. These procedures are working well.

    Museums and Galleries (Refurbishment)
    Mr. Gerald Bowdenasked the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on progress in refurbishing national museums and galleries.
    Mr. Luce: I attach high priority to maintaining and improving these buildings, and have allocated over £27 million to it in 1987–88. That is over 30 per cent. more in real terms that in 1979–80.
    Mr. Bowden: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer, but may I ask him whether he is obliged to accept the services of the Property Services Agency? The agency does a good job and provides professional expertise in many cases, but occasionally some museums could benefit from competitive tendering for refurbishment.
    Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this matter. From 1 April 1988 our museums and galleries will be untied from the PSA and will be able to take whatever action they wish about tendering and will be able to recruit whatever staff they need to enable them to do their job on that basis. This is the right way to proceed and it is right to give more responsibility to the trustees and to the directors.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware of the appalling state of upkeep of many of our great national museums— particularly the Victoria and Albert museum? Since voluntary charges were meant in part to assist in the refurbishment of that museum, what has been the most recent impact on attendance figures of the amount of money that the V and A has been able to produce from those charges? Has it not resulted in a great fall in the number of people attending the museum?
    Mr. Luce: I must make it absolutely plain to the hon. Gentleman that, over a number of years, I have made available £27 million to the Victoria and Albert alone to enable it to undertake very important maintenance and refurbishment work. The record shows that the V and A has done a marvellous job under Sir Roy Strong's leadership and that a number of new galleries have been refurbished, including the medieval treasury. It is for the trustees to decide whether voluntary charges are in the interests of the museum. If the net increase in income leads to an improvement in facilities, I am sure that the vast majority of the British people will welcome it.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, even where there are charges, voluntary or otherwise, there is always a time during the day when children have access to museums and galleries, and that he is pleased to see that happen?
    Mr. Luce: I welcome the fact that a number of museums which charge, including almost every independent museum, give an excellent service to the public and offer a wide range of special services to enable schoolchildren to enter at a discount.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Recruitment
    Mr. Wareingasked the Minister for the Civil Service what plans he has to change the system of recruitment into the Civil Service.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): There are no plans to change the basic principles of fair and open competition and selection on merit in Civil Service recruitment. Changes are continually being made to the detailed procedures to meet the changing needs of the Civil Service and of the labour market.
    Mr. Wareing: Although it is now 17 years since the Fulton report was produced, is the Minister aware that the administration group of the home Civil Service—and, even more, the equivalent grades in the diplomatic service— are overwhelmingly dominated by the products of Oxbridge? Is it not time that we ended this elitism in the Civil Service and introduced some democracy? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, and is he content with the fact, that 70 per cent. of those recruited into the home Civil Service administration groups in recent years have been the products of Oxford and Cambridge? Can it be that the other universities are no use at all in turning out our higher officials in Government service?
    Mr. Luce: Our sole interest must be to get the best people for the Civil Service. [Interruption.] We have a fair and open system, based on merit. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen to this answer, because it may be of some interest to him. Whereas, in 1982, 75 per cent. of the recruits for the high fliers in the Civil Service were from Oxbridge, at the end of 1986 the proportion was down to 46 per cent. the hon. Gentleman will see that a much broader range of hackgrounds is now coming into the Civil Service.
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those who have to deal with the administrative sections of the Civil Service think that they are extremely good and do not want them mucked up with some sort of equality nonsense from the Opposition?
    Mr. Luce: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The thing that really matters in the Civil Service is that the system should be fair and open and that we choose people on merit, irrespective of their background.
    Dr. McDonald: As we are considering recruitment, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that civil servants will be recruited to staff the management centres for the Government data network? Will he also ensure that any exchange of information between Departments when the network is established will come under parliamentary

    17
    scrutiny, bearing in mind the fact that information about individuals from the Department of Employment, the Home Office or the Department of Health and Social Security could be put together in a package, thus posing an obvious threat to civil liberties?
    Mr. Luce: I shall consider what the hon. Lady has said and, if I may, write to her in due course.

    Trade Unions
    Mr. Soleyasked the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met the Civil Service trade unions; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Luce: I have informal meetings from time to time with representatives of the Civil Service trade unions. Matters of mutual interest are discussed.
    Mr. Soley: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the trade unions, will he discuss with them the effect on morale in the Civil Service of the cuts being made by his colleagues in other Departments, especially the DHSS, where cuts are preventing the provision of a good standard of service to the public and undermining morale in an increasingly serious way?
    Mr. Luce: I and my colleagues who are in charge of Departments are keen to ensure that the morale of the Civil Service is high. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has acknowledged that there have been pressures on certain parts of the DHSS, particularly in offices all over the country, as a result of which he is planning to increase the size of the Civil Service by 5,000. That is an acknowledgement of the pressures and an attempt to deal with the morale problem in the Civil Service.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: May I suggest that not everything is right in the Civil Service at the moment? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the four Civil Service unions have set up a campaign for a better Civil Service at a cost of £6 million? Should not all members of the Civil Service now declare loyalty and allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and act like true civil servants by being honourable, respectable and responsible?
    Mr. Luce: All the evidence that I see as I travel around the country and meet civil servants is that they do an outstandingly good job and that they are loyal, dedicated and professional. When individuals are not, disciplinary procedures can be taken.
    Mr. Corbett: Given the fact that, in the face of rising crime, extra police officers have been appointed, why does the Minister resist calls, in the face of rising VAT fiddles, for an increase of 1,000 officers to deal with VAT frauds? Does the right Gentleman understand that, for about £20 million a year, they could recoup about £122 million in what is now fiddled VAT money?
    Mr. Luce: The fact that, with the DHSS, VAT and in certain other areas, we have shown flexibility about the size of the Civil Service and are prepared to make modest increases when that would lead to an improvement of the service shows that we are anxious to ensure that there is a proper service.
    Mr. Gow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the offer that the Government have made to civil servants is sufficient to recruit, retain and motivate civil servants of high quality?
    Mr. Luce: That is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but my hon. Friend may have noticed that there is now a provisional pay agreement with the Institution of Professional Civil Servants to provide much more flexibility in the pay scheme to acknowledge retention and recruitment needs. I hope that that will be progress in the right direction.
    Mr. Maclennan: Did the Minister take the opportunity to explain to the Civil Service unions whether the policy on decentralised pay bargaining was that proposed by the Paymaster General or that followed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Luce: There is common agreement among us that there is a need for more flexibility in the pay system. The provisional pay agreement that has been reached with the IPCS is a step in that direction and has the suppport of the whole Government.

    Official Forms
    Mr. Gerald Bowdenasked the Minister for the Civil Service how many official forms have been scrapped since 1979.
    Mr. Luce: Since the Government's review of forms began in 1982, at least 17,500 forms have been abolished and 25,000 have been improved.
    Mr. Bowden: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that achievement. Can a price be put on it? Can he say how much has been saved by scrapping those forms? Is there not a case for simplifying the forms that must remain to ensure that they are understood even by the most simpleminded of us?
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The saving made so far is £9 million of taxpayers' money. I hope that, as a result of the more recent reductions in the number of forms, further savings will be made. I welcome the fact that there is a campaign, led by Chrissie Maher, that is designed to improve plain English in this country. Her campaign has helped to improve and simplify many of the forms that the Government produce for taxpayers.
    Mr. Holt: Could my right hon. Friend state why it is necessary for the Ministry of Defence to circulate a form asking about ethnic origin, when the Secretary of State for Defence has refused to do that for the armed forces? What is the difference?
    Mr. Luce: Principally, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
    Mr. Dykes: Despite that welcome reduction, is my right hon. Friend aware that the tax assessment regulation forms now total more than 600 pages, compared with half that figure in 1950? Will he discuss that with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether it can be reduced in the forthcoming Finance Bill?
    Mr. Luce: I shall certainly discuss that with my right hon. Friend. For my part, I will do anything that I can to try to simplify the forms and make sure that they are better understood and more easily interpreted by the citizens of this country.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the simplest of all the forms recently issed in the Civil Service was the one that asked civil servants whether they wanted to set up a political fund in the Civil and Public Services Association? As a result of all the attacks by the Government on civil liberties of one kind or another, the CPSA decided by a majority of 2:1, on this very official form, that they would
    20
    set up a political fund. Does he agree that that shows that civil servants realise they have been badly treated by the Tory Government?
    Mr. Luce: The vast majority of civil servants wish to do what has always been their duty—remain impartial. The Government believe that trade unions need political funds only if they propose to participate in party political activities or to campaign for or against political parties or candidates.

Zeebrugge Ferry Disaster
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Moore): With permission Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the loss of the vessel Herald of Free Enterprise.
Shortly before 7 pm GMT on Friday 6 March, the rollon/roll-off passenger ferry "Herald of Free Enterprise" capsized, without warning, in a position about three quarters of a mile outside the entrance to the port of Zeebrugge. She had left Zeebrugge about half an hour before on a passage to Dover. It is my sad duty to inform the House that a total of 53 people are known to have died and 82 others are believed to be missing. A total of 408 passengers and crew were rescued. I am sure that the whole House would wish to join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to the bereaved and the injured.
Immediately the tragedy occurred, the Belgian authorities took charge of the search and rescue arrangements, with assistance from Her Majesty's Coastguard and the Ministry of Defence rescue co-ordination centre at Plymouth. Two British warships were immediately dispatched to the scene, together with search and rescue helicopters carrying divers and other rescue equipment. I wish to pay tribute to all those involved in the rescue arrangements, especially to the Belgian authorities and the Belgian people, without whose speedy response the casualties would have been much greater. I should also like to pay tribute to the police, hospitals and fire services on both sides of the Channel, the staff of Townsend Thoresen and the British ambassador and his staff in Belgium for their assistance to the injured and bereaved.
A team of marine surveyors from my Department led by Captain Vale have begun to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the loss of this vessel.
I have decided that a full formal investigation should be held into this disaster. It will be conducted under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts. I am pleased to announce that after consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, the hon. Mr. Justice Sheen, the Admiralty judge, has been appointed to be the commissioner for the investigation. He will be assisted by four assessors who will be appointed shortly. The date and venue for the inquiry will be announced when arrangements have been made, but I am anxious that there should be no delay.
It will be for the formal investigation to investigate the causes of this disaster and to make recommendations to ensure that all possible lessons are learnt. But the preliminary reports which I have received suggest that the cause of the capsize of the vessel was an inrush of water through the bow loading doors. I have no evidence to suggest that this was due to any fundamental fault in the design of the ship.
My Department has today embarked on a programme of checks on roll-on/roll-off ships leaving United Kingdom ports to ensure that all loading door mechanisms are in working order; that officers and crew are aware of the operating procedures, that all openings in the hull and superstructure must be closed before ships proceed to sea in accordance with statutory requirements, and that recommendations of safe practice should be observed.
22
I am also advising owners of roll-on/roll-off ferries to fit warning lights on the bridge of the vessels to show whether the loading doors are properly closed. Clearly, I shall consider whether to make this a statutory requirement.
Understandably, there is anxiety about the financial difficulties of the injured and bereaved both immediately and in the long term. As regards immediate needs in Zeebrugge, the British consul and his staff are offering all possible consular assistance. In this country, the Department of Health and Social Security is providing emergency arrangements so that people arriving at Gatwick and Dover can be given immediate help. As regards concern about long-term financial entitlements a team from the Department of Health and Social Security is going out to Zeebrugge today to give advice on the spot.
I understand that P&O has announced today that it has set aside £250,000 to meet the immediate personal needs of those in distress following the tragedy. This fund will be handled by the Townsend Thoresen office in Dover. The company will also be advertising in the national press tomorrow with details of the central point for claims. I have its assurance that all claims will be dealt with as quickly as possible.
On the initiative of Dover district council, a Channel ferry disaster fund has been established to assist the victims and their relatives. This will not affect claims for compensation. The Government will contribute £1 million to the fund. Parliamentary approval to this payment will be sought in a supplementary Supply Estimate for the transport services and central administration vote. Pending that approval, the £1 million donation will be met by a repayable advance from the contingencies fund.
Every year some 28 million passengers are safely carried on United Kingdom ferries and it is tragic that our fine record of safety has been marred by this disaster. I share the grief and anguish of those who are bereaved, and of those who are still uncertain of the fate of their friends and relatives. I am sure that the thoughts of all hon. Members of this House are with them
Mr. Robert Hughes: On behalf of the Opposition I express our shock at the magnitude of the tragedy and loss of life. We give our condolences to all those who lost family and relatives, and to the injured. It was a particular shock to many of us who have seafaring connections.
I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the rescue services and the Belgian authorities, which acted with exemplary speed and efficiency. I also pay tribute to individual passengers and crew members. Reports are coming in of individual acts of heroism and it is clear that passengers and crew alike put their lives at risk and may, indeed, have lost their lives, trying to save other people.
I thank the Secretary of State's staff who, after I spoke to them on Friday night, kept me in constant touch over the weekend. I thank the Secretary of State for phoning me when he returned from Zeebrugge on Saturday night. I thank the Government for the donation of £1 million to the Dover disaster fund.
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is of paramount importance that we discover as quickly as possible whether the primary cause of the disaster was the ship sailing with the doors open? I am glad that he has already put his surveyors on the ships to check the mechanisms to ensure that there is nothing wrong with

23
them. I am pleased that he is insisting that all roll-on/rolloff ferries are now fitted with monitoring devices and warning signals so that the skipper or the crew on the bridge can know immediately if something has gone wrong. Will he not hesitate to use section 21 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 to insist that that is done? I cerainly hope that it will not be necessary for him to use compulsion.
Will the Secretary of State discuss with European Transport Ministers of maritime nations how they can instigate common safety procedures? We want to ensure that all ships have proper standards of sailing procedures, no matter which port they are leaving—not just our ports or Belgian ports. Will he undertake an immediate examination of the need to secure vehicles before vessels leave port? It appears that there may have been a contributory factor of vehicles moving rapidly because they were not secured.
Will the inquiry look at the possibility of fitting stanchions in these vessels, which have no bulkheads, to prevent the vehicles from moving quickly in the event of such disasters, or in the event of a collision, because movement of vehicles affects the stability of the vessels? Will there be an inquiry into the ship's design, especially with regard to stability? The most important question to be answered is how, within 45 to 60 seconds, a vessel such as this could roll over.
Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the inquiry to look at the possibility although it is extremely expensive, of fitting moving bulkheads, if not to existing vessels, to new vessels, as some sort of bulkhead would at least buy some time to evacuate people safely?
I agree that we want a thorough and urgent report. Will the Secretary of State undertake that there will be interim reports so that any safety lessons that emerge will be put into effect without any delay? Will he urge the inquiry to look at the commercial pressures that may be compelling vessel owners to have swifter turn-rounds? Whatever lessons came out of this, in no circumstances can commercial pressures be allowed to militate against the safety of our people and our passengers.
Mr. Moore: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his initial comments. I know that he speaks for all hon. Members in what he has said, and I welcome it. I start with his last point. Safety cannot be inhibited by any pressures. It is the first prerequisite, and all hon. Members would expect it to be the prerequisite of any Government, to establish regulations on safety at sea. The hon. Gentleman was right to pay tribute to the passengers and the crew. It is difficult at this stage to be precise, but in my conversations at Zeebrugge and again this morning, with Jeffrey Sterling, it is clear to me that there are many, as yet untold, heroic actions both by members of the crew and passengers. I am sure that the former would have done their duty in the standards and tradition of the British merchant navy.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to establish the inquiry urgently—of course we must. To follow up another of his questions, I make it clear that no action will be inhibited by the time that it takes us to establish the precise cause. The preliminary investigations that I started on Friday night and Saturday morning are already under way. If there are, as a consequence, any actions to be
24
taken, or if actions become necessary because of what the formal inquiry presents, we shall not be inhibited in taking those actions by the inquiry process.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Act and the way that I might use other sections of the Merchant Shipping Act and section 21 in particular. I would not hesitate to use them. There is already a considerble number of regulations in this sector, as he knows. There are no statutory regulations on the physically securing of vehicles. It is done by advice to the masters of the marine. Whether that should be turned into statutory regulations is something that I should be more than happy to consider.
With regard to stanchions, the inquiry will not be inhibited in any aspect. It cannot be and should not be. We shall look at that point. With regard to the European Transport Ministers, the House may not be aware that the Commissioner for the European Commission, Mr. Stanley Clinton Davis, and some of his staff, spent most of Saturday with me. Not only did he show sympathy and concern, but he wishes, with the European Transport Ministers, to look at and discuss this matter.
With regard to the character and design of the ship, the public inquiry will no doubt address the design and safety margins for such ships. For the present, I stress again, as it is important for the many millions who travel by sea, that there is no evidence to suggest any reason for imposing restrictions on their operation. I would not have said that without clear advice. I would not inhibit, but encourage, the inquiry to look at this and all aspects of the issue.
Mr. Peter Rees: I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement and for his decision to make an immediate grant to the Dover district council disaster fund. His prompt visit and that of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Zeebrugge to see the aftermath of the disaster was much appreciated. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and I appreciated the prompt visit that the Minister with responsibilities for shipping paid with us to the coastguard station at Dover and to the headquarters of Townsend Thoresen on Saturday.
Will my right hon. Friend accept that many people in east Kent will wish to be associated with the tributes that he has paid to the rescue services, and with the expression of gratitude that he made to our neighbours in Belgium for their prompt and sympathetic response?
I welcome my right hon. Friend's prompt decision to set up a judicial inquiry under the Merchant Shipping Act. Will he ensure that the judge and his assessors are accorded all of the resources and assistance that they require, so that, while their inquiry will be a thorough one—it must be that to command confidence—it will also be a fairly speedy one? The obvious uncertainties over the reasons for this incident, and therefore over the passage of the ferries, may prejudice the ferries, which have had, until now, a well-deserved reputation for efficiency and safety in carrying millions of people across the Channel every year.
Will my right hon. Friend consider whether, in incidents of this kind, the methods of contacting and informing the families of those directly involved could be sharpened up? I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe and I came across one or two distressing cases over the weekend of families who were left in considerable uncertainty for a long time. One

25
appreciates that, when an incident has occurred in foreign waters, and the primary responsibilities for the rescue lie with foreign authorities, the difficulties may be considerable, but I know that my right hon. Friend will be sensitive to that particular point.
Mr. Moore: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend and start by saying how much my Department appreciated the assistance that he and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) gave by going to the rescue centres and information areas in Dover and Folkestone and ensuring that they did everything that they could to help the relatives of those who were looking for their kin.
As to the Belgium authorities, may I reiterate to the House what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, and what I said when I was in Belgium? I cannot express enough the thanks of the House and the British people for the extraordinary courage, efficiency and care with which the Belgian authorities and the Belgian people greeted us on this occasion.
The inquiry must not be restricted in any way as to resources. It is essential that it does its job properly; it would not wish to do anything else. I understand the point that my right hon. and learned Friend is making about speed. It is essential that we move as fast as we possibly can because, as he said, this involves an important industry that safely carried 28 million of our people across the Channel last year.
I heard the points that my right hon. and learned Friend made concerning the difficulties that occurred with regard to some of the telephone lines. Some 26 telephone lines were put in in the Maidstone special emergency area. I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to look at this matter again, but it is very difficult when an incident has occurred in somebody else's jurisdiction. I shall certainly look at the point because of many of the difficulties that the bereaved found in these circumstances, and still find, is something that we all appreciate.
Mr. James Wallace: I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the expressions of sympathy for the bereaved and injured. I also pay tribute to the emergency services, the rescue services and to all those who supplied comfort and assistance to the injured and bereaved in Belgium and on this side of the Channel. From information supplied by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who has constituents missing, presumed dead, I know that the prompt and sensitive response of the staff of Townsend Thoresen has been particularly welcomed.
I welcome the announcement that the Minister made of Government support for the disaster fund and also the very prompt steps that he and his Department have taken to ensure safety and to reassure the public, who will need to have their confidence rebuilt after what has happened.
The Minister said that a full and public inquiry will take place, which will perhaps establish how the water got in. No doubt the Minister will be aware of the great concern that has been expressed at the volume of open space on the car deck. Will he confirm that that will be one of the matters that the inquiry will be looking into? The Minister can be assured that, if there are findings that suggest safety measures that could, perhaps, be said to conflict with commercial pressures, he will have our support in ensuring that safety is paramount.
Mr. Moore: I thank the hon. Member for what he said on behalf of his party. He will know that nothing can take second place to safety. He must understand that, and I reiterate the point.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about Townsend Thoresen. Those who have been involved in the tragedy are fully aware of the enormous resources that the company has devoted to try to make sure that the difficulties are handled with as much sensitivity as possible.
The hon. Member is absolutely right to say that, as far as we can, we must take every action quickly. I will not let the inquiry inhibit action to reassure people.
I said earlier that the public inquiry will no doubt address the design of the ship and the safety margins of this type of ship, but I also said carefully that, as far as we could see at this stage, there is no evidence to suggest that we should impose restrictions on operations, apart from the additional action that I have announced today.
Mr. Terence Higgins: While joining in the expressions of sympathy to the bereaved, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is satisfied that steps to recover and identify the remaining bodies in the wreck are being taken without delay?
Mr. Moore: I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. He has drawn attention to a difficult and important issue. I have spoken to Sir Jeffrey Sterling and to the people involved and there is no question but that the only criterion that concerns them is the raising of the vessel in such a way as to obtain the bodies of those currently entombed in the ship. That is the first, last and only important criterion that they are addressing, and that must be right. It is a very difficult operation, as those who have been involved know. Therefore, I am afraid that it will take time, but we wish them speedy success.
Mr. Donald Stewart: May I associate myself with the expressions of sympathy and with the thanks offered to the rescue services for the fact that, despite the tragic deaths, many passengers were rescued alive? Like other hon. Members, I represent a constituency which is served by roll-on roll-off ferries. I make no imputation against that type of vessel, but will the Secretary of State include in the public inquiry a general review of roll-on roll-off ferries?
Mr. Moore: I made it quite clear what I suggested that the public inquiry should examine and I do not think that I need to repeat the words for the third time. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his initial remarks. He is right to remind the House of the extraordinary achievements of the rescue services. It is impossible to describe how cold the waters were. To get 408 survivors out of 543 passengers in such conditions is one of the most remarkable miracles. We are all desperately sad at the death toll that we already know about and at the deaths that we suspect, but the achievement of the authorities and of everybody else is something for which we must all thank God.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. In a tragedy of this magnitude there is hardly an hon. Member whose constituency has not suffered loss or injury. I think that it would be fair to all concerned if we moved on, because it is impossible for me to decide or discover who has suffered most.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the four motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea (Domestic Carriage) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Merchant Shipping Act 1979 (Commencement No. 11) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Civil Defence (Grant) (Scotland) Amemdment Regulations 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Civil Defence (Grant) (Amendment) Regulations 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

European Community Documents
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the two motions relating to European Community documents.
Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 10279/1/86, relating to medical and health research, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.
That European Community Documents Nos. 11198/85 and 10522/1/86, relating to road haulage, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

European Community Documents

  Ordered,
  That the Chevening Estate Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Opposition Day
[10TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Intermediate Nuclear Weapons
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
  3.54 pm
  Mr. John Cartwright: There is widespread agreement in all parts of the House about the significance of Mr. Gorbachev's announcement on 28 February that the Soviet Union was dropping its previous insistence that any agreement on intermediate nuclear weapons in Europe could not be implemented until a similar agreement had been reached on strategic and space weapons. That statement was warmly welcomed throughout the world. Sadly, so far there has been no opportunity to discuss it in the House. There has been no statement from any Minister and, despite the Government's skeletal legislative programme, they apparently cannot find the time for a debate on the subject. That is why the alliance parties have given up half a day of their precious time to enable Parliament to discuss the issues and to probe and clarify the Government's position on this important subject.
  The alliance strongly welcomes the Soviet decision, first because we believe that Mr. Gorbachev was wrong to try to hold progress on INF negotiations hostage to progress on strategic and space systems. The three negotiating baskets of Geneva were always intended to be separate and they should remain so. Secondly, we welcome Mr. Gorbachev's decision because it demonstrates the validity of the 1979 dual-track decision— the decision to modernise NATO's capability, while, at the same time, negotiating to remove the threat of the Soviet SS20s. The apparent success of that strategy reinforces the alliance's belief that sound defence and sensible disarmament are complementary and not contradictory. It also confirms our belief that progress in disarmament is less likely to result from great moral gestures than from patient, tough and determined negotiation.
  The worldwide response to Mr. Gorbachev's announcement has been extremely positive. In the United States, the assistant Secretary of Defence, Mr. Richard Perle, seldom known as a dove in such matters, suggested it was
  "a constructive step that should open the way to concluding the remaining issues, leading ultimately to a treaty."
  That was fairly typical of the response throughout the world.
  Strangely, the British Government were almost the last to respond. When the statement appeared the Government were somewhat restrained in their enthusiasm. The Daily Telegraph of 3 March described the Foreign Secretary's statement as
  "carefully avoiding any impression of being over thr moon about the prospect of a zero option agreement".
  At this stage we should be clear about the origins and purposes of the zero option. It is by no means some sinister Soviet ploy. After Reykjavik, Lord Carrington reminded us that the zero option was inherent in the original dual-track decision of December 1979. The zero option was first put forward officially in a speech by President Reagan as long ago as 18 November 1981. At that stage, he offered

  29
  the non-deployment of cruise and Pershing II missiles in return for worldwide dismantling of Soviet INF missiles. That offer was incorporated in the United States draft treaty that was tabled on 2 February 1982. It is also worth recalling that the draft treaty called for a freeze on the shorter range systems with reductions to be "sought in subsequent phases".
  I argue that the zero option represents a good deal for Western Europe. Some 441 Soviet SS20s are now deployed. We may argue about how many of those are deployed against targets in Western Europe, how many are targeted against Asia and how many are in the so-called "swing" zone, which enables them to hit targets on either continent. They are mobile systems and therefore all of them are potentially available for use in the European theatre. With three warheads on every missile, that means that the Soviets have a total of 1,323 warheads in place. That compares with the 572 single warhead cruise and Pershing missiles that would be eventually deployed if NATO completes its planned programme within the next year or so.
  Thus, there are substantially more Soviet missiles and warheads to be dismantled or destroyed as a result of the zero solution than there are NATO systems. This would be the first time in the history of arms control that brand-new, effective and sophisticated nuclear weapons were destroyed as a result of an agreement. That is extremely significant.
  The Government's position on the zero option has undergone some subtle change since the Reykjavik summit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Subtle?"] It may not be so subtle, but we shall see as I develop my argument. The Prime Minister was originally an enthusiastic supporter of a straightforward zero option solution. On 27 March 1982 at Harrogate the right hon. Lady said:
  "That is our objective, the zero option objective. That is a balanced objective. 'You get rid of yours and we won't put ours in place.'"
  That is a clear and straightforward description of the option.
  On 1 November 1983 the Prime Minister said:
  "No one would be better pleased than the Government if the result of negotiations was a zero option by the end of the year."—[Official Report, 1 November 1983; Vol. 47, c. 736.]
  That was clear, unconditional support for a simple zero option solution. No qualifications were being set out at that stage about, for example, short-range weapons. It seems that it was the Reykjavik summit that set the alarm bells ringing. That summit seemed suddenly to reveal the possibility that the zero option was no longer an abstract theory, no longer a negotiating position. At that stage zero option was threatening to become a reality, and the right hon. Lady seemed to be somewhat concerned about how far President Reagan was intending to go in his negotiations with the Soviet Union.
  The Camp David meeting between the President and the Prime Minister produced the statement of November 1986 suggesting that
  "priority should be given to an INF agreement with restraints on shorter range systems."
  That was no different in character from what had been said before about shorter-range systems in relation to INF. However, the Prime Minister seems to have reinterpreted the Camp David statement in a much stronger form. On 18 November 1986 she was talking about an INF agreement and saying:
  30
  "It would also be subject to negotiating at the same time on shorter-range systems".—[Official Report, 18 November 1986; Vol. 105, c. 444.]
  In other words, an INF deal was somehow to be held hostage to progress on shorter-range systems.
  That is not the view that American Administration officials have taken. Paul Nitze and other officials have made it clear that the United States endorsed the Reykjavik understanding that short-range INF systems would be dealt with but in follow-on negotiations. There has been no support for the, idea that an INF deal would somehow be conditional on an agreement on short-range systems.
  Sir Julian Ridsdale: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has great experience of these matters because I am a member of the North Atlantic assembly with him. Does he agree that General Rogers, the C in C of NATO in Europe, took the same position as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister? He had doubts and he wanted to safeguard certain matters.
  Mr. Cartwright: That is a fair point. I wish to consider short-range systems in more detail later. When I reach that stage, I shall try to deal with the issue which the hon. Gentleman has raised.
  I was dealing with the switch in Government emphasis and the much greater importance that was suddenly given to short-range INF systems after the Reykjavik summit. The Secretary of State for Defence does not seem to have been swept along by the sudden anxiety about short-range systems. The right hon. Gentleman attended a Gleneagles meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in October after the Reykjavik summit and he was quoted in a number of national newspapers on 22 October as saying:
  "any INF deal should take into account the 'wider spread of weapons' in Europe, but at the end of the day 'if we can get a deal on INF alone then that's fine as far as the British Government is concerned.'"
  That was a welcome statement, and I shall be interested to see whether the right hon. Gentleman is as clear-cut in his comments this afternoon on that issue or whether he, too, has had to refine his attitude towards the zero option.
  Since Mr. Gorbachev's statement on 28 February the Prime Minister has become even more strident in her denunciations of what she has described as the "huge imbalance" in the Soviet Union's favour in shorter-range nuclear systems in Europe. She has talked about the Soviet Union's "total superiority" in such systems. As a result, it seems that there is a suggestion that no deal should be done on INF until the imbalance is somehow sorted out.
  I wish briefly to consider the issue of shorter-range INF systems. It is understandable that there should be concern that, if the SS20s are withdrawn, their role might be performed by shorter-range systems, especially if those systems are based forward. We know that the SS21s arid SS22s were brought forward into eastern Europe as a counter to cruise and Pershing deployments after December 1983. The Soviets have made it clear, however, that they are willing to withdraw those forward-based SS21s, SS12s and SS22s as soon as an agreement is signed on INF systems—the cruise and the Pershing on the NATO side and the SS20 on the Soviet side. There is thus a willingness on the part of the Soviet Union to deal with the problem as soon as an INF deal is signed.
  There is also a proposal by the Soviet side to begin talks immediately with a view to reducing and, if necessary, eliminating other nuclear missiles in Europe. There is a

  31
  willingness, a possibility and a potential for dealing with the problem to some extent immediately, and further by additional negotiations.
  There is nothing new about Soviet superiority in shorter-range nuclear missiles. That has been the position for at least 20 years. It was well known in December 1979 when NATO took its dual-track decision, and NATO did not make that decision relate to the problem of shorter range systems.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I appreciate that there were strong political reasons for Europe taking that dual-track stance in 1979 and again later. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the world has moved on since then, especially in the grey area of shorter-range systems. Is he suggesting that we should trust the Soviet Union, after we have signed a zero-option agreement on long-range systems, to fulfil the promise that it has made, and that there should be no linkage with the discussions on long-range systems?
  Mr. Cartwright: I believe that the deal that was accepted by both sides at Reykjavik is a sensible one. We can arrive at a settlement on the long-range INF systems immediately— that was implied originally by the 1979 dual-track decision— and then move on to consider short-range systems. I take up the issue of the Soviet short-range threat.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the West should trade the certainty that its own INF, which has been so painfully put in place, would be dismantled in return for the possibility of negotiations, with no certain outcome, on short-range systems that directly affect us?
  Mr. Cartwright: I am suggesting that the deal that was worked out at Reykjavik is a sensible one. It responds immediately to what was set out to be dealt with in 1979, the longer-range INF systems. The Soviets have offered negotiations and to take back immediately the systems which have been based forward. They have offered negotiations on the shorter-range systems. That seems to be acceptable to the United States and I cannot understand why it is not acceptable to Conservative Members.
  I shall deal with the alleged difficulty about Soviet short-range systems. The most modern SS21s and SS23s account for only about 200 systems in the Soviet inventory. Much of the apparent Soviet superiority consists of elderly missiles of extremely doubtful accuracy. It is worth saying that Soviet superiority in very short-range systems, such as battlefield and short-range tactical systems, is balanced by NATO's much larger stocks of nuclear artillery shells and bombs. That is something we should bear much in mind.
  Short-range systems are certainly important but we should not allow ourselves to be mesmerised by the problem. Secondly, we should not start to shift the INF goalposts as a result of the Soviet's superiority in short-range systems.
  Mr. John Maples: I am interested that the hon. Gentleman is now such an enthusiastic supporter of the zero-zero option for intermediate nuclear systems. That has not always been his position. In a debate
  32
  in the House on 31 October 1983, the alliance tabled an amendment that urged the Government effectively to cease deploying cruise and Pershing missiles in exchange for a reduction by the Soviet Union in the number of SS20s that they deploy. Does he think in retrospect that that was wrong and that the Government's decision was right?
  Mr. Cartwright: No. If the hon. Gentleman does a little more research than he has apparently done, or does not depend only on Tory Central Office, he will discover that in that debate the alliance had an amendment of its own which called for further negotiations with the Soviet Union without in any way weakening NATO's bargaining position. He would also find out that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) made it clear that we regarded the zero option as the best long-term possibility, but at that stage in the game it was not a practical possibility because the Soviet Union had clearly ruled it out. Therefore, we were arguing for something very much closer to the "walk in the woods" solution, which had a great deal of support at that time.
  Mr. Denis Healey: The hon. Gentleman has put fairly the position that he put in the debate in 1983. However, does he recall that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Social Democratic and Liberal parties, including the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), voted against the deployment of cruise and Pershing at the end of the debate, with the Labour party? Every single one of them voted in that way.
  Mr. Cartwright: Every member of the alliance voted in favour of our amendment and the Labour party summoned up all its courage on the issue and bravely abstained on our amendment. That was the position. We set out five objections to the Government's motion and we voted against the Government's motion, not against deployment. If the right hon. Gentleman disputes that in any way I refer him to the comment made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) on 23 November 1983 after the Soviet Union had quit the negotiations at Geneva. He said:
  "NATO has no alternative but to continue with the first stage of the deployment."—[Official Report, 23 November 1983; Vol. 49, c. 329.]
  That kills the right hon. Gentleman's argument that somehow we voted against deployment. We did not; we voted against the Government.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cartwright: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have been generous in giving way.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: Does my hon. Friend recall that when I was the defence spokesman for the Liberal party in 1979 I agreed with the Government on the need to deploy cruise and Pershing missiles if the SS20s were not withdrawn and I repeated that and carried the party with me in 1981 at Blackpool?
  Mr. Cartwright: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful contribution.
  Mr. Leigh rose—
  Mr. Cartwright: I have been reasonably generous in giving way. I think that I have given way sufficiently for the moment.
  I want to move on to some of the other issues that have been raised against the background of Mr. Gorbachev's

  33
  announcement. That includes issues such as verification, chemical weapons, the conventional imbalance and the doctrine of flexible response. All those issues have been raised in relation to the possibility of an IMF deal.
  Verification is obviously an extremely essential element in any agreement. The United States has proposed a full exchange of information. It has proposed on-site verification of dismantling and effective monitoring of the future of missile sites. The Soviet Union, for its part, has agreed in principle but has so far been somewhat reluctant to fix details of verification procedures. However, modern satellite surveillance systems have enabled us to know accurately the details of SS20 deployments made so far and I believe that it should be possible by using those methods to prevent cheating. It is worth recalling that there are problems for the Soviet Union, too. The United States deploys many hundreds of cruise missiles which could be nuclear armed or conventionally armed. It is extremely difficult for the Soviet Union to know whether they are carrying nuclear or conventional warheads. Verification will obviously involve a great deal of tough, detailed negotiation but I do not believe that it should be allowed to become a stumbling block in the progress towards an agreement.
  There is no doubt that the Soviet Union's possession of chemical weapons is a threat but that threat has not radically changed since December 1979. The progress now being made at the United Nations disarmament conference—I give credit to Her Majesty's Government for the role Britain has played in the negotiations—is of great importance. Currently, the negotiations are balanced on the issue of verification, particularly the American concern about challenge verification, but I cannot believe that tying chemical weapons to an INF deal in any way would make agreement at Geneva any easier.
  Mr. Ray Whitney: On the matter of chemical weapons, when the hon. Gentleman says that the threat has not changed, is he telling the House that there has not been a build-up of Soviet chemical weapons since 1979?
  Mr. Cartwright: I accept that there has been a build-up but the threat, as an effective threat, is still there. There has been no additional strengthening of that threat. The United States' decision to press ahead with the binary system is something that I very much regret, but whether the threat is stronger or at the same level, the situation is not altered or improved by trying to link negotiations on chemical weapons to INF negotiations.
  It has been suggested in some quarters that NATO somehow needs the cruise and Pershing missiles to answer Soviet conventional superiority in Europe. It is worth reminding ourselves that those weapons systems were not deployed in answer to a Soviet conventional superiority. They were deployed in answer to the Soviet's introduction of very much more powerful, accurate and sophisticated intermediate nuclear weapons. NATO was well aware of the conventional imbalance in December 1979 when it took the dual-track decision but it was not an element in that decision. The deployment of cruise and Pershing was conditional on the Soviet removal of SS20 and not on cuts in conventional forces. Again, I would argue that there is no hard evidence that the conventional position has worsened dramatically since December 1979. In fact, I
  34
  would suggest that there is some evidence that NATO is at last beginning to get its act together on conventional forces.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cartwright: Yes, but this must be the last time.
  Mr. Stewart: Would the hon. Gentleman take into account the evidence of Robert McNamara from his tremendous knowledge of the position, that when there is a slight preponderance in favour of the Soviet Union, it has been grossly exaggerated?
  Mr. Cartwright: I would probably go a little further than the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think that it is a "slight preponderance" but a worrying preponderance. However, I take the view that one can exaggerate. That is a fair point.
  In NATO we cannot go on seeing nuclear weapons as some sort of crutch to bolster NATO's conventional deficiencies. Deterrence has to rest on a mix of nuclear and conventional strength and the nuclear component ought to be seen as a weapon of last resort, not something to be used for war fighting. Therefore, I could not accept any attempt to link an INF deal to conventional force levels. That is an important issue but it should be the subject of separate negotiations.
  That brings me to the issue of flexible response. I certainly accept that it could be argued that a zero option and the removal of intermediate nuclear missiles undermines the doctrine of flexible response because it removes one rung in the ladder of escalation. However, that again was clearly foreseen in December 1979 as an inherent result of the dual-track decision. If the SS20s are removed there is not the same need to respond with comparable nuclear weapons systems. In any case, NATO would retain substantial nuclear capability in the European theatre; for example, dual-capable aircraft, United States submarine-launched cruise missiles and even the United Kingdom nuclear forces dedicated to NATO.
  In any case I have some doubts about the scenario of nuclear escalation being based on some sort of stately gavotte starting with battlefield systems, moving through tactical and intermediate systems to strategic nuclear weapons. I agree with General Rogers, the supreme allied commander in Europe, who has always said that when one crosses the nuclear threshold at the lowest level one has no idea about what will flow from that decision. Therefore, I do not believe that we should let some slavish adherence to the doctrine of flexible response stand in the way of sensible disarmament.
  The Government are right to be careful and cautious about the prospect for an INF deal. The deal is certainly not in the bag. A great deal more negotiation will be needed before we can sign an agreement. Therefore, a cautious and careful approach is justified but there is a difference between being cautious and careful and raising unnecessary obstacles along the road. I think that we are all agreed that Mr. Gorbachev was wrong to link INF agreements to progress on SDI. It would be just as wrong now for the West to try to link an INF deal to other important issues which must be the subject of separate negotiations. NATO fixed the goalposts of the zero option in 1981 and it would be foolish for us now to try to move them.
  Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great knowledge and authority on these matters. Therefore, can he tell the House once and for all, because it is important for the House and the nation to know, whether he now disavows the statement in the official 1986 Liberal publication "These are Liberal Policies", that the alliance was opposed to the deployment of cruise missiles?
  Mr. Cartwright: Fortunately, I am not responsible for what goes into "These are Liberal Policies". If that statement were simply reflecting a Liberal assembly decision, no doubt it was an accurate description of the Liberal assembly vote. However, if we are talking about the way in which the alliance votes in Parliament and the position that it took, it is absolutely clear that we backed the dual-track position of December 1979. Although we wanted negotiations to go on until the last moment and we wanted them to succeed, at the end of the day we accepted that deployment had to take place. That is the position, which we made absolutely clear.
  Let me look again at the prospects for negotiations. The House should also bear in mind that an agreement on INF would be an important confidence-building step for other negotiations, which are likely to be even more complex and demanding, for example, on shorter-range systems, conventional defence, chemical warfare, and so on. Those of us who believe in negotiated disarmament should bear in mind that it is important that we start to show some results from negotiated disarmament. The Labour party is no longer interested in securing negotiated disarmament. It believes that one disarms first and hopes that the others will follow in one's footsteps. Those of us who do not accept that road and who believe that disarmament comes through negotiations must now start to show some results. There is not much to show from the past—the threshold test ban treaty, the unratified and now increasingly tattered SALT II and an ABM treaty that is increasingly under pressure. There is now a welcome sense of urgency about INF negotiations, and it would not be right for us to confuse our objectives with other important issues.
  We need a clear step-by-step approach to the difficult and time-consuming business of disarmament negotiations. That approach was endorsed strongly by the Foreign Secretary in the unlikely setting of a dinner in East Berlin on 4 April 1985 when he justified the case for seeking individual disarmament agreements by quoting Plutarch as having said:
  "Many things which cannot be overcome when they are taken together yield themselves up when taken little by little."
  Those words are just as relevant today as when the Foreign Secretary used them almost two years ago.
  I urge the Government to throw their full weight behind the effort to secure the zero option as a vital first step in the long process of negotiated disarmament.
  4.21 pm
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) for giving us the opportunity to discuss what is undoubtedly a matter of great importance, which greatly interests all hon. Members. I thank him for the thoughtful way in which he has done his best to present a case, but I am bound to add that I cannot help feeling a great deal of sympathy for him in the impossible task with which he has been landed. There are some clear pointers to the extreme difficulty of that task.
  36
  One is a truly extraordinary situation that I cannot recall happening before. An Opposition party that had to choose an important matter for a debate in which there are clear policy lines to be discussed has failed even to attempt to table a motion on which the House can express a view for or against. We know why that is. There is not the remotest chance that the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party could have got together between the middle of last week and now and devised any motion that would have got both parties into the same Lobby.
  Mr. Keith Best (Ynys Môn): My right hon. Friend says that he cannot recall a similar incident. I recall not long ago a debate on defence matters, initiated by the leader of the Liberal party, in which he gave several options, none of which he thought he would favour. In fact, he said in terms that these matters could not be decided by a party in opposition because it did not have sufficient knowledge.
  Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is correct. I remember that other strange operation, of which today's operation reminds me, when the leader of the Liberal party produced 10 different options. He expressed doubts about all of them, and none has been heard of again. That is not surprising.
  It cannot be without significance that this important debate, decided upon by the alliance I understand, has been attended by only two members of the Liberal party. It is clear why that is so. Most of the remarks of the hon. Member for Woolwich—certainly all those with which I agreed, of which there were a considerable number—would be turned down outright by any version of the Liberal assembly that anyone likes to invent.
  With respect to the hon. Gentleman, his anxiety to try to please both halves of his responsibilities has led him to some strange conclusions. He said that he had no doubt that the zero option was a good deal. I am grateful for that. He is right. That is why we should pursue it. However, the hon. Gentleman may not have remembered that on 31 October 1983 his right hon. Friend—if that is the right description—the leader of the Liberal party gave as the third reason for not having supported the Government on the twin track decision that he did not agree with the emphasis put on the zero option.
  Mr. Cartwright: I cannot let the right hon. Gentleman get away with that. If he looks at the rest of what my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal party said, he will see that he said that he dislikes the emphasis placed on the zero option, and he added:
  "Of course that was the best option".—[Official Report, 31 October 1983; Vol. 47, c. 640.]
  But it was not the best option to obtain agreement at that time.
  Mr. Younger: That was a noble effort. I can only say that, in the Government's view, that was the best option; and today it is clear that it has paid off handsomely and the Government were right throughout.
  The hon. Gentleman tried to suggest that the Americans were not in favour of restraints on the short-range intermediate nuclear forces. With respect, that is untrue. It has been part of the American negotiating position for several years—about four or five years. So the hon. Gentleman is not correct on that.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned that Mr. Gorbachev was said to have announced that he would withdraw the short-range intermediate nuclear weapons,

  37
  but the point is that the word is "withdraw". The hon. Gentleman would do well to ponder the difference between "withdraw" and "destroy". Withdrawing those highly mobile weapons is not a great reassurance to those of us who are frightened that they could easily be moved around quickly and deployed against us.
  The hon. Gentleman has one advantage in his difficult task— he is provided, by the twin-headed advisers who sit behind him, with an argument for almost every occasion. He cannot be stuck, whatever happens. For instance, he had to marry the difference between these two statements. His hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), whom I am delighted to see here, correctly intervened on 13 December 1979 to say:
  "I, on behalf of my parliamentary colleagues, fully support the decisions taken in Brussels yesterday, as we agree that it is necessary to update and modernise the NATO theatre nuclear capability."— [Official Report, 13 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 1545.]
  Well done indeed. However, let us look at the more up-to-date "These are Liberal Policies" of 1986. Page 19 of the Liberal document states:
  "The Liberal Party and the Alliance in Parliament oppose the deployment of cruise missiles in this country. We will seek the immediate removal of those that have now arrived."
  It is a hard task to represent the alliance on a subject such as this.
  I take issue with the hon. Member for Woolwich on one strange theory that he produced today, which simply will not do, and I hope that he will not try it again. He said that he is not responsible for Liberal party policy. I understood that he was appointed as the defence spokesman of the alliance. I can reveal to the House that the alliance consists of two parties— the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party. Therefore, whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, from now on he is responsible for the policies of the Liberal party.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: No—for the alliance party.
  Mr. Younger: From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight has said, "for the alliance party." Unfortunately, the electors are not given such a luxury. Each one of us must decide whether we support a particular candidate in our constituency. We must support either a Social Democrat or a Liberal, and the policy must be spoken for by the alliance spokesman who is in the Chamber now. I believe that argument is one to which the hon. Gentleman had better not return.
  I want to spend a few moments spelling out the Government's position on this important issue. In spite of all that I have said, we are grateful to the hon. Member for Woolwich for raising this issue. It is now more than seven years since NATO's twin track decision in 1979 to deploy long-range INF missiles in Europe and at the same time to seek an arms control agreement with the Soviet Union. It was a decision that epitomised this Government's approach to security: a determination to provide the defence forces we need, together with a willingness to reach arms control agreements that would provide for security at lower levels of weapons. We went ahead with those deployments, and today it is beginning to look as though the Soviet Union may at last be willing to negotiate a balanced agreement on them.
  It is as well to remember how we got to where we are today. By 1979, the Soviet Union had reached approximate parity in strategic weapons with the United States. Then, as now, there was a gross imbalance in
  38
  conventional forces in Europe. The Soviet Union was rapidly building up its deployments of Backfires and SS20 missiles. Each of these missiles is capable of carrying three nuclear warheads, which could strike targets throughout western Europe. Faced with these threats, it was clearly essential that NATO had an effective response, short of the strategic level, with European-based forces cabable of striking the Soviet Union. NATO's existing capability in this area consisted of aircraft— mainly US F111s— which were becoming increasingly vulnerable to attack on the ground and which faced increasing Soviet air defences. We and our NATO partners therefore decided in 1979 to modernise those forces with ground-launched cruise and Pershing II missiles, to be based in the United Kingdom and four other European countries, beginning in 1983. This was the deployment part of the 1979 decision. The arms control part of the decision was to seek a negotiated agreement on weapons of this type.
  For many months, the Soviet Union refused to negotiate at all, but when it became clear that NATO was firm in its resolve to go ahead with the deployment part of its decision, it agreed to negotiations, and these began in November 1981. NATO's position throughout these negotiations has been that there should be global equality between United States and Soviet LRINF missiles.
  The most radical proposal was the one we tabled in 1981 for a global ban on all United States and Soviet long range INF missiles. When it became clear that the Soviet Union was not ready for such a radical step, the United States, between 1983 and 1986, tabled a series of interim offers, providing for global equality at levels above zero. The deal agreed at Reykjavik was quite close to the original NATO proposal of global zero— but, as an important concession to the Soviet Union, it was agreed that it could retain 100 SS20 warheads in Soviet Asia, while the United States would retain a similar number in the United States.
  What of the attitude of the Soviet Union? Well, we saw a range of tactical moves from the Russians. First, back in 1981, they pretended that balance already existed in INF weapons by distorting the figures and including the United Kingdom and French deterrents of a quite different nature and purpose. They claimed that this meant that NATO should not go ahead with deployments. They tried scare tactics, with dire predictions in 1983 about the consequences if NATO deployments went ahead. Then they tried walking out of the negotiations. When that did not work, they returned to the negotiating table, and we saw Gorbachev's offer of January last year, which offered a zero solution in Europe, but would have left the Soviets with 500 SS20 warheads in Asia, which could rapidly be returned to Europe at a time of tension. Finally, at Reykjavik, they agreed to the zero-100 solution.
  Dr. David Owen: Is not the right hon. Gentleman missing out the other important concession made by Mr. Gorbachev at Reykjavik— that he accepted that the French arid the British should retain nuclear weapons as they were European states? Without that concession it would have been harder, and I believe indeed wrong, for the United States to have accepted the 100 SS20s on the Chinese border.
  Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct. I was going to mention that later. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the reason why

  39
  the Russians accepted that qualification was largely that we were clearly determined not to be pushed from that position. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would he generous enough to agree with that.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Would my right hon. Friend clarify a very important point about the Soviet SS20 deployments? He referred to Soviet Asia. Is it not true that the 100 SS20s could, from Soviet Asia, threaten Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, the ASEAN states and Japan? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Soviets are seeking to prevent the United States from deploying their 100 INF systems in Alaska?
  Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is correct. Of course, the precise positioning of where we can agree to have those 100 missiles in the Soviet Union will be an important part of the negotiations.
  Having reached the zero-100 solution, the Soviet Union then put up another obstacle. Mr. Gorbachev had agreed at his Geneva summit with President Reagan in 1985 that an INF deal could be agreed independently of the other negotiations. But at Reykjavik this linkage was imposed once again. The Russians declared that they could not go ahead with an INF deal without a solution on the SDI, and the opening of negotiations on a comprehensive test ban. It was always hard to see the logic in this position, and we can all welcome the fact that this latest Soviet barrier to progress in the negotiations has also been put aside.
  One prominent red herring has been the Soviet attempt to involve the United Kingdom and French deterrents, and the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) raised that point a moment ago. We and our NATO allies have been clear throughout that they have nothing whatever to do with the INF negotiations, which are about land-based intermediate range United States and Soviet systems. At first the Soviets claimed that those national deterrents should be matched against their SS20s in Europe; then they tried insisting that they should be prevented from being modernised; and finally, at Reykjavik, Mr. Gorbachev confirmed Soviet acceptance that they had no connection with the INF negotiations.
  What lessons can be drawn from this? It is obvious enough that many of the Soviet proposals have been tabled not so much in order to make progress towards a negotiated solution, but rather with the hope of beguiling Western publics and undermining support for NATO deployments and our negotiating positions. Our people, or most of them, are not as naive as some in the Soviet Union appear to think. You will need no reminding, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the volume and heat of the debate on INF deployments when it reached its height in 1983. But we and our allies were clear in our determination to proceed with deployments unless an equitable deal could be reached, and the general election result that year demonstrated that, despite the antics of a noisy minority, the British public knew that to be the right course.
  At this point it must be recorded for the benefit of the right hon. Member for Devonport and his right hon. and hon. Friends that throughout this business the Labour party has been solidly supporting the actions and efforts of the Soviet Union to drive a wedge between the two halves of the Alliance on this point. Many Labour Members know that to be true.
  Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most important that we should be extemely cautious about this offer from Mr. Gorbachev, especially as in his statement on 2 March he said:
  "Of course, the conclusion of such an agreement, as has been repeatedly emphasised, should be conditioned by a decision on the prevention of deployment of weapons in space, in view of the organic interconnection of these issues."?
  In other words, there appears to be something of a qualification there.
  Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend has raised two points. First, I am sure he will agree that this is not an offer from Mr. Gorbachev. We must remember that this is not an offer from Mr. Gorbachev; this is an acceptance by Mr. Gorbachev of the offer that we have been making and that has been on the table for some considerable time.
  Secondly, my hon. Friend may be right to say that there is a qualification in those words. However, as I read them, they refer specifically to deployment, and it is common ground in the West that deployment is not allowed under the anti-ballistic missile treaty and, if it became necessary, it would have to be the subject of negotiation between East and West.
  There are other conclusions to be drawn from all this. The 1979 twin track decision was the result of extremely close consultation in the Alliance, and that consultation has continued to this day, at all levels. We have worked together, respecting each other's needs and interests, in pursuing our common goal, often in the face of great pressure and difficulties. That is the strength of the Alliance—that we can work together on that basis—and Opposition Members would do well to reflect solemnly on that fact.
  One other point is abundantly clear. We would have got nowhere in the negotiations if we had not been determined to proceed with deploying cruise and Pershing II missiles. We have done so, and that has brought us to the position today where we can see the outline of a deal that would get rid of 90 per cent. of the Soviet SS20 threat. What would the Soviets have offered the unilateralists? What would they have offered if we had failed to go ahead with our deployments?
  But we are not home yet. During the past few days, some hon. Members seem to have acquired the impression that an INF agreement is in the bag. That is far from being the case. The Soviet Union has removed this latest self-imposed obstacle, and that is to be warmly welcomed, but a number of important issues need to be resolved, not by declarations and speeches, but by serious and detailed negotiations, if we are to have an agreement. Important details on the long-range INF missile reductions must be resolved. There is also the question of shorter-range INF missiles, which the hon. Member for Woolwich mentioned at some length, which have ranges between 150 km and 1,000 km. The Soviet Union has a large imbalance of about 9: 1 in its favour at this range band. It is an important range, because it allows missile systems in the Warsaw pact to target almost all of western Europe, while NATO missiles of a similar range would be incapable of targeting the Soviet Union. If they were left unconstrained in an LRINF agreement, and especially an agreement banning LRINF missiles in Europe, this could be undercut by Soviet deployments of SRINF systems that could be almost as effective.
  That is why part of NATO's negotiating position since 1982 has been that any INF agreement should include

  41
  constraints on SRINF missile systems of the 500 km to 1,000 km range, which means the Soviet Scaleboard and SS23 missiles. The NATO proposal has remained broadly the same over those years. It calls for a ceiling in Soviet systems of this range, together with a United States right to match them. It is an essential condition for any equitable INF agreement, but the Soviet Union has yet to agree to it. Its offer of negotiations on missile systems of 1,000 km and below is all very well, but it does not provide what is required to prevent an INF agreement from being undercut by deployments at this level.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: There is bound to be an element of confusion in relation to the word "we". I hope that the Secretary of State will try to establish any difference of emphasis between the negotiating posture that INF should be linked to the short-range missiles possessed by the Soviet Union and NATO in Europe and what he seems to be suggesting is the Government and NATO position.
  Mr. Younger: I am not sure whether I understood the hon. Gentleman's point, but I have tried to make clear to the best of my ability whether I mean the United Kingdom or NATO when I have used the word "we". If I have not done so, I apologise and will try to make sure that it is clear in the future.
  Mr. Douglas: I am sorry if I did not put it clearly. The deficiency is obviously mine. What I am trying to establish is that the United States' negotiating policy does not seem to have a linkage to the short-range nuclear weapons in Europe. We seem to be insisting on such a link.
  Mr. Younger: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is correct. It has been part of the United States' negotiating position for years that there should be constraints on short-range systems. That was clearly repeated to me recently when I was in Washington and when Ambassador Nitze and Richard Perle came over here last week.
  Mr. A. J. Biffen: There is a world of difference between reminding the House that the United States and, indeed, Britain continue to be concerned about short-range nuclear missiles and about seeking a solution to the problem and declaring that it is a condition of arriving at the INF agreement.
  Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman had better check it again himself, but this has been part of the position on the negotiations for a very long time. Indeed, he will find that it is part of the United States' negotiating position at Geneva.
  Mr. Gavin Strang: As I understand it, the United States has produced a counter-proposal to the Soviet initiative— if we can call it that— and circulated a draft treaty. Does that draft treaty refer to SRINF?
  Mr. Younger: I cannot go into detail on the proposal that the United States has tabled at Geneva. The negotiators on both sides will know, but I cannot go into that today. I am absolutely clear that the United States has agreed—this was reinforced to me recently—that this is part of its negotiating position. There is no change in that position, and this difficulty, if it is one, is entirely imaginary.
  Mr. James Callaghan: This is the nub of the debate. My understanding is that the
  42
  United States' position, as expressed by Mr. Maynard Glitman in Geneva last week, was that they would deal with the intermediate nuclear force negotiations and secure a treaty, in the expectation that they would follow it immediately with further negotiations to deal with the other short-range missiles. That excludes the offer that Gorbachev has apparently made to withdraw— the Secretary of State used the correct word— those deployed in Eastern Europe as a result of our deployment of cruise.
  As there might be a difference between the British Government and the United States Government, the House will be interested to know the answer to this question. Is it the view of Her Majesty's Government that short-range nuclear missiles must be included in the same treaty as that for intermediate nuclear forces, on which they seem to be about to embark? If so, those of us who supported the Government's attitude on deployment would differ from them very strongly.
  Mr. Younger: I think that I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks. He may have noticed that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary referred to this in a broadcast on Sunday, but it was made clear that the draft treaty contains articles constraining the shorter-range weapons that might be used to bypass an LRINF agreement. That is clearly in the negotiating position as of now. I can answer the right hon. Gentleman's question by saying that, of course, it is possible that an initial agreement may be drawn up containing constraints, and it does not rule out later negotiations about other aspects further to the constraints that may have been agreed. But our position is clear. If an INF agreement is to be struck, it must include constraints on SRINF, the details of which are still to be negotiated. I hope that that reassures the right hon. Gentleman. It is certainly intended to do so.
  It is for these reasons that NATO's position is that, in the event of an LRINF agreement, it will also be important that it is followed by negotiations aimed at addressing the imbalance in SRINF forces and dealing further with LRINF. Furthermore, as the Prime Minister and President Reagan agreed at Camp David last year, reducing the levels of nuclear weapons will increase the importance of eliminating conventional disparities. But there is no suggestion that we are imposing any formal negotiating linkage between these aims and an INF agreement. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office will deal with this issue further, if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, later this evening.
  The third issue that needs to be resolved in an INF agreement is verification. We have welcomed the general statements by the Soviets of willingness to accept on-site inspection, but, if an agreement is to be effectively verifiable, it will need to include specific and detailed provisions as to how this is to be achieved. This will require long and painstaking negotiations and a constructive approach on both sides. We will need to be patient, and the Soviet Union will have to understand that we will not be rushed into an agreement with inadequate verification just on promises that the details can be settled later. But if the Soviet Union really wants an agreement, and is prepared to negotiate constructively, then it will find

  43
  the United States, with the full support of its allies, more than willing to join it in negotiating and implementing an agreement.
  I should like to conclude by giving a view of the Reykjavik INF European zero deal from my point of view as Secretary of State for Defence. We have seen a lot of comment in the press over worries in Europe about the deterrence implications of this INF deal. It would indeed involve the complete removal of the cruise and Pershing II missiles that we have worked so hard to deploy here in the first place. Of course, any arms control agreement that involves substantial reductions of forces will mean difficult choices and hard decisions. We and our NATO allies have discussed these and will continue to do so in the months ahead; but the Reykjavik deal would also remove a major element of the Soviet intermediate range threat facing us, and I am totally confident that we would be able to maintain effective deterrence following such a deal. I also hope and believe that a successful INF deal would help to make progress possible in other areas of arms control.
  The Government's policies on all this are clear. We will maintain the forces required for effective deterrence—unlike some who would throw them away. We will work with our allies to maintain our common security—unlike some who would throw them out. In this way, rather than through pious statements and wishful thinking, we will also provide the most effective basis for reaching arms control agreements that can provide for security at lower levels of forces.
  I started by welcoming this debate and making a few suggestions to the hon. Member for Woolwich, who opened the debate, about how difficult his task must be. However, his task is relatively simple compared to the task facing the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) who is to speak in the debate. The whole House awaits with great interest every word that will be spoken by the right hon. Gentleman. It is widely known, not just in this House but throughout the Western Alliance, that the right hon. Gentleman is gravely disturbed and greatly disagrees with the vast majority of the Labour party's policy on this matter. Yet he is faced with the prospect of making a speech defending many matters with which he completely disagrees.
  Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman has to do that, a time when it has become crystal clear that the policy followed by the Labour party for the last four or five years has fallen in ruins about the ears of those by whom it was formulated. They have resisted, fought and disagreed with the whole policy of deploying cruise missiles in response to the SS20s on the basis that to do so would force the Soviet Union never to remove them and to be more intransigent than ever.
  It is plain to anyone who can read and understand English that exactly the reverse has taken place, purely because we resisted the blandishments of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, although usually he did not employ such blandishments— until recently anyway—and stood up to the threats that were made and deployed the cruise missiles. As a direct result that Soviet Union is now prepared to come to discuss the removal not just of cruise missiles in this country and in other western European countries, but of the SS20s which caused the problem in the first place.
  44
  There can seldom have been a clearer case of the policy of a party being proved in mid flight to be absolutely unviable and to have produced the opposite effect to that which was intended. Therefore, it is a highly suitable policy for the Labour party to have adopted and I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman's defence of it.
  4.54 pm
  Mr. Denis Healey: I shall start by echoing the Defence Secretary's words because I welcome the chance to debate this important matter. I am staggered to find that the alliance parties, as they call themselves, should have chosen to debate possibly the most important single issue in world affairs and yet neither the leader of the Social Democratic party nor the leader of the Liberal party has chosen to speak in the debate. Indeed, the leader of Liberal party is not even here.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Where is the leader of the Labour party?
  Mr. Healey: My right hon. Friend will be here in a minute. I thank the Secretary of State for Defence for offering me a poisoned chalice. I hope to return it to him and watch him drink it to the dregs in the course of my speech.
  I shall start by talking about the fundamental issue—about what is happening in the Soviet Union and how we should respond. I am afraid that so far that matter has been largely ignored by both opening speakers. I do not think that anyone any longer denies that something absolutely new and encouraging has been happening inside the Soviet Union since Mr. Gorbachev became general secretary. The incompetence and corruption of the Soviet bureaucracy is now castigated every day in the newspapers, officers of the KGB have been imprisoned for maltreating journalists and I noticed this morning that even Mr. Bernard Levin had left his machine-gun post unmanned on the Golan Heights to express his views about what was happening in the Soviet Union and, very reluctantly, to specultate that just possibly the whole system is beginning to transform itself.
  Perhaps it is still too early to feel confident about how the internal situation in the Soviet Union will develop over the next few years. However, the evidence about fundamental changes in Soviet foreign policy is now overwhelming and highly encouraging. Last April Mr. Gorbachev used the jargon of dialectic materialism to renounce the doctrine of the inevitable conflict between the two camps that has guided Soviet foreign policy since the time of Lenin. He spelt out in more detail his new ideas about the world to the Soviet central committee and to the recent international forum in Moscow this year.
  It is clear to all observers that he now believes two things which are quite new for a Soviet leader. First, that in the nuclear age security must be based on co-operation with one's political opponents rather than on a continuing arms race with them, and that both sides in their military arrangements should pursue purely defensive strategies. That was a central theme in his speech to the Moscow forum. The second fact that is emerging, not only from discussions like those recently attended by Professor Erickson but also from Soviet behaviour, is that the Soviet Government now accept that it is impossible to achieve military superiority in an arms race, that even equality is unnecessary and that the objective is sufficiency.

  45
  So far the only Western statesman who has had the wisdom to recognise and admit this in public is the West German Foreign Secretary Mr. Genscher in an impressive speech at Davos at the beginning of February, to which I had the privilege of listening. Since Mr. Genscher spoke, the truth of his remarks has been borne out by what Mr. Gorbachev said 10 days ago in Moscow. He accepted the zero option for intermediate nuclear forces that was first put to Mr. Brezhnev by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and me in September 1981 and adopted by NATO and President Reagan in November 1981.
  The Secretary of State for Defence has said a good deal this afternoon about the reasons why that was put forward. It was not, with respect to him, a concession to Western strength, a response to the deployment of cruise and Pershing—first of all, because cruise and Pershing have already been matched since their deployment by the bringing forward of SS22 and perhaps SS23 missiles to Czechoslovakia and East Germany, and by the patrolling of submarine-launched cruise missiles off both American coasts.
  I am rather surprised that the leader of the Social Democratic party should have taken so much credit in that outburst of his last week for the response to the cruise and Pershing deployment, when, as has been pointed out already, he and his Liberal colleagues voted against that specific proposal, side by side and shoulder to shoulder with the Labour party, in the only debate that we held on the matter before deployment, in 1983.
  Mr. Maples: Despite all the exciting and encouraging noises coming out of the Soviet Union at the moment, does the right hon. Gentleman really think that Mr. Gorbachev would he offering to withdraw all SS20s from Europe if NATO had not deployed cruise missiles?
  Mr. Healey: This is the question that I am immediately coming to. The striking thing about the zero option is that it is not a concession to Western strength; it is a concession from Soviet strength.
  As the Secretary of State for Defence pointed out—this was confirmed yesterday by the American negotiator in Geneva— the zero option means that the Soviet Union will dismantle over three times as many missiles as NATO will dismantle and many more than three times as many warheads. If one adds in the Soviet missiles already deployed in the far east, they will have to be reduced from, I think, about 130 to some 33.
  The plain fact is that this is a remarkable proposal. I suspect that General Rogers may be right in saying that some of the Western Governments who put it forward in 1981 did so only because they thought that the Soviet Government were certain to reject it. That was General Rogers's speculation in a speech that he made on the Gorbachev offer last week.
  Since it was NATO which first proposed the zero option some five years ago, one would expect the Western Alliance to give it an immediate, unanimous and positive response. Yet the leaders of the Western Alliance are now running around like chickens with their heads chopped off. Oddly enough, the only Government who seem united and positive in their response are the Government who, in previous episodes of arms discussion, have been divided— the Government in Washington. For the first time
  46
  since President Reagan came to power, Mr. Shultz, Mr. Weinberger, Mr. Nitze and Mr. Perle are all offering a welcome to Mr. Gorbachev's speech.
  But that is far from being true elsewhere in the Alliance. NATO is behaving more like the alliance in this House than the Alliance of Western Governments. The Secretary-General, Lord Carrington, welcomed the proposals, but the Supreme Allied Commander, General Rogers, said that they gave him "gas pains" and said that they are unacceptable unless there is a simultaneous agreement, not only on short-range intermediate nuclear forces, but on chemical weapons and on conventional weapons.
  In France, there is public disagreement. The President and the Prime Minister have pronounced themselves in favour; both the Foreign Minister and the Defence Minister have publicly pronounced themselves against. In West Germany, on the other hand, the Foreign Minister is in favour and the Defence Minister is against.
  In Britain, the Gorbachev speech was met over the following two days by an avalanche of negative briefing, largely emanating, I understand, from No. 10 Downing street, which culminated in the extraordinary performance of the Prime Minister at Question Time last Thursday, when she brought the dinosaurs on her Back Benches shambling out of their caves to grunt approval of what she said because they thought that she was taking a bold, negative posture, as against the wet, wimpish posture of the American President— and, by God, they have actually put down an early-day motion in those terms.
  The Prime Minister won tile approval of the dinosaurs because she insisted that last Thursday there was a 9: 1 superiority in short-range intermediate nuclear forces—those with a range of between 500 and 1,000 km—and that this must be corrected at the same time— she repeated this again and again and again—as there was an agreement on intermediate nuclear forces.
  Yet in his broadcast yesterday, the Foreign Secretary took exactly the opposite view. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State for Defence agreed with him, rather than with the Prime Minister , I do not suppose that he is looking forward to his next meeting with "Attila the Hen", but still I do not suppose that he looked forward very much to his last meeting.
  The plain fact is that what the Foreign Secretary said, and the Secretary of State for Defence repeated today, is that there must be some constraints on short-range intermediate nuclear forces in the same treaty as INF'. Unlike the Secretary of State for Defence—who was a bit nervous about revealing that he either had or had not seen the draft treaty that the Russians have been reading for the last five days— the proposal in the American treaty is quite clear.
  It is that the Russians should remove the SS22 and SS23 missiles which they brought forward— the right hon. Gentleman is quite right about that—to East Germany and Czechoslovakia, and that they should freeze their superiority of 9:1 and not increase their superiority so as to circumvent the removal of the intermediate nuclear forces. That is a completely different proposal and exactly the opposite of what the Prime Minister seemed to be saying last week.
  Indeed, I was interested in the fact that Mr. Matthew Parris— one of our late colleagues, a former Conservative MP and a former member of the Prime Minister's kitchen cabinet—told the Foreign Secretary, after Mr. Parris had carefully deployed all the Prime

  47
  Minister's arguments against agreeing to an INF treaty, that his position appeared to be just like a Conservative caricature of the Labour party's position.
  I can see why Mr. Parris said that, and I can see why the Secretary of State for Defence is looking so thoughtful when I repeat it— because the American policy, endorsed by the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence, is to freeze the Soviet 9:1 advantage in SRINF and then begin to negotiate it after the treaty on INF is signed.
  I see that the right hon. Gentleman does not dispute this. The only difference is that the Americans at Reykjavik said that they asserted the right to raise their number of SRINF to match those deployed by the Soviet Union. But their negotiators have since made it clear in Geneva, according to the newspapers, that they have no intention of taking advantage of that right. So we are going, in my view quite rightly, for an INF agreement which freezes a 9: 1 superiority in SRINF and leaves that for negotiation immediately afterwards.
  The question that we must ask ourselves is, if the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence are so convinced that this is the right policy, why has the Prime Minister tried to overthrow it—and on the eve of a visit to Moscow in which we assume that she was hoping to cut what the Italians call "una bella figura"? I think that there are three reasons. They are pretty obvious. The first is that she has been hoping to use her visit to Moscow as she, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister used his last visit—for self-advertisement for election purposes. That is not my phrase but that of the spokesman of the Soviet Foreign Office, Mr. Gerasimov, who was extremely irritated by some of the things which Ministers have said about their recent discussions with the Soviet Union.
  The Conservative party's election strategy is based on reviving the psychoses of the cold war, the suggestion that there has been no real change in the Soviet Union since the days of Stalin and that the Russians would drop nuclear weapons on us if ever we adopted the same defence policy as most of the other NATO countries already have. We saw that in a recent and disgusting party political broadcast, a recent advertisement placed by the Conservative party in the Daily Express and in the quite disgraceful film which, I am glad to say, embarrassed even the Defence Secretary when he saw it, and which has been produced by the Ministry of Defence for circulation to schoolchildren.
  The second reason why the Government, or the Prime Minister, have sought to torpedo the INF discussions is that, as she admitted in her communique signed at Camp David the other day, any agreement on nuclear weapons will make conventional forces more important. She knows that she is gravely weakening our conventional forces to pay for the Trident submarine programme. We have had a concatenation of military officers, starting with Major Lord Morpeth through General Frank Kitson up to Field Marshal Lord Bramall, who said in The Times this morning that if the Government go on like this, they will be shooting themselves in the foot and gravely damaging the morale of the British Army.
  Mr. Jim Spicer: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the weakening of our defence forces, but his policy and that of his party is to put our
  48
  corps in Germany in an impossible position in which they could not hold one inch of ground on that important central front. He knows that and would never have supported such a policy in the past, so why on earth is he supporting it at the moment?
  Mr. Healey: The hon. and, perhaps, gallant Member is talking tripe. If he reads the lengthy and thoughtful report of The Economist's defence correspondent, Mr. Meachin, last August, he will find that soldiers in the Rhine Army are confident of holding a Soviet attack. We also have the word of General Rogers, the supreme allied commander, that there is in any case no danger of a Soviet attack out of the blue.
  Mr. Spicer: With no nuclear forces?
  Mr. Healey: Yes, with no nuclear weapons. They were talking about the conventional capability. No British Army in Germany has ever carried out an exercise which involves the use of nuclear weapons because it has not the slightest idea how it would be possible to fight a war with nuclear weapons. Field Marshal Lord Carver and Lord Louis Mountbatten have said that it would be quite impossible ever to fight such a war.
  Mr. Younger: In view of his usual marvellous array of name-dropping, which, according to my calculations, has now got to 11, and as the right hon. Gentleman has included The Economist of last August, would he care to look at this week's The Economist in which the main leading article is a devasting critique of everything that the Labour party stands for in defence?
  Mr. Healey: I apologise for referring to Field Marshal Lord Bramall. I thought that, possibly, his name would impress the right hon. Gentleman, but the right hon. Gentleman is new to the job so I dare say that he has never even heard of him.
  There is one thing that I should say about The Economist, however. The first six or seven pages are absolute tripe. The stuff that is good is the reporting which follows in the middle and latter part. I am sure that many Conservative Members share my view.
  The third reason why the Prime Minister does not want an agreement on INF is that she knows that the next stage will be negotiations on strategic nuclear forces and that, in those negotiations, the Trident submarine programme is bound to be involved because there is not a cat in hell's chance of the United States providing Britain with Trident missiles if it has already agreed, as it is committed to try to do, to abolish all strategic ballistic missiles by 1995.
  I should like to congratulate the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary—this is the poisoned chalice that I told the right hon. Gentleman was coming—on trying once again to lead the Prime Minister back to reality. They have both had this problem ever since they have been in office. The Foreign Secretary had it only the other day with Hong Kong and Lord Carrington had it in spades with Rhodesia and many other issues.
  The interesting thing about the Foreign Secretary's speech yesterday is that he went a little further and was a little franker than the Defence Secretary today. First, he utterly rejected the view of General Rogers, which was repeated by some Conservative Back Benchers a moment ago, that intermediate nuclear forces on the NATO side are a vital rung on the ladder of escalation. That was the

  49
  initial reason why the NATO military tried to persuade NATO to introduce these weapons. It was not because of the SS20s, but as a rung on the ladder of escalation.
  Secondly. the Foreign Secretary, not perhaps fully understanding what he was doing, also rejected the strategy of flexible response which depends on the concept—
  Mr. Wilkinson: No, he did not.
  Mr. Healey: With great respect, I know a little about this because I introduced this strategy 20 years ago. I just want to quote what he said.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Who?
  Mr. Healey: The Foreign Secretary. He said yesterday that he does not believe that it is possible to have a number of steps on a ladder, but that he favours uncertainty. We now have the Howe uncertainty principle to join the Heizenberg uncertainty principle. He said that it would be all right because we have what he bizarrely called a carnival of nuclear options. There is a circus element in the Foreign Secretary's approach to these problems and it is different from the way in which the NATO military look at it.
  Thirdly, the Foreign Secretary fully supported the American proposals at Geneva which the Secretary of State for Defence has or has not seen but is not telling us about — although the Warsaw pact and the Soviet Government know them off by heart by now and although they have been rejected by the Prime Minister. He appeared to be quite relaxed about NATO's conventional position. He could not easily take up a different stance because he expressed those views in an interesting lecture which he gave to the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies only two months ago. He said then that the SRINF that he wanted dealt with were the SS22s and SS23s in Czechoslovakia and the German Democratic Republic. Mr. Gorbachev has already undertaken to withdraw them with the destruction of the SS20s when the time comes.
  Mr. Wilkinson: No, he has not.
  Mr. Healey: Oh yes he has.
  Mr. Wilkinson: The general secretary of the Communist party has made no undertaking to withdraw the SS22s and SS23s. He has suggested that if a zero option agreement is reached he would consider negotiating their future, which is quite different.
  Mr. Healey: With great respect, I have the text here and I shall read it out to the House in a moment. Mr. Gorbachev repeated what the Warsaw pact as a whole said at its meeting last June— that those weapons were put forward only because of the Western deployment of cruise and Pershing and that they would be withdrawn the moment an INF agreement was reached. Beyond that, he agreed to freeze the 9:1 disparity on the rest.
  It is not surprising that the position of the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence this afternoon may be somewhat disappointing to those whose imagination was inflamed by the Prime Minister's remarks during Question Time. However, the plain fact is that we all know perfectly well—and this has been said many times by the Foreign Secretary—that disarmament will be achieved only step by step. If we do not reach the first step, the others will not follow.
  50
  As the Prime Minister agreed with President Reagan at Camp David, the first step must be agreement on the INF. Then we can discuss the shorter-range intermediate nuclear forces, where the imbalance is nothing like 9:1. We can achieve that only by leaving many of the NATO nuclear weapons out of account. Taking the shorter range forces as a whole, from the lowest to the highest, once cruise and Pershing have gone the United States will have 4,650 warheads in Europe with another 1,900 promised in case of tension. That includes the F111 bombers in Britain, which can drop bombs on Moscow, and, of course, the 400 Poseidon.
  Mr. Cash: They will not be there.
  Mr. Healey: They will not be there if we get an agreement on SRINF, which is what we want, and on the 400 Poseidon missiles, which are still allocated to SACEUR after the decision on deployment of cruise and Pershing.
  The aim in the SRINF negotiations should be to get nuclear weapons out of Europe and to have a zero option for SRINF, just as we hope to have one for the INF. If that can be achieved, substantial cuts in conventional forces will be needed to provide a much better conventional balance. The imbalance is nothing like as great as some propaganda suggests. It is close to 1.2:1 if we take account of the military capability of NATO and the Warsaw pact in armoured defence equipment. The man who has argued that most persuasively, ambassador John Dean, for eight years conducted the MBFR negotiations for the United States in Vienna.
  When the impending talks take place we should act on the advice of Mr. Genscher, which is that both sides should aim to be capable of only defensive operations, and not take an offensive stance.
  We stand on the verge of a historic opportunity. If we achieve the deal on the LRINF which is in our grasp—the American and Soviet negotiators clearly think the same—we can start a process that gives the world new hope for peace through co-operation. It is desperately urgent to start that process, otherwise the prospect of proliferation in other countries will become imminent. There is already a nuclear rivalry between India and Pakistan on the subcontinent, and nuclear competition between Israel and the Arabs will be close behind. I fear that in the process of producing a new basis for world peace and security, there is no chance of the British Government taking the lead. The leadership is now with the United States and West Germany, with Britain far behind. However, I hope, at least, that what the Secretary of State for Defence has said today, and what the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, will persuade the British Prime Minister to remove the new obstacles to agreement that she rolled out into the road last Thursday.
  5.24 pm
  Sir Anthony Kershaw: It is a pity that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) did not accept the invitation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to talk about the policy of the Labour party. Rather than defend that policy, the right hon. Gentleman chose to defend the policy of Mr. Gorbachev. Apart from that, because of his usual knock-about, radio commentary style, I could not interpret what he was saying.
  The subject of disarmament is extremely complicated. It has dragged on for years. It has attracted acronyms and

  51
  nicknames galore and only a few people wish to thread their way through the debating minefield. As weapons change, and disarmament talks change, too, surely our present interests and objectives are fairly easy to identify. They are that we must not be left exposed to the much stronger conventional forces of the Eastern bloc. Some people say that we could and should rearm conventionally to the extent necessary to hold them off. In theory we could do that, but at the price of converting ourselves into an armed camp like Nazi Germany in the 1930s and Soviet Russia today.
  Sir Antony Buck: And by bringing back conscription.
  Sir Anthony Kershaw: As my hon. and learned Friend says, we would have to bring back conscription.
  I cannot think of a more dangerous situation. We are talking about two blocs armed to the teeth, both believing that, because the weapons are conventional, it might be possible to win a war. That part of the Labour party that believes in defence would bring about just such a position. We would return to the uncertainties of the 1930s, and the only certainty would be that sooner or later war would break out.
  If everyone is sure that, because of the presence of nuclear weapons, no one can possibly win a war, there will be no war. To be more precise, our nuclear weapons must be of two particular types. First, we need battlefield nuclear weapons to counter conventional superiority; and, secondly, we need strategic nuclear weapons to ensure that Russia realises that her homeland would not escape. If we had those two types of weapons, there would be no war.
  People may say that battlefield nuclear weapons are not meant to be used, and that if they were used war would escalate. So it would and, because the Russians also know that, they will not use them and will not start anything. If we have only strategic nuclear weapons and can only respond to a conventional defeat or impending defeat by self-destruction and blowing up the world, everyone knows that we would not do it. Such a weapon is incredible. It will not be used. One would need the inexorable logic of General de Gaulle to make that possible.
  The intermediate weapons can go, provided that the other two types stay and that there are restraints on them, as suggested at Camp David after Reykjavik. Prior to the talks at Reykjavik, and immediately afterwards, I feared that the United States might press us too hard to come to some sort of agreement—and, even now, I have a sneaking feeling that the United States' President needs some kind of political prestige, and therefore might go a little too far for us. But I noted this morning that Mr. Max Kampelman, the negotiator for the United States, is reported to have said that he understands our need for short-range weapons.
  There can be no doubt that the United States wants the agreement to succeed, and I believe that Mr. Gorbachev also wants it to succeed. Perhaps his principal reason for that is economic. The Soviet Union already lags far behind the United States and Europe economically, and it is falling further behind every day. In the year 2000 the gross national product of the Soviet Union will be half that of the United States and of Europe; and I do believe that the Communist system and technological age are even more
  52
  remarkably inappropriate to bring economic welfare and prosperity to the USSR. Nevertheless, if it was not necessary for the Soviet Union to spend so much on armaments in the short term, that would obviously be some weight off the shoulders of the population.
  Therefore, I hope that when the Prime Minister goes to Moscow, she will insist that the two sorts of nuclear weapons are necessary to us. I do not insist that they should match absolutely in numbers. We should have enough for our own purposes. If the others wish to keep more, that does not matter because they will not be used if we have them in sufficient quantity. We can do without the INF and the two superpowers could sharply reduce their strategic weapons without any loss of security to either. If chemical weapons could be thrown into the agreements as well, so much the better.
  All those things depend on proper verification and negotiation. Those negotiations will take place because the Russians have seen that they will not get their way by our abandoning our weapons and being unwilling to defend ourselves.
  If we get this preliminary step-by-step agreement about INF, that may create the climate of confidence upon which other negotiations and steps can be taken to secure the peace of our world.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. James Callaghan: The hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) referred to the importance and necessity of step-by-step negotiations. That seems to be the right approach in all these matters. The hon. Member for Stroud made many points with which I agree.
  However, I should like to go back a little further. I want to support the agreement put forward by the hon. Gentleman, but there is no doubt that when we first approached this question in about 1977 or 1978, although there were other reasons for considering cruise and Pershing, there was no doubt that the impetus that led us to believe that it might be necessary to deploy them if we could not reach agreement was the deployment of the SS20s. Undoubtedly, that led us to consider the matter carefully. At the Guadelupe meeting, which I attended with other Heads of Government and state, we agreed that we would make a further effort with the Soviet Union to secure if we could the withdrawal of the SS20s that had already been deployed. At the time, there were relatively few, about 20 or 30. If we could do that, we would seriously consider, as a measure of confidence, not proceeding with cruise and Pershing.
  It seems that, eight years later, that is exactly the position to which we have returned, except that there have been changes in the deployment of other weapons. We still have to decide whether the bargain is worthwhile. I asked Mr. Gromyko about that after I had ceased to be the leader of the Labour party. He was adamant in his refusal to withdraw the SS20s, under any circumstances or in any conditions. I warned him at the time that if he insisted on continuing with that deployment, despite the agitation and protest in this country and elsewhere, I had no doubt that NATO would then deploy cruise and Pershing. He replied, "If that is the case, we must go ahead." It was one of the gloomiest interviews that I have had, because once again we were ratcheting up nuclear arms.

  53
  However, I have no doubt that our expressed determination to go ahead and deploy the SS20s and Pershing brought him back to the negotiating table. That is a lesson for people to learn now. One does not have to use the rhetoric of the United States. The personal abuse and the level to which the American Administration descended in the earlier part of President Reagan's tenure of office was deplorable. There is no need to use that kind of language to be firm. For what it is worth, my experience is that the Russians will pocket any concession that is made and say "Thank you" but give nothing in return. One must negotiate at every level.
  After the Prime Minister spoke last week, I detected that we were apparently unwilling to show any confidence in securing an agreement with the Soviet Union. That is disappearing in this debate and the Foreign Secretary yesterday and the Defence Secretary this afternoon have gone some way to dispelling that. However, if that were so, there would be no hope for our Western world. There has to be some measure of confidence between us. I summed that up many years ago by saying, "Compete where we must, and co-operate where we can", and provided that we can reach agreements with the Soviet Union that are worthwhile to both sides, that must be of value to our people.
  The latest proposal is worthwhile and we should accept it, subject, as the hon. Member for Stroud said, to proper verification. The proposal that the Soviet Union's 100 SS20s might be put into one military base at Novasibirsk is a good idea because it would make for proper and easy verification, and inspire the confidence that is necessary if we are to proceed to the next step. Assuming that we can get this agreement, we cannot leave it there.
  Indeed, as far as I can see, after the meeting of the political bureau of the Communist party of the Soviet Union Mr. Gorbachev did not want to leave it there. He said:
  "As soon as an agreement on eliminating Soviet and United States medium-range missiles in Europe is signed, the Soviet Union will withdraw longer range theatre missiles from the German Democratic Republic and Czechoslovakia by agreement with the governments of those countries, the missiles which had been deployed there as measures in reply to the deployment of Pershing-II and cruise missiles in Western Europe."
  That should be a subject of discussion between us and not solely between the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe. The question remains, what happens, where they go and how far.
  Mr. Gorbachev continued by making a further proposal:
  "As far as other theatre missiles are concerned, we are prepared to begin talks immediately with a view to reducing and fully eliminating them."
  Both sides could reduce those theatre nuclear missiles. Whatever the disparity, there would be no disadvantage to us in doing so.
  Above all, General Secretary Gorbachev stated:
  "the Soviet Government still considers it highly important to reach agreement on substantial limitation and then elimination of strategic arms."
  Elimination is a long way away but substantial limitation is possible.
  I hope that when the Prime Minister goes to Moscow she will take the following line with General Secretary Gorbachev. If we get this agreement on intermediate-range nuclear missiles, which would be of great value in beginning to build an element of confidence in the
  54
  relationship between the two sides, she should say. "We in the West would be willing to reduce our strategic missiles if you would do the same by at least 50 per cent." If both sides cut 50 per cent. off the level of their strategic nuclear missiles, we would both still be hopelessly over-insured and paying far too big a premium.
  Whatever the economic and financial consequences of doing that, the confidence that would begin to emerge in other directions would transform the position of the West and the East. A 50 per cent. reduction would be worthwhile. Obviously, our strategic nuclear weapons will be included in that. We should not resist including them in the calculation of both sides. I could never understand why the Soviet Union should be expected to exclude from the total calculation all the French and British strategic nuclear missiles, which was a line we took at one time. They must be included. They should not have been included in the nuclear intermediate range because they are outside that. If I were Mr. Gorbachev, I would insist on including in the calculation of strategic nuclear missiles ranged against me, not only American missiles, but French and British missiles. The total number of missiles must be counted. However, that does not mean that we must discard them. It may mean that there must be sonic reduction.
  The question whether we go ahead with Trident is a moot point. Everyone who considers this matter must be concerned, as I am, about the level of our conventional forces. I am particularly worried about the naval element. We must review this constantly. I would not take a fixed view on Trident for ever and I would not abandon it now. The situation may change. If there is an important stragetic agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union, we may want to consider where we lit into the picture. Certainly we should not give up Trident up for nothing. We must negotiate cur way out of this.
  My view is well known and I do not intend to develop it further. I strongly applaud the Labour party's attitude to building conventional forces. The way in which it has focused on that has been of value to the country and I hope it will continue to do so. I hope that all hon. Members, wherever we may sit, will continue to review the changing circumstances in defence as events occur. The position today is certainly not the position of four years ago and it is even less the position when. I left office. No one should adopt a fixed position for ever and allow considerations on defence weapons to be turned into ideology. That would be absurd.
  I am glad about what the Secretary of State said this afternoon. I hope we shall support the approach that has been made in Geneva by the United States. If so, the world will have made a turning for the better.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: The last. words of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) are of the greatest importance and I am sure that his support for the initiative in Geneva will add great weight to those considerations.
  As the Member for Parliament for Greenham common, and as one who has INF missiles in his constituency, it is hardly surprising that I welcome Mr. Gorbachev's positive response to the Western position over the zero option and the withdrawal of intermediate range nuclear missiles. It is the fulfilment of the West's declared policy which began at the start of this decade that no cruise or Pershing II

  55
  missiles will be deployed in NATO if the Soviet Union dismantles its SS20 force. Clearly, although we have been forced to deploy cruise and Pershing II because of Soviet intransigence, now that it has seen the error of its ways, who can do other than applaud it?
  From the speeches so far, there is a danger of us all being sure that in Mr. Gorbachev's statement about moving towards the dismantling of medium-range missiles his definition of those missiles is the same as it is in Western Europe. In his statement he used three different descriptions for nuclear missiles in Europe. He described medium-range missiles, enhanced-range operational-tactical missiles and operational-tactical missiles. The question of definition will play an important part in the considerations at Geneva. Clearly, it is vital that we and the Soviet Union think in exactly the same terms.
  If to the Soviet Union the zero option simply means withdrawing SS20s in exchange for withdrawing cruise and Pershing IIs, but leaving SS12s, SS22s and SS23s in place—weapons which can strike deep into Western Europe as far as Great Britain—we must all think again about the possible benefits of the treaty that seem to be within our grasp.
  Verification appears to be a thorny issue. Satellite reconnaissance can do so much, but only so much. Unless each side is willing to allow something more, I find it difficult to know how a treaty can be made to stick. It is possible to hide missiles out of sight of satellites, so something like on-the-spot verification will be crucial.
  If I sound marginally sceptical, it is because I have my constituents in mind. They accepted cruise missiles, not because they wanted a new generation of missiles in their midst at Greenham common, but because the continued security of NATO seemed to demand the deployment of those weapons. They believed, as I believed, that multilateral disarmament was the only safe way to reduce the nuclear threat. The question to which we require an answer is whether the withdrawal of SS20s, cruise and Pershing Hs will leave Western Europe as secure in the future as it is at present, or whether other circumstances have been created which reduce the effect of the zero option.
  One is bound to ask, what has happened to make the Soviets change their mind from their apparently intransigent stand at the beginning of this decade to their present position? Within that change of stance there is now a willingness to uncouple an arms agreement on INF weapons from a halt to the American strategic defence initiative to consider the zero option as a relevant proposition.
  I do not rule out the obvious differences which Mr. Gorbachev has made to East-West relations, but the difference seems to lie in his perception of the cold war—something on which the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) touched. Clearly, Mr. Gorbachev does not believe that the peace movement, CND, the Greenham protesters, the Greens in West Germany or even the Opposition's policy are likely to have much effect on the West's policies for the defence of Western Europe. That suggests that he does not think that the Opposition will win the general election.
  Mr. Gorbachev also knows that the present American Administration will not abandon the SDI. Therefore, he seems to have calculated that what is necessary for Soviet
  56
  security is a reduction in the immediate interface between the nuclear forces of the United States of America and the USSR in Western Europe. Perhaps the limited flight time of Pershing Hs from West to East has created too great a threat in his mind for him to feel easy leaving those weapons in West Germany. Perhaps he is seeking to lower the nuclear threshold.
  One of the inevitable results of the iron curtain since it fell across Europe 40 years ago has been to make Europe the most likely battlefield for world war three. Yet it would be a battlefield in which the inhabitants were not really the protagonists. The Warsaw pact without the Soviet Union poses no real threat to the Western European members of NATO, but once the Soviet Union and America are included in the groupings those countries become involved in a different way. While the Soviet Union dominates the Warsaw pact, who can think of any reduction in the American involvement in NATO, except with profound unease?
  Perhaps Mr. Gorbachev believes that Europe would be more secure if the face-to-face confrontation of the superpowers was of a different order, or was of a kind which compelled the United States of America to retaliate with long-range missiles at a Soviet Union seeking to create a nuclear shield for itself. That is why I believe the Soviet unwillingness to bring its short-range nuclear missiles more into line with NATO's numbers—we have already heard that the disparity is about 9: 1 in the Warsaw pact's advantage—is an acid test of Soviet good faith in negotiating over INF. Otherwise one will be tempted to believe that the INF proposal is an attempt to gain a different nuclear advantage for the Soviets which, taken with their advantage in conventional weapons, could give us all cause for renewed anxiety.
  Those are my worries. They must sound like a halfhearted response to the most positive initiative of the superpowers that we have heard for at least a decade. When it comes to making a choice between peace and disarmament, I choose peace. The two are not necessarily synonymous.
  The Geneva talks and the visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Moscow at the end of the month are clearly crucial. A satisfactory outcome must be judged not just in terms of advantage to the superpowers but by reference to the peace and security of Europe. That is why I hope that our American allies will fully consult us—and, indeed, all members of NATO in Europe. I hope, too, that any agreement will not put the possibility of a conventional European war back on the agenda. Sometimes in our desire to be rid of nuclear weapons we lose sight of that possibility, but we must remember that the prospect of a winnable conventional war, far from allowing us to sleep more easily in our beds, would give us cause for the greatest concern.
  We should be sceptical about all the proposals on the table. We must probe and define and we must be sure that the verification arrangements are such that the treaty, if it is signed, will last.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Gavin Strang: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). Both he and I took part in some of the numerous debates before the arrival of cruise missiles at Greenham common. It is worth noting that, notwithstanding his caution and reticence, even he seems to accept in principle

  57
  the case for making an agreement a reality in the context of the Gorbachev initiative and the American counterproposal on long-range intermediate nuclear force missiles in Europe.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who opened the debate for the Opposition, spoke about the changes that are taking place in the Soviet Union. Any objective observer must believe that something potentially important is under way in the Soviet Union. It is too early to say how far that will develop, but an objective analysis of the attitudes of the United States and the Soviet Union over the past few years to the overriding issue of nuclear weapons cannot but lead many people in the West—including myself—to the view that the approach of the Soviet Union has been more positive and responsible than that of the United States.
  I hope that we are moving into a phase in which both superpowers will he constructive and will make real progress towards cuts in their nuclear arsenals. I refer in particular to the historic proposals unveiled by Mr. Gorbachev on 15 January 1986. They involved three important stages in the removal of nuclear weapons, and included important concessions by the Soviet Union.
  It was in that statement that Mr. Gorbachev first acknowledged that the Soviet Union was prepared to set on one side the existence of the French and British strategic nuclear weapons, provided that they were not expanded and that we did not replace Polaris with Trident. In Reykjavik, the Soviet Union was dropping any link between British and French nuclear weapons and INF. We are now discussing the removal from the Reykjavik package the proposal that involved the Soviet Union being allowed to keep 100 SS20 warheads in Asia and the Americans being allowed to keep 100 long-range INF missiles in the United States.
  It is important to recognise that an agreement would not remove the threat of nuclear war overnight. However, it would be an important advance. I approach this subject from a standpoint very different from that of the Secretary of State. I want the removal of all nuclear weapons from Europe. I realise that that may take some time, and that the French nuclear weapons may be the last to go, but I am prepared to live with French weapons in Europe for an interim period. I believe that the world would be a safer place if nuclear weapons were confined to United States territory and Soviet territory—with China presumably keeping its weapons.
  It is sad that the Government have not been prepared to take a positive approach in areas where we count and have influence. I refer especially to their failure to make real progress towards a comprehensive test ban treaty. That is a role that a British Government should play. They should remove all nuclear weapons and bases from British territory. They should campaign for the removal of nuclear weapons from Europe. Above all, they should use their influence throughout the world, and in the forums where they are still represented, to achieve real progress towards a comprehensive test ban treaty.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East said, the real danger in coming years is that there will be a nuclear exchange not in central Europe but in, for example, the middle east or in Pakistan, where a key figure has recently openly admitted that nuclear weapons have been developed.
  Verification is a most important issue. One of the main arguments that we deployed against cruise missiles was
  58
  that their numbers were exceedingly difficult to verify under an agreement. It is true that the location of bases in Europe is more or less common knowledge and that, therefore, it should not be too difficult to reassure the Soviet Union on the removal of Pershing II and cruise from Western Europe. Nevertheless, the challenge of verification may be one of great benefit to future agreements. As the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) said, we have to consider the wish of the Soviet Union to verify United States compliance with limitation of the deployment of the weapons on its own soil. I hope that the attitude of the British Government to verification in this area will be more convincing and more genuine than in their attitude to progress towards a comprehensive test ban treaty. Everyone accepts that an agreement on verification would have to include on-site inspection as well as satellite verification. But such an agreement will be important and may be of use in an agreement to cut the United States and USSR strategic arsenals by 50 per cent. I note that Mr. Shultz referred to that over the weekend.
  Let us consider the issue of short-range INF weapons. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff. South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) said, the Soviet Union's position on that is very clear. It is the desire of Opposition Members that NATO—in this context, that means the United States—will not use that argument to present, or indeed sabotage, an agreement on intermediate-range nuclear weapons.
  I suspect that the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary adopt a more reasonable, less war-like approach to these matters than the Prime Minister and that they genuinely wish an agreement to be reached. It must be remembered, too, that we are in the run-up to a general election. The chances are that the agreement will not be signed until next year. That seems to be common ground between the two sides, and that view has certainly been expressed by the United States Administration. However, it is to be hoped that talks will be under way and that real progress is made between the United States and the Soviet Union. It is their agreement; they are the parties directly involved. I hope that the Prime Minister—or any other European leader—will not manage to undermine progress, as some people fear. I hope that an important advance will be made, not because the removal of the missiles will suddenly transform Europe into a safer place, but because an agreement would help to build the world's confidence in the superpowers and, more important, confidence between East and West.
  There are two ways to correct the conventional imbalance. One is for us to increase conventional forces in Western Europe. The other is to make real progress on mutual and balanced force reduction talks and negotiations on the conventional side. I have not conceded that there is the huge conventional imbalance about which Conservative Members like to speak. No matter how much confidence we have in the developments that may be taking place in the Soviet Union, it is common ground that we have to defend Western Europe. There is no suggestion that we should unilaterally reduce the defence of Western Europe against the Soviet Union. However, I approach these issues from a somewhat different stance. I want to see all nuclear weapons removed from Europe. If we can get an agreement, it will be a real step forward and I hope that the two superpowers will build on it in the future.
  6 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I go a long way with what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) said, except that I do not think that a comprehensive test ban treaty is on the cards until we have made significant improvements in verification. When the hon. Gentleman talked about the reduction of weapon systems in Europe, I assumed that he meant those on a multilateral basis, and that he was speaking in his personal capacity and not reflecting the attitude officially taken by his party.
  Both the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) raised a point that goes to the root of our problem. We talk about disarmament and arms control, but we all know that it is not just a question of that. We would achieve far more if there were more confidence. I regard these talks not just as a test to see how far we can make progress technologically in reducing weaponry, but as a way to improve the confidence on both sides. That will enable us to take some step, however small, which we hope will lead to bigger steps that will have even greater significance than those that we are contemplating.
  The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth made a speech which will be warmly welcomed not only on both sides of the House but by many outside.
  Mr. James Callaghan: Do not make trouble.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I do not want to make trouble. The right hon. Gentleman's speech will be welcomed by many.
  There are strong reasons for our adopting a positive approach—political, economic and environmental. In this respect, a positive approach must also be practical, if it is not to run into the sand. I see no distinction between the attitudes of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and of the my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has rightly emphasised that, although it is important to take a positive approach, we must not delude ourselves into thinking that the going will be easy. On the contrary, we in Western Europe will have to be courageous in telling our electorate about the real choices that have to be made. In doing so, we shall need to be extremely careful not to arouse expectations that are too high.
  It needs to be emphasised that the reality is that a nonnuclear world is not feasible, and will not be so for many years to come. The Soviet Union knows that one reason why it is recognised as a world power is its parity with the United States in advanced nuclear missiles. To base nuclear deterrence on aeroplanes and cruise missiles would put it at a distinct disadvantage because it knows that the United States is well ahead in these weapons. There is no sign that Gorbachev would dare risk the Soviet Union taking such a step, at least for some time.
  Secondly, there is no reason for us to suppose that it is in our interests to take a leap in the dark without adequate verification procedures. Thirdly, we all know that it would be folly for the United States to renounce nuclear ballistic missiles while China retains hers and there is probably a nuclear capability in Pakistan and Israel. The British and French will be bound to retain their nuclear forces until such time as substantial progress is made in these factors.
  We cannot expect the Soviet Union or the United States unilaterally to do without nuclear ballistic missiles as long as other countries do not make progress. Equally, we shall
  60
  not make progress in the negotiating ring until we have solid substantial proof that the progress made by the two superpowers is genuine, enduring and verifiable. In that respect, I am sure that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth will recognise that the Prime Minister has made it clear that if sufficient progress is made between the two superpowers, we in Britain will enter the negotiations and put Trident into the melting pot for future discussion.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most substantial points is on-site verification, and that we cannot rely on satellite?
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Yes, I agree. In many instances, on-site verification will be the right step to take, but I am also aware that there have been considerable advances in electronic technology which may on some occasions make on-site verification not as necessary as once we thought. At the moment, they have to go together.
  Another reason why we should not arouse expectations that are too high is that we all know that one of the side effects of relying less on a nuclear deterrent is that we have to build up conventional forces. I cannot see any electorate in Western Europe agreeing to huge expenditure on conventional forces at a time when disarmament and arms control talks are in the air and budgets are already large. There is a prospect of the United States expecting us to bear a heavier conventional burden in Western Europe, which in itself is bound to put additional financial strains on our budgets. Therefore, in terms both of cost and political timing, it would be unrealistic to suppose that we can, overnight, make up for the conventional imbalance between us and the Warsaw pact.
  I am not talking about the central region, where there is more of a balance than one had hitherto recognised because of the improvements that we have made. Looking at the West's response to the Soviets, should there be a conventional attack, it is not the central region that we would have to consider. We would have to consider the northern flank as well as the Mediterranean. The danger is in thinking that somehow peace will break out and that we shall get defence on the cheap if we do without nuclear deterrents. These and other dangers were rightly emphasised by General Rogers in the aftermath of Reykjavik. Misgivings on military grounds were voiced when the zero option was first proposed in 1981. Those misgivings by military leaders were overcome by the political argument, which only goes to show how foolish it can be to subordinate defence imperatives to political theory.
  The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and other Members have told us why the zero option was put forward. We knew that it would not be accepted by the Soviet Union, but we still hoped for better deployment of cruise missiles, while it would help European electors to accept the presence of cruise missiles on their soil.
  Six years have gone by and the mistake at Reykjavik to commit the West to appear to accept a zero option with so few and ineffective conditions had to be addressed. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right. She spoke for all the European allies when at Camp David she insisted that a zero option on long-range INF must take into account constraints of short-range nuclear systems. I am not suggesting that it is a tidy, logical matter. It would be foolish to expect this or any other European

  61
  Government to go into such talks, or to persuade the Americans that it would he in our interest to surrender any of its INF and to expect us to defend ourselves. That would put us in the position of relying almost exclusively on theatre nuclear weapons systems, and conventional weapons, with the back-up of the strategic defence and nuclear defence forces of France. That is the wrong attitude, but it is one that many of the leaders have accepted, including the supreme allied commander.
  Nevertheless, there are good reasons for seeking a way forward. A reduction or the elimination of a whole segment of nuclear missiles can enhance stability, provided that it is guided on the whole by the principle of parity.
  I do not think that there is, yet, enough trust or confidence for either side to give away too much. The Russians suffer more than we do from mistrust and lack of confidence. They have had that lack of confidence since Tsarist days; it is one of their problems; it is why they have an iron curtain, and why they are so beastly to some of their people and have only recently begun to let a few more out.
  We all want peace in the West and, increasingly, those in the Soviet Union who know the high cost of peace want peace and security at less cost. It must not be less security at less cost, because that is not the way to preserve peace but the way to encourage aggression. Many of us in this Chamber appreciate that because we belong to that generation but, increasingly, especially when it comes to the election, we shall be addressing a new generation—the post Vietnam generation, who do not remember that the second world war came about because we were so badly prepared. We gave the impression to totalitarian countries that we were not willing to stand up, not just for preserving the peace, but for the values that we held dear.
  In the course of the coming election that will make the argument interesting and stimulating. That is why we have, yet again, to fight this intellectual battle for the retention of strong defence forces which are credible to preserve peace.
  Many of us would like to see a shift from nuclear to conventional arms. That must take place under carefully controlled conditions. To suggest otherwise is not just to delude ourselves but to take us on the way to Armageddon.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) on his excellent speech. I wish to second many of the points that he made. This has been an interesting debate and I thought that the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) was outstanding.
  It is interesting that the alliance should have chosen this subject for debate. It certainly leads with its chin. In reality, the SDP would agree with the Conservative party and the Liberals would agree with the Labour party over this issue.
  I attended the debate in the House on 24 January 1980 on nuclear weapons. On that occasion the Liberal party defence spokesman, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), said:
  In my party, as well as in the Labour party…there is a substantial body of opinion that is totally opposed to the staging of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom. I must put that on record tonight."— [Official Report,24 January 1980; Vol. 977, c. 756.]
  62
  I took the trouble of looking at the vote after the debate. I do not think that my hon. Friend's will be surprised by the result. Some Liberal Members were in one Lobby, some were in another and the majority abstained.
  When I was still a schoolboy the House of Commons staged another major debate on nuclear weapons. On that occasion, the Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, opened the debate with a phrase that has remained with me. He said:
  "What ought we to do? Which way shall we turn to save our lives and the future of the world? It does not matter so much to old people; they are going soon anyway, but I find it poignant to look at youth in all its activity and ardour and, most of all, to watch little children playing their merry games, and wonder what would lie before them if God wearied of mankind."— [Official Report. I March 1955; Vol. 537. c. 1895.]
  All of us who took an interest in defence realised the immense threat that was posed to this country by the build-up of the SS20s in Eastern Europe. They were a way of getting round the arms control talks which were under way at that time. We were concerned by the challenge that they presented to our democracy and the democracies of the Atlantic Alliance. Could politicians make unpopular decisions to protect the long-term interests of that Alliance? Britain and NATO came out of that crisis extremely well. It is ghastly for a Secretary of State to have to decide which region should have cruise missiles; which hon. Member should have these obliterating weapons of the nuclear age in his constituency. Full marks should go to the people of Newbury, who have been so robust and sensible in the way that they took on board that particular horror.
  While that was occurring, the Opposition were spurning decisions that they had taken in government and spurning the approach that the Labour party had adopted to nuclear weapons since 1945. At the same time, a wave of Soviet propaganda was washing over these shores. Some succumbed as soon as they got their feet wet. Others -I include the Liberal party—rushed down the beach and dived into the waves.
  We are faced with a surprising decision by Mr. Gorbachev-a U-turn. But perhaps it is not hard to see now why he made that U-turn. It is too early to say whether the changes inside the Soviet Union are changes of substance or style but, as in the United States, Mr. Gorbachev has his military industrial complex to think about and is in need of a diplomatic success. He has to show his countrymen that his change of style can bring home some bacon for the Soviet Union. Above all. he has to cut back on the cost of his military defence so that he has more money available for consumer affairs inside the Soviet Union.
  Mr. Beith: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is in the West's interests that Mr. Gorbachev should win that argument internally or lose it?
  Mr. Townsend: Obviously it is in the interests of Mr. Gorbachev and of the West that progress should be made, and this is the subject to which 1 wish to turn.
  The House will look foolish if it starts putting forward detailed negotiating positions. There are two major obstacles, which have been well covered today— the problems of short-range missiles and of verification. How does one tackle the verification problem? Are satellites sufficient? Should there be on-site inspections? Do we have to go into factories as well as aircraft hangars? This is not

  63
  the occasion to go into all that. The Government are right to put forward a tough negotiating stance at this stage; it is in Britain's interests that they should. I detect no difference between the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and No. 10 on this issue. As in the United States, there seems to be a broad measure of agreement as to how to proceed. In Europe, individual politicians will state their different positions. I detect, in general across the Western world, the feeling that something has changed; a new moment has arrived. The tide has come and we must take that tide. Hon. Members may say in a few weeks that I was being vastly over-optimistic and foolish, but this is the moment to look above the molehills, to look to the high ground and see if we can make the breakthrough that our constituents and the people in these islands so desperately want.
  I end with a quote that is frequently wrenched from its moorings. It comes from a speech which was made by Lord Mountbatten in Strasbourg in May 1979. He said:
  "To begin with we are most likely to preserve the peace if there is a military balance of strength between East and West. The real need is for both sides to replace the attempts to maintain a balance through ever-increasing and even more costly nuclear armaments by a balance based on mutual restraint. Better still, by reduction of nuclear armaments I believe it should he possible to achieve greater security at a lower level of military confrontation."
  Since the debate in which Sir Winston Churchill took part, there has been a gradual escalation of the arms race. Perhaps we now have a chance to reduce some of the nuclear weapons on both sides.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Jim Spicer: Like many of my hon. Friends, I am puzzled that the SDP should have chosen this subject to debate, particularly as for most of the afternoon the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) has been the only Member on the SDP Bench in support of her party's policy. I hope that she has listened attentively and learnt a lot, particularly from the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan).
  The Gorbachev proposals may have been seen as a heaven-sent gift to the Labour and Liberal parties in their headlong pursuit of votes, but I submit that it would be a sad misunderstanding of the situation if we moved too far too fast.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) seemed to be "praying in aid" a complete change of heart in the Soviet Union, of which country we are even hearing the words "emerging democracy", but I have no doubt that we must await implementation of the Helsinki final act before we can believe that there is a major change in the Soviet Union. We are a long way from that.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that if we have achieved this beginning, it is only because of the unity of the West and our determination to stand firm when it was necessary to do so. His Administration took the first decision that, in the face of the threat from the Soviet Union, we should respond by stationing cruise missiles in this country. The Soviet Union did not believe that we would respond, but we did, and we have now reached a beginning in genuine disarmament.
  64
  However, it is no good arriving at a starting point unless we can be sure that the West will be united when it goes into negotiations. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) voiced the fear that the United States might be tempted to go for quick electoral gain, rushing into an agreement in the hope that the Goverment could regain some of the popularity that they have obviously lost. I do not believe that that will happen. On Friday and Saturday of last week I attended a meeting of the International Democratic Union in Munich, and the chairman of the United States Republican party made it clear that we would and should go forward in unity and that there would be full consultation all the way.
  The Soviet Union clearly hopes to exploit divisions in the West, particularly in the United Kingdom. We do not need to waste time on the craven role in defence matters that has been chosen by so many people in the Labour party, but we need a clear and definitive statement on where the SDP and the Liberals stand on nuclear defence. The Liberal party conference went unilateralist last year, while the SDP supported a nuclear deterrent, provided that it did not involve the upgrading of Polaris to Trident. On television last week the leader of the SDP said that such an upgrading would represent a massive enhancement of our nuclear capacity, which he could not accept.
  I was puzzled by that statement, because in the same interview the leader of the SDP said that he believed that there was a positive way forward in co-operation with the French. We all know that the French are upgrading their independent nuclear deterrent to achieve exactly what we shall achieve from Polaris and Trident. The French expect to complete their upgrading by 1990. It is an expensive operation and they would welcome support. There is, however, no question of the French giving up their nuclear deterrent. They will be the last ones to move. Does the leader of the SDP have the full-hearted support of the Liberal party and, in particular. the leader of that party for his French policy?
  Where and when did detailed discussions about the joint venture take place? We know that there was a lunch and a dinner in Paris, but what further consultations have taken place? Has the cost been examined? I believe that it is a bogus cover-up by the Liberals in an attempt to paper over cracks to regain lost confidence and votes.
  There is little division between the SDP and the Conservative party in defence matters, but none of us knows where the Liberals really stand. They were unilateralists in 1984, multilateralists in 1985 and unilateralists again in 1986.
  Mr. Beith rose—
  Mr. Spicer: I am not giving way, because of the shortage of time.
  We are making just a beginning. The meeting of the International Democratic Union in Munich last week was attended by Danes, Finns, Norwegians, Austrians, Americans, Japanese and others. They all agreed to send a letter of support to our Prime Minister, who is going to Moscow at the end of this month, not only with our best wishes, but with the best wishes of all those who truly hope for a just peace in the world. I delivered that letter, on their behalf, to No. 10 today.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson: The subject for the debate is all things to all men, in the typical alliance

  65
  tradition. We, however, must ask ourselves whether removal of long-range intermediate nuclear forces from both sides of the iron curtain under the zero-zero option would enhance our security. It surprises me that so few people have addressed themselves to this fundamental issue.
  In General Secretary Gorbachev, the West is confronted by a leader who is far more formidable and infinitely more dangerous than Mr. Chernenko and Mr. Brezhnev were. He has great propaganda skills, intense determination and great orthodoxy in his personal commitment and loyalty to Communist ideology. Furthermore, he knows how to play on Western public opinion, how to exploit divisions within NATO and how to play on wishful thinking in the West.
  The initial dual track decision in 1979 was taken two years after SS20s were first deployed in the western military districts of the Soviet Union. We hoped that our decision would induce the Soviets to dismantle their systems, so that we would not have to modernise our intermediate-range nuclear forces. Of course, that did not happen and the Soviets' SS20 build-up continued inexorably.
  In 1981, we persisted with the zero-zero option and suggested again that if the Soviets dismantled their SS20s we would not modernise our INF by the deployment of cruise and Pershing 11 missiles. Once again, the SS20 buildup continued.
  From December 1983 we had to put in place our own modernised systems of ground-launched cruise missiles and Pershing II missiles. This was achieved only with very great political difficulty. There were mass demonstrations and critical votes in national Parliaments. We are proud of the decision taken by this House. We and the Federal Republic of Germany, two key countries in the Alliance, were the first to deploy the systems. Since then NATO has begun to deploy them in Italy and Belgium, and ultimately it is hoped that they will be deployed in the Netherlands.
  What has transpired since that deployment? The answer is that the Soviets have undertaken another inexorable build-up of short-range systems—SS12s, SS22s and SS23s. They are ballistic missile systems with short flight times and, in common with the SS20s, but perhaps more so, they are a direct threat to Western Europe. They represent a counter- force capability that could knock out our air bases and destroy NATO's command and control facilities. Since the Soviets have a preponderance of short-range systems— 9:1 in their favour— the position vis-a-vis intermediate nuclear systems does not matter so much to them. The Soviets are aware that their short-range systems ensure that they have a capability of launching a pre-emptive strike to knock us out on the ground. Of course, in the process there is the risk that there would be a strategic nuclear response. However, a strategic nuclear response launched by the United States on our behalf is more likely to occur if intermediate-range systems are located on the soil of Western Europe. That crucial linkage was the raison d'etre of our INF modernisation in the first place. Chancellor Schimdt, in his lecture to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, emphasised the point.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and others have said that we have other options. We have dual-capable systems, such as the Fills. However, air-launched systems are vulnerable because their response time is slow. We also have quasi-strategic systems, such as
  66
  the Poseidon boats. However, with regard to a submarine-launched strategic ballistic missile, one's adversary is riot sure whether he is receiving a strategic response.
  I believe that we should proceed with the negotiations, but we should seek a definite quid pro quo. It is crucial to emphasise to our American friends—as has been said by Mr. Giraud, the French Defence Minister and also by Mr. Wörner the German Defence Minister—that Western Europe should address the problem in its totality. That is, we must address it with regard to the conventional balance, the chemical balance and the imbalance with regard to short-range systems. If we are deliberately to pursue a policy that renders us vulnerable—by denying ourselves intermediate-range systems stationed on the soil of Western Europe— we must have a capability to defend Western Europe's retaliatory forces securely.
  I have always argued that there is a need for strategic defence against short-range systems. The technology of strategic defence is more important than ever before. Ii is important for point defence—the protection of air bases and command and control centres. New technologies are emerging for this purpose. Furthermore, space-based systems are important because they would be able to intercept ballistic missiles even of a short-range nature, such as the SS22s and the SS23s, in the launch phase.
  I am pleased that General Secretary Gorbachev has removed the linkage, imposed at Reykjavik, between the American development of SDI and INF arms control. Unless the West takes countervailing measures, it may be making itself more vulnerable militarily by pursuing the zero-zero option. However, I recognise the political benefits that may arise from such an agreement.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. Reg Freeson: I do not share the pride of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, (Mr. Wilkinson) at having cruise stationed in Europe. I do not share his hope that those countries that have not completed the stationing of such weapons will do so. There is neither reason for pride nor hope in such an argument, despite the fact that some may argue that there is necessity.
  I wish to make some general comments as I do not normally participate in debates in the Chamber—
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: Oh!
  Mr. Freeson: I do not believe that my observation was humorous. I do not normally join in the debates in the Chamber because I find most of them are devoted to the detailed minutiae that overlook some of the central issues that have faced Britain and people on both sides of the iron curtain for far too long. Indeed, they have been left untackled for too long. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway), who sniggered, may not be aware, unlike his hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip- Northwood, that I am an active parliamentarian in the Western European Union parliamentary assembly. I have participated in its debates— agreeably or disagreeably, according to one's point of view.
  It is conventional wisdom to point out that nuclear weapons have existed for 40 years during which time there has been no war in Europe—post hoc ergo propter hoc, this is taken as cause and effect. Thus both East and West justify their relentless stockpiling of nuclear weapons. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood illustrated that in his speech. The Russians start storing certain types of

  67
  equipment in Eastern Europe and so we start to stockpile other types of equipment. The Russians therefore start stockpiling further forms of equipment and we respond. This stupid, dangerous madness continues.
  We are spending about $9·5 billion between the lot of us on building up all forms of offensive defence. We should start considering—that process can begin in the House—developing a non-offensive defence policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is possible to have a non-offensive defensive policy. It is long overdue. It would require a fundamental reshaping of our attitude towards so-called nuclear defence.
  Wars have continued despite the so-called deterrent. They have continued on a massive scale throughout the world, beyond Europe. Some tens of millions of people have been killed or wounded. In many cases wars have been waged in the Third world by the superpowers—by proxy. Far too often this country— under whatever Government— has given support to one side in such proxy wars. Millions of people have suffered at the hands of offensive high technology. We have often sold such technology to other countries.
  Today there are an estimated 50,000 nuclear weapons, with an explosive power equal to I billion Hiroshimas. I often wonder, having listened to some of the speeches this evening, if people have thought of the implications of providing so-called defence by overkill— if I may use that hackneyed word.
  Apart from nuclear weapons, the arms race in conventional weapons, far from stabilising or reducing, has accelerated apace. Far from preventing potential wars this arms race has induced wars in many parts of the world. Directly, if not indirectly, either politically or through our massive arms trade, we are contributing to the death of thousands of people in other parts of the world by the sale of British offensive equipment. Whatever we think of past cause and effect, to behave as we have for the past 40 years will not guarantee peace or provide security in future. We must move from a position of threatened mutual suicide to one of common security. There is no route to world security other than by the progressive reduction and eventual abolition of all offensive weaponry and the introduction of replacement defensive weaponry.
  The fundamental duty of politicians is to build the stepping stones, military and political, to that end. Both NATO and the Warsaw pact have missiles in position with flight times of six minutes to centres of command and government. As a result, both sides are moving towards the establishment of fire-on-warning systems that would respond automatically to any assumed missile attack. The dangers of war by accident, including computer error, are thus greatly increased. We need a system of defensive deterrence that is not provocative to others. Such a system should provide an effective and militarily credible defence. It should also reduce the risk in a crisis of pre-emptive attack or war by miscalculation. Those who talk about SDI as such a system are overlooking all the potential for war in space going well beyond the systems that are now proposed for research.
  Defence positions should reduce pressure on the East- West arms race by, for example, removing the present possibility of one side reacting to the other side's deployment of new or additional weapons by deploying
  68
  more of its own. Our defence policy should improve the atmosphere for detente instead of generating distrust. It should be affordable and acceptable to the public at large.
  It is often argued that a defence-only policy would be ineffective and could not win—whatever that may mean in the nuclear age. It is generally agreed, however, that defence is stronger than attack. With the coming of modern technology, it is estimated that an attacker needs to have a superiority over the forces available to the defender of four or five to one. The superior strength of defensive tactics and forces that has been evident throughout the history of warfare is now being strengthened by modern technology. The tank and the capital naval ship may become technically obsolete in modern war with the advent of accurate homing missiles. If the Exocets fired by Argentina had had better fuses, the history of the Falklands war might well have been different. It is difficult to imagine a successful invasion by sea with the intelligent use of homing missiles aimed at the attackers.
  It is possible to order military forces so that they can be seen to be entirely defensive and non-provacative, even though each weapon could be used offensively. A country's entire defence posture— its weapons, the training of its forces, its doctrine and its operational manuals— can show clearly whether its forces are for defence only. No one considering the defence forces of Sweden, Austria and Yugoslavia, for example, could assume that they were for any purpose other than defence. These countries do not heighten international tension by provoking anxiety among their neighbours.
  Effective defence need not overburden an economy. It is necessary only to consider the relative costs of defence and offensive weapons. A modern battlefield tank costs $3 million while an anti-tank guided missile costs $30,000. A combat aircraft such as the Tornado costs $30 million and a sophisticated missile capable of destroying it, such as the Patriot, costs $1 million, or just over 3 per cent. of the cost of a Tornado.
  Along with military steps towards non-aggressive defence policies we need also to work politically towards constructive and peaceful co-existence. We must move away from confrontation politics. The relaxation of tension that would accompany a non-provocative defence position would allow discussions on detente to take place in a much easier atmosphere, and this is not the concern of the superpowers alone. There are forums at which many countries can participate in discussions, as we do in Britain and at international assemblies. It makes the greatest sense to identify politically the issues in which both sides have a common interest. These include a common test ban agreement and moves towards a reduction in nuclear defence weaponry that we have been discussing this evening. There are many other initiatives along those lines.
  I find it extremely disturbing that, after several years of paying lip service to the zero option, many parts of Western Europe, including Britain, should start running scared at the first sign of serious negotiations in that direction, and should start erecting all sorts of obstacles to such a move. If we were sincere in what we have been advocating, or claiming to advocate, since the early 1980s, we would put our actions and words where our statements have been in the past. That includes making more progress towards the removal of as many nuclear weapons in Europe as we can, and as rapidly as possible.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Ray Whitney: The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) has called for a nonoffensive defence policy. He said that we must move from a position of threatened mutual suicide. I think that we would all agree with that. We would all read that as a good explanation of the need for a strategic defence initiative. As for the rest of his remarks, I refer him—I do not believe that he was in the Chamber at the time—to the important remarks of his colleague, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), on the history of the past 40 years, which the right hon. Member for Brent, East seeks to write down as a great aberration. However, peace has been preserved for the past 40 years. I recommend the right hon. Gentleman to consider what the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, a former Prime Minister, had to say about Western determination having brought the Soviet Union back to the negotiating table. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth speaks with important and significant experience on that issue.
  We are debating a subject that is too important for the making of easy party political points. However, the difference between the parties on the Opposition Benches must be stressed. These are differences that the British public must understand when the forthcoming general election takes place. Nothing could have demonstrated more clearly the position of the Labour party than the contrast between the speeches of the right hon. Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth and for Brent, East.
  We all become used to the performances of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), and I use "performances" advisedly. He is the living embodiment of that famous old cliché that if one is on a weak wicket, the best thing is to shout. In other words, the best form of defence is attack. According to the right hon. Gentleman, the leaders of the Western nations—I hope that I am not doing him an injustice by misquoting him — are running around like chickens with their heads chopped off. Anyone more like a headless chicken than the right hon. Gentleman, bearing in mind his principles and the things in which he has believed over decades, is hard to imagine. It would appear that his head has been chopped off and thrown into the wastepaper basket. That must be the position when he chooses to defend a policy that he knows is arrant nonsense. He made a ludicrous comparison. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East—I am sorry that he is not in his place now—knows that to be a fact.
  We must consider the unfortunate position of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright).
  Mr. George Foulkes: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think again about the way in which he attacked my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). It was unworthy of him. I hope that he will also note that, although my right hon. Friend is not present, neither is the Secretary of State for Defence. That is understandable because they both have other engagements. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stop continuing to be a former diplomat and apologist for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
  Mr. Whitney: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who was not here when his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East spoke, has the courtesy to read what his right hon.
  70
  Friend said. He will then understand the point about the headless chicken, which was the right hon. Gentleman's term for the leaders of western European nations.
  Mr. Foulkes: I have heard what my right hon. Friend has said on previous occasions on this matter. I know exactly what he said—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), screaming harridan that she is, will wait, I shall explain that I was not here precisely because I was representing my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East and the Leader of the Opposition at the Commonwealth day service in Westminster Abbey.
  Mr. Whitney: I am delighted to have an explanation, which I was not seeking, for the absence of the hon. Gentleman. However, I repeat that if he is making assertions about his right hon. Friend's statement, he had better read it first and then he will learn a little.
  Before I deal with SDI, an introduction to which was happily given me by the right hon. Member for Brent, East, I should like to mention the opening bat of the hon. Member for Woolwich on what was for him an extremely sticky wicket, to continue the metaphor. It seemed unkind to give him such a task. He who knows such a lot about NATO defence and understands and is a loyal supporter of NATO was driven into the position, when he was seeking to explain the extraordinary riding of two horses going in widely diverging directions, which is now his unhappy lot of having to say, "I am fortunately not responsible for the Liberals." I share his views on t hat but I hope that the electors of Truro note that too.
  Everyone who has spoken, from both sides of the House, welcomes Mr. Gorbachev's initiative. It is significant that the words of praise for Mr. Gorbachev's initiative, which was described as an act of statesmanship, were not used when President Reagan made precisely the same proposal in 1981. It was then condemned by Opposition Members as a public relations exercise. Now that it comes from Mr. Gorbachev it is a marvellous new initiative. However, I shall cavil not at that.
  As my right hon. and hon. Friends have explained, we need to be extremely careful about the problems of verification. We have to take extreme care on the problems of the shorter-range and aircraft missile systems. We have to take account of the imbalance in conventional forces, whatever the arithmetical arguments of those differences are, and we have to take account of the differences in chemical weapons. I have to say to the hon. Member for Woolwich—I am glad that he has now rejoined the debate—that to say that there has been no significant change in the position on chemical weapons since 1979 is to show a serious misunderstanding of the massive development in capability that the Soviet Union has manifested in the past seven or eight years. Nevertheless, the welcome is there and, subject to all those caveats, which any responsible leader of any Western Government must take into account—certainly my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will take them into account and I am confident that the American Government will take them into account—we must welcome the initiative and go forward.
  The significant development is that the Gorbachev offer is no longer subject to the caveat about SDI. It was particularly significant that the offer came when it did. I shall quote The Sunday Times, not in terms of a particular

  71
  attack on the newspaper, but because I take The Sunday Times editorial of 1 March as a typical example of a standard conventional view of the international negotiating relationship on nuclear weapons as it then obtained. It was unfortunate for the leader writer of The Sunday Times that the Gorbachev offer came just a few hours before his editorial was printed. Speaking of the Prime Minister's forthcoming visit to Moscow, he offered the view that
  "she may be the one person who can persuade President Reagan to make the necessary compromise on star war testing, which is the one issue that stands in the way of the first-ever missile-cutting deal between the superpowers."
  Clearly, The Sunday Times was wrong. The conventional views of what I would call the arms control establishment in London were wrong. That is not an objective and, therefore, we need to look again carefully at the relationship in terms of future arms control negotiations and the strategic defence initiative. I believe that the nation, the House and, indeed, my party too should step back and look again carefully.
  The strategic defence initiative has been subjected to a linguistic propaganda war which is akin to what was suffered by the term "cold war" over a generation. The term "cold war" was picked up by the international Left so that anyone who pointed out any dangers or threats that came from the Soviet Union or Soviet policy was condemned as a cold war warrior. There is an unhappy correlation now between the glib phrase "star wars" and the strategic defence initiative. Of course, it is a defence initiative. It may or may not work but it is, to use the words of the right hon. Member for Brent, East, a nonoffensive defence policy. It is a step back from what he described as a position of threatened mutual suicide.
  One of the reasons why it became such an object of controversy was that it upset the Western arms control establishment. I speak as someone who was a co-founder of the Council for Arms Control and I am totally dedicated to arms control. However, I know also that there are people who have made a profession out of arms control—I make no complaint about that—but they are flat earthers. They are deeply unhappy about the concept that there is any possible alternative to what the right hon. Member for Brent, East suggested, mutually assured destruction, the all too sadly apposite acronym, MAD. MAD is precisely what President Reagan is seeking to get away from.
  Another reason why SDI was such a fiercely attacked target was that it was linked with the general animosity which has been built up in so many quarters in the West against President Reagan. Of course, the concepts involved in SDI are 20 years and more old. For 20 years in the East and West there has been research and work on anti-satellite systems. The fact that in March 1983 it was gathered together by President Reagan and relaunched under the new umbrella of the strategic defence initiative was practically irrelevant. It was given a new thrust, but it was not anything new. It is research that the East and West have been in engaged in for two decades, in my view, quite rightly, too.
  If there is a sensible and valid alternative to MAD, surely it must be right at least to explore the possibility. The arms control establishment, being, as I have said, inclined to flat earthism and conservatism, with an
  72
  extremely small "c" said "No. This is destabilising. They will never do it. It will take too much money and it is technically impossible." I remind the House that just a few months before the atom bomb was dropped, well-known experts on the subject said that no atom bomb would ever be dropped, and a few months before a landing was made on the moon, well-known experts on the subject said that no landing would ever be made on the moon.
  I do not know whether SDI will succeed. However, the arms control circles, which have strong influences on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, have now been surprised by the technical progress that has been made. I do not believe that the Soviet Union has been surprised because it is engaged in the technology. The Soviets know the American capability and they believe that something can be achieved. That is the reason why they are so sensitive about it. But the next defence of the arms control establishment is that that cannot be an all-embracing, 100 per cent. technology. In fact, sadly, in March 1985 my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was moved to compare it to a Maginot line mentality. It would be dangerous if that were the concept, but it is not. Among serious strategic thinkers in the United States the concept is developing of a combined defence of defence on the one hand and offence on the other. The technical possibilities are opening up.
  Therefore, I urge my right hon. Friends in the Government to ensure that they take an extremely openminded, not to say positive, view of the possibilities that SDI may offer—not just for the West, but for the Soviet Union. That must be regarded as a serious possibility.
  In line with that, I urge my right hon. Friends to take a careful look at their attitudes on the anti-ballistic missile treaty. I have been disturbed by some of the nervousness that they have displayed about the reading of that treaty. The treaty is the jewel in the crown of the arms control process. My right hon. Friends must understand that when they receive submissions from their Departments-from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence— they are talking about the Holy Grail, about the only coconut that has dropped off the tree so far—
  Mr. Foulkes: Stop mixing your metaphors. Get on with it.
  Mr. Whitney: I will mix my metaphors. If the hon. Gentleman will listen, he will learn something.
  The ABM treaty was signed by the Soviet Union only when it was clear that, were it not signed, President Nixon was ready to deploy anti-ballistic missiles himself. That is what brought the Soviet Union to sign that treaty in 1972.
  On the interpretation of the treaty, there is now a great debate on whether there should be a narrow or broad definition. As we are not signatories of the treaty, we do not have a locus to take a definitive view. However, I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to look at article 13 of that treaty, which establishes a consultative committee between the contracting parties and which meets twice a year. As I understand it, there has never been a single report of a Soviet complaint about the American interpretation of the treaty.
  Therefore, the interpretation of the ABM treaty is linked to the attitude on SDI. With the Gorbachev initiative of a week last Saturday, those two areas give a new impetus, and we must look to that in a positive spirit.

  73
  I remind the House that the approach that we seek is not, in its own right, to sign a treaty for arms control. That is a laudable objective. What we really seek are sensible and sound relations between East and West. That must be the final objective, and that is where we start. Therefore, in any rush or enthusiasm, which is understandable, to sign a piece of paper that is labelled "arms control", let us not lose sight of that final objective. As Moscow knows well, the desire for peace in Britain and in the West as a whole is absolute. It has only to respond and then we can make progress.
  Viscount Cranborne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the debate, which is already running late. The House is well accustomed to the intemperance with which it is often addressed by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), but even by his own standards and lack of control over his tongue, is it parliamentary that he should refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman)—
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Do not repeat it.
  Viscount Cranborne:—in the way that he did while intervening in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney)?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I am not sure that I heard the remark to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The hon. Lady is not complaining.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I am not complaining because I do not regard the hon. Member as a gentleman.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If something discourteous was said, the Chair did not hear it.
  7.5 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I hope that I shall be forgiven for intruding on those private exchanges.
  The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), whose sitting down has been greeted with some enthusiasm in some quarters, took us away from the main subject of the debate into the issue of the strategic defence initiative. Of course, the debate is not about SDI, because Mr. Gorbachev has accepted at last that he will not link intermediate nuclear forces with SDI. That is the opportunity that has arisen and it is the basis for the debate. As the hon. Gentleman referred to that matter, let me say that I do not share his view. He said that it may or may not work. If it does not work, far from being a defensive, non-provocative nuclear system, it is in fact one of the most offensive systems that could be created. If it could work on the basis of President Reagan's initial dream, as the total defence, the impenetrable shield, it would be non-provocative defence, but I have yet to find anybody in the United States who any longer believes that that is within the capacity of the technology—
  Mr. Whitney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Beith: No. The hon. Gentleman has just spoken. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary does not share the hon. Gentleman's belief, because the most thorough analysis that I have seen of the SDI concept to which, to be fair, the hon. Gentleman referred is that made by the Foreign Secretary some time ago, which has 18 points of specific criticism of the SDI concept. I wish that the Government would refer to it more often.
  74
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) made it clear that, whatever changes have taken place in the arms control scene since 1979, none has invalidated the case for acceptance of the zero-zero deal which we sought then. By "we", I mean hon. Members in all parts of the House. Not many have questioned that during this extremely valuable debate. The general tenor of the debate has been strongly to encourage the Government to go ahead and seek a deal now that the obstacle of linkage with the SDI programme has been removed.
  We heard several helpful speeches during the debate. The hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) made a sensible speech. Comment has been made on both sides of the House about the speech by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), who would not want to give up NATO weapons without obtaining greater security for Europe in the process by getting something in exchange. He made that clear in a speech that found acceptance in many quarters, if not entirely on his own Benches.
  I appreciate the speech by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who lives and works so close to the problems presented by cruise deployment and whose constituents have had to put up not just with cruise deployment but with some of its domestic consequences. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) spoke from a committed unilateralist position, which I do not share, but he entered into the spirit of the debate, which was to encourage the Government to move forward.
  The hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) came closest in the debate to pouring cold water on the prospects for the INF discussions, but even he agreed, for example, that a stage had come when not only would the I NF negotiations proceed but when we would put Trident into international arms negotiations. He finds himself in a similar position to that adopted by the alliance in being prepared to maintain a British nuclear capacity at its present level but with the intention of negotiating it away. There was an unhappy reference in the hon. Member for Wealden's phraseology to the "mistake" of Reykjavik, by which he was referring in particular to the zero option.
  The hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), who represents that part of Bexley that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) does riot represent, spoke about attaining the high ground. That note must enter the discussions. The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) preferred to attack my right hon. and hon. Friends as out-and-out unilateralists. He has clearly not made the kind of detailed study of Liberal party conference resolutions which forms the unhappy lot of anyone who is the chairman of the policy committee in any political party. If he looks a little more closely, he will find amongst our recent conference resolutions that there are resolutions which freeze our existing cruise deployment, and resolutions which fully underscore our longstanding and unshaken commitment to maintain American nuclear bases on British soil as part of our commitment to the NATO deterrent. If the hon. Gentleman finds these things fascinating, he should devote more time to their study.
  The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) rather worried me. He still wants cruise deployment in the Netherlands when we are open to the

  75
  prospect of removing those weapons entirely from Europe. He is Ruislip's answer to Richard Perle, yet even Richard Perle is ready to seek a move forward on INF negotiations.
  Mr. Wilkinson: If we gratuitously forgo deployment in the Netherlands, as many in the peace movement would wish in that country, it may subsequently prove a precedent which will be difficult for NATO if NATO at a later date seeks to enhance its short-range capability. That was the implication of my point, and that is a serious matter.
  Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman has refined his point. It is not for us to decide whether the Dutch Government can or will accept deployment within the Netherlands. However, it can now be rendered unnecessary by success in the negotiations.
  The discussions at Reykjavik caught the public imagination in the East and the West, and notably in the West where there is so much more opportunity for public feeling to be assessed and estimated. There is no doubt at all that that process caught the public imagination and that there was a great deal of public disappointment that the process seemed to come to a sudden end. Getting the Reykjavik process moving again, in the form of Mr. Gorbachev's new willingness to unlink the INF discussions, will again capture the imagination of the Western public and create expectations that the Government must make a major effort to satisfy.
  Therefore, in the early stages of the debate we looked for some sign of where the British Government stand. The Secretary of State for Defence has apologised to me for having to return to his discussions in France. Perhaps he is trying to get the French out of their Maginot line complex.
  Mr. Paul Marland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Beith: I intend to develop my argument. I gave way a moment ago; I will not give way now.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will continue the process in which my hon. Friends and I engaged in trying to discuss with France the way in which their military capacity can be seen as part of a European defence and not as a solely French operation conceived on such narrow principles that it cannot provide a genuine defence for France—
  Mr. Jim Spicer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Beith: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman because he flatly refused to give way to me.
  In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State expressed surprise that there was no motion upon which the House could vote. He would not have been here for the vote in any case. However, the Order Papers are littered with motions that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have tabled about the details of these matters. Is anyone seriously suggesting that we need a vote tonight so that some right hon. and hon. Members can go through the Division Lobby to oppose a deal on intermediate nuclear forces? This is one of the occasions when the House can surely express by common consent the need to see progress in this area.
  The Secretary of State did not clarify whether there was a link in the Government's mind between intermediate and
  76
  short-range nuclear forces. Instead, he devoted quite a lot of time to a partisan chronicling of events of the past few years. He tended to ignore those factors that led my right hon. and hon. Friends and Ito criticise the absence of the dual key in cruise deployment and the fact that deployment took place while discussions in Geneva were still taking place. That was a matter of wide public concern at the time. Such feelings were strengthened by widespread British feelings that cruise was not sufficiently or at all under British control.
  We wanted some sign from the Secretary of State during today's debate that there was no formal linkage between his legitimate concerns about short-range nuclear weapons and the prospects of an INF deal. Some of the phrases that the right hon. Gentleman used such as, "This is an essential condition of an INF agreement"—when talking about short-range nuclear forces— did not remove the doubt that the Government are trying to impose a linkage where neither the Americans nor the Soviet Union wish to impose any linkage at all upon these discussions.
  The Secretary of State prayed in aid the draft treaty tabled by the United States at Geneva. However, the effect of the treaty is to freeze existing Soviet superiority in shortrange nuclear forces. That is clearly an attempt to table and recognise the relevance of short-range nuclear forces for further progress and to the spirit in which an INF deal is struck. However, the treaty tabled by the United States does not remove that superiority. That is clearly a matter that we must consider after concluding an INF deal.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), in a characteristically entertaining and interesting speech, raised the important question of what is happening now in the Soviet Union. That is part of the background to these discussions. What is happening there and how should we respond to it?
  Clearly fundamental changes are taking place in the Soviet Union giving rise to major pressures. We are in no position to rest at this moment on a judgment that the changes will continue in their present direction. That can only be a hope. Of course, the experience in China is a demonstration of how these things can go wrong and how there there can be major reversals. However, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, the Lord President of the Council, myself and others visited Moscow last summer, observed the beginnings of some of these changes and pressed on issues such as human rights for different attitudes from those which have been characteristic of the Soviet Union in recent years.
  It was apparent to all of us—and this would not be a subject of disagreement between the different parties in that delegation— that the economic situation was a major driving force, along with the desire for greater stability, in Mr. Gorbachev's attitude to disarmament. That was underlined by my perception that it was not cruise or Pershing that concerned Mr. Gorbachev most; nor was it French and British nuclear forces that most concerned him. Indeed, he made increasingly clear his readiness to put that issue to one side. The strategic defence initiative and the major commitment that would be involved in continuing the existing Soviet work in that area to match that initiative was Mr. Gorbachev's main concern. Removing the SDI linkage was an important decision for Mr. Gorbachev to make. I believe that that decision was dictated by his belief that the process must be got rolling and that some agreement must be secured

  77
  somewhere. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bexleyheath was right when he said that the Soviet leader must start to show results if he is to remain secure in his own political system.
  In the course of our discussions in Moscow, I felt that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East appeared rather like an early and very genial Father Christmas, upending his sack on the Kremlin table so that everything tumbled out before Mr. Gorbachev could even get his note up the chimney. Almost anything that Mr. Gorbachev could have asked for was already on offer because the Labour party had already committed itself to having no NATO nuclear bases in the United Kingdom, no cruise deployment and no British nuclear forces.
  There was no incentive to do more than produce decorative offers of re-targeting Soviet missiles and nominal reductions in their strength. I do not believe that that was a sensible strategy. Nor do I believe that Gorbachev was educated in the Santa Claus school of negotiation. He will drive a hard bargain or a hard series of bargains. He is prepared to drive bargains and he needs those bargains. It is in the interests of the West and of world peace to secure bargains which will enhance our security. We cannot do that in one single deal, as Gorbachev discovered when he went to Reykjavik.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who is to reply to the debate, referring to shortrange nuclear forces in 1985, said:
  "Such systems are not at present the subject of arms control negotiations. Priority is rightly being given by the United States and Soviet Union to reaching agreements on the strategic and long-range intermediate categories."— [Official Report,20 November 1985; Vol. 87, c. 209.]
  The Minister stressed the distinctive nature of the various negotiations. We now have the opportunity to make progress on intermediate nuclear forces.
  When the Prime Minister goes to Moscow, there are many issues that she can rightly raise. She can talk about short-range missiles and Soviet conventional forces. She can talk about human rights issues. All of those are important to the West and to the West's perception of Soviet intentions and to the West's assessment of Soviet good faith. But she must not stand in the way of a deal on intermediate nuclear forces by making it dependent on linkage with any or all of those issues.
  We were prepared to bring this matter before the House. It would not otherwise have been debated before the Prime Minister's visit to the Soviet Union. It is entirely in line with our belief that we should maintain sound defence while actively promoting disarmament that we ask the Government to take what will be, in the view of millions of people, a small but very significant step forward for mankind if they enable the nations of the world to achieve the first major nuclear arms deal—that on intermediate nuclear forces. It is an opportunity that the Government must not throw away.
  7.20 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth
  Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I agree with the last words of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). This is an important debate, and I am grateful to the alliance for arranging it, although they may come to regret it because of the inconsistencies that it has shown in their position. It is important because it concerns the first substantial reductions in modern weapons. The debate contained thoughtful speeches from my hon. Friends the
  78
  Members for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw), for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) arid for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), among others, and from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang).
  The one thing that the debate lacked was the sound of Opposition or alliance leaders eating their words. That would have been appropriate. I know that humble pie is not the favourite diet of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who prefers an extravagance of loose verbiage, but it would have been good if, on this occasion, he had echoed the words of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) and accepted that his constant opposition to the deployment of cruise in Britain had been wrong.
  The right hon. Gentleman said, "It was our determination to deploy cruise and Pershing that brought the Soviets back to the negotiating table." How right he was, yet we heard not a word of that from the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, who once again resorted to using ridiculous phrases such as the one about the Prime Minister reviving the psychosis of the cold war— [Interruption.] We heard good grunting noises from the right hon. Gentleman, but he would do well to remember the article that he wrote in The Observer of 13 February 1983. It was entitled "The Case against Cruise" and it contained gems such as the following:
  "If Cruise is once deployed it will make an arms agreement enormously more difficult. It is certain that if the West deploys Cruise and Pershing the Russians will reciprocate. The balance of power will then become much less stable than it is today. For all these reasons, NATO must now abandon its decision of December 1979. The Labour Party is determined that Britain shall not accept Cruise missiles on her soil."
  Instead, today the right hon. Gentleman was like one of the ugly sisters suddenly deciding that Cinderella was her best friend after all. He is trying to jump on the bandwagon—
  Mr. Healey rose—
  Mr. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman has had his chance. I will give way in a second. His hypocrisy in the way in which he talked about INF and the possibility of a zero-zero option will remain with him for many years.
  Mr. Healey: I am glad that the Minister has given 'way. Every quotation that he made has been justified in the event. The Soviets did reciprocate the deployment of cruise and Pershing by putting missiles in East Germany and Czechoslovakia. Four years passed before we could resume arms negotiations. The position has become less favourable than it was, as the Prime Minister said last week. Every statement that it made has been proved right in the event.
  Mr. Renton: I regret that I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman. I am reminded of the old phrase, "Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan." That is what we have heard today, and the same is true of the alliance spokesmen. It would be wrong to leave them out of the calculations altogether.
  The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) tried to make it clear that it was logical and consistent for the alliance to have backed the dual track decision but to have voted against the deployment of cruise. That is precisely what they did. He said, "'That is an absolutely clear position." To me, it is as clear as mud. As the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth made abundantly

  79
  clear, because of the deployment of cruise and because of the courage and steadfastness of the NATO Alliance in deploying cruise and Pershing, we reached the position that we are in today. Without that, we would not have been here.
  Mr. Foulkes: It is facile.
  Mr. Renton: No, it is not facile. The question is how many SS20 systems would have remained facing Europe if we had followed Labour or alliance policies. Would it have been 900, 600 or 300? One can choose any number one likes except zero. Only with the deployment of cruise, contrary to the policies of the Liberal party, the alliance and the Labour party, have we reached the position—
  Dr. David Owen: The Minister knows full well that the policies of the alliance have been consistent throughout— [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) can keep his policies, but the SDP line has been consistent, as has been the alliance line. The leader of the Liberal party went to his conference and had enough courage to challenge the delegates and reject their policy. The fact is that he did not accept the Liberal assembly decision. It is about time that it was accepted that there is some honour in this House. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) has consistently held the view that we should support the dual track decision. The policy of the alliance, as distinct from the policy of the Liberal party— [Interruption.]—has never shifted. It is the strength of the alliance that both parties have to agree to a policy before it becomes alliance policy. It is wrong to claim that that is not so.
  Mr. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman has managed to bury the alliance defence policy once and for all. He has certainly buried any idea that there is unanimity or consistency in it. He said that the alliance had always supported the dual track position, yet in the House the alliance voted against the deployment of cruise. He did that, as did the leader of the Liberal party, and it is an intrinsic part of the dual track decision. Only that decision has brought us to the stage that we have reached today.
  To get back to the main gist of the debate, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East suggested that the Government had been half-hearted in welcoming Mr. Gorbachev's suggestion. But my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary emphatically welcomed the Soviet statement for three clear reasons. First, it accepted the idea of an INF agreement based on the zero option that the NATO Alliance first put forward in 1981. Secondly, the Soviet leadership has broken the link between an INF agreement and SDI which we and our NATO allies have repeatedly urged the Soviet Union to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) pointed out the importance of this. Thirdly, the Soviet statement made no reference to the British and French independent nuclear deterrent, a third good reason for supporting the statement, thus confirming our long insistence on the exclusion of the British and French deterrents from any INF negotiations.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, East will remember that in the SDI debate in February 1986 he said:
  "The major obstacle to accepting the Soviet proposals for the zero option of intermediate nuclear forces is the British
  80
  Government's determination to go ahead with the Trident programme."— [Official Report,19 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 33.]
  However, last October Mr. Gorbachev said of the British and French independent deterrent forces, "Let them be increased and further improved." I ask the House and the right hon. Gentleman whose advice I should take, his or the general secretary's? Certainly, the general secretary's advice is a great deal more helpful and useful for the defence of this country than that of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, I am cautiously optimistic about the outcome of the negotiations. Those involved in arms control matters have by nature to be cautious and, as many of my hon. Friends have said in the debate, the going will not be easy. However, the events of the past week or so give one reason to think that real progress may be possible. The ground has already been covered in some detail in exchanges between the two parties, most notably during the Reykjavik meeting last October, and the Americans moved with promptness in tabling a draft treaty.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, East, the hon. Members for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) and some of my hon. Friends asked about the position of SRINF in the current treaty negotiations. Part of the West's negotiating position since 1981 has been that an LRINF deal must contain constraints on SRINF. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said earlier, the draft treaty contains articles constraining those shorter range weapons which might be used to bypass an LRINF agreement. NATO will require follow-on negotiations to address the Soviet imbalance in these and other shorter range systems.
  At present we do not know precisely what the Soviet Union is prepared to offer on SRINF. The Soviets must address the imbalance, explain why they need these systems which have no direct equivalent on the NATO side, and say why they continue to deny the United States the right to match. Similarly, the question of conventional weapons was raised frequently in the debate. The Prime Minister agreed with President Reagan at Camp David that steps to eliminate conventional disparities would become more important as nuclear weapons were reduced.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, in his thoughtful speech, and the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth asked about on-site verification as well as the use of national technical means such as satellites and said that this will have to be looked at very carefully in arriving at a final treaty. I agree with those hon. Members, including, I think, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, who said that the verification arrangements made in this treaty could be a useful precedent. One will look to see how they are worked out and if they could be built on in other fora.
  I realise how important this issue is to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury because Greenham common is in his constituency and he has often spoken wisely on the subject in the House. He asked what had happened to make the Soviets change their minds. That point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. I suggest several possibilities such as economic questions in the Soviet Union; a wish among the Soviets not to invest huge sums of money in new defence technologies; a wish on the part of the new leadership to show members of its bureaucracy

  81
  and the party that it is making progress in these negotiations: and, above all, the resolution of NATO itself.
  Over the years the Soviet Union has been shown that cruise and Pershing missiles were being deployed in Western Europe and that the only way to remove them was for the Soviets to remove the SS20s. That must be regarded as a great success for the steadfastness of NATO.
  We should not be carried away too much by thoughts about a transformation in Soviet society. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer). It is easy to be excited when we read in the newspapers about all that has happened. However, only in the last two weeks we have had two instances of the Soviets refusing entry visas to an all-party group of Members of Parliament and, at the end of last week, a group of parliamentary wives who wanted to go to the Soviet Union for tourism and to meet friends, including a number of Soviet Jews who have been denied exit visas for 10 or 15 years. It is inconceivable that in the Soviet Union, which is moving towards more openness and towards restructuring, such retrogressive steps should still be taken because they appear to be clearly contrary to the obligations that the Soviets entered into under the Helsinki final act.
  Where does this leave us? Over the last few years the opposition parties would have had us scuttling off to Moscow at every new twist in the Soviet strategy for wearing down the West. The negotiating brief of the Opposition parties, and especially that of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, would have been a deal at any price— cruise, Pershing, Trident, everything must go. Instead of that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will visit Moscow later this month and in her agenda will be discussions with the Soviet leader on genuine arms control. Those discussions will be on the basis of real and balanced cuts in nuclear arsenals which will not leave us defenceless in the face of a Soviet threat.
  Recent developments have proved for all to see that we were right to go ahead with cruise deployment and right to resist the numerous offers for freezes or partial reductions which Moscow presented in the years before deployment and which Labour and Liberal parties found so attractive. They also prove that we were right to refuse to allow the British nuclear deterrent to be included in INF negotiations, and right to hold out for the genuine and balanced arms control agreements that we may now be in sight of achieving. The whole country will remember that at the next election.
  Question put and negatived.

  Regional Employment Opportunities
  7.38 pm
  Mr. Geraint Howells: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the increasing disparity of opportunities among and within the constituent nations and regions of the United Kingdom, characterised by high unemployment rates, low job vacancy figures, and poor infrastructure and housing in the deprived areas, in contrast with lower unemployment, skill shortages, and congestion as well as high housing and living costs in the more advantaged areas; and calls for a strong regional policy spearheaded by regional development agencies aimed at making the United Kingdom a multi-centred society where every nation, region and travel-to-work area has an equal opportunity to invest in its own enterprise and provide training and job opportunities for its people.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I must tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Howells: Under this Government, Britain is fast becoming a bitter and divided nation. Far from creating one nation, under their present leadership the Tories have achieved small islands of affluence in a huge sea of disadvantage. Never have the haves and have nots been more widely spread and never has one part of Britain— the south-east—been so much the major recipient of the limited benefit of a monetarist policy, while other regions suffer unemployment, scarcity of resources and a declining economy.
  The economies of Britain's regions have undergone more change in the last 10 years than in the whole of the last 30. In some communities, the painful change caused by the decline in the traditional manufacturing industries— some 30 per cent. of the manufacturing jobs have been lost since 1979—has been offset by new jobs in the service sector, but for a great many others, that has not been the case.
  A third of all travel-to-work areas are now experiencing unemployment rates of 15 per cent. or more. A recent EEC survey showed that nine of the 15 cities in the Community with the lowest income, highest unemployment and greatest isolation in terms of business and tourist contacts were in Britain. Palermo in Sicily is now far better off than Liverpool, Manchester or Sunderland.
  By contrast with other European countries, power in the British economy has been increasingly concentrated in London. France and Germany have a number of centres which can compete with their capitals, but in Britain only Edinburgh has avoided satellite status. Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle and Bristol used to be major independent centres, with their own economic power and cultural influence. The recent southern increase in inequality precipitated by the Government follows a longer, slower misguided pressure to centralise—most notably in transport policy.
  The Government have refused to face up to the scale of the regional disparity in rates of growth and economic prospects. Once the differences between the communities exist, it becomes very difficult to reverse them. Local employment and output decline and it becomes less attractive to start new businesses. Workers have less opportunity or incentive to develop skills and qualifications. Young people emigrate, and potential new employers face problems recruiting qualified manpower.

  83
  The local housing market follows employment into decline. The disparity in house prices creates its own problems. The average price for a pre-war semi-detached house in 1986 in was £75,000 in the south-east, compared with £29,000 in the north. Average house prices have increased by over 50 per cent. since 1983 in the south-east, compared with 26 per cent. in the north-west and 27 per cent. in Wales.
  That difference prevents population mobility, because even home owners cannot afford to move to the southeast. But it also creates congestion in London and the south-east, because people are unwilling to take jobs elsewhere for fear of jeopardising their investment. High prices in the south-east also create homelessness in the region.
  Turning to unemployment—
  Mr. Tony Favell: Indeed, higher house prices in the south-east may deter people from the the north and perhaps from Wales from moving to London, but what is wrong with moving jobs to Wales and the north-west, moving to that part of the world the sort of people who would create jobs—for example, the Civil Service? Surely the lower house prices there should attract people into the areas rather than lead to their leaving.
  Mr. Howells: There is no point in trying to attract people from the south-east to Wales, Scotland or the north if they cannot find work. There is no work in those areas, as the figures that I will give later will show.
  Other changes in the economy are likely to reinforce regional decline. Increases in service industry employment and a continuing shift to the south-east combine with an estimated further decline in manufacturing industry. Warwick university forecasts that 500,000 more jobs will be lost by 1990.
  The problem of regional disparity is often seen as one of the north versus the south, but in reality that is extremely misleading, since many of the worst problems are located in the south-west, which has lower per capita GDP than some areas in the north. Even in the prosperous south-east there are some black spots, notably in Greater London—such as Newham, Lambeth and Bermondsey.
  A glance at the unemployment rates in the 10 worst hit travel-to-work areas reveals that the worst is Newquay in Cornwall, with 27·8 per cent., and the eighth is Penzance and St. Ives, with 23·7 per cent. The best areas, and still rising, are Winchester and Eastleigh, with 5 per cent.; Cleethorpes, 5 per cent.; Clitheroe, 5 per cent.; Aylesbury and Wycombe, 5·9 per cent.; Cambridge, 6 per cent.; Tunbridge Wells, 6 per cent.; Slough, 6·5 per cent.; and Newbury, 6·6 per cent. But on the other side of the table, as I said, the worst of the lot and still rising is Newquay in Cornwall with 27·8 per cent. Cumnock and Sanquhar, in Scotland, has 26·9 per cent. Cardigan— in my constituency— has 26·1 per cent. South Tyneside has 25·7 per cent.; Skye and Western Ross, 25·3 per cent.; Skegness, 25 per cent.; Lampeter and Aberaeron—also in my constituency—24·8 per cent.; Penzance and St. Ives, 23·7 per cent.
  There are also disparities within regions. For example, the south-west saw an increase in unemployment of only 2 per cent. between June 1979 and June 1986, but that concealed a total economic collapse in some areas within
  84
  the region. The situation in Newquay may be contrasted with that in Exeter, where unemployment is under 9 per cent.
  May I mention Cornwall, two days before the by-election? The main problem with regional development in Cornwall is that assisted area status was removed from Truro and St. Austell in 1984. That presents difficulities when trying to attract business to the region. Why go to Truro when Camborne down the road has assisted area status? The largest employer in Truro— Furniss, which makes biscuits— is in the process of leaving the city because it is not an assisted area.
  The alliance would create a regional development agency based in the area to combat this problem.
  Mr. William Cash: May I refer the hon. Gentleman to the most recent research notes on unemployment rates by constituency, a copy of which is in the Library? That shows that the unemployment rate in Truro is 14·1 per cent, which seems somewhat adrift from the figure that he gave for Newquay.
  Mr. Howells: There are a few miles between Truro and Newquay, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
  Cornwall has a housing problem because it has the highest new dwelling prices in the country outside London and the south-east. House prices have been forced up by the second dwelling and holiday home market. The alliance wants to establish regional development agencies on the Scottish and Welsh models to help relieve the problems of the English regions. It is well known that many Conservative Members opposed the establishment of the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales, the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
  My constituency is in mid-Wales, and I recognise that the Development Board for Rural Wales has done excellent work to stem depopulation. The WDA is also doing excellent work in north and south Wales. I hope that the Government, in their wisdom, if they decide to use it, create similar agencies for the various parts of England.
  We believe that people in the regions are best placed to understand and solve their problems.
  Mr. Favell: Is the hon. Gentleman proposing the establishment of a regional development agency for every English region outside the south-east? If not, which regions would be excluded?
  Mr. Howells: I want the Government to accept the principle, just as we do. After consultations with local authorities, we might decide to have agencies for the north-east, the north-west, central England, the south-east and the south-west. There is nothing wrong with such a proposal.
  The agencies' role would be to attract companies from outside Britain, but their main objective would be to enable new industries to develop and existing ones to diversify. They would help indigenous industries and local enterprise rather than footloose large companies.
  Whitehall-directed regional policy has clearly failed. It has also been costly. Each manufacturing job has cost £40,000 to create and sustain. The alliance work search project has demonstrated the low cost of creating jobs through local enterprise boards and agencies such as Lancashire Enterprise Ltd. which creates and sustains jobs

  85
  for just £2,400 each. These local agencies would work in partnership with regional development agencies and help Britain to become a multi-centred society with prosperous regions again.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the Liberal or Social Democratic party policy for a decentralised incomes policy? Does it set pay rates according to local conditions and does the local labour market affect the public sector as well as the private sector?
  Mr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman is straying a little and getting worried about the effect that our policies would have on the nation. I am sure that the people will decide when the general election is called.
  We also want a programme of investment in human resources among school leavers and young adults to raise skills and training. Universities and polytechnics should develop major new roles in the education and training of young adults so that we can compete with other countries in Europe which place skill training at a higher premium than this misguided Government.
  The Employment Institute's report of last week says that unemployment in the north has increased from 10·4 per cent. to 18·9 per cent. during the 1980s. It insists that the Government should increase regional development grants to improve productive capacity. It also calls for more inter-agency co-ordination between Europe, the Government and development agencies.
  The report joins the chorus of bodies which are demanding regional development agencies for depressed areas. It says:
  "They should have wide-ranging powers to stimulate investment and employment along the lines of those already existing in Scotland and Wales.
  The allocation of funds between regions would have to be carefully controlled in order to provide the greatest stimulus to those regions with the most severe problems."
  Turning to farming, the sudden introduction of milk quotas in 1984 demolished confidence among farmers overnight. Confidence is now at a low ebb. Farmers have lost faith in the Tories and will not forgive them for their uncaring attitude during the past year.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the policy of two-tier pricing, which is said to be that of the Liberal party, will be advantageous to British farmers, bearing in mind the fact that farms in Europe are infinitely smaller?
  Mr. Howells: I am sure that the hon. Lady has read the farming press during the past few weeks. It is very gratifying that leading agriculturists now suggest that the National Farmers Union, other organisations and the Minister should consider the possibility of a two-tier system. If the hon. Lady has a better alternative, I am quite willing to listen.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman must know that the system would apply throughout Europe and that a small farm in Britain is considered relatively large in Europe, so we would catch the worst cold and the rest of Europe would benefit.
  Mr. Howells: With respect, I am afraid that the hon. Lady has got it wrong again. Bearing in mind her background, I am sure that she agrees that the local farmer is important to the community. It is our duty and that of
  86
  the Government to look after small and intermediate farmers, not just the cereal barons. That is the only way to ensure that small farmers survive into the 1990s.
  We should consider having a Minister of State for Agriculture for Scotland and for Wales. Both countries have been neglected over the years. The Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales have not been to Brussels for many years. They are duty-bound to go.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): On occasion, especially on fisheries matters, I accompany the Ministers responsible for these matters to Brussels, and when important agriculture issues are dealt with in Brussels, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State accompanies the Minister.
  Mr. Howells: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. I am sure that he is aware that the Secretary of State for Wales has not been there once during the past six years. I take the Minister at his word, but there are many Scottish farmers who are interested in beef and sheep farming—as well as fishing.
  Mr. Keith Best: Like me, the hon. Gentleman is concerned about farmers in Wales. From his profound interest in and knowledge of these matters, he will know that Wales is three times self-sufficient in sheep, beef and dairy products. It is often argued on behalf of British farmers that we should not take cuts because the United Kingdom as a whole is not self-sufficient whereas other countries are more than self-sufficient. How does the hon. Gentleman think agriculture in Wales would fare if he had his way and we had a separate Minister arguing for Wales?
  Mr. Howells: It would do a power of good for farmers in Wales. We need somebody to represent us in Brussels. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that many farmers have criticised the Secretary of State for Wales for not going to Brussels and speaking and standing up on behalf of the farmers of Wales. The Government should persuade our friends in Europe to have a beef scheme similar to our sheepmeat regime.
  I turn now to the cheap credit facilities that now prevail in Europe. There is a great deal of unfair competition in the Community because farmers in France and Germany get cheap credit rates. We should introduce an optional scheme for our farmers. At present, there are capital grant schemes for farmers here whereas in France there is a cheap credit scheme. That should be made optional, and it would help many farmers who are in financial difficulties at the present time.
  We must improve our marketing within the Community. I blame the many Europeans who are in charge of marketing our surpluses. Something is radically wrong with a system of storing butter in intervention for four years. I am delighted that at last the Community is moving to rid itself of surpluses.
  Mr. Churchill: A moment ago, did not the hon. Gentleman complain about the cut back in milk subsidies, yet now he is saying how marvellous it is that the butter mountain is being dealt with?
  Mr. Howells: I never mentioned milk surpluses. With respect, the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again. I do not know what has come over Conservative Members tonight.

  87
  This is a short but important debate. Finally, I turn to decentralisation. It is the only way in which the regions of England will survive. The nations of Wales and Scotland want their own Government and regional assemblies in England to make sure that the voice of our peoples are heard at local level and not only at this central level, which has proved misguided. Unfortunately, the people of Wales and Scotland and of various regions in England have not been properly governed during the past few years.
  8.2 pm
  The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'notes that the United Kingdom has benefited from six years of uninterrupted growth; that over the last six months United Kingdom unemployment has fallen by 100,000; that employment has increased substantially since 1983; and that vacancies are at their highest level this decade; commends the efforts of the Government to develop a modern economy which is offering new types of opportunity; recognises in particular its work in launching the most extensive training programme in the country's history, and welcomes its commitment to the regions, underlined by carefully targeted investment and assistance; and further calls on the Government to continue with its present policy of seeking to spread throughout the country the economic conditions that bring prosperity and jobs.'.
  When I considered the selection of this debate, I was reminded that there is nothing like the onset of a Budget or by-election to provoke the Opposition parties, including the alliance, into trying to make clear again their employment and regional policies, no doubt on this occasion with half an eye to Truro and half to the forthcoming Budget. Given the Opposition parties have redefined their regional and employment policies on several occasions, it is always interesting to see what version will be forthcoming from the spokesman of those parties.
  The motion on the Order Paper seemed to have the especially endearing quality that sometimes comes from the alliance, especially the part that was carried away on the question of regional policy and decentralisation, on which the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) has commented. The motion ends with the words
  "calls for a strong regional policy spearheaded by regional development agencies aimed at making the United Kingdom a multi-centred society where every nation, region and travel-to-work area has an equal opportunity to invest in its own enterprise and provide training and job opportunities for its people."
  I have never heard that degree of local autonomy in investment and employment policy advocated before. As there are 334 travel-to-work areas, what is being advocated is a degree of Government decentralisation which has not hit England since the time of the Norman conquest. It seems incredible that that has been put forward by the alliance now.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North did not touch in quite so much detail on the employment policies with which the alliance parties would tackle the problems that he described. I realise that he is holding some of his party's fire for tomorrow morning's press conference, at which his hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and his colleagues will unveil an
  88
  alliance plan for jobs and poverty. I refer to the press release that will be put out tomorrow by the alliance, because it is only there that one can find exactly what they advocate to tackle the problems that the hon. Gentleman has just described. The press release states
  "The alliance package shows that unemployment can be reduced substantially without increasing inflation by means of a sustained incomes policy which reduces incomes growth by an average of one per cent. per year.
  It proposes a prudent and targeted rise in public spending in line with growth in the economy. In the first year gross public spending would be increased by £4·9 billion and the PSBR by £2·1 billion."
  The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have been let in to the secrets of the incomes policy, to which the alliance keep referring, because he was unable to answer a question about it fired at him from the Labour Benches.
  So far as the second part of the alliance release is concerned, the increased public spending and increased PSBR are just the policies that led John Horam to leave the alliance recently because it has a mere pale shadow of the policies on public spending, taxation and borrowing that are so frequently put forward by the Labour party.
  Opposition parties may try to redefine their policies, but there are some aspects of the motion upon which we can all agree. Nobody has ever denied that there is "disparity of opportunity" in different parts of the country. All parties share concern about what are regional differences or what are, as the hon. Gentleman has said, more localised differences in the levels of unemployment, investment and economic growth in this country. However, I do not agree that they are new or that they are increasing. There have been similar debates about regional disparities in the country at various times in this century, and similar things have been said. However, during this Government's period of office, the proportion of unemployment in the north as a proportion of the whole has fallen slightly and there has been a proportionate increase in total unemployment in the south.
  However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that depressed towns and inner city areas are to be found across the country and that the analysis that is often put forward turns all that into a crude north-south divide and is thoroughly misleading. One can find pockets of prosperity and poverty all over the country. I have no doubt that the onset of the Truro by-election is causing everybody suddenly to discover that those problems are not entirely confined to the north of England, as a few had complained only a few weeks ago.
  Given that these disparities exist, we must tackle them realistically and practically. My first proposition on the Government's behalf is to assert that now that the national economy is performing so much better, the total level of employment in the economy is steadily growing and the level of unemployment is declining, the Government are obviously creating the conditions within which it is easier to tackle the problems of disparity than it has been for a long time. When one considers how those problems might be tackled, I have to say to the Opposition parties, having heard a speech from a Liberal Member and looking forward to a speech from a Labour Member in a few moments, that I suspect that their approach to the problem, which is not new, is that they go back to the old regional policies of the past few decades.
  My limited experience of politics has made me steadily ever more sceptical of the old type of broad-brush regional policy and the prospects of it ever producing the result that

  89
  we want. Years ago, in my reckless youth, I was the principal author of a Bow Group pamphlet entitled "New Hope for the Regions" in which I advocated regional government of the type that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North has propounded. However, all my experiences since then of the growing expense and difficulty of the various tiers of local government that we have had have completely converted me. I do not believe that any of the regions would benefit from expensive new tiers of government, interposed in the present difficult relationships between national and local government. If regional development agencies are really being advocated by the Liberal party for each and every part of the United Kingdom, that would be self-defeating, especially when it comes to attracting inward investment from overseas, when no doubt the regions would act in competition with each other for overseas visitors.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: In the book that my right hon. and learned Friend and I wrote together — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We were co-authors of it — we advocated beefing up small firms—now a successful policy under this Government.
  Mr. Clarke: We authors remember all our accounts. I was referring to an earlier essay— [Laughter.] Neither my hon. Friend nor I advocated regional government in the pamphlet that we both produced on regional policy in Europe shortly before the general election. Surprisingly, there are a few unsold copies of it on the book stalls and I commend it to all hon. Members. We advocated a policy aimed at encouraging small businesses in particular and we rejected the broad-brush policies which have not worked in the past.
  I agree with one feature in a booklet put out by Mr. Nicholas Bosanquet on behalf of the alliance and its work search theories. It is called, "Turning the Tide of Decline in the Regions" and was published in March 1987. Indeed, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North quoted it extensively without attribution, but he was quoting an ally. Mr. Bosanquet comes to the conclusion that regional aid on the old pattern has failed. That is where we should start from, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) and I did, when criticising the regional policies of the Labour Government.
  Since then new ideas on regional policy and local employment have come from the present Government. It will be a pity if our entire discussion about regional employment turns on the simple issue of the level of regional grants and where the map is drawn, giving various areas assisted area status. We had a touch of it in the hon. Gentleman's speech. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman touched on that in his comments about Truro and Camborne. Too often that point is made by north country Labour Members who reduce the whole matter to an argument about broad-brush grants which largely do not work.
  I return to the position from which I started in the pamphlet to which I have referred. The policy to rectify local differences in employment opportunities must be based on the need to help people in the regions to make their towns and cities more attractive to investment and jobs of the type that emerge in a modern economy. The Government's policies have concentrated on helping people in the regions to help themselves. We believe that
  90
  that is best achieved by producing a partnership of effort between the public and private sectors, involving the Government, private industry, private developers and local government, where local government is prepared to participate. However, as we all know, the experience of the Government and the private sector is that in many inner-city areas Left-wing local authorities go more out of their way to drive away investment, work experience and training than to encourage them.
  Hon. Members must appreciate that when that partnership gets under way the employment that we shall seek to attract will be different from that which many areas experienced in the past. The growth in employment will not be in the old, traditional industries with large factories producing traditional goods and owned by paternalistic employers. Obviously, we protect them where we can: the multi-fibre arrangement protects the textile industry, which is now becoming successful; and the Government stepped in to protect Rio Tinto-Zinc and its subsidiary in Cornwall to help the tin mines during a period when the market was unstable. We are looking for growth in new start-ups, small businesses that will expand and in service industries, as well as in manufacturing industries. We are also looking to encourage self-employment so that we can support people who work on their own. I am glad to say that that has happened to a considerable extent during the Government's period of office.
  It is interesting to visit a town such as Sunderland. Most people there are aware that the flagship of redevelopment is to be found in Washington new town where Nissan has opened a large new car plant which it proposes to expand. What is often not appreciated by the local people is that, although the Nissan investment is welcome and has created many new jobs, twice as many new jobs have been created locally by the Government's enterprise allowance scheme, subsidising previously unemployed people who go into business on their own account. Self-employment has been expanding everywhere, but it has been expanding most rapidly in Yorkshire and Humberside which has experienced the greatest percentage increase in self-employment since 1979. Self-employment has increased there by no less than 78 per cent. That is only a whisker ahead of the south-west where the number of self-employed has increased hugely—by 77 per cent. between 1979 and now. Obviously, we must build on that and speed it up.
  Some areas are still not sufficiently attractive to the new types of investment and employment that we need to draw in. Our answer, working on the local partnership principle that I described, is to continue to make them more attractive so that new investment and new jobs can be spread more evenly. Obviously, it is difficult. At present some areas are naturally more attractive than others. To use a rather fanciful illustration, at present it is easier to attract new investment and jobs to Bracknell than to Gateshead. The answer to that is not simply to complain about it; it is not unrealistic to see what can be done in Gateshead, not to make it identical to Bracknell—that is many years ahead—but to make it acquire more of the attractions that are drawing enterprise, investment arid jobs to Bracknell. It involves changing Gateshead so that it will receive more investment.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: If the Minister believes that the Government policy for England at present is the best, has he any plans to abolish the Welsh and Scottish Development Agencies?
  Mr. Clarke: I did not say that. I was pointing out that the creation of English development agencies to cover practically the whole of England, which the hon. Gentleman proposed, would greatly diminish the value of the Welsh and Scottish Development Agencies to Wales and Scotland. It would produce a confusion of agencies, using public funds to compete with each other for investment and that would cause confusion to the people whom we are trying to attract from abroad.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: If the problem is the absence of sufficient spending on the infrastructure and inadequate levels of investment in the north and other areas, what sense does it make to cut rate support grant and regional development grant? If the Minister will not support a development agency for the whole of England, which is certainly not Labour party policy, but wants to give local people the chance to help themselves, why has he resisted the demands from the north for a northern development agency?
  Mr. Clarke: I did not say that the problem was a problem of infrastructure generally. The road map of England is bluest around Merseyside and the north-east where motorways abound, but in themselves they do not bring new investment to those areas. The idea that more public funds through rate support grant should support the high spending activities of Left-wing councils will not lead to the regeneration of their areas. We are tackling the physical problems that exist in many areas directly and more selectively, for example by creating urban development corporations. At present we have two—one in the docklands of London, which I recommend any hon. Member to visit as it is a spectacular example of the transformation of a derelict area into a thriving, prosperous centre of activity—
  Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No, I will not give way. The Liberal spokesman took 25 minutes moving his motion, which he was entitled to do. If both the hon. Gentleman and I take half an hour each, we shall move to the replies without any Back-Bench speeches.
  I was commending the London Docklands Development Corporation. The South Liverpool Urban Development Corporation is equally successful. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has announced urban development corporations for Trafford Park, Teesside, the Black Country and Tyne and Wear. Their purpose is to speed up decision making, to attract private investment into derelict areas which with grant can be made usable, and to target infrastructure spending as is required. It is not true that broad-brush infrastructure spending everywhere necessarily attracts new jobs.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment also has the system of urban development grant, developed by this Government. A 75 per cent. grant goes to those local authorities that will work with private developers to secure investment in inner-city sites. Since 1983, 228 projects have been approved, at a cost of £106 million to the taxpayer. That money has levered £440 million of private investment in factories, shops, offices
  92
  and houses in inner-city areas. My right hon. Friend is now preparing his proposals for urban regeneration grant to take that further.
  In those and other ways, we are tackling the physical problems of deprived areas. However, in many locations, the main problem is raising the skills, employability and motivation of people who live either in towns that are deprived because of declining traditional industry or in the inner-city areas of a thriving city, where the prosperity does not reflect on unfavoured districts.
  The main agent for Government policy is the Manpower Services Commission, which, as every hon. Member knows, is engaged on the huge task of delivering the Government's jobs and training programmes, in which we continue to innovate in a whole number of exciting ways. This is not the debate for me to continue to describe to the House what we are achieving under the restart programme, calling for advice about people who have been unemployed for more than six months, and steering them towards a job. Other initiatives include the many schemes in the Action for Jobs package, and the innovation of the two-year YTS, which guarantees two years good quality training to every 16 and 17-year-old who is unemployed after Easter this year. There is the new job training scheme which we are introducing and which I announced to this House recently.
  However, it is relevant to point out that we are concentrating the whole package of employment and training programmes heavily on those regions where they are needed most. We are putting a strong regional emphasis into the work of the MSC. To illustrate that, I shall quote the figures spent on the MSC's programmes in the financial year 1986–87. In the south-east of England, the MSC spent £59 per head of the total work force; in the south-west, £121 per head—more than twice the southeastern figure—in Scotland, as much as £143 per head; in Wales £161 per head; and in the northern region £179 per head on our employment and training measures. That last figure is three times as much per head of the labour force compared to what is spent in the south-east. People do not appreciate how much the extremely ambitious programme of employment and training measures that we have announced is targeted on the more disadvantaged regions.
  All over the country, not just in the regions, we are giving high priority to the inner-city areas. The centre of Bristol, which is a prosperous city, the centre of London, which is a wealthy city. the centre of Birmingham, and other inner-city areas pose a whole range of social, employment and other problems. Inner-city areas have been made priority areas for our employment and training programme places. In the inner-city partnership areas alone, my Department and the MSC expect to spend £175 million in 1986–87 on employment and training measures.
  In the same inner-city partnership areas, the enterprise allowance scheme, which supports self-employment, is expected to attract 4,500 people in 1986–87. We are still working at improving the delivery of training programmes for inner-city residents. We have discussed this problem with the MSC from time to time, and the chairman agrees with me that we should try to target the MSC's efforts increasingly on inner-city unemployed people.
  In particular, we try to target more of the best employer-based YTS schemes on inner-city youngsters and ethnic minority youngsters. We are also seeking to tackle the higher rates of refusal to join YTS and early

  93
  leaving, which are sometimes experienced in inner-city areas. We must tackle that now that we can guarantee a two-year YTS for all young people.
  We are planning to have a drive to generate good quality work placements that will improve the motivation of youngsters in inner-city areas over the next year. We shall probably open more drop-in centres for YTS entrants, and we shall make sure that the best quality of the Government's employment training schemes are delivered in the inner-city areas as well as elsewhere.
  We are concentrating all the efforts of the Government in an innovative way, particularly in the eight task force areas designated under the inner-city initiative. These areas are pockets of deprivation, and we concentrate all the efforts of Government through the urban aid programme, the MSC programmes and the work of the Departments of Trade and Industry and of Education and Science and of the Home Office to see what can be done by bringing them together more closely and targeting them on the gravest problems in those eight areas. On top of that, we are spending a small sum of money, £8 million, to forward particular projects in line with the Government's overall policies. We are beginning to tackle, in a much more forceful way than has been attempted for many years, the problem of the imbalance of opportunities within our cities and regions.
  We are also tackling the problems of those places where large numbers of people have been displaced from the older traditional industries as a result of change. It is obviously necessary to target effort and money on those. Our policy is not to pretend that the coal mines will reopen, that the steel industry will employ thousands more people or shipbuilding will again he a massive employer. We seek to provide training for the redundant and support the new business that is being attracted to areas most affected.
  For example, we have backed British Steel Industry, which had £50 million until it became self-supporting. In the past six months alone, it has assisted in 4,600 job opportunites. British Shipbuilders Enterprise Ltd. was set up with £6·3 million-worth of public moneys, and I am told that, as of 23 January 1982, of the 2,412 people made redundant when the company was set up, some 710 people have found new jobs, 522 have applied for training courses—254 of those are training—16 have opened new businesses, 165 more applications have been received by the company for assistance to start up new businesses, and 240 people have opted to retire.
  British Coal Enterprise Ltd. had had £40 million of public money by July 1986. Some £20–8 million had been committed by the end of December 1986, and that stimulated £106 million of investment from other sources. The job opportunities involved so far amount to 13,077.
  Recently, we made a contribution to the Northern Development Company, set up to stimulate inward investment in the north. A total of more than £1 million has been put into that very encouraging example of cooperation between private business and local government, including contributions from the City Action team.
  I hope that I have shown that the Government are producing more new ideas on the problem that the debate addresses than we have seen for many years. It has been successful. Over the country as a whole, unemployment is down by over 100,000 in the past six months, which is the biggest six-monthly fall since 1973. Over the past 12 months, unemployment has fallen fastest in the northern
  94
  region of England, in the north-west, in the west midlands and in Wales. The growth in total employment since March 1983 has taken place in every region of England.
  The Government accept the reality of the problem, and are putting forward the most practical and realistic ways to tackle it. I contrast that with the attempts of all the Opposition parties to produce a credible policy of their own. Every time that they return to employment policies, all that happens is another attempt to produce new Mickey Mouse figures to which a veneer of policy is attached to try to make them appear credible.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. Gordon Brown: The purpose of the debate is not merely to illustrate the problems of the regions and the inner cities, but to demonstrate how a solution to the problems of the regions and the inner cities is in the interests of the shires, the suburbs and the southeast. Further, it is to make the case for regional policy, not as a response to the social problems of the north, but as a response to the economic problems of the whole country. It makes no sense to any hon. Member representing any constituency that we have, in parts of the south, the shires and the suburbs, congestion, overheating, escalating house prices, skill shortages and pressures on the green belt, yet in the north we have wasted infrastructure, unused resources, record unemployment, urban deprivation, forced migration and depopulation in many areas.
  It cannot be right that unemployment affects 1,500 men and women in some of the constituencies of the shires and suburbs—that is bad enough—but 15,000 in some areas in the industrial regions. It cannot be right that unemployment is 3 to 4 per cent. in some of the constituencies that Conservative Members represent, but over 30 per cent. in some of the constituencies that Opposition Members represent. It cannot be right that house prices are now twice as high in the south-east as they are in many parts of the north, that the population of the northern region will fall below 3 million by the year 2000, Scotland's population will fall below 5 million soon after that, and yet there are enormous problems with population congestion in the south.
  Therefore, we advocate policies for investment in training—not the old-style regional policies to which the Minister was referring. They are not just policies for the provision of grants, sites, investment in education and training in the inner cities and regions; they are policies for locating research and development in some of the hardest-hit areas of the country and for investment in infrastructure—not just the physical infrastructure, but the technological infrastructure of the regions. We are saying that our policies for the north will not be at the expense of the south. Our policy is for balanced industrial development in the interests of the north and south.
  Mr. Favell rose—
  Mr. Michael Fallon rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way in a moment.
  We heard from the Liberal spokesman for Wales, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), about the Liberal party's commitment to Scotland, Wales, the north, the south-west, the rural areas and just about every other part of the country. The Liberal party regrets the drift from north to south.
  The commitment of the SDP to the north might be taken a bit more seriously if we had not seen so many of

  95
  its leading figures desert the north for the south. The president of the SDP, Mrs. Shirley Williams, has deserted Crosby in the north to stand for Cambridge in the south. The party's vice president, Mr. Bill Rodgers, who was a stalwart at one time in Stockton-on-Tees, is now after a seat in Milton Keynes, which he hopes to win.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: What about Willie Hamilton?
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) is putting up a valiant fight and will be given all our support, but I would have advised him to stay next door to me in Fife, Central.
  One of the SDP's founding members, Mr. Mike Thomas, is making the trip from Newcastle, East down to Exeter. The man who has travelled furthest of all, Mr. John Horam, the former hon. Member for Gateshead, has moved straight from the alliance to the Conservative party and, I understand, is looking for a safe seat in the south of England with the Conservative party.
  I used to think that the initials "SDP" stood for "Still Divided on Polaris", and perhaps that is true, but I am reliably informed that it now means the "Southwardly-Drifting Party", and that is how it looks to many of us in the north.
  We welcome the alliance's new-found enthusiasm for addressing the problems of the region. Although we are delighted to have it as a convert to our cause, I think that I should direct the attention of the House—[Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) may be silent in a minute. I think that I should draw the attention of the House to two policy statements that have been issued by the SDP and Liberal party over the last few months. The first was issued in July 1986, entitled "Partnership for Progress," and the second document was issued in January 1987, which was also called "Partnership for Progress" but with a new title that was bought from the advertising men, "The Time Has Come." The first policy document mentioned policies for the 1990s. It said:
  "Much of what the alliance wants to achieve in the field of social reform and public provision depends critically on our success in turning the course of the British economy. We are facing two formidable challenges. The first is how to put the unemployed back to work. The second is how to improve the long-term performance of the economy."
  That was in July 1986.
  In the meantime, we have had the publication of the Government's submission to the European regional development fund. We have had some controversy over the north-south divide. We have had the publication of the census of employment figures, and what do we find in the document "Partnership for Progress", which was published in January and is almost exactly the same document as the previous one, but with one major change? The first sentence about policies for the 1990s is the same, but instead of "facing two formidable challenges," it is now three formidable challenges. The alliance policy document says:
  "The third challenge is to reverse the economic polarisation of our nation."
  Whilst I welcome the conversion of the alliance to a commitment to do something about the problems of the regions, it is tragic that such a commitment was
  96
  underplayed and barely mentioned in the policy document of last July. It is typical of a party that reacts to every twitch of the electoral swingometer.
  Mr. Favell: A little earlier the hon. Gentleman was bemoaning the difference in house prices between the north and south. He said that in the south-east house prices were twice as much as in the north. They are probably three or four times higher than in my constituency. However, should not the hon. Gentleman be encouraging trade unions to take advantage of the lower house prices and cost of living in the north to negotiate on a local basis so that wage rates reflect those lower house prices and cost of living and to attract investment in those areas of high unemployment?
  Mr. Brown: I do not know whether the Government or the hon. Gentleman want to deal with the consequences of the Government's policy—rising house prices in one area and declining house prices or stable house prices in another—or whether he wants to deal with the causes of the problem, to which I shall come in a minute. The hon. Gentleman has a common cause with the alliance on this matter.
  The Paymaster General made a fairly controversial speech a few days ago, which he followed on Friday with an explanation or elaboration of what he said a few days before.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North was reticent when I asked him about the alliance's policy on regional wage differentials. In this excellently printed alliance policy document—not excellent in what it says—we are told:
  "We support an independent pay and review board for all the public sector which would, amongst other things, take into account conditions in local labour markets."
  I wonder whether that means that the alliance is committed to a policy of regional wage differentials in the public sector, or whether it wants it in the public and private sector. I am reminded that the Liberal conference, in September 1985, came to exactly the same conclusion, except that it proposed an arbitrator when dealing with regional pay differentials. The arbitrators, it says,
  "would be free to approve higher settlements in the south of England than Scotland provided they were not inflationary and were likely to generate jobs."
  That alliance policy suggests that there should be regional wage differentials imposed under an incomes strategy. We know that regional wage differentials exist at the moment, and I shall come to that when I talk about the Minister's policy, but the alliance is saying that wage rates should be set under its centralised incomes strategy with a view to achieving differentials and settlements between different parts of the country. The alliance will have to tell the voters in Scotland, the north, Wales and other parts of the country precisely what the difference will be in the wages that people can expect to earn under this decentralised incomes policy.
  The Paymaster General has been sent in to bridge the regional divide. Unfortunately, his only solution seems to widen the regional divide by a policy of differential wage settlements which would certainly discriminate against the north. We had from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the familiar litany of statistics about employment, unemployment, grants and public spending, but he invariably concentrates on the silver lining and ignores the dark clouds on our economic horizon.

  97
  For example, the Paymaster General told us that employment was rising everywhere, and he gave us the impression that things were booming in Yorkshire and Humberside because of an increase in the number of self-employed people. He did not tell us that the only verifiable estimates of the number of self-employed people come from the 1981 census and that he will not be able to give us another absolutely accurate figure before the 1991 census. His figures are based on a sample of less than 1 per cent. of the labour force survey. If the self-employed people to whom the Minister referred actually exist, they are so enterprising that they appear to be unknown either to the Inland Revenue or the Department of Health and Social Security which should be collecting national insurance from them. We must examine carefully and question the figures produced by the Minister.
  If the Paymaster General looked at the more reliable figures for the increase in the number of employees since 1983, and even if I discounted, for the purpose of the argument, the number of people in second jobs, and the fact that there is an element of statistical projection in the figures, which allows the Minister to forecast the number of employees six and 12 months from now, and if we ignored the fact that many new jobs have been created by splitting existing jobs into two, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would find that 80 per cent. of the additional employees since the last general election are in the southeast, the south-west and East Anglia. There is a clear regional divide.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: If we read carefully through all the qualifying phrases upon qualifying phrases that the hon. Gentleman used before coming to his amazing conclusion, we find that he left out the self-employed and is apparently denying any assertions of an increase in the number of self-employed people. That enables him to come to his ridiculous conclusion.
  Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we are expecting about 300,000 people to take part in the enterprise allowance scheme and to receive advice and support in their new ventures as they go into business on their own? Does he think that they do not count? Does he join some of his hon. Friends in dismissing those people as being on a skivvy scheme? Does he accept that 300,000 people are being helped by the Government, in addition to the reliable estimates to which I referred earlier?
  Mr. Brown: No one denies the existence of the enterprise allowance scheme, but I suggest that the Minister's overall figures for the number of self-employed people are based on a form of statistical projection and on a sample from the labour force survey that is so small that nobody could take it seriously.
  If the Minister looks at the figures for the number of employees—the figures in the Employment Gazette—he will find that more than 80 per cent. of the additional number since June 1983 come from the three regions of the south, and that in Yorkshire and Humberside, in the north-west and in Scotland and Wales the numbers of employees have fallen since June 1983.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman rejects the evidence drawn by professional, independent statisticians from the labour force survey, what evidence does he have for his assertion that there has been no increase in the
  98
  number of self-employed people over the past few years? Is there any evidence to support that extraordinary proposition?
  Mr. Brown: I am questioning the Minister's figures. He and Lord Young spend a great deal of time on television telling us that more than 1 million jobs have been created since June 1983. They do not give us the qualifications that ought to be made about, for example, second jobs. Many people are counted twice in the statistics, and the Minister never mentions that fact. If we were given all the qualifications, the country could see clearly whether the Government's policies are working.
  If the Minister holds to his view that there is a recovery, will he look at manufacturing output and investment figures, because the fate of our industrial regions and of many of our inner cities depends on those figures?
  Mr. Don Dixon: Is my hon. Friend aware that between 1979, when the Government came to power, and 1984 investment in manufacturing industry in the northern region fell by 42 per cent.?
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I hope that the Minister will explain why no other manufacturing country has seen such a huge fall in manufacturing investment since 1979. Will he explain why in the five years after 1979 for which figures are available manufacturing investment fell by about 17 per cent. in Great Britain as a whole, but by 30 to 40 per cent. in Scotland, the north, Wales and the north-west?
  If the Minister looks at the real economy instead of at the economy that he has invented for us, he will find that manufacturing output has risen in every other industrial country in Europe and in every other industrial country of a comparable size to Britain, but manufacturing output here is still below the 1979 level. Manufacturing output is down by 4 or 5 per cent. in Britain as a whole, but by 10 or 12 per cent. in some of our most important industrial regions.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate has been running for one hour and eight minutes and we have another one hour and 14 minutes, of which I understand 25 minutes will be taken for the wind-up. Not a single Back Bencher has yet spoken. Could you use your good offices to ensure that there is adequate Back-Bench time in the debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am afraid that I have no power to do that, but I appeal to the House, arid particularly to Front-Bench speakers, to remember that this is a very short debate and many hon. Members are hoping to take part.
  Mr. Brown: You will find, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that while the Government and the alliance parties will seek to make two Front-Bench speeches each, the official Opposition will make only one Front Bench speech.
  I want to examine the problem of infrastructure and investment in the regions and inner cities. If the Minister is right when he says that there is a recovery, why is investment so low? Why is output still below the 1979 level?
  Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that productivity has grown enormously recently and has

  99
  grown 6 per cent. more in this country than in the other European countries to which he referred? It will continue to grow at about 6 per cent. over the next year.
  Mr. Brown: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the problem that I have been outlining. When manufacturing output is declining, as it has declined throughout the past seven years, increases in productivity mean only that less is being produced by a lot fewer people. They do not mean that manufacturing output is rising or that the economy is doing a great deal better and, as we have seen from the figures, they certainly do not mean that manufacturing investment is encouraged to rise.
  The Minister talked about a number of infrastructure problems in various parts of the country, but, when asked about them, he gave the impression that there were excellent roads in the north-west—as if there were no other problems to be faced. Has he looked at the Government's submission to the European regional development fund and at what was said in the name of Ministers? Does he realise that in that submission the Government said about Greater Manchester that roads, sewers, the water supply, railways and building stock were
  "in a state of decay, resulting in a serious situation in which some aspects of the infrastructure are in a state of collapse."?
  The submission also mentions frequent sewer collapses and dangers from pollution. The volume for Greater Merseyside deals with infrastructure problems and says that
  "the scale of dereliction will increase and serve to reduce yet further the potential for regeneration."
  With regard to the west midlands, it says that
  "the cumulative effect of under investment in apprenticeships and in modern plant machinery will affect the ability of the region to take advantage of any increase in demand."
  That is the position in the regions. I could give the Minister quotations from the reports referring to the inner cities.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North mentioned the problems of the south-west. He should know that in the submission to the European regional development fund it was stated that 50,000 jobs must be created in the south-west. It also said:
  "Vital improvements in water supply, sewerage and sewage treatment infrastructure in Devon and Cornwall are essential if new industries are to be encouraged and tourist facilities improved."
  The report also mentioned the lack of serviced industrial land.
  The reports were written not by me, the Labour party or the parties of the alliance. If the reports are correct—we believe that they are—what are the Government doing about the problems of under-investment and infrastructure? They must be dealt with before our inner cities and industrial regions are regenerated.
  If the Minister will not listen to me, will he at least listen to some of his colleagues who have made similar points and who have urged the right hon. and learned Gentleman to act? He should listen to his right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) whose book was published today. He clearly states:
  "We must not allow present inaction to continue. A look around our major cities and town centres should be enough to convince us that this Government can no longer stand by on the other side."
  The right hon. Gentleman describes the danger of
  "a physical and social collapse"
  in Britain. He continues:
  100
  "There is no case to justify underprivileged parts of England sliding into further despair apparently supposed to fight their corner unarmed against the forces of industrial decline."
  If the Minister refuses to listen to the right hon. Member for Henley, perhaps he will listen to the right hon. Gentleman's arch rival the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan). He has made a plea similar to that made by the right hon. Member for Henley:
  "The gulf between the different parts of the country is unjust and divisive. I believe that we can and that the Government should do more to help."
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman calls for a comprehensive review of regional policy and for the creation of development agencies in important areas of the country.
  Perhaps the Minister will be more influenced by the Tory Reform Group. I notice that the Minister remains a patron of the group. Despite what the Minister has said this evening, in its statement on the Budget, published only a few days ago, the group states:
  "The job census recently published by the Department of Employment demonstrates afresh how wide is the difference between the prosperous areas of the country and the rest—a deepening north-south divide with unpredictable electoral consequences."
  Does the Minister agree with that? If so, will he support the proposal that it put to him and to members of the Cabinet that, if they have £5 billion to spend—we know that they have— that money should be invested in housing, infrastructure, the urban programme, proper training and a decent regional policy?
  We have enormous and rising unemployment in Scotland and huge unemployment problems in the rest of the country and in Wales. What sense does it make for the Government to halve regional aid and regional development grants since 1979? Indeed, they propose to halve them again.
  In the past few months the Government have given us an exercise in blame shifting. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has suggested that the problems of the north are self-inflicted. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security has said that the problems in the north are caused by ignorance, not poverty. That claim was made just at the time when a submission had been made to Europe stating that the Health Service in the north was grossly underfunded and that that was causing many of the health problems in the region. The Secretary of State for the Environment has suggested that the problems are due to Labour councils.
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman will get his chance, and I think that he should listen to what has been said by some of his Ministers.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman has had 26 minutes.
  Mr. Brown: The Minister spoke for as long as that. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will finish my remarks in just a few moments.
  Over the past seven years the Government's solution to the north-south divide has been to allow it to widen and then to deny that it exists. When figures have been produced from a whole series of reports, the Government's response has been to blame the inhabitants. That has been illustrated clearly by the Paymaster General's attempt to blame the workers in the north for the problems of industry in that region. He has suggested that, in some

  101
  way, wages must be reduced. Which employers and which companies have told him that if wages were reduced in the north they would move there?
  Previous Tory Governments have at least been concerned about the regional problem. Some Conservative Prime Ministers have sought to do something about it. Until this Government, no Government have sought to deny the existence of the regional problem and to respond to that problem by cutting available aid and trying to blame the inhabitants.
  The country knows that there can be no true prosperity if 4 million people are paid to produce absolutely nothing in the regions and inner cities of this country. The country is also aware that there can be no proper recovery for the entire country unless there is a recovery in traditional industrial regions and the inner cities. It is upon that issue that the Labour party will win the next election.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. Churchill: I must protest most vigorously at the grotesque abuse practised by the Front Benches in this short debate. They have hogged no less than 1 hour 40 minutes and have left just 40 minutes for all the Back Benchers to participate.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has been fulsome in discussing the alliance and Government policies for regional development hut, understandably, was most reticent about letting us have sight of Socialist policies. Much has been made about the north-south divide. It is a reality. It must be addressed, hut it must not be exaggerated. Speaking from experience, I must say that I have never known any Government to tackle the problems of the north-west of England with more vigour or more success than the present Government. It is easy to dwell on difficulties but I prefer to address the positive side, and there are many.
  In relation to the north-west, present trends are moving firmly in the right direction. By September last year 32,000 more jobs- over and above everything that had been lost—had been created since June 1983. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General has said, unemployment is falling faster in the north than in the south.
  I have had the privilege of representing a large part of Trafford Park, which remains the greatest industrial complex in the United Kingdom, for the past 17 years. Throughout those 17 years we have never had a Government who have done so much or acted so effectively to regenerate Trafford Park and to assure its future as the one who are now in office. We do not need lectures from Socialists on regional policy. Their policies were an unmitigated disaster for the area that I have the honour to represent and for all the established industrial areas of the north. Their policies encouraged industry to move to greenfield sites and to abandon the traditional industrial areas. This represented a flagrant waste of resources and had the effect of blighting established industrial areas. It was the epitome of a counterproductive regional policy.
  Under the first Wilson Government, more than 15,000 jobs were lost in Trafford Park, including 8,000 at GEC alone. Under the second Wilson Government, that trend continued. A further 5,000 jobs were lost just across the Manchester ship canal at the Irlam steelworks when that plant closed, but the then Labour Government, supported and kept in office by the Liberal party, pursued a policy
  102
  of unremitting hostility towards Trafford Park and Manchester. This was carried out with the ruthless gerrymandering of industrial development certificates by Ministers.
  I shall cite only one instance. Kelloggg, in my constituency, wanted to expand its production facilities in Trafford Park. It was told by the Socialist Government that it could not do so in Trafford Park, even though there were vast areas that were devastated in which jobs had been lost on a colossal scale. Kellog asked "Where should we go?" The Government replied, "Why don't you go to a place called Huyton?" I wonder whose constituency that was.
  The Socialist Government, and the Liberals who propped them up in office, have done nowt for Trafford Park or the people of Manchester over any of the years that I have been in this place. On the other hand, the present Government have granted the area assisted area status. Secondly, they have established an enterprise zone, which has attracted many hundreds of jobs into the area. Thirdly, they have designated Trafford Park, the Salford docks and Irlam to be an urban development corporation, an area of about 3,000 acres. It is estimated that the£160 million that the Government are earmarking for the regeneration of the area could lead to the creation of 15,000 new jobs. I should like to thank my right hon. and hon. Friends and the Government as a whole for what they are doing to regenerate a crucial part of Britain's industrial heartland.
  It is not only Trafford Park that has benefited. Whereas Socialists operated a restrictive policy towards Manchester International airport, the Conservative Government have been liberal. They have encouraged the expansion of the airport, which is now the fastest-growing major airport anywhere in Western Europe. Last year it handled 7·6 million passengers, an increase over the previous year of no less than 24 per cent. Manchester is now served by scheduled airlines to twice as many destinations as two years ago, since when El Al now flies to Tel-Aviv, Singapore Airlines to the far east, American Airlines to Chicago, Air Canada to Toronto and British Airways to Hong Kong and a host of European destinations. No fewer than 20 new scheduled destinations were added last year alone.
  There is a need to sustain the momentum of expansion and we need Government assistance to do so. My right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General can relax because what I am about to ask for does not require any additional money. Under the Bermuda II agreement, which was negotiated by the Lib-Lab Government in 1977, Manchester was excluded as a United Kingdom gateway airport while Heathrow, Gatwick and Prestwick were so designated. Thus a United States airline wishing to route through Manchester is discouraged by the United States authorities from even applying for the route because they have been led to believe that the British Department of Transport will demand reciprocity of concession from the United States. I understand that two major airlines—Pan American and North-west Orient—have expressed firm intent to come to Manchester, but unless the Government take a positive arid enlightened attitude, as they have in previous months, towards the expansion of Manchester International airport in line with the Government's 1985 airports policy White Paper, the discussions will come to nothing and an important opportunity will be lost. I recognise that it might not be

  103
  the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend, but I hope that he will convey the message to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
  The success of Manchester International airport is a key factor in the success of the north-west generally. The development areas of Barrow, Runcorn, Warrington and Trafford Park—all points of expansion in the northwest—make great play in their publicity material in attracting overseas developers by drawing attention to the excellent air services that are provided by the airport. I have no doubt that those services represent a key factor in the situation whereby at present no fewer than seven major new hotels are being built or are in the pipeline in Manchester.
  British Aerospace at Woodford only last week secured important new orders for the 146 airliner, safeguarding 3,000 jobs at Woodford, a further 3,000 at Chadderton and creating 200 new jobs at the Woodford facility.
  All is not gloom and doom in the north-west and those who suggest that it is do no service to the region they represent. Today in the north-west we are seeing tangible signs of progress towards a brighter future.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: To assess the full damage that the Government have done and continue to do to our country it is necessary for the House to consider each of the two nations that the Government have deliberately created and that are persisting. The first of the two nations is suffering from desperate congestion, appalling pressure on its public services, vast waiting lists for urgent hospital treatment, bad transport services due to the congestion, and all the other symptoms of overheating. The other nation is suffering, as the House knows so well, from unemployment, which is not falling by anything like the extent the Government claim and which last month increased. It is also suffering from deprivation, low earnings and all the symptoms of a decadent economy.
  The result of those two nations is to present those who are trying to preside over the economy of the country with an appalling problem, which is simply a recurrence of the problem that Labour Governments equally failed to face, namely, measures that would revive and expand industry in the deprived areas seriously overheat parts of the southeast of England and those areas where there is virtually full employment.
  We have heard nothing from the Government tonight, in spite of the invitation we gave them in our motion, to suggest how they are to deal with the intractable problem of two separate nations drifting further and further apart. The problem is not tackled at all by the Paymaster General, the number two Minister at the Department of Employment, coming to the House to flagellate himself for his juvenile indiscretions and to talk about the errors of previous Governments in their absurd broad-brush treatment, as if the alliance had been in government recently. Some of us have been condemning broad-brush treatment of the regions since first coming to the House. The reason why we insist that the regions and the local areas must have more say in measures to regenerate themselves is the poor record under both Governments of the twin parties of centralist power.
  104
  In Labour's case one shocking waste of resources was the appalling white elephant, the Humber bridge, which goes from nowhere to nowhere. It is our contention that if the project had been debated in a Yorkshire and Humberside assembly, the sensible people of that region would have said, "No Humber bridge at this stage. Let us have instead a dozen new hospitals or 50 new schools." The Tories were the begetters of another of northern England's greatest white elephants, the Kielder dam. It was constructed at enormous public expense and the devastation of beautiful countryside, and what is it worth now? The water is not needed for any part of this country and the latest ploy to try to make some use of that Tory white elephant is to start selling water to Hamburg. That is a manifest symbol of an economy which is mismanaged and which is, in some respects, out of control.
  The Paymaster General performed as an identikit Minister. No one would have known which of the twin parties he belongs to. He stood there trying to justify the whole thing by explaining at great length how much money the Government are throwing at the problems of deprivation, as if the mere spending of money is any advance in dealing with the problems. He had the cheek to do that although the Audit Commission has just condemned the profligate way in which the Manpower Services Commission has been spending some of the taxpayers' money, in the great propaganda exercise of merely throwing millions of pounds at problems without solving them.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) was careful to say virtually nothing about the Labour party's approach to these problems. The alliance is bitterly disappointed at Labour's approach to the problem of mass unemployment, especially long-term unemployment, which is manifest. An all-party Select Committee, in two reports, unanimously said that to deal with long-term unemployment it is essential that the measures should be specifically targeted on the long-term unemployed. The Labour party shrinks from doing that. We can only speculate about the reasons for that—the pressures on it from outside the House. But it is a fact that when a draft Bill was carefully prepared to give effect to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Employment that measures should be specifically targeted on the longterm unemployed to give each a guarantee of 12 months' work, the Labour Front Bench attitude was distinctly cool and negative.
  The alliance wholly supports, and has done in the House over recent months, the suggestion by the all-party Select Committee on Employment that every person who has been unemployed continuously for a long time should be offered a guarantee of a 12-month job or a serious training place. We regard with contempt the fact that the Paymaster General and his master the Secretary of State in the other place provide only one in five of the long-term unemployed with a place on all their highly expensive special schemes. How can that be justified when we have this appalling army of so many hundreds of thousands of people who have been continuously out of work, losing morale, skill, health and often hope?
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman keeps pouring scorn on the expense of our programme. How can he equate that with the proposals that will be presented tomorrow by the alliance, that
  "We will make sure that public spending creates jobs through exports and investment"?

  105
  That is not the method that the hon. Gentleman described. The alliance proposes that
  "In the first year gross public spending would be increased by £4·9 billion".
  What is that but throwing money at the problem?
  Mr. Wainwright: Not at all. We are careful to point out that the net cost of our proposals would be relatively small because we would put people back into genuine jobs, where they would earn full wages. They would pay income tax and more VAT because their households would be able to purchase more, so they would begin to make a contribution to the economy.
  I should like the Paymaster General to face up to the example of Sweden, where long-term unemployment virtually ceases to exist because anybody who is continuously out of work for more than 300 days is immediately offered either a job or a serious place on a long-term training scheme. I cannot for the life of me discover why the Government neglect to learn from countries that have found a better solution to the problems than they have.
  One of the consequences of the two-nation approach is that there are neglected opportunities in the regions where unemployment is so high. As a contrast, let us consider people waiting for urgent hospital treatment—I stress urgent treatment; not elective surgery, but a condition in which the GP has said that the patient must have treatment as a matter of urgency. The congestion that the Government have created in the south-east is such that health authorities such as West Surrey and North-East Hampshire, Riverside in the North West Thames area, and West Lambeth all have a very high percentage of people needing urgent treatment who have been kept waiting more than one month. Indeed, nearly 90 per cent of those waiting for urgent treatment in those areas have been waiting for more than one month. However, in the areas of neglected opportunities, the areas in which the Government do so very little, beds are standing empty and there are easy opportunities for receiving immediate treatment. Early treatment for an urgent condition can be found in such places as Scarborough, the Wirral, Durham and Bolton.
  If I may switch from health to transport, the Paymaster General was eloquent about the superb installation of motorways spurring off the M62. That is fine, but there are so few goods vehicles using those motorways. [Interruption.] I can assure the House that I am a frequent user of those motorways and I deplore the fact that they run through a desert at the moment, due to the recession.
  It is the alliance plea that the splendid infrastructure which was provided by wiser Governments than this should be put to use, and proper use should be made of what the taxpayer has provided in the past.
  I want briefly to consider the effect on earnings. Nowhere is the problem of the two nations more clearly demonstrated than in the stark contrast between the level of earnings in some parts of London, especially the City, and the depressed earnings only a mile or two away in what the London chamber of commerce has aptly described as the "huge crescent of deprivation" in parts of north, east and south London.
  We cannot expect to have a united country if such disparities in income persist and grow worse by the week within a very few miles of each other. That is a recipe for dividing the country which would make wiser past leaders
  106
  of the Conservative party pale with horror at seeing the country which they had worked so hard to unite being deliberately divided by misguided economic policies.
  I believe that the alliance motion tonight is more than fully justified. I am sorry that it has been treated so flippantly by the Paymaster General. I hope at least that the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry will have some constructive comments to make on our proposals when he replies.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Tony Favell: We have heard a great deal about the divided nation, in particular the north-south divide, this evening and for many months. For someone like me, who before 1983 rarely ventured south of Derby, there are clearly divisions. In much of the south there is a bustle that is sadly missing from parts of the north—although not all of the north. There is a gap which must be closed. The question is how.
  The Labour party has suggested that that gap can be closed through more Government spending, more town hall spending, more council houses, more strategic planning—in fact, a great deal more interference and a lot more Socialism. The alliance suggests more Government spending, more town hall spending. more infrastructure—the alliance does not like to talk about council houses any more—more regional planning as opposed to strategic planning; in fact a great deal more interference and, it would appear to Conservative Members, a great deal more Socialism as well.
  Let us consider what made the north great in the first place; how northern Britain became the industrial workshop of the world. That was not planned from Westminster and we did not rely on Brighton, Bournemouth or Bristol.
  Liverpool achieved greatness through the entrepreneurial spirit of the Liverpudlians; Manchester achieved greatness through the business acumen of the Mancunians; and Glasgow achieved it through the industry of Glaswegians. That greatness certainly did not come from municipal socialism—that had not been heard of in those days—and it did not occur through state charity. Throwing money at that problem is not the answer. Surely we have learnt the lesson of Liverpool, where more aid has been spent per head of population than anywhere else in the country. State charity is not the answer.
  The north needs a return to the industrial ethos upon which its greatness was founded. First, we must ban all talk of the post-industrial society. Those words should be forgotten. No matter how smart the City of London is or how great the attractions of Britain are to the overseas tourist, we shall always depend on industry to pay for the things that we want and need. The Opposition, who glory in gloom, would have the world believe that the north is industrial dereliction. Far from it. Of course, areas which put all their eggs in one basket, such as shipbuilding, need Government support to set out their stall to attract new enterprise. But many areas have diversified and look forward to the future with confidence.
  Stockport is a northern industrial town where unemployment is not just less than the regional average; it is less than the national average. We have many successful industrial firms. We have Ferranti Computers, supplying fine computers and radar systems, which was recently awarded a large contract by the Ministry of

  107
  Defence. Williams Fairey Engineering does important work for the nuclear power industry and, incidentally, was this year's national brass band champions. United Biscuits is a large employer exporting favourites such as digestive biscuits, Penguins and jaffa cakes not only throughout Europe but the world. Simon is an engineering group employing 16,000 people worldwide whose shareholders recently followed the example of the shareholders of Pilkington and rejected an unwelcome takeover bid from a City consortium. As my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) said earlier, at British Aerospace in Woodford—also in Stockport—200 jobs have been created to produce the HS146. I remind the House that that company delivered the Nimrod AEW airframes on time. The failure of the south-east led to the cancellation of the Nimrod programme.
  Let us have no more talk of the northern industrial spirit being extinguished.
  Mr. Piers Merchant: Is my hon. Friend aware of a report, published today, entitled, "It is not really like that", commissioned—perhaps surprisingly—by the BBC and written by a quasi-academic called Fred Robinson, which contrasts with the worthy remarks that my hon. Friend has just made and is a diatribe in despair and an exercise in uncontrollable pessimism without a single constructive suggestion? Does he agree that such a catalogue of gloom is exactly what we do not need if we are to attract investment, industry and jobs to the north and the other deprived regions? Instead, we should sell all the good points of those regions.
  Mr. Favell: I can only think that this man is a Socialist. The Socialists of the north have done nothing but whinge and whine for the past 10 years and have repeatedly sold the north short.
  We need a few things from the Government, and here is my shopping list. First, we need cheap energy. The Government have done much for coal, but they must not flinch from ensuring that we have our share of nuclear energy. Apart from anything else, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. employs 16,000 people in the north, and last year the nuclear industry placed contracts worth £300 million with companies in the north-west.
  Secondly, people must be made aware that if—God forbid—we had another Labour Government, trade union militancy would reawaken. Thanks to the Prime Minister, much has been done to restore industrial peace, but it could easily be lost. We have all seen what the militant trade unions did to the Liverpool docks, but things are much better now, even in Liverpool. Recently, I visited Ford's Halewood plant in Liverpool with the Stockport chamber of commerce. The plant manager told us that, five years ago, we would have had a hostile reception from the labour force, but now the reverse is the case. People came up to us and told us how much better industrial relations were and how proud they were of their product and of what was being achieved. At Halewood the workers are making a fine product at a keen price with a reputation for reliability. No wonder Ford is now our largest home car producer.
  While we are on the subject of trade unions, could my right hon. and learned Friend please sort out the Civil Service unions? They are hogging the secretarial and
  108
  clerical work in the south. Where is the justice, let alone the sense, in paying more for poorly-qualified typists in London when there are lots of lasses in the north who could do the job twice as well at greatly reduced cost? What has happened to the programme that was introduced in the 1970s to disperse the Civil Service to the regions? By now we should have 16,000 Civil Service jobs relocated to the regions but so far I think that we have no more than 6,000 dispersed.
  Will the Government continue to put down the argument that there is something demeaning in training or retraining? To persuade an unskilled youngster to go on the dole rather than to train is irresponsible, if not wicked. Two years on, what chance has that young person at an interview if he is up against another youngster who has completed a two-year YTS?
  Finally, and most important of all, will the Government take an axe to the crackpot councils of the Left? We cannot afford to leave it to chance or, for that matter, to the Leader of the Opposition. Nothing does more harm to the north than such councils in those Victorian town halls which were once monuments to hard work and success but are now citadels of Socialism and despair. That axe is the master key to the north-south divide.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the speediest way to resolve the problem to which he has rightly drawn attention is to introduce proportional representation in local government? That would ensure that extremism of the type that he mentions is wiped from the face of the map.
  Mr. Favell: I shall give the answer in a moment, but it is certainly not proportional representation. Local government in these northern strongholds is no longer under the control of those who pay for it. That is the problem. Over half the house owners in Manchester receive housing benefit. What interest do they have in controlling town hall spending? Making people pay at least 20 per cent. of their rates will help, but that is not enough. We need people to pay 100 per cent. of their rates, and then we must adjust welfare benefits to reflect the national average of the cost of local government.
  There is no point in local government knowing that its voters will be reimbursed for the whole of local government overspending. It would bring the Militant chickens home to roost if they were answerable to the whole of their electorate and not just to a part of it. Some local authorities would not then spend money on equal opportunity officers for lesbians, guides for children on how to deal with the police, and the setting up of nuclear-free zones, as is happening in Manchester. What sort of image of that once proud city does that present to the world? Who will rush to invest in a place that indulges in nonsense like that?
  The good, sound sense of the northerners has not deserted them, but they need help to rid themselves of Left-wing extremists who, with their high-rating policy, have done so much to knock the stuffing out of industry, and who paint such a poor picture of what for me is the best place in the world. My constituency is the neighbour of Manchester but is free of Marxist domination. In my constituency young couples can buy a two-bedroom terrace house in a nice district for £17,000 or £18,000, yet

  109
  their rates are two thirds of the rates charged in neighbouring Manchester, where it takes twice as many people to empty the dustbins.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: Before the hon. Gentleman finishes his speech, will he comment on the speech made by the president of Manchester chamber of commerce who said about local government, "We in the business community are making a far better job of partnership with local government than Westminster seems to be able to do"?
  Mr. Favell: The president of Manchester chamber of commerce should be ashamed of himself. I agree entirely with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Prime Minister who gave the president of that chamber a real trouncing following that speech—which was what he deserved.
  Every Friday I cannot wait to get back to the north, with its friendly people, its humour, its sport, its open countryside, its great musical tradition and, of course, its beer. With a little help to rid ourselves of the Marxists, the militants and the Trotskyists, once again we will be the envy of the overcrowded, overwrought, over-priced south.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell).
  Traditionally, this debate is about the north-south divide. I wonder how many people realise that the gross domestic product for a person in Cheshire is higher than it is for someone in Kent or Hampshire; that unemployment in our northernmost English constituency—Berwick—is lower than the national average; that it is lower in Halifax than it is in Hastings; that in northern industrial Barrow-in-Furness it is lower than in soft and privileged Brighton; and that in Northampton itself, unemployment is lower than it is in Southampton. More sophisticated attenders to this debate say that it is now an east-west divide, but if they look across at the growing prosperity in south Wales they will feel that that is wrong also.
  On closer analysis, the problems of poverty, the material, economic and social problems in this country, are worse where Socialism is strongest. The paradox is that, where there are Socialist councils, there are higher levels of local expenditure and that where there are higher levels of local expenditure there are higher levels of unemployment and higher levels of crime.
  There is a simple connection between Socialism and deprivation. Where Socialism is rampant, business confidence is low. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to do something about the loony Left. Why does he not do something about it where his own home is and there the council intends to raise his rates by £21 a week? In those three London boroughs that changed hands at the last local elections, business ratepayers face an increase in business rates of about 60 per cent. How are they supposed to provide jobs in those circumstances?
  Behind this motion are implications that we should have a regional policy, more regional expenditure. The implications are that the problems are in the distant provinces—but that is not the case at all. We need analysis before we can come to a solution.
  The major economic problems are in London, in our capital city. Six of the 14 constituencies with the highest
  110
  levels of unemployment arc in London-Bethnal Green, Hackney, South and North, Peckham, Bermondsey and Vauxhall. The average in those constituencies is that a third of the men are unemployed and drawing benefit. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Scandalous -] Yes, and I will tell the hon. Gentleman why it is scandalous. I draw his attention to the definitive Audit Commission report on London and the problems of Socialism. It sets out eight rotten boroughs in London controlled by the new Left, the shock troops of Socialism, the pioneers of perverted politics, run by the clones of those who, after the next election, will form the majority of the parliamentary Labour party, small though it may be in this House.
  That report compares those eight rotten boroughs with eight similar boroughs controlled by less lunatic Socialists and leavened with three Conservative councils with similar profiles and problems. Within London, compared with the control boroughs, those rotten boroughs spend 50 per cent. more per head of the population—£7 per week per household. They employ 35 per cent. more staff. Between 1980 and 1986, their central staff increased by 18 per cent., while others went down by 14 per cent. Staff vacancies—a measure of an efficient, well-run organization—are three times as great in the rotten boroughs. All this and inferior services—Socialism in action.
  Comparing the rotten boroughs with the metropolitan authorities, the cost per child in care is over twice as great. The cost of local authority services is three times as great. The management cost per dwelling is twice as great. The arrears of rent are three times as great. One in five rents are not paid in those inner London areas. They are concerned about homelessness, yet it takes them twice as long to relet their houses as it takes anybody else. Those are shocking statistics.
  In Brent in the last three years, over three quarters of the senior staff have left their posts. Eight pounds in every £100 of inner London rates is uncollected. While the real costs of local government over the last three years have decreased, in the rotten boroughs they have risen by 20 per cent. London is prosperous, yet in these Socialist areas there are massive problems.
  As for unemployment, after massive expenditure on education, ILEA spends almost twice the national average, yet side by side with wealth and job opportunities. Why? In some part, the devastation is caused by the effects of Socialism on business and commerce, but that is not the whole story. If one sows the seeds of Socialism, if one heavily fertilises the ground with public money. if one waters it with publicly financed propaganda, a crop will grow—a crop of grudge and dependence.
  If we set up a race relations industry and make people feel that they are discriminated against, they will feel racially discriminated against. If we set up anti-police committees to tell people that the police are against them, they will be anti-police and crime will rise. If people are told that they are entitled to certain standards whatever their own efforts, endeavours and abilities, we will bring dissatisfaction and grudge.
  We all recognise in our constituencies the neighbouring households as we go canvassing. One is spruce and immaculate and another dingy and in disrepair. The one is welcoming and the other disgruntled. As often as not, the second household has been infected by Socialism.
  There is a musical in London called "Les Miserables", a line of which runs:
  "At the end of the day you get nothing for nothing."

  111
  The tragedy is that Socialism preaches that one can have paradise without effort and that if one is not provided for, it is someone else's fault. Socialism breeds dependence. It tells people to sit on their backsides and complain. The tragedy is that we do not have a north-south divide. Many of our people's lives are destroyed because, in this Conservative country, they are living under the yoke of Socialism. I tell my hon. Friends, with the local elections coming up, they should get that message across loud and clear because our people depend on us.
  9.36 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) was another rendition of Marlow's theorem of the correlation between Socialism and deprivation, but I suggest that Conservatism and neglect also go hand in hand. The hon. Gentleman has not contributed to the debate.
  No Conservative Member has said what should be done about the problem. The Paymaster General, probably wisely, did not refer to the Government amendment. He probably felt embarrassed reading out
  "that the United Kingdom has benefited from six years of uninterrupted growth"
  as his introduction to a debate on deprivation. He would not want us to draw attention to the fact that manufacturing output is 4 per cent. below what it was when the Government came to power.
  We hear from Conservative Members a repetition of selective statistics which ignore the problem. The Paymaster General, I suspect deliberately, misunderstood the alliance stance. He suggested that we want to return to old-style regional policy. We want nothing of the kind. We believe that there is a need to recognise the problems. That is our first obstacle with the Government—they refuse to acknowledge the seriousness of the problem.
  I shall not quote the unemployment figures, as we all know them, but I should like to pick out a few other statistics which demonstrate the scale of the problem. In the south-east, there have been 20 manufacturing job redundancies per thousand. The equivalent figures for the north and Scotland are 69 and 58 respectively. For all sectors, there have been eight jobs per thousand lost in the south-east, 28 in the north and 21 in Scotland. That is a serious discrepancy.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) mentioned house prices. The average house price in Yorkshire and Humberside, at £25,989, should be compared with the average in Greater London of £57,816. That too shows a serious discrepancy.
  Since 1976, defaults and arrears among private home buyers have increased eight times and the number of homeless people has gone up to more than 100,000. That is an indictment of the Government, but they do not acknowledge the deprivation.
  The Cambridge university department of land economy has estimated that, out of the 900,000 jobs that are likely to be created in the private sector during the next 10 years, at least 420,000 will be in the south-east of England. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) referred to the fact that the forecast population in Scotland will
  112
  drop below 5 million by the end of the century, while the population of the southern half of England will increase by 1·5 million.
  The Government's remedy, as articulated by the Paymaster General, is that people should move out and accept lower pay. The first problem with that is that the Paymaster General is talking nonsense about the disparity in wage rates. Anybody who considers the figures knows that the reality is that average earnings in the regions and provinces are lower than in the south-east. In Greater London, for example, average earnings for men are £255 a week, compared with £191 in the east midlands and £193 in the south-west.
  The differences in house prices, land costs and wages exist, but all that has happened is that London is still sucking in the talent, while the regions are failing to cope with the problem. The selective statistics given by various hon. Members representing constituencies in the north of England do not disprove that point.
  We also acknowledge that, within the broad division between London and the south-east and the rest of the country, there are divisions within each region. We can all list areas of low unemployment in the north and of high unemployment in the south. In London there is a clearly identified crescent of deprivation. Within walking distance of the Bank of England, for example, are the boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Islington and Southwark, including Bermondsey, which have between 25 and 30 per cent. unemployment.
  The analysis of those real problems shows that London and the south-east are creating jobs and sucking the brightest and best talents out of Scotland, Wales and the regions, but that they are failing to provide the jobs that the local people of London need. The Government are totally failing and refusing to address that problem.
  The United Kingdom needs to get away from its one-centre economy and the black hole down which the city of London sucks everything, because of which other parts of the country simply cannot get the backing and the resources that they need to focus on their own enterprise.
  Why can companies such as NCR, formerly National Cash Register, operate its worldwide headquarters from Dayton, Ohio, Wang computers from Lowell, Massachusetts, and cities such as Houston and Dallas, and Alburquerque in New Mexico experience the growth of corporate headquarters, whereas in this country the idea of establishing corporate headquarters in Aberdeen, Newcastle, Cardiff or Manchester is regarded as being off the map and out of touch? That is the sort of attitude that we must get away from. The attitude of our American competitors is the one that we need.
  The Government simply sit back and say that they are prepared to let the market operate in the way in which it does and that if they were re-elected and continued their policies, the problem would somehow resolve itself. The answer is that it most certainly will not. The Paymaster General and, to the extent that he spoke about policy, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East seemed to imply that central direction was the right answer. The Paymaster General stated that central Government would decide what was good for people in the regions and for investment outside, or indeed inside, London. The excuse given by Conservative Members was a catalogue of attack on Left-wing Socialist authorities. I agree with Conservative Members that Left-wing Socialist local authorities drive out enterprise and cannot face up to the

  113
  problems. However, we in the alliance are prepared to do something about it and to reform the system so that those people cannot get control.
  Mr. Favell rose—
  Mr. Bruce: No, I shall not give way. I do not have the time.
  The Paymaster General and the Government are not prepared to introduce the necessary reforms—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Bruce: I am sorry that I cannot give way to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), but I have very little time.
  We in the alliance are prepared to face up to those problems because we believe in the people of this country; we believe that the people of Newcastle, Manchester and Bristol, as well as of the rural areas, are capable of making their own decisions and that they better know what they can do in their own areas, if they are given the backing, resources and freedom to make their own decisions. That is something that the big brothers in the Labour and Conservative parties will not allow them to do.
  We propose the establishment of regional development agencies to make the decisions that are at present being made by central Government. [AN HON. MEMBER: "In the south-east?"] Certainly in the south-east. All regions should have an opportunity to focus their enterprise and to back their decisions, rather than have Whitehall telling them what is good for them. I find it extraordinary that Conservative Members say that the system is unworkable. It has helped other countries to be more successful. We are not talking simply about moving jobs and wealth, but saying that if we adopt this system, we shall help to stimulate more growth, enterprise and jobs—the sum total will be greater for the whole of the United Kingdom. There is plenty of evidence to show that that can be the case.
  Recently, the Financial Times carried a review of regional development and venture capital. It pointed out that, too often, enterprises in the regions did not receive backing because no one in the City has enough local knowledge to give them backing. If we had people on the ground with that knowledge who could draw the funds and back the enterprises, we could get a great deal more for the United Kingdom. There is evidence to support that in the operation of enterprise agencies and regional development corporations. More should be done to back such enterprises and to ensure the development of new opportunities in the regions.
  We agree with the Government that small businesses and the self-employed have been an important source of new employment; although the figures are not clear, we believe that they will be important in future. However, we question whether the enterprise allowance scheme is the best way of ensuring that. There is no check on how many schemes survive and on the extent to which they draw from others. We need agencies to follow those matters through. We notice that the lion's share of the BES is going to the south-east. Clearly, regions do not receive their share of the finance available.
  When the Government choose to attack the alliance, they would do well to consider that, after seven years, the Government have reached a plateau of 3 million
  114
  unemployed plus 1 million people on the type of schemes that they greatly disparaged at the start of their period in office. There is no sign that they have any strategy for reducing that total figure or for ensuring that deprived areas have resources and backing to deal with their problems.
  Tonight we heard precious little from the Labour party, despite the 28-minute speech from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. One and a half minutes of that one speech from the Labour party related to Labour's policy, but that was probably one and a half minutes too long. Neither of the hon. Members who are apparently coordinating the policy has yet managed to agree on what it is and we are not sure whether there will be a strategy. Clearly, the argument within the Labour party Is about which state sector should provide the jobs.
  We in the alliance are prepared to back enterprise and we recognise that development corporations and enterprise agencies have a significant role to play. However, we are also prepared to recognise the discrepancy that exists, not just between different regions and nations, but within them. That is why we propose, first, to give a job guarantee to the long-term unemployed; and, secondly, to provide a selective cut in employers' national insurance charge for unemployment black spots and travel-to-work areas and to provide in those same areas incentives for recruitment of the long-term unemployed. Those specific measures would help to tackle the imbalance and we commend them to the Government.
  The Government will live to rue the day when they decided not to trust people on the ground in their communities to make decisions which affect their enterprise. The Government have chosen to pull power to the centre and to set up central Government agencies to determine centrally who should get what.
  I should have thought that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) might have been present. In our last debate on this issue, he made an extraordinary proposal, which boiled down to the establishment of a series of regional district commissioners on the old Indian imperial model, who were to be appointed by central Government. Though his book sales may be great, he is not prepared to get to grips with the problem, any more than any other member of the Conservative party.
  I commend the alliance motion to the House. The other two parties have shown themselves shamefully out of touch with the problems of the regions in terms not only of their analysis but of their solution. The people know that they have to look elsewhere for a solution. They cannot trust the Labour party, and the Government have said that they have no policy.
  9.50 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Giles Shaw):I hope that the alliance has enjoyed the second of the two debates that it has elected to have today. It is appropriate that it should be discussing an issue which, as we have seen it unfold over the past couple of hours, has shown the great fragmentation in the alliance. It is appropriate for a fissiparous group such as the alliance that it should have selected this debate. No discussion about regional policy is free from the claims for special attention for this or that region or problem, for this or that reason. In most speeches there was an understandable special pleading.

  115
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) drew attention to the important disparities between affluence and unemployment, between major cities and decline, and so on. His proposals and the motion show that the alliance would like to see development agencies set up in each of the regions. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) also referred to that. Development agencies are one of the points that have been widely debated.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House would be wise to contemplate what a development agency is. It is not, as suggested by the hon. Member for Gordon, a coming together of individuals in the region concerned to try to preside over a development policy of their own. A development agency is set up under an Act and has central Government power, taking away much of the development arrangements in the regions. It meets entirely on its own, without any particular regional element. It is an agent of Government and operates in that way in the Scottish Office under the aegis of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and in the Welsh Office under the aegis of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. That is what gives development agencies their power and prestige abroad. To suggest that all 334 travel-to-work areas or other regions should operate on a statutorily based system is a recipe for chaos and confusion, and the alliance must recongise that before it does anything else.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), in his substantial address to relatively few shareholders, spoke about what the Labour party would like to do. Clearly, he was convinced that the main problem was dealing with manufacturing investment. He made special reference to the ERDF proposals in Brussels, in which he is well versed. He has read the 17 volumes and knows all about them. He will recognise that, with his remarks about Merseyside and Manchester, he was quoting the words of the Labour councillors for Manchester and the Labour, or not-so-Labour, councillors of Liverpool. That provides him with a reasonable opportunity to say that the Government are talking with forked tongue. He knows that the Government have to assemble, collate and present, or none of the proposals would be allowed to get ERDF funds.
  Mr. Gordon Brown rose—
  Mr. Shaw: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman spoke for 28 minutes.
  The important feature of our debate since then was the eloquent testimony of my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), who rightly showed what can be done when a region gets assistance through urban development corporations and structures to enable the regeneration of industrial activity. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), in his brief speech, rightly called for something positive, such as cheap energy supply, and he will no doubt be delighted with the CEGB's recent reduction by 6 per cent. of its tariff to bulk users. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) correctly put the whole problem into perspective. Where Socialism has been rampant, one will not find much chance of industrial energy and
  116
  development or enterprise. [Interruption.] If that is the case, the hon. Gentleman probably has a cure for the ills of regional disparity.
  The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) surprised me. He was clearly confused about the values of infrastructure. On the one hand, he took to task the Humber bridge. I can understand that, because I well remember Mrs. Barbara Castle making a rash promise in the midst of a by-election at Kingston upon Hull, North, and the Humber bridge duly appeared. The hon. Gentleman took to task the Kielder dam which, as he should have known, was primarily developed to secure opportunities for industrial development in Teesside and Tyneside, admittedly at a time when the oil price had not collapsed and when the plastics and chemical industries were at a high degree of employment. The concept was right—to serve the regional dependence on high water?
  using industry.
  The hon. Member for Colne Valley was worried about motorways. Clearly he has not been on the M62 recently. Perhaps, since he is retiring at the next election, he does not use the M62 very much, and need not worry about the lorries. However, those of us who do are a bit choked up by what we find on the M62.
  The central issue, turning back to manufacturing investment—which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East raised—is the economic activity of the country. If the Government pursue policies which create economic activity and which believe in growth and enterprise, the consequences will steadily improve. Following the traumatic years of decline, after 1973 we had structural decline and rampant inflation. The lack of competitiveness of British industry and its products was pricing them out of markets worldwide and there was a substantial area of structural decline.
  That has changed since 1983. Manufacturing investment has risen in real terms on average by more than 20 per cent. In the regions manufacturing investment has risen by 28 per cent. in the north—that includes the north-east, north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside—in Wales by 28 per cent., the west midlands by 35 per cent., the east midlands by 18 per cent. and by 22 per cent in Scotland. Since 1983, we have seen a substantial increase in manufacturing investment. That has happened as a result of the Government's determination to ensure that the economy is receptive to industrial growth and development. Manufacturers and investors are looking for a stable economic policy and a Conservative Government who will provide policies that are conducive to industrial development and growth, and to see that the policies of previous Labour Governments have been swept away with all the central intervention, controls, restraints on capital and, above all, diktat by trade unions, which determined, more or less, what wage rates would be in the light of the threat of major industrial disruption.
  The investment climate today is infinitely better for regions to benefit from the economy. I accept that it is slow and that there has not been a sufficient replacement of structural industries-shipbuilding, steel, coal or many of the other aspects of heavy engineering which have been centred in some of our regions. The Government are determined to speed up that process. It is because we have restricted development areas and assisted areas of the regions in the greatest need, and because the percentage of

  117
  the work force being covered in the north is now 70 per cent, of people who live in assisted areas, that regional policy is beginning to work.
  We have, by changing the policy from capital-based to job-based, made a significant difference to its effectiveness. That is the way in which we must ensure that regional policy develops. It will be slow, but it will be steady. Ultimately, that depends on having an economy which responds to the needs of industry and provides a stable context in which there can be growth without inflation, encouragement to develop, wages which are determined by market rates and consumer satisfaction based on the quality and competitiveness of British products.
  If we are able to achieve that—we shall do that by a third term in government—we will have demonstrated beyond doubt that the only thing that stands between regional disadvantage and the nation is a Conservative Government who are dedicated to making Britain great again.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 33, Noes 176.

  Division No. 113]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Barnes, Mrs Rosemary

  Kennedy, Charles

  Beith, A. J.

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Lamond, James

  Buchan, Norman

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Clarke, Thomas

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Dixon, Donald

  Pike, Peter

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Eastham, Ken

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Fisher, Mark

  Skinner, Dennis

  Freud, Clement

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Haynes, Frank

  Wainwright, R.

  Howarlh, George (Knowsley,N)

  Howells, Geraint

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Mr. James Wallace and

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Mr. John Cartwright.

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cash, William

  Amess, David

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Ancram, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Arnold, Tom

  Chope, Christopher

  Ashby, David

  Churchill, W. S.

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Baldry, Tony

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Benyon, William

  Cockeram, Eric

  Best, Keith

  Coombs, Simon

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cope, John

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Cormack, Patrick

  Blackburn, John

  Couchman, James

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Bottomley, Peter

  Crouch, David

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Brinton, Tim

  Dunn, Robert

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Durant, Tony

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Evennett, David

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Burt, Alistair

  Fallon, Michael

  Butcher, John

  Favell, Anthony

  Butterfill, John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

  Fletcher, Sir Alexander

  Carttiss, Michael

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  118

  Forman, Nigel

  Maclean, David John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Forth, Eric

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Franks, Cecil

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Major, John

  Galley, Roy

  Malins, Humfrey

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Malone, Gerald

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Marland, Paul

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Marlow, Antony

  Gorst, John

  Mates, Michael

  Gow, Ian

  Mather, Sir Carol

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gregory, Conal

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Ground, Patrick

  Merchant, Piers

  Gummer, Rt Hon John S

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Mudd, David

  Harvey, Robert

  Murphy, Christopher

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Neubert, Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hayward, Robert

  Norris, Steven

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hickmet, Richard

  Osborn, Sir John

  Hind, Kenneth

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hirst, Michael

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Pawsey, James

  Holt, Richard

  Pollock, Alexander

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

  Portillo, Michael

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Powley, John

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Raffan, Keith

  Jackson, Robert

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Renton, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Ryder, Richard

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Key, Robert

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Shersby, Michael

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Knowles, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Knox, David

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Latham, Michael

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Lester, Jim

  Wheeler, John

  Lilley, Peter

  Whitfield, John

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Wood, Timothy

  Lord, Michael

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Tellers for the Noes:

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd, and

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Mr. David Lightbown.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Question on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes that the United Kingdom has benefited from six years of uninterrupted growth; that over the last six months United Kingdom unemployment has fallen by 100,000; that employment ha s increased substantially since 1983; and that vacancies are at their highest level this decade; commends the efforts of the Government to develop a modern economy which is offering new types of opportunity; recognises in particular its work in launching the most extensive training programme in the country's history, and

  119
  welcomes its commitment to the regions, underlined by carefully targeted investment and assistance; and further calls
  120
  on the Government to continue with its present policy of seeking to spread throughout the country the economic conditions that bring prosperity and jobs.

  Representation of the People
  10.11 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I beg to move,
  That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 23rd February, be approved.
  This draft Order in Council gives effect to the final recommendations of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England following an interim review of 40 parliamentary constituencies in England. If the draft is approved by both Houses, it will be submitted to Her Majesty in Council for promulgation.
  I turn to the form of the order. Articles 2 to 12 substitute the constituencies in the schedule for the constituencies that presently exist. Article 1(3) provides for the order to come into force 14 days after it is made. The changes to the constituencies will take effect at the next general election. Any by-elections in the meantime will be held on the existing boundaries.
  The review which gave rise to the draft order was the third interim review to be conducted by the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England since it completed its general review of constituencies in 1983. Since that general review there have been a number of changes to local government boundaries which have resulted in the county, district or ward boundaries following a different line from the constituency boundary. The commission decided therefore to conduct a number of interim reviews to remove these anomalies.
  Though the House is considering 40 constituencies, the commission reviewed 42. When the proposals were published in September 1986 there were objections to the proposals for the constituencies of Reading, East and Wokingham. These have been the subject of an inquiry and will feature in a separate report. With two other exceptions the remaining proposals did not attract any opposition. The exceptions were two objections to the proposals for Warrington, South and Halton, which were subsequently withdrawn. The commission therefore decided to confirm its draft proposals as its final proposals, and these are given effect in the order. In all instances the changes proposed are the minimum necessary to realign the constituency boundary with the altered local government boundary.
  One measure of the extent of the changes effected by the proposals is the number of electors involved. The largest number of electors affected is nearly 4,000, who will move from Horsham to Crawley. Other relatively large-scale changes are the transfer of about 1,300 voters from Arundel to Shoreham, and around 1,900 voters from Warrington, South to Halton. The remaining changes affect between one and 400 electors. In some instances, including my own constituency of Grantham, no elector is affected directly. I hope that the House will approve the order.
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Robin Corbett: I thank the Minister for the brisk and informative way in which he dealt with the substance of the order. Perhaps the House would permit me to say that I have a special interest in the order because it includes the Hertfordshire, West
  122
  constituency. When I had the honour to become the first Labour Member of Parliament for the former Hemel Hempstead constituency, which is part of the Hertfordshire, West constituency, I wrote on occasion to the boundary commissioners urging upon them the sense of changing the name of the constituency to Hertfordshire, West. It was not until I came second, which is not as much fun as coming first, that the boundaries were altered and the commissioners saw the good sense of the proposal. I am sure that it was right because it was quite wrong, even in those days, to impose the name of the new town of Hemel Hempstead upon the small towns and villages which helped to make up part of the constituency.
  I could, but I will not, wax lyrical about my fond memories of Aldbury and Wigginton, Ashridge and Cupid Green— there is many a story or poem in that— as wards of the Hertfordshire, West constituency. However, I shall content myself by agreeing with the Minister that the changes that the Boundary Commission has come up with, as far as I am aware, make sense because, as best as the commission is able, it is right that the boundaries of the local authority should be contiguous with the boundaries of the parliamentary constituency.
  10.17 pm
  Mr. W. Benyon: I should like to direct my remarks to part IX of the order, particularly to the constituencies of Mid-Bedfordshire and South-West Bedfordshire. Those two constituencies border my constituency of Milton Keynes, and my constituents are unanimous in their admiration of the way in which the Members of Parliament for those two constituencies conduct themselves in dealing with the interests of their constituents. They are also impressed by the speed with which the Boundary Commission has dealt with the particular changes.
  My constituency is the fastest growing in the United Kingdom. In the 1983 election it had just over 70,000 electors and it now has 98,000, an increase per annum of 5,000. I remind my hon. Friend that when the last division of the constituencies took place the base year was 1976, and the final answer was brought in in 1982. If those circumstances continue in the future I shall be representing 150,000 constituents before the next division takes place. I do not worry about that but my constituents ask me whether there is something wrong with the procedure that we adopt in revising constituencies, or whether Members of Parliament should he paid proportionate to the amount of people they represent. There would be no increase in Government expenditure because it would be an average, some of us would get more and some less.
  10.19 pm
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: I simply want to welcome the order because it brings local government boundaries and the parliamentary constituencies into line. In the case of the boundary between Hertfordshire, West and Hertfordshire, South West, the electors in the portion due to be transferred have, for the past two years, been transferred for local authority reasons but not for parliamentary reasons. It has been thoroughly confusing to them at election time and when writing to their councillor or Member of Parliament.
  Although the delays have been brief in some ways, despite the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon), it seems

  123
  curious that the changes can come into effect for local government purposes in April 1985 but two years later for parliamentary purposes. I wonder whether the Minister can look into that to see whether there is any way in which procedures can be speeded up. I welcome the nearly 200 extra constituents who will come into Hertfordshire, West because they will enjoy, in common with the other people of that area represented in the past by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), a sense of community and of pride in the area's achievements, economic and cultural.
  I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes was a sympathiser for proportional representation, but I always thought that that was to do with the way that people vote. Now that I know that it is to do with the way that Members of Parliament should be paid, I am sure that there will be a rising tide in favour of proportional representation in the future.
  10.21 pm
  Mr. Peter Pike: I support the principle of the order because it is right that, wherever possible, when there is a minimal change in a district or borough boundary, the parliamentary constituency boundaries should be changed so that they are conterminous with that boundary.
  Like the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), I am concerned about the delays in the changes that sometimes occur. I have a vested interest in changes that do not come under this order. I hope that the Minister will say what other orders will come before us, which will take similar action to deal with similar situations. For example, there are some changes in the county of Lancashire, and my borough is affected. I hope that that order will be put before the House before the general election. If not, during the next Parliament I would represent a small number of people living in a different borough from the other 99 per cent. It is easier for the people if they know that the boundary is the same for the parliamentary constituency as for the borough. Thus confusion can be avoided.
  While I support the proposal, I hope that the Minister will give us an idea of when the expects to lay further orders before the House.
  10.22 pm
  Mr. Simon Coombs: I lend my support to that of other hon. Members who have spoken in this short debate for the proposal that is before the House, but I should like to follow what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) and invite the Home Office Minister to respond to what he said and what I should like to add.
  A report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs on the redistribution of seats has been laid before the House. It would be for the benefit of all of us if, instead
  124
  of debating late at night these small and straightforward orders, we had the opportunity to discuss the much more important issues of how to overcome the problems of great inconsistencies between the sizes of constituencies. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, I have a constituency that is growing extremely rapidly. While none of my constituents has, as yet, offered me the option of extra pay to deal with the extra problems—nor would I want to accept it—they are being under-represented in the county of Wiltshire, and other counties such as Hampshire are similarly affected.
  The Select Committee came forward with some thoughts but no recommendations. If it were given the opportunity, the House would like to follow those thoughts and perhaps add some recommendations of its own. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Minister to respond to that point.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Not tonight
  10.24 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I want to thank the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and my hon. Friends for the support that they have given to the draft order. With regard to delays, the review into the boundary recommendations that we are considering tonight was announced in February 1986. As you will see Mr. Deputy Speaker, it has taken about a year to get to this final stage.
  The hon. Member for Burnley asked what other reviews are being undertaken. On 23 December last year the Boundary Commission for England gave notice of its intention to review 55 parliamentary constituencies and the Welsh commission gave notice of its intention to review 21 constituencies in February 1986. A number of inquiries are currently being undertaken.
  You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, said that it would not be right for me to comment on a possible response to the Select Committee on Home Affairs report. However, might I say that it was a very valuable report and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would wish to make a response in the near future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1987, which was laid before the House on 23rd February, be approved.

  Representation of the People

    ESTIMATES
    Resolved,
    That this House agrees with the Report [3rd March] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

    PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Terry Davis be discharged from the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure and Mr. Ken Weetch be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Garel-jones.]

  Grammar Schools (Warwickshire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
  10.26 pm
  Mr. J. F. Pawsey: It might be helpful if I mention that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) will be using some of my time to make a contribution to this debate. I have previously advised my hon. Friend the Minister, who is to reply, of that fact.
  I am concerned about the future of grammar schools in Warwickshire, and specifically in Rugby. It will help my hon. Friend the Minister if I tell him that the Labour and alliance-controlled Warwickshire county council has set up a working party to examine secondary education in the eastern and southern areas of Warwickshire. My hon. Friend will recall that it is now official Opposition and alliance policy to phase out grammar schools and it is certainly the intention of the Labour party to phase out grammar schools within two years.
  I put it to my hon. Friend that that does not augur well for a fair decision in Warwickshire based on an impartial assessment of the facts presented to the working party. My hon. Friend will recall that Mrs. Shirley Williams, in the days when she was known as "Shirl the pearl," was responsible for the infamous Education Act 1976 which sought to destroy the grammar schools. That lady has now moved to another party, but it is significant that she has taken her philosophy with her and that the Labour party and the alliance remain committed to the destruction of the grammar schools. I find it most disappointing that those two parties are now hell-bent on destroying part of Britain's heritage.
  You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there are about 150 grammar schools in England and Wales. They cater for about 100,000 pupils. The quality of education in those schools is frequently not equalled elsewhere. It is particularly interesting to reflect on the fact that in philosophies as divergent as China and Germany, in France and the United States, selective education has been retained.
  I want now to turn to Warwickshire and specifically Rugby. In the mid-1970s, the then area education officer in Rugby surveyed parents, seeking their opinion on the desirability of change. About 65 per cent. of parents then expressed the view that the present system of grammar and high schools should be maintained. I am unaware of any major change in public opinion since that survey was carried out. The only change of which I am aware is in the political control of Shire hall at Warwick.
  The driving force, therefore, for change in Rugby's secondary schools is not educational; it is blatently political, and that is a poor reason for destroying proven schools.
  In that connection, my hon. Friend will have noticed an early-day motion which states:
  "That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take fully into account the strength of local support for grammar schools when any proposals for their abolition are submitted; recognises their influence on educational standards; and recalls that the much praised education system in Germany consists of the equivalent of grammar, technical and secondary modern schools."
  So far, more than 60 hon. Members have signed that early-day motion.
  126
  In a speech in his constituency on 7 December 1985, my hon. Friend the Minister— the speech makes excellent reading—said:
  "In an article by Professor Anthony Flew, New Society, 17th November 1983, we can see quite clearly that, measured in terms of university entrants, working class children are actually worse off under the comprehensive system than they were under the old selective system, and worse off even than they were in the 1920s."
  Again, I quote from the same excellent speech:
  "The National Council for Education Standards concludes from their study of the 1981 and 1982 results that better examination results are associated with the selective system of schools, whether it be a fully selective system of grammar and secondary moderns, or a mixture of selective and comprehensive schools…The proportion of school leavers achieving 5 or more 'O' levels and one or more 'A' levels in England rose during the 1950s and the 1960s, but then levelled off and only in the last few years has risen slowly again. But if I look more closely still, I find that it is the results of the independent schools that brought about that rising pattern."
  The Minister's comments and the NCES findings are borne out by the figures from the Warwickshire county council. It is significant, if we compare the percentage of pupils obtaining five higher grade results at O-level in each of the four education areas of Warwickshire from 1979 to 1985, that the eastern and southern areas come out best. Those are the areas which have maintained selective education. That is not a coincidence. I must stress that those are overall figures which include all secondary education in each of the areas. The inescapable conclusion is that, using examination results as a bench-mark, the present system benefits more pupils than does a single comprehensive system.
  It has been suggested that the difference in examination results between Rugby and, for example, the central area of Warwickshire is caused by the fact that more pupils in Rugby are entered for examinations. If that is the case, it suggests that children in Rugby, with its combination of high schools and grammar schools, have better education and examination opportunities than those in the neighbouring comprehensive system.
  That is not an argument for change. The majority of parents have confidence in the present schools. Parents know that grammar schools provide a ladder of opportunity for those from less well-off backgrounds. In addition, in the high schools of the eastern area, there is a safety net that ensures that pupils can transfer at the age of 16 to grammar schools or to the college of further education to take their A-levels. A clear safety net exists which enables pupils to leave the high schools and to take A-levels.
  It is extraordinary that, at a time of some financial constraint, Warwickshire county council can contemplate such a major change for so little reason. If funding is available, it should be used to improve existing schools for the benefit of our children.
  It is sometimes argued that there are good social engineering reasons for introducing comprehensive education. Social engineering does not rate highly on the lists or agendas of most parents, and in any case the social mix which occurs within a grammar school is one of the keys to its success. That must be contrasted with the situation in many areas where parents vote with their feet and decide to move to make sure that their children are within the catchment area of a comprehensive school considered to be better than its neighbours. That seems to be a social engineering at its worst.

  127
  The Coventry Evening Telegraph is one of our excellent local newspapers. In this evening's issue there is a report of a visit by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government to Stratford-on-Avon. The report says:
  "Dr. Boyson said people from many backgrounds had gone through grammar schools.
  Not only is the grammar school serving them but it's also serving the community.
  People had the opportunity to come through to the highest standards".
  That is the opinion of my hon. Friend and I certainly subscribe to that view. I suspect that my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon and for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) also subscribe to that opinion. It is important, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will give clear weight to it when he replies to the debate.
  I should now like to draw attention to a significant local publication. The fact that it came out only once should not reduce its importance. The publication, "Rugby Labour Herald", is dated January 1983. I suspect that this is both a first and last edition. There might be some significance in its date, because at that time the Labour party was in opposition on Warwickshire county council. Now it is in an unholy alliance with the SDP and the Liberals and is in control. The headline in that publication is "Education—what a mess!", and it reads:
  "Proposals to phase out the grammar stream provision at Dunsmore and to close Fareham will not only mop up the surplus places, but will lower standards and cut options."
  It seems that at least in 1983 the Labour party was equating the phasing out of a grammar stream with a lowering of standards. Clearly, that is different from the dogma that is currently being preached, not just in Warwickshire but in the rest of the country.
  I should now like to quote from the National Education Association newsletter. Under the heading, "Views of a young member," it says:
  "For the past three years I have been an active member of the Labour Party (and the Socialist Education Association). While my interest in education has increased over this period, so has my disillusion with the Labour party's attitude to the subject. This year I have not rejoined, partly as a result of the local Party's education policy, which you may find interesting. I am not opposed to all the comprehensives and 6th Form colleges—we already have comprehensives and a non-advanced further education college on the Wirral which cater for particular needs, and appear to do so adequately. But I am strongly opposed (like a majority of people in the affected area) to the abolition of all school sixth forms, coupled with an end to selection in an area where (i) people want it (ii) it works well, proved not least by examination results. Furthermore, as an active member at all levels in the Labour Party, it is clear to me that the decisions have been reached on purely political grounds, with little consideration for standards. The local Labour Party is experimenting with the futures of children for the sake of ideology!"
  One cannot help but believe that that young Socialist member speaks with the voice of experience, and I cannot help but agree with what he says. Change for the sake of change should be rejected.
  I speak principally as a consumer of education. I have six sons, five of whom were educated at one of our grammar schools. I am familiar with both the excellence and the quality of education at Lawrence Sheriff school. I am anxious that other boys should benefit from that school, as mine have, and I oppose the wilful destruction of proven schools for doctrinaire reasons. I maintain that change for no other reason than political dogma is wrong.
  10.40 pm
  Mr. Alan Howarth: My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) has a passionate concern for education standards which is as well known in Warwickshire as it is in the House. We should be grateful to him for introducing tonight's debate.
  As my hon. Friend said, the threat to the future of grammar schools in Warwickshire is the product of ideological prejudice on the part of the Labour, Liberal and SDP parties in Warwickshire. My hon. Friend demonstrated that ideological attitude of the Labour party. But the Liberal party is also in this up to the eyeballs. The commitment to abolish selective education was in its manifesto for the last county council elections. Since then the Liberals have held the balance of power in Warwickshire. The schemes are being advanced against that political background. The Liberal spokesman is on record in last week's edition of the Evesham Journal as saying that the alliance is set to support the comprehensive scheme. That is of a piece with its faddish and ideologically prejudiced approach to education which can be seen in a range of ways.
  We have witnessed the introduction of peace studies, the appointment of racism awareness advisers and now the movement towards the abolition of selective education in Warwickshire. This makes no sense. It certainly cannot be justified by an argument about falling school rolls. School rolls are falling in Warwickshire and all who are concerned about the education of children in Warwickshire recognise that there must be a constructive response. However, the comprehensive scheme proposed by the Labour/alliance coalition would result in comprehensive schools which are so small that, by reference to their own theory, the protagonists of the comprehensive system must find them inadequate. The argument about falling school roles certainly cannot apply in Stratford-upon-Avon where the population is growing.
  If the Labour and alliance parties have their way, we shall have a botched-up scheme. Existing buildings will be adapted to unsuitable purposes, split-site schools will be introduced and schools will be split by arbitrary choice in terms of age range. It is not clear whether we shall have 11 to 16 federations with a separate sixth form, or whether we shall have a middle school where children who arrive at the age of 11 years, having established themselves, are expected to move to other premises at 13 years of age.
  Whatever the variety of botch, it is certain that the cost will be massive. The ratepayers of Warwickshire are well disposed to paying to improve existing schools. They favour spending money to get rid of temporary classrooms and to ensure that there are enough books and equipment. There are some valid objects for expenditure in Warwickshire, but the ratepayers are not in the least interested in subsidising the ideological fantasies of local politicians.
  We do not know the cost of the scheme, because no figures have been produced. The options paper was circulated a year ago—in April 1986—yet the detailed costings have not yet been produced.
  Those of us who are inclined to be of a suspicious turn of mind are becoming increasingly convinced that the figures will not add up. Every time the figures are due to be vouchsafed, the meeting is deferred. We were led to expect that the figures would be produced in December,

  129
  and then again in January. Now we are told that there will be a meeting at the end of April, at which all will be revealed.
  The costs are uncertain, but what is certain is that the proponents of comprehensivisation in Warwickshire are ignoring the excellence of the schools that they intend to abolish.
  More that 75 per cent. of girls at Shottery girls grammar school, in Stratford, go on to higher education. Last year, the record of A-level passes was 89 per cent. and of O-level passes 88 per cent.
  The school has an outstanding reputation and record of achievement in mathematics and physics. In mathematics, at O-level last year, of 64 candidates, 63 passed. There were 24 A grades and 30 B grades. Now, in the first year sixth, 25 girls are embarking on A-level mathematics courses and a significant number of them are interested in becoming engineers. In physics, at O-level, of the 64 girls who took O-levels last year, 59 opted for physics and 52 passed, 16 with an A grade and 20 with a B grade. This impressive record is not a flash in the pan.
  Britain is not so well endowed with competent mathematicians and physicists that we can afford to jettison a school such as Shottery, which is a centre of excellence that recruits girls from all over Warwickshire. Yet the proposal being put forward by the education committee of the county council is that the school should become part of a split-site comprehensive where 11 to 12 year-olds should be catered for.
  King Edward VI school in Stratford has an impressive record of achievement. More than 75 per cent. of the boys go on to higher education and the A-level pass rate is 89 per cent. The average pass at A-level is in 3·5 subjects and at O-level in eight subjects. Last year, five boys, and the year before, seven boys, went on to Oxbridge.
  The school has recently raised £350,000 to build a new technology block. It has been achieved on the basis of strong local support and benefactions from old boys. It has been at no cost to the local authority. The school is voluntary aided and it has the option, if the comprehensivisation scheme is persisted with, to go into the private sector, but the governors and all concerned would be deeply reluctant to do that. It would be an act of educational vandalism on the part of the education authority to pitch out of the state sector a school with such resources, standards and traditions.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the element of tradition to which we should have regard. King Edward VI school was the school at which Shakespeare was educated. It should be preserved as part of our heritage, and certainly not treated as the plaything of wanton, arrogant latter-day educational ideologues.
  I am sorry to have to say that there is a third grammar school in my constituency which is under threat. It is the Alcester grammar school, which dates from 1600 and which continues to attract boys and girls from a wide area. In 1980, there were only 95 pupils in the sixth form. There are now 164, which is testimony to the popularity of the school. Once again, there are examination pass rates of 80 to 85 per cent. at O and A-level, and some 80 per cent. of the sixth form go on to degree courses at university or polytechnic. It is being proposed to destroy the school to create a split-site school, with all the teacher stress and administrative difficulty that that would involve.
  The proposals that are being hatched by the education committee of Warwickshire county council ignore the
  130
  wishes of parents, pupils, teachers and governors. The consultation process that has been proceeding fitfully is widely regarded as a charade and it has been the source of considerable bitterness. The councillors in question are ignoring the preferences of families.
  Those who send children to Shottery and King Edward VI happen to be prefer single-sex schools. Those families happen to prefer smaller schools for their children, because they see the merits of a school in which the children are known and they see that in smaller schools discipline can be easier to maintain. Those families prefer an arrangement whereby the sixth form is contained within the school. They see that the older children benefit from the continuity of teaching, benefit socially from the opportunity to take a degree of personal responsibility for the younger children in the school and benefit from a more formal structure than a sixth form college would allow.
  Those parents are not putting forward arguments for the preservation of their cherished grammar schools, without any regard for other children in the country I hear no defence of the 11-plus as such. I believe that the schools in question would welcome a different system of assessment and more flexible transfer arrangements. Those schools have an honourable record of being willing to help others, especially in terms of sixth-form provision.
  Although the parents, whose children are threatened by the proposed development have full consideration for the educational prospects of less able children in the county, they are absolutely rightly concerned for the future of their children. They believe that bright children equally have educational needs that should be considered. They happen to believe that the future of their children is best secured in a selective system, which provides a certain concentration of ability and the stimulus of the peer group, enabling the children to move on and achieve their potential.
  The education committee in Warwickshire is in danger of destroying good schools that parents want, in the name of a theory experience of which in our country provides, to say the least, no evidence that it is in the pupils' best interests.
  In conclusion, I cannot do better than to refer to comments made to me by Mrs. Janet Purves, chairman of the King Edward VI support group. As she put it, Warwickshire county council. cannot solve the problem of falling rolls in schools by abolishing schools of proven worth. The council should set out to improve standards in all schools and allow the grammar schools to continue to provide the education which the parents so obviously desire for their children.
  10.52 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on his success in obtaining this Adjournment debate on the future of grammar schools in Warwickshire. I congratulate both him and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) on the way in which they presented their case this evening.
  As my hon. Friends know, when a local education authority wishes to establish, discontinue or make a significant change in character or significant enlargement of the premises of a school, or to change the organisation or pattern of provision of its schools, it must first publish proposals under section 12 of the Education Act 1980,

  131
  explaining its intentions. There then follows a two-month period during which statutory objections to the proposals may be submitted to the authority. A statutory objection is defined as one made by any 10 or more local government electors for the area or the governors of any voluntary school affected by the proposals or by any other local education authority concerned.
  The authority has a further month in which to submit the objections it has received to the Secretary of State, together with its comments on the objections. If such objections are made, or if the Secretary of State has given appropriate notice to the local education authority, or if the school concerned is a voluntary school, the proposals fall to be decided by the Secretary of State and may not be implemented without his approval. The Secretary of State may approve the proposals, with or without modification, or reject them.
  When the Secretary of State is considering proposals that have fallen to him to decide, he must judge each
  132
  proposal or set of proposals on its merits, taking into account both the case of those making the proposals and the views of those objecting to them.
  My hon. Friends will, I am sure, appreciate that it is important for the Secretary of State to avoid prejudging the issues where such proposals are concerned. They will understand, therefore, that I am unable to say anything about the future of the schools which are the subject of this debate. I can, however, assure them that I have listened carefully to what has been said tonight, and that their points will be taken into account, along with any other representations which we may receive, before a decision is reached on any proposals which may come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  Finally—and again I have to say "without prejudice" to this case—I wish to assure my hon. Friends that the Government are determined to preserve quality in education wherever and whenever it is to be found. As they know, I have said that on numerous occasions before, and I gladly say it again.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Ethnic Monitoring
  Ethnic Monitoring
  London Newspapers
  London Newspapers
  Taxis
  Taxis
  Cleaning Contracts
  Cleaning Contracts
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Broadleaved Woodlands
  Broadleaved Woodlands
WALES
  National Museum of Wales
  National Museum of Wales
  Angling Clubs (Compensation Scheme)
  Angling Clubs (Compensation Scheme)
  Fish (Radioactivity)
  Fish (Radioactivity)
  National Childminding Association
  National Childminding Association
  Health Authorities (Clerks)
  Health Authorities (Clerks)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Dairy Farms (Inspections)
  Dairy Farms (Inspections)
  Play Board
  Play Board
  Engineering Industry
  Engineering Industry
  Skill Shortages
  Skill Shortages
  Engineering (Skills Training)
  Engineering (Skills Training)
  Health Services (Privatisation)
  Health Services (Privatisation)
  Private In-patient Care
  Private In-patient Care
  Patient Care
  Patient Care
  EEC Butter and Beef (Distribution)
  EEC Butter and Beef (Distribution)
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Schools (Welsh Language)
  Schools (Welsh Language)
TRANSPORT
  Ethnic Monitoring
  Ethnic Monitoring
  London Underground (Automated Ticketing)
  London Underground (Automated Ticketing)
  Bus Deregulation
  Bus Deregulation
  A56 Chester Road
  A56 Chester Road
  Highway Code
  Highway Code
  Kingmoor Motor Transport Sheds, Carlisle
  Kingmoor Motor Transport Sheds, Carlisle
  Airlines (UK Airports)
  Airlines (UK Airports)
  Seafarers
  Seafarers
  East Coast Railway Line
  East Coast Railway Line
  Disused Canals
  Disused Canals
  M25 (Facilities for HGV Drivers)
  M25 (Facilities for HGV Drivers)
  M6 (Facilities for HGV Drivers)
  M6 (Facilities for HGV Drivers)
  M1/A1 Link (Facilities for HGV Drivers)
  M1/A1 Link (Facilities for HGV Drivers)
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Licences)
  Heavy Goods Vehicles (Licences)
  Road Users (Service Facilities)
  Road Users (Service Facilities)
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  BBC, Scotland (Police Raid)
  BBC, Scotland (Police Raid)
  Sheriff Officers
  Sheriff Officers
  Degrees in Summary Cause
  Degrees in Summary Cause
  Warrant Sales and Poindings
  Warrant Sales and Poindings
  Rates (Non-payments)
  Rates (Non-payments)
EMPLOYMENT
  Job Creation (Art Content)
  Job Creation (Art Content)
  Ethnic Monitoring
  Ethnic Monitoring
  Jobs (Portsmouth)
  Jobs (Portsmouth)
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
  Engineering Apprenticeships
  Engineering Apprenticeships
  Unemployment (Kirklees)
  Unemployment (Kirklees)
  Resource Centre
  Resource Centre
  Job Training Scheme
  Job Training Scheme
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Natural History Museum
  Natural History Museum
  Member's Correspondence
  Member's Correspondence
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
  Her Majesty's Inspectors
  Her Majesty's Inspectors
  Secondary Education (Warwickshire)
  Secondary Education (Warwickshire)
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  GCSE
  GCSE
  School Inspections
  School Inspections
  Nursery Schools (Hampshire)
  Nursery Schools (Hampshire)
  Engineering Council
  Engineering Council
  Education (No. 2) Act 1986
  Education (No. 2) Act 1986
  School Uniforms
  School Uniforms
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Meningitis (Research)
  Meningitis (Research)
  Expenditure Steering Group
  Expenditure Steering Group
  Hearing Damage
  Hearing Damage
PRIME MINISTER
  Government Policies (Effects)
  Government Policies (Effects)
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Portsmouth (Voluntary Organisations)
  Portsmouth (Voluntary Organisations)
  Intermediate Range Nuclear Force Agreement
  Intermediate Range Nuclear Force Agreement
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Ethnic Monitoring
  Ethnic Monitoring
  Crime
  Crime
  Asylum Seekers
  Asylum Seekers
  Canning House Probation Hostel
  Canning House Probation Hostel
  Prison Officers' Houses, Culcheth
  Prison Officers' Houses, Culcheth
  Bookmaking
  Bookmaking
  Jordanian Embassy (Employees)
  Jordanian Embassy (Employees)
  Death at Sea
  Death at Sea
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Tamils
  Tamils
  Drink Driving
  Drink Driving
  Zircon Project
  Zircon Project
  Drug Abuse
  Drug Abuse
  Crime (Wales)
  Crime (Wales)
  Mr. Mark Thatcher (Wedding)
  Mr. Mark Thatcher (Wedding)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Regional Assistance
  Regional Assistance
  United States (Internal Control Programme)
  United States (Internal Control Programme)
  Bookmaking
  Bookmaking
  Vacuum Flexible Mirror (Sale)
  Vacuum Flexible Mirror (Sale)
  Civil Research and Development
  Civil Research and Development
  Circuit Breakers
  Circuit Breakers
  Trade Descriptions Act 1972
  Trade Descriptions Act 1972
  Leicester (Ministerial Visit)
  Leicester (Ministerial Visit)
  Match Imports
  Match Imports
  British Aerospace
  British Aerospace
  Sequestrations and Bankruptcies
  Sequestrations and Bankruptcies
  Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association
  Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association
  Employment (Assistance)
  Employment (Assistance)
  Industry (Public Funds)
  Industry (Public Funds)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  AIDS
  AIDS
ENERGY
  Combined Heat and Power
  Combined Heat and Power
  Nuclear Power Industry (Equipment Supplies)
  Nuclear Power Industry (Equipment Supplies)
  Conservation Schemes
  Conservation Schemes
  Crude Oil Prices
  Crude Oil Prices
  Home Insulation
  Home Insulation
  Sizewell B
  Sizewell B
  French Energy Minister
  French Energy Minister
  Surplus Energy
  Surplus Energy
  British Coal
  British Coal
  Closed Power Stations
  Closed Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Industry (Equipment Supplies)
  Nuclear Power Industry (Equipment Supplies)
  Coal Industry (Industrial Relations)
  Coal Industry (Industrial Relations)
  Pressurised Water Reactor Power Stations
  Pressurised Water Reactor Power Stations
  Wind Power
  Wind Power
  Efficiency (Industry)
  Efficiency (Industry)
  Scottish Coalfields
  Scottish Coalfields
  Energy Efficiency
  Energy Efficiency
  Electricity Generation (Costs)
  Electricity Generation (Costs)
  Nuclear Materials
  Nuclear Materials
  Ethnic Monitoring
  Ethnic Monitoring
  Nuclear Fuel
  Nuclear Fuel
  Nuclear Power
  Nuclear Power
  Nuclear Accidents
  Nuclear Accidents
  CEGB (Monopoly)
  CEGB (Monopoly)
  Anthracite
  Anthracite
  Sir Ian MacGregor
  Sir Ian MacGregor
  Coal Strike (Dismissals)
  Coal Strike (Dismissals)
  Petroleum
  Petroleum
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Central America
  Central America
  Development Education
  Development Education
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Convention on Human Rights
  Convention on Human Rights
  Jordan (Diplomatic Immunity)
  Jordan (Diplomatic Immunity)
  Sri Lanka
  Sri Lanka
  Jews (Soviet Union)
  Jews (Soviet Union)
  Lebanon
  Lebanon
  Entry Visas
  Entry Visas
DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  Ethnic Monitoring
  Ethnic Monitoring
CIVIL SERVICE
  Job Descriptions and Definitions
  Job Descriptions and Definitions
  Training
  Training
ENVIRONMENT
  House Insulation (Cancer)
  House Insulation (Cancer)
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Construction Industry (Training)
  Construction Industry (Training)
  Flats
  Flats
  Ethnic Monitoring
  Ethnic Monitoring
  Local Government Finance (Waltham Forest)
  Local Government Finance (Waltham Forest)
  West Sussex Structure Plan
  West Sussex Structure Plan
  Official Drivers
  Official Drivers
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Home Insulation
  Home Insulation
  Neighbourhood Energy Action
  Neighbourhood Energy Action
  Anti-fouling Paint
  Anti-fouling Paint
  Tenants (Telford)
  Tenants (Telford)
  Ministers (Car Telephones)
  Ministers (Car Telephones)
  Water (Privatisation)
  Water (Privatisation)
  Sports Grounds, Brent
  Sports Grounds, Brent
  Cleaning Contracts (Palace of Westminster)
  Cleaning Contracts (Palace of Westminster)
  Housing Investment Programme
  Housing Investment Programme
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Sector Employees
  Public Sector Employees
  Autocatalysts
  Autocatalysts
  Ethnic Monitoring
  Ethnic Monitoring
  Manufacturing Industry and Investment
  Manufacturing Industry and Investment
  National Debt
  National Debt
  Taxpayers' Incomes
  Taxpayers' Incomes
  Overdue Taxes
  Overdue Taxes
  European Investment Bank
  European Investment Bank
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Mental Health (Nursing)
  Mental Health (Nursing)
  SERPS
  SERPS
  Free Milk and Vitamins
  Free Milk and Vitamins
  Maternity Payments
  Maternity Payments
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Corporal Punishment
  Corporal Punishment
  Deaf and Hard of Hearing (Grants)
  Deaf and Hard of Hearing (Grants)
  Neurology Services (Guildford)
  Neurology Services (Guildford)
  Children (Homelessness)
  Children (Homelessness)
  Family Practitioner Service (Surrey)
  Family Practitioner Service (Surrey)
  Doctors and Dentists
  Doctors and Dentists
  Nurses
  Nurses
  District Health Authorities
  District Health Authorities
  Single Payments
  Single Payments
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Suicide
  Suicide
  North-West Regional Health Authority
  North-West Regional Health Authority
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Blood Plasma
  Blood Plasma
  NHS Patients (Private Treatment)
  NHS Patients (Private Treatment)
  Raptors
  Raptors
  Health Authorities (Private Patient Income)
  Health Authorities (Private Patient Income)
  Competitive Tendering
  Competitive Tendering
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Severe Weather Payments
  Severe Weather Payments
  Board-and-Lodging Payments
  Board-and-Lodging Payments
  Family Trust
  Family Trust
  Pensioner Prices Index
  Pensioner Prices Index
  Radiation (Cancer)
  Radiation (Cancer)
  Premature Births
  Premature Births
THE ARTS
  North-West Region
  North-West Region
  South-West Region
  South-West Region
  Employment
  Employment
  Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964
  Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964
  Museums (Admission Charges)
  Museums (Admission Charges)
  Regional Arts Associations (Administrative Costs)
  Regional Arts Associations (Administrative Costs)
  Overseas Visitors (Expenditure)
  Overseas Visitors (Expenditure)
  Business Sponsorship
  Business Sponsorship
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Live Music
  Live Music
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Film
  Film
  Provincial Museums and Galleries (Borrowings)
  Provincial Museums and Galleries (Borrowings)
  Expenditure (International Comparisons)
  Expenditure (International Comparisons)
  Consumer Expenditure
  Consumer Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Economics and Statistics Unit
  Economics and Statistics Unit
  Payroll Giving
  Payroll Giving
  Museums and Galleries (Extensions)
  Museums and Galleries (Extensions)
  Arts Council (Support Costs)
  Arts Council (Support Costs)
  New British Library Building
  New British Library Building
  West Midlands
  West Midlands
  Crafts Council
  Crafts Council
  Arts Council (Grants)
  Arts Council (Grants)
  Arts Marketing Scheme
  Arts Marketing Scheme
  Young Jazz Musicians
  Young Jazz Musicians
  Photography
  Photography
  Choral Music
  Choral Music
  Calder Valley Artists
  Calder Valley Artists
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Ethnic Monitoring
  Ethnic Monitoring
  ADAS
  ADAS
  Livestock (Attacks)
  Livestock (Attacks)
  Salmon Advisory Committee
  Salmon Advisory Committee
SCOTLAND
  Strathclyde (Industrial Assistance)
  Strathclyde (Industrial Assistance)
  Firms (Redundancies and Closures)
  Firms (Redundancies and Closures)
  Prison System
  Prison System
  Dr. John Mitchell
  Dr. John Mitchell
  List D Schools (Corporal Punishment)
  List D Schools (Corporal Punishment)
  Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy (Unemployment)
  Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy (Unemployment)
  BBC, Scotland (Police Raid)
  BBC, Scotland (Police Raid)
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Job Clubs
  Job Clubs
DEFENCE
  Heart Disease
  Heart Disease
  Procurement Expenditure
  Procurement Expenditure
  RAF Squadron Leader (Press Statement)
  RAF Squadron Leader (Press Statement)
  Pte Jeffrey Singh
  Pte Jeffrey Singh
  AWACS
  AWACS
  Mr. Stuart Todd
  Mr. Stuart Todd
  Army Horses
  Army Horses

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

ABM Treaty: Soviet Compliance
Lord GladwynMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any indisputable evidence that the Soviet Union is involved in any ABM project comparable to the United States star wars programme; and whether they can confirm that, as recently reported in the magazine Nature, the Soviet Union has now begun to dismantle the installation at Krasnoyarsk, which has always been adduced as proof of Soviet violation of the ABM treaty of 1972.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, details of our understanding of Soviet ballistic missile defence-related research programmes were published as long ago as 1985. We are not aware of any developments which would change our view that the radar raises serious concerns about Soviet compliance with the ABM treaty.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Where exactly does that indisputable evidence come from? From what source is it derived? Do the Government believe in any case that the Russians are ceasing to construct at Krasnoyarsk?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, we are of course aware of the report on which I think his Question is based. We understand that the United States has not changed its assessment of the ABM radar on the basis of that report. Our position on Krasnoyarsk is well known to the House. The noble Lord would not expect me to comment on the first part of his question. Serious questions with regard to compliance are raised. I understand that the United States Administration have raised the matter with the Soviet authorities on various occasions. The United States authorities have not received a satisfactory reply.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the situation is unsatisfactory because of the paucity of evidence about the Russian operation? Does she agree that it is difficult to make any comparison of the resources being spent on the American SDI and the Russian SDI operations when evidence is inadequate?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will be well aware of our view of the interpretation of the ABM Treaty. It may be helpful to remind the House yet again of what my right
816
honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place on 19th February:
"First, we have no locus in interpreting the ABM Treaty. Secondly, deployment is clearly a matter for negotiation, as we"—
That is the United States and the United Kingdom—
"have agreed. Thirdly, we have received satisfactory assurances from the United States that there will be consultation about any significant change of policy in relation to SDI research. Fourthly, the Government fully support the SDI research programme, which is permitted by the ABM treaty.
—[Official Report, Commons, 19/2/87; col. 1054.]
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness for that information. Does she agree that the great difficulty here is that whereas the United States is an open society, the USSR is a closed society? I accept that it is extremely difficult to obtain firm information, but on the evidence available to Her Majesty's Government, is it not true that the resources being put into SDI by the United States are enormously greater in every respect than anything the Russians are doing?
Baroness Young: My Lords, with regard to details of the Soviet strategic defence research programme, I cannot add anything to the Answer that was given by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne on 13th December 1985. It is in the light of these activities that the United Kingdom supports and participates in the US SDI research programme.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, are the Government aware that the Soviet Union has said that it will stop work on Krasnoyarsk if the Americans stop work on Fylingdales and another station in Greenland? Can the noble Baroness tell the House in words of one syllable why the Government hold that Krasnoyarsk breaks the ABM Treaty but Fylingdales does not?
Baroness Young: My Lords, it is always unwise to answer questions of that nature in words of one syllable. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will appreciate, they are extremely complex. I can only say that it is too early to give any definite views of Soviet actions over radars. Our own view on compliance of Soviet actions with treaty obligations is well known.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that in so far as there has always been doubt whenever talks take place as to what the Russians are doing, we are now very much in the dark as to precisely what the USA is doing, and that not many people in the United States Government seem to know what is going on? Bearing in mind that there is a new atmosphere, will she agree that the British Government can make a big contribution in all these matters by underlining how important verification is?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we shall certainly make the point of verification on every occasion.

Plant Breeding Institute: Privatisation
2.42 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

817
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how far advanced their plans are to privatise the Plant Breeding Institute and the National Seed Development Organisation.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, Lazard Brothers and Company hopes to issue an information memorandum on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in the next few months.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that completely unsatisfactory reply. I know that he is new to the job, but does he realise that I asked a Question in May 1984 about this? From then on, about every six months, as his noble friend who is sitting beside him will tell him I have proceeded to ask it again and again. In March 1986 the noble Earl, Lord Swinton (whom I do not see here today) told me—if he did not quote it I shall do so now—that the Education Minister issued a news bulletin, or whatever one calls it, saying that they had asked Lazard Brothers to do a short study. It is now March 1987 and the Minister can tell us nothing except that Lazard Brothers' short study is not yet ready. Does he realise that 60 of the staff have already left, 30 to 40 by redundancy and the rest simply because of doubts about the future of the place? The director is now off to the USA in July. Is this not a shambles which the Govenment should do something about?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord about timing. I can reassure him that there is not in the least a shambles. The process has been more complex than was at first anticipated, but we hope that the issue of an informa-tion memorandum will take place in the next month or so.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, can the Minister say how many members of staff from the institute are leaving with the professor and going to the US? Is he aware that such scientists are even more important to us now than they were when the Question was first asked? Have the Government no anxieties about this? Are they doing anything to stop it?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, it is not anticipated that there will be a brain-drain other than in a marginal respect as a result of privatisation. On the general question of loss of jobs, any AFRC staff made redundant before privatisation will receive the full redundancy or short service payments to which they are now entitled under the AFRC superannuation scheme.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, although we are worried about what happens to the redundant staff, that is not the question my noble friend asked. What effect is the proposal having on this world famous plant breeding institute, which is just being—I nearly used a nasty word there—by the Government? They need to look at it more carefully. Has the noble Earl seen the report in the Independent that the plant breeding sell-off has been delayed? The agricultural
818
genetics company has a deal with the Plant Breeding Institute over a period of five years for a considerable amount of information and material. Has this fact something to do with the delay? The Government should make a statement about the situation and should not put up a dead bat in the way that the noble Earl is doing today.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, with regard to the delay, I repeat that there have been more complexities than were first anticipated. These complexities have concerned the need to resolve the interests of various bodies and their corresponding responsibilities, as well as corresponding legal issues which arise. However, as I say, there is now a clear intention. The Government know that very shortly an information memorandum will be issued and privatisation will be able to take place shortly thereafter.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there have already been severe cuts at the plant breeding station at Aberystwyth, which is the only one in Wales and is famous throughout the world for various excellent reasons? Can we have an assurance that there will be no further cuts? Can we even hope that some of the cuts that have taken place will now be withdrawn?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, that is perhaps another Question. However, in regard to the WPBS I can assure the noble and learned Lord that the Government have the highest regard for the achieve-ments of this station and there are no plans to privatise any of the departments in that institute.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, quite apart from the director of this institution being "a marginal respect", are the Government still completely untroubled by the prospect of patents for new varieties of plants that may be of world-wide importance for many generations to come passing into the hands of private commercial enterprises which are not responsible to the United Nations, to the world food organisation or even to the government of any country?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, in regard to the possible involvement of a company from overseas, no purchaser is ruled out at this stage. But during the tender process interested purchasers will be asked to give a full statement of their future intentions for the assets as they relate to United Kingdom needs and capabilities for plant breeding and seed marketing and benefits to the United Kingdom economy. The choice of purchaser will be made with particular regard to the needs of UK agriculture and horticulture. Thus would-be purchasers will be expected to demonstrate a commitment to the UK market and to continuing plant breeding relevant to UK agriculture and horticultural conditions.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, has the Minister anything to say about patents?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Lord on that subject. I do not think that the Government expect any difficulty in this regard.

ABM Treaty: Interpretation
2.48 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will propose that the United States of America and the Soviet Union submit their differences on the interpretation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty to the International Court of Justice.
Baroness Young: My Lords, no.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is it not an obvious course to suggest to a friendly power that, when there is a dispute, or when there is likely to be a dispute, about the interpretation of a treaty to which they are a party and to which although we are not a party is yet of the very highest importance and interest to us, they should have recourse to this world institution which has been there for many decades and which exists for the purpose of solving such disputes?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we do not think that it would be appropriate for a third state to intervene in a bilateral dispute between two other states except with the consent of both of them.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in view of the improved climate of possible arms control, or possible arms control agreement, would the noble Baroness and her right honourable and learned friend consider making representations to the United States Administration with a view to an adherence to the original interpretation of the ABM Treaty and not seek to enlarge the ABM Treaty now, which could lead only to a possible difficult situation and affect the possible success of the negotiations?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I fully appreciate the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, when he asks that particular supplementary question. However, I do not feel that I can add anything further to the answer which I gave to the earlier Question by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn; namely, that we have no locus in interpreting the ABM Treaty.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, is not the interpretation of international treaties something which, under its statute, the International Court of Justice is specifically entitled and indeed expected to undertake?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the ICJ is competent to settle disputes about interpretation of treaties but it has jurisdiction only in particular cases if both parties have agreed.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the reason that the Government will not make this suggestion because they have a shrewd suspicion that the USSR would accept and the United States would refuse?
Baroness Young: My Lords, in the first place, there has not been any arms control agreement which has ever been submitted to the ICJ, and although the United States has recently withdrawn its acceptance of
820
compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, it continues to be in favour of resorting to the ICJ by agreement in suitable cases. The Soviet Union has not accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, nor ever submitted a dispute to it voluntarily. There is no reason to believe that it is interested in doing so now on this issue, whatever the attitude of the United States.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in view of the importance of the interpretation of this treaty to any possible agreement on arms control, will the noble Baroness say where Her Majesty's Government stand? Are they in favour of the broad interpretation, or the original narrow interpretation?
Baroness Young: My Lords, at the risk of boring the House yet further, I can say only that we are not a party to the treaty and our views on it are well known to your Lordships.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree that these are very vital matters which affect many millions of people, let alone the two super powers? Would she not agree that if we could get something like this under way, perhaps the role of the British Goverment, as I said before, would be not so much to insist on agreement as to what the treaties say, but to ensure that they are being adhered to? They can only be proven and shown to be real if there is a firm system of verification. This is what the British Government should insist on.
Baroness Young: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, I do not think I can say anything other than the points that I have already made to your Lordships.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, as a fallback suggestion, would the Government consider pointing out to the United States that the 1969 convention on the interpretation of treaties, which they have not signed but which, nevertheless, codifies existing customary law, says that a treaty means what it says according to the common interpretation of the words in it, and that, if that is a difficulty, it means what the negotiators meant it to mean when they signed it.
Baroness Young: My Lords, that is a very interesting piece of information which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has put to the House. However, it does not detract in any way from the original Answer which I gave to his first supplementary question.

Interest Rates
2.54 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to reduce interest rates.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, short term interest rates will continue to be held at whatever levels are necessary to maintain downward pressure on inflation.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer which does not take the matter very much further. What I am really interested to know is this. When, but for the intervention of the Bank of England at the request of the Government interest rates would have fallen, why the Government then continues to insist on imposing on every businessman and on every house buyer this wholly excessive burden?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the fact is that decisions on interest rates can be made only in the light of careful assessment of monetary conditions and changes made only when required to maintain steady, but not excessive, downward pressure on inflation.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that delay in reducing interest rates at the present time is having three harmful effects: first, it is creating uncertainty; secondly, it is causing borrowers, particularly in industry, to pay more than they otherwise would; and, thirdly, it is pushing up the value of currency and thus diminishing the competitiveness of British goods abroad? Are the Government taking these factors into account?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, we are taking all factors into account in assessing the level of interest rates that are appropriate. As regards industry, company liquidity and profitability remains strong and relaxation of monetary policy fuelling inflation would be a far greater threat to industry than current levels of interest rates.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, coming into the Chamber today, I read on the tape that interest rates went down at midday. I should like to ask whether that is right?
Lord Beaverbrook: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Mellish: Well, why did the noble Lord not say so?
Lord Beaverbrook: Well, my Lords, because I was not asked that Question.
Lord O'Brien of Lothbury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that according to the tape machine in your Lordships' Lobby, interest rates are on the point of going down?
Lord Beaverbrook: Yes, my Lords, I have just covered that point.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in that case, will the noble Lord give the House an indication as to what are the Government's views on the fact that, even allowing for the derisory half per cent. by which interests rates are said to have declined today, the commercial bank prime rate still remains four and a half percentage points above those obtaining in Germany and Holland, two percentage points above those obtaining in France, and four percentage points above those in the United States? Have the Government endeavoured to arrive at any rationale on that position?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, yes; but I should point out that the inflation rate in this country is still considerably higher than in all our main competitor countries, except Italy.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, is not the most potent domestic way of reducing interest rates to curtail, contain and progressively reduce, public borrowing?
Lord Beaverbrook: Yes, my Lords; but unfortunately it is not quite as simple as that. There are many other factors that we have to take into account.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, perhaps I may express my deep appreciation to the Government for having brought down interest rates just before the Question came to be answered, having regard to the fact that my Question was put down some weeks ago. Will the noble Lord say whether it is correct (and I have not seen this on the tape) that the other half per cent. will come immediately after the Budget?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I do not think that your Lordships' House would expect me to comment on that matter. However, I think that the success of the interest rates strategy is demonstrated by the fact that inflation is at its lowest level for 20 years and that we are in our sixth successive year of economic growth.

Business
3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the Zeebrugge Ferry Disaster.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Consumer Protection Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Third Reading of the Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1987 and the Town and Country Planning (Compensation for Restrictions on Mineral Workings) (Scotland) Regulations 1987 will be taken.

Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Business
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before we move to the next business, I point out that some of my noble friends were worried that the noble Lord did not mention the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Bill as being taken during the dinner adjournment. We wondered whether the Government had decided not to proceed with it.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip and to the House that I omitted it from my brief. The Third Reading of the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Bill will be taken before the Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1987. I am most grateful to the noble Lord.

Rate Support Grants Bill
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the remaining stages of the Bill to be taken on the same day as the Second Reading.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Grampian Regional Council (Harbours) Order Confirmation Bill
3 p.m.
Read a third time.
In the Preamble:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendments Nos. 1 to 5:
Page 1, line 1, leave out first ("the") and insert ("a")
Page 1, line 1, leave out from ("Order") to ("has") in line 2 and insert ("relating to harbours in Grampian Region")
Page 1, line 5, at end insert ("with amendments")
Page 1, line 5, at end insert—
("And whereas the said Order as amended is set forth in schedule hereunto annexed:")
In the Title, line 1, after ("confirm") insert ("with amendments")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 1 to 5 en bloc. The confirmation Bill, as introduced, was drafted on the basis of a modified provisional order as made by the Secretary of State. It was desirable, however, to make certain amendments to the provisional order during the consideration stage of the Bill. The amendment of the order in this way has falsified the Long Title and Preamble. It is now necessary to make amendments to those to give recognition to the fact that the order has been amended during the proceedings on the Bill.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Consumer Protection Bill [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Purpose and construction of Part I]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom)The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
(" "dependant" and "relative" have the same meaning as they have in, respectively, the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to take this amendment together with Amendments Nos. 19 and 23. Perhaps I should first explain the mechanics of these amendments before dealing with their purpose.
At present the terms of Clause 7(2) of the Bill define the meaning of the words "dependant" and "relative" for the benefit of that clause only. We now, for reasons which I shall shortly explain, wish to apply those definitions to the whole of Part I. Accordingly, Amendment No. 23 deletes that subsection while this amendment inserts a similar subsection in Clause 1 of the Bill where we have defined some of the more important terms relevant to Part I.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Morton, moved an amendment to insert the words "or his representative" after the word "damage" in subsection (3)(a) of Clause 2. At that time I explained that the meaning of the words "the person" at the beginning of that subsection would in effect encompass that person's representative—for example, his solicitor. However, we conceded that in a case where a defective product causes death or where a person subsequently dies there might be a difficulty in Clause 2(3). It could be argued, for instance, that no cause of action will arise until there has been a failure by the supplier to comply with the request from:
"the person who suffered the damage".
In other words, it might be construed that the victim's rights die with him.
Unfortunately, as the noble Lord opposite perhaps presaged in his response to my agreement to consider his amendment, we have required rather more than his three words to achieve the desired objective. As noble Lords will see, we have taken rather more than the six lines that he suggested we might need. The difficulty is that the rights accorded to personal representatives and dependants under the existing law are in a sense derivative. The action of personal representatives depends on the deceased, had he been alive, being entitled to bring an action. Accordingly, it would not be sufficient simply to enable a personal representative or a dependant to make a request after the death because, apart from the making of the request, the conditions in Clause 2(3)(b) and (c) have to be fulfilled to trigger a cause of action.
We have achieved the purpose which we seek by inserting a new subsection in Clause 6 to follow subsection (1). Paragraph (a) describes the situation we are dealing with; namely, where the death of a person is caused by a defect in a product or if a person dies after suffering damage caused by a defect in a product. Paragraph (b) enables a request to be made to the

825
supplier of that defective product under Clause 2(3) by that person's personal representatives or, in the case of a person whose death is caused by the defect, by any dependant or relative of that person.
The remainder of the subsection provides that so long as the conditions specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (3) of Clause 2 are also satisfied—that is to say, that the request is made within a reasonable time and the supplier fails to comply with the request—it will be as if the liability of the supplier to that injured person did not depend on the deceased person having made the request himself. In other words, he will be deemed to that extent to have had a cause of action on which his representatives or dependants can found a claim. Of course, the general conditions for liability under Part I would still apply.
This small group of three amendments, though somewhat longer than it was perhaps expected, clarify an important point and I am very grateful to the noble Lord for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government and the noble and learned Lord for having considered the amendment and made the necessary alterations. It meets the position of the person who dies either as a result of a defective product or after he has been injured by a defective product. However, I am afraid that it does not in any way meet—I am still not sure that this point is covered—the situation of a person who is so severely injured by the defective product that he is not capable of giving instructions to anybody to deal with it. I am thinking of someone who suffers brain damage or something of that nature. How will such people be covered? They have a duty under Clause 2(3) to ask the supplier who the producer was.
I fail to see how the person's curator in Scotland, or his English equivalent, has a right to do those things that the person has the right to do, as the Bill is drafted. The same position would arise with a child who had not the capacity to act or with a person who, prior to the defective product causing the injury, was mentally incapable of dealing with matters. It still appears to me that the defect exists in this part of the Bill.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I should like to respond to that point. I take note of what the noble Lord has said and I think that it is a point which I answered on the last occasion. We still remain of the view that the use of the words "the person" is quite apt to cover the persons who would act for or with him in putting forward a request. For example, in the case of a disabled person unable to deal with the matter by himself, his curator—as the noble Lord is well aware—would, we consider, be entitled to put forward the request as being equivalent to the person.
We shall look at the matter again. It has not gone in the by-game; but, if necessary, we can look at it in another place to make it clear beyond peradventure.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line I, leave out from ("or') to ("the") in line 5 and insert ("game and agricultural produce which has undergone any process").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an attempt not to exclude agricultural produce from the Bill but to put into the Bill what is in the directive and to make it accord with the directive. It has been said on numerous occasions that the purpose of Part I of the Bill is to give effect to the directive. The preamble to the directive, which in my view is not part of the directive, refers to agricultural products and game undergoing a processing of an industrial nature.
Article 2 says:
"For the purposes of this Directive 'product' means all movables, with the exception of primary agricultural products and game, even though incorporated into another movable or into an immovable. 'Primary agricultural products' means the product of soil, of stock farming and of fisheries, excluding products which have undergone initial processing".
If we look at the Bill we have something which is completely different. Subsection (2)(c) reads:
"in the case of a product which has not been manufactured, won or abstracted but essential characteristics of which are attributable to an industrial or other process having been carried out (for example, in relation to agricultural produce), the person who carried out that process".
First, there is nothing in the directive which allows for the exclusion of anything other than agricultural produce or game. Therefore, why we have "for example" in relation to agricultural produce, which implies that there is something else that would be covered, is completely obscure to me. I suggest that it is completely contrary to the directive.
Secondly, there is the phrase:
"essential characteristics of which are attributable to an industrial or other process".
"Essential characteristics" are words which do not appear anywhere in the directive or the preamble, and there is no suggestion that that is an essential matter.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate referred at the Committee stage to the memorandum and to the draft directive. The memorandum to which he referred is no help on this point because it suggests that all agricultural produce should be included. Reading from the memorandum:
"Whereas liability should extend only to movables, in the interests of the consumer it nevertheless should include all types of movables, including therefore agricultural produce and craft products".
Therefore we gain no help from the memorandum as to what may be meant by that exclusion.
What is intended to be meant by the phrase "essential characteristics"? For example, if one takes a frozen pea, what are we talking about? Is it the frozen nature of the pea that is the essential characteristic or is it the pea itself, whether thawed out or not? If one has potatoes which have been peeled by being washed in a chemical so that peeled potatoes are delivered to restaurants and chip shops, is there a change? Is it still a potato or is the peeling an essential characteristic?
What does "essential" mean? Is it essential to the existence of the defect or essential to the change in the nature of the product, because there is obviously a difference in how it will be applied? If I buy potatoes in a supermarket which have been weighed and put into a plastic bag, are they a product which has:
"essential characteristics of which are attributable to an industrial or other process"?
They have certainly been through a process: they have been weighed and packed.
Surely it would be better—and the purpose of the amendment is to achieve this—to return to the words of the directive which are clear, which are in simple English, which can be easily understood and which fit in with all the legislation which has been introduced in the other countries of the Community, each of which has used the word "first" process.
I also speak to Amendment No. 5, which is the bottom line of page 2, leaving out "an industrial" and inserting "a". I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of this amendment, to which I have put my name, and I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 5. It will be recalled that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate told us at an earlier stage that the Government had decided to proceed by way of synthesising the force of what is in the directive rather than putting the directive itself in the Bill. It seems to me that here the synthesis has strayed a little too far from what is actually in the directive. It is rather as though the film of the book has moved too far from the original plot.
When I first saw the Bill I could not understand what Clause 1(2)(c) was about. I listened with interest to the Minister's explanation at the Committee stage that it was aimed at processes which fell short of the manufacturing in the normal sense of the word, like the refining of petroleum and the processing of food. That appears in the Official Report at col. 742 on 19th January 1987.
I also listened with interest to the explanation of the Minister of what was meant by the industrial processing of agricultural products, which arises on Amendment No. 5. The Minister said that there were two tests. The first was that the essential characteristics of the products must have been changed—the thought expressed in Clause 1(2)(c) on which the noble Lord has just made some comments. The other test was that the process must have been carried on a large and continuing scale and with the intervention of machinery. That appears in the Official Report at col. 737 on 19th January 1987.
The trouble is that, although those explanations are very interesting, there is nothing in the directive to support any of them. As has been pointed out, there is nothing about changing the essential characteristics of the product and nothing to define industrial processing. I, for one, find it rather hard to accept that, if I were poisoned by some processed food, it would be possible for the producer to get away with it on the argument that he was only a small producer, and that he had carried through that particular process only a couple of times, and that, therefore, on the Minister's criteria, what he had done did not amount to an industrial process.
I go along with the argument that we are getting too far from the directive. I do not believe that Clause 1(2)(c) in its present form reflects anything at all in the directive. The reference to "industrial process" in Clause 2(4), to my mind, cannot be reconciled with Article 2 of the directive. There is indeed no need to have a qualifying adjective at all, whether "initial" or
828
"industrial", since what we are concerned with is simply whether the agricultural product has undergone a process however the courts, in the end, define that word. And, evidently, it is something that we shall have to leave to the courts.
The amendments we are discussing seem to represent a better method than the Bill as at present drafted in giving effect to what the Committee, in its wisdom, decided; namely, that there should be retained the exemption for primary agricultural products.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I am afraid that while I sympathise with the amendment I would be against it. This and many other points of amendment, bring into question the relationship between the directive which has been issued by the European Communities and the Bill itself. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the directive is addressed to each of the member states and tells them to implement its provisions where necessary. Indeed the European Court has said that when applying national legislation, courts must interpret the legislation in the light of the text and objectives of the directive.
Therefore, when interpreting the Bill before us, we have to interpret it in the light of what the directive says and achieve harmony so far as possible. The directive is itself ambiguous. The recitals exempt "agricultural products and game" except where they have undergone processing of an "industrial nature". But the article itself simply excludes them when they have undergone "initial processing".
Those phrases are ambiguous in themselves. What is "initial processing"? What is a process of an "industrial nature"? I would ask your Lordships to consider the packaging and grading of apples, the getting up of potatoes with machines, and the like. When electrical machines are used for milking, is that an industrial process? It is difficult to say. It is really a question for the courts to decide hereafter. In the clause as it stands, the Government, it seems to me, have done the best they can to explain the position in fulfilment of the objective. Subsection (2)(c) states:
"essential characteristics of which are attributable to an industrial or other process having been carried out".
Then there is the wording of Clause 2(4):
"when it had not undergone an industrial process".
That is going to be difficult to construe. The courts would have to do it. Nevertheless, the wording seems simpler than what is proposed in the amendment, which simply refers to a "process". A "process" is a much wider exclusion. The grading of apples, the getting up of potatoes by machine, or whatever you like to call it, all may be a process. I doubt whether it would be called an "industrial process". The milking of cows by electrical means, or whatever it may be, is a process. I doubt whether it would be called an industrial or other process.
The difficulty is that the words are obscure. They will have to be interpreted by the courts. So far as I can see, the Government have done their best in the clause as it stands to implement the directive. I am afraid that the amendment goes too wide. I would therefore support the Government and not the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, may I be allowed to comment from this side on what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has just said? It seemed to me that all he was doing was making more the point that we sought to make in Committee and on which we were defeated—that trying to draw a distinction between primary agricultural products and processed products is too difficult.
I should have thought that notwithstanding what the noble and learned Lord said—and he is learned, as we all know—when one is in this sort of doubt, it is surely much better to go back to the principles on which the particular clause is based, to wit the directive, and to follow it as closely as may be. That surely is what the amendment seeks to do.
I gave my reasons for saying this at col. 728 on 19th January and I do not want to waste your Lordships' time by repeating all that I said at that time. I should have thought that if there is a doubt—and the noble and learned Lord made it clear that there will be doubts in the courts, whatever conclusion we come to now—surely it is better to follow as closely as possible the directive rather than seek to make one's own interpretation which may in the long run cause even more trouble. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment. What we are being invited to do by the Minister and by the noble and learned Lord is to say that if there is going to be trouble, let us leave it to the courts; they will be able to interpret and decide. Without any disrespect to the courts, I should imagine that we have an obligation to be as precise as we possibly can.
Of course, the more words, the more room there is for interpretation and misinterpretation. That is why this amendment is a step in the right direction. But even if we go back to the directive for our fount of wisdom and seek to understand what the directive means by "process", there is no definition of "process" or "processing" in the directive. In other words, the EC directive is deficient so far as guidance is concerned.
It may well be the view of the House that where one comes up against a difficulty of impreciseness one leaves it to the courts. We have had reference to the difficulties of interpretation or application in respect of frozen peas, apples, and potatoes. I have been given an illustration by the Retail Consortium. The Retail Consortium obviously is a major element representing the ultimate in the selling process; the shops and the large stores, that will be involved. They do not give me apples, pears, or potatoes. They give me carrots.
What they ask is: will washing and packing—of carrots, for example—be regarded in the courts as an industrial process? We have illustration after illustration. If that is left out of the term an "industrial process", then, in their view, you leave out a great deal of vegetables and fruit. What the Minister has to tell the House, if he decides not to accept the amendment, is that he is satisfied, as few people outside this Chamber, I venture to suggest, are satisfied—the Retail Consortium is not—that the words that will ultimately appear in the Bill are so well understood and so well applied that there will be acceptance by all sorts of individuals and organisations outside the House.
830
I believe that the Minister has a good deal of explaining to do if I am not to support my noble friend in his amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I think that I shall be in the position at some stage of trying to interpret whether I have carried out a process or not. I have to say to the noble Lord that I do not like this amendment, mainly for the reasons that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, gave. If the words in the amendment "undergone any process" are included, they could well cause doubt in my mind when I am lifting sugar beet or sorting potatoes. At the moment, for better or worse, I consider that the directive allows me to be exempt for what I do inside the farm gate. Once outside, then I believe it becomes a farm process.
The noble Lord falls, I believe, into the trap that I tried to fall into last week when I got involved with hydroponics. I commend a letter that I received from my noble friend on the Front Bench explaining why it was impossible to bring hydroponics into this area as I tried to do on behalf of my noble friend Lord Radnor, who unfortunately cannot be here. We are going against the directive. I take exactly the opposite view to the noble Lord because I think that his amendment makes the directive more difficult than it is as it stands. I accept that the matter is complicated, but I should have preferred not to have the legislation at all.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, does he not agree that the old-fashioned idea of the farm gate and things happening one side or the other is a bit out of date these days; and it is not like that? There are not farm gates which separate one sort of factory from another—
Noble Lords: Order.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I think I had sat down.
Lord Beaverbrook: Your Lordships might like me to remind Members that we are at Report stage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, I do not think it will be any surprise to your Lordships' House if I say that I intend to advise the House to reject Amendments Nos. 2 and 5. The House will recall that we had a very long and full debate during the Committee stage on the principle of whether we should implement the directive as we found it and exclude agricultural products which had not been subjected to industrial processing. Following that very long and informed debate, your Lordships' Committee decided that we would not derogate from the directive. Once that decision was made, we had taken the one serious decision upon that matter that we were entitled to take within the confines of the directive.
A second question which then arose was how properly to implement the exemption as it stands in the directive. Noble Lords opposite argued that an exemption that related to goods that had not undergone initial processing was closer to the intention

831
of the directive than the words we have used; that is, goods that have not undergone industrial processing. We then had another long and interesting debate on that subject in Committee, and the Committee decided that the proper interpretation of the directive in the Bill was that the exemption should be available for goods that had not undergone industrial processing.
The two essential decisions that we had to take—whether or not we should make use of the derogation and how we should implement the directive—have already been discussed and debated in your Lordships' House in Committee and the decisions taken. We are now faced (are we not?) with a further discussion on how to implement the directive. It is suggested again that what the directive really means is that agricultural produce that has been subjected to processing, again without any kind of explanation at all, should fall within the Bill.
I tried to make clear during the Committee stage that in my view there is no doubt at all that the processing referred to in the directive is processing of an industrial nature. So much I believe is clear from the preamble. Of course, I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Morton, had to say; that the preamble is not part of the directive. I suggest however that the preamble helps us in our interpretation of the directive.
The noble Lord, Lord Morton, suggested that Amendment No. 2 was intended to remove the element of uncertainty which would otherwise appear on the face of the Bill. I am suggesting that this is unhelpful. I object to the amendment on that ground. But equally—whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Morton, intended this I do not know, although I think perhaps he might have done—the effect would be to restrict the scope of the exemption for primary agricultural products. I should then object to that because, as noble Lords will note, the word "process" would be given such a wide interpretation as to cover vitually any kind of operation carried out either on the farm or elsewhere.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked us to be precise. I believe we are being more precise than the amendments. He asked us again about the carrots, the washing, the packing and so on. With respect to the noble Lord, we went through all that during Committee stage. Again, I say with respect to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, we also went through all of what happens within the farm gate at Committee stage.
That which I have described as the outcome of these two amendments is not the proper interpretation to be placed on the words of the directive. I tried to explain—certainly, I took long enough during the Committee stage—that it would further narrow the exemption to the point where it was virtually worthless. One thing that is clear is that derogation in the directive is meant to offer some real choice about a reasonably sized category of agricultural produce.
Finally, while the main burden of these amendments is directed towards Clause 2, I should point out to the House the consequences of the amendment that has been suggested to Clause 1. Clause 1 contains the definition of "a producer". This
832
is a very important definition since it is only producers, importers or, in certain circumstances, suppliers who are to be liable. Producers are defined in Clause 1 in terms of what they have done to the product concerned. The most important case is when they have manufactured it. That is contained in Clause 1(2)(a). Some products are mined or abstracted rather than manufactured. That is covered in paragraph (b). Finally, there are some products where the natural English expression is neither "manufactured" nor "abstracted" but "processed".
Here, I come to the contribution made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who reminded us that it is for national governments to interpret the directive so that it conforms to or runs alongside—I prefer to put it that way—our own understanding of law in this direction. That is exactly what the Bill does. As paragraph (c), which covers this subject, indicates, one of the major categories of such products is agricultural produce. But it is not the only one. For example, the activities of those who refine petroleum are more naturally regarded as processing than manufacturing. As a consequence the amendment proposed to Clause 1 will throw the position of such processors in doubt.
It is for those reasons that I cannot advise the House to accept the amendments. The main question of principle on agricultural products has already been decided by your Lordships' Committee. We have also decided how to implement it, and the main amendment here that is proposed undermines those decisions. The more minor amendment also has an unfortunate effect on the definition of "producer". I suggest that noble Lords who are proposing these two amendments be invited to withdraw them.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I regret that I cannot accept that. I am grateful to the noble Lord for agreeing with me that the directive is in the words that follow "has adopted this directive" and do not include the preamble. The definition in Article 2 says quite firmly:
" 'Primary agricultural products' mean the products of the soil, of stock farming and of fisheries, excluding products which have undergone initial processing".
That is quite clear. There is nothing whatever to justify the phrase "essential characteristics" in Clause 1(2)(c). There seems to be very little justification for that except perhaps petroleum, but I would have thought that petroleum is manufactured just as flour is manufactured in the grinding of wheat.
It is always with great diffidence that one disagrees with so noble and learned a Lord as Lord Denning, but I should have thought that milk, which has to be sold pasteurised if my information is correct, has certainly undergone a process. If one looks at the third line on page 2 one sees there the words,
"an industrial or other process",
and "other" presumably means other than industrial. One could just as well have "a process" and the sense would be exactly the same. It seems to me that the amendment in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, meets the directive, whereas Clause 1(2)(c) does not. Therefore I must seek the opinion of the House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he accepts that in Community law the preamble is used as an aid to construction, unlike our system?
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, with the leave of the House, no doubt that is so. An aid to construction is necessary when there is dubiety as to what is meant. The phrase,
"excluding products which have undergone initial processing",
means that all one is left with is the question: what is a process?
3.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 94.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Amherst, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Annan, L.

Leatherland, L.

Ardwick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,

Banks, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Barnett, L.

McNair, L.

Blyton, L.

Mishcon, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Molloy, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Moran, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Brockway, L.

Mottistone, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mulley, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Nicol, B.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Northfield, L.

Caradon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Oram, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

[Teller.]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Rea, L.

Diamond, L.

Reilly, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ezra. L.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Fitt, L.

Serota, B.

Flowers, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Foot, L.

Simon, V.

Gallacher, L.

Somers, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stallard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Heycock, L.

Strauss, L.

Hill-Norton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hooson, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hunt, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Underhill, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rennet, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham,

Kilbracken, L.

E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bellwin, L.

Auckland, L.

Beloff, L.

Bauer, L.

Belstead, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Bessborough, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Biddulph, L.

834

Blake, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Blyth, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Borthwick, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Layton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lovat, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Caithness, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Manton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Mersey, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Molson, L.

Cross, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Morris, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Munster, E.

De La Warr, E.

Newcastle, Bp.

Deedes, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Penrhyn, L.

Denning, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone,

Dormer, L.

L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Porritt, L.

Dudley, B.

Portland, D.

Dundee, E.

Roskill, L.

Effingham, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sandford, L.

Faithfull, B.

Shannon, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sharpies, B.

Gainford, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gormanston, V.

Slim, V.

Greenway, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gridley, L.

Strange, B.

Grimthorpe, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Strathspey, L.

Marylebone, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hesketh, L.

Swansea, L.

Hives, L.

Terrington, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Teviot, L.

Hood, V.

Torrington, V.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kimball, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Zeebrugge Ferry Disaster
3.51 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the loss of the vessel "Herald of Free Enterprise" which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The Statement is as follows:
"Shortly before 7 p.m. GMT on Friday, 6th March, the roll-on/roll-off passenger ferry "Herald of Free Enterprise" capsized without warning in a position about three-quarters of a mile outside the entrance to the port of Zeebrugge. She had left Zeebrugge about half an hour before on a passage to Dover. It is my sad duty to inform the House that a total of 53 people are known to have died and 82 others are believed to be missing. A total of 408 passengers and crew were rescued. I am sure that the whole House would wish to join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to the bereaved and the injured.
"Immediately the tragedy occurred the Belgian authorities took charge of the search and rescue arrangements, with assistance from HM Coastguard and the Ministry of Defence Rescue Co-ordination

835
Centre at Plymouth. Two British warships were immediately dispatched to the scene, together with search and rescue helicopters carrying divers and other rescue equipment. I wish to pay tribute to all those involved in the rescue arrangements, and particularly to the Belgian authorities and the Belgian people, without whose speedy response the casualties would have been much greater. I should also like to pay tribute to the police, hospitals and fire services on both sides of the Channel, the staff of Townsend Thoresen and the British Ambassador and his staff in Belgium for their assistance to the injured and bereaved.
"A team of marine surveyors from my department led by Captain Vale have begun to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the loss of this vessel. I have decided that a full formal investigation should be held into this disaster. It will be conducted under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts. I am pleased to announce that after consultation with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, the honourable Mr. Justice Sheen, the Admiralty Judge, has been appointed to be the commissioner for the investigation. He will be assisted by four assessors who will be appointed shortly. The date and venue for the inquiry will be announced when arrangements have been made, but I am anxious that there should be no delay.
"It will be for the formal investigation to investigate the causes of this disaster and to make recommendations to ensure that all possible lessons are learnt. But the preliminary reports which I have received suggest that the cause of the capsize of the vessel was an inrush of water through the bow loading doors. I have no evidence to suggest that this was due to any fundamental fault in the design of the ship.
"My department has today embarked on a programme of checks on ro-ro ships leaving UK ports to ensure that all loading door mechanisms are in working order; that officers and crew are aware of the operating procedures and that all openings in the hull and superstructure must be closed before they proceed to sea in accordance with statutory requirements; and that recommendations of safe practice should be observed. I am also advising owners of ro-ro ferries to fit warning lights on the bridge of the vessels to show whether or not the loading doors are properly closed. I shall consider whether or not to make this a statutory requirement.
"Understandably there is anxiety about the financial difficulties of the injured and bereaved both immediately and in the longer term. As regards immediate needs in Zeebrugge, the British Consul and his staff are offering all possible consular assistance. In this country, the DHSS is providing emergency arrangements so that people arriving at Gatwick and Dover can be given immediate help. As regards concern about longer term financial entitlements a team from DHSS is going out to Zeebrugge today to give advice on the spot.
"I understand P & 0 has announced today that it has set aside £1/4 million to meet immediate personal needs of those in distress following the tragedy. This fund will be handled by the Townsend Thoresen
836
office in Dover. The company will also be advertising in the national press tomorrow with details of the central point for claims. I have its assurance that all claims will be dealt with as quickly as possible.
"On the initiative of Dover District Council, a Channel Ferry Disaster Fund has been established to assist the victims and their relatives. This will not affect claims for compensation. The Government are contributing £1 million to the fund. Parliamentary approval to this payment will be sought in a Supplementary Supply Estimate for the Transport Services and Central Administration Vote. Pending that approval, the £1 million donation will be met by a repayable advance from the Contingencies Fund.
"Every year some 28 million passengers are safely carried on United Kingdom ferries and it is tragic that our fine record of safety has been marred by this disaster. I share the grief and anguish of those who are bereaved and of those who are still uncertain of the fate of their friends and relatives. I am sure the thoughts of all Members of this House are with them".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am certain that the whole House will appreciate that the Minister has repeated a Statement on a very tragic occurrence which has shocked the entire nation. I find it difficult to put into words sympathy for those who have suffered bereavement and for families who do not know what has happened to those who are missing. At the same time, we wish to place on record our appreciation of many of the reports of courage shown by passengers.
We welcome the report in the Statement about the action of the rescue and emergency services, particularly the prompt action taken by the Belgian authorities. From all the reports which most of us have read or heard on radio or television, that part of the Statement deserves our wholehearted support. We are pleased that the Government have moved quickly to set up a formal investigation and that the Statement says,
"I am anxious that there should be no delay".
I am certain that there are many points that noble Lords may wish to put, but I do not believe that this is the time to put detailed questions. There is great public concern. What I think the public wants is an interim report which will indicate exactly what happened and perhaps make recommendations for future practices. I am pleased to note that the department has given instructions concerning the operating procedures for loading doors. I hope it will give serious consideration to the suggestion that there should be warning lights on the bridge of the these vessels. I think most of us were somewhat surprised that there has been no technological installation of such equipment. I do not know whether the investigation will cover this, but it is hoped that there will be an inquiry into the design and construction of these vessels, particularly the superstructure and the arrangement and structure of the vehicle decks. I think there is considerable concern. As one who has used the ferries quite frequently, though never the one to Zeebrugge, I can

837
appreciate that there is need for detailed investigation. I wonder whether there is international consultation with other maritime nations which have a need for this type of ferry. In conclusion, let me say how much we on these Benches appreciate the urgent action taken by the DHSS, the £1 million grant and the grant to be given by P & 0. We on these Benches fully support what is being done. We should appreciate reports from time to time on the progress of the DHSS arrangements.
4 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, this is an occasion upon which there is no difference among the different parts of your Lordships' House. We are all deeply sorrowful about what has happened. We extend our sympathies from these Benches.
I should like to thank the Minister for what to my mind was an excellent Statement. It covered virtually every point that one might have made on the subject. I should also like to congratulate the authorities both in this country and in Belgium on the speed with which they reacted. It was a remarkable achievement that people were on the spot in such a short time. Again, I should like to praise the courage of all those involved, whether passengers, crew, divers, helicopter pilots or members of the services which were brought so quickly into action.
I am glad that it has been found possible, with the assistance of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to appoint an Admiralty judge as commissioner of the investigation. Such an investigation needs such weight behind it. We have every confidence that the investigation will get to the bottom of this disaster so that we can make sure that nothing like it happens again.
What has been needed in the last 24 hours has been a degree of reassurance to those people who continue to travel. I have a relative who is travelling on a cross-Channel ferry tonight. I feel somewhat relieved after the Statement, particularly as the Secretary of State has stated that there is no evidence to suggest that the incident was due to a fundamental fault in the design of the ship. That will set at rest at least some of the qualms people may have had following statements reportedly made by the Prime Minister when she was in Belgium. Doubtless she was badly advised at that moment, as is perfectly understandable in a situation where there is so much emotion.
I note that the department has embarked on a programme of checks on ships leaving United Kingdom ports and has drawn the attention of operators to the operating procedures. It seems likely that there has been some failure in that area and I should like to have the assurance that operating procedures will be carried out on both sides of the Channel and not just on the United Kingdom side.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I am glad to see that stress is being laid on warning lights. I again congratulate the Government on the speed with which they have reacted in contributing to the fund set up by the Dover District Council. Beyond that, all that we can do is to hope and pray for the injured people and offer our immense sympathy to those who are bereaved.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their reception of the Statement. I should like to endorse what they have said, particularly with regard to the prompt action by the Belgian and other authorities and about the efficient way in which the rescue was co-ordinated. I should also like to offer a tribute to the action taken from this side of the Channel as well.
So far as the inquiry is concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, suggested that an interim report should be published. I cannot say whether that will be the case. However, I assure the House that any recommendations coming out of either the preliminary inquiry or the formal investigation can and will be acted upon as soon as possible.
As regards international consultation, the ships comply with the International Maritime Organisation regulations for passenger vessels. Therefore, they are up to international standards. As far as the point of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is concerned, I should like to reaffirm, for the reassurance of those continuing to travel, that the correct operating procedures are complied with. I have every reason to believe that all these procedures will continue to be complied with, not only because our operators are going to check that that is the case but because all responsible operators will now wish to make doubly certain that there is no cause for alarm.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend consider one matter which will not necessarily come before the public inquiry which he has announced? Every civil aircraft leaving this country leaves behind a passenger list. Apparently the ferries do not follow that procedure. If in this case such a passenger list had been left behind, much agonising anxiety might have been spared for quite a number of people. Will the Minister consider making it mandatory to follow the civil aviation precedent in respect of ferries and compel them to leave behind a full passenger list?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, consideration will be given to that, However, there are great practical difficulties in compiling an accurate passenger list for this type of travel. I believe that as many as 200 people can arrive at a ferry port from a train at one time. Probably all of them have through tickets and it would cause great practical difficulties to compile an accurate passenger list. Of course, the numbers of passengers carried must be compiled accurately. However, that will be something to be taken into account.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, we assume that the company concerned is fully insured against any loss arising out of this dreadful disaster.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I understand that that is the case. The parent company of Townsend Thorensen is P & 0, which is one of the world's leading shipping operators.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, all Members of your Lordships' House fully support what has been said by previous speakers about the people who took part in this terrible tragedy as rescuers. If we can say

839
that any good has come of such a tragedy it is in the number of people who were saved when the ship was engulfed so quickly. However, I find part of the Minister's Statement a bit different from what was said at the weekend. The Minister said, and he repeated in the Statement, that no evidence was found to suggest that the design of the ship was at fault. I should think that that part of the Statement is a bit premature, bearing in mind that the Prime Minister, when interviewed on television over the weekend, hinted that one of the possibilities was that there could be a flaw in the design.
Those of us who have been glued to the television set all weekend will have heard reports from a wide number of people with specialist knowledge on shipping who think that there is a case to be investigated and that there may well be flaws in the design. If it appears early on that the design is flawed, will the Government do as they do with flawed aircraft which are considered unsafe and instruct that they be withdrawn from service until they are made safe?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have already spoken about the problems as regards the fundamental design of the ferry. It is well known in marine circles that there can be a stability problem with high-rise ferries if sea water enters the vehicle decks. However, both construction standards and operating procedures are designed to ensure that that does not happen. The public inquiry will no doubt address design and safety margins for this type of ship. For the present, there is no evidence to suggest any reason to impose restrictions on their operation.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the way in which he carried out his broadcast yesterday morning and the way in which the Government have given as much information as they possibly could to those waiting to receive messages about relatives, friends and so on. The Minister conducted himself exceptionally well in the broadcast, to which we listened with great sorrow.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I thank him very much.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I welcome the arrangements which the Government have put in hand, especially in regard to the placing of warning lights on ships' bridges. Does the Minister agree that perhaps the most worrying aspect of this disaster is the fact that, so far as I am aware, this is the first instance of a roll-on, roll-off passenger ship sinking in calm weather, in that the damage was not caused through stressful weather or through collision? Is he also able to confirm that it is not inherently unsafe for one of these ferries to cross the Channel with her outer doors open, as indeed was the case for a number of weeks some years ago when the French railways' ferry "Cote d'Azur" damaged her outer doors? They were removed for repair and the ferry operated with only her inner door for that period.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said in the Statement, it is against regulations for ferries to travel on the open sea with doors open. I certainly would not recommend anybody to try it.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, may I refer back to the Minister's reply about keeping a list of the passengers? It would not be that difficult if all passengers were required to leave their names and addresses before they boarded the ship.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said, there are practical difficulties. We are talking about very large numbers of people travelling on these ships. It is almost like travelling on a train. There is no requirement to leave names and addresses before going on a train. But it is a matter which will have to be looked into.

Consumer Protection Bill [H.L.]
4.11 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 1.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 17, after ("which") insert ("other").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps we may take Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together. I put down these amendments in Committee and it seemed that the Government were somewhat favourably disposed to them. Accordingly, I have ventured to put them down again. This is simply a matter of making the Bill more easily understandable to the reader. The subsection with which we are dealing refers to two separate categories of product. By inserting the word "other" in the two places indicated, the reader is enabled more easily to understand which category is being referred to each time in the subsection the word "product" appears. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I support the amendment because it leads to clarity, which is needed.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and to Amendment No. 13 in the name of my noble friend.
At Committee stage, in moving Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, suggested that it would clarify Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill if the word "other" was introduced into the appropriate places. It appeared to him that this would make it easier for the reader to appreciate that two separate sets of products were being referred to. I made it clear at the time that we did not consider that the noble Lord's Committee Amendment No. 10 should be accepted on the grounds that the Bill refers,
"to the producer of any product in which the product in question is comprised,"
and that for this reason they could not be the same product. However, I agreed to consider further whether the noble Lord's Committee Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 might indeed add a degree of clarity to Clause 2(3) of the Bill. Those amendments would have

841
inserted "other" before "product" in that subsection. The two amendments are before the House again today as Amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
We have now had time to consider in detail the original amendments of the noble Lord and those he has proposed today. The conclusion we have reached is that it would be inappropriate for us to refer to a finished product as anything other than the sum of its components, and that to do so might create some confusion. First, it is clear that the manufacturer of the finished product is liable for defects attributed to components and we should not wish to throw any doubt on that. Indeed, Amendment No. 13 in the name of my noble friend is designed precisely to remove any such doubt. Secondly, I do not think we should suggest that there is any distinction to be drawn between components which are added to an identifiable product—perhaps the installation of a car radio into a car is a good example—and components which contribute to a substantial extent to the essential characteristics of the finished product—for example, the material from which a dress or a suit is made. On reflection we see no need to include the word "other" in Clause 1(3) of the Bill. Furthermore, by Amendment No. 13, we have taken the opportunity of removing the word "other" from Clause 4(1)(f).
We have also made some minor drafting amendments to make it quite clear that the other producer referred to in Clause 4 may well be the producer of the finished product as well as the producer of the other component to which, for example, the product in question is attached. For these reasons I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 and that the House will accept the need for Amendment No. 13.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, despite the fact that I have the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, I do not want to divide the House on what is a drafting matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Liability for defective products]:
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 3, leave out ("apart from") and insert ("otherwise than").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage, in moving Amendment No. 16, as it was then numbered, the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, proposed deleting subsection (6) of Clause 2 and inserting a new subsection which he suggested would be more easily understood. At that time, my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate explained that a later amendment which had then been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, would take out what he suggested might be described as the most infelicitous phrase in that subsection, and that if the infelicity were taken out, one would find that the subsection would better express what we thought the directive was seeking to achieve.
In response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, which was then Amendment No. 18 and is now Amendment No. 6, my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook said that, although the amendment did little to alter the sense of the subsection, we believed that some improvement to clarity might be desirable. Having thought about it, we have come back to exactly where we were on 19th January. While not accepting the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that the original draft contained three adverbs in a row, I believe that we now have an opportunity for the noble Lord to score the goal which he so narrowly missed at Committee.
Before formally moving the amendment, perhaps I may take the opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for his usual care and attention to the drafting of legislation. In particular, he drew our attention to the side note to Clause 5 which in the print that the House had before it at Committee stage referred to damages recoverable under Part I. The noble Lord pointed out to the House that Clause 5 defined "damage" and not "damages". We have therefore taken up his suggestion in the print before your Lordships this afternoon. The side note reads,
"damage giving rise to liability".
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his diligence, as I am to the noble Lord, Lord Morton, for the point that he put at that stage. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am very pleased to reciprocate all the gratitude that is being showered upon me.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Meaning of "defect"]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 8, leave out ("shall include") and insert (", in relation to a product, shall include safety with respect to products comprised in that product and")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the House may recall that during the debate in Committee, on an amendment which was then Amendment No. 7 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Morton, the noble Lord expressed concern that we had not reflected the purpose of the directive, which was that if there is a defect in a component of a product, then the product as a whole is defective. I think the noble Lord mentioned the case of a car with a defective component such as a brake lining, a tyre or a windscreen wiper and asked whether the car itself is thereby made defective.
In Committee, I indicated that we would give consideration to the point and that if necessary an amendment would be brought forward to deal with the matter. On consideration, we have decided that, on balance, it would be preferable to put the matter beyond doubt by the amendment now before your Lordships. The amendment makes clear that safety in relation to a product includes safety with respect to products comprised within the product. I suggest to the House that this amendment provides a useful clarification and I accordingly beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I think I should follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, on the last amendment and add my thanks to the Government for accepting the purpose behind my previous amendment, which is an improvement to the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 12, after ("circumstances") insert ("reasonably ascertainable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, subsection (2) operates very severely indeed. It is mandatory. It states:
"all the circumstances shall be taken into account, including … (c) the time when the product was supplied by its producer to another".
The example that I took in Committee was of a defective hairdryer which catches fire. The lady who purchased the hairdryer takes back the burnt-out remains to the shop. According to subsection (2) the court shall take into account
"the time when the product was supplied by its producer to another".
That means the time when it was supplied from the factory to the wholesaler.
The retailer from whom the lady purchased the hairdryer took it out of a carton. There were a dozen hairdryers in a cardboard carton. He has thrown the carton away by the time the lady returns because you cannot keep all the packaging material for any length of time. Therefore, he refers the matter to the wholesaler. The wholesaler received 25 cartons, all packed in a crate. Having undone the crate, he will have distributed the cartons to various retailers, out of which they supplied their customers and from which one hairdryer was supplied to the lady.
By now the wholesaler will have used the crate, or the remains of it, to light the boiler of his central heating. Therefore, he goes back to the manufacturer and says, "We have heard that a lady had a defective hairdryer and we want to know when you supplied it." What hope is there of ascertaining that information? There is not the vestige of a chance that the manufacturer can say that that hairdryer was supplied to the wholesaler on a particular date.
What is the use of having an Act of Parliament that says that the court shall take into account "all the circumstances" when we know that some of the circumstances are unascertainable and cannot be taken into account? Therefore, this amendment softens the subsection by amending it to read:
"all the circumstances reasonably ascertainable".
I should have thought that makes sense. The subsection as drafted does not make sense. It cannot be complied with in every case as drafted. Therefore, I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I accept, of course, that "all the circumstances" taken literally appears rather a tall order. Plainly it must be interpreted in the sense of the circumstances which might affect what people are likely to expect at the time which is relevant for considering whether the product is defective. Evidently if the circumstances are not reasonably ascertainable, in the sense that a given individual
844
could not be expected to ascertain what they are, then for the most part they must be given very little weight. If I can put it another way, the extent to which anything could be ascertained would no doubt be, in itself, a matter which should be taken into account. But I would not like to say that it was conclusive.
For example, Clause 3(2)(c) reflects the directive in referring to the time of supply by the producer; and this is intended to reflect, in part, the obvious point that products must be expected to deteriorate when in use. Indeed, the noble Lord made the very point at an earlier stage of our deliberations. I should be very reluctant to agree that because the time of supply by the producer could not be reasonably ascertained, therefore the period which had expired since it left his hands should be disregarded. In spite of the noble Lord opposite's eloquent example, I am afraid that I must resist the amendment.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I usually agree with the noble Lord but I must say that I am amazed that he wants to introduce this dreadful word "reasonably". I recall that he has on other occasions objected to the word. We already have the ridiculous phrase,
"what might reasonably be expected to be done with or in relation to".
That is going to be difficult enough to deal with, even in a court of law.
This always brings to mind the old story of the child who is asked to write about "reasonable" and who says that parents are sometimes reasonable, teachers are never reasonable and children are always reasonable. That gave me an indication of how the word can be used. Therefore, I cannot possibly support the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and I am amazed that he should propose this dreadful phrase, particularly after our recent debate on the English language. I hope the noble Lord is not going to fall into this terrible trap of using the words "reasonably ascertainable". I can assure the noble Lord that the clause is bad enough without adding anything of that kind.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I do not think there is anything between myself and the Government; the difference is between myself and the noble Baroness. Therefore, perhaps it would be better if I withdrew the amendment and tabled it again at Third Reading leaving out the word "reasonable" and simply leaving in the word "ascertainable". I might then have the support of the noble Baroness and perhaps win the day. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale: moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 16, leave out ("the doing or) and insert ("doing or refraining from doing").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, once again, in Committee, I thought I had some sympathy from the Government Benches for an amendment in this form. I ventured to say that in the matter of safety of appliances the "don'ts" are just as important as the "dos". As an example I referred to an electric razor which was labelled "This machine works on 12 volts.

845
Do not plug it into the mains". I should have thought that it stuck out a mile that if you are going to warn people about the doing of things you should equally warn them, and sometimes more emphatically warn them, about refraining from doing things like plugging a 12 volt machine into the mains. I should have thought that this amendment would be acceptable to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, on these Benches, we have considerable sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in his amendment. In Committee, it was my understanding that he received a fairly favourable reception from the Government in principle. I thought that they were going to go away and think about the matter. He has made a fair and valid point. If my understanding of the tone of the Government's response in Committee was mistaken, I hope the tone of the Government's response may be more sympathetic this time around.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am afraid that I am unable to give a favourable response to the amendment. I do not think that we gave it a favourable response in Committee. We agreed to look at the position. As the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, reminded us, the amendments are identical to those he moved in Committee. We agreed to look at the amendments because we thought that they might add some clarity to Clause 3. The noble Lord's amendments were withdrawn on the understanding that we would consider them and on the basis that if we thought it necessary we would bring forward suitable amendments at this time.
Having given the matter the thought that we undertook to give in Committee, we have come to the conclusion that what I said was correct; in other words, by using the word "doing" one must include the idea of not doing anything with, or in relation to, a product, both in the sense that a person is instructed to deal with a product in a particular way and that he is warned not to deal with it in any other way. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for reminding the House of that point, but I hope that he will understand that after fully considering the answer that I gave him in Committee, I do not see any reason to change it. I shall therefore have to resist his amendments today.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I should have said that I was speaking also to Amendment No. 11, which is in identical terms. The Government's reply seems to be that "doing" includes refraining from doing. I do not agree with that. I do not think that the average reader of an Act of Parliament would agree either. Adding those few words would make it clearer to the reader that refraining from doing things—the "don'ts" are just as important, and may be more so, than the "do's". Since I have the support of the Official Opposition Front Bench, I think we should test this matter by a Division.
4.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 98; Not-Contents, 91

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Rennet, L.

Airedale, L. [Teller.]

Kilbracken, L.

Amherst, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Attlee, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Aylestone, L.

Leatherland, L.

Banks, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Birk, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Blyton, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bottomley, L.

McNair, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Manchester, D.

Brockway, L.

Mishcon, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Molloy, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Munster, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Northfield, L.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Oram, L.

De La Warr, E.

Phillips, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Denington, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Diamond, L.

Porritt, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Rea, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ezra, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkender, B.

Rochester, L.

Falkland, V.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Fletcher, L.

Seear, B.

Flowers, L.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Galpern, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Simon, V.

[Teller.]

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Hayter, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Heycock, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hunt, L.

Underhill, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

White, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Auckland, L.

De Freyne, L.

Bauer, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Beaverbrook, L.

Denning, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Dormer, L.

Beloff, L.

Dundee, E.

Belstead, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Bessborough, E.

Elliot of Hanvood, B.

Biddulph, L.

Faithfull, B.

Blake, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Blyth, L.

Gainford, L.

Borthwick, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gormanston, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Gowrie, E.

Caithness, E.

Greenway, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Gridley, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Carnock, L.

Marylebone, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hesketh, L.

847

Hives, L.

Reay, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Richardson, L.

Hood, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Killeam, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Kimball, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L

Lane-Fox, B.

Selkirk, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Shannon, E.

Layton, L.

Sharpies, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lyell, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Strange, B.

Manton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Marley, L.

Strathspey, L.

Merrivale, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mersey, V.

Teviot, L.

Molson, L.

Teynham, L.

Mottistone, L.

Thomeycroft, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Torrington, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Tranmire, L.

Onslow, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Trumpington, B.

Pender, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Westbury, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone,

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

L.

Young, B.

Portland, D.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.42 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Nugent of Guildford): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 10 I should explain to the Minister that Amendment No. 10 pre-empts Amendment No. 11. Perhaps the Minister will indicate how he intends to deal with it.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 24, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10 which, perhaps noble Lords may agree, does not pose a difficulty to Amendment No. 11 since we are in effect going back to where we once have been before. The House may recall that we debated these two subsections at Committee stage. It was then that I undertook to see whether there was a clearer way to express what we wished to say.
From that earlier debate two factors stand out. The first was the difficulty and complexity of the drafting of the provisions as they stood. I tried to explain that we had spent considerable effort in trying to make the provisions clear. We have continued with that effort since our Committee stage on 19th January. However, it has to be recognised that the distinction we are trying to make is irreducibly complex. I am afraid that if the underlying concepts are complex, the drafting must inevitably be so. The second point was that most noble Lords thought that it was absolutely obvious, for example, that advice from an architect would not be covered by this Bill even though the manifestation of that advice was on a piece of paper which was in itself a product. It would be contrary to the whole purpose and spirit of the directive so to consider it.
I am ready to accept that the central proposition is fairly obvious. What is not so obvious is the precise dividing line between advice of that kind on the one hand and, for example, instructions for the use of goods on the other. That has proved enormously difficult to determine and was, I believe, the source of most concern expressed at Committee stage.
There is a balance to be drawn. Where there is serious doubt we obviously wish to make matters clear. To do so is valuable even if noble Lords opposite occasionally take us to task for it. Very often making matters clear is at the cost of introducing even more words and a greater complexity. That is very much the case with these two subsections which many, including some in this House and others outside, found very difficult to understand without any explanation. It was quite obvious at Committee stage that my explanation did not make it any the clearer.
Having studied the debate, and having listened to opinions and comments from many outside the House, I am now of the opinion that in this case our original assessment of the balance was not right. I suggest that the assessment of the balance by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, was right. Since the proposition that we wish to establish seems to be essentially an obvious one about which there is no doubt the balance of advantage lies in not complicating the Bill by trying to solve a problem which, very largely speaking, does not exist.
As I said at the outset, we return from where we once have been, and with apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, for having spent such a lot of time at Committee stage, and to your Lordships this afternoon in taking further time on this. I beg to move.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I understand the difficulty over the wording. Will the noble Lord agree that there are circumstances where not doing anything could be harmful to the product? For instance, the seller of livestock could have omitted to feed them properly during their breeding period. That is not "doing anything"; it is omitting to do it. But it would have a harmful effect on the stock.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for the very gracious way in which he says that on reflection he thought that I was right and he was wrong. It could not have been put more pleasantly. Naturally, I support his amendment.
Lord Denning: My Lords, these two subsections as they stood were quite incomprehensible. It is a very good thing that they have been struck out. I also express my gratitude.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, as one who expressed an inability to understand either the subsections or the explanation, I am very grateful for the decision that the Government have taken.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, Amendment No. 11 cannot be called.
Clause 4 [Defences]:
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 11, leave out from ("such") to ("or") in line 14 and insert ("as to enable the existence of the defect to be discovered").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in rising to move this amendment it is certainly not necessary to remind the House that the problem of a development

849
risks defence looms largely in this Bill. With many others I regretted that we were unable to make progress on this aspect during Committee stage. I hope for some improvement today on Report.
The purpose of this amendment is to alter the wording of the provisions of the Bill dealing with the development risks defence so that it follows exactly the wording of the directive. Article 7 of the directive says:
"The producer shall not be liable as a result of this directive if he proves … that the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time when he put the product into circulation was not such as to enable the existence of the defect to be discovered.".
However, in the Bill the defence is worded somewhat more loosely. Noble Lords will see that Clause 4(1) says:
"In any civil proceedings by virtue of this Part against any person ('the person proceeded against') in respect of a defect in a product it shall be a defence for him to show … that the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the relevant time was not such that a producer of products of the same description as the product in question might be expected to have discovered the defect if it had existed in his products while they were under his control.".
We shall await what the Minister has to say, but there seems no obvious reason why the draftsman of the Bill has deviated from the wording of the directive. As in previous discussions today there have been several noble Lords supporting the proposition that we keep to the words of the directive and I shall hope for their support at a later stage.
However, whatever his reasons for modifying the wording, the draftsman has surely softened its demands upon UK producers. Instead of having to prove that the state of knowledge was not such as to enable the existence of the defect to be discovered at all, we find that more wishy-washy concepts are introduced. Clause 4(1)(e) states:
"might be expected to have discovered the defect if it had existed in his products while they were under his control".
There is nothing in the directive about that, nothing at all.
The consumers in this country, and many Members of your Lordships' House, feel that it is unfortunate to have the development risk defence at all. They feel that it is adding insult to injury for consumers to find that if we have to have this defence it is watered down from the version that was agreed in Europe. I am indebted to the Consumers' Association for its help on this matter. It has asked me to stress that it strongly opposes the wording adopted in the clause, and would like to know from the Minister why it is that the wording in the directive will not do. Indeed, it questions whether the Bill in its present form actually implements the directive. As far as it can see, such a deviation is not authorised by the directive itself or by community law. Doubtless the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, or his noble and learned friend will explain that point to us when they come to wind up. I agree with the Consumers' Association. I wonder whether in its present form the Bill actually implements the directive.
I think that it is correct to say that by introducing the concept of expectation into the formula, which is what the Bill actually does, rather than the plain, unvarnished concept of discoverability, the strict burden of proof on producers is reduced. We would
850
say that it ceases to be a question of whether the defect was capable of being discovered at all. It becomes a question of whether this particular producer might be expected to have discovered the defect. The words at the end of the Clause 4(1)(e) which read:
"if it had existed in his products while they were under his control",
do not add anything but only cause confusion and difficulty of comprehension.
In the view of the Consumers' Association, consumer organisations in general, certainly of myself and my noble friends on this side of the House and I would hope of noble Lords sitting elsewhere, the stark words of the directive are much to be preferred. We believe that they demonstrate much more clearly than the words of the clause that there is a strict burden on the producer who wishes to rely on this defence to prove in an objective and not a subjective way the non-discoverability of the defect.
If the Government say that there is no legal difference in the two formulations (which we would not feel able to admit) I think that even the Minister might accept that there could well be a difference in the psychological perception of the two approaches. In view of the Government's refusal to do anything at all about the development risks defence, I should like to ask the Government to agree that it is most important in the interests of consumers that the strict wording of the directive should be adhered to, if only to bring home to industry that it really is only in those cases where they could not possibly have known of the defect that they will be excused legal responsibility for compensating the victims of their defective products. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I should like strongly to support this amendment. It is quite clear from the directive that what is being talked of in Article 7(e) is whether a defect could, as a matter of capability, be discovered. What is being talked about in Clause 4(1)(e) involves taking a producer (not the producer of the article but any producer) and finding out what he might expect to have discovered if it had existed. That is a wholly hypothetical idea and it raises also the difficulty of what happens if somebody is the only producer of the product. Where does he go to find a producer? If he has the patent on that product, he may well be the only producer. Is he the only person who is expected to have discovered the defect? It is easy for a sole producer to say, "I did not expect this. I might not be expected to know this". Surely it is better to keep to the directive, which is in words which can be understood. There does not seem to be much difficulty in interpreting the words in Article 7(e):
"was not such as to enable the existence of the defect to be discovered".
They are all words which are fairly easy to understand.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I should also like to support the amendment. We come back to the fundamental point that the duty of the legislature is to implement the directive. By implementing the directive, it can clear up ambiguities but it cannot alter the objective or the meaning of the directive. The directive is perfectly clear. Article 7(e) states:

851
"that the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time when he put the product into circulation was not such as to enable the existence of the defect to be discovered".
That is perfectly simple and intelligible. Those words can be put into our statute. Instead, the words in the Bill as it stands have a different meaning; namely:
"a producer of products of the same description as the products in question".
That limits the range. The words give the man a bigger defence than he ought to have. It would be much better and more correct, in accordance with the directive, to accept the amendment as it stands, thereby putting in exactly the words of the directive.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, this is a pretty radical departure from the directive. I am genuinely puzzled to know why in this respect the synthesis has strayed so far from the original. It has been pointed out that Article 7(e) of the directive lays down an objective test in simple, unambiguous terms. But to my mind the provision in the Bill imports a subjective element. I am not a lawyer but the drafting of the Bill seems to bear a distinct family likeness to the existing legal test in negligence. It would be all too easy to slip into the test of whether another similar producer might reasonably be expected to have discovered the defect. The introduction of this concept of expectation strikes me as being a distinct watering down of the clear and simple provision in the directive.
I agree with noble Lords who have some doubt as to whether this is complying with the directive and whether the European Court would hold that it had succeeded in so doing. I know that there the judges are pretty robust in their interpretation and they may take the line that all we were doing was to try to carry out in our own peculiar way the intentions of the directive. I wonder why we need raise any doubt, why we cannot just do it in the simple terms of the directive. As I say, I am puzzled by this provision.
There is one point on which I should like to have the Minister's views. It is not clear to me what the position would be if the injury were caused by a one-off product and there were no other products of the same description made by either that manufacturer or any other manufacturer. Perhaps when the Minister replies he could explain how the clause would bite in that circumstance. I am sure that the best solution is to substitute what is in the Bill with the words set out in the amendment.
5 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, put simply, the case for the amendment is that the exclusion it makes for development risks is narrower than the exclusion made by the words that we have used in the Bill. What we are really being asked is why we have not precisely implemented the directive.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate and I have made clear that our purpose in Part I is to implement the product liability directive. We do not want to do any more and we most certainly do not want to do any less. However, I have also made clear that we have done what we can in Part Ito make clear those of its provisions which are cast in terms which are unfamiliar to our law or might otherwise give rise to debate.
852
We must accept that Community directives are drafted for the benefit of a number of member states and it is often not practicable to attain that degree of precision which our legislation is designed to achieve and with which our courts and practitioners are familiar. This is, of course, an argument that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, put forward when we were discussing Amendment No. 2. When we were talking about the preamble being a guide to the intent of the directive, I made a note at that time that the noble and learned Lord said that if falls to the national companies to interpret the directive in accordance with their own laws and attempt to bring it near to that.
That is exactly what we are doing. I must confess that I am somewhat surprised that the noble and learned Lord should change tack on this particular amendment. Article 189 of the Rome treaty provides that directives are binding. They are binding as to the result to be achieved, but it leaves to the national authorities the choice of form and method. It must be made quite clear, in the course of the negotiations on this particular directive, that member states might need to complete a number of its provisions in the course of giving it effect in their law. I accept that this presents us with somewhat difficult choices and we have introduced different wording only when we have felt pretty sure of our ground. For example, in the case of the exception for primary agricultural products, we decided that we should not detail any further the class of products which are covered.
However, in this case we feel confident that we can and must introduce the necessary clarification. I say "must" because I accept that this provision is perceived by many as having an important impact on the scope of liability under Part I. So much is evident from our earlier debates. I say "can" because, in our view, the language we have chosen is implicit in the directive itself.
I assure noble Lords that that is a view which we have consistently maintained in the course of the negotiations. What can lead to confusion is that the directive speaks somewhat blandly, if I may say so, about "the state of scientific and technical knowledge". That in itself makes one think that there is some objective block of knowledge which is available to anyone at the press of a button and which would enable a producer to see immediately the risks of marketing a particular product.
Of course, it is not like that at all. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, surely what we are dealing with—and I think that he would accept this—is a spectrum of information which may range from matters which are common knowledge such as perhaps the addictive effects of heroin. It might include experimental results that have been published or that are known. It might include mere speculation.
It is at this lower end of the spectrum where the risks of developing new products are likely to be significant. One can perhaps paint a scenario where in a given area, a speculative account, perhaps in some academic journal, might bear upon the potential effects of a given product. Does that mean that the practical implications must be thought through and tested by any producer of that product before he can properly put that product on the market? That is what the noble

853
Lord's amendment must be designed to achieve. I suggest that it is a wholly implausible account of what the directive intends.
Given the information explosion which has occurred in our generation, the amendment would, I suggest, put any producer of a product in a wholly impossible position. Therefore the only plausible interpretation must be that the information which is available is such that any reasonable person, looking at the matter in an objective way, would say that the producer should carry out such-and-such investigations or should carry out such-and-such tests. It is the purpose of Clause 4(1)(f) to express that invitation. I believe that it does so correctly.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, asked me about the producer of a unique product. That is quite easy if one considers what a hypothetical producer of products of that type would be expected to know and do. I have outlined a range of options to him. I point out to the noble Baroness that I do not believe that she intended to produce another effect. As I say, the only interpretation that I can place upon the amendment is that other effect. It is for that reason that I invite your Lordships to reject the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I support my noble friend. The noble Baroness suggested that there might be no legal difference between the two ways of putting this, but that there could well be a psychological difference. She went on to say that it was important in the interests of the consumer that the wording of the directive should be adhered to, or words to that effect.
I suggest to your Lordships that, first, if there is a possibility that there is no legal difference, it is not really right for us to bother about the psychology of the matter. That seems to me to be rather departing from what we are here to do. More important are the interests of the consumer. The whole point about the state of the art defence is to allow people to do the best they can in developing new products and new ways of doing things for the benefit of the consumer. That is the underlying principle of the state of the art defence. If one did not have such a defence or if one watered it down so much that it did not appear to people to be effective, they would not try so hard to develop new things for the benefit of the consumer. In this case, unlike the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, I take an opposite view from that which I took the last time we argued this point; and my noble friend has pointed out that he has changed his view. I believe that it is better to follow what the Government have in the Bill than slavishly to try to follow what is in the directive.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, had to say. I tried very hard not to be side-tracked from the main objective by listening to the various points that he made because he really shifts his ground on whatever amendment is before the House or Committee, which I suppose is to be expected.
However, with regard to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, one of the complaints that we made and that I made on this amendment was that the
854
draft as produced by the Government draftsman has indeed watered down what the amendment wishes to see done: it has watered down the words of the directive. We on this side of the House really believe that the provisions of this part of the Bill should follow exactly the wording of the directive. I am sorry that the Government do not feel able to agree and I feel that I must test the opinion of the House on this matter.
5.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 96.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Amherst, E.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Attlee, E.

John-Mackie, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kennet, L.

Banks, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Birk, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Blyton, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bottomley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Brockway, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Buckmaster, V.

McNair, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Manchester, D.

[Teller.]

Molloy, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Chitnis, L.

Munster, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Oram, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Phillips, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Denington, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Denning, L.

[Teller.]

Diamond, L.

Porritt, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ezra, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkender, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Falkland, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Seear, B.

Fitt, L.

Serota, B.

Fletcher, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Flowers, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gallacher, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Galpem, L.

Simon, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Somers, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stallard, L.

Greenway, L.

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Griffiths, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grimond, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hayter, L.

White, B.

Heycock, L.

Wigoder, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Hunt, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Auckland, L.

Beloff, L.

Bauer. L.

Belstead, L.

855

Bessborough, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Biddulph, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Blake, L.

Layton, L.

Blyth, L.

Long, V.

Borthwick, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Man ton, L.

Caithness, E.

Marley, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Molson, L.

Carnock, L.

Mottistone, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Craigavon, V.

Onslow, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L,

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

De La Warr, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Plummer of St Marylebone,

Drumalbyn, L.

L.

Dundee, E.

Portland, D.

Eccles, V.

Reay, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Renwick, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Faithfull, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L,

Sandford, L.

Gainford, L.

Selkirk, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Shannon, E.

Gowrie, E.

Sharpies, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gridley, L.

Strange, B.

Grimthorpe, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Strathspey, L.

Marylebone, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hesketh, L.

Teviot, L.

Hives, L.

Tranmire, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hood, V.

Trumpington, B.

Ingrow, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Killearn, L.

Westbury, L.

Kimball, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook Lord Beaverbrook moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 15, leave out from ("the") to end of line 21 and insert ("defect—

(i) constituted a defect in a product ("the subsequent product") in which the product in question had been comprised: and

(ii) was wholly attributable to the design of the subsequent product or to compliance by the producer of the product in question with instructions given by the producer of the subsequent product.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, line 21, at end insert ("provided that the defence in paragraph (e) above shall not be available in respect of any product for which a licence is required under the Therapeutic Substances Act 1956 or a licence or certificate is required under the Medicines Act 1968.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. Your Lordships will recall that the purpose of Part I of this Bill is to make producers strictly liable for defects without the need to prove negligence, and that the directive allows an exception to be made from that main purpose in
856
respect of what have come to be known as development risks, and about which we have heard a good deal this afternoon already.
At the Committee stage the Committee decided to retain that exception in the Bill, and I am not today seeking to reopen that decision in its general application. What I am seeking to do is to provide that the defence of development risks should not be availabe for what, for brevity, I shall refer to as the manufacture of drugs.
It was the thalidomide tragedy which in part led to the setting up of the Pearson Royal Commission, and it was that tragedy which led West Germany to legislate specifically about drugs in 1978. That legislation removed the defence of development risks in their courts for drug manufacturers, and provided for a maximum of half a million deutsche marks compensation to be payable to an individual, and for a company to be liable for a maximum of 200 million deutsche marks or 12 million in one year. and required compulsory insurance to cover those amounts.
Anyone who has had concern for malformed or brain-damaged children is bound to pause and consider whether there is not good cause for treating specially products which, if things go wrong can have such a devastating effect on human life. Compensation can do only so much, but it can make a difference to the quality of life both of the victims and of their families. In our earlier discussions two main objections were raised to the proposition that the developmment risks defence should be removed altogether. First, that to do so would stifle innovation, and, secondly, that it would create great problems of insurance. I cannot myself see that either of these arguments is conclusive in respect of drugs.
On the first, there is precious little evidence that in the EC countries where this defence is not allowed either the domestic producers or those who import into those countries have been inhibited from innovation in this highly competitive but highly remunerative industry. There have been some marginal indications of this happening in the USA, but we have discussed often enough before why conditions there afford no parallel to what happens here.
On the second point, much of the harm—if indeed there be harm—has surely been done already. The Minister has rightly emphasised that with the reversal of the burden of proof the problems of establishing this defence of development risks are extremely formidable, and they are likely to succeed only very rarely, if ever. Therefore, if the insurance companies have studied the Bill and read their Hansard they will no doubt already be making their arrangements.
Although the Government expect that this defence will rarely be successfully used, they accept that it is impossible to say that another thalidomide type tragedy could never occur. The defences against the bringing into use of a drug with unforeseen tragic consequences are stronger than they were at the time the Pearson Commission was sitting. As I have said before, I doubt if we were writing now whether we would say that there was a gap here through which the victims of another thalidomide disaster could easily slip. We would I think delete "easily". But that there is a gap cannot be denied.
The precise circumstances of that earlier tragedy would obviously not be repeated, but it is a solemn thought that, as I recall, this was a drug which for a time was on sale in Germany without prescription, and in the early days there was no reason to suspect that, when taken during a pregnancy, it would have a devastating effect during a certain limited period of that pregnancy. I am certainly not competent to give an expert opinion; but my own amateur view is that I think it is quite possible that if these circumstances were to happen now this is one of the rare cases where the English suppliers might well be able to plead a defence successfully under the present provisions of this Bill.
This is not an issue where there is any prospect of there being unanimity of treatment throughout the EC countries, an issue which was thought important when we were discussing agricultural products. Article 15 of the directive allows for derogation in respect of the defence of development risks, and at the very least West Germany is likely to derogate in respect of drugs. There is a provision in the directive in that same article for a specific review of the whole defence of development risks in 10 years' time; but that is not an aspect I am pursuing this evening.
Concern was naturally expressed at an earlier stage about drugs for AIDS which might have distressing and possibly unknown side effects. But if there is a warning of the risks and the doctor and patient, in clear knowledge of those risks, decide, nevertheless, to go ahead in the hope that life will be prolonged, there is going to be no likelihood, as I see it, of a successful action under this amendment.
The drafting of the amendment may not commend itself to parliamentary counsel, particularly the draftsman of this Bill, but if necessary that can be taken care of later. What the amendment does is to raise directly whether the development risks defence should be allowed for drugs or whether it should not. For the reasons I have stated as briefly as I could manage, I suggest that it should not. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in rising to support this amendment from the Opposition Benches I have no wish to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has said in introducing his amendment. Nor indeed have I any wish to repeat the arguments that we went through in Committee on the general question of the development risks defence because I think that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, has wisely taken a rather more narrow point which is specifically the one relating to drugs or pharmaceuticals.
The position was fully set out in the Explanatory Memorandum to which the noble and learned Lord referred in Committee and to which my noble friend Lord Morton referred earlier. The Explanatory Memorandum related to the draft directive, and the draft directive included development risks. Perhaps I may quote one or two sentences from the Explanatory Memorandum; it seems to me to put in a nutshell exactly what the case is. The memorandum says:
"Liability irrespective of fault does not burden the producer to an unjustified extent. Normally he can divide the costs of damage passed on to him as a result of liability being made independent of fault among all users or consumers of products free of defects from the same range, or of his production as a whole, by including the
858
expense incurred (payment of damages or payment of insurance premiums) in his general production costs and in his pricing of the goods. Thus all consumers bear the costs of the damage to a reasonable extent".
It goes on to say that in the cases to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, referred—where later scientific and technical knowledge made it abundantly clear that there should have been or might have been a defect in the product—if these extremely rare cases of damage were to be excluded from the producers' liability, the consumer would have to bear the risk of unknown defects. In other words instead of spreading it across the whole range of consumers it would be the person who actually suffers who has to bear the penalty.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, referred to the work of the Pearson Commission, of which he was a distinguished member, and the conclusions that the commission came to. He told us that if the Pearson Commission were sitting today it might have been stronger in its recommendations. I regret that the Community in revising the draft directive omitted the development risks defence, as I said in Committee. Nevertheless, in concentrating on this narrow point of pharmaceuticals in support of the noble Lord, Lord Allen, I simply ask whether we as a Community will ensure that another thalidomide disaster cannot take place without a good, steady and clearly defined system of compensation, or will we not? That is the question before your Lordships' House.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment very strongly. During the course of the past two years, while I have been making a translation of a French book on intensive farming, I have learned a great deal about some of the methods used. There is no doubt that a great many drugs and other artificial products are inserted into the artificial foods that these animals eat. For example, hormones are regularly given to calves and pigs, and since the animals, owing to their unnatural life, are in a very delicate state of health, antibiotics are given. We all know that some antibiotics are harmless while others do not agree with us. Other drugs are given, but the trouble is that so often drugs are used of whose side effects not even the scientists themselves are aware. But they are all there in the meat that one eats and one has no protection against them. Therefore, I would say that this amendment is most certainly very necessary to protect the customer from something he has no defence against.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, the intention of this amendment may be admirable, but I do not believe it would work in practice. I was in your Lordships' House and took part during the passage of the Medicines Act, as it now is. My understanding of the Medicines Act is that it was brought in to ensure that pharmaceutical products are tested more thoroughly than they were before the terrible thalidomide tragedy took place.
I do not believe that even this amendment would prevent another thalidomide tragedy in toto. Mistakes are made in the testing of any product, be it pharmaceutical or otherwise. The mandatory length of time during which a drug now has to be tested and patented has been increased. Therefore, I believe that

859
if this amendment were accepted it would have a very harmful effect on the pharmaceutical industry. I have no financial or other interest to declare in the pharmaceutical industry, but it is an industry which is vulnerable to criticism and often very rightly so, or has been in the past. It is essential, if some of the malignant diseases that we presently have are to be tested and treated, that the Bill, with all the provisos it has in it, should stand as it now is.
Lord Denning: My Lords, this is a very difficult point. At an earlier stage I said that I had been converted. At first I thought that there should not be the development risks defence in these cases. Today I have come round and say that, in proper circumstances, there should be. This amendment will not allow that defence in the case of drugs, if I may put it as simply as that. It will alter the directive as it presently stands. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Allen said—that it can be done under the directive as it stands, because under Article 13 a member state may provide in its legislation that a producer shall be liable even if he proves that,
"the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time when he put the product into circulation was not such as to enable",
him to detect a defect in it. In other words, a member state can provide in its legislation for such a procedure as this—that is, it can say that in the case of a drug, as an example, the manufacturers shall be liable even though they were ignorant of the defect at the time.
A member state may derogate, but if it does that it has to hold the proposal in abeyance for nine months and it has to go to the Commission before the derogation takes effect. I would suggest that it is better not to implement this amendment at the moment, but to leave the legislation as it stands, to see whether any other member state will derogate in this way and then to go along with that. At the moment I feel it would be premature to agree to this amendment. I should prefer to see the Bill as it stands.
Lord Porritt: My Lords, I am bound to say that I was absolutely shocked when I saw this amendment down today, particularly to see that it had the support of such eminent noble Lords and noble Baronesses. I must declare a direct interest, as I am a director, very much a non-executive director, of a pharmaceutical company. But if, as there seems to be little doubt, the proposers of this amendment are suggesting a specific exclusion of the pharmaceutical profession from the possibility of using a defence that anybody else can use—the development risks defence—then I suggest to your Lordships that that is illogical, unfair, highly discriminating and very much against the benefit of the community. Those, I realise, are harsh words, but I mean them. I am not at all biased or on one side of the picture. In fact because I have made this statement I should like to put some words on the other side of the picture.
Your Lordships will realise that there are already the strictest possible regulations and years and years of intricate testing of every drug that goes on to the market. The Government also have a committee for the safety of medicines through which every drug has to go before it can get a licence and be put on the market. These are long, weary tests—12 years of them as a rule—and they can cost £100 million. These drugs
860
are not just developed for fun: they are there for a definite purpose and it is only fair that one should say something about this continual criticism of the pharmaceutical industry.
There is not only a sense of apathy, but my feeling is that there is actually antagonism against the pharmaceutical profession and it is not limited to any one section of this House or of the community. As a matter of fact, the community appreciates the pharmaceutical industry much more than some other people—shall we say?—mentioning no names.
I should like to put forward just one or two points. First of all, we are talking about risks. It is a cliché to say that life without risks is not worth living, but it is true. It is infinitely more true to say that the risks of coming to any harm from a drug that goes on the market at the moment are infinitesimal compared with the risks of crossing a street—or the Channel.
That being so, it is quite unfair that the pharmaceutical industry should be excluded from the possibility—I repeat, the possibility—of using this defence, remembering that it puts the onus on the producer to prove that he has done nothing wrong. That is a new approach altogether. If I may refer for one moment to the European Community countries mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, they are not as interested as we are, for the simple reason that they are not innovative. West Germany produces a few new drugs but none of the others do at all. We are miles ahead of all the rest of them, and we are miles ahead of West Germany. That is a very important point. The pharmaceutical industry is very much an innovative industry. I should like to put to your Lordships just one or two points about this industry which is so unfairly criticised.
I ask your Lordships to look at the obstacles and restrictions that have been put in its way, in this House among other places, in the last few years: limited lists, a cut-down on possible profits, the new PPRS, so called, and the small but very important licence-of-right question in respect of which we still await an answer. These are all aimed at the pharmaceutical profession, which, if I may say so, is basically trying to find drugs and compounds which will cure human illness and alleviate the symptoms where the illness cannot be cured. It is a beneficent industry. It is not trying to kill people; it would be too ridiculous to think that. It is working first and foremost for the benefit of the community.
It also employs 75,000 people, most of them skilled. There are very few industrial troubles indeed in the industry. It is the fourth largest producer, through exports, as regards our balance of trade. This year it has gone up yet again to the fairly respectable sum of £850 million. It employs 5,000 graduate scientists at a time when we are getting a bit worried about a new brain-drain of scientists from the country. As I say, it employs 5,000 of them and also does a great deal to increase the prestige of this country abroad, to say nothing of attracting considerable capital from abroad as well as at home.
Here is an industry which is doing a great deal for the community, from the basis upwards with the idea of curing diseases that are still doing enormous harm to the community—not only AIDS, but cancer, high blood pressure and so on. I could quote a long list. The

861
industry is working on these products for your Lordships' benefit and for the benefit of all patients. Therefore it needs support. I should have thought that a government would see that an industry as good as this needs support and not criticism.
Therefore I beg your Lordships to think seriously about this suggested amendment. It seems to me the cruellest thing to suggest that it should be excluded from the chance of saving itself from the most enormous damages, for which it is not at all responsible. It is quite impossible to cover every potential trouble. We know in this life that there are certain risks which are just totally unpredictable. That applies in every sphere and it applies equally to drugs. I do not think that a problem such as that with thalidomide is likely to occur again. The restrictions, the tests and the regulations are so strong. I trust that your Lordships will see that there is another side to the picture and will not accept this amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question? He mentioned in his speech that there are only two countries in Europe which are innovators in the drug field: Germany and this country. Am I mistaken in believing that drugs are not protected in Germany?
Lord Porritt: My Lords, with permission, let me say that drugs are not protected except that there is a ceiling, an upper limit, for which compensation can be given.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like briefly to endorse the splendid speech of the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, and to make just two or three points. The first is that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, rather dismissively referred to "that highly profitable industry", as though that was somehow a wrong thing to be. There is an underlying theme, if I may put it like that, that somehow wealth creation is bad. But wealth creation is essential to the survival of this country. We could have none of the good things that we want if we did not have wealth created by companies in big industries such as the pharmaceutical industry. Quite indepen-dently of everything else, they need to be encouraged to compete in the world market and that should be a thought underlying all our discussions in this House, because without that the country will not survive.
The second point is that my noble friend Lord Auckland pointed out to your Lordships that since the thalidomide disaster the regulations and legislation for the industry have been greatly tightened up. That surely in itself is enough of a special protection for that area.
My final point is this. Let us not get it wrong. People are not going to try to develop new products in any industry if the threat to them is too great. We must keep that as the underlying thought. As to the special pleading, if I may so describe it, of the noble Lord, Lord Allen, having been on the Pearson Commission and all that, I do not think that is applicable in this case at this time. I hope that your Lordships will not support this amendment.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, I join my noble friend in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, on his robust defence of the pharmaceutical industry. Let us all be quite clear that if we want research into such things as cancer, arthritis, AIDS and so on, we have to allow the industry to spend enormous sums of money on it. If we permitted this amendment to go through, we would by definition be saying, "You are not protected as in our opinion you should be".
At Second Reading we discussed the subject thoroughly, and the House came to a conclusion. I am quite sure that what was happening in the pharmaceutical industry was very much in our minds. To my mind, it seems ridiculous to have a risks defence and to exclude the pharmaceutical industry of all industries. They are the people probably doing more in the way of research than anyone else in this country.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, we discussed the inclusion of the development risks defence in Part I of the Bill at some length at Committee stage, and your Lordships will recall that after a Division, the amendment which aimed to remove that defence was disagreed to. It is quite apparent that before us we have an amendment which would remove the availability of that defence in respect of medicines and drugs covered by the relevant Acts. It is apparent from the form of the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, and other noble Lords opposite accept that the defence should be available generally. But I have to express real surprise that it should not be available to the manufacturers of drugs.
Of course, I am aware that the effect of one particular drug was the main reason why the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, made his objection at Second Reading and later at Committee stage. We discussed that case at length and, where the development risks defence would have been relevant in that case, the House agreed that it would be impossible to make a decision in that area.
I am not going to rehearse all the arguments for the retention of the development risks defence which we have debated previously. However, I should like to refer to a few points that have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, referred to Germany and the introduction of thalidomide which was sold without prescription. He knows that since that time there has been a requirement to test for potential damage in pregnancy. In Germany, although there was evidence to suspect foetal damage, there was then no require-ment to test for that damage. As my noble friend Lord Auckland reminded us this afternoon, the Medicines Act brought in a far greater degree of supervision and of testing requirement. Here, as in the case of the EC pharmaceutical directives, the case that applied in Germany just does not apply.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, touched upon, in particular, the drugs for AIDS. He suggested that the foreseen and unforeseen side-effects of an AIDS drug should be taken care of by warnings applied to the bottles or warnings given by physicians. But he stretches my imagination a little far. How on earth could a warning be given by anybody about unforeseen effects? The noble Lord, Lord Williams, majored on the question of compensation. He will

863
know, and I am sure he will make the judgment, that the directive holds a balance between all the needs of the community, and compensation for the individual is, of course, one of them. However, I believe—and here I may disagree with the noble Lord—that this is outweighed by the need to have the ability to make important and technological advances.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, supported the inclusion of the development risks after changing his mind during the course of the Committee. He has no doubt given this further thought and he remains of that changed mind. He agreed that the imposition of strict liability without the defence for a drugs manufacturer may hamper valuable research and tests in regard to all drugs for the benefit of humanity as a whole. That is where I think he disagreed with the warning which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, mentioned. My noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne is concerned that we might make it impossible for drugs of the type which we are discussing to be available to the consumer.
Perhaps I may remind the House of what the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said when we completed our Committee debate. He acknowledged the benefits which society has gained from the development of new drugs. He then went on to consider the impact of absolute liability, on the pharmacuetical industry and how it would affect that industry's research and development. As the noble Lord pointed out, how the industry itself will perceive that problem is important.
I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, in any way defended the industry. I acknowledge that his knowledge is a good deal greater than that of a non-executive director of a pharmaceutical company. He believed that some harsh, unjust and discriminating things were said and done about the industry. He pointed out, as a number of noble Lords have done on a number of occasions, the importance of that industry to this country in employment terms and in earnings terms but, more importantly, in the innovation that it carries out. It is by far the most innovative industry of its kind in the world. There is no doubt about that; it is a world leader.
I believe, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, said—and he was supported by noble Lords behind me—that if the industry were hindered in its research, we could very easily lose those many advantages which have been outlined. It is for just this sort of industry, which operates at the limits of scientific knowledge for the benefit of all, that the development risks defence is so important. At a time when all of us are conscious of the problems of AIDS, cancer, and so on, not only in this country but throughout Europe and the rest of the world, I find any proposal which would restrict research into possible cures for those diseases difficult if not impossible to accept.
That is my main argument. I should perhaps add that I have some doubt as to whether we can, under the provisions of the directive, make specific provision for any particular sector of industry. The main thrust of my argument, with which I am confident the House will agree, is that to restrict in any way the development of new drugs or medicines cannot be in the interests of anybody at all. I urge your Lordships to reject the amendment.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, for his spirited defence of an industry which is not under attack. I am grateful to the Minister and to the noble Lord for the eloquent way in which they expanded the point which I tried humbly to make about the improvements which have taken place since the Pearson Commission sat in the control and supervision of new drugs. The noble Lord, Lord Porritt, will be comforted by the fact that he sees the possibility of another tragedy being so remote as to be reflected in the small insurance premiums which the companies will no doubt be called upon to pay. I am sorry that the noble Lord the Minister dismissed so light-heartedly the validity of a warning about the unknown consequences of using drugs against AIDS, which I thought was a simple enough warning. I am sorry that he, in his view, no doubt, has been so inadequately supported from behind that he has had to quote the views of noble Lords who are not present this evening but who managed to convey their views at an earlier stage. I am under no such obligation.
I am told that it is ridiculous to talk about picking out drugs for special treatment. I am sorry that the West Germans behave in this ridiculous way. No doubt that is their concern. My noble and learned friend Lord Denning suggested that we should wait and see what other people did. I venture to suggest that Germany, at any rate, might get over the legal complications touched upon by the Minister and derogate in respect of drugs. For once in a way, I think that this country might set an example and not meekly follow in the paths of others.
There is talk about experiments with drugs. When we talk about experiments, I find it hard to forget the thalidomide children. When we divide, as we shall, let the House be fully aware of what it is deciding. The Government have accepted that it is impossible to say that another thalidomide-type tragedy could never occur, however fervently we hope that it never will. Those who know me know that I am the last person to be over-dramatic or over-emotional. However, if such a disaster should occur, is it fair and right that the victims should be left with the likelihood that they could not establish a claim to compensation, as the Bill at present provides? Or is there a case for putting on to the drug manufacturers, the stories of whose wealth and prosperity fill the headlines of our city pages, an obligation to carry their share of the responsibility, as this amendment proposes? I invite the House to decide.
6.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 110.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Banks, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Birk, B.

[Teller.]

Blyton, L.

Amherst, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Ardwick, L

Bottomley, L.

Attlee, E.

Brockway, L.

Aylestone, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

865

Bruce of Donington, L.

Leatherland, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Campbell of F. skan, L.

Longford, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McNair, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Manchester, D.

David, B.

Molloy, L.

Da vies of Penrhys, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Denington, B.

Nicol, B.

Diamond, L.

Ogmore, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Oram, L.

Donoughue, L.

Phillips, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ezra, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Falkender, B.

[Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Galpern, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Grey, E.

Seear, B.

Griffiths. L.

Serota, B.

Grimond, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hampton, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Hams of Greenwich, L.

Simon, V.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Somers, L.

Hayter, L.

Stallard, L.

Heycock, L.

Stedman, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hunt, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Ingleby. V.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wigoder, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kilmarnock. L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Lawrence, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Auckland, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bauer, L.

Erne, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Erroll, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Beloff, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Belstead, L.

Gainford, L.

Bessborough. E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Biddulph, L.

Gray of Contin. L.

Birdwood, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Blake, L.

Greenway, L.

Blyth, L.

Gridley, L.

Boardman, L.

Grimthorpe. L.

Borthwick, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marylebone, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hesketh, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Hives, L.

Butterworth, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Caithness, E.

Hood, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Hooper, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ingrow, L.

Carnock, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Coleraine, L.

Killearn, L.

Colwyn, L.

Kimball, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Cross, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

De La Warr, E.

Layton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Denning, L.

Liverpool, E.

Dormer, L.

Long, V.

Dundee, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Eccles, V.

Lyell, L.

Eden of Winton. L.

Malmesbury, E.

866

Manton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L

Vlarley, L.

Sandford, L.

Vterrivale, L.

Selkirk, E.

VIolson, L.

Shannon, E.

VIottistone, L.

Sharpies, B.

Vlowbray and Stourton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Vlunster, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Onslow, E.

Strange, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Pender, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Sudeley, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone,

Teynham, L.

L.

Tranmire, L.

Porritt, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Portland, D.

Trumpington, B.

Reay, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Renwick, L.

Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Saint Oswald, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.9 p.m.
Clause 5 [Damage giving rise to liability]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 4, line 36, leave out from ("itself") to end of line 38.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to bring the Bill into line with the directive. Article 9 of the directive says quite simply:
" 'Damage' means: damage to, or destruction of, any item of property other than the defective article itself, with a lower threshold of 500 ECU. provided that the item of property".
The Bill says:
"A person shall not be liable under section 2 above in respect of any defect in a product for the loss of or any damage to the product itself or for the loss of or any damage to the whole or any part of any product which has been supplied with the product in question comprised in it".
In our view the last phrase,
"or for the loss of or any damage to the whole or any part of any product which has been supplied with the product in question comprised in it",
does not comply with the directive, which is quite specific in relating the exclusion only to the defective product itself.
It is quite clear from the Bill and from the directive that a component part is itself a product. If nowhere else that is made clear in Amendment No. 13 to which we have just agreed. It refers to,
"a defect in a product ('the subsequent product') in which the product in question had been comprised".
It is quite clear, and is utterly clear from the terms of the directive itself, that a component is a product. The argument goes like this. If I happen to buy a defective tyre for my car and the car crashes because of the defective tyre, I can get damages because there is no doubt that the tyre is a defective product. But if I buy a car with a defective tyre, the defective tyre is a defective product but, according to the Government, I cannot get damages for that. There seems to be no logic there and quite apart from logic there seems to be nothing in the directive itself which says that. The directive says,
"other than the defective article itself".
At Committee stage the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate referred to the Explanatory Memorandum. There is a difficulty in referring to the

867
Explanatory Memorandum because it was delivered with the draft directive on 9th September 1976. We are dealing with a directive which was passed by the Community in July 1985 and which in many material respects is different. It is a little difficult to see how an Explanatory Memorandum produced nine years earlier for a different directive can be held binding as to the intention of the directive, which says something different. Even if it is so, one finds in pargraph 7 of the Explanatory Memorandum:
"Article 2 defines the meaning of the term 'producer'. It covers all persons who were involved on their own responsibility in the process of producing the article. It is obvious that where there are several producers of component parts of an article, only those whose contribution was defective and therefore made the end product defective are liable".
That is quite specific. It says that the liability is to go to the person who made the defective component. Article 9 refers to,
"damage to, or destruction of, any item of property other than the defective product itself—
If I may return to my example of a defective tyre on a car, it is a strange idea that if one buys a car with a defective tyre, or a computer with defective software or a defective chip, one can sue the manufacturer for damage caused but one cannot recover the cost of the car or the cost of the computer. That is not what the directive says. Qne is entitled to choose as to whether the defective product is the component—because a component is within the definition of a defective product—or the article into which many hundreds of components may be built to make another article. In my submission it is quite clear that what is intended is not what is said in the Bill. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. We again come back to the directive. The directive is quite simple. Article 9(b) says:
"damage to, or destruction of, any item of property other than the defective product itself'.
Therefore one cannot recover for the defective tyre but in the instance given by my noble friend, what about the motor car? According to the Bill a person is not liable,
"for the loss of or any damage to the whole or any part of any product which has been supplied with the product".
In other words, he is not liable for the damage to the whole car. That cannot be right. The directive is perfectly simple and the Bill as it stands alters the directive which it ought not to do, and this might be interfered with by the European Court. The amendment is correct and the Bill ought to omit those two lines in subsection (2).
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I too had difficulty with this subsection and I managed to send a note to the Minister last week explaining my difficulty. My difficulty is with the last words of the subsection which refers to a product,
"which has been supplied with the product in question comprised in it".
To take it shortly, if a car is supplied with a component and the component fails, the subsection applies because the component has been supplied with the car. If the component fails, is replaced
868
subsequently and the replacement fails, the subsection does not apply because the component has not been supplied with the vehicle. I wonder whether the Government intended that result to flow.
I also took an example of a motor car. I was not thinking about tyres but about cigarette lighters. I was thinking of the manufacturer who says, "Now that people smoke less, I shall no longer supply cigarette lighters in the dashboards as standard fittings but I shall supply them as optional extras for those who want them". A customer orders a car with the cigarette lighter on the dashboard as an optional extra. The subsection applies because the component has been supplied with the car. Another customer orders a standard model and after a week or two he misses the cigarette lighter in his old car and orders one as an optional extra. The cigarette lighter jams in the "on" position and starts a fire in the wiring of the car and damages or destroys the car. In the first instance where it is supplied with the car, the subsection applies; but in the second case where it has been bought subsequently as an optional extra and the same disaster occurs, the subsection does not apply because the component has not been supplied with the car.
I am not very clever about the directive, but I cannot think that this different result in the two cases is what was intended when this subsection was drafted, and I believe for that reason that the subsection ought to be looked at again.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I did set out in Committee the reasoning behind this part of Clause 5. I then pointed out, and I do so again, that there is in the directive a clear distinction to be drawn between personal injuries or damage to other property caused by a defective product and self-destruction or lesser damage to the defective product itself. The former—that is to say, personal injury or damage to other property—is properly covered by the directive. The latter—that is, destruction or damage to the product itself—is a matter for legislation dealing with the quality of goods.
To use the example of the motor car, if I am supplied with a defective motor car we are agreed—indeed as a result of an earlier amendment to make this perfectly clear—that the producer of the motor car is responsible for the safety of all the parts in it.
Let us assume that the motor car runs into a building and damages the building and injuries the occupants of the building and the motor car. There is no difficulty with the directive: the property damaged is covered by the directive; the personal injuries to the occupants of the motor car and of the building are also covered by the directive. If, on the other hand, there is a defect in the motor car and, for instance, as has been suggested, the battery blows up and destroys the car, if that battery was in fact supplied with the car, then the destruction raises quite different considerations because that is a product which has destroyed itself. It was clearly not of merchantable quality and accordingly would be treated by the law which governs quality of goods rather than that governing their safety.
Accordingly, the directive and the first part of this subsection do not cover damage done by the product

869
itself. That is something which is covered by an extensive and well-developed body of existing law. For that reason the words which this amendment seeks to remove are included in the Bill because the loss of the car would be covered by the ordinary law concerning the quality of goods. The owner of the motor car would not be left without a remedy; he could go to his supplier and pursue a claim under the Sale of Goods Act. No doubt he could also—if he could find out who the battery' had been manufactured by—pursue a claim under the ordinary rules of law.
Perhaps I may just refer, as I did in Committee, to the Commission's explanatory memorandum—and I accept that is was produced with the 1976 draft of the directive. This part of the directive has not been affected in any substantial sense since that time and I suggest that the Commission's explanatory memorandum is as helpful now as it was before in this matter.
What was said in paragraph 20 of the memorandum by the Commissioner was this:
"Claims for compensation in respect of damage to or the destruc-tion of the defective product itself are excluded."
It goes on slightly later:
"Liability in respect of the quality of a newly-purchased article, its fitness of particular purposes, including its freedom from defects in the sense that it will not be damaged or destroyed in its entirety as a result of defects in part of it, is normally governed in the laws of all the Member States by the law relating to the sale of goods. This field is not affected by the directive."
I have to say that this amendment does not accord with the directive, despite what the noble Lord opposite has said. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, did raise a point expanding upon what I think the noble Lord, Lord Morton. had said earlier about the question of the tyre. Why, he asks, if a defective tyre is purchased separately and fitted to the motor car and causes an accident in which that motor car is destroyed, may I sue for destruction of the motor car whereas, if I have a motor car with a defective tyre already fitted to it, I may not do so?
This is because of the way in which the word "product" is used and, if one looks at Articles 8 and 9, for instance, one can sec that one is talking effectively about the product which is supplied to the person who is claiming damage in this case. One looks for instance at Article 8(2), where there is reference to a defect in the product and the fault of the injured person. Then one comes to Article 9(b):
"damage to, or destruction of, any item of property other than the defective product itself—.
For instance, a manufacturer may supply a car with a defective radio in it and the radio may cause the car to he destroyed. So far as the directive is concerned, there is no claim against the car manufacturer for the product which he has supplied. That has always been clear. Neither is there a claim under the directive against the manufacturer of the radio in the car in which it was a component. If a similar defective radio were bought by a consumer and subsequently installed in an identical motor car and the radio destroyed the motor car, there would be different consequences. In that case the radio in the car would be regarded as a different product under the directive and, although one would not be able to claim for damage to the
870
defective radio, one would be able in that case to claim for damage to the car.
I accept that there is a distinction—the one to which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has referred. It may perhaps appear to be an artificial distinction, but it does reflect the intention of the directive that the responsibility should be concentrated on the manufacturer of the finished product. It is for that reason that earlier this afternoon the House accepted an amendment which was put forward in the name of my noble friend to make that abundantly plain.
I believe that this is largely the reason why the directive is not fully worked out in relation to components and it is one of the areas that we have endeavoured to complete in Part I. I would add that the point which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, raised was one which was expressly considered in the course of negotiations about the directive and it was agreed that the distinction was right as a matter of interpretation of the directive. For those reasons, which include the reasons I put forward earlier in Committee, I have to advise the House that the amendment is not in accord with the directive. therefore I cannot accept it.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am bound to say that I find the noble and learned Lord's explanation of the Government's position wholly unacceptable. Of course, Article 8 does not deal with products as opposed to components or finished articles as opposed to components; it deals with the right of contribution when someone else, even the consumer, is also at fault. I have already referred to Article 9, which states that,
"'damage' means … damage to, or destruction of, any item of property other than the defective product itself—.
That is all. It does not say anything about finished articles or about components. One then refers to Article 2 to ascertain what a product is, It reads:
"For the purpose of this Directive 'product' means all movables, with the exception of primary agricultural products and game, even though incorporated into another movable".
Therefore, the tyre incorporated into the car—or the battery or cigar or cigarette lighter—is still a product. That is what Article 2 states. One then moves to Article 9, which reads:
"damage to or destruction of any item of property other than the defective product itself".
If only the tyre is defective there is nothing in Article 9 that covers that. It would have been quite easy, if that is what the Council thought was required in the directive, to put in the words which are in Clause 5(2) and which I wish to take out. It would be quite easy to put in:
"for the loss of or any damage to the whole or any part of any product which has been supplied with the product in question comprised in it".
All I can say is that if the Council had wanted that in Article 9 it could have included it in happier English; but perhaps that is a different point. However, this is a point on which I must seek the opinion of the House.
6.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 95.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Kjlbracken, L.

Amherst, E.

Kilmamock, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Attlee, E.

Lawrence, L.

Aylestone, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B

Birk, B.

Longford, E.

Blyton, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McNair, L.

Brockway, L.

Mishcon, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Molloy, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Chitnis, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Munster, E.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Oram, L.

Denning, L.

Phillips, B.

Diamond, L.

Ponsonbv of Shulbrede, L.

Donoughue, L.

[Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Enroll, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkender, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Gallacher. L.

Sainsbury, L.

Galpem, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

[Teller.]

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Grey, E.

Simon, V.

Grimond, L.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Heycock, L.

White, B.

Hooson, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Winterbottom. L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Jeger, B.

Ypres, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Dormer, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dundee, E.

Auckland, L.

Eccles, V.

Bauer, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Belstead, L.

Erne, E.

Bessborough, E.

Faithfull, B.

Biddulph, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Birdwood, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Boardman, L.

Gridley, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marylebone, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hesketh, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Hives, L.

Butterworth, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Caithness, E.

Hood, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Hooper, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ingrow, L.

Carnock, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Coleraine, L.

Kimball, L.

Colwyn, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Craigavon, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Cross, V.

Layton, L.

Cullen of Ashboume, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Liverpool, E.

De La Warr, E.

Long, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

872

Lyell, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L

Marley, L.

Sandford, L.

Merrivale, L.

Selkirk, E.

Mersey, V.

Shannon, E.

Mottistone, L.

Sharpies, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strange, B.

Onslow. E.

Strathcarron, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Pender, L.

Sudeley, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Swinfen, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone,

Tranmire, L.

L.

Trefgarne, L.

Reay, L.

Trumpington, B.

Renton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Renwick, L.

Whitelaw, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Wise, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.39 p.m.
Clause 6 [Application of certain enactments etc.]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 26, leave out ("and")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. It will be easier to explain the reasons for Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 if I begin by turning to Amendment No. 18. Amendment No. 18 ensures that Part H of the Administration of Justice Act 1982, which makes various provisions relating to damages for personal injuries in Scotland, applies in the case where a person is liable to pay damage under Clause 2 of the Bill. It makes it clear that the damage for which a person may be liable under Clause 2 will include damages for services rendered to the injured person by a relative or by the injured person to a relative and that provisional damages may be awarded in appropriate cases.
As for Amendment No. 16, when the Committee agreed to Amendment No. 53 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Morton, which is reflected in the prints of the Bill before the House, that resulted in a new paragraph (c) to Clause 6(1). It was also necessary to introduce the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b). At the same time, we should have removed the word "and" from paragraph (a). The purpose of this amendment is to remedy that omission.
The reason for Amendment No. 17 then becomes obvious. The "and" there is superfluous and falls to be removed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 5, line 30 leave out ("and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 5, line 33, at end insert ("; and

(d) for the purposes of Part II of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 (damages for personal injuries, etc.—Scotland), by an act or omission giving rise to liability in that person to pay damages.")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 5, line 33, at end insert—
("(1A) Where—

(a) a person's death is caused wholly or partly by a defect in a product, or a person dies after suffering damage which has been so caused:

(b) a request such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of section 2 above is made to a supplier of the product by that person's personal representatives or, in the case of a person whose death is caused wholly or partly by the defect, by any dependant or relative of that person; and

(c) the conditions specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of that subsection are satisfied in relation to that request,

this Part shall have effect for the purposes of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976 as if liability of the supplier to that person under that subsection did not depend on that person having requested the supplier to identify certain persons or on the said conditions having been satisfied in relation to a request made by that person.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Loch broom Lord Cameron of Loch broom moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 5, line 37, after ("is") insert ("or has been").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall take Amendment No. 21 with this amendment. These two minor amendments concern the application of the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976, which gives a cause of action to a person born disabled as a result of an occurrence affecting a parent for which another person is answerable.
Under Clause 6(2), a person will be treated as answerable if he is liable under Clause 2 of the Bill. Amendment No. 20 adds "or has been". That is intended to prevent a claim under the 1976 Act, as applied, from being defeated by an argument that the person concerned was not sued in due time. Originally we did not think that it was necessary to spell that out, but there is a provision in Section 1 of the 1976 Act to deal with the point, and we considered that it would be safer to put the matter beyond doubt. Amendment No. 21 is purely consequential upon Amendment No. 20. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 5, line 40, leave out ("had").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 6, line 6, at end insert—
("(5A) It is hereby declared that liability by virtue of this Part is to be treated as liability in tort for the purposes of any enactment conferring jurisdiction on any court with respect to any matter.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to this amendment I will, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 27, 100 and 101. This group of amendments arises from an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morton, in Committee. At that time, as he said, he wished for a provision ensuring that for the avoidance of doubt liability under this part of the Bill would be a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict. His main concern, as he made clear, was to attract to the Bill the provisions of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.
I undertook at that time to look at the matter, being well disposed to the general thrust of the amendment. These amendments are the consequence of that. Your Lordships will be aware that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morton, referred to the terms "tort", "delict" or "quasi-delict". Those terms are used in the 1982 Act. "Tort" is the expression used in English law to cover, broadly speaking, any civil right of action arising from the breach of a duty imposed by law. "Delict" is the term used in Scotland to cover obligations imposed by law to make reparation for any loss or damage caused by a legal wrong. "Quasi-delict" is the name given to some of those legal wrongs, although its use is not consistent.
I do not wish to go further into the use of those words. There is a host of erudite legal learning about them on both sides of the Border. It is fair to say that while the terms "tort" and "delict" cover virtually the same ground, there are certain conceptual differences in the way in which the two classifications have been arrived at which means that what is clearly a delict may not so clearly be a tort. The most striking conceptual difference is, briefly, that the Scottish law focuses on the nature of the obligation to make reparation, whereas English law is more concerned with the breach of duty involved.
I am advised that as a result of those differences, there is no doubt but that the liability imposed by Part I gives rise to an obligation to make reparation. and would therefore constitute delictual liability in Scotland. On the other hand, we accept that there is a legitimate doubt as to whether liability under Part I should be regarded as a liability in tort.
There are of course a number of provisions dealing with that area of the law still contained in the common law. That is partly, as I mentioned earlier, because they have largely been expressed in terms of breach of duty. There are of course a number of statutory provisions which either expressly or impliedly give civil rights of action to injured persons. Those are generally expressed in terms of breach of duty, and hence the term "breach of statutory duty" is frequently used to describe the right of action conferred. It is obvious that Part I is statutory, but, on the other hand, it is not expressed in terms of a duty, and that is the main cause of the doubt which arises with regard to English law.
There may be a question as to whether that classification is of any practical importance. The noble Lord, Lord Morton, rightly pointed out that the classification is used for the purpose of defining the courts' jurisdiction in a way which could have practical significance. In addition to the provisions which we have previously identified in Clause 6 and which relate directly to the subject matter of the directive, we have discovered two other provisions which may in certain circumstances be relevant. In addition, we have made slightly different provisions about Crown application.
Amendment No. 22 reflects the primary concern of the noble Lord, Lord Morton, by declaring that liability under Part I is a liability in tort for the purposes of any enactment conferring jurisdiction on a court. It will apply not only to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 but, for example, to the County Courts Act 1984, which confers jurisdiction on the county courts in contract and in tort within certain financial limits.
The other point that I should mention is that the provision is declaratory. The intention is to ensure that contrary arguments cannot be raised about other provisions for strict liability framed in a similar way. There are not many of those, but the Animals Act 1971 is an example.
Amendment No. 100 is of less practical significance. It deals with the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. That Act contains a number of common provisions governing actions for trespass to goods and other torts affecting goods which are compendiously referred to as "wrongful interference with goods". For example, it regulates the position where there are competing rights to goods which are the subject matter of the action. There is little doubt that liability under Part I of the Bill should be treated in the same way.
Amendment No. 101 deals with Section 16 of the Employment Act 1982 which places certain financial limits on the liability of trade unions in tort. Those limits do not, however, apply to any proceedings in negligence, nuisance or breach of duty resulting in personal injury or to proceedings for breach of duty in connection with the use of property.
The amendment makes clear that liability under Part I of the Bill will be treated in the same way as any breach of duties described there. I do not think that this provision should have any great practical importance in terms of the customary activities of trade unions, but we need to consider the possibility of those activities extending to the supply of products of one kind or another.
I am sure that noble Lords will be relieved that we have not found any other provisions which need to be dealt with. However, these specific amendments are required to be able to pin down the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Morton.
Amendment No. 27—to which I finally refer—is of a slightly different nature but is based on the same premise. The provisions which presently appear in Clause 9(2) and (3) of the Bill are precedented by similar provisions in other legislation. I cite, for example, Section 51 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. However, in the present context,
876
we think that they may create a doubt as to whether they override the provisions of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 which deals with civil proceedings by and against the Crown and in particular the liability of the Crown in tort. We would again accept the principle of the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Morton, and the purpose of this amendment is accordingly to ensure that the limits of the Crown's liability under Part I of the Bill are the same as the limits of its liability under the 1947 Act. There are precedents for this alternative approach as well. I cite Section 16 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.
One further aspect of the matter to which I should draw attention is that Section 10 of the 1947 Act qualifies the rights of members of the armed forces to bring proceedings in tort against the Crown for death or personal injury, notably where it was suffered in consequence of the nature or condition of any equipment or supplies used for the purposes of those forces. This amendment will ensure that that qualification applies to any proceedings which might be brought under Part I.
However, noble Lords will be aware that there is a Bill which has received its Second Reading in another place and which received a warm welcome there. It provides for the repeal of Section 10 of the 1947 Act and will accordingly permit members of the armed forces to bring proceedings in the usual way. It also provides for the revival of Section 10 if it appears necessary or expedient for the Secretary of State to revive it in the case of national danger. That is the explanation for the appearance of the words,
"as that Act has effect from time to time"
in this amendment.
I am very conscious that in what I have been saying I have been going into matters legal but, notwithstanding that, I hope that these amendments will find favour with your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, so far as it goes, Amendment No. 22 is acceptable. But, in my view, it does not go far enough. It is apparently to apply to Scotland. I can think of at least one retired judge of the Court of Session who might raise his eyebrows on reading that the new subsection (5A) was applicable to Scotland. It states:
"It is hereby declared that liability by virtue of this Part is to be treated as liability in tort".
That might cause confusion.
This is merely a declaratory provision. I do not understand why it is difficult to say that for England, Wales and Northern Ireland liability is liability in tort, and for Scotland it is to be treated as liability for delict or quasi-delict. This is my difficulty. I have always been taught and have understood that inherent in the theory of delict and quasi-delict is the idea of a wrong—a wrongful act—for which, having done or threatened such act, one has an obligation to make reparation. That is the whole theory of the Scottish law of delict and quasi-delict. As I understand it, that is also the Continental theory.
What is quite clear, and, in my submission, is not a matter of doubt on anybody's part, is that Part I is not dealing with a wrong at all. There is no question of the defective product implying that the producer has

877
committed a wrong. Because he has produced a defective product, he has created a liability on himself but nobody is saying that he is wrong. The whole purpose is to avoid saying that he is wrong. It therefore appears to me that this new subsection, through inserting Amendment No. 22, does not sit happily with the law of Scotland. Almost as much violence has been done to the law of delict and quasi-delict as certain Englishmen tried to do to certain Welshmen on Saturday. But perhaps that is a different point. I do not wish to stop Amendment No. 22 being agreed to. However, it may be necessary to come back and improve it at a later stage.
If one turns to Amendment No. 27, the difficulty disappears. Section 2 of the Crown Proceedings Act states:
"The Crown shall be subject to all those liabilities in tort to which, if it were a private person of full age and capacity, it would be subject".
On the application to Scotland, Section 43 states:
"In the application of this Act to Scotland the expression 'tort' means any wrongful or negligent act or omission".
That definition would not suit Part I of this Bill. It is of no use to Part I because we are not dealing with a wrongful or negligent act. The whole point of product liability is that that is unnecessary. It therefore appears to me that some other provision is needed.
On Amendments Nos. 100 and 101, I have nothing to say. I hope that the Government have found the various legislative provisions. I somehow doubt it, but no doubt they have done their best in Amendments Nos. 100 and 101.
I regret that I can give Amendment No. 22 only a very cool welcome. I cannot see why it could not be worded that,
"it is hereby declared that liability by virtue of this Part is to be treated as liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict".
By the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act, that is the basis on which the court's jurisdiction for the place where the harmful event occurred would be established. I can therefore give this amendment only a very qualified welcome.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Morton. It is unfortunate—when the whole point of Part I is to get rid of the need for an action for liability in tort—then to read that,
"liability by virtue of this Part is to be treated as liability in tort".
I understand what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is seeking to achieve. However, these words are singularly unfortunate when the whole emphasis throughout the rest of Part I is, at last, that negligence does not have to be proved. There does not have to be liability in tort. Liability is irrespective of liability in tort. That is the whole point of Part I. Then one reads these dismal words:
"liability by virtue of this Part is to be treated as liability in tort",
which seems to me to be very sad and depressing. I wish that it could be expressed in some other way.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I do not share my noble friend's view on the use of the word "tort". "Tort" not only covers negligence, but covers many cases of strict liability—for example, the escaping of dangerous
878
things even though there is no negligence at all. Such a case is treated in the books and in every way as a liability in tort; that is the phraseology of tort. It is something for which you are liable. I do not share the difficulty of my noble friend.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I am obviously very grateful for what has been said by noble Lords which we shall certainly take aboard. Perhaps I may just reply to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and say that I regret it is necessary to make reference to tort for the very reason which the noble Lord, Lord Morton, identified when he spoke in Committee as regards jurisdiction. I simply say to the noble Lord opposite that this matter has been considered. Certainly, I have listened to what he has said, and obviously will look at it again. But, in turn he may like to bear in mind what is said in Schedule 1 Part II of the Bill. In particular, on Page 43 of the Bill, the new Section 22(B), which is there set out, describes the obligation under Section 2 of the 1987 Act as follows:
"(to make reparation to damage caused wholly or partly by a defect in a product)",
That seems to me adequately to describe what is delict in the law of Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Prohibition on exclusions from liability]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 6, line 14, leave out subsection (2)
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, in moving that further consideration on Report be now adjourned, perhaps I may suggest that we do not return to this Report stage until five minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Bill [H.L.]
7.3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it on command from Her Majesty the Queen and his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that Her Majesty and his Royal Highness, having been informed of the purport of the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time. (The Earl of Caithness):
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, as I understand there are no amendments to be moved on Third Reading, it would appear to be appropriate now to make remarks in regard to the Bill as it is about to leave your Lordships' House. It is a rather meaningful lesson that we are dealing with the passing and the last stages of the Bill at a time when Parliament and the nation are in mourning over the terrible happenings near Zeebrugge because this Bill found its origin in another disaster. Irrespective of which Party may be in government, it is noticeable that so often we find ourselves legislating because of a disaster. It would appear to be so much more the duty of Parliament, I repeat whatever Party happens to be in power, to see that there are no disasters because those disasters have been prevented by the care that Parliament has shown in passing safety legislation in vital fields.
This Bill is one which deals with safety in a very vital area, as Mr. Justice Popplewell so clearly pointed out in his recommendations in his detailed report. Many of those recommendations find their way into the Bill. I should like to pay my tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and to the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, for the very courteous and able way in which they have dealt with the provisions of the Bill and the discussions which have taken place on the various amendments. After consideration, the Government gave way tç an amendment which I had the privilege of moving from these Benches. The amendment made the dangerous notice procedure one which is likely now to be dealt with in time, rather than going through the courts, by giving the fire authority the ability to issue such a notice which would prohibit the use either in part or in whole, of a building until the danger has been removed.
I could have wished that an amendment that we lost by only two votes in regard to the necessity to inspect before exemption certificates were granted had in fact been won by two votes. I am sure that I can count on the Minister to see that the very substantial voice in regard to that amendment as it came from your Lordships' House in that voting, will be given serious consideration as the Bill goes to another place, as it will do after tonight.
Guidelines have been mentioned very frequently in the course of debates that have taken place. Irrespective of which Party happens to be in power, unfortunately too often guidelines are referred to as excuses for things not being provided for in legislation. Parliament is in the difficulty (whichever House of Parliament it may be) that they do not have the guidelines before the Bill leaves the respective Houses. Such is the position in regard to this Bill. We have heard what is likely to be in the guidelines in regard to exempt premises. I am hoping that an echo that I thought I heard in the Minister's speech at Report stage—namely, that multi-occupied premises will most likely be very carefully dealt with in regard to exempt certificates—will find its way into those guidelines.
I end by saying that in my judgment this House of Parliament said something very positive to help in this legislation when a very vital amendment, which dealt with a Popplewell recommendation concerning annual inspections of all designated sports grounds, was carried and was then inserted into the Bill. That
880
was the will of your Lordships' House. The Government, with courtesy and some degree of humility, accepted that vote and now that provision is in the Bill. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, for the care which they have taken in bringing this important Bill before your Lordships.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I should like to say a few words and echo a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said and also thank my noble friend on the Front Bench and his colleagues. I know that I did not take part in any of the discussions, but I had my knuckles rapped for voting against my noble friends as regards the noble Lord's amendment.
I should like to put forward one matter for my noble friend's consideration. I read in the paper today that the teachers are to have rallies and protest meetings in sports gounds. What happens if a large body gathers at an undesignated sports ground such as an open arena and something hazardous takes place? That is why I feel, like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that these places should be inspected every year, because, if there are 5,000 people in an open space demonstrating against teachers' pay, or whatever it is, we could have the kind of trouble which occurred in Bradford and which led to the Popplewell Report. Otherwise, I welcome the Bill entirely.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have now reached the final stage in our deliberations on the Bill before it is sent for consideration to another place. A Bill dealing, as this one does, with public safety demands serious attention and a non-partisan approach. I need hardly say that your Lordships have provided both. The Government are grateful for the welcome which was given to the Bill by all sides of the House, and for the efforts of your Lordships to improve the Bill and to seek clarification of its provisions. We have made a number of technical and minor amendments, and in two respects—namely, fire safety prohibition notices and frequency of inspections of sports grounds—the Bill has been significantly changed to take account of the views of the House. The effect of those changes has been to strengthen further the Fire Precautions Act 1971 and the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975. I am sure that these changes will be well received in another place, and that the Bill as a whole will be given the same thoughtful reception there as it has received here.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for all the valuable contributions he has made during the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. He has drawn with impressive effect on his experience, which is well known to the House, and on his knowledge of the work of fire authorities. He has pressed us hard on a number of points, but always from the most sincere wish to ensure that the interests of public safety were being served. Happily, he rarely found it necessary to take the opinion of the House, and I trust that we have been able to reassure him that there are now few differences between us on the matters covered by the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux has just made an important point. Of course, such a large

881
meeting as 5,000 people would probably take place in one of the sports grounds that we were going to designate anyway, but his point is well taken. It was taken by the House at an earlier stage and the Bill is amended as a result.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said, it is a sad fact that we tend to legislate after a crisis rather than before. I have no doubt that this Bill goes a long, long way towards preventing another crisis such as we saw at Bradford. Let us hope that it does so.
In view of the sad times that we are in, I know that I have no need to urge your Lordships to accept this Bill. Its importance is clear to us all and I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1987
7.14 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move, that the draft Parliamentary Constituences (Scotland) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1987, which was laid before the House on 10th February, be approved.
This draft order is to implement the final recommendations contained in the Boundary Commission for Scotland's report on its 1986 interim review of 14 parliamentary constituencies. The commission submitted its report to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on 29th December last and he proposes that its recommendations should be implemented without modification. The draft order has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which had no comments on its substance but suggested a minor descriptive amendment which will be adopted in future orders. The draft order was approved in another place on 26th February and, if it is approved by your Lordships today, it will be submitted to Her Majesty in Council to be made.
Articles 2 to 8 of the draft order replace 14 of the constituences created by the Parliamentary Constitu-ences (Scotland) Order 1983 with those described in the schedule. Article 1(3) provides for the order to come into operation 14 days after it is made and for the new boundaries to take effect at the next general election. Any by-election before that would therefore be held on the present boundaries.
Reviews of this kind are held at the discretion of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission between the general reviews of parliamentary constituencies which must be completed every 10 to 15 years. They occur at infrequent intervals. The Scottish Commission's last interim review, which affected 16 constituences, was held in 1972. Following the reorganisation of local government in Scotland in 1975 the commission then
882
undertook its mandatory general review of all the parliamentary constituences from 1978 to 1983, when its recommendations were implemented in full.
The need for this interim review arose from a number of changes which have been made to regional and district boundaries since the making of the Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order in March 1983. These changes resulted in the divergence of the boundaries of the new local government areas from those of the present constituencies in a total of seven areas in Borders, Central, Lothian, Strathclyde and Tayside regions. Most of the alterations were quite small but the commission decided to review the boundaries of the 14 constituencies so affected in order to remove the anomalies which had arisen. In each case its proposals disturb the existing pattern of constituencies as little as possible by simply realigning the constituency boundary with the new local government boundary.
The commission's report sets out the steps it took to bring its proposals to the notice of the public, the local authorities, the political parties and the Members of Parliament for the constituencies affected. The acceptance by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State of the commission's proposals was intimated to the authorities and the political parties when the draft order was laid before Parliament last month, and a statement on the commission's proposals was issued to the national and local press at the same time.
The alterations, if implemented, will affect a total of approximately 270 electors. Some 200 of these are in one area, Croftamie, formerly in Dumbarton District and, since 1983, in Stirling District. No objections were received by the commission during the review and none has been received by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State since its report was submitted to him. I therefore commend the draft order giving effect to the commission's recommendations to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th February be approved. [12th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(The Earl of Dundee.)
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I think that the Motion will be agreed to without much heated controversy. Certainly, I am glad to state that I have nothing to do with it. I say that because there was very considerable controversy over the general revision of constituency boundaries between 1978 and 1983. The chairman of the Boundary Commission was named Lord Ross. I found myself getting the blame for all the considerable difficulties created for certain people and had continually to point out that there was another Lord Ross who was a judge in Scotland and had nothing whatever to do with me.
It is interesting that the Minister said that only about 200 voters were concerned—
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, 270.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, was that all in the 14 constituencies? That might be very important in the next election. I remember one of the relevant criteria that were put down by the commission when it carried out the last reorganisation: it had to have

883
constituencies which were close to one another and which would be of the same size. I have now stopped voting in constituencies so the Alliance need not worry. I am not voting Alliance at the next general election; I shall not even have the chance to vote Labour at the next election by virtue of being here. However, it turned out that in the constituency in which I used to vote side by side there were a constituency that was Labour held and a constituency that was Conservative held. One of those became one of the smallest in Scotland and the other became one of the largest. It may have suited the Member for Cunning-hame South and it may have suited the Member for Ayr (who happened to be the Secretary of State at the time and is now Minister of Defence) but I did not think that it was quite in conformity with the rules laid down by the Boundary Commission for themselves.
However, it may well be that half a dozen votes will make all the difference, certainly in the Ayr constituency, at the next election according to the way matters are going. I should like to know this: are Drybridge, Barassie and Gailes Foreshore now in Ayr or are they in Cunninghame South? Has the change been made to the advantage or disadvantage of Mr. Younger?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I am also glad that he has removed any element of doubt about his role with boundary changes. His namesake, who might have undergone criticism in the reorganisation of constitu-ency boundaries of 1978 and 1983, is to be given some of the blame, fairly or unfairly, but none of the blame should go to the noble Lord. He had nothing to do with this!
The noble Lord asked me about the position in the area of Barassie Beach, Ayrshire. The discrepancy there arose from their delineation of the coastal boundary of Irvine New Town to the high water-mark instead of to the low water-mark as is customary with local authorities. The effect was to place within Kyle and Carrick district instead of within Cunninghame district—the strip of foreshore between those marks running northwards from the boundary of the former borough of Troon to the boundary of the former borough of Irvine. This discrepancy was removed for local government purposes as a result of the Boundaries Amendment Order 1983 referred to in Article 2 of this draft order, which provides for its removal for parliamentary purposes.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I shall be able to sleep tonight after hearing that.
Qn Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning (Compensation for Restrictions on Mineral Workings) (Scotland) Regulations 1987
7.24 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that the regulations laid before the House on 6th February 1987 be approved.
Your Lordships will be aware that these regulations were approved by a Committee of the other place on
884
25th February 1987. The purpose of these regulations is to make provision for the abatement—in certain prescribed circumstances—of the amount of compensation payable by planning authorities in respect of loss, damage or abortive expenditure arising from an order to restrict mineral workings. The House will be aware, however, that the framework of the regulations, the principles of abatement and the circumstances in which abatement may be made, were extensively considered by Parliament in 1981, during the passage of the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act.
The provisions of that Act stemmed in the main from recommendations made by the Stevens Committee which had been appointed to consider the operation of the general planning system in relation to the special problems of mineral extraction. Mineral extraction is of course subject to the same general planning law as other forms of development and the Committee recommended a number of new measures to enable old permissions for mineral workings to be brought into line with present-day standards. However, the committee recognised that it would not be reasonable to expect the local authorities, or their ratepayers to bear the full financial burden of bringing old minerals permissions to modern standards in the way which is usually required by planning law when established rights are altered. They recommended that, in view of the special characteristics of mineral extraction, the minerals industry should accept "reasonable" additional costs arising from the changes in conditions.
During the passage of the 1981 Act it was recognised that the compensation arrangements would be very important for the operation of the Act and there was considerable debate about the proportion of the costs that it would be reasonable for the industry to bear. As a result, an amendment was introduced by the Government which effectively defined the upper and lower limits of the amount by which compensation might be abated. These regulations make provision for the way in which that abatement is arrived at.
The text of the regulations is complicated, as your Lordships will have seen, and it might be useful if I gave a brief example of how the regulations will operate. I should stress at the outset that these regulations deal in the main with the abatement of compensation, not with the actual calculation of compensation itself. They make some modifications to what should be considered when assessing compensation, but their real import is to provide a means of calculating abatement.
First, a planning authority would undertake a review of a minerals site within their area and would decide that they needed to take action. They would then proceed to make an order indicating what steps the minerals operator needed to take to bring the site up to the required standard. When such an order is made the operator is then due compensation for the action taken by the planning authority. It is however considered reasonable, as I mentioned a moment ago, that the planning authority should not have to bear the full cost of compensation and that the minerals operator should bear some of the burden through reduced compensation. Therefore, in certain specified circumstances these regulations now before us would

885
then come into play. Basically what will happen is that the full compensation due to the operator will be assessed. Then using the terms of the regulations, an amount will be arrived at by which the compensation should be reduced. Either this will be a lump set out in the regulations, or a figure arrived at taking into account the notional value of the relevant minerals at the site and the estimated life of the site, depending on the type of order the planning authority has made. That in the simplest terms is a rough and ready outline of what the regulations cover.
The formulation of these regulations, within the framework of the 1981 Minerals Act, proved very complicated and exposed a number of contradicting interests. A very real effort has been made to reach a reasonable accommodation of those conflicts however and I commend these regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th February be approved. [11th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(The Earl of Dundee.)
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for having threaded his way through a complicated brief. I looked quickly at the 1972 Act and realised that it had nothing much to do with this matter at all: it is the 1981 Act which applies. Most of the modifications in respect of the compensation restrictions stem from the new duty that was laid upon planning authorities to review these mineral workings and to decide what should be done to modify and improve them. Indeed, where they had been stopped for two years (I believe that was the figure given) it was to be construed as unlikely to be continued, and certain things were then agreed and laid down in relation to the compensation and conditions that should be imposed upon those who had been carrying out the mineral workings. It was, as the noble Earl said, pretty well laid down in relation to how the compensation should be calculated and abated, the percentage of 10 per cent. and the prescribed figure, and I think it is eventually reduced to not less than £2,500, or something or other. It is complicated.
The safeguard for us here surely is in who was consulted in relation to the regulations. I believe that it was laid down that there should be consultation with those mining operators who were concerned with it, with the owners of interests in the land and also the planning authorities. Can the noble Earl assure us that these consultations, which to my mind are statutory, have been carried out?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, once again I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. I agree with him that it is often difficult with regulations of this kind which relate to other legislation to know whether one should go back to 1972, 1981 or indeed to some other date altogether.
On the question that the noble Lord asked me I can assure him that consultations have been carried out. The groups of consultees concerned are, first, the CBI, Scotland, the British aggregate construction materials industries, the sand and gravel associations, the National Coal Board and the National Federation of Licensed Opencast Coal Operators.
886
In addition, other bodies and interested parties that have been considered include the Scottish Landowners' Federation, the NFU, Scotland, the Countryside Commission for Scotland, CoSLA, the Town and Country Planning Association, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Law Society, the Royal Town Planning Institute, Scotland, the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, the Scottish Society of Directors of Planning and the Association for the Preservation of Rural Scotland.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that list. It is a rather intriguing list bearing in mind that paragraph 1(2) says that the regulations do not apply to the National Coal Board.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.33 until 8.5 p.m.]

Consumer Protection Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 24:
Alter Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
("Insurance for product liability.
—(l) If a person to whom section 2(2) above applies satisfies a Court that he is unable to obtain insurance in respect of his potential liability under this Part of this Act in respect of any product produced by him the Secretary of State shall either procure such insurance for that person or shall assume liability to indemnify that person at such cost to that person as in all circumstances is reasonable.
(2) An application may be made under this section—

(a)in England and Wales to the High Court; or

(b)in Scotland to the Court of Session: or

(c)in Northern Ireland to the High Court.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I also speak to Amendment No. 26. When your Lordships were in Committee on the Bill we had a discussion about what I referred to then as the insurance problem. It seemed to me at the time that the insurance problem had moved a bit from the date when we were on Second Reading. On Second Reading, as I recall, there was general agreement that unless the development risks defence was disallowed—that is to say in the Bill as drafted—there would be no particular difficulty in general insurance for product liability under the terms of the Bill that we had before us.
The position in Committee seemed to shift a little. A number of noble Lords in Committee said that the provision of insurance for product liability, even under the Bill as drafted, had become somewhat worse since the time of Second Reading. Your Lordships will recall that I moved a similar amendment to Amendment No. 24 in Committee, similar in that it contained a provision about insurance for development risks in the event that that defence was disallowed. The discussion in Committee has prompted me to resubmit this amendment to your

887
Lordships on Report without that proviso. In other words, I wish to address the whole question of whether insurance will be available under the Bill as drafted as it came out of Committee and as it has come out of discussion this afternoon on Report.
There is an error in the printing of the amendment which, alas, repeats an error made in the Marshalled List in Committee. I am advised by my noble friend Lord Morton that there is an extra "s" in the word "Sessions". It should read "Court of Session", not "Court of Sessions". I apologise to noble Lords opposite that that error has crept in.
There are two problems with insurance. The first is that there is no financial limit in the Bill. The directive allows national governments in implementing the directive to introduce a financial limit. No financial limit has been put into the Bill and we think that is right. I should not wish to go back on the Government's decision there. Nevertheless the fact that there is unlimited liability involves certain problems as far as insurance is concerned, because, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, (who will move Amendment No. 26) and I both said in Committee, no underwriter in his senses would insure on unlimited liability. Therefore whatever insurance arrangements may be made in the private market against any liability under Part I of the Bill, it will always have a limit to the insurers' exposure. This means that if there is a claim against the producer or supplier, which is in excess of the limit imposed by the insurer, there will be an exposure which is uncovered.
The second problem we noted in Committee—I think I referred to it during our discussions then—is that the insurance market seems, from what the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, was saying on Second Reading and at Committee, to move quite quickly. One day, or perhaps I should say, one week or one month, there is possible cover. But when you get substantial claims, the insurance market may be unable to cope with the new influx of business that arises out of the claims which have been met. So there is a problem of whether in reality and in almost unforeseeable circumstances the insurance market will continue to operate satisfactorily at reasonable rates. There is also a problem of the excess of loss, the exposure which comes over and above the limit that any underwriter will impose in his policy.
Our view, along with that, I think, of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is that some arrangement—I am not insisting necessarily upon my formulation; nor, I think is the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, insisting necessarily upon his—must be made to ensure that an excess in respect of companies which are operating normally and sensibly under the Bill and which, for various reasons, may find themselves sued for damages of considerable amounts in excess of the insurance they have been able to arrange in the private market, is met out of the community funds. By "community', of course, I do not mean the European Community: I mean the generality of funds available to the Government.
It seems to be a matter which has aroused considerable interest not only in this country but in New Zealand and also in the United States, or so I
888
understand from reading a recent issue of the Economist. The insurance market and product liability arrangements are rather different, but the insurance market in the United States seems to be in difficulties in supporting the producers.
It is an area which I believe we ought to discuss seriously. I am not going to press the amendment to a Division because I do not believe it is a "dividable" issue, if I may so put it. However, I believe that it is worth discussing this matter at Report stage in your Lordships' House, airing the problem and making sure that the Government, if they reject this particular formulation, or indeed that of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, do so knowing full well that there may be occasions when the insurance market dries up or when it is available only at rates which are quite excessive and also occasions when companies may have to bear the excess of loss themselves. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I have great pleasure in supporting this amendment. I agree entirely with the noble Lord that neither of our formulations necessarily produces exactly what is required. However, what our amendments indicate quite clearly is the nature of the problem. It would be the greatest disaster if the Bill were to leave this House without the narrow factual issue being agreed on all sides; whether or not underwriters will assume unlimited liability. Either they will or they will not. We must be agreed about this because it is only on a basis of agreement about that fact that we can proceed. Heaven knows, I did my best, both on Second Reading and in Committee, to urge the Government to face this narrow issue and to give their answer. I have not had that answer so far, but there is yet time and I hope that it will be forthcoming this evening.
What we have so far is the knowledge that the British Insurance Association thinks that adequate insurance cover will be available. But that will not satisfy the producer who goes to his insurance broker. He is going to say, "That is not the question I asked you. Under this Act of Parliament, although I may be quite blameless, I stand to be liable up to my last farthing, and what I want to know is whether or not I can get insurance to cover me right up to the full amount of my resources." That is what he will want to know.
Underwriters are cautious men. They are risk takers only in the sense that every insurance policy is the underwriting of some risk. But underwriters bear in mind those words in the Epistle of James, which I am sure are familiar to the Minister:
"Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth".
Underwriters are perhaps working for members of syndicates who are in it up to their last farthing or for companies who are in it up to the limit of their resources. They are not encouraging their underwriters to risk their total resources on policies of unlimited liability.
Therefore, when the worst disaster occurs, somebody is going to have to pay for it. If it is a matter of negligence I would be prepared to say that the negligent defendant had better pay rather than the

889
innocent plaintiff. But where there is no negligence at all, it offends against my sense of natural justice to say that the producer shall be liable up to his last farthing. If we on this side of the House are right about the fact that unlimited liability insurance cover is not available, it tears a great big hole in the argument that the producer is going to be all right because all he has to do is to insure against his liability and pass on the cost in the price of the goods. However, that simply no longer applies.
I may be asked, "Are you not opening the door too wide here? If we allow this we shall get floods of people who suffer damage and injury in ways other than from defective products, and they will all want reimbursement out of public funds." I should be very pleased to see that. It is a very good Christian principle that we should share each other's burdens. However, I appreciate that no government can be expected to take a leap of that kind all at once. I say that it is proper to do this piecemeal in this connection because we have decided, as a matter of policy, that the injured party shall be fully compensated. Therefore if the producer is innocent, it is only right that he should be reimbursed out of public funds to the extent that he was unable to get insurance to cover his liability.
We were told that some of the amendments ran counter to the directive. I hope we shall not be told that on this occasion. I do not see how it could possibly be so. All that the directive is concerned with is that the injured person shall receive full compensation primarily at the hand of the producer. Whether the producer cares to seek reimbursement, either by passing round the hat or in some other way, cannot possibly be any concern of the directive. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, this is a new concept in the field of insurance. It is now a few years since I was active in the insurance industry and I was never heavily concerned during the years when I was on the claims side of a Lloyd's syndicate in product liability insurance, which by its very nature is an expensive business.
It seems to me that the amendment poses difficulties, because there are so many kinds of product liability. It may well he that there are some claims which could be made under a product liability policy which came within the ambit of this amendment. But there are others where one wonders just how the financial implications are to be spread. Clearly there are cases where a claim falls outside the terms of the insurance policy, but this can sometimes be settled on an ex gratia basis even if it is not covered. But I think the problem with this amendment, if it is an across-the-board one, is that the cost of enforcing it would be considerable. Therefore the question is who is finally to reimburse the victim, so to speak, in full.
Having said that, I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister, in view of the obvious interest in the matter, whether the Government have had or will have consultations with the insurance industry to find out what the situation is. I sympathise to some extent
890
with the movers of the amendment in that the insurance industry as a whole has been placed in a particularly difficult position because there is the problem of how reimbursement will eventually take place.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Airedale, for telling us what lies behind their two amendments. Of course I forgive the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for that little error. It may be typographical, it may be due to the printers or it may be the error of the noble Lord, Lord Morton. But as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, this is a serious matter and we want to discuss it seriously.
The noble Lord suggested during the Committee stage, and gave us some notice of this amendment, that there is value in there being a long stop insurance, given, as he argued, that the availability of insurance was perhaps uncertain. I have nothing new to say about the availability of insurance because I think the most important things about it have been said already. The noble Lord will remember that he asked me before what the Government believed about the availability of insurance. I wonder why he poses that question again today, particularly to me, because I do not think that he is going to be very much influenced by what I have to say. I would prefer to direct him and other noble Lords towards those who should know.
I remind the House again of what the Association of British Insurers told us in its brief prepared for the Second Reading of this Bill. It said:
"Insurance companies are by and large confident that they will be able to provide cover for liabilities under the new legislation for current limits of indemnity at premium levels which will have only a marginal effect on the cost of production. There would however be a reduction in the amount of insurance capacity if the state of the art defence were not included".
That we have dealt with in maintaining that defence. The association went on:
"This would particularly affect industries, such as pharmaceuticals and aerospace, which present a heavy development risk exposure".
That answers the point raised by my noble friend Lord Auckland about the industry being put in a difficult position. It has recognised the position into which this legislation will put it and it has made that statement. There we are. I do not think that the noble Lords, Lord Williams or Lord Airedale, would feel any more confident about the state of the insurance market if I were to say that.
In the light of what the Association of British Insurers has said, the major argument must be that there is no need for the kind of clause which the noble Lord is proposing. I think I made it clear in Committee that we have other objections to this clause which apply in this case just as much as they did with the earlier edition. Because we are talking about this matter seriously, I want to go into that in a moment.
When he was speaking about insurance of unlimited liability, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was right to say that there will always be a limit upon the amount of insurance for a given risk. But this is not particular

891
to product liability. The potential liabilities for many risks—for example, negligence—are not limited. Only finite limited insurance is available and companies and individuals accept the excess but highly improb-able risk that lies therein.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, was talking about the relationship between limited and unlimited liability, and I would answer him in three ways. Certainly there is no limit to liability under the directive, so there is no limit under the Bill. However, companies are usually limited in their liability and certainly insurance cannot be obtained for unlimited liability—only for a level thought necessary. Indeed, the premium is related to the risk that the market considers is there.
I should say here quite definitely that the Government are committed to reducing the level of state intervention in industry and we have made great strides in that direction. It is certainly not consistent with the overall thrust of that policy for the Government suddenly to enter the product liabilty insurance broking and insurance underwriting business, for which I may say the Government have no particular aptitude in any case.
The amendments speak of reasonable cost. Presumably by that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, must mean (I do not see how he can mean anything else) the cost of such insurance in the market. That presupposes that the insurance is available. A moment or two ago he questioned that. Or is it that the noble Lord is suggesting that the taxpayer at large should subsidise product liability risk? I cannot see any justification for that.
Again, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has chosen a curiously time-consuming and bureaucratic way of implementing his suggestion. Insurance will either on the whole be available or it will not. If it is, then every company individually will have to go to the court. The Secretary of State would not be empowered to offer insurance before that court process had been completed. I do not want to be frivolous but a greater waste of everybody's time and money is rather hard to imagine. If insurance is not available then the clause is unnecessary.
I believe that there is another curious feature of the clause. A producer may well be unable to obtain insurance for very good reasons. He may be producing unsafe goods. It may be that he has a bad record for paying his insurance premiums. There are a number of things which might occur. However, so long as he can satisfy the court that he is unable to get insurance—and there is no qualification as to why he is unable to do so—the Secretary of State has to insure this unacceptable risk. I foresee that such a scheme may well provide an incentive for lowering product safety standards. I do not think that any of us wishes to move in that direction.
Perhaps I may turn now to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I cannot accept it for three reasons. As I said in relation to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I do not regard such provision as necessary. Secondly, it is surely not right for the taxpayer to carry this burden. Thirdly, the
892
drafting of the clause has some very odd consequences. I should like to expand for a moment on those consequences.
First, the new clause of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will operate after the event. The clause of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, operated before the event. There is therefore a difference. However, I think it comes to much the same thing in the end. In the clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, the Secretary of State is simply asked to pick up the tab. He cannot extract any premium, reasonable (as the clause of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, suggests) or indeed otherwise from the producer. The effect is that the Secretary of State—and that means the taxpayer—should provide free insurance for product liability above a certain limit or where the producer is not able to obtain insurance. I do not think it is right that that burden should fall on the taxpayer generally. Surely it must fall upon the producer of the goods. If he spreads it across his product cost and among his customers, that is his business and his commercial decision.
I wonder whether the new clause, as drafted, achieves quite the effect the noble Lord intends. First, it will be profoundly uncertain for any company to discover what the amount might be for which it could reasonably be expected to obtain insurance cover. It may well obtain cover up to an amount that seems reasonable. However, the company will have no guarantee that the court subsequently will find that amount reasonable.
Secondly, the clause has a very odd effect so far as the completely negligent or even deliberate producer of unsafe products is concerned. I do not believe that there are any. But there may be, and we may be concerned with the deliberate producer of unsafe products. Such a producer quite reasonably, as he fully discloses his negligence, will probably not be able to obtain insurance at all. Yet the effect of the clause will be for the Secretary of State to have to pick up any liabilities that arise because of those activities. That surely cannot be intended.
At the end of the day, one thing stands out. The consumer who has been damaged can sue the producer only for what the producer has. That includes his insurance liability. If the insurance runs out or is nonexistent—and there is no evidence that that is so or is likely to be so—any judgment would have to look to the assets of the producer company. It has always been so, and I do not believe that the position which faces us in this Bill is different to that which has obtained before.
Finally, I repeat that the amendments are unnecessary in the light of the advice of the British Insurance Association to this House; they bring the Secretary of State into a business for which he is unsuited; and both amendments, as drafted, have curious effects of their own which are not compatible with the matters which we are discussing. I hope that both noble Lords opposite will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I said at the outset that I did not regard my amendment as being

893
one on which I should wish to divide the House. Nevertheless, I was interested in what the Minister had to say. He first asked me why I addressed the remark to him. I addressed the remark to him because he is the Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry responsible for this Bill. I believe that it is part of the discussion of the Bill that I should address questions to that Minister. I am invited as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts to a lecture given by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what is the DTI or why there should be a DTI. I do not intend to go to that lecture, although I am sure it would be very enlightening. I believe that the DTI is there, as the Government are there, to promote its Bills and to answer questions as they are put by the Opposition.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, said that this was a new concept. It is not a new concept. It is not a new concept for two reasons. First, there is compulsory insurance under the Road Traffic Act and there is no limitation on liability. Secondly, the Government themselves accepted responsibility in the case of the whooping cough vaccine. Admittedly, there was a limit to the Government's commitment to indemnify people who suffered under that vaccine. But that is not a new concept. The principle was already conceded.
As to the floodgates argument, I think that was disposed of in a judicial committee of your Lordships' House, in McLaughlin v. O'Brien. Fundamentally, the reason why I asked the Minister the question which I did was to ascertain whether the Government had any idea of the social consequences of the legislation which they are promoting. I now know as a matter of record that the Government wish to wash their hands of any liability that may come up under this legislation and that they are going to leave the whole thing to the private sector or to the companies. The community at large, headed by this Government, is not prepared to take a stand on this issue and recognise its responsibilities. That is the fundamental reason why I asked the Minister the question and that is the answer which I have received. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, since we have also discussed my Amendment No. 26, perhaps I am entitled to say a word in reply. We have at last had agreement from the Government Front Bench that unlimited liability insurance is not available. The noble Lord went on to say that in a case of negligence the producer does not get unlimited liability and he has to stand any amount of liability beyond what he can insure for. I thought I said in my speech—at any rate I implied it—that if it is a question of the negligent producer paying or the innocent injured person paying, it is right that the negligent producer should pay.
The Minister failed to deal with the point that we are here dealing with an innocent producer who is not to blame. Is it really to be said that he is to be liable up to his last farthing beyond the point at which he can take out insurance, the Government having previously put forward the argument that he does not have to worry because all he has to do is to take out insurance
894
and pass on the cost to the customer? This point has still not been dealt with. Is it right that the innocent producer should be liable to his last farthing beyond the point at which he can insure; and is it not right that public funds should come to his rescue in those circumstances?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 25:
Insert the following new clause:
("EEC directive.
Judicial notice shall be taken of the English text of the Directive of the Council of the European Communities dated 25th July 1985 (No. 85/374/EEC) in any consideration of this Part of this Act. The text of the Directive will be found in Schedule [EEC Directive].").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is fairly straightforward. It states, first, that judicial notice shall be taken of the English text of the directive; and, secondly, that it will be available in the Bill. It is clearly appropriate that the British courts should have power to consider the directive when they are considering Part I of the Bill; otherwise, we shall be in the same position as we are with regard to the Convention on Human Rights. The British courts shut their eyes to the Convention on Human Rights and then the case is taken to Strasbourg. Here it is not at all clear whether, in interpreting Part I, the British courts will be allowed to look at the directive to see what it means. We have been assured time after time that the purpose of Part I is to give effect to the directive; so presumably there is nothing seriously wrong in asking the courts in Britain to look at the directive to see what Part I means. That is what the first part of the amendment seeks to do.
With regard to the second part of the amendment, it may be a surprise to the noble Lord's department that directives are not commonly available to the man in the street. If he has to look at the product liability legislation he will go to the Consumer Protection Act. If he has to see the directive, which is already referred to in Clause 1:
"the product liability Directive' means the Directive of the Council of the European Communities, dated 25th July 1985, (No. 85/374/EEC)",
it would be convenient if it were printed as a schedule, and then he could find it quite easily.
I remind your Lordships that when I spoke at Second Reading on this matter the Hansard reporters had to ask me for a copy of the directive because they could not find one in this House. If this House cannot find one, how is the ordinary consumer, whom the Bill is supposed to protect, to find one? Is there something so drastically wrong that we cannot print the English text of the directive in a schedule? The Government seem very opposed to this and one wonders why. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite knows perfectly well where the directive is to be found—in the Official Journal. His amendment, however, provides:
"Judicial notice shall be taken of the English text of the Directive…in any consideration of this Part of this Act".

895
That is the form of the amendment and of the one which is related to it.
The amendment is unnecessary for a number of reasons. First, the noble Lord will be aware of Section 3(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, which states as follows:
"Judicial notice"—
it starts off in precisely the same terms as the amendment—
"shall be taken of the Treaties, of the Official Journal of the Communities … and the Official Journal shall be admissible as evidence of any instrument or other act thereby communicated of any of the Communities or of any Community institution".
This provision applies to directives such as the directive on product liability which have been published in the Official Journal and published in all the official languages of the Community. Therefore, when the noble Lord opposite was asked by the Hansard reporters where to find it, I should imagine that he replied "In the Official Journal", which will of course be found in the Library of the House. At least I should have been surprised if the noble Lord had not so replied.
By contrast with Section 3(2), the amendment has two rather restrictive and undesirable effects. First, it gives preference to the English text of the directive which, as I hope I made clear at Committee stage, is simply not adequate in terms of a multilingual instrument. Indeed, I say further that this amendment is inconsistent with that section of the 1972 Act which makes it quite clear that it is not limited to the English text of any directive which is published in the Official Journal. Secondly, it appears to be restrictive of proceedings in which provisions of Part I may be put in issue. I see no merit in such restriction.
Earlier this afternoon we had a discussion about the terms of the directive and I recollect the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, explaining some of the difficulties of interpreting it. Therefore the argument that it should be printed in its English text as a schedule to the Bill as an aid to the man in the street (when what it is said to be is an aid to the judges) will not stand up. Provision is made already that the directive will be the subject of judicial notice, and for what it is worth, it must be subject of judicial notice in all the official languages of the Community. Therefore the amendment would strike against what is the proper course to the Official Journal and indeed Community instruments. For all these reasons I have to say that we cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. Perhaps he could explain to me (because I do not quite follow this) why his government—I appreciate it was his predecessor in office who would have some responsibility—persuaded this House and another place to pass the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 Section 2 of which says:
"The Conventions shall have the force of law in the United Kingdom, and judicial notice shall be taken of them".
There is no need for that if they are in the official record of the community.
In subsection (2) of section 2, for the convenience of reference, the English texts of the conventions are set
896
out in Schedules 1, 2 and 3 respectively. That is the English text not the Italian, the German, the French, the Belgian, the Dutch or any of the other texts. These are set out and these are to have force of law. There is a precedent from this Government. I find for that reason, and if for no other, the answer of the noble and learned Lord rather unsatisfactory; but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, it is not just a question of the judges or the man in the street. There are practising solicitors who might well be consulted by clients about the application of this directive, and I cannot imagine that a solicitor in Stoke-on-Trent or Ashton-under-Lyne would have ready access to the documents that we have been discussing. If the amendment itself is defective, let the Government put it right by all means, but let us have for convenience the text of the directive attached to the Bill and attached to some peg or other.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, with leave of the House, I suspected—although the noble Lord opposite did not make this part of his original submissions—that he might refer to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. We were there dealing with something entirely different. That was a separate convention between the member states on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments, which is not in the terms of Section 32 of the 1972 Act: an instrument or other Act of the communities or any community institution. As the noble Lord opposite is well aware, unlike this Bill which translates into Part I the directive for the purposes of our law, the 1982 Act did not in fact do any such thing. What it said in Section 21 was that the conventions shall have the force of law in the United Kingdom, and judicial notice should be taken of them. That was the only part in the statute that referred to the conventions.
Thereafter, it set out the conventions in a schedule to the Act. We were dealing with something entirely different there and not with a community directive which is published in the official journal in this particular case. Perhaps it should be noted in Section 33 that there is reference to certain reports which are to be taken account of, and they are simply referred to as being reproduced in the official journal. That was thought as being sufficient notice to all those who are interested in trying to construe the convention. That seems to me to support precisely the point that I was making to the noble Lord opposite.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Application of Part I to Crown]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 6, line 27, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
("(2) The Crown shall not, as regards the Crown's liability by virtue of this Part, be bound by this Part further than the Crown is made liable in tort under the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, as that Act has effect from time to time.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment on Amendment No. 22. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [The general safety requirement]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 6, leave out lines 35 to 38 and insert—
("knowingly or recklessly—

(a) supplies

(b) offers or agrees to supply; or

(c) exposes or possesses for supply

any consumer goods which fail to comply with the general safety requirement.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage I sought, with the aid of the CBI, to persuade the Government to narrow down and clarify some parts of Clause 10. My noble friend put various arguments against that so I have not sought to pursue it again. Again, with the aid of the CBI, I propose to use a different approach to the problem. This concentrates on introducing an element of mens rea.I must admit to your Lordships that I stopped learning Latin at the age of 13, so I hope that I have pronounced the phrase correctly. Not being a lawyer, I do not quite know what it means except I am told it means guilty intent in regard to the offence. As at present drafted, a producer can be found guilty of a criminal offence merely by virtue of breaching the requirement even though he had no intention of doing so.
The point of this amendment is to try to introduce the concept of a knowing or reckless breach of the duty. In fact, it is those breaches and a rewording of the existing Clause 10(1) which is all that is involved.
In putting down this amendment I told my noble friend the Minister the details of why I was doing so and he very kindly wrote me a letter explaining why he did not accept this amendment. I must confess his letter is fairly convincing, but I will be grateful indeed if he would tell your Lordships about it so it should be put on the record. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we would regard this as a wrecking amendment of Part II. If this amendment is accepted by the Government we would regard it as changing the whole basis of Part II for the very reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has introduced. Therefore, if the Government feel at all tempted, we wish to divide the House against it. I hope very much that the Government will not accept this amendment and will stick firmly to the course which is plainly chartered in the Bill as drafted.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, I will certainly be advising the House not to accept this amendment. I have already said so to my noble friend Lord Mottistone in a letter which I confess was only written this morning and delivered to him shortly before your Lordships' House sat this afternoon; and I doubt whether many noble Lords have had an opportunity of seeing a copy in the Library. The noble Lord, my old friend, asks me to explain to your Lordships why I will not accept it and this is what I propose to do as shortly as I can and as he suggests, for the record. The amendment does introduce this element of mens rea into the offence of supplying any consumer goods which fail to comply with the general safety requirements.
It has long been held that those statutes whose object is the protection of the public from risks to their health
898
and safety should not require proof of mens rea or the state of the defendant's mind, in order to secure a conviction. That is the point which I think the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is really driving at. The prosecution succeed by proving the actions of the defendant, and apart from the offence of supplying goods which contravene the safety regulations, other examples would be many offences under the Road Traffic Act, and the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, and indeed the Food Act 1984.
My noble friend expressed some concern about what he saw as the breadth of the definition of the general safety requirements, and that a producer or supplier could be found guilty of the criminal offence merely by supplying goods which failed to comply with that requirement even though he had no intention of so doing. In the matter of the protection of the public from dangerous goods, that just will not do. Suppliers of consumer goods should not be able to evade their responsibility to consumers by merely saying, "Well, I did not know that the goods were unsafe". We must expect a more positive act by the supplier of consumer goods if the protection envisaged by this part of the Bill is to be achieved. Suppliers of goods must bear the responsibility of determining whether or not the goods are reasonably safe enough to supply or not. If the supplier has taken positive steps to check that the goods are safe, then he has nothing to fear.
Clause 39 contains the defence of due diligence. Thus, any person, manufacturer, importer or retailer who is proceeded against for supplying consumer goods which contravene the general safety require-ment shall have a defence if they can show that they took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing that offence. Therefore, if after taking all such steps and exercising all such diligence, a person is nevertheless found to have supplied unsafe consumer goods he will have this defence to any proceedings against him.
Perhaps I may ease the concern of my noble friend Lord Mottistone if I remind him of another part of Clause 10; namely, subsection (4)(b). Following the proposals in the White Paper we have included in this part of the Bill a specific defence for retailers. The Government have accepted that it would be unrealistic to expect retailers, both large and small, who sell a wide range of goods to have sufficient knowledge about all of them to be able to determine whether those goods failed to comply with the general safety requirement. For those reasons we have included these two paragraphs in subsection (4)(b) which make it clear that it will be a defence for a retailer to say that he neither knew nor had reasonable grounds for believing that the goods he supplied failed to comply with the general safety requirement.
I do not think we could apply the same defence to manufacturers, importers or wholesalers. They may reasonably be expected to have more detailed knowledge of their goods and to be in a position to check or insist that their suppliers check that goods comply with the general safety requirement. If the general safety requirement is going to mean anything in terms of protecting consumers from unsafe goods, then the offence should remain as it stands. That is the

899
thrust of the short intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in arguing against the amendment, which, frankly, I think my noble friend now accepts. Having explained the matter to him in rather more detail than in my letter I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to my noble friend for spelling out the position in more detail. My only regret is that being convinced by my noble friend means that I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams. As he was so emphatically against my amendment I regret bitterly that I cannot press it to a Division and defeat him. However, I have undertaken to accept my noble friend's explanation and I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 6, line 41, leave out from ("circumstances,") to end of line 43 and insert (", including—

( ) the manner in which, and purposes for which, the goods are being or would be marketed, the get-up of the goods, the use of any mark in relation to the goods and any instructions or warnings which are given or would be given with respect to the keeping, use or consumption of the goods;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, probably noble Lords will recall that during the debate in Committee on Clause 10 stand part both the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Hacking, made certain points about the way in which the drafting of Clause 10 depends on Clause 3. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking—I am sorry he is not in the Chamber tonight—was particularly concerned that we had made the question of whether or not there is a defect in a product for the purposes of Part I a sufficient condition for goods to fail to comply with the general safety requirement. The noble Lord also asked about the differing standards of proof in Parts I and II.
At the same time the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was concerned that while Part II applied as it stands to Northern Ireland, the reference that it made to Part I was somewhat odd since Part I does not apply to Northern Ireland. I think the noble Lord will recall, as will other noble Lords, that I undertook to consider these points.
In view of the points made then, and other concerns put to us, we think there would be an advantage in uncoupling the test of defectiveness in Part I from the consideration of safety in Part II. The amendment is designed to achieve that. It imports into Part II a reference to circumstances specified in Clause 3(2)(a) which need to be taken into account in Part I in determining whether goods are defective. This covers the question of the manner in which, and the purposes for which, the goods are being marketed and other similar factors.
However, all noble Lords will have noticed that we have not imported the other two circumstances specified in Clause 3(2)(b) and (c); that is, the use to which the goods will be put and the time when the product was supplied by the producer. We consider that the first of these is unnecessary because of the
900
definition of "safe" in Clause 19. This covers the question of the use to which goods might be put. Nor have we transferred from Part I to Part II the circumstances in Clause 2(3)(c), which refers to the time when the product was supplied by its producer to another. This is relevant to Part I since the damage which a defect in the goods causes may well arise many years after it is first manufactured or supplied. However, Part II only operates upon goods when they are supplied and by virtue of Clause 10(4)(c), which applies only to goods supplied as new. The time when they are produced is, therefore, not relevant.
Perhaps I should add that nothing in the provision contained in Clause 10(2) will override the general requirement that the court must take all the circumstances into account. We believe that this amendment leads to a considerable simplification of the Bill and that it will prevent the kind of questions asked by the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Williams, being raised and creating possible difficulties over the relationship between Parts I and II. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of the amendment which has been tabled in response to interventions made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and myself. I was fearful that I should have to respond on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, but I notice that, as if by magic, he appeared in the Chamber while the noble Lord the Minister was speaking and is now in his place. I think the noble Lord heard approximately one-half to five-eighths of what the Minister said, so I will try very hard to summarise for his benefit the three-eighths which are important and which he perhaps did not hear.
The amendment fulfils that purpose of uncoupling Part II from Part I. I think that was the major point that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, made in Committee. I was worried about that in the case of Northern Ireland and from that point of view it is an immense improvement on the Bill as originally drafted. It fulfils that purpose, but the noble Lord has pointed out that there are one or two other issues which it does not cover. I cannot say whether it will give rise to other problems until I have read carefully in Hansard what the noble Lord said. It is a complicated issue. I am sure that the basic thrust of the amendment, which uncouples Part II from Part I, is right, and I welcome it.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the Minister for moving the amendment. I apologise to him for not being in your Lordships' House when he did so. I cannot therefore comment in any detail on it. I have read the amendment and it is a great improvement on the earlier provision. In uncouples Part I from Part II, which was the concern I expressed in Committee. I am grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 6, line 44, leave out ("any standards of safety published by any person") and insert ("approved British or European standards").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton I beg to move Amendment No. 30, standing in his name on the Order Paper. The amendment is designed to leave out the words:
"any standards of safety published by any person",
and to replace them with:
"approved British or European standards."
The clause as at present drafted seems to us to be too wide. It provides as one criterion of safety that regard must be had to any standards of safety published by any person. That would enable individuals or sectors of trade to draw up their own standards without any independent or official checking or approval, and then use those standards as an absolute defence to a prosecution. That is undesirable and even dangerous for consumers.
The reference in the amendment to "European standards" acknowledges the fact that we are members of the Community and that the Community has a major interest in standards. For some years, it has been actively promoting the harmonisation of standards throughout the Community: first, to facilitate trade and, secondly, and no less importantly, to protect consumers throughout the Community. It seems appropriate that that point should he recognised in Bills of this kind.
Furthermore, Commissioner Lord Cockfield has taken the initiative since becoming a member of the Commission to seek to move more quickly towards the completion of the internal market by 1992, and, in proposals which have now been accepted by the Council of Ministers, it is hoped that the standard for goods in one country will be acceptable as a standard in all member states, thus obviating the long and tedious process of harmonisation as such.
That is a commendable initiative by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. It presupposes that the standards that are enforced in particular member states are fair and reasonable and not ones which can be achieved as easily as the Bill now proposes. If that were to be so, it would torpedo the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and result in a large number of cases going before the European Court when an attempt was made to export goods of poor standard from one member state to another. That would be undesirable, and the effect of the clause would be to slow up the process of completing the internal market, an objective to which I am sure the Government suscribe. It is in those circumstances that I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for moving this amendment in the name of his noble friend Lord Graham. As he says, the amendment attempts to restrict those standards of safety which would be considered in deciding whether consumer goods fail to comply with the general safety requirement to, as the amendment states:
"approved British or European standards".
The purpose of Clause 10(2) is to ensure that all the circumstances are considered when deciding whether consumer goods fail to comply with the general safety
902
requirement. The paragraphs of that subsection, and the new subsection that we have just discussed, are pointers to particular circumstances that could be considered among all the circumstances.
Along with all the qualifications in the preceding subsection about the manner in which the goods are marketed or used and any instructions or warnings given with the goods, and in the subsequent subsection concerning the existence of any means by which it would have been reasonable for the goods to have been made safer, we have also to consider any standards of safety published by any person.
However, that consideration of standards will include whether the standard of safety which applies to the goods in question is suitable. If the public standard does not reach the level of safety which in all the other circumstances is necessary, compliance with that standard will not necessarily be enough to outweigh consideration of these other circumstances.
The amendment proposed is that only "approved British or European standards" should be relevant to compliance. We have in Clause 10 specific reference, in subsection (3)(b)(ii), to approved standards of safety. These standards are more than likely to be British standards, but they may be suitable safety standards from any part of the world. However, for the purposes of the subsection compliance with an approved safety standard will ensure that goods comply with the general safety requirement in relation to matters covered by that standard. No other factors need he taken into account. Compliance with that approved standard will be sufficient.
For the purposes of subsection (2) of Clause 10—I have to repeat this—where all the circumstances are to be taken into account, any standards of safety will he taken into account although only if the level of safety provided by those standards is sufficiently high. There is a distinct difference here between the role of safety standards for the purposes of subsection (2) and subsection (3). The amendment before us would limit the generality of subsection (2) and, as I have already said, compliance with approved standards of safety relates to subsection (3). I should also add that for the purposes of subsection (2) this amendment makes no provision for the approval to which it refers. I am not sure that our GATT trading partners would be over-happy with our insistence on British or European standards for the purpose of the general safety requirement.
For these main reasons, and the additional important reasons I outlined earlier, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, knows well, I put forward an amendment at Committee stage which he supported. It referred to this same area, but was broader. My amendment referred to any approved person. He has narrowed it to British or European approvals.

903
I understand what my noble friend is saying. That is why I proposed another amendment altogether which I have had to admit does not stand up to the criticisms of my noble friend. However, there is uncertainty in this area. I am not sure that we can do anything about it in this House; the next stage will be Third Reading. Perhaps our friends in another place may be able to nag away at this and get the provision right. I am not happy with the reference to "any person". It might give an opening to the wrong kind of person. I referred to this when I spoke earlier. Perhaps the Government will take into account what everyone said at Committee stage—I am not sure that they did at the time—and what has been said now, and see whether they can tidy this up so that one does not have a situation in which the approval is not genuine enough for the circumstances.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the reply he made to this amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for the words he had to say, which seemed to indicate support for it. I followed as closely as I could the explanation which the Minister gave and the distinction which he drew between subsections (2) and (3). I am sure that there is a distinction. In the sober cold of morning and with the aid of Hansard I hope I shall finally appreciate that distinction. I shall study carefully what the Minister has said. Hopefully, when daylight dawns reason may return. At the moment I must confess to utter confusion about the distinction which the Minister so ably described from what I suppose was a very well-scripted brief. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and I do so in the full and certain knowledge that an even better amendment is to follow which will be more ably moved by my noble friend Lady Nicol.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 6, line 44, after ("person") insert ("approved by the Secretary of State").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the substance of this amendment was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, at Committee stage. I believe that he has just spoken to that rather than to the amendment of my noble friend. I may perhaps serve to pour a little oil on the troubled waters between the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and my Front Bench, if I say that I can do no better than to quote what he said at Committee stage in col. 892 in relation to the subject of this amendment. The noble Lord said:
"any standards of safety published by any person can take effect within this Clause and it lays the matter very wide open to all sorts of people producing a standard of safety".
Lord Mottistone went on to say:
"I, as 'any person', could produce a standard of safety which would be detrimental to my competitor's goods and possibly make it easier for me to sell my own. Therefore one needs to have not just 'any person' but a recognised person, an approved person".
This particular amendment is an attempt to overcome that difficulty. Your Lordships will recall that in reply at col. 894 of Hansard the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, said:
904
"There is one point about this amendment which I do not understand, and that is who the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, believes should be 'an approved' person".
We are saying that an approved person is a person approved by the Secretary of State. We feel that this would reduce the risk of abuse and injustice and I appreciate that part of what the Minister has just said relates to this point. Nevertheless, I feel there is a separate point which needs to be made. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment in principle—I could hardly not do so in view of the extensive quotations from my own contribution at Committee stage. It follows on from what I was saying before that I am not quite happy about this amendment. It brings the Secretary of State into this area which is perhaps going too high. For example, I suppose it can be said that the BSI is approved as a body but it is an approving body. I should like to think that that did not have to go to the Secretary of State for further approval.
I am not entirely happy about this amendment as such; but I am happy about what it is trying to do. I hope that my noble friend will pick up the point that we are all trying to make to try and refine this to make sure that people are not inadvertently unfairly treated by some sort of person who should not really be contributing at all. I cannot go further than that.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, in view of what I have just said in response to Amendment No. 30, I doubt whether my noble friend Lord Mottistone, or the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, will wish me to rehearse all the arguments again—no, the noble Baroness indicates that she does not wish me to do so.
I note my noble friend Lord Mottistone's unhappiness. Later, he then went on to say that he would be happy about some other matter. I am not quite sure how this will balance out. I should like to say this to the noble Lord: of course, I am always prepared to look at these matters. I do not think that there is any room for change; I do not think that there is any need for change. I thought I had made it clear in relation to the amendment which we have just discussed that for the purpose of subsection (2) of Clause 10 all the circumstances must include any published standard of safety. Whether that particular safety standard will be taken into account will depend on whether the level of safety provided by that standard was high enough.
Approved standards—namely those approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of subsection (3) of Clause 10—serve a particular purpose.
If consumer goods comply with a safety standard approved by the Secretary of State for that purpose then those goods will also comply with the general safety requirement. There is no question of any particular body either side of what might be called a fence, being unfairly treated.
I hope that the noble Baroness particularly, (who moved this amendment) will accept my explanation coupled with the explanation that I gave in relation to Amendment No. 30, and feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I accept the Minister's explanation: but along with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I feel that there is still an area of unease here. I hope that as the Bill makes its way through the other place a slightly better solution may be found. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved amendment No. 32:
Page 7, line 2, leave out ("cost").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Graham, I beg to move Amendment No. 32. This amendment has the support of the Association of County Councils which points out that for the first time the question of cost has been introduced into the safety equation. The implication is that making goods safe might be too expensive.
Although the onus of proof would be on the defendant—and it has to be admitted that this would be a difficult task for him—it is submitted that as a matter of principle there should not be a statutory price on safety. Perhaps in passing the Minister can tell me who will estimate the cost under the Bill as it stands?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, it will be clear to the House from our discussion of the preceding amendments that for the purposes of subsection (2) of Clause 10 all the circumstances should be taken into account. We have discussed the new amendment, which refers to the manner in which goods have been marketed and any instructions or warnings given with them. We have also discussed the published standards of safety which could be relevant to those goods. The amendment proposes removing from what will now be the third paragraph of subsection (2) a particular factor which should be taken into account when deciding whether consumer goods fail to comply with the general safety requirement. That factor is the cost of making those goods safer.
This subsection provides that, when deciding whether consumer goods fail to comply with the general safety requirement, one should take into account whether it would have been reasonable for the goods to have been made safer. It particularly emphasises that when doing so one should take into account, along with the likelihood and the extent, the costs of any possible improvement.
I wonder whether there is some confusion in noble Lords' minds as to the reason for this provision. It is there to ensure that when we look to see whether goods comply with the general safety requirement we do not look for a totally unrealistic level of safety. This is not possible in a general requirement of this kind, and this subsection ensures that, not only should we look to see whether it was possible to make the goods any safer, but that if it had been possible, whether the cost in relation to that particular good would have been reasonable. Perhaps an example might help. I think we would all recognise that drinking glasses may break easily and could thus be described as being not absolutely safe. It might well be possible, and I have no doubt that it is, to design and produce drinking glasses which would be completely unbreakable and therefore
906
perhaps more safe. However, the cost of doing this might well increase the price of those glasses so much that they would no longer be a viable commodity.
If an enforcement officer proceeded against a person on the grounds that the consumer goods that he had supplied did not comply with the general safety requirement but that they could have complied with the general safety requirement if certain modifications or alterations had been made to them, then the cost of those alterations or modifications in relation to the cost of the goods in question would have to be taken into account. Thus it would be unreasonable to suggest that an article costing, for example, £5 could have been made safer by the expenditure of £50.
However, at the risk of repeating myself, this subsection is only one of the factors which will be taken into account in "all the circumstances" to be considered when deciding whether consumer goods fail to comply with the general safety requirement. It is there to remind both enforcement officers and the court that, if it is claimed that the goods could have been made safer, then along with the likelihood and extent of any possible improvement, the cost of that improvement must be taken into account and the cost should be reasonable in relation to the product in question.
I hope that after my explanation the noble Baroness may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, it seems to me that the noble Baroness is quite right in seeking to take out the word "cost". I referred to the matter at Second Reading when I was talking about the anti-skid device on an expensive car as opposed to no device on a cheaper car. I believe that it will require the judge to take into account a whole new dimension and that it will be extremely difficult for him to do so. I believe that the whole matter would be much simpler if reference to the word "cost" was not there.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I could not agree less with my noble friend Lord De La Warr. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook, on the Front Bench, and I hope this amendment will not be pursued. I believe the argument about the glass is incontrovertible.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his support. I am grateful to the Minister for his long and detailed reply, although I am not sure that I would have chosen drinking glasses as the best example for a discussion of this kind.
However, it is the first time that we have aired this problem in any detail. I should like to study the Minister's reply and see how we feel about the matter—as my noble friend said earlier—in the cold light of day. At the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 7, leave out lines 35 to 42 and insert
("(c) that the goods were not in fact new goods at the time of the supply and that they either—

(i) complied with such standards of safety (if any) as are referred to in subsection 2(a) above as were in existence, and such safety regulations (if any) made under section II below as were in force, at the time when the goods were first supplied as new goods, or

(ii) had attached to them written information about any modifications, repairs, conditions necessary to ensure that they would be safe when used.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is another attempt to ensure that traders in second-hand goods are under a duty to sell goods which are reasonably safe. I should say at the outset that the amendment has the support of the Consumers' Association and the National Consumer Council.
We have studied the Minister's reply to a similar amendment at Committee stage. Although we were reassured on the subject of gas cookers, we are not satisfied that regulations would provide as secure a protection as this amendment would introduce for items other than gas cookers. We want to prevent unscrupulous traders getting around safety requirements.
Clause 10, as drafted, would enable traders to label unsafe goods, "Not sold as new" and so avoid liability under Part II of the Bill. In the past there have been cases of goods subject to a prohibition order returning to shops when the order has expired. In future, unless the Bill is amended, unsafe goods might appear in markets and other places as second-hand goods and enforcement officers would have the task of proving that the goods were in fact new.
Even then, given the wording of Clause 10(4)(c), the only action open to them would be a prosecution under the Trade Descriptions Act. It seems sensible that second-hand goods should be expected to comply with the safety standards which were in force at the time of manufacture. That would be the effect of this amendment in its first part. The second part would enable traders to sell goods in need of repair provided that they attached information about the precise defects and repairs which needed to be undertaken. I beg to move.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, during the Committee stage the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, moved an amendment that we should leave out lines 21 and 22 on page 7, which, of course, would have deleted one of the defences against offences under the general safety requirements by removing the defence of goods intended for export. Those of us who supported the amendment regretted that it was not acceptable to the Minister.
The noble Baroness tried again when she moved an amendment to bring under the general safety requirements second-hand goods sold in the course of business, as defined in subsection (5)(a) of Clause 10. In spite of strong support from consumer organisations, we really did not fare much better than on the previous amendment. As he will recall, the
908
noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said at col. 907 of the Official Report, of 21st January 1987:
"As the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, reminded the Committee, I spoke about the question of gas cookers at Second Reading, and indeed have referred to it on perhaps more than one occasion in response to her penetrating questions. I confirm, and give the Committee an assurance, that the Government's intention to draft regulations to cover the safety of gas cookers is real. We are pressing on with the drafting of these regulations both for new and for second-hand gas cookers, and we hope to go to consultation in a few weeks".
I repeat that because that statement was made on 2Ist January, seven weeks ago. I am wondering when the Minister comes to reply whether he will tell us whether the consultation has started and what progress has been made.
As the House is aware, second-hand goods are specifically excluded from the general safety requirement, Clause 10(4)(c)(i). The Consumers' Association stresses that it recognises that second-hand goods cannot be expected to comply with the general safety requirements for new goods set out in Clause 10(2). It thinks that it is important that traders in second-hand goods should be under a duty to supply products which are reasonably safe. I do not see how any reasonable person could disagree with that point of view.
It may be recalled that during the Committee stage the Government argued, first, that it is not reasonable to require all second-hand goods to comply with current standards and that it is useful for retailers to supply second-hand goods at low prices; secondly, problem areas can be dealt with by regulation. Although I appreciate the usefulness of a second-hand market, I suggest that it should not provide, first, an outlet for inherently and alarmingly dangerous goods, and, secondly, a means whereby rogue traders can circumvent safety requirements.
I believe that Clause 10(4)(c) as drafted would permit traders to issue disclaimers that unregulated, unsafe goods were new and thus avoid liability under Part II of the Bill. In the past there have been cases of goods subject to a prohibition order returning to the shops when the order has expired. In future I believe that unless the Bill is amended unsafe goods might appear in markets and other places as second-hand goods and the enforcement officers would have the task of proving that the goods were in fact new. Even then, I think, given the wording of Clause 10(4)(c), the only action open to them would be a prosecution under the Trade Descriptions Act.
I agree with the Consumers' Association that second-hand goods should not be imminently or unnecessarily dangerous, and they should comply with the safety standards in force at the time of manufacture. The association has helped with this amendment, which would mean that goods sold second-hand would have to comply with standards and regulations in force at the time the goods were made. It would be for the courts to decide whether the extent of wear and tear on the product was such that it rendered it so dangerous that it was totally unsuitable for sale.

909
As the House will have noted, we are also proposing that traders should be able to provide legally goods which need repair if attached to the goods is precise information as to their defects and the repairs which need to be undertaken. I am glad to support these amedments moved by my noble friend Lady Nicol. I think they are both reasonable and a contribution to general safety. I suggest that the reasons are entirely non-party and supported by consumer organisations. I hope that the Minister will find them acceptable.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I should like to support these amendments. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, I have had a long association with the Consumers' Association and I think that the amendments are wise. An enormous number of second-hand goods are being disposed of nowadays. There are electrical goods, children's toys and all sorts of things which are expensive and which are resold and if they are not safe they could be very dangerous indeed and do a great deal of harm. I think the Minister should consider this urgently as it is a matter with which he ought to be able to deal. It has been on the ground, so to speak, for a long time. I hope very much that the Minister will accept these amendments, and, if not tonight, he will see that they are incorporated in any future amendments to this Bill.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for the way in which she put her amendment; she described it as another attempt. I fear that my response is practically the same. Let me deal, if I may, with the three outstanding points.
The first, which my noble friend Lady Elliot raised, concerned dangerous goods. I remind your Lordships that we already have regulations in place about electrical appliances. They have proved to be pretty successful. In that admittedly dangerous area I do not think there is anything more we should be doing.
Another area which has been described as being dangerous is that of gas cookers. I come straight to the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, asked me. Although I said in January that we should be introducing regulations, she will recognise that there are a number of complex and technical points that have yet to be resolved. One is almost tempted to ask, "When is a cooker a heater? When is a heater a cooker?". That has to be resolved with consumers, as do a number of other matters. We are giving the matter active consideration. I cannot give her a very definite time, but I assure the noble Baroness that it is a matter of extreme concern to us that these matters come into place as soon as possible.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to clear up one matter? I asked him whether consultations had actually started.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do not want to fall foul of the nomenclature "consultations". I said that we were discussing these matters with a number of interested parties. I think that in the terminology that the noble Baroness means "formal consultations" have not yet taken place.
I tried to make it clear at Committee stage that to require all second-hand consumer goods to comply with the general safety standard requirements would not be reasonable or practicable. I want to be serious about this, because the last time we discussed it we discussed it quite shortly, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, will recognise. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the amendments aim to ensure that second-hand goods have to comply with any standard of safety or safety regulation which would have been in force at the time when they were first supplied as new goods or that they had attached to them some written information about the repairs that would be necessary to ensure that they would be safe when used. I exclude now electrical appliances and gas cookers. Having excluded them, I see a number of problems with that approach.
Let me consider the first proposal. I then consider the supply of second-hand furniture. This example will effectively highlight the problem of attempting to amend the Bill in this way. It is also an item which is often sold second-hand and in some quantity. How would a second-hand dealer in furniture comply with the provisions of the first part of the amendment? How would the dealer be able to check the date that the goods were first supplied—not manufactured but, as the amendment points out, supplied? I submit frankly that that task would be impossible. Even if one assumed that supply took place reasonably close to the time of manufacture, and further assumed that it would be possible to find out when the furniture had been manufactured, I doubt whether it would be easy.
We then have a further problem. The dealer in the second-hand furniture now has to consult the statute book to find out what regulations, if any, were in force at the time when he thinks the goods were first supplied as new. Again, I cannot see this as a practical approach at all.
I think the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, probably recalls that when the upholstered furniture safety regulations of 1980 came into being it was decided that second-hand furniture should be exempted from them. Not only were the problems I have just outlined considered, but it was also thought that it would not be reasonable to expect second-hand older furniture to comply with the higher levels of safety required by those regulations or by later regulations.
There are in many of the safety regulations tests which involve either the destruction of the product in question or the testing of a defined sample taken from the goods in question. This is quite reasonable for manufacturers to carry out when they are producing a range, but if a dealer is selling an item—for example, a sofa or a three-piece suite—it is quite unreasonable for him to have to subject that one piece or that suite of furniture to the tests laid down in the relevant regulations. Not to put too fine a point on it, it might well entail setting light to the sofa, for instance.

911
I intend no discourtesy to the noble Baronesses, Lady Nicol or Lady Burton. Neither do I intend to give an appearance of flippancy in my following remarks, but the amendment goes on to suggest in its second part that the alternative way of complying would be for the dealer to attach written information to the goods about what was needed to be done to ensure that they would be safe when used—safe, presumably, by the modern, later standards.
Again, I do not think that that is practicable. It would be extremely difficult and very costly for a dealer to strip down the article concerned so as to determine, for example, in the case of a sofa, the condition of the timber, the fastenings and the springs and the toxicity of the paintwork. Then, after putting it all together again, he would have to have a notice on its saying, for example, "These goods are unsafe by today's standards but if you replace the paintwork, replace the upholstery with non-flammable material and replace the stuffing with some other material, the goods will conform with the current level of safety for new goods". I do not think that is too far away from what is suggested in the amendment.
I find the point difficult. As the noble Baroness pointed out before, she is concerned, as indeed we are, that those persons who wish to buy second-hand goods at lower cost than new goods can do so. The effect of these amendments would be to increase the cost of second-hand goods in relation to that of new goods, and, much more likely, it would stop the supply of second-hand goods. I do not believe the noble Baroness would wish that to happen.
I turn for a moment to one of the last points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, with regard to the general safety requirement applying to second-hand goods and traders selling new, unsafe goods as second-hand or slightly used in order to avoid a prosecution. I remind her that the provisions in Clause 10 do not catch goods which are not sold as new. It is not the state of the goods that is important but how they are presented. New goods sold as slightly used will not be caught by the Bill.
But if a trading standards officer—I pay tribute to trading standards officers for the work that they undertake and for the way in which they do it—believed that this was taking place, he could take action under Section 1 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, which provides that it is a criminal offence to apply a false trade description to any goods. This includes the history of the goods, including their previous ownership and usage. With those explanations, I hope I have demonstrated some of the sympathy I have with the noble Baroness in her amendment but, in truth, the impracticability of going all the way that she would like to go. I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am intrigued by the rather bizarre picture of someone taking a Chippendale chair to pieces to see whether it is up to
912
modern safety standards or even to any safety standards that may have existed at the time, which is very unlikely. But what we are more concerned with are goods which have an inherent capability for becoming dangerous—goods like prams, pushchairs, climbing frames and other things that children use. One feels that all these ought somehow to be brought within the general safety requirement, and I am sure that some way must be found to do that.
I accept that in selling second-hand furniture one cannot test it to destruction in order to give notice of how it should be repaired. But if a trader decides to sell some goods which he knows to be substandard, I see no reason at all why he should not be expected to say, "These goods require rewiring or strengthening in certain circumstances", before they go on the market. Although for this evening I propose to withdraw the amendment—does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, with the leave of the House—I think technically I should say, "before the noble Baroness sits down"—I think, if I may say so, that she is getting a little confused. She talked about Chippendale. Chippendale furniture is not an every-day sale. I was talking in terms of furniture on sale which changes hands quite rapidly and frequently in large volume. Chippendale chairs have to be repaired to the standard pertaining at the time of original construction or they fail to keep their value. You cannot bring a modern repair factor to bear in the case of furniture of that kind, and well the noble Baroness knows that. I think she is pulling my leg a little.
She talked about climbing frames and so on. She could bring before your Lordships an almost limitless list. But most of the potentially dangerous secondhand goods she mentioned, such as pushchairs, are covered by the regulations. She mentioned substandard items and rewiring. Again, rewiring is electrical. I do not want to pick her up on detail, but we have a mass of legislation already in force to take care of those items which are of most danger. To embrace this limitless list would be impossible. It would drive these items out of the market-place and we want them in the market-place.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I hope the Minister did not mean that he wanted dangerous goods in the market-place. I was, of course, being facetious about Chippendale. I have been impressed by the fact that this amendment is supported by the Consumers' Association. I feel that its knowledge is certainly greater than mine. It felt that it was a possibility that there should be greater protection on second-hand goods and I bow to its superior knowledge. However, I take the point that the Minister has made on a number of matters and I should like to think again about this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 34:
Page 8, line 12, ("food") insert ("(except food that has undergone a process)").
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, Amendment No. 34 is not moved.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is it in order for me to move this amendment? If it is, I beg to move it and I shall briefly explain why. It comes as a surprise to me that food is not included in those consumer goods which are to be the subject of protection on grounds of consumer safety. I think that we should be told why food is being exempted in that way.
Coming to the amendment, I must confess that if I had drafted it myself I should have said, "food that has undergone a manufacturing process". Harvesting is of course a process. In order to understand this particular paragraph of subsection (7), we must first look at the preceding paragraph, which mentions:
"growing crops or things comprised in land by virtue of being attached to it—
whatever that may mean. Perhaps it means trees.
In view of the fact that there is a growing fear—I put it no higher than that at the moment—that the use of inorganic chemicals in the manufacturing process may be a cause of cancer in human beings, to find that food as a whole is entirely exempt from the consumer safety provisions of the Bill is a matter which I believe needs explanation. I should be very grateful, therefore, if my noble friend would consider this amendment and, if the word "manufacturing" should be added to it, perhaps that can be done at Third Reading stage. Meanwhile, I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, may I explain why I said that I was not moving the amendment standing in the name of my noble friends Lord Williams and Lady Nicol? My understanding is that the safety of food is covered by the food and drug legislation. That is the reason why it is not in the Consumer Protection Bill and that is the reason why I did not move the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely correct.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in that case, may we have a government explanation confirming that that is so?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Renton wishes a confirmation, I shall indeed confirm that Clause 10 is concerned with consumer goods. There are two main regimes for unsafe goods. One regime concerns the safety of goods used at work. That regime is set out in the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. That Act contains very broadly speaking a general safety requirement for goods for use at work, and in Clause 36 of this Bill we make some modest improvements to that regime.
914
The other main class of goods is those that we use in our private lives—that is, consumer goods—and the general safety requirement in Clause 10 is to set out a regime for consumer goods. However, there are many consumer goods whose safety is already covered by other Acts of Parliament. Motor vehicles are covered by the Road Traffic Acts; gas is covered by the Gas Act. As a general principle we do not think that it is right where there is an existing Act of Parliament to overlay that Act by the general safety requirement.
Reflecting that principle, we have therefore not applied the general safety requirement to food. As noble Lords will be well aware, and as my noble friend Lord Stanley reminded us during the debates on Part I during Committee stage, food is covered by a considerable body of existing legislation. The principal legislation in England and Wales is the Food Act 1984.
It may help my noble friend Lord Renton if I go a little further in this matter and quote from Section 1 of that Act.
"A person is guilty of an offence who—

(a) sells for human consumption,

(b) offers, exposes or advertises for sale for human consumption, or has in his possession for the purpose of such sale, any food rendered injurious to health".

The Act sets out operations that might render food injurious to health, and these include adding substances, and in particular subjecting food to any process or treatment. Section 2(1) of the Food Act 1984 effectively covers the sale of food unfit for human consumption. I think that that will probably answer my noble friend. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate reminds me that there is similar legislation for Scotland in the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Act 1956 and for Northern Ireland in the 1958 food legislation.
10 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may say that, having wished to move this amendment, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for the clear and obviously satisfactory explanation that he has given, which does not come as a surprise to me. Nevertheless, I thought it right to seek to move the amendment in order to get that explanation on record because many people might think that while we were legislating in relation to consumer safety we appeared to have left such an important matter unprovided for.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Safety regulations]:
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Offences against the safety regulations]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 11, line 1, after ("prohibits") insert ("or requires").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may speak to this amendment in the names of my noble friends Lord Williams and Baroness Nicol. I do so in the

915
confident hope that the reasonable spirit that obviously infects the Government Benches will continue to do so. This is casus improvisus.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Oh!
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, thought that he was replying to the amendment. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, was going to reply and he would understand what I was talking about.
Clause 11(2)(i) has provisions for requiring a mark, warning or instruction to be put on certain goods. The only offence created is that of contravening safety regulations which "prohibit". No offence is created in Clause 12 to cover the provision requiring the mark. That is obviously necessary and that is the reason for the amendment, which adds the words "or requires". I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord opposite for explaining the reasons for the amendment. I say straight away that I am prepared to accept not only his argument but also his amendment. It would seem entirely appropriate for us in our description of offences against the safety regulations to include a provision which relates to both the prohibition and the requiring of provision of information. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Prohibition notices and notices to warn]:
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 11, line 29, at end insert—
("(c) serve on any person a notice ("a product recall notice") requiring that person to recall any relevant goods which the Secretary of State considers are unsafe and which are described in the notice.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at the Committee stage we proposed a new clause to give the Secretary of State power to recall goods found to be unsafe or defective. The Minister was kind enough to commend the aims of that amendment though he thought that the new clause at that time was too complicated. We therefore move this simpler, but we believe still effective, amendment.
We still consider that our safety law should be comprehensive and that, without the fallback power that our amendment would give the Secretary of State, there are loopholes through which defective goods could find their way on to the market.
Perhaps I may quote from the National Consumer Council, which is very concerned about the amendment. It says:
"In 1984 a case involving dangerous hair curlers came to light. After complaints they were quickly removed from the respectable retail traders only to be found shortly afterwards on sale at market stalls and by street traders where they were sold at lower prices but with all the dangers still present. Consumers would have been much better protected had there been mandatory product recall coupled with the power to make destruction orders".
The Minister's reply did not deal with cases such as the one that I have just quoted. We feel that this power is needed. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that it is a power which exists in the United States of America, where they admit that it has been very seldom used. I really believe that it is something that would not need to be used very often. Nevertheless it would be a very useful power for the Secretary of State to have in his armoury. I said at Committee stage that it would provide a useful threat to have in the background and I think perhaps traders might be a little more careful. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I feel at something of a loss tonight because the noble Baroness puts her amendments so shortly and my explanations in rejection are so long. All I can pray in aid is the seriousness with which I view the noble Baroness' amendments. As she says, a similar amendment was moved in Committee and this one certainly avoids many of what can be described as the draconian provisions that were evident at that time. However, I have to say that I really still do not believe that a case has been made out for including such a recall power in this Bill. The amendments before us do not remove the administrative difficulties which I have previously referred to. To be really effective any recall produced must be capable of being employed very quickly and of being very effectively enforced and equally effectively monitored.
There would be particular problems, I feel, in securing the co-operation of persons in the supply chain who are not named in the notice. In particular there would be problems of establishing whether a person named in the notice had adequately fulfilled its requirements. To what lengths should a person be required to go to retrieve his goods from the people who had bought them? I think that is a very open-ended issue.
It is evident to me that it is the manufacturer who is best placed to decide how, if necessary, his recall arrangements should proceed. It is not the Secretary of State but the manufacturer who has the detailed knowledge of the unsafe products in question and of the nature of the distribution chain. I should, of course, counter any charge that it is naive to set such store by voluntary procedure. In doing that I say this: it is very much in the manufacturer's hard commercial interest to do what he can to prevent his products from injuring people. There will be very few manufacturers who would risk their good reputation by not recalling their product where this was both necessary and possible.
Again, Part I of the Bill will make a producer liable for any personal damage caused by his unsafe product and this is in addition to the criminal penalties already provided for in existing regulations and in Clause 10 of this Bill. Moreover, I think I reminded the Committee—and here I come to what the noble Baroness described as the threat hanging over the producer—that if, despite the safety legislation, unsafe products do reach consumers, the Secretary of State is empowered by Clause 13 of the Bill to serve on any person a notice requiring him to publish a warning about unsafe goods he has supplied. This power was introduced in the Consumer Safety Act 1978. It has, I

917
confess with some pride, never proved necesssary to serve such a notice to warn, and I really do not accept that there is any justification for adding in this way to a power which has been on the statute book for some nine years and which it has never yet proved necessary to invoke. For those reasons I seriously believe that we would be unjustified in taking on the powers set out in these amendments, particularly when voluntary arrangements have been shown to be more than adequate.
That threat is serious because the Secretary of State could, for example, in his notice to warn—which, as I say, requires him to publish a warning about unsafe goods—require that the notice says:
"By direction of the Department of Trade and Industry".
or:
"By the Secretary of State we are required to warn".
He may be able to do that; but what a bad advertisement that is! Let us consider one or two recent events. Rowenta issued a notice; and Zanussi issued a notice which was widely publicised in all the papers—the pictorials and what are described as the "heavies". There were large advertisements. Responsible people take responsible actions. I do not believe that it is necessary for the Government to impose yet further conditions upon those people.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. But the cases he cites are not those of manufacturers against whom we seek to apply this power. Reputable manufacturers care for their reputations and they co-operate with the Government and do all that is necessary to see that unsafe products which have been sold in their name are not allowed to circulate. Those people are not a problem. It is the next layer of less scrupulous manufacturers who exist. The Minister looks grieved; but I assure him that they exist. Their products turn up on the market with great regularity. Consumer bodies can point to cases where unsafe goods which should have been recalled and destroyed have circulated.
Therefore, I am not arguing about the reputable companies. I fully accept that they co-operate and that we can expect that co-operation to continue in the future; but I am sorry that the Government will not take on board this power to deal with the others who are not so reputable and anxious to co-operate. I feel that it would be a useful power. It exists in other countries such as France and the United States. I have a list of such countries. I regret that the Government do not feel that they can give themselves that power against the day when it will surely be needed. However, I can see that I am not going to get anywhere, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Suspension notices]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 12, line 21, at end insert—
("(2A) A suspension notice served by an enforcement authority for the purpose of prohibiting a person for any period
918
from doing the things mentioned in subsection (1) above in relation to any goods may also require that person to keep the authority informed of the whereabouts throughout that period of any of those goods in which he has an interest.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, moved an amendment in Committee which was designed to ensure that goods subject to a suspension notice should not be moved. I said then that I thought the amendment went a little too far but that we ought to consider an amendment designed to ensure that an enforcement authority that lays a suspension notice can be kept informed of the whereabouts of the goods. This is such an amendment.
The amendment should assist enforcement authorities in a practical way in dealing with goods subject to a suspension notice. Normally such notices relate to goods held within the area of the authority concerned. As a result of this provision if the goods are moved either within the enforcement authority's own area or into the area of another enforcement authority the person upon whom the suspension notice is served will have to inform the original enforcement authority of the movement of the goods and their new whereabouts. Accordingly, the enforcement authority will, if the goods have been moved from its own area, be able to contact the enforcement authority of the place to which the goods have been moved and so to enable it to warn that the goods have been moved into that area.
This will provide a modest improvement to the enforcement of suspension notices which, I suspect, was behind the original amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. Therefore, I hope that he finds that this amendment meets the concern he then raised. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend why at the end of his amendment he needs the words:
"in which he has an interest".
It is the whereabouts of any of those goods that is important. If those words are to be introduced, it seems to throw some doubt upon the goods that must be specified. I wonder whether my noble friend could explain that because the words seem not only unnecessary but perhaps confusing in their effect.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, we should like to thank the Minister for moving the amendment which largely meets the points my noble friend made in Committee. We are interested in the point that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has made, and we look forward with interest to the Minister's reply. We are grateful for the amendment, which is a good one.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am not sure that I have the point that my noble friend makes. The amendment merely states:
"A suspension notice served by an enforcement authority for the purpose of prohibiting a person for any period from doing the things mentioned in subsection (1) above in relation to any goods may also

919
require that person to keep the authority informed of the whereabouts throughout that period of any of those goods in which he"
"he" being the first local authority—
"has an interest".
We cannot necessarily expect the person to tell the authority about goods that he knows nothing of. We have therefore added to the amendment:
"in which he has an interest"
because without that, it could be other goods.
Lord Renton: My Lords, if I may have the leave of the House to take my noble friend up on that point?
Lord Denham: My Lords, the noble Lord cannot ask the leave of the House, because the House, under its own procedures, cannot grant him that leave. He can use the formula, "Before my noble friend sits down"—very shortly, please.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am most grateful, as I always am, to my noble friend the Chief Whip. May I, before my noble friend sits down, ask him whether it has occurred to him that the word "he" is misleading and ambiguous? It could refer to the person concerned. That is how I read it. My noble friend says that it refers to the authority. An authority is not always just one person—a "he" or indeed a "she". Those words need to be considered between now and Third Reading.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am perhaps still speaking because I was interrupted before I sat down. I am sure that your Lordships will be generous to me even at 10.20 p.m. I may have been a little misleading. When I said the local authority, I was referring to what went above. The "he" in the last line of the amendment is the person who is prohibited from supplying the goods. I may have confused my noble friend and the House, for which I apologise. I should like to have a look at this little exchange and write to those noble Lords who have taken an interest in this amendment to make clear the Government's position and to enable them to do what they will later.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 12, line 46, at end insert ("and
(c) it is shown that the officer did not have reasonable grounds for exercising the power.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment adds to the defences that prevent an enforcement authority having to pay compensation under subsection (6) of Clause 14. I am also speaking to Amendment No. 68, which deals with the same matter in Clause 34.
Clause 14(1) begins:
"Where an enforcement authority has reasonable grounds for suspecting that any safety provision has been contravened",
the authority may serve a suspension notice. If the enforcement authority has reasonable grounds, it has an obligation, if not a duty, to serve the suspension notice. This is a consumer protection Bill. The effect of subsection (6) by omitting the defence that the
920
enforcement authority had reasonable grounds for exercising the power, will be to inhibit it from serving suspension notices. That is the last thing I should have thought any consumer protection legislation would require.
I remind the Minister that the enforcement authority is usually a local authority. A local authority, at least under the present Government, is not always provided with limitless funds. It has certain restrictions on its funds. If the authority has to pay compensation when it has acted reasonably, it may well be severely restricted in doing its duty of serving suspension notices.
When we were discussing the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill—to which, to my delight, I saw the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, giving attention at certain points in the debate—I drew attention to the difference between the provisions there and here. The noble Lord will no doubt recollect that in the legislation on misuse of drugs there is a similar distinction. However, if we are to expect the enforcement authority to serve suspension notices where it has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the safety provision has been contravened, we should give it the protection of not having to pay compensation when the court says that it is wrong as long as the authority can show that it has reasonable grounds for that suspicion. I therefore beg to move the amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, this is a rerun. As I said during our Committee stage, an amendment such as this would make a significant change to the application of the provisions for compensation in the event that goods seized by an enforcement authority, or subject to a suspension notice, subsequently do not contravene any of the provisions of the consumer safety legislation.
The noble Lord reminds us that enforcement authorities are liable for this work. I wonder what he meant by his comment about the ability to undertake those tasks under the present Government. Surely he is not suggesting that this Government or any other government would supply limitless funds for the undertaking of the tasks which various authorities have to take in hand.
The noble Lord will recall that at present the enforcement authorities are liable under the Consumer Safety (Amendment) Act 1986 to pay compensation where the goods turn out to be safe for any loss or damage resulting from the seizure or the suspension, unless that seizure or suspension was attributable to any neglect or default by the trader in question. The amendment would require the trader to show that the enforcement authority had acted unreasonably in seizing the goods or suspending their supply (even though the goods were perfectly safe) before he would be entitled to compensation for any loss he may have suffered.
The Government do not accept that compensation should be linked so inextricably with this unreasonable behaviour concept on the part of the enforcement authority. Where issues of safety are in question it may be quite easy for the enforcement authority to show that it acted reasonably in seizing or suspending the supply of goods about which there was some doubt.

921
It is quite possible to envisage circumstances where an authority was not acting unreasonably in detaining the goods, even though it transpired ultimately that the trader too had acted perfectly reasonably and that his goods were indeed perfectly safe. For example, there might be a simple mistake due to a third party which leads to the goods being seized. In such circumstances where neither the trader nor the authority acted unreasonably I do not accept that it is the trader who should bear the cost of any damages he has suffered as a result of the exercise of those powers.
The noble Lord spoke earlier about the provisions of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986. I should like to raise this matter tonight because this is the opportunity for so doing. I agree with the noble Lord that under Section 19(2) of that Act there is a provision that compensation shall not be paid unless the court is satisfied that there has been some serious default on the part of a person concerned in the investigation or prosecution of the offence. I accept in broad terms that that provision has a similar effect to the amendments now before the House.
I do not believe that the analogy with the investigation of crime is sufficiently relevant to provide an answer here. This is the point I want to make. A police officer must be free to act on his reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. However, it is accepted, and I believe society expects, that where things have gone seriously amiss an innocent person may receive compensation—if, for example, he has been wrongly held in custody.
We are not talking about the same thing when we are concerned with the suspension of supply of goods or their forfeiture. It seems right here that in that case a local authority officer may exercise a greater degree of caution. Consequently, I suggest that it is wrong, as the noble Lord suggested during the Committee stage, that the difference springs from a difference in attitude that the Government may have to the police and to local authorities. I say that because this is the direction in which we were moving before. I do not believe that that is the case. It is the nature of the underlying offences which is the fundamental distinction. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I find the distinction quite astonishing. If, for example, I am falsely accused of drug trafficking and all my assets are seized, I can get no compensation from the state unless I can prove both that I have suffered a serious loss and that there has been a serious default by the police, the Customs and Excise and the prosecuting authority. I remind the noble Lord that all those authorities are central government authorities.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: No!
Lord Morton of Shuna: But, they are now, I think. The police certainly are partly financed from central government. On the other hand, enforcement officers have a totally different situation. They can have quite reasonable grounds for suspecting that a safety provision has been breached, but if the court holds that they are wrong and that that is not due to any
922
neglect or default by the person whose goods they are, then the enforcement authority must pay compensation.
It seems to me that the real loss is suffered by the innocent person who is falsely accused of the drug trafficking offence and the enforcement authority is prevented from acting because of this threat and because of the restraints on local authority expenditure. The Minister shakes his head, but I can assure him, and I have no doubt that he has received such assurance also from the enforcement authorities and from the enforcement officers, that this will happen. If they have reasonable grounds and they are found not to be established in fact, they are liable to pay compensation. That will inhibit the safety provisions.
We are talking about the protection of the consumer. Where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting safety provisions, steps should be taken. But those steps should not be a sword hanging over their head whereby they may have to pay compensation. However, at this late stage, I do not wish to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it in the knowledge that I may return to it at the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before eleven o'clock.

  ANIMALS IN TRANSIT
  ANIMALS IN TRANSIT
  ADAS
  ADAS
  NHS COSTS
  NHS COSTS
  BANSTEAD HOSPITAL: CLOSURE ARRANGEMENTS
  BANSTEAD HOSPITAL: CLOSURE ARRANGEMENTS
  CHARITABLE INCOME: DISREGARD LEVEL
  CHARITABLE INCOME: DISREGARD LEVEL
  MISS SHARON CAMPBELL: INQUIRY
  MISS SHARON CAMPBELL: INQUIRY
  GINI COEFFICIENTS 1979–83
  GINI COEFFICIENTS 1979–83
  EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS 1925–85
  EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS 1925–85
  NI EMERGENCY PROVISIONS ACT: SCHEDULE 4 APPLICATIONS
  NI EMERGENCY PROVISIONS ACT: SCHEDULE 4 APPLICATIONS
  MR. DUNCAN CAMPBELL: UNDERTAKING
  MR. DUNCAN CAMPBELL: UNDERTAKING
  UNITA: ARMS SUPPLIES
  UNITA: ARMS SUPPLIES
  DIEGO GARCIA
  DIEGO GARCIA
  WESTMINSTER: ILLEGAL PARKING OF COACHES
  WESTMINSTER: ILLEGAL PARKING OF COACHES