Sitting of 5 November 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration read.
    To be considered upon Thursday 12 November.

    FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate [23 July.]
    Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday 10 November, at Seven o'clock.

    BRITISH RAILWAYS (LONDON) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday 12.November.

  SELECTION
  Ordered,
  That Sir Anthony Grant be disharged from the Committee of Selection, and Sir Giles Shaw be added to the Committee.—[Mr. David Hunt]

  SELECTION
    HIGHLAND REGION HARBOURS (MISCELLANEOUS POWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION
    Mr. Secretary Rifkind presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Highland Region Harbours (Miscellaneous Powers): And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday 11 November and to be printed. [Bill 47.]
    LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION
    Mr. Secretary Rifkind presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Lerwick Harbour: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday 11 November and to be printed. [Bill 48.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Prisoners (Police Cells)
    Mr. Bowisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners on remand are currently being held in police cells and court cells manned by the police; how many of these are category A prisoners; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Today, 787 prisoners are held in police cells in England and Wales, most of them on remand. Only very rarely are category A prisoners held in police cells overnight. None is now so held to my knowledge.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most people want their police to be either on the beat or within reach in case of emergency? Does he accept that police looking after prisoners in cells are not on the beat and, therefore, not available to the public for their protection? Does he accept that every unit of cells requires one sergeant and three constables? In the northern part of my constituency alone, three sergeants and nine constables are involved. That is largely due to the results of the prison officers' strike. Will he therefore urgently negotiate a no-strike agreement with the Prison Officers Association?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is quite right about the wrong diversion of police time, which at its worst was as bad as during the Wapping dispute. I am glad to say that we are now improving on that because the Prison Officers Association in London prisons has suspended industrial action and is receiving prisoners. The figure that I gave of 787 compares with 1,335 at the peak. We are steadily moving prisoners to where they belong —mainly in prison. I note my hon. Friend's further point.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Home Secretary help to tackle the crisis of overcrowding in prisons and the difficulties in many police cells by issuing guidance to magistrates to offer bail to all those accused of non-violent crimes? That would make a positive contribution to dealing with the crisis of the Home Secretary's own making.
    Mr. Hurd: The crisis is not of my making. The immediate problem has been that of industrial action in London and the south-east. I hope that that is now being resolved. It is not my job to instruct magistrates about the people to whom they should give bail. It is a difficult job and must be left to the magistrates. I am anxious that they should have options and the hon. Gentleman will have noticed, with approval I hope, the provision in the Autumn Statement of more money for bail hostels.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the reasons for so many people being remanded in custody in police cells is that many people are unnecessarily remanded in custody? Does he draw some lesson from the Minister of State's answer to me on Friday in which he revealed that black defendants are twice as likely as white defendants to be remanded in custody and acquitted or not proceeded against? Will he look at new alternatives to remands in custody so that black defendants are not unnecessarily remanded?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not think that one can discriminate in that way. It is for the courts to decide in each case whether someone should be remanded in custody, given hail or put in a bail hostel. I am anxious that in each case the court should have the most accurate information about the circumstances of the person with whom it is dealing. The hon. and learned Member will know the steps that we are taking in that direction.

    Nationality
    Mr. Battleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider using the discretionary powers that exist under the British Nationality Act 1981 to ensure that on every occasion when an applicant is unable to afford the registration fee, he or she is granted a suitable extra period of time before registration is required.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): The limited discretionary powers will be used very sparingly; they would not justify exercising discretion solely because an applicant stated that he was unable to afford the fee.
    Mr. Battle: Is the Minister aware that there is a serious and misleading error in the guidelines for registration issued by his Department? In view of that error, is he prepared to extend the deadline for registration by a further six months?
    Mr. Renton: I am totally unaware of any such error. If the hon. Member is aware of an error, I should be grateful if he would contact my office immediately. We have distributed hundreds of thousands of application forms and leaflets explaining the rights for registration and they are now in circulation with citizens advice bureaux and immigrants advisory organisations.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Does my hon. Friend agree that £60 is a fantastic bargain for the priceless gift of British citizenship? Is it true that my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State have no authority to exercise discretion for the purposes of registration after the statutory time limit has expired?
    Mr. Renton: Yes, it is a fantastic bargain. It is made even more so by the fact that the £60 fee is £10 less than it was five years ago. That is a remarkable example of
    1052
    Government efficiency. It is true that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has no general power of discretion. He has only a limited discretionary power, which can be used only in the special circumstances of particular cases.
    Mr. Rees: In terms of the Secretary of State exercising the discretionary power, I have a constituent who came from Ireland in 1940, his family in Ireland having served the Crown since 1880. He joined the British Army and received the DCM and the Military Medal and I think is a war pensioner. He has served his country well, but he cannot prove that he was born to a British family in Ireland. He said to me:
    "In 1940 I showed you where my heart was—I have the Military Medal and the DCM —but now they want £60 out of me to prove it." Is there not a discretion that the Home Secretary could use in such a case?
    Mr. Renton: I was talking about the discretionary power of the Home Secretary to consider applications that arrive out of time. That is a limited power that can be exercised only with regard to the merits of individual cases. In the case mentioned by the right hon. Member, I suggest that he writes to me with the full details, and I will investigate it.
    Mr. Roger King: Will my hon. Friend tell us about the position of those who do not apply to register before the time limit expires?
    Mr. Renton: The position of those who do not apply will he unaltered. They will have the same immigration position as at present. Nor will there by any alteration in their right to civic benefits—for example, to pensions, council housing or the National Health Service. I propose shortly to issue a further leaflet concentrating on that point. The benefits of those who do not apply will not be altered.
    Mr. Vaz: Even though £60 may seem a fantastic bargain for hon. Members on the huge salaries that we get, does the Minister agree that for those on supplementary benefit it is an enormous hardship? Is he aware that serious delays in the issuing of nationality forms have prejudiced the rights of people who wish to exercise their rights?
    Mr. Renton: This right and the fact that it was going to terminate for specific categories at the end of December has been known for over six years. It is not a new matter. It has been known ever since the British Nationality Act 1981 passed into law. People have had six years in which to save the £60 if they wished.
    My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary does not have a general discretionary power to waive or extend the period for those who do not submit their forms in time. I am not aware of any case where the application forms are not being sent out rapidly to all who require them.
    Mr. Carrington: Will my hon. Friend confirm the extent of the publicity given to the registration system?
    Mr. Renton: Yes, I can do that with pleasure. We have issued 400,000 leaflets explaining the rights of citizenship not only in English, but in Hindi, Chinese, Gujarati, Punjabi, Urdu and Bengali. We have also conducted extensive advertising campaigns in both the local and ethnic minority press. If my Friend would like any of the leaflets in the ethnic minority languages, I should be pleased to send them to him.
    Mr. Randall: I listened carefully to the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). Is he aware that many people cannot afford the registration fee and that they are very worried about the loss of civic rights, including the right to vote, the loss of social security benefits and the possibility of becoming more susceptible to deportation? What will the Minister do to convey the message to the people that they will not lose those rights?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members should spend more time reassuring their constituents on this issue, rather than encouraging them into a sense of panic. We have constantly explained the matter in the advertising campaign and I have explained it again three times in the House this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman should go out of his way to reassure his constituents and not alarm them.

    Knives
    Mr. Favellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to prohibit the sale of knives to people under the age of 18 years.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): Given the general availability of knives, we believe that the most effective way to curb their misuse is to strengthen the controls on possession. We have tabled amendments to this effect to the Criminal Justice Bill in another place, which I am glad to say have been accepted.
    Mr. Favell: The whole House will be glad to hear that news. Too many young people carry knives and too often parents do not find out until too late. If it is an offence to sell alcohol to children, why not knives?
    Mr. Patten: We believe that an offence of possession is more likely to hit the right target. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will not hesitate, if he is given powers in the Criminal Justice Bill, to ban the sale of abhorrent weapons such as death stars, hand claws and similar apparatus from the sick survivalist culture and the wilder shores of the martial arts world. We do not want those weapons on sale.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I am pleased to hear the Minister's response. Is he aware of the range of weapons that can be purchased in shops, and, much more worrying, by credit cards or through mail order? For example, there is the "cold steel urban skinner"— that has nothing to do with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) —the "cold steel magnum tanto" and the "ultimate ninja". Would it not be better if the Government banned the importation from the United States and Japan of these vile and hideous weapons?
    Mr. Patten: I am all in favour of banning "skinners" and I expect others are from time to time. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). It will be a very good thing indeed if the House gives the Government the opportunity to ban the importation, advertising or sale in this country of those wild pieces of equipment, which have no known use. The Government intend to do what they can to bring that about and we welcome the support of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the hon. Gentleman in that.
    Mr. Squire: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are shops, certainly in south London, which simply sell fearsome weapons of that type? What is the justification for the continued existence of such shops?
    Mr. Patten: I do not know the shops to which my lion. Friend refers. However, as I have said, if Parliament so decides, we intend to make it possible to list by schedule the kinds of weapon which we believe have no known use other than violent and nefarious uses. We will look at those weapons and in due course the matter will be brought back to the House once the Criminal Justice Bill returns here.
    Mr. Hattersley: I am sure that we are all enormously impressed by the Minister's tough talk. But why do we have to wait for tough action until the middle of next year when the Criminal Justic Bill becomes law? Why can we not have an immediate Bill, which certainly would be supported by both sides of the House? Why is a Bill on limiting the use and sale of knives less important to the Government than the Licensing Bill, which will be debated next Monday, and the squalid little Immigration Bill, which is to be debated the Monday after?
    Mr. Patten: I am sorry that the support that I thought was forthcoming from the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends seems rather qualified. Of course, all of us want to bring forward the legislation as urgently as possible, but first things first. We have decided to introduce the Firearms Bill, and thereafter we shall deal with the issue of knives and allied weapons in the Criminal Justice Bill as quickly as possible. I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman's co-operation in Committee so that we can make the Bill law as quickly as possible.

    Homicide (Releases)
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been released from prison after serving sentences for homicide offences and have subsequently been reconvicted for murder or manslaughter since the year 1965; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Patten: Since 1965, seven offenders originally convicted of murder and later released on licence from prisons in England and Wales have subsequently been re-convicted of murder. Another four have been reconvicted of manslaughter.
    Mr. Taylor: Is it not a matter of grave concern that innocent human lives have been lost because people who have been imprisoned for life for killing have emerged to kill again? Does that not show that there is a case for a careful study of the circumstances in which people convicted of killing are released from prison?
    Mr. Patten: That is a matter of considerable concern, and it is kept continually under review by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    Perhaps I could draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that since 1983, when a number of convictions took place of people who had committed particularly abhorrent murders—such as the murder of prison officers or of policemen in pursuit of their duties, or sadistic or sexual murders of children—none of those now serving 20 years or more have been released.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Why will the Government not introduce provisions which would enable judges to pass finite sentences in cases of murder, with a meaningful life sentence reserved for the very worst cases?
    Mr. Patten: I do not know whether the House would accept such a measure. What I do know is that, following precedent, there will probably be an opportunity for such issues to be debated. It is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the usual channels. However, on previous occasions when a measure such as the Criminal Justice Bill has been before the House hon. Members have had every opportunity to debate the issues.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend accept that we must add to the figures that he has given the numbers who have escaped from prison—for instance, the Maze prisoners—who have killed again since their escape? Will my hon. Friend tell us, regardless of the views of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Opposition, when the Home Office will produce a vote on capital punishment for this Parliament? Or must it again be left to a Back Bencher to take the initiative?
    Mr. Patten: The business of the House is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the usual channels. I know that my hon. Friend takes a considerable interest in such matters, but when a measure such as the Criminal Justice Bill is before the House, there is always a good opportunity —certainly on the precedents—for the whole House to make its views known.
    Ms. Short: Does the Minister agree that, in a week when the conviction of the Birmingham bombers has been referred back to the Court of Appeal by the Home Secretary because of doubt about whether it is safe, we are all reminded that capital punishment will inevitably lead to the killing of innocent people who have been wrongly convicted?
    Mr. Patten: The matter is before the court, and is therefore sub judice.

    Prison Statistics
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were in prison at the most recent count.
    Mr. Hurd: On Friday 30 October, the last date for which figures are available, 47,815 prisoners were held in prison service establishments in England and Wales. That did not include 968 persons held on that date in police cells.
    Mr. Knox: I welcome the fact that the figure is lower than it was, largely owing to the actions of my right hon. Friend. However, does he expect the figure to rise again, and is he at all concerned that the new prison building programme will merely provide additional places in prisons, rather than dealing with the overcrowding problem?
    Mr. Hurd: The doubling of expenditure on prison building that we have accomplished since 1978–79 is clearly necessary after the years of neglect, and all the projections show that those places—and, indeed, more places—will be needed. We need not regret that spending decision in the least. It is not for the Home Secretary, the Government or the House to lay down to the courts how many people they send to prison. It is our job to provide places for them.
    Mr. Steinberg: Why is the Home Secretary opening up ex-Army camps, when establishments such as Full Sutton, York and Parkhurst have vacant accommodation and the Isle of Wight has had two wings empty for over three years?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is a little out of date. Our problem now is not the shortage of physical space but the shortage of staff. That is why I have handed Rolleston back to the military. The prison service staff, who were entirely responsible for staffing Rolleston, can now be used more profitably in other parts of the prison system. As the hon. Gentleman knows, prisoners are categorised by security risk and we must ensure that those with a high security category are not placed in lower security category prisons.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that more than 2,300 juveniles are in prison institutions, of whom over one third are awaiting trial? Secure placement may be required, but surely it is inappropriate and ineffective for that to be provided by the prison service? Should we not bring penal custody for those under 18 to an end?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not think that the House or the country would accept that as a general proposition, but, as my hon. Friend will know, proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill will move some way in the direction in which she points us.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: To what extent has intolerable overcrowding led to the abolition or curtailment of association education and work opportunities for prisoners? Is it not a fact that the overcrowding and under-staffing that his Department has created mean that some prisoners are even being denied a weekly bath and change of clothes?
    Mr. Hurd: That situation has been created largely by the failure of Labour Governments to provide for any expansion of the prison system at a time when crime was increasing. They did nothing about it. We have more than doubled expenditure on the prison building programme in an attempt to catch up, and that is overwhelmingly necessary and justified.
    Mr. Burt: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to compliment Her Majesty's prison, Manchester, on its initiative this autumn in inviting hon. Members to see the workings of fresh start? Is he yet in a position to say how fresh start is achieving one of its objects, which is being able to manage the larger number of people in our prisons?
    Mr. Hurd: One of the aims of fresh start is to meet the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor)—to which I did not respond—to improve the quality of regimes. In Strangeways and several other prisons that have moved on to fresh start—now over half the total — there are good prospects of that happening. The speed at which we can enhance regimes depends on the number of people whom the courts send to prison and on the speed with which we can increase the number of prison places.

    Extradition
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has had any discussion with the Justice Minister of the Republic of Ireland regarding extradition.
    Mr. Hurd: No, Sir.
    Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that extradition, among other matters, has exacerbated the whole question of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Should not some decision be taken, because the Republic is expecting something? Would not action on other questionable matters help the Anglo-Irish Agreement? For instance, we could make some kind of agreement about having three judges in the non-jury Diplock courts in Northern Ireland, where one judge now makes a decision — a concession for which the Republic is asking us.
    Mr. Hurd: That is certainly not a matter for me. However, I take this opportunity to express the hope that one necessary decision will be taken and that the Irish will set in hand the ratification of the European convention on the suppression of terrorism.
    Mr. Budgen: As my right hon. Friend was one of the fathers of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, does he agree that if a satisfactory system of extradition is not introduced soon by the Republic it will be difficult to see any advantage in the Anglo-Irish Agreement for Northern Ireland and the remainder of the United Kingdom'?
    Mr. Hurd: The paternity of the agreement is a matter for historians. The Anglo-Irish Agreement is not now a matter that falls within my responsibility.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Secretary of State's comments on the implementation of the treaty for the extradition of terrorists. However, does he agree that criticism of the British courts by the Republic of Ireland, where there have been some questionable pronouncements and judgments, is a case of "as you live your life you judge your neighbour", rather than the pot calling the kettle black?
    Mr. Hurd: I can answer only on matters within my responsibility. As the House knows, I have certain responsibilities for deciding to refer to the Court of Appeal cases in which there have been convictions and where there is a new and substantial matter that the court did not consider. I intend to continue to discharge that responsibility in accordance with the principles of the criteria that my predecessors and I have laid down, and not by any others.

    Firearms
    Mr. John Mark Taylorasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding his proposals for reviewing firearms legislation.
    Mr. Tim Smithasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has received to his proposals to amend the firearms legislation.
    Mr. Easthamasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about his proposals for the further control of the ownership and use of firearms.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): We have received over 400 letters from right hon. and hon. Members and over 3,600 from members of the public, including secretaries of rifle and pistol clubs. We have also received correspondence from shooting organisations, police and local authority representatives and a number of other bodies with an interest in the review of firearms controls. Although many, but not all, shooting interests oppose the proposals that we have already announced, they seem otherwise to have been well received generally.
    Mr. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, but will he acknowledge that there is a substantial body of careful, lawful gun owners and that there are limits on the extent to which illegal activity can be squeezed out by putting pressure on the law-abiding?
    Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The majority of the shooting community are as law-abiding as any other part of the population. It is essential that we achieve a proper balance between the public need for increased firearms control and the legitimate interests of the shooting community, which is what we propose to do.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that the only sensible approach to this matter is to achieve a fair and proper balance between the legitimate interest of shooters, the genuine public concern about the wide availability of guns, and the specific requests, to which we must pay attention, of the police? Is not my hon. Friend's approach entirely right?
    Mr. Hogg: Yes, Sir. I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Eastham: Is the Minister aware of the overwhelming support on the Labour Benches for the control of firearms? However, will the Minister consider another dimension of the gun problem—airguns? We allow 12 and 14-year-olds to carry around these powerful weapons, and they are causing millions of pounds of damage up and down the country, and often damaging people's lives and limbs?
    Mr. Hogg: We must concentrate on priorities. If we were to extend the substantial controls to include airguns, it would not be a proper use of existing facilities.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern that is being expressed by many of my constituents, who are responsible people owning guns for rifle shooting or other such sports? Will he assure the House that he will listen carefully to all the representations that are being made to him?
    Mr. Hogg: Most certainly we shall listen carefully to the representations that are made to us and we shall take them into account. We want to achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of the shooting community.
    Mr. Devlin: In the new firearms legislation, will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of changing the minimum age from 17 years to 25 years or thereabouts, which is a suggestion that I have received from many of my constituents who are members of the shooting community?
    Mr. Hogg: I shall certainly take into account the points that have been put forward by my hon. Friend, but I rather doubt that we shall want to move in that direction.
    Mr. Ashton: Why is it that when there are problems involving violence in a working-class sport such as football, chief constables immediately become involved, the Home Secretary issues orders regarding membership cards, restrictions on travelling, drinking, the time of kickoff and everything else, but with an upper-class sport such as shooting, the Home Secretary is virtually saying that they can do what they like?
    Mr. Hogg: That sort of question shows why the Labour party is wholly disqualified from ever forming a Government. There is nothing class-based about shooting. It happens to be one of the most popular sports in the country and it is enjoyed by everybody.

    Television Licences
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will meet representatives of the pensioners associations to discuss television licences; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Renton: On 11 March my hon. and learned Friend the then Minister of State discussed television licences with representatives of Pensioners' Voice, the National Federation of Retirement Pensioners Associations. We have not had a request for a further meeting.
    Mr. Skinner: Has it ever crossed the mind of the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that there is something wrong with a society that allows 13 televisions to be installed in No. 10 Downing street for the Prime Minister with only one licence, and for all the posh hotels to pay only one licence for as many as 600 television sets—
    Mr. Skinner: And at the same time permits pensioners and disabled people to be thrown into gaol for nonpayment of the licence fee? When requests are made by hon. Members to Tory Ministers to get those people out of gaol, we are told that the Government cannot do anything. Why do the Government not stop that nonsense and let us have free television licences for all pensioners and the disabled?
    Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman's synthetic indignation deserves a statue in Pseuds corner. He knows that 1·4 million households [Interruption].
    Mr. Skinner: Come on, you little wimp.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not hear everything, thank goodness.
    Mr. Renton: There are 1·4 million households with a television but no licence, and 440,000 households with a colour set but only a monochrome licence. That means that there is a shortage of revenue of about £90 million. If all that money were to be paid it would mean a reduction of £4 in the licence fee for everybody, pensioners and those on low incomes as well.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Can my hon. Friend imagine anything more bizarre than allowing all pensioners to have a free television licence? That would mean that many wealthy pensioners in my constituency would not have to pay for a licence, while many poor families with young children would have to pay. That is a crazy suggestion.
    Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Television licences should not be an instrument of social policy, nor is it the wish of most pensioners that they should have a free licence.
    Mr. Corbett: Does the Minister understand that for many pensioners the television is their main, and in some cases only link with the outside world? In many respects, it is their best friend. Does he accept that the new rise in the television licence fee — which we support —strengthens the case for paying for licences for all pensioners out of taxation?
    Mr. Renton: Of course I understand that the television is, as the hon. Gentleman said, the best friend for many pensioners. However, the licence fee is being increased by only 7·8 per cent. over three years and that compares with a retail prices index increase over that time of about 12 per cent. and rises in pensions of 15 per cent. Television licences should not be an instrument of social policy, and surely it is much better for the Government to concentrate their efforts, as they have done, on ensuring that all pensions remain ahead of the increase in RPI.

    Broadcasting Authorities
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next intends to meet the broadcasting authorities; and what he expects to discuss.
    Mr. Renton: We expect to keep in close touch with the broadcasting authorities in the coming months about a wide range of policy issues. Topics discussed with them over the past few weeks include the portrayal of violence and sex on television and the progress of the independent production initiative.
    Mr. Adley: As the Government have decided to investigate—or make known their views—on the quality of television programmes, have they any view to express on the quantity of television programmes? For example, should the broadcasting authorities decide that 24-hour television seven days a week is to be introduced, would the Home Office feel that it should be consulted or express a view on the matter?
    Mr. Renton: As my hon. Friend well knows, the statutory authority for deciding on the quality of programmes, particularly with reference to good taste and decency, rests with the IBA or, in its charter, with the BBC. It is not for me to second-guess their decisions. On 24-hour television, I agree with my hon. Friend, and we would expect to be consulted. As my hon. Friend knows, the Peacock report suggested that separate licences might be let for night hours. My hon. Friend has put his finger on the heart of the decision that we have to make in this matter. We must make certain that more channels and more hours will mean better, rather than worse, television.
    Mr. Winnick: When the Minister meets the director general or governor of the BBC will he express the concern felt by many of us at the fact that in recent months very senior management jobs have gone to those very active in the Tory cause? Is the Minister aware that it would be extremely unfortunate if the impartiality of the BBC were undermined by a campaign waged by certain Tory Members, such as the former chairman of the Tory party? The BBC should not be run on more or less the same lines as the broadcasting authorities in South Africa.
    Mr. Renton: Decisions about the top management of the BBC are made not by the Opposition but by the BBC, itself. As the hon. Gentleman will doubtless know— and he should give credit for this fact— the deputy chairman of the BBC, who was appointed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and who is now in another place, is a former Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

    Crime Statistics
    Mr. John Marshallasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the trend of crime in London during 1987.
    Mr. Hurd: I welcome the fall in recorded crime in the Metropolitan police district of London during the first nine months of this year, when 5 per cent. fewer notifiable offences were recorded than in the first nine months of 1986.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 6 per cent. decline in the incidence of burglary and theft reflects the success of neighbourhood watch in London and the manpower policies of the Metropolitan police?
    Mr. Hurd: I think that there is almost certain to be a connection. Yesterday I went to Southall police station and saw a map of the division. I suppose that almost one third of the inhabited area was covered by neighbourhood watch schemes and the police there were in no doubt that the decrease in burglaries in London was connected with those efforts.
    Ms. Abbott: Is the Home Secretary aware that academic studies show that in fact neighbourhood watch schemes serve only to displace crime to other areas? Therefore, the drop in crime can have nothing to do with neighbourhood watch schemes.
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Lady is wrong. More and more, we are getting evidence from the police and from crime prevention efforts that neighbourhood watch schemes, which vary in quality, have the effect of reducing burglaries in some places. In other cases they simply recreate a sense of neighbourhood which has been lost. I very much hope that the borough of Lambeth and all the other areas represented by Opposition Members will drop any theological opposition to neighbourhood watch schemes and join what should be an all-party effort to reduce crime.
    Mr. Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increased success of crime prevention strategy is relieving the police the burden of investigating minor crimes so that they can shift their attention to more serious crimes, such as those involving drugs? Will my right hon. Friend comment on his proposals for the drugs confiscation team?
    Mr. Hurd: I am glad that my hon. Friend spotted that in the Autumn Statement. The extra money available will be used to increase substantially the number of drug liaison officers abroad to create a task force that will track down the assets of drug traffickers. I hope that that increased effort overseas will support the efforts of the police in London.

    Prison Officers
    Mr. Steinbergasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the reduction in real terms in the number of prison officer jobs over the next five years.
    Mr. John Patten: Present plans envisage a substantial increase, not a decrease, in the number of prison officers employed over the next five years.
    Mr. Steinberg: Despite what the Minister says, is there not on the way a crisis in the staffing of prisons? Is it not true that during the next five years there will be a reduction of 25 per cent. in the number of prison officers, which will cause problems for the prison officers themselves, the security of the prisons and the communities in which the prisons are situated?
    Mr. Patten: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard my answer. There will be an increase, not a decrease, in the number of prison officers during the next five years. The hon. Gentleman has levelled his criticism in the wrong direction by aiming it at a Government who have spent 40 per cent. more in real terms on the prison service and increased the numbers of prison officers by 20 per cent. since 1979. The hon. Gentleman should talk to some of his right hon. and hon. Friends who were responsible for starving the prison service by failing to recruit sufficient prison officers and by not paying them properly between 1974 and 1979.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amoryasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the weak link in the world economy is the American budget deficit? Will she urge President Reagan to learn from our record of prudent public finance, which has brought us close to a balanced budget? Will she warn the President against accepting the advice of the British Opposition, whose polices of reckless extravagance would have created exactly the same problems in this country?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, negotiations are going ahead between President Reagan and Congress to reduce the budget deficit. We are anxious that those negoitations should succeed and are giving every support and encouragement. I have been directly in touch with the President about the matter. As I told the House last week, a convincing package to reduce the United States budget deficit is a vital first step towards restoring confidence in the financial markets. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must not listen to the Opposition about deficits. I remember the time when they had the budget deficit up to 9·25 per cent. of gross domestic product, which would be the equivalent of £39 billion today.
    Mr. Steel: Can the Prime Minister explain why it makes sense to resist spending on public investment while increasing electricity charges to industry by £900 million? Does it not mean that energy costs for British industry will be higher than those of our competitors, and at a time when she is urging our industries to be competitive?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman wants increased investment — and I believe that he does because I am always being urged to do more—it must be paid for. When electricity prices are increased, our industries will still be able to compete with overseas countries on energy prices. Indeed, in many cases their electricity charges will be lower than those of their overseas competitors.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if possible, over the period of this Parliament the Government will reduce the basic rate of income tax to below even the 25p rate to which we are already committed? Is it not contemptible that although Labour Members are always prepared to support increases in taxes and rates for others, they are not prepared to support even a 5 per cent. levy on themselves to keep their bankrupt party in business?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that our right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been extremely successful in his economic policy. The growth has enabled us to have both reducing taxation as a proportion of national income and increased spending on social services. It is an excellent record, which is recognised throughout the world.
    Ms. Ruddockasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Ruddock: Although the Prime Minister and her Government constantly reassure us that all is well in the National Health Service, is the right hon. Lady aware that, to comply with Government financial limits, the management of the Lewisham district hospital is drawing up plans to close one surgical ward and two out of four of its new operating theatres, thus reducing that major general hospital to an emergency-only unit from now until the end of the financial year, with a consequent quadrupling of its waiting list? Is the Prime Minister prepared to allow people to die in Lewisham?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is aware that spending on the National Health Service has increased enormously over the country as a whole and that many more resources have been directed to it. Like me, she is a London Member and will be aware of the policies of all parties on the reallocation of proceeds, so that more money has been put into the northern part of the country and other non-London seats so that their services can be improved. I agree that that has sometimes been at the expense of other areas. However, would the hon. Lady like us to take that money away from the north?
    Mr. Gregoryasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gregory: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that local authorities such as York need not wait until the
    1064
    enactment of the Local Government Bill to put services out to competitive tender, and that only those local authorities that are either inefficient or corrupt will resist the legislation?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct in saying that there is no need to wait for the passage of the Bill before putting contracts out to competitive tender. Many local authorities have already done so and Wandsworth, for example, has already saved about £5 million a year. Other authorities have saved about £20 million a year. Authorities that have put contracts out to competitive tender have saved between £5 million and £10 million annually. The Bill will ensure that local authorities put contracts out to competitive tender. I hope that York will follow the example of many other local authorities which have done so successfully.
    Mr. Kinnock: With so many health authorities, north and south, running into deficit just six months into the financial year, will the Prime Minister be saying to them, in the words of her Minister for Health to the Royal College of Nursing yesterday:
    "You will need your money for the winter as well you know. Do be careful that you don't leave yourselves short."?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware—he was in for part of the Autumn Statement—the proceeds available to the Health Service have been increased overall by about 30 per cent. in real terms during the lifetime of this Government. I remind him that during the lifetime of the Labour Government the amount of money that was applied to the Health Service actually went down in one year—[Interruption.]—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has been asked a question and she must be allowed to answer it.
    The Prime Minister: I hope that people realise that the Government's policies have led to the growth that has enabled us to devote more resources to the Health Service than any other Government ever provided.
    Mr. Kinnock: As the area health authorities and others have made it clear that a rise in excess of £900 million will be required simply to enable them to provide the same service next year as this year, the right hon. Lady should not take too much pride in the illusory rise that was offered in the Autumn Statement. Will she accept that what the Minister for Health was saying to the health authorities and what she is saying to them now is, "Do not treat too many patients in case your money runs out", and by the same token is she not saying to patients, "Try not to be ill at the wrong time in the financial year"?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that a special allocation of £25 million was made to reduce waiting lists this year, with a further £25 million to reduce them next year. Opposition Members appear to want more spending regardless, which is exactly the attitude that has caused other countries to be in difficulties because of the size of their deficit. We are not going back to the £39 billion deficit that we would have had if we had gone up to 9·25 per cent.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister realise that the pre-election allocation to cut waiting lists induced many health authorities to undertake certain programmes which mean that they are now being penalised for their success? They are running out of money before the end of the financial year. Does the right hon. Lady not know enough

    1065
    about the public health sector to realise that there are people in Britain who cannot get the treatment that they want in the decade that they want?
    The Prime Minister: The waiting list money was extra money and was a special allocation. The authorities were asked to put forward bids for it. They did. Once again, in 1979 spending on the Health Service was £8 billion.[Interruption]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must be given an opportunity to reply.
    The Prime Minister: Opposition Members will try to drown out the facts because they do not like them.
    In 1979, expenditure on the Health Service was £8 billion. In 1987–88 it will be £20·5 billion. That is an enormous increase, which has come about under this Government and for which many people are thankful.
    Mr. William Powell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1986, in the former unemployment black spot of Corby, unemployment fell by 25 per cent.? Projections are for an additional 38 per cent. reduction in 1987 and for a 30 per cent. reduction in 1988, which will mean that unemployment in Corby will be as low as it is in Esher, Epsom and Dorking. Does my right hon. Friend recall that the closure of the Corby steelworks was announced in March 1979, and that the reason for the recovery in Corby has been the Government's policies? Will she ensure that the lessons of the Corby phenomenon are applied to all other unemployment black spots in the country?
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent record of his constituency, which has ensured that extra jobs have been created. It has welcomed the efforts of private enterprise. If some other places would do the same, they might achieve the same satisfactory results.
    Mr. Alex Carlileasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Carlile: Will the Prime Minister find time in her busy schedule to hear the Deputy Prime Minister say on Radio 4's "Analysis" programme tonight that the Government's school opt-out proposals will be defeated in the other place? What will be her reaction to that defeat? Will she abandon the proposals in accordance with the views of peers and parents, or will she do as page 2 of The Times today suggests she wants to do; that is to say, to emasculate the powers of the other place?
    The Prime Minister: The Government's opt-out proposals will, I believe, go through Parliament and become law. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman wish to cut and reduce parents' choice? Is that the Liberal party's programme?
    Mr. Yeoasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Autumn Statement included a remarkable combination of
    1066
    substantially lower public borrowing, large increases in spending on education and health, and a reduction in the proportion of gross domestic product absorbed by the public sector? That fact, coupled with the prospect of further tax cuts in the next Budget, is a far more eloquent tribute to the underlying strength of the British economy than the gyrations on the stock exchange.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, it shows a year of superb financial management by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Ray Powellasked the Prime Minister it' she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Powell: Will the Prime Minister ensure that further electricity price increases will not be imposed to affect the profits of privatisation? Will she consider the poor and the pensioners, who rely on off-peak electricity? Will she ask her Minister to ensure that pensioners and the poor are protected?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will be aware that the heating additions have now reached some £430 million a year—a record. I really do not see why we should take lectures on electricity price increases from the Labour party. In May 1974 there was an increase of 27·8 per cent. and in the following year, April 1975, there was an increase of 48 per cent.
    Mr. Bellingham: Will my right hon. Friend find time today during her busy schedule to consider the position of small investors? Does she agree with me that the average small investor, unlike some sections of the City of London, is not a punter or a gambler, but someone who has confidence in the management of the economy and someone who is investing in top British companies?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Most small investors invest for the long term. They purchase shares, they have faith in the company and they purchase those shares to get a dividend. They keep those shares and they have been very steady during the recent problems on the stock exchange.
    Mr. Lofthouseasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Earlier this afternoon the Prime Minister referred to the allocations to health authorities to enable them to shorten waiting lists. Is she aware that the Pontefract area health authority's allocation was in the region of £100,000 and that that authority produced a scheme that would reduce waiting lists by 660 patients? Is she further aware that that scheme was turned down by the consultants at the health authority's hospital in Pontefract? A second scheme was accepted by the consultants, for that money to be transferred to the private hospital at Methley park, but that will produce only 300 operations for the same amount of money. Does she believe that that represents efficiency in the National Health Service?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should make his complaints to those who decided which scheme would

    1067
    achieve the best value for money. In fact, £25 million has been allocated and will result in many people having operations who otherwise might not have got them. In
    1068
    England — this affects the hon. Gentleman as well as myself— the number of people on waiting lists is greatly below what it was in 1979.

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

MONDAY 9 NOVEMBER — Second Reading of the Licensing Bill.

Motion to take note of EC document relating to the EC free food scheme. Details will be given in the Official Report.

TUESDAY 10 NOVEMBER—Debate on a motion relating to the 2nd report of the House of Commons (Services) Committee in Session 1984–85 (HC 195).

The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.

WEDNESDAY 11 NOVEMBER — Opposition Day (3rd Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an opposition motion entitled "The Failure of the Government to Provide Adequately for the Transport Needs of the Nation."

Debate on a motion on the Supplementary Estimate on the purchase and sale of shares in BP.

THURSDAY 12 NOVEMBER— Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Motions on Social Security orders and regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.

FRIDAY 13 NOVEMBER—Private Members' motions.

MONDAY 16 NOVEMBER — Second Reading of the Immigration Bill.

[Debate on Monday 9 November
Relevant European document:

9138/87

Intervention Food for Poor

Relevant report of European Legislation Committee
HC 43-iv (1987–88) para 6.
Thursday 12 November:

Draft Income Support (General) Regulations 1987.

Draft Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987.

Draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order 1987.]

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Conservative party, in common with the Labour party, have a free vote on Monday's Second Reading of the Licensing Bill? If not, perhaps he would like to tell us precisely why.
When will we have the opportunity to debate the Government's Autumn Statement? As it is becoming clearer that the public spending increases are, in many cases, fictitious and that the Government are dictating unnecessary and unjustified increases in electricity prices, water charges and rail fares, the sooner we get the chance to consider fully the statement the better.
Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry makes a statement to the House when he has made his decision about the possible merger between British Airways and British Caledonian?
It is now becoming clear that the Government are trying to make a profit out of the scheme that was alleged to give aid to those areas of the country that were hit by the effects of the hurricane last month. As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) pointed out yesterday during questions on the environment,
1070
Conservative and Labour councils will face bills for damage that. are far greater than the amount that the Department of the Environment is prepared to give them. The necessary expenditure that they incur to make proper repairs means that they will be penalised and lose Government grant money. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a debate on the parsimony and duplicity of a Government who are trying to foster the impression that they will provide 75 per cent. of the funds needed to help to meet the storm damage repair bills?
The Government survey of school buildings was published this week, after being suppressed since before the election. It showed that a large proportion of our schools are in a derelict and dangerous condition. As the £60 million for school repairs allocated in the Autumn Statement is grossly inadequate to meet the £2 billion estimated repair hills, will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science on how he will ensure that the necessary repairs are carried out with the necessary speed?
As it is clear that the deputy leader of the Conservative party, Lord Whitelaw, believes that the Education Bill will be beaten in the House of Lords, will the Leader of the House now advise his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet to drop the Bill and save themselves from defeat, and, more importantly, save schoolchildren from the division and disruption that the Government's proposals would cause?
Mr. Wakeham: The right hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions, and I shall seek to answer them in the order in which they were asked.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the Licensing Bill. He knows perfectly well that the days when I had responsibility for the whipping of the party have, mercifully, passed away. He knows, too, that these are riot matters that we discuss on the Floor of the House, and I remind him, in case he has forgotten, that we covered the matter in our election manifesto and won the election by rather a large amount.
Mr. Kinnock: Just like the Shops Bill.
Mr. Wakeham: We shall do better this time than we did on the Shops Bill
There will be a debate on the Autumn Statement, but I cannot promise to announce its date yet because a number of things must be dealt with before that. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to give his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) a bit of a rest — he has had a bit of a clobbering in recent days.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on British Airways. It is being considered by my right hon. Friend, and an announcement will be made in the normal and appropriate way.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about storm damage, the arrangements that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State brought before the House were basically the same system, in financial terms, that had been used under the Labour Government, put forward in a much clearer and fairer way to local authorities. However, I shall refer the right hon. Gentleman's point to my right hon. Friend.

1071
School buildings are a subject that could be debated when we have education debates, which I expect we shall be having before long; but I have nothing further to say at this stage about that.
With regard to the alleged remarks of my right hon. and noble Friend in another place about the House of Lords, it seems to me that over the years many hopes have been raised on the Opposition Benches about the fate of the Government's legislation in the House of Lords. I believe that my right hon. and noble Friends, Lord Whitelaw and the Chief Whip, do extremely well in the House of Lords, and any remarks were interpreted in a rather mischievous vein.
Several Hon. Members rose —
Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House knows, I am always reluctant to curtail business questions, but there is an important Opposition Day debate to follow. May I ask hon. Members to put their questions succinctly and not to repeat what may already have been said?
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Could the Leader of the House allow a short debate next week to give the Government a chance to explain why they have decided not to publish the undertaking given by British Rail to Messrs Eurotunnel? Surely the taxpayers and the travelling public are entitled to know how much of their cash is being committed to this shaky venture.
Mr. Wakeham: This is a private venture undertaking, but I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend to see whether any Government statement is required.
Mr. James Wallace: It has been suggested that the Prime Minister and the Government may try to emasculate another place if it proves rebellious by introducing legislation that very much depends on subsequent secondary legislation. Does the Leader of the House accept that that could also emasculate this House, and will he undertake that substantive parts of the forthcoming legislation on education, housing and the poll tax will be primary legislation, and will not be left to loads of orders coming up subsequently?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot anticipate the contents of any Bills that may be brought before the House by my right hon. Friends. I know of no proposals by any of my right hon. Friends that could possibly meet the description that the hon. Gentleman has given.
Sir Hector Monro: Is it true that yesterday the Labour party declined to play its part in setting up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must relate to the responsibilities of the Leader of the House.
Sir Hector Monro: I am anxious to know from my right hon. Friend whether the Committee will be set up next week, because some of us on the Government side are anxious to get on with it.
Mr. Wakeham: I see from the Order Paper that the Committee of Selection has nominated hon. Members to all but one of the departmental Select Committees. I am not privy to what takes place in the Committee, nor would it be appropriate for me to comment. I can only say that I have heard the same rumours as my hon. Friend.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House be mindful of his responsibilities to the House by recognising that, while it may be difficult for Conservative Members, because of their paucity and lack of quality in terms of membership, to man the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, Opposition Members are very willing to man it and to seek a majority and a Labour Chairman of that Committee?
Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything. My hon. Friends are happy to take on the Opposition at any time.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: When can we expect an opportunity to debate the proposed membership of the Select Committee on Defence and the effect that that might have on the work of that Committee?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot give my hon. Friend the exact date, but we shall do it as soon as possible because I know that the Select Committees want to get on with their important work. Before they can do that, the membership has to be approved by the House.
Mr. Tony Benn: Can the Leader of the House give us an assurance that in the debate on Tuesday on the report of the Services Committee the House will be given an opportunity to reach a decision on a question that has agitated some hon. Members, the withdrawal of the pass from the research assistant of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)?
Mr. Wakeham: I hope that the debate on Tuesday will be wide enough to enable the House properly to deal with these matters. However, they are matters for you, Mr. Speaker, as well as for me. I shall be tabling the Government motion later today.
Sir Philip Goodhart: As more than 100 people have died on our roads since last week's tragedy on the motorway, may we have an early debate on the Department of Transport report called "Road Safety—the Next Steps" so that we can learn what the Government intend to do about motorway speed limits?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise a debate in the immediate future, but my hon. Friend may well find that he can make some of the points that he wants to make during Wednesday's debate.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: Is the Leader of the House aware that a Sinn Fein councillor was moving round the House all morning as part of a delegation from Strabane district council? While his presence is unacceptable, it is no reflection on the other members of the delegation who are here to campaign on behalf of people who have been flooded out of their homes in Strabane. In the light of your action, Mr. Speaker, in relation to Mr. Bennett, is it not time that the House dealt with the obscenity of entertaining a councillor who has literally threatened fellow councillors with death by assassination? Cannot that matter be dealt with?
Mr. Wakeham: I sincerely hope that any visitor to the House has been here under the rules that are laid down by the House. That is not a matter for me directly.
Dr. John G. Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to an early debate on the arts, particularly in respect of the announcement at 2 o'clock today that expenditure will increase by record

1073
levels of 17 per cent. for the next three years, and does he agree that that is something that the House should applaud?
Mr. Wakeham: I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned the important announcement that was made earlier today. However, I cannot promise an early debate on the subject.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Because the occurrence of death and injury in the construction industry is increasing, because lump labour is increasing in that industry and because more and more people need homes, is it not time that the Government allowed time for a full debate on the future of the construction industry in view of the important role that that industry plays in our economy?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has noted the increase in funding that was promised by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Autumn Statement. The Government are to bring forward proposals for the housing industry, which will present an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to make his comments.
Sir Ian Lloyd: When may we expect a full debate on science policy and finance?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern about that, and it is one subject that I have well in mind. However, I cannot promise him a date at the moment.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: As the enthusiasm of the Prime Minister for inner cities in the post-election period has diminished, will the right hon. Member arrange for an early debate about the inadequate provisions that are being made to solve the tremendous problems of inner cities? The enthusiasm of the Tory party in the early post-election period appears to have vanished virtually overnight.
Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend's concern for the inner cities has not in any way diminished. The Government will continue to give further assistance to the inner cities. The education Bill, the community charge Bill and the housing Bill are to be debated this Session and are all directed in part to increasing benefits to the inner cities.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: I once again draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the plight of haemophiliac AIDS victims. Has he seen motion 219 on the Order Paper?
[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to recognise the unique and tragic problem of the 1,200 haemophiliac AIDS victims and their families.]
Does he remember that last week the Prime Minister was kind enough to say that she would discuss the matter with the Secretary of State? Can we expect an early statement, next week if possible, on what the Government propose to do to assist those victims?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the concern of my hon. Friend, and indeed of many hon. Members. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and my hon. Friend the Minister for Health met representatives of the Haemophiliac Society on Tuesday 3 November and their representations are being carefully considered.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a statement next week about progress on the Register of Members' Interests? There is a rumour that Conservative
1074
Members are attempting to defer its publication until January of next year. It is customary for a new Parliament to have a new register within a short time of commencement. Many Labour Members are concerned that there seem to be very few declarations of financial interests and that hon. Members on the Tory Benches are busy lining their pockets out of directorships and adviserships and following the former chairman of the Tory party into various board rooms. In the public interest, the register should be published as a matter of urgency. Will the Leader of the House make a statement?
Mr. Wakeham: I will not make a statement. The Register of Members' Interests will be maintained in the proper way in accordance with the rules of the House.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members would strongly support the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) for a debate on the arts, as the Minister for the Arts, in his announcement today of the three-year settlement, confounded all those who make out the Conservative party does not care about the arts?
Mr. Wakeham: Absolutely. I recognise the strong interest in the subject among Conservative Members. I will see what I can do about my hon. Friend's request. However, I cannot promise anything for the immediate future.
Mr. David Young: When will the Government give time to discuss discipline in the armed forces? Hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the effect on morale of the confining to barracks of a regiment of the Guards. Will the Minister look closely at the thuggery—spelt with a "t" not a "b"—which seems to be happening within the armed forces and which is undermining discipline?
Mr. Wakeham: The action taken by the commanding officer this week demonstrates how seriously the Government and the military authorities view bullying. Bullying will not be tolerated in the Army. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman might like to pursue the matter in Defence questions next Tuesday.
Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend immediately push right up his list of priorities the need for a debate or an early statement on agricultural policy, particularly on set aside and how and when that is to be implemented?
Mr. Wakeham: That is a very important subject, and I will refer the request to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Important meetings are still going on in Brussels and they will be highly relevant to the outcome of that matter.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the Leader of the House noticed early-day motion 253?
[That this House notes that the Member for Aldershot on page 136 of his book Heseltine: the unauthorised Biography, states in relation to the Westland Affair that 'John Wakeham issued an order of the day which contained the trite, if effective message, that it was time for all good men to come to the aid of the party'. We did and calls on the Leader of the House, The Right Honourable Member for South Colchester and Maldon, to explain when he first knew

1075
the role of the then Trade and Industry Secretary, The Right Honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, in the matter of the disclosure of a selectively leaked Law Officer's letter.]
It draws attention to the revealing and well written book of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley). In particular, the book refers to the Leader of the House's role as saying that now is the time to come to the aid of the party. In order to save time next week, will the Leader of the House tell us right now when he knew about the role of the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Was it before the inquiry reported?
Mr. Wakeham: I have nothing to add to what has been said on this subject by my right hon. Friends, except to say that it is the duty of any Chief Whip to call all good men to come to the aid of the party. Sometimes, however, that is more important than on other occasions.
Mr. John Carlisle: On the day when the English cricket team has had a magnificent victory, may I remind my right hon. Friend that we have not had a debate in Government time on sport since January 1980? In view of the excellent initiatives put forward by my hon. Friend the Minister for sport, will my right hon. Friend make time before Christmas for a debate on this important subject?
Mr. Wakeham: I am in favour of a debate on sport as soon as one can be arranged. However, if the English cricketers are doing well without our assistance, perhaps we should keep quiet a little longer.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House assure us that in next Tuesday's debate on the House of Commons (Services) Committee report he will ensure that the House is able to take a decision on the way in which unelected and unaccountable security services are smearing the employees of people who work in this place, with the consequent withdrawal of their passes? Will ensure that the transgression of natural justice which is happening in this Parliament will be ended forthwith and that no longer will there be any security service interference in the work of members of Parliament or their research assistants?
Mr. Wakeham: No, Sir, I will not do that. I will table a motion which will be amendable by any hon. Member who wishes to table an amendment which is in order. Mr. Speaker will decide how the debate will be conducted.
Mr. Robert Adley: Is not the House right to guard jealously the freedom with which hon. Members on both sides of the House carry out their duties without coercion? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if anyone in the City, industry or the unions was to seek to place duress on hon. Members as to the way they behave, that would be unacceptable? In the light of the parliamentary Labour party's decision to place what is called a compulsory levy on their members with what is, after all, public money—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I find it difficult to understand the responsibility of the Leader of the House in that matter.
Mr. Adley: May we have an early debate on that aspect of the matter?
Mr. Wakeham: That is not a matter for me, and I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early debate. It had
1076
crossed my mind that the Opposition might seek to be treated as either a charity or an historic monument to obtain tax relief from the Chancellor.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House deal with the matter of the Register of Members' Interests in the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)? A problem has reared its ugly head within the Tory party. On the one hand, the ex-chairman of the party complains about the—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is as bad as the earlier question.
Mr. Skinner: The ex-chairman of the Tory party has complained about the possibility of Lord Young becoming chairman of the party because of a conflict of interests. At the same time, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is not bothered about a conflict of interest when he is lining his own pockets. If it is wrong—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a reflection upon the honour of an hon. Member.
Mr. Skinner: Yes, it is.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may not do that. Will he please withdraw that comment?
Mr. Skinner: No, I cannot.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may not reflect upon the honour of another hon. Member. Will he please withdraw that comment?
Mr. Skinner: No. It is absolutely true.
Mr. Speaker: In that case, will the hon. Gentleman please leave the Chamber? We have an important debate in front of us today, and it will take time if I have to take any further action. I now ask the hon. Gentleman if he will leave the Chamber for having disregarded the request of the Chair.
The hon. Member then withdrew from the Chamber.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the point of order afterwards.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I support the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) for a debate on sport? Could that debate be wide enough to cover sport in schools, bearing in mind the great success of Mike Gatting and his team in the World Cup series, and also bearing in mind that, if he were at school in London today, Mr. Gatting would be taught no cricket at all?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the strength of feeling among my hon. Friends, and we must see what we can do. However, I cannot promise such a debate in the immediate future.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Leader of the House aware that the vast majority of opinion in the House is in favour not of defeating or even obstructing the Licensing Bill, but of improving it? May I, as the then Minister who took what is now the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 through the House, remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Labour Government of the day took

1077
the Bill through the House without whipping a single vote during the whole procedure? Will he give serious consideration to free votes at every stage of the Licensing Bill, with my assurance that it will ultimately produce a much better Bill?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary has heard the hon. Gentleman's advice. However, I have nothing to say to the hon. Gentleman that I have not said to the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many months have elapsed since there has been a whole day's debate, in either Government or Opposition time, on the National Health Service? May I suggest that such a debate is now long overdue?
Mr. Wakeham: Yes, I recognise that a number of hon. Members would like a debate on the Health Service. It would enable us to explain, particularly to the Labour party, just how much in additional resources has been put into the NHS in recent times.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is the Leader of the House aware of the great concern inside the House and among the general public about nuclear waste disposal, storage and dumping? As a NIREX report will be issued next week, may we have an early debate on the subject?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the concern about that issue, but we had better wait to see the report before we decide what to do.
Mr. Tony Marlow: May we have a debate if next week the Church sacrifices its principles on the altar of its own internal political expediency by embracing sodomy against the teachings of the Bible, thereby moving further down the road of believing in nothing but permitting everything? Would it then be appropriate, even right, for there to be a bench of bishops in the other place?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate next week, but I do not think that that will stop him from finding an opportunity to express his point of view.
Mr. Robert Litherland: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motions 210, 128 and 223, signed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, expressing concern at the proposed imposition of VAT on printing matters?
[That this House expresses its deep concern that Her Majesty's Government is seriously considering imposing value added tax up to a possible level of 15 per cent. on printed matter, recognising that such a change in value added tax would constitute a tax on knowledge through the inevitable increase in the price of books, magazines, periodicals and newspapers and would reduce the number of books available for schools and libraries; further deplores the effect which 15 per cent. value added tax would have on the printing industry and small firms in particular, leading to closures and further redundancies estimated to be in the region of 13,000 job losses; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to acknowledge the concern of the unions and employers in the printing industry to retain zero rating on all printed and published material.]
[That this House urge Her Majesty's Government to extend to newspapers, books and magazines the welcome commitment that value added tax will not be imposed on foodstuffs and other essentials.]
1078
[That this House requests Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer not to impose value added tax on books and learned journals.]
There are many and varied arguments, but my concern is the effect of that imposition on redundancies in the printing trade and that it is a tax on knowledge. May we have a statement or a debate?
Mr. Wakeham: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the Budget. It would be wrong of me to promise a statement or to say anything more.
Mr. Barry Porter: Will My right hon. Friend will be aware that we are rapidly approaching the second anniversary of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Will he arrange for a debate in the next week or so to enable us objectively to examine the success or otherwise of that agreement?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that there are those who would like a debate on that matter, but there are many calls on my time and I cannot fit it in in the immediate future. However, there will be Northern Ireland questions next Thursday.
Mr. Ashton: Is it not now more important than ever to have a debate on privatisation and vested interests? Is the Leader of the House aware that three years ago the directors of British Telecom had their salaries doubled by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), to make them welcome privatisation, and that they have now asked that same hon. Member to join them on the board at one of those increased salaries? Is not that worthy of debate in the House, because it is morally wrong, if not corrupt?
Mr. Wakeham: There will be many debates on the economy when, subject to your view, Mr. Speaker, it will be in order to discuss privatisation. All that I can say about my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is that any company that invites him on to the board will receive good value for money.
Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the position and independence of hon. Members? Is he aware of widespread concern at reports of secret votes in parties of the House, levies on their members and the possible extraction of money from hon. Members—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not the responsibility of the Leader of the House. Will the hon. Member plea se rephrase his question?
Mr. Forth: I requested a debate in view of my right hon. Friend's responsibility for the position of hon. Members, and it is correct that the House should satisfy—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to be helpful. Will he please rephrase his question?
Mr. Forth: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on the conduct of political parties within the House and the independence of members of those parties in the light of reported recent events?
Mr. Speaker: That was just about as bad. [Interruption.] Order. Such questions do not help the serious business of the House and it would be helpful if the hon. Member were to withdraw that allegation.
Mr. Forth: I happily withdraw anything that I have said that offends the House.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: The Leader of the House mentioned a debate next week relating to an EEC document and free food. If there is to be another distribution of food for which the British people have already paid, may we have an assurance from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that it will be organised and not left to ad hoc arrangements by charities? With the best will in the world, many thousands of people were upset about the last distribution because they thought that it was unfair.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman makes a point which will be relevant to the debate should he catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. William Powell: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the Corby phenomenon whereby a town which was sentenced to death in March 1979 has bounced back in quite sensational style. Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate in Government time at an early opportunity so that the Government may have the advantage of being able to deploy to the House and the country the way in which the lessons of Corby can be applied to other areas which suffer from high unemployment?
Mr. Wakeham: That would be a good subject for debate. I well remember being shown around Corby by my hon. Friend not so very long ago and seeing the progress that had been made. However, I am sorry not to be able to accommodate him with a debate next week.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Does the Leader of the House remember a fortnight ago, and again today, recognising the tremendous demand from Members on both sides of the House for a debate on the crisis in the NHS? Bearing in mind that matters have become even worse in the west midlands, particularly in Shropshire where a real cash crisis is facing the Health Service, will he bow to those requests by arranging an early debate?
Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Autumn Statement a record increase in funding for the NHS. Therefore, that would be a perfectly right subject for the debate on the Autumn Statement which I have promised the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Derek Conway: On the request of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to expand the debate on Tuesday to cover security passes, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be available in the Library copies of the Official Report for 25 July 1974, 7 August 1975 and 29 March 1976 so that it can be made clear to the House that a system was introduced under a Labour Government by the Leader of the House, then Ted Short, and a Cabinet of which the
1080
right hon. Member for Chesterfield was a member? Was the right hon. Member for Chesterfield completely in the dark throughout his ministerial career?
Mr. Wakeham: Those are matters which, subject to whatever you, Mr. Speaker, may say, can be raised during the debate next week. I am sure that the relevant documents will be available in the Library.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Has the Leader of the House had time to consider the newly published report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir Gordon Downey, on community care? If he has, does not it concern him that here we have independent criticisms of lack of funding, under-resourcing and failure to co-ordinate between health boards and local authorities? Does it not concern him that there is evidence in the document of mentally handicapped people being discharged from hospital only to be bussed back because no community facilities were available? If the economy is as buoyant as the Chancellor has been telling us all week, cannot we have a debate on why the under-privileged in our society are being treated in such a mean-minded way?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is a fair man most of the time, will recognise that, despite vast increases in funding for the NHS since 1979, decisions about priorities will always have to be made and they will always involve difficult choices.
Mr. Tim Yeo: In view of the widespread concern about the importance of preserving healthy competition in the airline industry on domestic and international routes, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that when the Government's decision on the proposed takeover of British Caledonian by British Airways is announced adequate time will be given to explore whether that element of competition has been sufficiently preserved?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot say anything more than I said to the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Leader of the House withdraw his serious suggestion that the Labour party is obstructing the establishment of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? Since we understand that the minority Tory administration in the Scottish Office intends to publish a White Paper next week on housing which will affect hundreds of thousands of householders and tenants in Scotland, will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that there will be a statement in the House from the Secretary of State for Scotland at that time?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall refer that to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman seems to be a little sensitive about what went on in the Committee of Selection. I was not there and I do not know what went on. I do not know whether he was there either.

Points of Order
Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following what the Leader of the House said about Tuesday's debate, it is manifest that the shape of the debate will depend on your attitude towards the selection of amendments. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have it in mind, along with a number of my hon. Friends, to table an amendment that will allow the point about the research assistant of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) to be brought before the House. Will you consider sympathetically the principle of allowing it?
Following your guidance yesterday, I went straight to Hansard to find the references to 1974 and 1975 to which you referred. The matter concerned an individual inquiry by the deputy commissioner of the metropolis into security in the Palace; there was no suggestion that it was an on-going committee. Before the debate on Tuesday, will you, Mr. Speaker, tell us whether the committee, at any stage and in any form, considered the individual case or cases of passes issued to my hon. Friend's research assistant or to other people?
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman sent me a draft of his amendment to a motion that was not then on the Order Paper. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that as an amendment it would not have been in order, but if he can get it in order I hope that it may be possible to select it. I intend, provided all the amendments are in order—this is a House of Commons matter—to select them so that every amendment can be debated within the scope of the Bill and perhaps voted on.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, through your Secretary, I drew your attention to the statement of Mr. Speaker Selwyn-Lloyd on 7 August 1985. He said:
"The Committee would be an informal one, as was the Committee under the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) to study the Compton Report, and not a Joint Select Committee set up by Resolution of both Houses. It will report jointly to myself and, I understand, to the Lord Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords: so far as this House is concerned it will then be for me, in consultation with the Leader of the House, to consider what further action should be taken; in particular whether all or part of the Report, which is at present graded Secret, should be laid on the Table of the House."—[Official Report, 7 August 1975; Vol. 897, c. 732.]
The first part of my point of order refers to the Starritt committee report, and whether any reference will be made before the debate to that part of it that was secret and may have covered the vexed question of vetting.
I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to another statement of Mr. Speaker Selwyn-Lloyd. He referred to
"The terms of reference of the Committee"—
you were a member of that committee, along with the late Sir Robert Cooke, Mr. Dick Buchanan and Mr. Walter Harrison, so you will probably recollect the terms of reference better than anybody else. They were:
"'To consider the review of security at the Palace of Westminster carried out by Sir James Starritt CVO, formerly Deputy Commissioner, Metropolitan Police, and to make recommendations'."—[Official Report, 31 October 1975; Vol. 898, c. 1947.]
I do not think that the subject of vetting is mentioned anywhere. You will recollect that yesterday, in answer to a query from myself on a point of order, you said:
"It is an advisory committee which advises the Speaker. I shall reflect on how much I can say about it."—[Official Report, 4 November 1987; Vol. 121. c. 934.]
1082
I gave the Clerk notice that I would ask, through a point of order, whether you have had time to reflect on these delicate issues.
Mr. Speaker: The matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised can be covered in the debate next Tuesday. May I draw his attention to other references in Hansard, on 29 March 1976 and 27 July 1977, both of which touch on the same matter.
I did not answer the question of vetting, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the committee to which he drew my attention, of which the House is aware as a result of these references, does not vet anyone; it is an advisory committee to Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Tony Marlow rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot say any more, and I do not intend to do so at the moment.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The substantial question that bothers us is whether evidence in relation to such a matter is seen by any elected Member of the House of Commons. Some of us consider it important that at least—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That evidence was not seen.
Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, As I understand it, hon. Members are here to represent the interests of their constituents. They are our masters; we have one master to serve. I understand that there is a rumour—it may be no more than that—that there is a compulsory levy being placed on Labour Members—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Even if that rumour were true, it would have nothing to do with me as the Speaker of the House of Commons.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to both hon. Gentlemen that this is an Opposition day and many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen wish to take part in the debate. There will be a debate on Tuesday next week on this matter. They should reserve their fire until hen. I cannot say any more than I have said today and yesterday.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the debate next week, would it be possible to have a written submission from you, not on opinions but on the fact of the matter? Some of us are horrified that these decisions are taken by the Serjeant at Arms or somebody else rather than Mr. Speaker or somebody who has been elected.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows—certainly his right hon. and hon. Friends are aware of this—that that decision was taken by me. It was a decision that I did not relish—
Mr. Dalyell: But you did not see the evidence.
Mr. Speaker: I did see the evidence, or had evidence. I have a responsibility that I must exercise and I had to take a decision. As the House knows, the pass was suspended and my decision will now be debated on Tuesday, which I welcome.
Mr. Robert Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it will help me.

Points of Order
  BILLS PRESENTED
    IMMIGRATION
    Mr. Secretary Hurd, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary King, Mr. Secretary Moore, Mr. Secretary Rifkind and Mr. Tim Renton, presented a Bill to make further provision for the regulation of immigration into the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 49.]
  MISUSE OF DRUGS
  Mr. Menzies Campbell presented a Bill to extend the coverage of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to include certain drugs which have been misused for the purposes of improving performance in sport: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 22 January and to be printed. [Bill 46.]
Opposition Day
[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Financial Markets
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.17 pm
  Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That this House, recognising that the stock market collapse results from failures in international economic co-operation and the excessive priority given to finance at the expense of the real economy, and that the collapse has serious implications for the level of economic activity in the United States and for investment and employment at home, notes that the United Kingdom still has close to three million unemployed, that manufacturing output has only just returned to the levels of 1979, and that Her Majesty's Government admits that there will be a downturn in the growth rate, an increase in inflation and a record deficit of £9 billion on manufactured trade in 1988; and urges the Government to initiate action among the leading industrial countries in order to concert adjustment of economic imbalances on a planned basis including expansion in the economies of Western Europe, to significantly cut interest rates, to target increases in public expenditure in order to prevent an economic downturn, and to adopt an industrial stategy aimed at systematically developing the strength of industry, technology and skills throughout the whole of the nation.
  This is a timely debate. Following the crash in the financial markets, and with the threat of an economic crisis looming, the House should concentrate its mind on the lessons to be learnt from the turbulent events of recent weeks with one overriding objective—the urgent steps that need to be taken to ward off the threat of economic downturn, with the painful consequences for jobs, the standard of living and the national economic strength that would come in train of that.
  We know from the Chancellor's Autumn Statement that there are difficulties ahead. The statement was portrayed in euphoric terms by parts of the British press, with its close identity with the interests of the Conservative party. However, it is sometimes useful to see what the foreign press says. The Wall Street Journal reported the Chancellor's Autumn Statement. Its headline read:
  "Lawson Warns of Hurdles Facing Britain's Economy."
  It continued:
  "Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson painted a picture of Britain's economy next year, warning that the nation faces slower growth, higher inflation and a mounting balance-of-payments deficit."
  Let us be in no doubt that we face difficult times. Major change has occurred and markets have collapsed all over the world, particularly in London. Many people sense that we are at the crossroads in the economic development of the country and that if the wrong decisions are taken now they will have consequences for many years ahead. There is a tendency to blame all that on the markets. It is said that they had over-valued and were correcting. The Chancellor offered that as one of the explanations in his Mansion House speech last night.
  The Chancellor's initial reaction in the early days of the crash was more outspoken. He said that it was a grotesque aberration and a grotesque over-reaction. He talked about the markets behaving with a herd instinct. The epithets

  1085
  came cascading from the Chancellor as he laid about the markets, which in other times he had revered, or possibly worshipped. Last night, the tone at the Mansion House changed. As the right hon. Gentleman stood in his white tie and tails, the principal guest at the Lord Mayor's banquet for bankers and merchants of the City of London, he obviously thought that he should put his thoughts rather differently. He said:
  "I would like to salute the City for the way in which it has comported itself throughout almost three weeks of a financial blizzard which blew in across the Atlantic."
  There were no crude references to grotesque over-reaction, the herd instinct or absurdity. If nothing else, it shows how singing for one's supper can modify one's approach to events.
  The Chancellor's case on the cause of the collapse of the market was simple. He said that it was all down to the Americans. The billing and cooing of the Thatcher Government towards the United States' Administration has apparently been replaced by tones of harsh and unforgiving rebuke. That is the line from the Chancellor. However, as we know, a message has gone from the Prime Minister to the President of the United States, the contents of which have not been revealed. It may say, "Do not take this chap Lawson too seriously. He is rude by nature and he cannot help it. I am still your friend. Maggie."
  The Chancellor's main point was that it all happened because of a lack of political will in the United States; a lack of will to tackle the budget deficit. When things go wrong, the Chancellor and the Government, notably the Head of the Government, always find someone else to blame. This time it is the naughty Americans. Basically, the Chancellor said that they should be put in the dunce's corner until they had sorted out their problems and that no international action should be taken to deal with an international crisis until the Americans had sorted themselves out.
  The Americans have a responsibility for the events that have occurred. They were running twin deficits — the budget and the balance of payments—which could not be sustained. The budget deficit is not the only factor. After all, the Japanese have a large budget deficit, which is not a cause for concern. The reason is that the Japanese, by their own savings, can fund the deficit. Apart from anything else, they tend to buy Japanese and they save. The United States was, and is, relying on the rest of the world to finance its deficit.
  I believe that the Chancellor and others may have concentrated excessively on the budget deficit. It is the trade deficit that affects the nation more directly. Both deficits may have to be reduced, but it is crucial that we appreciate that it should be done on a gradual basis that will not cause a major disturbance to world trade and throw us into recession. It is a one-eyed view of the world simply to blame the Americans. The imbalance is at the heart of the matter. The United States has a large deficit, while others, notably Germany and Japan, are in surplus.
  I fear that the truth is that for many years the major industrial countries have put the tackling of the imbalance well down their order of priority. Perhaps that was nowhere more compellingly illustrated than at the Venice summit held earlier this year during the general election. I hope that those, including our Government, who took part in that self-congratulatory and vacuous occasion now feel ashamed at the irresponsibility that they showed in not tackling the issue then. We recollect that the United States
  1086
  Secretary for the Treasury asked the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries to set targets for expansion so that they could help the United States in the gradual reduction of its deficit. However, he got no assistance from the other countries.
  Why was there a failure of international economic co-ordination? Why was there a failure to act in a situation that all the countries must have known would end in tears? Far too many of them believed that just as in their own countries free markets were the regulators of the economy, so international economic relations could be left to the free forces of the market. They could not have been more wrong.
  In 1985 some effort started to be made to deal with the dollar and exchange rate instability, through the Plaza agreement of 1985 and the Louvre accord of 1987. In his speech to the International Monetary Fund the Chancellor advocated a new move away from total reliance on market forces and floating exchange rates with his hybrid concept of managed floating. Those faltering attempts at international co-ordination are to be welcomed. It is particularly, beneficial for politicians such as the Chancellor to have to realise that their free market nostrums do not work in the real world in which they operate.
  There are some differences in attitude displayed by the Chancellor between 1980 and 1987. On 3 July 1980 the Chancellor answered a written question. He was asked:
  "what mechanisms exist for medium or long term alteration of the exchange rate."
  The hon. Member who asked the question was given a short and snappy answer. The Chancellor said:
  "Market forces."—[Official Report, 3 July 1980; Vol. 987, c. 677.]
  The Chancellor reinforced that in a written answer on 3 November 1980, when he said:
  "The exchange rate is determined by market forces, not by the Government."—[Official Report, 3 November 1980; Vol. 991, c. 458.]
  In a written answer on the following day he said:
  "The effect on the exchange rate of a reduction of United Kingdom interest rates relative to the United States rates, if any, would depend upon the circumstances of the time."
  This is the important part:
  "There is no stable or reliable relationship between interest rates and the exchange rate."—[Official Report, 4 November 1980; Vol. 991, c. 537.]
  On 7 October 1987 the Chancellor was quoted in The Guardian as saying:
  "I believe … hat we can and should use the experience we have gained to build a more permanent regime of managed floating. I do not see the past two years simply as a temporary phase. Our objectives should be clear: to maintain the maximum stability of key exchange rates and to manage any changes that may be necessary in an orderly way."
  The Sunday Times on 11 October 1987 said:
  "Elaborating on these proposals, Lawson explained that `monetary policy—the determination of short-term interest rates — should be pursued in a way consistent with exchange rate stability'. In other words, interest rates would be adjusted to keep the exchange rate stable."
  So much for there being no stable or reliable relationship between interest rates and exchange rates. Of course, we welcome the progress of the Chancellor's education, but it has been an expensive education for Britain, just as the experiments in monetarism have been disastrous for British industry.
  Mr. John Redwood: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the national

  1087
  executive committee under his chairmanship is looking into an extensive way of intervening in people's savings and wants to go back to the idea that savings should be confiscated and directed at the behest of Labour politicians? Does he seriously believe that that would solve the problems for which we have a perfect answer but about which he does not have a clue?
  Mr. Smith: I thought that the hon. Gentleman, as a director of Rothschild, was going to ask me about something else. I gave way believing that his remarks might be relevant. In fact, his intervention had nothing to do with the debate. However, now that he has intervened, let me remind him that he, too, has been going through an education process. He seems to have changed his views a little since his time in the No. 10 policy unit. In a television programme last Sunday he was advocating the borrowing of £5 billion, £6 billion or £7 billion.
  Mr. Redwood: The question asked on the television programme was very specific. When asked what I would recommend in the likely circumstances of slower growth, I said that there should be no increase in borrowing and that we should keep a tight ship, which is what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been doing. When asked what I would recommend if world GNP fell by five percentage points in a single year, I said that £5 billion or £6 billion of borrowing would be appropriate and, indeed, unavoidable. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman really suggesting that the world GNP will fall 5 per cent. next year? If he is, I do not believe him.
  Mr. Smith: It was generous of me to allow the hon. Gentleman to give his fallback explanation. He will recall—
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
  Mr. Smith: It would help us all if the hon. Lady would allow me to answer the point on which I have been invited to comment.
  The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) will recall that one of the possibilities considered in the television programme was a British growth rate of 1·5 per cent. It is in that context that he gave the answer to which I referred.
  Mr. Redwood indicated dissent.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but it is not fair of him to do so. In any case, there are more important matters in this debate than the views of the hon. Gentleman, and I must move on.
  Opposition Members welcome the progress in the Chancellor's education. It is now vital that there should be an international response involving Governments. The fact is that the shattered markets are looking to Governments to play their indispensable role in the regulation of world economies. A gradual but steady reduction in the United States deficits—particularly the trade deficit— must take place in concert with expansion in Western Europe and Japan. It is not good enough to wait until the Americans do something, hint at action on interest rates and seek to reinstate the Louvre accord. That response by the British Government does not rise remotely to the level of events. The British Government —
  Mr. Redwood rose—
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman does not want to listen, but perhaps he might do so for the next minute or so.
  The British Government should now take the lead in urging a meeting of the G7 countries with the purpose of working out a new international accord, not just to put the United States in the dock, but to engineer—I suppose that the Chancellor would say "manage"—joint action to save us all from disaster. A successful accord would do more than anything else to restore confidence. It would chart a way through the difficult years ahead.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Smith: Hon. Members can hardly ask me questions before I have explained my point.
  The accord should concern itself with interest rates and managing exchange rates, but it should also contain agreement on one crucial factor: if United States deficits are to decline, Western Europe and Japan must expand to meet the situation. We need an accord related to economic policies as well as financial matters. That is at the heart of the matter. Although the Chancellor has spoken at length about the arrangements since 1985, the fact is that they have broken down. We need a new approach, a sense of urgency and a recognition that internationally interconnected economies cannot be dealt with by policies followed by countries with regard only to their own interests.
  That is the response that I would have hoped for from the Chancellor. However, instead of urging a statesman-like initiative the Chancellor gave only a frenetic lecture to the United States and, what is more, a calculated insult to the president of the Bundesbank. The truth is that the British Government have no policy response to make at international level.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): I was very concerned when I heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that I gave a calculated insult to the president of the Bundesbank. I happen to know Herr Karl Otto Pöhl very well. I have worked with him in international affairs for the past four and a half years. I have given no insult to him. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman quote the so-called insult that I gave, or withdraw his remarks?
  Mr. Smith: The passage in the Chancellor's speech to which I referred states:
  "By contrast, a so-called free-fall of the dollar would solve nothing. It would merely risk the resurgence of US inflation and ensure further disruption to world trade, and the idea that somehow exchange rate stability promoted stock market instability, with the corollary that exchange rate stability would promote stock market stability, is manifest poppycock."
  The right hon. Gentleman knew that that was the view expressed by the president of the Bundesbank.
  Mr. Lawson: I am quite sure that that is not the view of the president of the Bundesbank. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman kindly give us the evidence suggesting that that is the view of the Bundesbank president?
  Mr. Smith: It was certainly the view of some leading commentators in the British press.
  Mr. Lawson rose—
  Mr. Smith: Let me answer. The Chancellor knows that he was attacking that view. He knows where it came from, and he knows the message that he intended to convey.
  Mr. Lawson: I am afraid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman must withdraw. That is not the view of the president of the Bundesbank, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has produced not a shred of evidence to suggest that it is. Will he kindly withdraw?
  Mr. Smith: I had no idea that I would touch such a sensitive spot. I have no intention of withdrawing my remarks, which were perfectly within the rules of the House.
  Mr. Lawson: It is untrue.
  Mr. Smith: I do not believe that to be the case. What should happen— [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen will let me get a word in, I will finish. What should happen is that the Prime Minister should send a letter to the president of the Bundesbank, just as she sent a letter to the President of the United States.
  Mr. Lawson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a serious allegation. Like me, the president of the Bundesbank is a member of the G 7 group. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the quotation from a speech of the president of the Bundesbank in which he has expressed that view? That is not his view and he has never expressed it.
  Mr. Smith: I shall be pleased if the Chancellor will tell me whom he was attacking in his speech.
  Mr. Lawson: I was attacking some of the economists employed by City stockbroking firms who have been putting that view forward. Now that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that, will he withdraw what he said?
  Mr. Smith: It appears that the Chancellor was attacking some of those whom he congratulated last night at the Mansion House for comporting themselves so well during the crisis.
  Mr. Lawson rose—
  Mr. Smith: I have given way five times.
  Mr. Lawson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has now admitted that what he said about the president of the Bundesbank was totally false, fictitious and, to coin a phrase, poppycock.
  Mr. Smith: It is clear that there is a difference of opinion between the Chancellor and myself. I have reason to believe that what I said is correct, and I stick to it. I wish to get on—
  Sir William Clark rose—
  Mr. Smith: No. I want to move to the serious matter of the economy, which we should be discussing in this debate.
  The truth is that the Government—
  Sir William Clark rose—
  Mr. Smith: I am not giving way. I have given way five times and I am not giving way again.
  The truth is that the British Government have no policy response at international level. We are constantly told that Britain has achieved a new and semi-miraculous status in the world, that some new respect has been acquired, so why is that not used to give a lead towards a new international accord?
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Smith: I have said that I am not giving way. I do not know whether—
  Mr. Tim Smith: There is no evidence for what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has claimed.
  Mr. Smith: As I said, I do not know whether the Government's inaction is due to a lack of appreciation of the danger of—
  Mr. Tim Smith: No evidence whatsoever.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Sedentary interruptions take up a great deal of time. Many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, and I hope that it can now proceed quietly.
  Sir William Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the world economy in its current state, is it not incumbent upon a spokesman for the Opposition to behave responsibly? The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) made an accusation that could sour relationships between this country and West Germany, and he refuses to withdraw it. Is that not disgraceful?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a point of argument, not a point of order for me.
  Mr. Stuart Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a fact that no statement made in this House could possibly affect the world economy if that statement were wrong? The statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is clearly correct.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let us get on with the debate.
  Mr. Smith: I am not surprised by all this, because it is the usual practice of Tory Members, when they hear something that they do not want to hear, to resort to procedural disruption to prevent us from having a proper debate.
  I do not know whether the Government's inaction is due to a lack of appreciation of the dangers that we face, or to an incapacity to respond. Increasingly, the Chancellor reminds me—
  Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
  Mr. Smith: No, I am not giving way. Increasingly, the Chancellor—
  Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
  Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When a Labour Front-Bench spokesman is making a valid point, is it in order for the Tory party to use the tactic of wheeling in its second-hand car salesmen to disrupt the proceedings?
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House to get on with the debate.
  Mr. Smith: As I was attempting to say, I do not know whether the Government's inaction is due to a lack of appreciation of the dangers or to an incapacity to respond. Increasingly, the Chancellor reminds me of the Emperor Nero, to whom he bears a passing facial resemblance. The difference is that Nero knew when Rome was burning.
  The link between the international scene and the British economy is direct, so there is a threat of recession in Britain regardless of what happens in the United States.

  1091
  If America succeeds in reducing both its deficits, but especially its trade deficit, there will be less room for British exports in American markets. If it fails to reduce the deficits and interest rates have to rise, that will push the American economy into recession and there will be consequences for Britain. Therefore, it is vital that we do not wait for the Americans to find a solution before we adopt a strategy for our country.
  The Opposition advocate a targeted increase in public investment — [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wokingham wanted to borrow £5 billion, £6 billion or £7 billion for that purpose. We need to improve the infrastructure, and if we have a programme of public investment—
  Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
  Mr. Smith: No. If we have a programme of public investment—
  Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman keeps rising, but I shall not give way to him. I hope that he accepts that.
  We need a programme of public investment to provide better facilities, better communications, progress in our inner cities and some hope to our declining regions. That would be worth while in itself, but with the possibility of a recession it becomes economically imperative. After all, the Government tell us that our finances are sound. What better base from which to start a new public investment programme? Other countries are doing that. It may not have escaped the notice of those who follow these matters that a fiscal package introduced by the Government of Japan earlier this year amounting to 6 trillion yen —about £25 billion—included a public works component of £11 billion. If it makes sense for the Japanese to invest in their infrastructure, why does it not make sense for Britain to do the same? Doing so would provide new jobs, improve the functioning of the economy and help us to avoid recession.
  There may be a reason why the Government do not want to embark on that — perhaps because they are saving that money for tax cuts in the next Budget. In Britain's current economic position, nothing would be more irresponsible than to embark on a programme of tax cuts that would inevitably suck in imports and add to a balance of trade deficit in manufactured goods that is heading towards £8 billion. If the public expenditure programmes were planned with care, concentrating on the regions and the inner cities—where people are out of work, where there is slack in the economy and where, goodness knows, so much desperately needs to be done —we could achieve social and economic results with a low risk of any inflationary consequence. That would be an effective short-term strategy, leading to real benefits in the medium and long terms.
  However, we need to do more. We need to improve the long-term competitiveness and strength of the British economy, especially British industry. We are, perhaps, approaching the end of the period during which North sea oil has been a major prop to the British economy. Time after time the Government have been rescued from the consequences of their folly by the reservoir of North sea oil and the huge funds that it has made available to them.
  1092
  It has given them protection against balance of trade and balance of payments problems. Yet this still-oil-rich country is heading towards a balance of payments deficit of £3·5 billion.
  We know that investment in industry is still 7 per cent. below its level in 1979— far lower than that of our competitors. We know also that since 1980 Britain has been the only country of the five major Western industrialised nations to reduce spending on research and development as a proportion of gross domestic product. There is a complete failure to realise that technology is the driving force of the modern economy. We need a new approach to education and training so that our people can acquire the skills necessary to become the best educated and trained work force in Western Europe.
  The Chancellor used to say that there was no need for the Government to spend money on research and development, and on education and training, because the Government would make industry profitable, and industry would then spend money on research and development and on education and training. Industry has become more profitable, but I am sorry to say that there has not been the promised increase in spending on research and development, and on education and training.
  We argue the need for an international response. We also argue for a national strategy as well as an international accord. There should be a reduction in interest rates throughout the countries in Western Europe with which we are closely associated. We need a fiscal response and the public investment programme that I have advocated. We need to build long-term strengths so that this country will have an industry that can sustain us in the 1990s—
  Mr. Tim Yeo rose—
  Mr. Smith: I am not giving way. The trouble is that we have a Chancellor who is compromised by having to get out of the monetarist position that he adopted previously. His policies and recommendations do not fit the time in which we live. Unless the Government alter their course in the way recommended in the motion, not only will they fail, but this country will suffer.
  4.50 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add, instead thereof:
  "congratulates Her Majesty's Government on restoring the public finances to such strength and soundness that the British economy is growing faster and unemployment falling more rapidly than in any other major industrialised country while inflation remains low, thus enabling the United Kingdom once again to play a major role in international financial discussions and providing sufficient resources, despite the halving of the nation's oil revenues, to enable them to increase spending on the National Health Service, education, law and order, and other priority programmes above previous plans, while ensuring that public spending as a whole continues to grow more slowly than national income and while public borrowing, even without any benefit from privatisation proceeds, has been reduced to its lowest level for 17 years".
  As far as I can make out a continuing thread in his speech, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) accused me of having learned something. That is not an accusation I can throw at him. He has learned nothing, but merely repeated the policies which led to disaster when his party was last in office.

  1093
  Before I deal with the problems of the world economy—and as I have said on many occasions, we are going through a difficult time — perhaps I might make an announcement in which the House may be interested.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: The Chancellor, when referring to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr Smith), said that we would face disaster. I remind the Chancellor that my right hon. and learned Friend and I represent Monklands constituencies and our majorities rose by nearly 30 per cent. in the last election. Does that represent disaster?
  Mr. Lawson: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. I wish to say something about the BP share support scheme.
  As I told the House a week ago today, I have made arrangements with the Bank of England to ensure that there are orderly after-markets in BP shares. Formal notice of these arrangements, under which the Bank will offer to purchase partly-paid BP shares at a price of 70p each, will be published in the national press tomorrow and Saturday.
  In my statement I told the House that the offer would remain open for at least one month, and not more than two. I can now be more precise. The offer will close at the earliest on 11 December, and at the latest on 6 January. Five working days' notice will be given before the closure.
  The offer will be open to all holders of partly-paid BP shares and—a point which is of considerable importance for the small investor — the issue department of the Bank will make no handling charges whatever, so the investor will receive the full 70p a share. At 3 pm today the price stood at 78p a share.
  Mr. Rogers: If the Bank is to charge nothing, who will pay the handling charges?
  Mr. Lawson: Taking the Whole thing together, it is clear that the taxpayer has a very good deal indeed from the BP share sale, whatever happens. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will be pleased to answer detailed questions on this matter.
  Mr. John Smith: Who will pay?
  Mr. Lawson: If the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East wishes to pursue the matter from a sedentary position, I hope that he will tell the House what is his present view on the issue. The House will recall that on 27 October the right hon. and learned Member was asked by an interviewer for the BBC Radio 4 programme "The World Tonight",
  "What view do you take of the underwriters' request for a postponement?"
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman answered:
  "I think it is hard to justify".
  But two days later he was urging precisely that course.
  Mr. John Smith: I am grateful to the Chancellor for giving way, although he has a certain obligation to give way to me.
  On BP, why will the Chancellor not give a straight answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers)? The Chancellor knows perfectly well that the taxpayer is paying, so why does he not say so? He knows perfectly well that from the beginning of the BP share issue we said that the Government should not be party to it. The Chancellor has known that for a long time. When, as in
  1094
  this instance, the Government give a floor of 70p for a share, is that not a speculators' charter? Are they not saying, "Buy a share for 78p, but risk only 8p"?
  Mr. Lawson: It is astonishing that last Thursday, a week ago today, the right hon. and learned Member was greatly concerned about the effect of the share sale on BP following the collapse of the stock market. Putting that floor under the price for this period has saved the disorderly after-markets that would otherwise have caused difficulties for BP. That is what I have done. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that that should not have been done, let him say so. I shall gladly give way—
  Mr. John Smith: The Government should not have sold the shares.
  Mr. Lawson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman now says that we should not have sold the shares. The Government of the party that he supported in 1977 made the first share sale of BP at a price for fully-paid shares that was equivalent to under 70p.
  Mr. John Smith: Does the Chancellor not understand that we have made it clear throughout that the Government should not have parted with the shares? Taxpayers may have got some money back but they have lost an important and valuable asset. The Chancellor says that he rescued BP, but was it not he who put it in danger in the first place?
  Mr. Lawson: Even the right hon. and learned Gentleman will admit that I was not responsible for the fall on the world stock markets, which started in Wall street. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that his party was against the share sale. I shall read again what happened on the radio programme in which he took part. The interviewer said:
  "What view do you take of the underwriters' request for postponement?"
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman replied: "I think that it is hard to justify."
  That is what he said, but two days later he said that the sale should have been postponed. That deals with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point on BP. [Interruption.] I shall come to the international situation in a moment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has commended the view that I hold, and have held for many years, that the United States needs to reduce its budget deficit. I am glad that there is that agreement between us. But of course that is precisely the opposite view to that which he and his right hon. and hon. Friends have consistently held.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend think that it will be politically easier for the President and those who support him in America to cut the deficit if he is seen to be receiving raucous advice from the rest of the world?
  Mr. Lawson: I shall come to the world situation in a moment. However, it would be strange if, having urged the Americans to cut their budget deficit for the four and half years that I have been Chancellor and having warned consistently of the damage that would occur if they did not, I suddenly changed my tune. We have remained the staunchest ally of the United States throughout that period. The views that we express, and that we have a right to express, are listened to and taken seriously because the Americans know that we are their staunchest ally.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: In the light of the answer that the Chancellor has just given about impending disaster, why did he decide to float the BP share sale and then engage in a £20 million advertising programme to try to persuade many unsophisticated small investors to take part in it?
  Mr. Lawson: I am not in possession of such prescience that I can forecast what is going to happen to the stock market. However, if we are to talk about predictions, I notice that different predictions are now being made by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East than were made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who predicted time and again that soon after the election we would raise taxes. However, his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East now says that we are going to cut taxes, and that he does not want us to do that. I hope that they will make up their minds. Are we going to raise taxes or cut them?
  Mr. Rogers rose—
  Mr. Lawson: I shall give way in a moment.
  The plain fact is—and this is an important point— that those right hon. Gentlemen consistently commended the Americans for running that large budget deficit which, as the—
  Mr. Neil Kinnock indicated dissent.
  Mr. Lawson: I shall quote the Leader of the Opposition who is interrupting from a sedentary position. In a speech on 19 October 1984, at the presentation of the Welsh marketing awards in Cardiff, the right hon. Gentleman said: "There is a vitality in the US economy and no one doubts that it was initiated by Government spending."
  — [Interruption.] Let me continue. The right hon. Gentleman went on:
  "The indelible fact remains that the climate for growth, for work, for investment and enterprise was created by the stimulus of public expenditure and borrowing policy. If we are to renovate our economy, if we are to stimulate activity and sponsor enterprise, we have to generate expansion in much the same way, by much the same means."
  Mr. Kinnock: The Chancellor should quote also the many other instances when I, together with my right hon. and hon. Friends, said that we would not for one second advocate the scale or purpose to which that has been put, but that it was necessary for the Government to act in a similar way for exactly that purpose of stimulation. The consequence of the Government not doing so is a massive manufactured trade deficit and an increasing balance of trade deficit in an oil-rich country that still has nearly 3 million people unemployed. Is the right hon. Gentleman proud of that?
  Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman is wriggling and making things up as he goes along. He knows perfectly well that he commended the American budget deficit, the ballooning deficit, and urged this country to emulate it. The consequence of that deficit is that the Americans have got into a difficult position. They have a huge current account deficit which is far greater than ours and a big budget deficit. It is this country which has the fastest rate of growth of all the major nations and this country which is in a strong positon. It is sterling which is strong today and the dollar which is weak. There is no doubt about that. That is not something that I say with any pleasure. I do
  1096
  not think that the weakness of the dollar is of any assistance to either the United States or the world economy. The policies that the Americans themselves now agree are mistaken, and that they are seeking to reverse, are the policies that the right hon. Gentleman has advocated for this country and that he is still advocating today.
  Mr. Rogers: The Chancellor criticised my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for proposing minimal increases in income tax. Does he agree that, since 1979, as a result of indirect taxation the burden of taxation has increased?
  Mr. Lawson: Tax rates have steadily gone down. The overall tax rate—
  Mr. Rogers: What about increased charges for gas, electricity and water?
  Mr. Lawson: They are not taxes. The hon. Gentleman seems to be totally unaware of the difference between a tax and a price.
  I shall now turn to the problems of the world economy, which the debate purports to be about. We are indeed passing through a difficult time in the world economy. I have made that absolutely clear. In my judgment, it is also clear that the financial collapse that we have seen in equity markets throughout the world has really had three main causes. There has been the reaction of the financial markets which, earlier, had gone far too high in relation to the underlying profitability of companies in which shares were traded. There are also the economic imbalances, to which the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East referred, above all in the United States, with a massive budget deficit and, of course, the accompanying massive current account deficit. It is precisely because I and my fellow Ministers of the Group of Seven have been aware of the need to correct the imbalances that, for some years now, we have been seeking to get harmonisation and uniformity of policies, to put the imbalances right.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Plaza agreement of September 1985, in which I participated, and which successfully set out to achieve two things: first, a sharp reduction in the value of the dollar, which had become heavily overvalued; and, secondly, a reduction in the American budget deficit which, by that time, was identified by the United States as well as by myself and others in positions of responsibility in the industrialised world as being a major problem. That succeeded. The budget deficit of the United States was reduced—although it still needs to be reduced a great deal further—and, indeed, the value of the dollar came down substantially.
  Again co-operating in February of this year, we decided in the Louvre agreement to pursue a policy of exchange rate stability. But there was a great deal more to it than that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly has no understanding whatever of the contents of the Louvre agreement. He spoke as though the Louvre agreement were merely an attempt to manage exchange rates to secure stability.
  Certainly, securing stability of exchange rates was an important purpose. But he should read the communique that I have in front of me. I shall certainly read it to him. He will take my word for it. That communique contained

  1097
  10 paragraphs, of which nine were concerned with the uniformity of economic policies, and the 10th was concerned with the stabilisation of exchange rates.
  As for why it is possible to stabilise exchange rates now, whereas it was not possible to stabilise exchange rates at an earlier date—I shall explain it for the benefit of the right hon. and learned Gentleman — I made that abundantly clear in my speech to the IMF in September before the storm broke. In the 1970s and early 1980s, when inflation was so high, it was impossible to achieve any stability of exchange rates. A precondition of having any degree of exchange rate stability has to be getting inflation down and a convergence of inflation rates at a low level. That came first and it will be maintained. It is on the basis of that that we have been able to achieve exchange rate stability.
  That was the problem on the economic front, which we have been addressing. Of course, that problem remains. There has now been added a political problem, as I said at the Mansion House last night, of a doubt throughout the world and, indeed, in the United States, about whether they have the political will to deal with the problem which faces them.
  The importance of the negotiations that are now going on between the United States Administration and Congressional leaders is great. I have been in continual contact during this period with my opposite numbers in the other major nations, and particularly in the United States and Germany, which are the key countries in this issue. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has sent a personal message to the President of the United States in the same sense. We all wish to see—
  Mr. Kinnock: Since the Prime Minister has been reluctant to publish the message which she sent to the President at around the same time as the right hon. Gentleman was speaking in the Mansion House last night, may we have his assurance that it was not just the same sense but the same words, and that it was not an attempt to put balm on what he was saying?
  Mr. Lawson: I assure the Leader of the Opposition that, although the words were inevitably different, the message was the same.
  Mr. Kinnock: May we have the Chancellor's view on why it was necessary, when his message was so public and so clear, for the Prime Minister to take it upon herself to send another message —a private one—saying only the same thing? Why was that necessary? Was it a lack of confidence in the Chancellor or in his manner?
  Mr. Lawson: It seems quite extraordinary, when Opposition Members have been urging us all the time to do everything that we can internationally to secure agreement to deal with the problem, that the right hon. Gentleman apparently criticises the Prime Minister for having participated and sent a message to the President of the United States.
  Mr. Kinnock: It is the Chancellor's assumption that I criticise the Prime Minister. The real question is this: was the Prime Minister in any way critical of the way in which the Chancellor was expressing himself or what he was saying?
  Mr. Lawson: I assure the Leader of the Opposition that the Prime Minister was not in any way being critical of the
  1098
  remarks that I made. I am not surprised that the Leader of the Opposition jumps up and down all the time. He is trying to protect the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East from exposing his views any further.
  The right hon. Gentleman is urging us to get an international agreement. Of course we want to see an international agreement, but the first step in any international agreement has to be the securing of agreement within the United States on a package of measures — and a credible and sufficient package of measures—to attack its budget deficit and bring it down and thereby recreate market confidence. Because of the American system, where there is a Republican Administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress, and where the steps that are agreed have to pass through Congress—there has to be the necessary legislation—there has to be agreement between the Administration and Congress.
  I urge both of them to make every effort to reach an agreement as soon as possible. It is essential that that is done. I believe that they recognise that fact, although, obviously, it will be much more satisfactory when the agreement is finally concluded. Then, certainly once that keystone is placed in the arch, we can have a meeting.
  I believe that we shall have a meeting of the Group of Seven to build an international agreement on the basis of the United States' measures to reduce the budget deficit. That will include, I am sure, measures on the monetary front and structural measures to improve the performance of the economies of the various countries, as, indeed, we have pledged in the Louvre agreement. But we shall take that further, with more reductions in interest rates as a distinct possibility.
  The international package must be based on the Americans taking steps to put their house in order. They know that, and to have a meeting now, when that is not in place, would have a devastatingly counter-productive effect on world markets. Therefore, it is necessary to proceed with a proper step-by-step approach with the Americans reaching their agreement first. Under the Gramm-Rudman legislation, they have a deadline of 20 November by which they must reach an agreement. I hope that they will succeed in beating that deadline by a significant amount, but we shall have to wait and see.
  Miss Marjorie Mowlam: Will the Chancellor tell us how much it has cost the Government this year to support the dollar?
  Mr. Lawson: It is a curious thing that, when we were selling dollars just over a year ago, the Opposition were asking how much that cost. Now that we have been buying dollars, deutschemarks and yen, we are asked how much that costs. There is no cost. All that is happening is the exchange of one currency for another. All that I shall reveal is that the foreign exchange reserves of this country have pretty well doubled since the Government came into office. We also have net overseas assets larger than any other country in the world, with the exception of Japan, so our overseas financial position is stronger than it has ever been before. That puts into perspective the remarks made earlier by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East about the very small current account deficit.
  Mr. Budgen: My right hon. Friend says there is no cost, but if many dollars are bought and then go down in value, surely a loss is sustained?
  Mr. Lawson: No loss is necessarily sustained. It depends what happens over the long period through which the reserves are held. My hon. Friend has always been strongly opposed to any intervention in the foreign exchange market, but I believe that intervention over the past nine or 10 months since the Louvre agreement has been highly beneficial. That is widely understood, not merely by all those countries who have participated in the Louvre agreement and who have reaffirmed that agreement, but by traders, industrialists and businessmen generally. It is right that we should stick with that.
  Mr. Kinnock: The Chancellor said, quite accurately, that his hon. Friend has always opposed Government intervention, but was not that basic to the very strategy of which the right hon. Gentlman was proud to be the author — the medium-term financial strategy—under which everything should find its own level and in which the Government should not intervene?
  Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman is totally unable to see the difference between intervention in every nook and cranny of the economy and intervention in the foreign exchange market.
  Mr. Alistair Darling: The Chancellor has talked about intervention. Can he say whether he will intervene in any future sales of public assets? Will he also let us know whether he will intervene to provide a floor to prop up industries in parts of the country where they have been collapsing precisely because of the lack of confidence that was exhibited when the BP sale took place a week ago?
  Mr. Lawson: Like my hon. Friends who I heard muttering behind me, even though perhaps they should not have been, I do not think that that question is worth answering.
  What we are talking about is international co-operation to deal with the very difficult situation that the world economy is passing through today, and in which this country's economy is among the strongest in the world, and is widely recognised as such. That co-operation has been demonstrated as recently as the past few days. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East failed to mention that, yesterday, I reduced interest rates again by ½ per cent. and that, today, the German authorities have followed by reducing their interest rates. I welcome that.
  Mr. John Smith: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves this matter, can we get it clear that, if the United States succeeds in reducing its deficit, the Chancellor and other Western European countries will expand their economies to deal with the deflationary problem that may arise as a result of the unilateral reduction of the United States deficit? Secondly, in 1980, when the right hon. Gentleman answered a question about what mechanisms existed for the alteration of the exchange rate, he said that there were market forces and that alone. Is that still his view?
  Mr. Lawson: On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's second point I do not believe that he listened to my earlier remarks. At the time when inflation throughout the world was very high it was impossible to
  1100
  manage the evolution of exchange rates—market forces were all that could do the trick. I explained in considerable detail in my speech to the IMF annual meeting in September — long before this financial storm broke —that a pre-condition of being able to create exchange rate stability was that, first of all, we got world inflation down, and inflation down in all the major nations. That is what we have done. Now it is possible to intervene successfully to manage exchange rates. I explained that very clearly and that is accepted by the other countries which have taken part in the Louvre agreement.
  As to the first part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question, it is a fallacy to assume that expansion is only secured or can be secured in any significant way by expanding budget deficits. That is precisely the point that I have tried to explain to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That is the problem that the United States has. It expanded its budget deficit considerably, but then found itself saddled with a collapse of confidence and a massive burden of debt interest. By contrast, what we have done is steadily to reduce our budget deficit, as a result of which we are in an unparalleled position of strength, and we have the fastest rate of economic growth in the world today.
  If the Americans were to reduce their budget deficit still further, the confidence that that would bring would be beneficial for growth in the United States, and for world growth.
  Mr. Rogers rose—
  Mr. Lawson: I shall give way for the last time.
  Mr. Rogers: The Chancellor has criticised the Americans for having a budget deficit, but is it not a fact that we have had a budget deficit in this country but that it has been hidden by North sea oil revenues? That has meant that the Chancellor can come forward successfully with the charade that taxation has not gone up. We have had a deficit, but it has been fattened by North sea oil and the sell offs.
  Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is — [HON. MEMBERS: "Right"]—no, he is not right.
  Following the collapse of the oil price, which is referred to in the amendment, the proportion of our total tax revenues that come from North sea oil is now extremely small. The yield has gone down from about £12 billion to £4 billion. Despite that, we have got our deficit down because we have been pursuing sound policies. So the way to deal with the problem is to continue with the co-operation that we have had among the major nations.
  That co-operation is real and was seen only this week with the reduction yesterday of interest rates in this country, followed by the reduction of interest rates in the Federal Republic of Germany today. We must continue with that co-operation. The United States Administration and Congress must continue their negotiations to get a proper package that will secure a reduction not merely in the budget deficit for fiscal year 1988, but for fiscal year 1989. The composition of that package must carry credibility in the world markets. Then, when that has been secured there should certainly be a meeting of the Group of Seven— and I shall certainly participate in that meeting on behalf of the United Kingdom—to build up that package into a wider international package of co-operation.

  1101
  This debate has taken place after three weeks of turmoil in the stock markets. It is not clear yet when that turmoil will come to an end, or precisely what effects it will have. What is clear is that the United Kingdom economy is incomparably better placed to cope than it would have been had I accepted any of the advice proffered by the Labour party, including, most of all, the consistent advice to expand our budget deficit. The Labour party is giving us that advice again today. I have no doubt that I shall receive more advice from it and indeed from other quarters in the weeks to come.
  I shall, of course, continue to keep interest rates carefully under review as I always do. When I decide the fiscal stance in my next Budget— and I do not propose to make that judgment until then — I shall, of course, take fully into account the likely effects of the recent stock market collapse and any subsequent events. One thing that I am not going to do is to follow the primrose path advocated by the Labour party.
  The House and, indeed, the country should bear in mind that the reason why we have coped successfully with earlier shocks and why we are so well placed to cope with this one is that, for more than eight years, the Government have pursued firm policies designed to put the economy on a sound footing and keep it there. The benefits of those policies are clear and by sticking to them we shall ensure that the British economy remains among the strongest and soundest in the world.
  5.28 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Throughout the difficult period of the past three weeks the Chancellor has been endeavouring to paint a rosy picture of the British economy; and, to some extent, in so doing he has betrayed a certain insularity of approach. He is entitled to take credit for the facts that he outlined in his Autumn Statement— the improved rate of growth, the lowered inflation and the falling unemployment. We, however, are equally entitled to point out that that statement foreshadowed changes—all for the worse—in the year ahead.
  The Chancellor is right to take some credit for pointing to the relative strength of this country to stand up to the storm that has been blowing through the markets in the past three weeks. However, he cannot be complacent about the risks that this country faces, flowing principally from a probable United States recession if and when measures are taken to curb the twin deficits. The loss of confidence in the United States that will follow the introduction of the measures that the right hon. Gentleman is advocating is likely to hit investment. The widespread share ownership in the United States means that many people there will reduce their consumption. There is a severe risk—indeed, a virtual certainty—of a downturn in demand, which is bound to affect exports from this country and other developed industrial nations. There is a serious risk that that danger will be deepened and extended if the United States Administration and Congress do not come together to reach an agreement that results in genuine reductions in the fiscal deficit.
  It is right to mention that the risks are not peculiarly confined to the United States. The financial markets in Japan have fallen somewhat less than those in the United States and Europe. Many thought that that relative strength rested on a somewhat insecure base; not on real
  1102
  corporate earnings, but on inflated asset values and short-term capital gains. That house of cards could easily gradually crumble, although I believe that Japan incorporated could probably prevent a sudden crash. However, the result could be damage to investment and growth in Japan, too.
  I have given the Chancellor what credit I think he is due, but I do not think that he can altogether escape some share of the blame for the suddenness of the turn-round in the financial markets. After all, the right hon. Gentleman was party to the Washington meeting of the Group of Seven when the Louvre bands on exchange rates were reiterated, and the market has simply given its thumbs down. It has recognised that the assertions were unbelievable. The IMF projections at that time showed that at current exchange rates the United States would still have a current account deficit of $150 billion in 1991. There was no way in which the United States could be allowed to build up international indebtedness at that rate. The markets did not believe it, and it is perfectly obvious that they were right not to. Poor United States trade figures for August confirmed that scepticism, convinced United States investors that adjustments would have to be made involving the recession, and undermined the profits that had already been forecast, and also equity values.
  The Chancellor's remarks on this subject in his speech on 30 September at the IMF in Washington were certainly not of a kind to suggest that he expected what has happened in the past three weeks. There was a lack of urgency in his remarks, and a lack of appreciation of the risks that we were running.
  I do not deny that he has, from time to time, drawn attention to the risks. He has done so, but there was a distinct lack of emphasis on the problem in his speech at that time. When the Chancellor was working with his colleagues in the Group of Seven at the time of the Louvre agreement—with the grain of the markets—he carried more conviction than at the IMF meeting, when he seemed to be running very much against the market forces to which he has usually paid so much more attention.
  What must be done now? Of course, the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that his influence in international matters is, to some extent, limited, and the Opposition cannot pin the blame for the turbulence, which is external in origin, on him. Nevertheless, the Chancellor can do several things that would be of assistance in protecting, or assisting the protection of, the world economy. He has not shown any sign of being willing to do several things that he could do to protect the British economy as far as possible from the storms that are beginning to blow. Of course, the United States must reduce its fiscal and current account deficits, as the Chancellor has said. It is easy for us to advocate the fiscal balance measures that he has advocated, but there is no point in our whingeing about the consequences of the steps that will have to be taken, and which will have serious consequences for imports into the United States subsequently, including imports from this country. They are bound to occur, however the United States cuts its deficit.
  We must recognise, too, the crucial importance of preserving open markets. There are real threats of recurrent, resurgent protectionism in the United States. It is extremely important that we in Europe do nothing in the European context that promotes or encourages protectionist measures. That places a special importance on the

  1103
  GATT discussions on agriculture. Faced with a weak private sector demand and a cut in the fiscal deficit, the United States must improve its international trading position quickly. That must involve letting the dollar rate fall below the Louvre bands. The Opposition motion today has got it a little wrong. The Chancellor is right to suggest that we should avoid rapid, disruptive exchange rate movements. I do not know precisely what the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) had in mind, because it did not become clear in his speech, although the motion speaks of something dramatic on this front. That would be damaging to confidence, and hence to economic activity in other countries. Some fall, however, must be permitted. The alternative is for our exports to be hit by the United States recession, or by United States protectionism.
  I also accept the Chancellor's view that the position would be greatly assisted by more expansionary policies, particularly in the Federal Republic of Germany. I welcome the announcement of the cut in interest rate there today. I do not altogether find the Chancellor's earlier public criticisms of the Federal Republic attractive. He sometimes seems a little like a child who is not prepared to play the game himself but criticises other players. That is not wholly edifying. His advice to the Europeans would carry greater weight if he entered more fully into the European exchange rate mechanism, which would give him additional leverage with the colleagues with whom he has to deal, and with whom he should be concerting his voice to bring about the changes to which I know he attaches importance.
  Mr. Redwood rose—
  Mr. Maclennan: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  The surplus countries do not really want to reduce their surpluses, and it is as well to face that reality. The United States must cut its deficit. How is a balance to be struck? The answer, or part of the answer, which neither the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East nor the Chancellor addressed in their speeches, lies in the Third world and its need to be able to import more. We must not shut our eyes to the close link between the structural problems of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the debt crisis in the less-developed countries. I had hoped that the Chancellor would say something about that. What is happening to the developed countries is nothing compared with what will happen to the countries whose commodity prices will be struck by the downturn in demand. Those countries will, therefore, be much less well placed to contribute any purchasing power to the economy of international trade.
  There is an urgent need to restore capital flows to the less-developed countries and to recognise that at such a time as this, when investment in those countries is risky, it cannot be assumed that the banks will in the near future voluntarily increase lending. Therefore, there is a considerable need for equity capital or guaranteed debt. In his Autumn Statement the Chancellor recognised the importance of an increase in World Bank capital. That is welcome, but it is not enough. The OECD Governments must do more, and Britain should be much more generous
  1104
  about export credit cover. It would be of considerable help to United Kingdom industry if we were to do so, especially if other OECD countries were in decline.
  I was disappointed to see in the Autumn Statement the prediction for next year of a 22·5 per cent. fall in Export Credits Guarantee Department cover. The Chancellor would do well to look at that again. No doubt we will be told that this is asking the taxpayer to take the risk of providing such cover, but the taxpayer is already doing so. I call in evidence the tax relief on the banks' provisions against the debts of less-developed countries.
  Unless the Government take action to help the less-developed countries to import more, there will be more write-offs and no more tax relief to follow. Therefore, it is in the interest of taxpayers to help to solve this problem. Some of what I say may not seem directly connected with the perceived problems of the domestic economy that will flow from this. While the Chancellor may be right to predict that the United Kingdom's economy will remain reasonably buoyant in 1988, even if the world economy retracts, by 1989 it is certainly likely to be caught in the wake of these damaging consequences. It is important that Britain takes such action as it can to offset that.
  If the economy is slowing down, there cannot be any case for the Chancellor focusing further upon the reduction of the public sector borrowing requirement, which is at an extraordinarily low level. It is practically negative, and in the Budget he must recognise that it is time to put more resources into those sectors that will increase Britain's prosperity. Obviously one has to be selective, and if I were to single out one area I would say that the right hon. Gentleman should look at education. It is quite extraordinary that the prediction for next year of the increase in expenditure by the Department of Education is 0·1 per cent. In the first leader of today's Financial Times there is a comment on the desirability of the Chancellor looking favourably on such expenditure on education, possibly in the form of tax relief that the Chancellor m:y have in mind to encourage people to choose education rather than holiday villas in Marbella. There is also a strong case for increasing expenditure on health and social services.
  The Government must allow interest rates to come down gradually and should encourage them to do so. There cannot now be much doubt that there is little risk of overheating in the economy, certainly not in the City or in the south-east. Generally, all countries need lower interest rates in a recession, and with inflation no longer likely to rise again significantly, Britain is no exception. The Chancellor must be certain that the pound does not become overvalued in this situation. It is inevitable that there will be some strengthening againt the dollar, but that must be accepted as part and parcel of the reduction in the US deficit.
  We must not get involved in a beggar-my-neighbour policy of competitive devaluation. The pound must remain competitive in Europe. Sticking to the deutschmark now is all right, but if there is a realignment in the next few months we should behave like a good member of the European monetary system and negotiate an appropriate level. The pound might not need to fall as far as the French franc, but it does not need to be pegged to the deutschmark.
  The Chancellor has no grounds for any self-satisfaction. He has been part of the Group of Seven and party to policies that have led to this crisis. However, he

  1105
  has some opportunity to limit the damage, and to do so he must play a full part in the international discussions. I fully take the point that the Chancellor made in answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, that a premature conference with the ground inadequately prepared and the necessary steps not taken in Washington would most likely be disastrous. There must be international consultation, so that the response to what is happening is absolutely clear. The right hon. Gentleman would be greatly strengthened in the role that he could play if he operated more fully in the monetary system of the European Community.
  As I say, the Chancellor could give a lead by example in dealing with export credit, and not give just good advice. Above all, he must recognise that his role in this matter is bigger than he has sometimes suggested, because of the very strength about which he spoke. He can legitimately claim some credit for that strength. The Chancellor boasted about our present growth rate, but he must recognise that as a whole international growth rates are dangerously low and falling. If we continue in this manner, we shall not be isolated from the consequences of a deep recession, possibly plummeting to a slump.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. Leon Brittan: Nothing that has been said by the Opposition since the fall in the stock market, since the publication of the Autumn Statement and certainly in the course of this debate, has begun to dent the Government's proud but fully justified claim to have put the British economy in a quite exceptionally strong and soundly based position to weather the economic storms emanating from other parts of the globe.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) began by making allegations, for which he was totally incapable of providing the faintest scintilla of evidence, about the views of Dr. Pöhl. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that there should be international co-operation in the form of a conference before the principal cause of the problems about which the international conference was supposed to confer—the United States deficit—is dealt with. Such a course of action would at best be a charade, and at worst a disaster. The right hon. Gentleman then regaled us with a sad catalogue of tired old policies that have failed in the past and would fail today. It is not surprising that he resumed his seat with evident relief.
  I welcome the opportunity to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on pursuing policies that have brought steady growth, falling unemployment and low inflation.
  Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, despite all the euphoria that he has expressed, in the north, which we both represent, although there has been a drop in unemployment, unemployment there is still far too high? Does he also agree that we need more serious intervention by the Government to build a solid and sound regional economy?
  Mr. Brittan: I certainly agree with the hon. Lady that unemployment in the north, and in other parts, is too high, but I draw to her attention the latest evidence from a part of the country with which she will be familiar —
  1106
  Teesside. Growth is no longer just taking place in the south-east or in the traditionally more prosperous part of the country. Teesside, as much as any other part of the. country, has suffered from the decline in traditional industries, and sadly it has been an unemployment blackspot. Business and industry have not been slow to point that out. Therefore, it is significant that the 30 October 1987 press release of the Teesside and District chamber of commerce and industry records that the prosperity of local manufacturing business continues to increase, according to its end-September quarter economic survey.
  Comparing the results of the survey of local manufacturing businesses for the third quarter of 1987 with the results for the third quarter of 1986, the press release concludes that 58 per cent. report increased sales, compared with 40 per cent. last year; that 53 per cent. report that their work forces have increased over the past three months, compared with 27 per cent. last year; that there is more optimism when it comes to expectations about the future size of the work force, because 28 per cent. expect to be employing more people in three months' time, whereas last year the figure was 20 per cent.; and that investment plans for plant and machinery are being revised upwards by 28 per cent. of the sample, compared with only 18 per cent. last year. When it comes to business confidence, 75 per cent. expect turnover to increase over the next 12 months, compared with only 47 per cent. last year, and 65 per cent. expect profitability to increase over the next 12 months, compared with 36 per cent. last year. I am glad that the hon. Lady gave me the opportunity to draw out those figures.
  Dr. John Reid rose—
  Mr. Brittan: I am afraid that there are too many hon. Members who wish to speak for me to give way any further. The policies outlined in the Autumn Statement are likely to sustain the confidence shown by that survey only last month in one of the worst hit parts of the country.
  Last year, I frankly had some anxiety about the change in the Government's aims for public expenditure—the change from keeping it roughly level in real terms to reducing it as a percentage of the gross domestic product. It seemed to me that there was a real risk of that change being regarded as a dangerous weakening of the Government's determination to curb public spending. With a growth rate of 4 per cent. this year, it is clear that the increase in spending of £2·6 billion for 1988–89 is perfectly compatible with financial prudence. With such a large increase in the national income, it is entirely reasonable that that should be reflected in a modest increase in public spending, provided that the increase is sufficiently modest for the proportion of national income taken by public expenditure to continue to fall. That condition is clearly met in the Government's spending plans, which I therefore fully support.
  The risks to the economy, therefore, emanate from overseas. Absolutely nothing that has been said in the House or outside it has achieved the remotest success in establishing or proving that the policies or actions of the Government have played any part in the current turmoil. Last night and today the Chancellor gave a short, sharp prod to the United States. He stressed the urgency of action to deal with the budget deficit if the fall in world stock markets is not to gather further momentum and lead

  1107
  to a world recession. He was right to do so, but it is important to point out that he added two further matters. He pointed out that he was saying nothing new, and that the problem is one of political leadership.
  Earlier in the year I expressed concern about the quality of United States' leadership as reflected in its handling of the situation in the Gulf. That was regarded by some hon. Members as mildly heretical at the time. The concern expressed by the Chancellor has shifted to the economic leadership of the United States, and it is just as justified. That concern, although expressed more openly, frankly and sharply in recent days than in the past, has been felt and stated for many years. I think that the Chancellor referred to a period of four and a half years. When I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 1982, I had a meeting with somebody who was then, and still is, a senior figure in the United States Administration, when I urged on him the necessity to deal with the budget deficit of the United States. That was not some eccentric frolic of mine. I was saying what everybody in the Government then felt and was saying on similar occasions.
  We did not, however, get all that much support from the rest of the country. Some people at that time were urging us to increase the public sector borrowing requirement by massive sums. We were asked, not only by Opposition Members, "What is so magical about the public sector borrowing requirement? Is it not just a figure, just a lot of mumbo jumbo, a few billions here and a few billions there? Surely it cannot make any difference." There were many who added, "Look, the United States is borrowing massively. It is not doing any harm to that country. It is allowing an expanding economy." Frankly, faced with that chorus, it was difficult to keep saying that what was happening in the United States was unsustainable and that the chickens would surely come home to roost. It was impossible to predict precisely when that was going to happen, but it was clear beyond the slightest doubt that happen it would, and happen it has. We cannot expect to be unaffected.
  If we had followed the advice of the Labour party and weakened ourselves by massive increases in the public sector borrowing requirement, what has happened in the world markets would already have sent our economy into a tailspin. However, there is only limited comfort in that reflection. While world economic problems remain, it is right to urge the United States to curb its deficit and to urge the Germans and the Japanese to expand. It is not our business to tell the United States precisely how to deal with its deficit, or what combination of spending cuts or tax increases should be brought to bear, although The Daily Telegraph was right to point out this morning that the United States could raise $50 billion through a gasolene tax and still leave petrol at prices not seen in Europe for the better part of a decade. I only hope that there is enough of a crisis atmosphere in the United States to provide the political impetus to force the President and Congress to reach a resolution of these matters.
  It is important that the cuts in the deficit should be substantial and credible. They have to be more than the $23 billion provided by the Gramm-Rudman Act anyway. Although they must be substantial, they must not be so great or so fast as to create recessionary pressures, unlikely though it is that that would happen. World markets are much more concerned that the announced cuts, if
  1108
  agreement is reached, should be effected within a clear and defined timescale. It is because of the need to have confidence that we are not just seeing another set of words and promises, such as those that we have seen so often from the Japanese, that there should be a tax component in the package. Anyone who has been Chief Secretary to the Treasury in this country, or the equivalent in the United States, is well aware that theoretically agreed cuts in spending can all too soon melt away, and the markets appreciate that.
  If such an agreement could be attained there would be scope for concerted world action, with reduced interest rates. However, that alone would not be sufficient. The risk of protectionism in the United States is at least as great a threat to the world economy as the budget deficit. If that is to be withstood —and here I agree with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)— there must be a fall in the value of the dollar. The Louvre agreement will have to be modified, certainly with regard to the principles of managed floating favoured by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, to allow for a fall in the dollar, although not too great a fall, and certainly not a free fall or anything of that kind. However, it will have to fall a certain amount to offset protectionist pressures.
  All that has consequences for us, but we cannot be sure precisely what the consequences will be. If international agreement can be secured in response to what has already happened, and in relation to the corrective measures that must be taken, that is likely to lead to only a modest reduction in the rate of growth in this country from the 3 per cent. mentioned by the Chancellor at the IMF meeting in September to the 2·5 per cent. figure that features in the Autumn Statement. However, we will have to consider future interest rate reductions and our own fiscal policy.
  The Chancellor was correct to stress that there is a special uncertainty about forecasting at the moment. It is fortunate that decisions about the size of the public sector borrowing requirement and tax cuts do not have to be taken today. All that can and should be done at this stage is to put down a marker or two. With an assumed PSBR for 1988–89 of £1 billion, there would clearly be scope for tax cuts of about £3 billion.
  There is a lot of scope for argument about the way in which those tax cuts should be used and I would favour using as much of the scope as possible to take people out of paying tax altogether, one way or another. However, if the international prospects look gloomy, and if the risk of recession increases when the time comes to determine the PSBR for 1988, the Chancellor might well think it appropriate and necessary to accompany lower interest rates with a slightly higher level of borrowing. To do that in such circumstances would not in any way be contrary to our economic strategy. It would make it possible to accommodate more tax cuts than would otherwise be possible. The purpose of that would be economic and not political. In such unhappy circumstances, we would be playing our part to keep the world out of recession.
  It would be wrong to increase borrowing substantially or to increase it from a starting point, such as we had a few years ago, of a very large deficit. If we were really facing world recession with a very nearly balanced budget, there would be a powerful case for a modest degree of fiscal relaxation.
  I very much hope that it does not come to that. I hope that sanity prevails in the counsels of the nations and that

  1109
  we will be able to reach the kind of agreement that will ensure that economic growth can continue on the scale envisaged in the Autumn Statement next year and in the years beyond. I have no doubt that the policies followed by the Government give us the best chance of doing that.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I had been led to believe that I would have the delightful pleasure of following a Conservative Member making his maiden speech. I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) did very well and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with me. As some editors used to say,
  "There must he some mistake here, surely".
  The crash on the stock exchanges around the world strikes at the heart of the Chancellor's belief that markets act wisely and rationally. When the crash started, the Chancellor began appearing on television stations bitterly criticising the market players. However, at least he looked perky and bright. By the time that he eventually appeared in the House and realised that he had a BP flop on his hands, he had turned a bilious green and that colour seems to have remained with him right up to today.
  I was very worried for the Chancellor and for the nation today. The Chancellor's speech was so bad that, had the markets been listening to him, I fear that they might have followed the course of the St. Petersburg market in 1917 when the index fell to zero and the Russian revolution followed.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): That was a golden age.
  Mr. Sedgemore: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury calls it a golden age. I do not accept that view. I am not one of those old time Stalinists.
  On Tuesday the Chancellor delivered his Autumn Statement. I found myself agreeing with the market that it was frighteningly irrelevant to the needs of the nation at this time. On the very day that the Chancellor announced his statement, the markets which, given what had happened over the past three weeks, could only be described as being in ebullient mood, plummeted by 70 points. Yesterday, after the markets had had time for calm and mature reflection on the value of the Autumn Statement, they plummeted a further 45 points.
  Who on earth wrote the Autumn Statement? The only name that I have been able to come up with so far is that of John Banham, the ludicrous director general of the CBI, who earlier this week gave us this year's immortal quote:
  "Crash? What crash? I can't remember any crash."
  The problem is that there is a complete disconnection between the contents of the Autumn Statement and what is happening in the real world. Most bizarre of all—and nearly all hon. Members have referred to this today—the figure for the PSBR is set at 0·25 per cent. Getting rid of the PSBR seems to have become an icon in the Chancellor's pagan theology. However, why should we get rid of it? What is the reason behind that?
  As the PSBR has been reduced, real interest rates have risen. Real interest rates are now twice what they were in 1979. If there is some empirical evidence to show a relationship between reducing PSBR and reducing inflation, I hope that some Conservative Members will produce it tonight. As a member of the Treasury and Civil
  1110
  Service Select Committee, I and Conservative Members have looked hard, but none of us has been able to find that evidence.
  What should the PSBR be? I watched the famous television programme "This Sunday" when the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was asked what he thought the PSBR would be if the dollar had a hard landing. He replied that he thought it should be between £5 billion and £7 billion. That is roughly 1·5 per cent. of GDP. I asked myself what I would have replied if I had been asked the same question at the same time with the same premises. I would have combined prudence with the knowledge that there are many unused resources in our economy and that 2,900,000 people are out of work. It was within the premises of the question that a severe recession was about to follow. In those circumstances, I would have picked a slightly higher PSBR at between 2·5 per cent. and 3 per cent. of GDP. In my view, historically that would not have been out of balance, given the problems that we would have been facing.
  The crash on Wall street started on Monday 19 October. Perhaps it was ironic that I first discussed with a journalist in a coffee shop in Brighton three weeks earlier on Wednesday 20 September the political and economic consequences of a crash. Given the time and the place and the fact that I am only an obscure Back-Bench Member in the British Parliament, no one took any notice of the imminent collapse that I was telling people about. That is life, I suppose, but ultimately the academics and the historians will want to know what I was saying at the time. There is also a 20-page speech setting it out for the same party conference, so it is on the record.
  It is clear that there is going to be a recession. The only question worth asking is, "How big will it be?" It is sometimes possible for Governments to mitigate the consequences of what happens, but such awesome economic events have the habit of brushing aside the puny efforts of statesmen. We cannot pretend that they have not occurred. The Government have had a lot of luck in their economic management—perhaps more than most other Governments—and it is sad to see that luck running out through the irrational antics of the Chancellor's erstwhile friends who play the markets around the world. The nation should realise that the thundering herd of Thatcher rhinos which stampeded to sell on the London stock exchange are all either friends of the Prime Minister or friends of the Chancellor, or both.
  In America, Reagan's buffaloes caused the damage; in Britain, Thatcher rhinos created mayhem. But it will not be only them who pay the price. I remember, when the Labour Government faced a crisis in 1976, Tony Crosland said that the party was over. In 1987, I must say, on behalf of the Conservative party, that the ball is over. No one is fooled by the Autumn Statement.
  "Never glad confident morning again", Nigel!
  These have been three terrible weeks for those who believe that the markets know best. We have a Chancellor who, as I have told the House before, could not float one of the richest, most powerful and most profitable companies that the world has ever known without intervention because the markets could not cope. What kind of Chancellor is this who said to the world, "BP—don't be part of it, whatever you do"?
  This Chancellor used to tell us that the only determinants of the economy were the various measures of money supply — Mo, M1 M2, M3, PSL1, PSL2,

  1111
  broad money and narrow money. He used to say that, because the markets were both the medium and the message, he could abolish the minimum lending rate. Yet, in the middle of a crisis, this free-market, non-interventionist Chancellor, brass-necked, poker-faced and without a hint of shame, told an astonished world that he was about to reduce interest rates by a half of 1 per cent., in what has subsequently been described as the most ludicrous piece of fine tuning that the British economy has experienced since the war.
  Are we really to believe that this free-market, non-interventionist Chancellor now has a nightmare every night, in which he goes through the agony of wondering whether to tell the House or the Bank of England next day that he is going to change interest rates by a fraction of a percentage point? Interventionists, fine tuners and Keynesians the world over simply do not know how to respond.
  This Chancellor used to appear in the House and tell us that the foreign exchanges knew best. Now the exchange rates are fixed by the Louvre accord, and are basically determined by central banks and central Government. How extraordinary it is to see the great god and lord protector of markets turn turtle in such a ridiculous fashion. Now his only market principle, his only monetary principle and his only economic principle is lack of a principle.
  I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you remember James Russell Lowell. He once said,
  "I don't believe in princerple, But O, I du in interest."
  Is that not a definition of the modern Conservative Chancellor? Utterly without principles, but believing in interest—the interest of underwriters and market players whom he must save from themselves, and of fat cats in the City who have ruined it for us all because they operate on a casino called the London stock exchange?
  Talking of the word "casino", perhaps I could make a sad—or perhaps joyous—announcement. I am reliably informed that John Maynard Keynes, the famous economist who dubbed the stock exchange a casino 50 years ago, today turned over in his grave, smiled knowingly and went back to sleep for the rest of eternity, because he had realised that the genesis of his ideas would prevail. The hon. Member for Wokingham is right: Keynesian ideas will prevail over those of the Chancellor. I wish the hon. Gentleman well in his argument with the Chancellor, who told the House today that, whatever happened to the world economy, be it a soft or a hard landing, he would not go into deficit financing. In two years' time, the hon. Member for Wokingham will have it right and the Chancellor will have it wrong: there will be deficit financing.
  The question that we must ask ourselves is, "How serious will the crisis be?". When I asked the Chancellor a question last week, he replied that it was not the crash but the actions of Government that had created the crisis in the 1930s. I consider that a dangerous half truth. I do not believe that it is possible to wipe $1,000 billion off the value of stock all round the world without severe damage, whatever the response of Governments.
  Mr. William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in 1929 the stock market rose significantly before the recession, and it was the imposition of
  1112
  protectionism in the United States that set the recession going? No doubt the Chancellor rightly had that point in mind.
  Mr. Sedgemore: First—and I shall say more about this I do not believe that if the stock markets suddenly bounced up tomorrow the problems would be solved. Secondly, I disagree fundamentally with what the hon. Gentleman has said about protectionism. Perhaps he should realise that protectionism came in in Britain in 1932, and the British economy, which had been growing at 2 per cent. per annum, suddenly grew by 4 per cent. per annum at almost exactly the same time. I know the argument, but I think that there is wide disagreement about the role played by protectionism in that crash. I do not wish to go into the matter in detail, but I am not on the side of the hon. Member's interpretation.
  I believe that the real problem lies in the loss of confidence and the creation of uncertainty. Even if the markets bounced back next week, that loss of confidence and uncertainty would still be there, because we would not know where the markets would go in the following week. The interaction between uncertainty and loss of confidence, and liquidity and the ability to borrow, produce, and trade, creates a problem that cannot be wiped out by a series of Government macroeconomic measures.
  Sir Ian Lloyd (Havant): I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with considerable interest. There seems to be a certain inconsistency in his attribution of the cause of the present position in the first place to the inefficiency of markets, and in the second place to a lack of confidence and uncertainty. If the market for assets—which is what the stock exchange is—has operated efficiently, should it or should it not have reflected uncertainty or a decline in confidence? Was it operating efficiently, or was it not?
  Mr. Sedgemore: I am told that that is a question that the hon. Gentleman must answer because he knows more about the markets than I do.
  In the interaction between loss of confidence, uncertainty and liquidity—the ability to borrow, produce and trade—there is a series of timescales and many institutions and individuals are involved. It is naive for the Chancellor to believe that for the British, American, Japanese or German Governments to take one or two macroeconomic measures will suddenly right everything. That is not a credible scenario. The event has happened and some of the damaging consequences will be there whatever happens.
  We have been told—again it has been the subject of the debate—that the Americans caused the problem with their budget deficit. There is no doubt that the budget deficit has created many difficulties for America, but we are not concerned with deficit budgeting per se. America decided to finance its budget in order to keep inflation down by borrowing foreign money. They also have to finance a trade deficit at the same time. The cumulative amounts, taking into account interest on foreign debts, built up by its trade deficit and budget deficit, will, it is threatened, be measured not in billions of dollars but trillions of dollars. When that happened, it was clear that the American economy was in an arithmetic hole from which it would not get out without causing a lot of damage.

  1113
  We have now seen the first part of that damage. There will be second and third instalments. They will hurt America and the United Kingdom. But to seek to argue, as the Chancellor apparently did, that therefore there was no case for deficit financing in any other country—none of the others faced the same kind of problems that the Americans faced as a result of financing theirs through foreign debt—is a patent absurdity. If Japan, Germany, France, Italy and Britain were all to stop their deficit financing, we would see a slump which would make the current situation seem almost like a vicarage tea party on a Sunday afternoon. It is plainly not credible to put forward that argument. The hon. Member for Wokingham has got it right, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got it wrong.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) when he finds it faintly ridiculous that the Chancellor should go along to the City of London and wag his finger and butt his stomach out in the direction of the Americans, almost in complete incomprehension of the kind of problems faced by that political system in this kind of crisis. It is almost impossible to believe that that kind of approach by a British Chancellor, which totally ignores the realpolitik of the United States, can do Britain, the United States or the world any good at this time.
  Whether or not the Chancellor has abused Mr. Pöhl, the member of the Deutsch Bundesbank, it is no good us giving the Germans a lecture. Their interest rates are considerably lower than ours in actual and in real terms and they have limited room to manoeuvre. Even if we lecture the Japanese, I am sure that they will not wipe out all their surpluses just because it might suit us.
  Although, like everbody else, I can be in favour of international accords, meetings and some attempt to find some new structure for the way in which the world deals with its financial crises, for the moment the British Government should be changing their monetary and fiscal stance in order to do their bit to help the world. The motion recognises that, and so I shall support it.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. David Davis (Boothferry): I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech so early in the debate. I am also grateful for the compliments on my speech, however premature.
  I pray the indulgence of the House to speak briefly about my constituency and to pay proper tribute to my predecessor in Boothferry. The constituency of Boothferry encompasses the Yorkshire wolds and extends down to the vale of York, across the Ouse and Humber to include the Isle of Axholme. It is a beautiful rural area and can claim to be one of the cradles of English individualism. Many of its people fought for their beliefs and for other people's rights. Some died. Robert Aske, who led the pilgrimage of Grace, was hanged in chains in York castle. Others, such as William Wilberforce and John Wesley, have, by the force of their character, and their commitment to their ideas, changed the world in such a way that history will never forget them.
  Today, individualism takes the form of enterprise and initiative on the part of the people I represent. That is why Yorkshire and Humberside has many more small businesses, private enterprise and self-employed people than most other areas of Britain.
  1114
  My predecessor in Boothferry was Sir Paul Bryan. When Sir Paul entered the House as the Member for Howden 32 years ago, he was already distinguished by his war record. He was a holder of the Military Cross and Distinguished Service Order. I think that he was the last Member of the House to hold both those decorations. He was clearly a man of considerable courage and leadership Courage has been described as the quality of exhibiting grace under pressure. Sir Paul had the quality of exhibiting grace in all circumstances. He was greatly loved in my constituency for his dignified leadership, quiet compassion and calm wisdom. If I can do as much for my constituency and the House as Sir Paul did, I shall be justifiably proud.
  Sir Paul had one other characteristic when he came to the House which helped him to stand out from the crowd. He had an entry in the "Guinness Book of Records". He was and is a keen golfer and he achieved the feat of getting two holes in one, as some hon. Members will know. He tells the story of returning from that round, buying the traditional round of drinks in the club house and telling the barmaid about the fact that he had scored two holes in one. She asked him which holes he had scored them on and he said that it was the ninth and twelfth. "But, Mr. Bryan," she said, "those are the two shortest holes in the club." Such wry scepticism is often seen on the Opposition Benches today.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has scored hat trick after hat trick—in the Autumn Statement last year, the Budget this year and the Autumn Statement this year—when we had a higher growth record than any other Western nation, a faster fall in unemployment than any other country, and many other characteristics in our financial situation which stood out as being models for the rest of the world. However, the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) will not be the real test of the Government's policy. The real test of the Government's policy and our economy will be how it withstands the global adversity that we are seeing today.
  I want to explore how that test will come about. I am not just talking about a slump or a potential slump. If we have a slump, everybody understands what that means as a test for our economy. If we avoid a slump, that, too, will be a test for our economy.
  Let us examine what has been said about what is needed to avoid a slump. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) basically described five different points. Two of them are American. There is obviously the need to cut the budget deficit and the Americans must abandon protectionism. Three other things have to be done. First, we must maintain the liquidity of the financial markets, and that has already been done. Secondly, we probably have to see some fiscal relaxation in Germany and Japan. Thirdly, we must see a modification of the Louvre accord to allow the dollar to devalue to a proper level against the deutschmark. If that goes ahead and is successful in preventing a global slump, there will be a continuation of growth in global demand—it will not be as high as in recent years but it will continue. However, the structure of that global demand will change.
  Labour Members like to talk about the real economy, but what will happen in real terms? The American market will suffer deflationary effects. The policy change and the consumption effects of the Wall street crash will have deflationary effects. American industry and employment

  1115
  will be protected from that, to some extent, by the dollar-deutschmark parity change. British industry will not be protected. Some. £12 billion worth of exports will be going into the dollar area markets. We will have a smaller, more difficult market for our high-tech and high-value items—typically the items that we sell to the United States—and we will face tougher competition from American producers with that dollar advantage.
  We will have to look elsewhere for outlets. If the global economy is growing, by definition there will be expansion elsewhere. When we look elsewhere we will run head on into Japanese competition and Japanese products that have been displaced from the United States market. We will also face German and American competition, which will be tougher because of that dollar parity change. We will have to battle hard for our market share. That market will not necessarily be in the same products—it certainly will not be in the same place—and we will have to fight for every percentage point of share.
  How will Britain's industry cope? The transformation of British industry in the past eight years will ensure that we will win enough battles to maintain our growth rate. How would we have done eight or ten years ago if we had taken on the Japanese or tried to sell Jaguars to Germany? That is the acid test of Government policy. That is the test that will apply if the global market does not crash. The previous Labour Government would have failed that test. Their policies would not have coped because of the lack of competitiveness that they brought about in British industry.
  That is the successful scenario, but in the unsuccessful scenario the other side of the Government's balance sheet takes effect. Clearly competition and competitiveness still matter. However, the Government's ability to inject more demand into the economy—this is a common sense approach, not a Keynesian one—is a function of its creditworthiness. Any company chairman will know that creditworthiness dictates how one copes. The United States' problem is that it has run out of creditworthiness.
  The Government's balance sheet is as good as it has ever been, but it is not the only important balance sheet. Over the past few years it has become fashionable to criticise the bull market. However, one of its side effects is that British industry has been able to obtain lower borrowing levels, better equity funding and a lower risk base than ever before. Thus, it is better equipped to deal with stronger competition and higher margins.
  Our policies stand up, on any scenario, in comparison with anybody else's. We have the flexibility to move with the world markets. We have the capacity to cope with a drop in world demand. In the final analysis, whatever the outcome, the British economy has the equipment to harness the wind or weather the storm.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. Peter Shore: It falls to me to be the first speaker to be called after the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis). I add my congratulations to those of Members who are sitting immediately around him on a distinguished maiden speech. It combined matters that we like to hear in a maiden speech. The hon. Genleman talked about his constituency, which has obviously produced men of great character for many hundreds of years, and he paid tribute
  1116
  to his predecessor, Sir Paul Bryan, who many years ago won the affection of hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman made a valuable contribution to the debate. He warned that we will face tougher competition in world markets, which is indisputably true, as a consequence of the past three weeks. We shall look forward to future contributions from the hon. Gentleman.
  I should like to say equally pleasant things about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but they would not be true. He did not do himself any good in his speech, nor during his exchanges with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). The right hon. Gentleman displayed a degree of oversensitiveness and irritability. For the first time, it made me wonder whether we are wise to press for the presence of television cameras in the Chamber. If world markets had be able to see the look on the Chancellor's face—the clear state of anxiety and agitation—panic would have been conveyed to markets here and abroad.
  It was not only the manner of the Chancellor's speech that was worrying. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) and others put their fingers on a central and worrying point in the right hon. Gentleman's analysis. The Chancellor was challenged by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East as to what he would do if the United States Government followed his advice and cut their budget deficit, with the subsequent contraction of world demand, and what he and his colleagues in the G7 countries would do to expand demand to offset the deflationary influences of the American economy. His answer was one of the most negative and worrying statements that I have heard. He dismissed out of hand the possibility of using public expenditure and the public sector borrowing requirement or a range of direct measures that are available to the Government to compensate for a massive loss of demand elsewhere.
  As we approach the end of the third week of disorder in the stock and currency markets, none of us can doubt the considerable dangers that face the western world. Thousands of millions of pounds of capital values have been wiped out, with all the effects that that will have on consumer demand, capital investment and commodity prices. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for bringing the consequences for the Third world into the debate. It is difficult to quantify these matters, but the effects will be severe. The central task of the British Government and the other leading industrial nations is to prevent the current disorders in the money markets leading to a serious recession in the real economy. I hope that hon. Members can agree on that point.
  The Chancellor has done all that he can by verbal reassurance to stabilise the market. Yet successive statements in the House over the past fortnight—following two successive 0·5 per cent. interest rate cuts—have been followed by further declines in the Financial Times index.
  As to the current state of the British economy, I agree with the Chancellor that the stock exchange has overreacted to a ludicrous degree. Now that our own market, with the Government's enthusiastic encouragement, has simply become a component in a global stock market, it is hardly surprising that our stock exchange is

  1117
  just as much, if not more, influenced by events in the world economy as it is by the fortunes of the British economy alone.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East was right to stress the fact that the basic imbalance between the current account deficits of the United States and the current account surpluses of Japan and Germany are a major source of instability. It is a mistake to have a one-sided view. The United States had a deficit of $140 billion in 1986, but Germany and Japan had a combined surplus of no less than $122 billion in the same year. This year the United States deficit will be $147 billion and the German and Japanese surplus will be no less than $132 billion. Next year, although the United States deficit is forecast to fall to $126 billion, the surplus of Germany and Japan is still estimated to be no less than $116 billion.
  In my view, the failure of Germany and Japan to expand their internal demand is just as culpable as that of the United States in failing to bring its external account closer to balance. Indeed, I would say that it is more culpable. The United States deficits have been the only real engine of world economic growth in the past five years. If the United States market had failed to grow, and if exports from other countries, including the Third world debtor countries of Latin America, had been choked off by American deflationary measures, the world economy could just as easily have been plunged into recession and the world money markets disrupted by successive debtor defaults among the main debtor nations. By 1988 the United States is scheduled to have halved the deficit levels incurred in 1985. More rapid progress would give some benefit but, if it is not carefully judged, the American economy could easily tip over into recession. It is for that reason, and because I cannot believe that megaphone financial diplomacy makes sense, that I regret the overemphasis placed by the Chancellor in his Mansion house speech on the correction of the American budget deficit alone.
  Two things are needed. First, we need steady opinion and clear evidence that the United Kingdom Government have recognised the threat to the British economy and are ready to take effective measures to counter the onset of recession. Secondly, we need support for essential international co-operation to bring some balance and stability back into world trade and exchange rates and to foster economic growth.
  On United Kingdom internal action, I very much regret the fact that the Chancellor did not take the occasion of the Autumn Statement to announce substantial increases in public expenditure. If only a year ago, when presenting the 1986 Autumn Statement, the Chancellor was able to congratulate himself on his prudent management of the economy with a £7 billion PSBR—equivalent to 1·75 per cent. of GDP—surely a year later, and in the aftermath of the London stock exchange collapse, he could have announced measures to strengthen the British economy well within last year's prudent PSBR target of £7 billion. That would not only have been extremely welcome to those who have pressed for so long for improvements in infrastructure and for better public services; it would have ensured an additional increase in GDP next year of about 1·5 per cent. I heard somebody say that that would be inflationary. Why should it be more inflationary this year than the £7 billion PSBR was last year when we were managing our affairs with prudence?
  1118
  By limiting the increase to a mere 1·75 per cent. in real terms, the Chancellor has failed to use the main instruments of counter recession policy. He still has the fiscal judgment to make at Budget time, and I have no doubt that he will be looking for a cut in income and other taxes. There is no certainty that such increased purchasing power will lead to increased expenditure or that if such expenditure did take place it would not take the form of increasing imports rather than a stimulus to the British economy.
  We must look to international co-operative action for the crucial decisions in the period ahead. The Louvre accord and the Plaza agreement have had great success achieving a managed realignment of currencies and a successful and major devaluation of the dollar against the deutshmark and the yen. I am sure that the Chancellor will wish to sustain and reinforce those beneficial agreements. I hope that we shall hear confirmation of that from the Minister in his reply to the debate.
  Exchange rate and interest rate policies, although extremely helpful, are not enough in themselves. It is essential that the economies of the Western world should better co-ordinate their policies of economic growth than they have in recent years. World economic expansion cannot now be left to the United States alone. The burden has to be taken up by other major industrial countries such as Britain and France, but most notably by Japan and Germany. I hope that the Government will put their full weight behind that essential aim.
  6.46 pm
  Mr. David Howell: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) on his excellent and extremely interesting maiden speech. He spoke not only with great gusto but with considerable authority. We are not just mouthing words when we say that we look forward to hearing similar contributions with similar authority in the coming weeks and months. He did extremely well.
  The difficulty that has faced the Labour party was well described in an article about 10 days ago in the Financial Times. That newspaper is not always a paid-up supporter of the Government. However, a political correspondent pointed out that the Labour party would be unable to say anything intelligent or sensible about the economy as long as it was unable to recognise what had happened in the economy. If it persists in asserting, against all the evidence, that everything is hopeless and that difficulties are worse than ever, and if it is unable to see that there have been fundamental improvements in the structure of the economy, such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry, it will continue to make banal and unconvincing contributions to the debate. I am afraid that that is the problem that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr Smith) was caught up in today, and it almost sunk him completely when he tried to put forward his ambiguous position.
  Whatever the dangers in the world—they are considerable—the reality is that this vessel, the British economy, is extremely seaworthy and in much better shape than it has been in the past. That does not mean that we will not be rocked about, but it is in good condition, and credit for that goes to my right hon. and hon. Friends, especially to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has supervised the recreation and rebuilding of a more seaworthy British economy than in

  1119
  the past. The London stock market took an enormous buffeting. It was greater than many people expected, but it was paying the price of being a truly global stock market. When it was the one market in which people all over the world could sell their shares rapidly, they naturally chose London. That does not mean that the United Kingdom economy is not extremely sound and in excellent shape. There should be no ambiguity about that. If Labour Members want to join in the debate on how to handle the difficult world conditions, they should get away from their blind dogma that everything is disastrous, recognise the achievements and learn how to build upon them.
  During the past two years my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has led the way in international co-operation. He has taken a substantial lead. He has been able to do that because the British economy is sound and is no longer weak and in debt as it was under the Labour Government. That has helped greatly to steady the international situation. I am predisposed against currency intervention. It is very difficult, it works only if it moves with the market, it can cost a great deal and it can be highly ineffective. However, we must face the fact that with vast capital movements around the world that have nothing to do with currency requirements for trade a degree of cushioning and moderating of currency volatility is desirable. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has recognised that and, with his international colleagues, has moved urgently and constructively to meet the need.
  Having said that, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that there could be a limit to the usefulness of what might be called America-bashing. The United States deficits are very swollen. However, the plain fact is that even if it is wrong that they should be so large—and there are reasons for that which have not yet been mentioned—there will be no change overnight. If the world's policy-makers wait for miracles to happen in Washington, and for major cuts in the budget deficit to be achieved by big tax increases or expenditure cuts, there is a danger that they will be disappointed. As the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) said, the American constitution, from its inception, was constructed and designed to prevent rapid Executive action. It is certainly not designed to overcome the gigantically powerful spending lobbies in the United States. Therefore, while I hope that we shall hear credible statements from Washington, it is unwise to depend solely on some magic being worked overnight in Washington to correct the fundamental difficulties and imbalances in the American economy. They will take a long time to put right.
  It is important that while we wait for that to happen we consider urgently the two immediately identifiable areas in which policy went somewhat awry in Western economies in recent months. We should see whether, by repairs in those areas, we can achieve an early restoration of confidence in the world economy.
  Of those two aspects of policy, the first is the Louvre accord, which hon. Members have mentioned. The Louvre accord was the second agreement in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took a leading part. Earlier he was one of the architects of the Plaza agreement, which was extremely skilfully timed and which was able to influence, stabilise and handle the dollar decline very successfully.
  1120
  The Louvre agreement was reached with rather different ambitions in mind, and we need to consider whether those ambitions should now be modified substantially.
  The apparent stability of currencies within pre-set ranges that existed in the summer months of this year covered up the pressure that was building up for the dollar to decline further. People say that the dollar should decline further, but it has already declined. Now the Louvre agreement has momentarily broken down—unfortunately amid open abuse on either side of the Atlantic. Mr. James Baker and Mr. Stoltenberg, for example, have said some unnervingly robust things about each other. When that happened, the seeds were sown for the very substantial dollar decline that has taken place in recent days.
  It is essential that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who has taken the lead as an architect of international co-operation, should come to the fore and apply his enormous talents to building a better system that can deal with crises such as that which developed when Japanese and German interest rates momentarily rose and caused the Americans to grow angry. That is precisely the sort of crisis that should have been handled by a sensitive and flexible Louvre accord, based on discreet and close understanding between finance Ministers and central banks. Many people thought that we had such arrangements in place, but it turned out that we had not. I believe and hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is now putting his talents to rebuilding such arrangements, because that is the first requirement if we are to begin to see confidence restored. It is no use waiting for the miracles in Washington, which will take much longer. We must move on that front now, and I think that my right hon. Friend pointed in that direction in his speech in the City last night.
  The second change that is immediately required, and immediately possible—in contrast to our longer-term hopes—becomes clear when we turn our eyes to Japan. Like the American deficit, the Japanese surplus will take a long time to go. There is no more chance of turning the Japanese into a high-consumption, low-saving society overnight than there is of curing the United States budget deficit overnight. In the meantime, the Japanese have a duty similar to the duty that fell to this country in the 19th century when we dominated the world with our exports. That duty is to maintain massive capital outflows from the economy to finance and stabilise the rest of the world. That is what has happened in the past two years, with the Japanese financing the United States deficit. One could argue that there was some justice in that because the United States deficit was driven, at least in part, by defence expenditures incurred to assist Japanese interests. That uneasy settlement seemed to work for a time.
  When the Japanese withdrew from the United States bond market and ceased to finance the United States deficit some spotted the danger signal and others did not. The Japanese withdrawal in April led to the gradual unfolding of the crisis. At this stage, pressure should be exerted, not so much on the United States, but on Japan, which should be urged to fulfil its role of maintaining its capital exports. I do not much care how the Japanese go about that. Perhaps they should go back to the United States bond market. Perhaps they should massively increase their grants to developing countries. Perhaps they should make a more direct contribution to the world security system. There are many ways in which they can

  1121
  maintain a massive capital outflow. Unless the Japanese do that, the lack of confidence and misery of recent days will continue.
  The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) is very experienced and has lived through and served in Governments through many crises. However, I do not share his view that we should all deliver good lectures to the Germans and Japanese on how to expand their economies. For one thing, I do not think that would have very much effect, and for another, careful examination of the evidence shows that the Germans and Japanese have done a considerable amount. One does not get a clear impression of that because German official rhetoric is designed to disguise the fact that the German economy has expanded or has been accommodating in any way, but today, with the cut in the Lombard rate, that has become very evident. The Japanese, too, have increased their imports vastly in recent years. Japan is a conservative society, but it has moved to meet the situation, not only by its standards, but by anyone's. We should not be bashing Germany and Japan. Instead, we should move forward with a new and modified Louvre agreement.
  Opposition Members will not share my view that by far the wisest course for any one country to follow is to do what we are trying to do against the coming storm—batten down, maintain sound public sector finance as far as possible, and concentrate in every way on improving the flexibility and the supply side of the economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry suggested that we should expand Jaguar and other volume car sales into other markets and that is how we shall achieve that aim. We shall do so, not by throwing higher public spending at problems, but by improving the capacity of our economy to operate in the new and much bumpier conditions ahead.
  Perhaps we should relax a little on monetary and fiscal matters, given that the world inflation risk is now very low and that the price of oil will fall in the new year, albeit not dramatically. There is no world danger of inflation. However, the idea that we should answer the problems of the coming storm by piling on more sail in every direction and waiting to be blown over—or urging the Germans and the Japanese to do so—is absurd, dangerous and irresponsible.
  I must tell my right hon. Friends something that I suspect they know already—that another financial earthquake could happen again if we simply sit around waiting for something to happen in Washington that will not happen in the short term. In dealing with past policy mistakes that must be put right it is far better to concentrate on what is within the Government's capacity to achieve than to wait for developments in either Washington or Japan that are concerned with the fundamental imbalance of the world economy. That imbalance has developed over many years and will take many years to put right. Let us instead concentrate on a modified Louvre agreement, with the Japanese resuming their capital support and capital exports, thereby giving the world at least a breathing space to restore world stability and growth, and then build on that.
  7 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: As one of the 1987 intake, I add my congratulations to those already expressed to the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) on an exceptionally coherent maiden speech. I think that Opposition Members would be about 80 per cent. in
  1122
  agreement with him. The hon. Gentleman represents a constituency just north of the great dividing line—often described as running from the Severn to the Humber—as I do in representing Cardiff, West. It is a part of the country that is familiar with adversity, so we can speak with a great deal of sense about the real world in which we live and the problems that the country faces in trying to adjust to the events of the past eight years.
  In that spirit of inter-party co-operation, I think that we all agree that tonight we are discussing the death of Reaganomics. As we know, that comprises seven or eight elements: the obsession with tax cuts, depressing levels of benefits in the welfare state and the attempt in initial years to raise the currency to artificial levels—which were intended to apply a cold shower to manufacturing industry that was thought to have outdated practices, strong trade unions and dependence on smoke-stack industries, creating what, in the north eastern part of the United States, became known as the Rust Bowl—union bashing, popular capitalism, supply-side economics, enterprise culture, deregulation, particularly of airlines and financial markets—which led to takeover mania—and a huge expansion of credit. Of course, the Opposition accept that, happily, none of those factors applies in this country—they play no part in this Government's policy: they are purely American phenomena. Therefore, we are glad that the Government are trying to dissociate themselves from Reaganomics. They are ditching President Reagan in his final year of office, and they claim that the problems in America are not ones that this country could ever face.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the problem in America does not revolve around the items that he listed—some of which are admirable—but has happened because America tried to apply those policies before it had brought its deficit under control, unlike this Government? That is what has given our Government so much flexibility but has caused the problem in America.
  Mr. Morgan: I could add further items, such as military spending. Indeed, the way in which the British economy has developed shows remarkable similarities to the American economy. An example of that is the level of manufacturing investment. It is one area on which I disagreed with the hon. Member for Boothferry. He claimed that the British economy was now more efficient than it was in 1979 and, therefore, was far better placed to weather the storm.
  However, we know that manufacturing investment, even at the height of what the Chancellor likes to call the great boom economy, is 7 per cent. below its 1979 level. That poses certain problems in weathering the storm. Indeed, at the gathering last night the Governor of the Bank of England—and I am sure that the Chancellor heard him—said that he was worried that the crash would affect the recovery of industrial investment that is essential to sustain non-inflationary growth. The recovery of industrial investment has not yet returned to its 1979 levels, and the crash may depress its current level that is already 7 per cent. below that of 1979.
  I think it fair to say that we are currently somewhere near the top of the trade cycle, but with a downturn very likely, what will next year's industrial investment be compared with 1979? It makes us wonder how we can have

  1123
  that boom economy when industrial investment is so low. It is a distorted economy because it has been run on similar lines to the American economy. There has been far too much union bashing, caning of the traditional smoke-stack industries, deregulation and takeover mania. Financial investment has become more important than capital investment. The Government have deliberately encouraged the enterprise culture and popular capitalism, which have taken precedence over the encouragement of industrial investment, infrastructure, education, research and development and all the other matters on which the Government should be concentrating.
  We do not have a more efficient economy, only a smaller and more distorted economy—not a healthy position with a likely downturn next year. The Opposition are not alone in predicting that downturn—it is widely predicted in the London Business School forecast published this week. Indeed, most commentators agree that it will be extremely difficult to maintain our levels of exports, especially to the dollar areas, during the recession that is bound to happen as America does exactly what the Chancellor told it to do through his megaphone of international co-operation last night.
  What have been the effects of the distortion caused by encouraging deregulation in the financial markets and the "anything goes" atmosphere that has applied equally to both the City and to Wall street? We have closely intertwined financial markets—indeed, they are almost as intertwined as our stocks of Trident missiles, as was announced two weeks ago, much to the amazement of the Opposition. Furthermore, so intertwined are they that the flurry of arrests and the attempts to correct the excesses of the City following the Guinness takeover of Distillers would not have happened but for American corrective action of its takeover mania on Wall street.
  If I understand it correctly, District Attorney Giuliani of the New York district court became bored with Mafia bashing and turned his attention to the revelations of insider traders Dennis Levine and Ivan Boesky about City misdoings. The Opposition heard the evidence of that with a feeling of great alarm. It is the product of the attempt to inculcate an "anything goes" atmosphere and takeover mania, which themselves were brought about by excessive concentration on deregulating financial markets and the neglect of industrial investment. That had distorting effects on the real economy and has created the inability to weather the storm next year. It leaves the United States of America and the United Kingdom with far too little manufacturing industry and Germany and Japan with perhaps far too much for their own health. It certainly leaves Britain with too little to solve the problems of 2·75 million or more unemployed and the prospects of a recession next year.
  The attempts to inculcate popular culture reached a further ludicrous level one week ago today, with the decision to proceed with the BP share sale. Such sales have become an important part of the Government's philosophy. They maintain that we must get more like America, that we must spread share ownership among the people, and that we must—in this case—pour troubled oil on the troubled waters of world financial markets. A top American stockbroker—not Goldman Sachs—referred to it as the charge of the Light Brigade. Opposition Members watched with great alarm the
  1124
  Government's extraordinary decision to proceed. Obviously, they suffered from indecision about it as they decided to suspend the advertising campaign.
  How narrowly was disaster averted? If the BP share sale had been one week earlier, or the crash had been one week later, how many small shareholders would have been dragged into a stock market which they did not understand but had entered because they believed every word of the £20 million advertising programme. Conservative Members have to concede that that would have been the end of popular capitalism in the stock markets in this country, and of any prospect of wider share ownership for at least a decade. All hon. Members would concede that that would have happened if the timing of either the crash or the BP share issue had been altered by one week. I think that I am being fair to the calendar and to the sequence of events last week.
  When the Chancellor decided to proceed with the share sale one week ago, there was a wonderful explosion of enthusiasm from Conservative Members. Coming from the Principality, I was reminded of those odd occasions at Twickenham when England scores a try early in the game, and takes an early lead, and a section of the crowd who bear more than a passing resemblance to Conservative Members realised that it may be their only opportunity to let some air out of their lungs. Knowing that the final score will be pretty dire, they decide to take a little comfort.
  In the few moments before the Chancellor said, "However, in order to avoid unstable markets", Conservative Members availed themselves of the opportunity to cheer. We have seen the extraordinary debacle, the real BP share price continuing to drop and the buy-back option being extended by a further two weeks, if I understood correctly the Chancellor's statement. The stock markets have failed to respond to the buy-back option and to yesterday's half point cut in interest rates. Share prices continue to slide.
  I do not know where the Chancellor will attempt to put his sticking plaster next. He has been rushing around blaming the Americans, cutting interest rates and providing a buy-back option to prevent BP and other share prices from falling. I am not sure what other options he may have in mind, but if people believe that such tinkerings will solve the problem of the world economy they probably believe that bicycle clips are an effective cure for diarrhoea.
  The problems are deep-seated. Conservative Governments are in charge of seven of the major countries of the Western world and their tendency to blame each other increases daily. The problems in our economy which has been distorted by borrowing ideas, though not money, from Reaganomic America is becoming more serious as we go over the top of the trade cycle and down into the recession that all independent commentators are expecting next year.
  Far be it from me after the events earlier today to suggest that in the remainder of his political career the Chancellor may be thinking of taking up non-executive directorships with BP, N. M. Rothschild or anybody else. I am sure that he will be far too busy with his new post as chairman of "The Narrower Share-Ownership Council".
  My hon. Friends and I want a less distorted economy, more industrial investment, more infrastructure investment, more research and development and more education

  1125
  and training because, above all, instead of selling our future as the Chancellor keeps doing, we should use the strength that we have to buy our future.
  7.14 pm
  Sir Peter Hordern: I shall not follow too closely the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) because he went rather wider than I intend to. However, some of my remarks will follow the course of his, and I hope that my speech will not be altogether out of the context of his contribution.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), in his absence, on an admirable maiden speech. He spoke, not only with great clarity and style, but positively. I am glad that he paid such a graceful tribute to Sir Paul Bryan who was a special friend of all Conservative Members. However, I advise my hon. Friend that when he recounts a funny story he should at least acknowledge the author. I hope that on another occasion he will do so.
  I pay credit to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his achievements, which many commentators have put down to luck.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell indicated assent.
  Sir Peter Hordern: I notice that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is one such person.
  There is no luck in consistently reducing the public sector borrowing requirement and removing many of the restraints that have handicapped our economy for many years and, at the same time, increasing public expenditure where it matters most. It is not a lucky chance that productivity is at its highest level for many years. At any time my right hon. Friend might have fallen victim to the siren voices of some of my hon. Friends or to the foghorn voices of Opposition Members, who still continue to urge him to spend more money and indulge in deficit financing. My right hon. Friend has resisted them all and has never fallen victim. Therefore, he has every right to claim that he has followed a most prudent and direct course in keeping public expenditure under control, although sometimes expenditure has gone a little further than was originally intended.
  I think I am right in saying that, when my right hon. Friend was Secretary of State for Energy, the National Coal Board amassed substantial reserves of coal under his guidance before the strike and today we are in the strongest possible position to withstand a buffeting in the world financial markets. My right hon. Friend will know, because he is a complete realist in such matters, that there is certain to be a buffeting. Through no fault of our own, the outlook for the world economy is distinctly rocky at the moment. Stock markets everywhere reflect that. It is absolutely right to criticise the febrile nature of stock markets and the fact that they have fallen so far. However, on all past criteria they were far too high before the crash and it is by no means certain that the fall has finished. There is no just price for equities, only a relationship with bonds and the outlook for growth. That outlook is now in doubt because of the internal and external deficit of the United States.
  We have all derived much benefit from the expanding market in the United States of America of the past five years. That applies not least to Japan, which until now has been quite happy to finance such expansion. Let us
  1126
  suppose that the United States acts to correct its deficit. What would we think if it withdrew some of its large strategic investments abroad, such as its 300,000 armed forces in western Europe? Only yesterday we had a n assurance from the President that no such thing would occur. However, it would be tempting, to say the least, for Congress to look for means by which it could reduce its overseas deficit.
  Mr. Budgen: I ask my hon. Friend to make a leap of the imagination. If he were, for example, a farmer in the mid-west who had been brought up with isolationist tendencies, and if, by chance, he happened on one occasion to listen to some of the advice that has been showered on America recently, might he not feel rather offended by that advice and even come to the conclusion that it would be a good thing to withdraw American forces from Europe?
  Sir Peter Hordern: That is a risk that we should all be aware of. What would happen if Congress and the President enforced an Act to restrain foreign trade? I read Samuel Brittan's article in the Financial Times today, which stated that there was an agreement among senators to block any such move. It could well be a close-run thing, and pressures for trade restrictions are bound to grow. We should be willing to heed the concern of the United States about the effect of the common agricultural policy and the European Airbus, about which it feels strongly.
  Let us suppose that the United States reduces its internal deficit by applying a petrol consumption tax. That would reduce internal demand and ultimately the demand for our exports and those of western Europe and Japan. However, let us suppose that the United States does none of those things. We have been urging the United States to reduce its internal and external deficit for a long time, but let us suppose that it follows a policy of masterly inaction. That is at least as likely as that it will follow the harsh regime that is proposed for it, not only by hon. Members here, but by many other countries. The United States might simply muddle on. What price the Louvre accord then? Keeping the dollar at more or less current rates is proving an extremely expensive business. The Germans are fed up with propping up the dollar, because of the effect on their money supply and, ultimately, on inflation. It is no use Mr. James Baker sounding off against Herr Stoltenberg. I have long admired West German monetary policy, and Germany cannot be blamed for not being prepared to import or risk inflation.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor says that there has been a substantial inflow into reserves, amounting to about $16 billion. That figure is recorded in the Grey Book. We have been supporting the dollar at great cost. As the House knows, to nullify that expansion at the cost of supporting the dollar, if we are not to have any monetary consequences, we will have to sell the exact equivalent amount of gilt-edged securities to the non-bank public, and that sum would have to be added to the public sector borrowing requirement. I have no idea what that would mean. It could amount to £5 billion or £6 billion. Therefore, although the PSBR is low, I do not think that it is quite what it seems.
  I did not hear exactly what my right hon. Friend said, but he may decide that he need not fund that extra amount and the cost of intervention in various foreign exchange markets because the monetary policy could accommodate it. It is no longer any use trying to follow the formerly

  1127
  magic figures of M0 and M3. I like to think that there is no greater devotee of these matters than myself. Indeed, I often think that I am the last remaining monetarist. I have done my best to follow those figures, but it is no longer any use. If any hon. Member wants to know what monetary policy is, it is whatever my right hon. Friend says it is.
  It is perfectly true that expectations about spending may have changed. I believe that that is the case. However, just a few months ago, at the beginning of August, so far as monetary aggregates were concerned, my right hon. Friend thought it right to put up interest rates. Of course, it is the shock from the stock markets that has now induced him to reduce, or cause to be reduced, those interest rates, not once, but on two occasions. Add to that the increase in the money supply that is likely to come about by continued intervention in the foreign exchange markets and I believe that there will be a substantial increase in monetary aggregates.
  We should not spend too much time trying to support the dollar while the United States prevaricates. That is likely to be an expensive course. If there is a fundamental imbalance, there is nothing to be gained by such a game.
  I recall the words of Sir James Callaghan when he was Prime Minister. He mentioned a convoy of countries, setting off, not only in perfect harmony, but with engines going rather faster than they were designed to go, steaming to the promised land of eternal growth.
  I recognise that the comprehensive discussions with other countries are necessary. No doubt they will proceed. I hope that no one thinks that the result of the discussions will lead to a massive growth that will be able to recover the American deficit. I do not believe that. There is no future in such an arrangement. Perhaps that is not what my right hon. Friend has in mind. It will not work. We must take account of matters as they are. It will not be easy. It is better to allow the dollar to fall to the level at which its payments may balance—whatever that may be—than to prop up a system with increasingly reluctant allies to support a rate for the dollar that cannot be justified.
  We can do something about the situation. It does not consist solely of lecturing Japan and West Germany about expanding their economies against their will. Ages ago we should have reduced the tariffs that we mounted against United States exports. Of course, it can rightly be said that the United States has a most protectionist regime, but we cannot claim that western Europe is blameless in that respect. We have only to look at the operation of the CAP and its consequence. It has raised food prices and costs generally for our own people. I have no doubt that that could happen in many other countries. It is all very well to tell the Americans what their duty is, but we have a plain duty to make United States trade exports substantially easier than they are at present. That is something practical that we can do. We should talk to our trading partners about how we can reduce existing tariff barriers. That would do more good than any amount of confabulation about the pace at which we should advance and how much money we should pump into our respective systems.
  I do not know whether any hon. Member has woken up in Kansas City on a bright sunny morning. [Interruption.] Knowingly, that is. If, by chance, they have
  1128
  done so, they would have been offered some of those delicious American pancakes with maple syrup and a copy of the Kansas City Star. If they had looked at the Kansas City Star—there are about 32 pages of it—they would not have found a single word about any event outside the United States, and precious few about events outside Kansas. The idea that Americans will be lectured by us or other responsible countries in western Europe demonstrates an active imagination. They will not listen.
  What is the real state of the United States economy? What will happen? Suppose the dollar were to fall. Why should it not be a benign economic influence in the United States? There would be a reduction in the inflow of Japanese imports and, I regret to say, from us. The United State economy would be boosted, at least temporarily, until it could become competitive again. That is certainly an attractive course for America. I hope that nobody thinks that America may not favour a marked decline in the dollar rather than adopt policies, even if they are practical and we urge them upon it, which it does not like.
  I urge my right hon. Friend, however desirable it may be, not to think that the Americans will take early notice of lectures and rhetoric telling them what to do. They will not listen. We are in a relatively strong position, and we shall need to be during the weeks and months ahead. Above all, I hope that, in concert with our partners, we shall try to take the opportunity to remove the trade barriers that have existed for far too long. We can make a good start with the common agricultural policy.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Pat Wall: Black Monday 19 October 1987 may well mark a watershed in post-war history; a watershed in the trading relationship between advanced western industrial nations, a watershed in industrial relations between Britain and other countries, and a watershed in relationships between different groups and classes within our society.
  One thing is certain: the events of the past three weeks cannot be passed off as some form of temporary aberration, as an absurd reaction or an example of late autumnal madness. The Chancellor may refer to events in Wall street as the big dipper effect and to subsequent City of London collapse as a grotesque reaction, but some hon. Members might be forgiven for believing that such events are a reflection of the real state of the world economy and markets.
  Let us examine the figures. There has been a fall of a trillion dollars in the value of world shares. On Black Monday 1987 there was a fall of almost 23 per cent. on the Wall street stock exchange, compared with a fall of only 13 per cent. on Black Tuesday in 1929. There has been a £146 billion cut in the value of shares on the London stock exchange. Such startling events cannot be dismissed as lightly as the Chancellor would suggest.
  Last week, I directed a question to the Chancellor and referred him to remarks in The Wall Street Journal and the report from the National Bureau of Economic Research in America which showed that each of the post-war occasions when shares fell sharply had been followed eight or nine months later either by a recession or at least by a severe slowing down in world economic growth. The nub of the question which faces the House, all Western nations, all political parties and the lives and realities of millions of ordinary people throughout the world is this: why should the latest stock exchange collapse be any different

  1129
  from the eight previous post-war collapses? This is by far the most severe. This is the first post-war stock exchange fall to be compared with the events of 1929. It is true that the 1929 collapse was preceded by a drop in investment and production, and the recent collapse occurred during a relative boom—a boom which has been labelled by some economists in their peculiar jargon as a growth recession. Perhaps Chancellors of the Exhequer, economists and I might find that term better explained by Tommy Docherty. When he was manager of Manchester City he was asked to explain his feelings after five successive defeats. Bold Tommy said, "We are rolling along on the crest of a slump." They were brave words from Mr. Docherty. He did not keep his job. The Chancellor's brave words to various stock exchanges and business organisations during the past fortnight will not alter the course of developments that are taking place throughout the world.
  It is also true that, compared with the situation in 1929, banks, especially those in America, are not as directly involved with stock exchanges. The collapse of the banks led to the major recession and associated problems in America. Nevertheless, there is a new problem facing the banking world: the Third world debts which will not be recovered over the next few years.
  On the other hand, the growing development of the world as a single market, the growing division of labour on a world scale, the scouring of the remotest corners of the world market by investment managers in search of successful investment and the computerisation of stock exchange equipment have led to a much more generalised fall than was experienced on a world scale in 1929. Perhaps we should recall the graphic words of John Foster Dulles who coined the phrase the "domino effect" in respect of the political situation in south-east Asia. Today, the fall of one stock exchange rapidly leads to the fall of others.
  I wish to deal with the development of the capitalist economy in the post-war period. Between 1949 and 1973, national output grew by 9 per cent. per annum in Japan, 4·5 per cent. in Europe and 3·7 per cent. in the United States. That post-war boom led to rising profits, reaching a peak in the 1950s and still at about 17 per cent. during the 1960s. It then began to fall, culminating in the first post-war world recession of 1974–75. That recession was followed by a short boom from 1976 to 1979 and by an even deeper recession between 1979 and 1981.
  Growth rates between 1982 and 1987 have been significantly lower than those of the 1960s. Japan achieved a growth rate of 3·8 per cent. compared with its earlier rate of 9 per cent., the EC a rate of 2 per cent. compared with 4·5 per cent. and the United States a rate of about 2 per cent. Profits, which fell to as low as 3 per cent. in 1981, have recovered slowly to about 9 or 10 per cent. This is not particularly attractive for investment in the private sector, when investors can receive similar rates of interest from the banks.
  The growth rate between 1924 and 1929 was higher in percentage terms than it has been during the five or six years of the present so-called boom. The world came out of the last recession in 1981 on the basis of the demand for goods and labour created in the American economy. That demand was led by the tremendous expansion in American arms expenditure, which is a colossal $300 billion dollars per year, compared with Britain's £18 billion, which is the highest figure of any nation in the EC and far higher than that of Japan. There were false hopes in the United States
  1130
  that an arms drive would lead to increased manufacturing production and success in that country. Without that arms drive, there would not have been even the modest improvements which the Chancellor has attempted to claim over the last few years. Without the American boom and the American arms drive, there would have been no progress and even greater unemployment for the people of Britain and western Europe.
  That arms drive, which has led to a deficit in the American economy of between $160 billion and $170 billion, was financed by attracting investment in the American economy from Germany, Japan and other nations, on the basis of interest rates which at one time reached a staggering 19 per cent. That enormous rate of interest explains the present crisis and led to the overpricing of the dollar, the lack of competiveness of American industry and to the twin dilemmas of a budget deficit of about $170 billion and a similar trade deficit as imports poured into America from Japan, West Germany, the EC and, to a limited extent, from Britain.
  Two years ago, faced with the collapse of non-armaments manufacturing in America and with the growing tide of demands from those manufacturers for tariffs and restrictions on foreign trade, American policy was reversed. There was a rapid cut in interest rates to the present level of a little under 9 per cent.
  Although that reversal did little to stimulate general manufacturing in the American economy, it led to a dramatic fall in the price of the American dollar—an overall fall against other leading currencies of 40 per cent. and a fall of between 48 and 50 per cent. against the deutschmark. Faced with dwindling returns on their investments in American industry, West Germany and Japan moved their investments from dollars into other currencies. That increased America's problems.
  It is all very well to talk of world economic co-operation, but, in spite of both the Plaza and the Louvre agreements, the decision of the West German authorities—later withdrawn, it is true—to increase interest rates was the single item which represented the final straw that led to the Wall street crash of 19 October.
  The problem in the United States is not as simple as the Chancellor and Prime Minister would have us believe. It is very easy to deliver pious lectures to the American Government about cutting their budget deficit, but how will that be achieved? Will wages be cut or will social wages—welfare payments to the American population—be cut? Such cuts would restrict the ability of the American working people to buy back the goods that they produce. It would lead to a downturn in the American economy and the rapid onset of recession. The Chancellor has called for higher taxes in America, but that would mean a cut in business profits. In America, as in Britain, the vast majority of investment in industry comes from banks rather than the stock exchange or from the profits taken from the labour of working people. An increase in taxes would lead to a fall in investment in American industry and to recession. Of course it may be true that tax increases would mean that the onset of the recession would be slower.
  I do not believe that people appreciate the magnitude of the problem. A trade war could develop. I believe that it is ironic that, once again, the Chancellor has poked fun at the Labour Front Bench today. He said that the Labour party has changed its position and is now calling for America to cut its deficit. In anything there must be a sense

  1131
  of proportion. I am sure that most people would realise that there is a difference between a lake and an ocean, even if both are manifestly composed of water. It is ironic that the Chancellor who, par excellence, has been the Chancellor of "solve-all" by cutting taxes is now lecturing the American Administration on the need to increase taxes to solve its deficit problem. Indeed, he is also a recent convert to the cutting of interest rates.
  A world trade war, sparked off by a recession in America, would have enormous repercussions for other countries. At the moment America takes up 25 per cent. of total world imports and exports only 6 per cent. of its production. Britain exports 33 per cent. of its gross national product, as does West Germany. Holland, Sweden and Belgium export 50 per cent. of their produce. In a trade war, the American economy, because of its continental nature and, even today, its enormous strength, would certainly suffer, but Britain, West Germany, Europe and Japan would face a more devastated future. The Americans demand from the Japanese a 20 per cent. share of the Japanese market. In fact, at present, the Japanese have a 13 per cent. share of the American market. Japan imports only 5 per cent. of its total needs. It is ludicrous to expect the Japanese Government and Japanese big business to quadruple their imports from America. If they did so, a similar demand would be made by other nations of the EEC.
  By definition, politicians have a certain amount of ego. There is a certain amount of satisfaction for anyone to go before any body and say, "I told you so. I told you what would happen." Some of us have, for some time, predicted a further world recession in the lifetime of the Government. We feel ourselves vindicated by the collapse that has taken place in the past three weeks on the stock exchange. Indeed, it is a forerunner of the events that are about to take place. However, we witness these events with no pleasure.
  Recession means increased unemployment, increased economic misery and increased turmoil among the various populations of the world. There is no joy in poverty and there is nothing noble about it. Many Labour Members, and, I suspect, even a few Conservative Members, have known what poverty and unemployment mean. They may know that through personal experience, or through their families, friends, neighbours or their communities. Poverty is a narrowing, restricting process. It drives people to despair and causes enormous problems.
  The folklore of the American 1929 crash—the popular picture—is that of millionaires, jobbers, brokers, company presidents and ex-rich investors throwing themselves from the windows of the stock exchange. Now they have built that building so that that is impossible. Those deaths represented a tiny handful of people, but many more people died as a result of the 1929 crash. In the years of depression that followed 1929 and the massive unemployment that occurred in Germany, in Britain and throughout the world, many people in ordinary families committed suicide. Many people died prematurely because of inadequate diet. Many people died prematurely because of diseases that could have been cured if they had had the money to seek treatment at that time. Many infants died in the first weeks and months of life because they lived in the appalling slums that existed
  1132
  in the cities of the world at that time. Therefore, nobody on the Labour Benches and no Socialist makes the prediction of the coming recession with pleasure.
  In recent weeks the Conservative party, officially through the Prime Minister, has said that Socialism is dead. It has been claimed that Socialism is an outmoded philosophy and that its support among the people of Britain will soon die. However, with the pressure of the stock exchange collapse, part of the Socialist ideals have been accepted by the Conservative Government. It may be argued that the stock exchange is of no relevance to the real economy and that is true. More than 90 per cent. of the transactions that take place on the world stock exchanges have absolutely nothing to do with commerce and industry. They are concerned with gambling and speculation in shares, futures and currencies. They have nothing to do with the creation of wealth on a world scale. Wealth is created by the labour of working people in productive industries.
  It is on the basis of the wealth created in the productive sectors of the economy—as the Tory amendment partly recognises—that we can pay for the civilising parts of our life: health, education, sport, culture, the arts and all the things that make life richer and more noble. The belief that that is the role of the stock exchange shows that it is not Socialism that is old fashioned, but capitalism, which has gone back to the same old process of the inter-war years.
  There have been two old-style recessions since 1975, with two weak booms in between them. We now stand on the eve of an even more devastating recession in the world economy. As we have already seen with the BP farce, much of the gloss has been taken off so-called people's capitalism. Socialism stands for collective decisions and ownership of wealth, and the direction of industrial production to the needs of people and not to a handful of stock exchange speculators who benefit the most. Such Socialism is needed. It is a system of society which will become more attractive.
  We are moving into an era of people's Socialism, not people's capitalism. It is necessary, and although we have perhaps not said it very well in recent years, what we are trying to do is to build a plateau—not for the underwriters of the BP claim, but for millions of ordinary people. I refer to a plateau of decency and reasonable living standards, on which people can develop their personal talents, personalities and more satisfactory lives.
  Today is 5 November. On this day throughout the world millions of women will spend four hours collecting water and fuel—an economic activity that is not recorded anywhere in world statistics. How ironic that people are forced to that back-breaking labour in a world of yuppies, sunrise industries, space travel and enormous technological development. What sort of system are Conservative hon. Members defending when, in times of recession, only 70 per cent. or less of human productive resources are in use and, in boom times, it is only 80 per cent.? 19 October marked the end of people's capitalism and the beginning of a popular people's Socialism.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Terence Higgins: The House should be grateful to the Opposition for promoting today's debate because Opposition speeches, the Opposition motion and an article in The Sunday Times last Sunday, written by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)—I believe

  1133
  that he is to reply to the debate—all show how badly the Opposition have misunderstood the present economic problems. I shall quote one sentence from the article I have mentioned:
  "The casualties of the crash have been spectacular. The first has been confidence in the soundness of the government's economic strategy."
  If one thing has emerged clearly, it is that the House is not really concerned today with the soundness of the Government's economic strategy, or the British economy.
  We confront so me extremely difficult financial problems, and it is certainly right to ensure as much international co-operation as soon as possible. The hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) said that this was a time in which the speculators on the stock exchange were making large profits. I doubt whether that is the case. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the crash of 1929, but it is important to remember that the Wall street stock market crash did not cause the recession of the 1930s, which was the result of the mistaken reactions of Governments around the world to that event. That is why I believe there are big differences between the two crashes, and it is important to analyse what needs to be done in the present circumstances.
  The Opposition motion, and the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), laid particular stress on saying that excessive priority had been given to finance at the expense of the real economy. It is strange that Opposition Members should draw that dichotomy. The reality is that the way in which the Government can influence the real economy is largely by financial means. Of course, they are not the only means, and the Government cannot themselves create wealth. That is done outside the House. But to say that one should concentrate on finance or wealth creation is to create a dichotomy that suggests that one must distinguish between the two. They are intimately related. If one analyses the one wrongly, there will probably be disastrous effects on the other.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East seemed to concentrate on the problem of the United States' external deficit, and suggested that that was a problem for us. However, the fact that the United States is exporting too little and importing too much—much of it from this country—is not the immediate problem. We must spell out the relationship between the fiscal deficit and the external deficit of the United States. Recently the reality has been that the growth of the American fiscal deficit has resulted in higher interest rates, which were necessary to fund it. That, in turn, has resulted in an inflow of funds from abroad, because savings in the United States were not enough to fund the deficit, even at those high interest rates. The effect of that has been to raise the dollar exchange rate, which has made American exports less competitive and imports to the United States more competitive, with a resulting balance of payments problem.
  So the crux of the matter must be the United States deficit. That is the root of the problem—not the external deficit, on which the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East concentrated.
  It is important to be as symmetrical as possible about this issue. Much of the problem arises from the position of Japan and Germany, to which many hon. Members have referred. That is a real problem. For decades, we have found that it is much more difficult to get countries with
  1134
  strong currencies to take corrective measures than countries with weak currencies. That applies all the way from the scarce currency clause of the Bretton Woods agreement. Even so, we must seek to persuade the United States to take effective action, especially on the fiscal deficit. We must also recognise that it is much more difficult for the United States to take that type of action than it is for the British Government. We have a marvellous invention—I am always surprised that no one else has copied it—the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. It is possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have a discussion in Cabinet one morning, to come to the House in the afternoon and to announce that taxes will change in a matter of hours. It is vastly more difficult for the United States to do that.
  Also, the division of powers in the United States between President, Congress and the Federal Reserve creates real problems. Nevertheless, it is urgent that action be taken on the deficit but, for the reasons that I have mentioned, that will mean, in the first instance, a clear statement of intent by the United States. We all know that it is never popular to say that taxes must go up. I do not believe that any declaration of intent on reducing public expenditure in the United States will carry sufficient conviction to restore confidence, which is badly needed in the international community. However, a pronouncement about taxation would have an immediate effect.
  We must recognise that there is still a real danger of what the Treasury Committee said in its report as long ago as September 1985. That report spelt out the danger of a hard landing for the dollar if something was not done. A sudden downward slide in the dollar exchange rate would have obvious inflationary implications and would create other problems about the confidence of people from abroad who have invested money in the United States. That could result in a considerable rise in interest rates to offset that fall. As the Treasury Committee said, that would create a serious situation. That is one of the main reasons why it is important that action should be taken on the fiscal deficit in the United States.
  It is also important for us to take effective action. The response of the Chancellor in reducing interest rates following recent events was the right one. We must certainly welcome the fact that there has been a similar move in the United States in contrast to what happened after the 1929 Wall street crash. However, there is still further scope for us to reduce interest rates against the background of a situation that is not the same as it was a month ago.
  The original medium-term financial strategy set out very clearly why it was intended to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement. It was said that that was to be done in order to lead to a reduction in interest rates. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been extremely successful in reducing the PSBR—even if one allows for the fact that to some extent the reduction is due to the proceeds of asset sales. Therefore, we ought to be getting the benefit of that success. We were subsequently told that it was necessary to keep interest rates up because that would have a favourable effect on the United Kingdom's exchange rate. However, we all know that our exchange rate is now very healthy. If anything, from the exporters' point of view, it is rising to levels that are disadvantageous rather than advantageous. That restraint has gone.
  The third reason which might justify high interest rates is that the economy might have been overheating. It is

  1135
  extraordinary that the Opposition motion complains that there will be a downturn in the economic growth rate. Of course there is a downturn from the unexpectedly high growth rate of 4 per cent. last year that was set out in the Autumn Statement. Allowing for the fact that the growth rate forecast in the Autumn Statement includes oil, the growth rate in the non-oil part of the economy should still be 3 per cent. The Opposition cannot reasonably complain about that. It is now at a level which, given the events of the last few days and their depressing effect, has taken some of the dangerous froth off the top of the economy which might otherwise have inhibited the Chancellor from taking a more relaxed attitude to interest rates.
  As some hon. Members have said, we owe a great deal to the United States for the growth that the world has enjoyed in recent years. I hope that in a spirit of friendly persuasion we can get the United States to do something positive on the lines that I have suggested. In turn, we can respond with a further change in interest rates. That still leaves a problem in terms of the Germans and the Japanese, and we must hope that that problem can be solved by negotiation.
  The suggestion by the Opposition that we should have a G7 meeting to sort out the problems is not the right answer. It would be extremely dangerous to have a meeting at this stage unless we were absolutely clear that it would produce positive results. Nothing could do more damage than a G7 meeting that broke down and was seen to have broken down. It is right that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Prime Minister should continue to seek to persuade our international trading partners to learn the lessons of the 1930s. I think that they have learned those lessons, and if that is so then not only our strong economy but the other economies of the world will manage to weather this financial storm and go on to an improving rate of rapid economic growth.
  8.4 pm
  Dr. John Reid: I echo the congratulations offered by my hon. Friends to the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) on his maiden speech. I am sure that he will deliver many more interesting speeches. I would be less than truthful to the House if I did not say that my admiration for that speech was enhanced because, due to Committee work, I heard only one other speech in the debate—the speech by the Chancellor. After that speech it was almost inevitable that the maiden speech by the hon. Member for Boothferry should be received in glowing terms.
  I listened to the Chancellor in amusement and amazement. It put me in mind of the famous last words of Douglas Fairbanks senior. Before he died he said, "I never felt better in my life." The whole of the Chancellor's speech was complacent, and either he does not or he will not understand the threat of the crisis in the City. I agree with the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) who said that the financial catastrophe might hit us again and that we could not just sit around and wait. The problem facing the right hon. Member for Guildford is that that is exactly the Chancellor's policy. Is it any wonder that Sir Nicholas Goodison, the chairman of the stock exchange, said last night at a dinner which the Chancellor attended:
  1136
  "the fall in share prices over the last three weeks demonstrated a massive loss of confidence in the judgment of the world's political leaders."
  To whom do the Treasury Ministers think Sir Nicholas Goodison was speaking? Was he speaking about the leadership in the Soviet Union, or China or Taiwan or was he—as he must have been—speaking about the Tory leadership of the seven major industrial powers of the Western world?
  I suppose that we should be thankful for small mercies, because the Chancellor has moved somewhat in the last week. When the crisis started a week ago, the Chancellor argued that the stock exchange was acting in "an absurd way" and that it would not affect the real economy. He has now had to admit that the collapse in share prices and the events in America are likely to have a recessionary impact on the economy. It is all the more puzzling that, even though he has moved that distance, he still retains a policy of doing absolutely nothing.
  We know that the Government have a 4 per cent. growth rate this year and they say that next year it will be only 2·5 per cent. We know that the inflation rate this year is 4 per cent. Next year it will go up to 4·5 per cent. For nationalised industries, it will probably be 6·5 per cent. and in the housing sector it will be 7 per cent. The Government admit that the trading deficit will be worse next year—up to £9 billion for manufactured trade goods.
  There is fear of a fall in growth and an increase in recession, the threat of an American spin-off in the recession and fear of increased unemployment. In that situation, is it not amazing that the Chancellor is without policies? I was tempted to use the simile, "the king with no clothes" but I thought that the image might horrify the House. The Chancellor has no international policy because he will not take a lead in calling a meeting of the major industrialised countries. He has no national policy because he will not take the precautionary or preventive measures that are necessary to protect and to raise public investment.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and my other hon. Friends have outlined an alternative. We have called for regulation of the financial markets and for international action. We have also called for a further fall in interest rates and for an injection of public investment into the British economy to prevent a downturn and further unemployment. That is the way to match economic sense and social conscience. I shall dwell on that for a moment, because under the Government those things have been separated and remain poles apart. In one compartment there are the economics of the mad house as they are so often called, and the other compartment contains the philosophy of the poor house which governs the social reality and the social policies of the Government.
  Conservative Members have confined the debate to the City of London as though it sits in a little crystal glass unrelated to the outside world. The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) asked that we link the financial and industrial sectors and that we link the debate to the realities of the real economy. We should also link the debate to the realities of the real world, not only the economic realities but the social realities. If we do that, we shall find that the contrast between the Government's treatment of certain sectors becomes all the more stark.
  I am not surprised that the Government want to keep their colleagues in the City isolated from any outside

  1137
  reality, because the Government are the party of the City, are paid by the City and are driven by the City, for the City. The past week has illustrated just how far that bias has gone. We have seen the Government running around trying to stop City investors losing their proverbial shirts. The BP share issue proved that, despite all the proclamations of adherence to free market economics, the Government are prepared to intervene in the economy. They are prepared to intervene to avoid hardship and poverty, but tragically only when it is hardship and poverty affecting their friends in the City.
  When was the panic when those on the poverty line increased to 18 million? When was the House greeted with hushed statements when the number of people on supplementary benefit increased by 119 per cent. under the Government? When was the midnight oil last burnt by civil servants in Whitehall or the Treasury poring over a solution to the 3·5 million unemployed? When were civil servants paid overtime to work through the night to find a solution to the problem of the 1,200 Caterpillar workers in my constituency who tomorrow will probably lose their jobs?
  There was no panic, no statements and no burning of the midnight oil over those issues. For eight years the Government have shown an indifference to growing impoverishment and increasing deprivation among millions. However, they went scuttling back to their drawing board when their City friends faced the grim prospect of having to sell one of their Picassos, while the really deserving people do not have Picassos to sell. They do not have millions to shuffle between frontiers. They do not take their savings bank deposits and deposit them in South Africa because it will earn an extra 0·5 per cent. interest there since that country is guarded by guard dogs and barbed wire. That is the real scandal of the financial crisis.
  There used to be a saying that God helps those who help themselves. We should rephrase that. This Government help those who help themselves. They help those who help themselves to the rich pickings of privatisation at the taxpayers' expense. Having helped themselves, those poor Oliver Twists of the City time after time come running back with their big begging bowls demanding ever more. The big, bumbling beadle of a Chancellor is ready to dollop out ever more of the taxpayers' money to bale out those poor Oliver Twists.
  That philosophy has never been better illustrated than by the conflicting actions of Government Departments last week. While officers in the Treasury were working their shirts off to save the investments of the rich, the Government were presiding over more than half a million householders who pay tax on incomes below the poverty line. There are three times more on the poverty line than when the Government took office. While the Treasury mandarins worked late into the night to hatch a cunning, expensive plan to bale out the Government's City friends, just down the road their colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Security were beavering away just as hard in an attempt to freeze and eventually to abolish child benefits, despite the fact that 4 million children are now in poverty. While those Treasury mandarins did their utmost to protect the institutions that underwrote the privatisations, they could not find it in their hearts or in their heads to devise a scheme to help those 4 million children in poverty.
  1138
  When it comes down to it, the City is the friend of the Chancellor. The Chancellor, in an astonishing statement today, said that when he used the word "poppycock" last week he was referring to some of the brokers in the City, yet last night he sung their praises. The peddlers of poppycock of last week have become the cockleshell heroes of last night. For the Tory Government, I suppose that that is how it should be.
  The basis of a strong economy is not how loud the Chancellor can shout about cuts in public spending or how often he can lecture the United States on economics; it is the sensitivity of the Government's fiscal policy. By that standard, their record has been one of unmitigated failure. They have shown no sense in their approach to our national assets. They have undervalued them by £2·6 billion so that they could be sold off painlessly to the lucky few. They have shown no sensitivity because, at the same time as they helped investors and their friends in the City, they have abolished the maternity grant and the death grant, income support for young people is being cut by about £6 per week and those who look after elderly or sick relatives will lose their long-term rate of benefit, and will not receive a premium to compensate.
  It is difficult to believe that the Chancellor could come to the House full to the brim with self-satisfaction and smug to the point of overflowing when so many people lack the ability to feed their families, to care for their elderly dependants and to educate their children to a standard that one would expect in a civilised country.
  Regardless of what the Chancellor claimed this week, the economy is not strong because no country is strong unless it can protect its weak and its most vulnerable. The Government have deliberately followed policies that have hurt individuals but helped big City institutions They have made millions suffer while a prosperous few have made millions. Now that the Government Benches have some knowledge of the poverty and hardship faced by those outside the City of London in my constituency and the constituencies of other hon. Members, we demand that the Chancellor withdraw the absurd comments he made on Tuesday about the unsoundness of the policies that the Government have been following. He ought to have the guts and the sense to admit the nonsense that he has been speaking and the insensitivity of those policies, and support the Opposition motion.
  8.16 pm
  Sir Anthony Grant: This evening the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) has spread gloom and prejudice with much greater cheerfulness than did his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall). The whole theme of the Opposition's argument has been one of rejoicing in gloom. I think that it was the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) who used a rugby analogy that reminded me of the key match at Twickenham where the England wing three-quarter was carried off on a stretcher. Dai turned to Taffy and said, "Oh, Taffy, I do hope it is nothing trivial." The Opposition really have enjoyed wallowing in gloom. The right hon. and learnd Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) got so intoxicated with the exuberance of his own verbosity that he was caught out in a misquotation. That is something that we shall remember for quite a long time.
  We all know that what markets dislike above all is uncertainty, and the uncertainty is over what will happen

  1139
  about the United States deficit. I am certainly not going to offer any advice to the Americans. They are overwhelmed with advice and are unlikely to take the smallest notice of me or of any other hon. Member.
  Mr. Bryan Gould: Including the Chancellor.
  Sir Anthony Grant: Indeed, including the Chancellor. I do not think that they take much notice of him. It is for them to sort out. In seeking to resolve their problems, I pray that they will not resort to an increase in protectionism. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) in his condemnation of protectionism, and the protectionism that we indulge in. As he implied, it is often the case of the kettle calling the pot black when we pontificate on the issue. Protectionism is very tempting to politicians, especially when one is coming up to an election. It is very attractive, but it must be resisted. I hope and pray that the United States will resist it as a means of resolving its difficulties.
  I shall confine my remarks at this hour to one aspect that has not been debated. Nothing that has happened in recent weeks in the upheavals that we have seen in world markets should halt the move towards wider share ownership in our society. I believe that in recent weeks we have had a salutary lesson that wider share ownership is not short-term stagging. If people want that, they had better go to Newmarket or Epsom and gamble. Share ownership means long-term investment. People have learnt that there is no such thing as on and on and up and up. That view has rather dominated thinking in recent years. One of the best things that the Government have done is to encourage the spread of ownership of all kinds, including property, and more recently of shares in British industry.
  More than 25 years ago I was a founder member of the wider share ownership movement. I rejoice in the fact that wider share ownership has become fashionable. We have been through some bleak periods. We used to be an all-party movement and great contributions were made by Lord Lever and Lord Houghton, who are both now in another place. That period was followed by the rise of the hard Left and a lack of encouragement from both Labour and Conservative Governments. The concept of wider share ownership fell into disfavour. I am now happy to say that wider share ownership is fashionable again. Indeed, it has even been espoused by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and one cannot be more fashionable than that. I believe in the spread of ownership.
  Mr. Gould: I concede that I shall speak later in the debate, but as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned me now perhaps I should make it clear that I have always said that the form of share ownership that I advocate is the employee share ownership scheme where shares are held collectively and not traded on the stock exchange. That would constitute a form of popular socialism rather than popular capitalism. However, I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman is so much in favour of my views on that subject.
  Sir Anthony Grant: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is on his way towards supporting wider share
  1140
  ownership. I would go further than the hon. Gentleman's limited view. I encourage employee share schemes within the wider share ownership movement. The hon. Gentleman is well on the way.
  I have never understood why it is somehow more moral for ownership to be vested in vast state monolithic bureaucracies than in many individuals. Wider share ownership promotes independence, thrift, provision for the family, support for industry and stability in the nation. Equally, it increases knowledge of our economic and commercial affairs. It was encouraging to see that the chairman of the Trustees Savings Bank received a lot of questioning and heckling from quite humble shareholders at a recent meeting. That is healthy and encouraging. Above all, wider share ownership is a bulwark against the ever-encroaching tentacles of the state in our society.
  Ownership takes many forms. Privatisation is just one example that I wholly support. It also embraces the rise in the unit trust movement, investment trusts and the large increase in pension funds, which has benefited many people. Wider share ownership and industry need efficient markets to raise the capital and investment that they require. The City has always provided that with an efficiency and honesty that have been the envy of the rest of the world. We should not forget the development of the unlisted security markets. This is extremely helpful for industry. The third division for even smaller firms is also helpful. They represent a thoroughly healthy aspect that is extremely helpful for industry.
  Sometimes I agree that the City's view or the investor's view is perhaps a little short term compared perhaps with Japan, which has an entirely different system. Sometimes the City is a little remote from industry. Therefore, I welcome the work of the CBI-City task force. It is always encouraging to find market makers in the City taking the trouble to go out and meet representatives of industry to find out exactly what is happening on the shop floor, instead of staring at computer screens.
  I have spent much of my life working in the City in one form or another, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General is on the Government Front Bench. I said earlier that there was a tendency for people to come to the City who were long on cunning and short on morals. If some of those people said, "My word is my bond" one might be well advised to take their bond. However, that applies to a minority.
  The City is overwhelmingly populated by people of dedication, honour and ability, and they are unique and admired in many countries. It is entirely wrong to portray the City—as the popular press is inclined to do—as composed of computer-crazed yuppies feverishly buying and selling Porsche motor cars. That is far from the truth. Young and old in the City work exceptionally hard. Indeed, in the recent crisis I went to see the market makers operating, and they were working exceptionally hard to maintain the market. They were certainly answering telephones. They were responding to the needs and worries of their clients and customers in a manner that is to their eternal credit.
  I believe that the City will weather the storm. Having given that praise, I want to make one or two observations on what the market should bear in mind. In the City we should remember that commerce and trade flourish more readily and speedily by word of honour than by litigation. The City should realise most—people in the City do realise this—that the spirit of the law is more important

  1141
  than the letter of the law in City transactions. Creating wealth is just as important as redistributing it. It should be just as rewarding, profitable and prestigious in a free capitalist society to start a small business or manage a medium one as to arrange mergers and takeovers within the square mile. People are very much aware of that. The strength of the economy is such under the management of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his colleagues that we can weather the storm and disregard the gloomy prognostications implied in the Opposition's motion. We can spread share ownership for the benefit of our people and of our nation.
  8.26 pm
  Ms. Hilary Armstrong: It seems that we are really debating either whether intervention in the market is practical and possible or the way that we should proceed. The Chancellor was saying that it is not a matter of whether, but of when we intervene.
  The reality of the Government's policies over the past seven years is that the Government have been preaching—and I did not want to use that word—that we must leave everything to the market. They have said that the market will look after everyone and we should trust the market. What have we learned about the market in the past seven years? What have people learned in my constituency? What has been the experience of people over the past seven years? People in my constituency have heard the Government extolling the virtues of the market. Workers have been told that for the sake of efficiency the market demands that the work force be trimmed and, for example, the thousands who worked at British Steel in Consett were told that the market demanded that they should lose their jobs. The Government said that they could not, would not and must not intervene. The market must be allowed its freedom.
  As consumers, people have been encouraged to spend, spend, spend. The market encouraged that. Family credit has been extended to a crippling level. The Government may have been concerned about public sector borrowing, but they have been happy for the markets to encourage private borrowing to record levels.
  Many people have been left with serious problems of personal debt. They have also been encouraged in recent months and, indeed, years to invest in the stock market—such investment being in the guise of the reconstruction of ownership of British industry. That is part of the apparent crusade, as the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) has said, to spread control, share ownership and the receipt of profit.
  During the past few weeks, those few private investors who were encouraged to invest have found that, far from entering a sane and stable market, they have entered a casino. Again, they were told that the markets would work on their own.
  Throughout their recent lives, people in my constituency have been offered that view. For most of their lives, they have contested it, because the details of their daily lives have demonstrated to them that the free market has no humanity, and no respect for liberty or dignity. The market is out of control, and, if I may quote the Chancellor, it is absurd. People have struggled with those views in recent times, because they have been told that they are wrong: they have been preached at. What price have they paid for holding their view, and for the Government's sticking to their view?
  1142
  I am not one to spread gloom or revel in misery, but we must face the facts, and they are that the number of manufacturing jobs in my constituency has declined by over a third since the Government came into office. In the north, we still have the highest level of unemployment in mainland Britain. We still have the frightening position that half of the unemployed men in the north have been out of work for over a year, and that half of those have been unemployed for more than two years. However, perhaps the most distressing fact of all is that 40 per cent. of all unemployed men in our region are under the age of 30, and 60 per cent. of registered unemployed women in the north are also under 30. It is very difficult, when we face such facts—that is not a nice word, but facts they are—to believe that we are on a sound and growing economic base.
  For the past few weeks, we have been controlled by indices: the Financial Times index, the Dow Jones index and the Japanese index, which I shall not attempt to pronounce. Those indices have been the news. They have been debated here, they have been gossiped about, they have dominated the newspapers. They are a bit strange to the folk in Durham, North-west, but they, too, read the newspapers, listen to the news and try to deal with what is going on. When I saw some of them last weekend, they said, "What is going on? What has changed? For all these years we have been told that no one can intervene in the market; that it is not right; that the Government cannot do it." Suddenly, the Government have found it necessary to intervene, have worked hard at finding out how they should do so and, through the Chancellor, have put a floor on the losses that might be experienced by the underwriters in the BP share sell-out.
  Some of those people asked, "Why is intervention possible for them but not for us? Why is it possible for the City and not for the folk of the north? Why is it possible for the Financial Times index, but not for manufacturing industry?" People, authorities and public bodies in the north have worked hard, and have begun to claw their way out of the recession that the collapse of manufacturing industry brought. Now, however, there is a fear that the storm of the stock exchange will push optimism and growth down again. We looked everywhere for help. We even looked for it in the Autumn Statement, but the Chancellor gave us little hope. He said that, even with his boundless optimism, he could see unemployment falling only to 2·6 million by 1991.
  We believe that a sound economy must be based on sound industrial development, with investment in manufacturing, research and development and proper education and training, so that young people who are among the masses of unemployed in the north feel that they have a real opportunity to contribute to our society. The Government have sacrificed those things to their doctrinaire belief in the free market. For us, the message of the past few weeks is that the economy is far too important to leave to chance.
  The Chancellor was not prepared to leave the BP share issue to chance. The increased prosperity that he has preached to us has missed nearly half of Britain's population. A truly successful economy would spread the benefit of prosperity to all of our people, not just half of them, and we await anxiously the commitment of the Chancellor and the Government to securing a strong, prosperous economy for the benefit of all our people. However, we fear that the Government are not interested.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me at this point, because, as I drove to the House this afternoon, I had the great pleasure of hearing a programme in which the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) took part. I noticed with what charm and independence she spoke of her distinguished and much-revered father, and how well she came over, and I was interested, therefore, to listen to her speech. Sadly, I do not feel that I can comment on all that she said, but I am sure that she will be a doughty proponent of her Socialist views and supporter of her constituents.
  I am sure that you will agree. Mr. Deputy Speaker, from your many years of listening to speeches in this place, that, whenever a great event occurs, everyone says, "That is an illustration of why my particular nostrum ought to be adopted." No matter what the event is, those who have been in favour of growth at any time are in favour of growth; those who have been in favour of devaluation at any time say that this is an illustration of why there should be devaluation; those who are rising men or would-be retreads suggest ways in which they might assist the Government in the circumstances.
  It is all very predictable. My hon. Friend the Paymaster General, the new chairman of the Tory party he—used to be a nark with me and he is now before me in his role as the nark—used to be good at reflecting upon Victorian novelists. My recollection is that in Surtees there was a splendid character who believed that the nation's ills would all be cured if more baronets were created. I suppose that one could put forward a respectable argument even for that; that as the thrust towards material advancement dies, so a second injection of energy should be put into our industrialists, so that if, when they get to 50 and are fat and rich, they could know that by working for another 10 years they might finish up as 60-year-old baronets, they would create wealth for themselves and those dependent upon them. That is a nice combination of Tory paternalism and Conservative materialism.
  I want to make two points. First, when the crisis occurred people reached for their recollections of what happened after the 1929 crash. Almost everybody in the House was brought up in the Keynesian consensus and we were all told that after 1929 what went wrong was that credit was dramatically reduced. So we heard immediately from the Chancellor that he would make liquidity available so that the mistakes of 1929 would not be repeated.
  I took the trouble to look up some of the figures for the period between 1922 and 1929. After the first world war there was a period of inflation which was corrected by monetary means. It used to be thought of as raising interest rates by slamming down on credit. The position between 1922 and 1929 was entirely different from the present position.
  I do not want to bore the House at length, but there is a useful book by Mr. D. Sheppard on the growth and role of United Kingdom financial institutions between 1880 and 1962. That shows that between 1921 and 1929 the money supply was consistently contracting. Also, during that same period the gross deposits of all United Kingdom commercial banks were consistently contracting.
  The 1929 crash did not come against the background of London houses increasing in value by 25 per cent. It did
  1144
  not come against the background of sterling M3 increasing by 20 per cent. It did not even come against the background of a high rate of growth of 4 per cent., much higher than we have ever consistently been able to achieve in this economy. So to pretend that it is now necessary to ease liquidity because of the lessons of 1929 is just wrong.
  If the Government wish to ease liquidity for other reasons, that is another matter. If they want to go for growth, if they think that 4 per cent. is an inadequate level of growth and if they think that it would be in the interests of social cohesion that London houses should increase in value by, say, 50 per cent. per annum, that is one thing. Let them argue it on that basis. But let them not argue it on the basis that the lesson of 1929 inexorably forces them to increase credit in the present circumstances.
  Secondly, I underline my support for the splendid speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern). He expressed, in a most elegant way, the scepticism that I feel towards the international agreements that have been such a feature of the Government's economic policy these last two years.
  It is a bit rough for the Opposition to table a motion censuring the Government for a market collapse resulting
  "from failures in international economic co-operation".
  There has been the most enormous change in the Government's policy towards international economic policy. The Government are doing everything they possibly can to follow the policies of Mr. Callaghan in 1978. What more can the Government do? The Government used to follow strict monetarist lines. They used to say that the way in which other nation states manage their economies was nothing to do with them. They used to say that all that stuff about the convoy system was dangerous and irrelevant. Now they have been converted to the 1978 policies, yet the Opposition are rough enough to complain about it. What can the Government do to get a good word from the Opposition?
  The policy surely will not work. First, we want most of all to demonstrate that our economy is different from that of the Americans. If that is so, why do we want to get into the same boat as the Americans? Why do we want to say that our economic salvation is dependent upon the Americans doing something that they are unlikely to do? After all, if the Americans fail to curb their deficit, which, as everybody in the House fully understands, is fairly unlikely to be done, at any rate quickly, surely the proper answer to investors who may be looking to the Government for guidance will be that the British markets are tarred with the same defects as the American markets. Surely we want politely to dissociate ourselves from the ructions of American markets.
  Moreover, is it really likely, if we believe that our salvation comes from economic changes in America, that the American electorate is likely to be vastly influenced by rather impertinent suggestions from foreign politicians. If, for the sake of argument, Mr. Reagan offered a great deal of advice to the electorate in Wolverhampton, I cannot think that they would be grateful for it. I am not saying they would be grateful for my advice, but they might be even less grateful for President Reagan's advice.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor used not to be a great believer in international economic co-operation, but he said this afternoon that these measures were now possible because of the worldwide reduction in rates of inflation. Next year, we shall have 4·5 per cent. inflation. What does my right hon. Friend the Chancellor think that

  1145
  looks like from the point of view of some of our generation brought up in Germany who know the social effects of Weimar? Somebody whose family may have fled from Germany believes that Weimar played an important part in the creation of the social instability which preceded the rise of Hitler. Such a person is not likely to think that 4·5 per cent. inflation is a great triumph over inflation. When such a person hears that the British economy will be substantially relaxed at a time of 4·5 per cent. inflation he may well say, "OK. Get on with inflation if you want to in your economy, but, thank you very much indeed, we have nil inflation in West Germany and that is how we want to keep it."
  I hope that we shall learn from the failures of the 1978 experiment and will pursue a policy of decent diffidence in the advice that we give to other nation states, and that we shall not pretend that anything that has gone wrong with the economy has been caused by other nation states or that our salvation will be achieved by impertinently pressing our views on them.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I understand that the Front Bench spokesmen will be seeking to catch my eye at 9.10 pm, which means that there is little time left. I hope that it will be spread thinly.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) on his paradoxical path, except to observe that the Chancellor in his 1979 guise would have been better at replying to such arguments than he is in his 1987 guise. Therein lies the flaw in the argument, because in his 1979 guise he produced the disasters of 1979 to 1982—thanks to the deflationary policies that the hon. Gentleman was espousing.
  We have come to the small print in the Government's prospectus—"not to be read until after the election," and "what goes up must come down." The Government have lived by the markets, and they will now die by them. Their contribution to the real economy has been disastrous. Our manufacturing output still has not reached the level of the second quarter of 1979. Investment is still 7 per cent. lower than it was in 1979. Then we had a surplus in manufactured trade—£2·7 billion in cash terms or £8·8 billion on a unit value basis—but we now have a deficit of £9 billion which is a turnround of £18 billion in adjusted terms. Our growth has been based on a North sea bubble, a consumer boom and asset inflation. One has compounded the other by the continuous creation of collateral, with no substance to it. Tragically, it has sucked in imports. They have been rising in the past three months twice as fast as exports, and even those manufactured exports have become heavily dependent on the United States market, which will become much more difficult to enter as the dollar declines.
  To end this fundamental disequilibrium in the world economy, the dollar must decline and probably by about 20 per cent. if the American economy is to pick up. It is no use trying to shore it up by measures such as the Louvre agreement, which then causes distortions in the economy.
  As the dollar declines, it is essential that the pound declines with it. The Chancellor's key mistake in recent months has been to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
  1146
  The devaluation in sterling that stimulated the economy has been totally reversed. Thanks to high interest rates—our interest rates are historically high in real terms, and high compared with our competitors—there has been an appreciation in our exchange rate of 18 per cent. since last September alone. That spells disaster. The terms for manufactured trade are now higher than they were in the disastrous year of 1981. It is essential for the Chancellor to get down the pound by bringing down interest rates. Why, when he has such a low borrowing requirement, are interest rates so high? Clearly the answer is to reward money and his friends.
  The present expansion in the economy is good only in contrast with a deflationary Europe, where it is appallingly bad. The Government dare not risk the sort of expansion that would bring down unemployment, because they cannot face the social strains of growth or the improvement in the power and strength of working people and trade unions.
  We need some protection for the small investor—the small saver or small pension buyer—who has been lured into the financial market. There was an interesting contrast in the BP shares issue. Some 250,000 suckers were conned by a £20 million advertising campaign into paying an inflated price for BP shares. Yet the Government have not rushed to help them—they will be prosecuted if they do not fulfil their commitments—but they help the underwriters and speculators. Yesterday a massive number of shares were traded on a bed-and-breakfast basis to establish a tax loss for capital gains purposes, which will be supported by the Government buy-back scheme for those shares. Somebody is able to make a killing thanks to the underpinning that the Government have introduced. Yet they have conned the small investor, who has been lured into a financial jungle, where, to change the image, the bears will now be turned loose, and where institutions and firms will be at greater risk and more likely to dip into the small investor's funds without giving him any effective protection.
  The Government have not announced the implementation of section 62. The compensation schemes are not being introduced as a matter of urgency. Nothing has been done about the complaints procedures and there will be no special protection for personal pension schemes. The independent representatives on the regulatory bodies have no backing and are pathetic compared with the power of people from the big companies that are regulating themselves. So this has been a disastrous blow to a n economy that is becoming a jungle, into which the investor has been lured without effective protection. The weather is now turning cold and hard and there will never be a glad, confident morning again for the stock exchange or the Government—just at a time when the real economy will be facing all the difficulties produced by the over-valuation that the Government have generated.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Anthony Nelson: Time and consideration for hon. Members who wish to contribute to the debate do not permit me to answer all the points raised by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who spoke with colourful journalistic rhetoric.
  It is a travesty to suggest that the Government do not wish to pursue policies that will lead to higher employment because they are frightened of a resurgence in the power of the trade unions. In their economic and employment

  1147
  policies the Government are creating a resurgence in employment. They are determined to ensure that people's labours are usefully used and that the full potential of our economy is realised. I welcome the success of the Government's policies in that regard.
  I do not regret the purge that the financial markets have been through. On a slightly pessimistic note, the markets may be in for yet more falls. There is a case for further correction; the dollar is still high, as are some stock markets. The point to which we should apply ourselves is not whether the risk-takers involved in the market may have lost or gained but the impact of it on the economy. In the short term, the effect may be salutary and in the long term it may be beneficial.
  Despite what hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, have said, we should have the right to talk to our American allies about the extent to which their economic policy will have an impact on us. Whether America listens or not, and whatever our limited impact may be, we are influenced by what happens there and by the economic policies the United States pursues. A large part of its federal deficit, as well as its trade deficits, must be financed out of Eurodollar markets internationally. A large part of its financial requirement of capital for industry is funded through the United Kingdom stock and bond markets, which are still the largest international markets in the world for raising funds.
  I believe that that gives us the credentials to enable us to say to the United States that we look to it to reduce progressively the budget deficits beyond the Gramm-Rudman requirement and that a net reduction of $2 billion over the $23 billion provided for under the Gramm-Rudman rules will not be significant in the totality of world markets or influential in restoring confidence. The longer the Americans wait and the less they do, the more international markets will demand. The longer they prevaricate, the deeper they will have to cut.
  Even if it has been forced on the Government by events, I welcome the reduction in interest rates. All hon. Members should recognise that there is no better way of feeding cash flow into companies that employ people and produce wealth for the country than by reducing interest rates. That helps the companies' working capital and margins far more than the most imaginative schemes of employment and industrial support that any Government of any political persuasion could dream up.
  We have to bear in mind that, just as much as tax cuts, reductions in interest rates, if they feed through to reductions in mortgage interest rates, help people's propensity to spend. It feeds directly into the net money in people's pocket and should, we hope, sustain us next year, not into a recession but into a period of continued growth, demand for products and investment in British industry.
  I believe that there may be a more limited scope for tax cuts in next year's Budget than many commentators and hon. Members believe. If I may say so, the Chancellor and Treasury Ministers should be cautious and circumspect about saying too much or hoping for too much. Circumstances may change if the withdrawal of about a trillion dollars from international markets has an impact on levels of demand in the economy. I hope for further reductions in taxation, but we may have to be more cautious than some people have led us to expect.
  1148
  I agree with a point that was well made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). He emphasised the importance of export credit for our industry. If the exchange value of sterling is high in the next few months and rises further—my professional judgment is that it will rise considerably further British—industry will need even more support.
  I would expect Labour Members, many of whom represent areas with substantial manufacturing and industrial companies such as shipbuilding, car industries and so on which need industrial credit, to urge the Government, as some Conservative Members are doing and I am doing now, to look again at the expenditure proposals on export credit and at the proposed reduction in the cover provided for in expenditure next year. We will have to look much carefully at our export performance and ways of boosting our trade to get the sort of growth that will carry us through the storms ahead.
  My last 30 seconds gives me an opportunity to mention the lessons of the market. We will have to look carefully at leverage bids, which have become an outrage and are of questionable economic and industrial significance. We should look carefully at the policies of the banks which have been prepared to lend billions of pounds to the smallest of companies to make takeover bids and at the other extreme have been prepared to lend £1 million to a man earning £6,000 a year. At the very least, there are questions that the banking industry should ask itself about the quality of its credit policies. We should also look at the margin dealing and some of the salaries that will inevitably come down in the City.
  Those are salutary and purging effects of what has happened in the market and they will not be bad. However, to suggest that what has happened will be fundamentally deleterious to the prospects for the economy or should turn the Government from the path they have set would be an error of judgment. For all those reasons, I hope that the Government will not heed the siren voices of those who would turn them away from the path on which they are set.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Calum A. Macdonald: I listened carefully to the Chancellor's speech and to those of Conservative Members. The speeches contained many proud, indeed smug, boasts about the supposed strength of the economy. We have heard, not just the Government's fine words, but, apparently, industry's too. We listened to the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) read out all sorts of declarations of confidence and buoyancy from the Teesside chamber of commerce. However, it is odd that at the same time as we hear those smug and confident words it remains the case that investment in manufacturing industry is still 7 per cent. lower than in 1979.
  I regard that figure as not merely superficially odd but extremely significant. It provides a real index of the confidence of manufacturing industry—or, more appropriately, its lack of confidence—in the future of the British economy after eight years of Conservative government. British industry's action—or rather inaction—through its failure to invest speaks much louder than its words or those of the Government. Manufacturing industry is not putting its money where the Chancellor's mouth is.

  1149
  Why is manufacturing industry failing to invest? The captains of industry see very clearly that underneath the glitter and gloss of the casino economy, and the hype of the stock market, the foundations of the real economy are crumbling. That point was made by the director-general of the CBI last Saturday in Glasgow when he contrasted the investment of the United Kingdom with that of Germany. He said that the Germans were spending
  "£2,000 per worker more on fixed investment and twice as much on research and development, graduating 40 per cent. more engineers and scientists and training 3,000 more young people".
  Education, training, research and development are the essential foundations of a modern economy, and they have been utterly neglected by the Government. Nothing in yesterday's Autumn Statement or in the Government's programme for this Parliament will remedy that neglect. That explains the mysterious fact that while the Chancellor claims that the British economy is in its strongest state for years—it was described as "seaworthy" by one Conservative Member tonight—our economy is, in fact, moving further and further into deficit on its manufacturing trade. The failure to invest, both public and private, explains why the manufacturing trade deficit will reach a staggering £9 billion next year and why, most revealingly, the Chancellor himself predicts that our manufacturing exports will grow by only 2 per cent. next year, while our imports will grow by 5 per cent. In my constituency we know something about boats, and I must say that I do not find the word "seaworthy" at all apt to describe that state of affairs.
  The Government's inaction in tackling the problems of the real economy contrasts markedly and sadly with their readiness to bail out the lame ducks of the City. Why is a lame duck in the City more meritorious than what used to be called a lame duck in industry? Why is it right to intervene to prevent a "disorderly aftermath" of the market in the City —in the Chancellor's delicate phrase—but not in industry? Why is it right to intervene to rescue stockbrokers from losses, but not to give people jobs? Those are the questions that the Opposition ask tonight, and the Government's lack of an answer serves only to expose their hypocrisy.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Mike Woodcock: I realise that I shall have to be extremely brief, but we have ranged far and wide in this debate and in the closing minutes I want to take us to another country. On the day of the crash I was in New Zealand talking to a conference of managers. New Zealand is a very interesting country right now. It is going through some fundamental economic changes. Management is eager for new ideas of how to develop business confidence and managerial confidence.
  When I arrived in Auckland, I changed flights on to a new airline called Ansett New Zealand—a private operator that has been allowed to break the public monopoly for the first time. The new competition is shaking up the standards of the complacent national carrier. Meals are being served for the first time and terminals are being smartened up—a vivid reminder of the power of competition.
  Until 1984, New Zealand was one of the most inefficient economies outside the Eastern bloc. Now, far-reaching deregulation is leading to the emergence of many successful entrepreneurial companies. The new free trade
  1150
  policy means that much of manufacturing industry is facing competition for the first time, and managers in newly corporatised industries are coming to terms with economic reality. As the Government turn their attention to efficiency in social services, managers in many other sectors are having to face fundamental changes. Already much dead wood has been shaken out of New Zealand industries.
  On my brief visit I discovered that New Zealand is facing economic realism for the first time in many decades and that it is learning lessons similar to those that we have learnt in the United Kingdom. While I was in New Zealand the country received another, very distinguished, visitor from this place. He is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench and is to reply to the debate in a few minutes' time. He is something of a disciple of economic realism—certainly a good deal more so than many of his hon. Friends. If New Zealand press comment is to be believed, he said that he had gone there to learn and not to advise. That I s probably just as well, because his advice, if it followed the Opposition's beliefs, would have been unlikely to have been taken. He could have learnt a great deal more by staying at home and listening to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
  Unlike the British Labour party, the Labour party in New Zealand has discovered a little economic realism. It is amazing that it has implemented with such vigour policies generally associated with the Right.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands. East (Mr. Smith) quoted from The Sunday Times. I shall quote from last week's edition. The leader stated:
  "A student of O level economics could have produced a better essay on the crash than the Shadow Cabinet's statement."
  The wealth of any nation is determined by the commercial activity of its organisations. Any Government's job is to create the economic circumstances in which businesses can survive and succeed. What irks the Opposition so much is that we have achieved that so successfully. It is why so many overseas Finance Ministers have increasing respect for the United Kingdom.
  We need only to look around the world to see examples in the number of so-called Socialist republics now introducing capitalist principles. China, the oldest civilisation in the world and with 25 per cent. of the world's population, is now experimenting successfully with capitalist principles. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the time?"] I know that the debate is drawing to a close, and I am about to conclude my remarks. The reality is that if the Governments of other countries had been as prudent as this Government, there would not be a world financial crisis.
  I must repeat that The Sunday Times said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] Opposition Members may not like it, but I remind them that The Sunday Times said:
  " A student of O level economics could have produced a better essay on the crash than the Shadow Cabinet's statement."
  I will not go quite that far, but I do believe that the Opposition would be as qualified to handle our economy as King Herod would be to act as a babysitter.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Bryan Gould: It is pleasant to begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) on an excellent maiden speech. He spoke in a fluent and attractive manner and his speech had the additional

  1151
  merit of containing much with which I agreed. He will certainly hear an echo from the Opposition Benches of his tribute to his much respected predecessor.
  Much has been heard following the week of the stock market crash, both in this debate and outside the House, of the supposed parallels between this crash and that of 1929. Fears have been expressed that, unless a proper response is made, the crash could presage a recession on the scale of the great depression of the 1930s. Of course, it is important to avoid the sort of response that monetarist precepts — those at the heart of the Government's economic policy until recently — would dictate and that would plunge the world into a new recession. Memories of the great depression have burnt deep into the public consciousness. There is no one who would not agree that a repeat of that experience should be avoided at all costs. Even the Chancellor, as his Mansion house speech last night made clear, finds it difficult not to pay at least lip service to that proposition.
  Oddly enough, the Chancellor does not need to face that problem in precisely those terms—but for reasons that, perhaps, he would not find entirely welcome. Far from being poised on the brink of recession, as we were in 1929, we have actually already experienced it. The true parallel with 1929 is 1979, and the eight years since then offer the closest match with the great depression in the 1930s. It was in the years following 1979 that the Government made the mistakes in policy that the Chancellor now castigates.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gould: No.
  No one listening to the Chancellor's complacent, not to say boastful, performance during the last few weeks, in marked contrast to his uncertain and confidence-sapping performance today, would get any clue that on the issues that matter our experience from 1979 until now has been far worse than during the eight-year period from 1929 to 1937, the years of the great depression.
  Mr. Davies rose—
  Mr. Gould: Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman listens he will learn something.
  During the great depression manufacturing output in Britain rose by 38 per cent. In the eight years to 1987 manufacturing output had barely clawed back to where it was in 1979. During the great depression — the great unemployment of popular memory — the jobless total rose by 219,000. The equivalent during the past eight years is no less than 1·7 million. From 1929 to 1937 manufacturing employment rose by 10 per cent., whereas during the eight years of this Tory Government it has fallen by 27 per cent. Those figures, which are dramatically worse than those for the great depression, illustrate all too well why Opposition Members believe that the Chancellor's performance during the past few weeks has been nothing more than a confidence trick. Those disastrous figures for the real economy not only give the lie to the Chancellor's boasting; they also give us an important clue to why the stock market crash has occurred.
  In the wake of the stock market crash, the Chancellor, true to form, has not been slow to cast the blame on others.
  1152
  The markets, whose sagacity he has hymned for so long, have now been condemned as absurd; the Americans, whose performance on inflation and unemployment has been so much better than our own supposed success, as vouchsafed to us, have been told that their budget deficit has caused all the difficulties; and the Germans, with by far the strongest economy in Europe, have been lectured by the Chancellor and told to cut interest rates which are less than half the level of ours. None of the Chancellor's excuses explains why the British equity market has collapsed and crashed further and faster than other major markets, nor does it explain why the response to the Chancellor's bullish pronouncements has been a thumbs down from the City.
  The truth is that the crash is the eminently predictable result of the constant priority that Governments around the world, led by the Chancellor and the Government, have given to the money economy at the expense of the real economy. The whole thesis of monetarism, of which I believe I can claim to be the longest standing political opponent, is, after all, that only monetary measures matter, and that the real economy will look after itself. We know, and even the Chancellor knows, that our experience has been the reverse of what monetarist theory led many to believe. Monetary policy has proved to be capricious and difficult to control and has had only a marginal and delayed effect on monetary objectives such as inflation, but its impact on the real economy was immediate and devastating.
  The Chancellor has professed himself unconcerned at the truly appalling figures for British manufacturing output, investment, employment and trade under the Government. He has blithely assured us that we can rely on services to make us prosperous and he even had the gall to tell the House that the £13 billion turnround in our manufactured trade was "neither here nor there". This callous and foolish disregard for the real economy and of those who live and work in it has been matched by his rejoicing at the successes of the financial sector. The Porsche-driving City whizzkids have now passed into popular mythology, but the phenomenon and the sense of resentment and injustice which it engendered are real enough.
  The financial sector has prospered at the expense of the real economy because the Chancellor's policies deliberately made it so. The Chancellor created a huge money-go-round, on which the financiers enjoyed the ride, while the rest of us were taken for a ride. Money which under more sensible policies would have been invested in our industrial base has instead helped us to soak up a huge degree of asset inflation, of which the long bull market and soaring house prices in the south-east of England have been the most obvious signs.
  The growth in the value of assets has been artificially inflated by an over-valued exchange rate and that has attracted yet more money. Overnight capital gains were a much more attractive prospect than the uncertain returns from manufacturing investment. We were well and truly launched into a vicious circle. Personal incomes in the City soared. Banks and other City firms became hugely profitable on the back of high interest rates, a spiralling stock market, a rash of takeover bids by firms that would rather buy than invest, and the easy profits from the Government's privatisation programme. Short-termism,

  1153
  so lucrative for the money men but so damaging to those who try to sell their goods in international markets, became the only game to play.
  High interest rates hurt industry, especially investment in capital equipment, research and development, and training on which our future prosperity depends. The real economy, and those whose jobs and livelihoods depend on it, has also suffered grievously from the over-valued pound that high interest rates have produced. Perhaps the most telling indicator of the damage that has been done is that, while exports of manufactures have risen by 20 per cent. since 1979, imports of manufactures rose by no less than 70 per cent., or three and a half times faster over the same period.
  The disparity between the real and the money economy could be sustained. In the long term, the money economy cannot follow a different course from the real economy, which is lagging behind. The long-awaited bear market simply had to happen. The only question was—
  Mr. Higgins rose—
  Mr. Gould: I am sorry, I shall not give way.
  The only question was its speed and timing. In market terms, it was clear that the longest bull market ever known was bound to come to an end sooner or later.
  Mr. Higgins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gould: No, I shall not.
  In case Opposition Members did not recognise my earlier words, may I point out that they came from the speech that the Chancellor made last night. It is a pity that he had not thought to warn small investors in the BP share issue about that possibility.
  Mr. Higgins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. However, in plagiarising his own article from The Sunday Times of last week almost word for word, has he not overlooked the fact that it was a bad article? It was hopelessly and entirely inconsistent. The hon. Gentleman cannot accuse the Chancellor of being a monetarist and at the same time say that he is pumping too much money into the economy.
  Mr. Gould: I was afraid that it might be a mistake to give way to the hon. Gentleman. Whatever the merits of that article in The Sunday Times, it certainly made a great impact on him if he can recognise it so clearly.
  If the stock market crash was an inevitable corrective for the mistakes and excesses of economic policies here and in other countries, which is what the Chancellor is now, in effect, admitting, where do we go from here? In many respects, the Chancellor has now renounced many of the mistakes that did so much damage. Thankfully, the theory of monetarism has now largely been abandoned. Apart from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who now pays any attention to the monthly sterling M3 figure? Who among the array of hon. Members on the Conservative Back Benches can tell me the current annualised level of growth of sterling M3? How many takers are there? How many Conservative Members understand it?
  Sir Peter Hordern: The annual growth is 18 per cent. of M3. The hon. Gentleman will recognise, as my right hon. Friend explained in the Grey Book that was published yesterday, that that was because of the liberalisation of the financial services that my right hon. Friend has brought about.
  Mr. Gould: That was a brave attempt by the hon. Gentleman to save his colleagues from embarrassment. Even then, he did not quite get the answer right. The answer is 19·5 per cent. in the year to September. That answer and Conservative Members' inability to answer are the most telling possible indictments of how fundamentally and thoroughly they have cast away what was once the bedrock of the medium-term financial strategy.
  Even the Chancellor's ideological objections to public spending seem now to have been mitigated, since he is now inclined to boast about its increase. The Chancellor even boasts now about public spending, at least on a selective basis. He overlooks the fact that he has been forced to abandon his objective of cutting public spending in real terms, and, when that proved impossible, of even simply holding it steady. He has also demonstrated that he will understand the damage that his policies cause. We know that because we have seen his readiness to abandon them—surreptitiously, of course—to produce a pre-election mini-boom. The relaxation of monetary policy, the boost to public spending and the depreciation of sterling at the end of last year all played their part, but, once again, they have now been reversed.
  The difficulty is that the Chancellor, although having substantially recanted in many respects and having abandoned monetarism and its theory, still lives in the shadow of monetarism. He is rather like a pagan worshipper whose idol has crumbled but, for want of anything better to do, still goes through the old rituals, shuffles through the old steps and bangs the old drums. That makes the Chancellor's analysis of the current process so fatally flawed. His monetarist attitude leads him to focus, almost exclusively it seems, on the American budget deficit as the cause of all our problems If the Americans were to follow the Chancellor's monetarist advice, and if interest rates and taxes were to be raised or social security benefits were to be cut, it could only bring the threat of world-wide recession so much closer. The Chancellor's lectures to the Americans about their budget deficit suggest that he has failed to learn any lesson. It is not even clear that he understands the problem himself. At one point in his Mansion house speech last night he said that one of the factors which had provoked the crash was
  "doubts … about whether the United States had the political will to hold interest rates at whatever level was necessary, not merely to maintain dollar stability, but also to ensure that the deficit, so long as it endured, was soundly financed."
  That and other passages in his speech last night sound suspiciously like advice to the Americans to raise interest rates. How does that square with the passage later in his speech in which he warned against the contractionary policies which had plunged us into recession in 1929? If the Chancellor's public message is so garbled, it is no wonder that the Prime Minister felt constrained to send a private message to clear up the confusion.
  The Chancellor remains preoccupied with the monetary policy which caused our problems in the first place, and he risks precipitating a recession if the Americans take his advice to reinforce financial orthodoxy. The real economy is the key to the solution to our problems. The American trade deficit, not the budget deficit, threatens the stability of the world's economic order. There can be no stability until a new balance is struck between surplus countries such as Japan and Germany and those countries such as the United States and United Kingdom which have used

  1155
  excessively high interest rates to prop up their currencies and have accordingly got themselves into difficulty. The extent of the dollar overvaluation—
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Gould: The hon. Gentleman should know that I shall not give way.
  The extent of the American overvaluation is so gross as to be unmistakable. In 1986, the value of American exports had fallen 18 per cent. from their 1980 level, whereas the value of their imports had risen by no less than 104 per cent. Their balance of payments had moved from a surplus of $6·3 billion in 1981 to a deficit of $141 billion in 1986. There is no way in which that trading problem can be overcome by indirect signals to the markets, such as increases in interest rates—indeed, that would make it worse — increases in taxes or cuts in social security payments. There is only one solution to the problem, and that is to get American interest rates and the exchange rate down.
  Similar conclusions must be reached in respect of our own economy. If the Chancellor's prescriptions have been so successful, and if our economy is in such good shape, why are our interest rates more than twice as high as German interest rates? The Government always said that the key to lower interest rates was to bring public sector borrowing under control. If that control has been established, why does the Chancellor still have to hold interest rates at such a high levels? Can any Conservative Member, including the Chancellor, give a straight answer to a simple question: why must we hold interest rates at their present level?
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Gould: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not have an answer to that question.
  Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give an answer to a straight question?
  Mr. Gould: I gave way on the always risky assumption—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has given way, he has given way and that is that.
  Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give an answer to a straight question? Would he advise the President of the United States to veto the trade Bill which is currently going between Congress and the Senate? That lies at the root of many of his questions.
  Mr. Gould: Despite your intervention, which I understand, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that it was a risky business to have allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene on the assumption that he would answer my question.
  Sir Peter Tapsell rose—
  Mr. Gould: I may get an answer this time.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: If I may give a personal response to the hon. Gentleman's question, we do not have to hold our interest rates at their present level. We can reduce them again and will do so.
  Mr. Gould: That is a very encouraging answer, but the true answer is that we shall not reduce interest rates and they will be held at an excessively high level for one simple
  1156
  reason. The hon. Gentleman knows that reason, and the Chancellor would also concede the point. Unless interest rates are maintained, the pound will fall. The Chancellor claims that he has introduced a strong currency. It is a strong currency which has to be sustained by record interest rates and by 3 million unemployed. So much for a strong currency. If interest rates were reduced, who could doubt that the pound would fall substantially and that the impending balance of payments deficit would be virtually impossible to manage, if it were not for the immense benefit of North sea oil?
  Mr. Ian Taylor rose—
  Mr. Gould: The Chancellor is in the position of a small business man who, having won the pools, congratulates himself on his business acumen because he has spent every penny on keeping his business afloat. He has done nothing with North sea oil to strengthen our industrial base. He has done nothing to prepare for or invest in our future. Even the assets which have been built up abroad are no more than a pension fund for what he clearly foresees as a geriatric economy when the oil has run out.
  Interest rates are the crucial determinant of the policy stance. Interest rates will show whether the Chancellor continues to reinforce past mistakes and to favour the money economy at the expense of the real economy. If interest rates are kept high, the City will applaud, but the real economy will be damaged. Unfortunately for that economy, it is already clear that the Chancellor has again opted for the money men and the financial establishment. Yesterday's feeble 0·5 per cent. cut did no more than complete the reversal of the mistake of August. We already see the consequences of the Chancellor's post-election strategy in the 18 per cent. loss of price competitiveness suffered by British industry over the past year.
  It is little wonder that the CBI, despite its brave talk, shows in its latest Quarterly Trends survey that the outlook for exports and manufacturing output is now much gloomier. It is little wonder that the Chancellor is now compelled to forecast a substantial dropping-off in the rate of growth and a worsening of the balance of payments deficit.
  The casualties of the Chancellor's mistaken policies, of which the stock market crash is only a symptom, are many and varied. They include any residual confidence in the Government's economic strategy, the future of their privatisation programme and the exaggerated lifestyles and incomes of the money men in the City. No one needs shed any tears over them.
  As always, the real casualties will be ignored by the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative Benches. The unemployed will have their hopes dashed all over again. The regions and the inner cities will be condemned again to de-industrialisation and deprivation. Families in poverty will have their precarious living standards further eroded. Those who try to create this country's wealth will lose out to those who merely manipulate it. Only the Labour party speaks up against a policy that is so technically and morally wrong. Only the Labour party speaks up for the national interest and for a society that will be condemned to yet more bitterness and division. We shall continue to speak up until the next election gives us the chance to correct the mistakes that have been so damaging to this country.
  Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you give any time to make allowances for the Liberal and—Oh, I am sorry, there are no Liberal or SDP Members in the Chamber.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  9.35 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): First, I join the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) on his excellent maiden speech. We all appreciated his tribute to his predecessor, Sir Paul Bryan, who is much respected in this House. I believe that both sides of the House appreciated my hon. Friend's plea for the need to avoid a global recession. I certainly also appreciated his conclusion that the economy was well placed to weather this storm. It was an excellent speech and we look forward to hearing him again.
  Although this has been a debate on an extremely serious matter, some hon. Members seemed to herald the crash of the financial markets with a degree of glee, not to say relish. Indeed, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) displayed a degree of relish, although he made his speech with some charm. The hon. Gentleman displayed that relish because he felt that two things were consequential to the collapse of the markets. First, he hoped that the collapse meant the end to privatisation; and, secondly, that it would put a stop to the growth of wider share ownership. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the privatisation programme will certainly continue, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—
  Mr. Morgan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lamont: In a moment. In his Autumn Statement my right hon. Friend made it clear that we are planning on the proceeds of £5 billion this year and for the two years following that. No doubt it could be argued that the state of the market can affect prices, but, when the time comes, I see no reason why we should not proceed. Indeed, we shall certainly proceed with the privatisation of water and electricity.
  Mr. Morgan: I should like to correct what the Minister has said. I said that had the BP shares sale been timed for one week later, or had the crash in the stock market been one week earlier, it would have put an end to privatisation —I am sure Conservative Members would agree—for at least the next decade.
  Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening.
  The hon. Gentleman also argued that the collapse of the financial markets would lead to the end of wider share ownership. However, we certainly intend that that policy should be pursued, and why not? Wider share ownership is something that is industrially and educationally desirable. We believe that it is wholly in the interests of this country to encourage people to have a stake in the great British companies. We have always said that there are risks as well as benefits involved in wider share ownership. I believe that the people understand that and accept those risks. I do not believe that the appetite for wider share ownership and for privatisation will be diminished.
  1158
  We had hoped that the hon. Member for Dagenharn would join us in the cause for wider share ownership. After all, it was he who, not so long ago, in The Times on 16 September, said:
  "The idea of owning shares is catching on and as Socialists we should support it."
  It is true that the hon. Gentleman's idea of shares is a little different from that held by everyone else. One is not allowed to pay money for them, or to own them direct, or to sell them. When the hon. Gentleman exposed his views to the Labour party conference he was, of course, jeered and he received a rough reception. It is no wonder that his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) said that the only casualty of the crisis was Bryan Gould. The hon. Gentleman has been putting forward his alternative to popular capitalism—something that he calls popular socialism, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) said, is an idea that is not catching on. It seems about as paradoxical as the idea of boiling ice.
  Mr. Gould: As the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to mention me, he gives me the chance to make clear, as I always have done, that what I advocate as a form of share ownership is employee share ownership schemes in which the shares are held collectively and not traded on the stock exchange. That would provide us with an additional means of extending social ownership, and offer a form of popular socialism which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) would endorse. I am also grateful for the endorsement and interest of the Minister.
  Mr. Lamont: Even employee shares go up and down. If they are not allowed to be traded, I do not know how the hon. Gentleman will establish any value for them, or how they will benefit employees. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman knows either.
  Much of the debate has been about whether a recession is now inevitable. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, perhaps supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), has taken a pessimistic view, which is not that of the Government. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear last night that it is our view that a recession is not inevitable and can be avoided provided that the right policies are followed. I am glad to see that I have the support of the hon. Member for Dagenham in this, because he made an interesting and prophetic speech, issued by Transport House on 29 September, one month before the stock market collapsed, amazingly entitled,
  "Gould speaks on stock market collapse".
  If the speech was really issued on 29 September, the hon. Gentleman should be a rich man, and he is certainly a prescient one. In it he said that he did not believe that the stock market crash meant a recession—
  Mr. Gould rose—
  Mr. Lamont: —provided that the correct policies were followed.
  My right hon Friend has made it clear that what turned the 1929 stock market crash into a recession was the inadequate response of the authorities and the drift to protectionism that followed in its wake. My right hon. Friend has responded in a different way this year with a cut in interest rates, and has said that it is incumbent on other counries not to pursue overtight monetary policies.

  1159
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said, right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches cannot wait for the moment for deficit spending to begin. They do not understand how the recovery has happened. They want to anticipate the recession. They say that they do not want it to occur, yet they want to go deep into deficit spending now. I am certain that nothing would have undermined the confidence of the market more than if my right hon. Friend had abandoned his policies on public spending. That would have been received with a shattering lack of confidence by the markets.
  The key requirement is to ensure that industry and business do not overnight lose the confidence in our economic prospects that has been building up so strongly in recent years, here and overseas. If confidence is retained, the other effects of the share fall can and will be contained.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) called on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to take industrial action, to participate in international discussions. He was not very specific about what he wanted my right hon. Friend to do. He was not very specific about anything, including the slur that he cast on my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Dagenham has made it clear what he thinks should happen. He says that we and the United States and everybody else should devalue together. The hon. Gentleman is being absolutely true to form, because he has believed for years that the answer to every problem is to devalue.
  Mr. Gould: Quite apart from any question of whether the exchange rate should go down, what does the Minister say about the fact that over the last year British industry has endured an 18 per cent. increase in the real exchange rate? Presumably the Minister believes in market forces. Does he not accept that an 18 per cent. increase in prices is at least likely to be noticed by some of our potential customers?
  Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman's facts are wrong, and he has repeated word for word what he said in his speech. There has not been an 18 per cent. loss in competitiveness. I shall give the hon. Gentleman a percentage, but it is not 18 per cent. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no point in hon. Members shouting from sedentary positions.
  Mr. Lamont: The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East paid my right hon. Friend a compliment when he said that because of the great strength of the British economy my right hon. Friend should play a leading part in international discussions on these problems. Nobody would have asked the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), when he was Chancellor, to summon an international conference, because nobody would have come. If some people had come, they would have left their cheque books at home because they would have thought that the conference had been called to bail out the British economy.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East was extremely unfair to my right hon. Friend, who played a leading part in the Plaza agreement of 1985. That agreement was designed to deal with some of the problems that we still face. As a result of the agreement we saw a 50
  1160
  per cent. appreciation in the deutschmark and in the yen. We also saw the acceptance of a commitment by the United States for a reduction in the United States deficit. Since the Plaza accord of 1985 there has been a reduction of about one third.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) emphasised that it is essential and extremely urgent that the United States should go further than is implied by Gramm-Rudman II. This is an extremely important analysis, although it is disputed by some, though not all, Opposition Front-Bench Members. However, it is widely accepted in the financial community.
  During the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor there was a most extraordinary intervention by the Leader of the Opposition. My right hon. Friend clearly said that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East was criticising the Government for not doing enough about the United States deficit. However, not once, twice or three times, but time and time again, and year after year, the Opposition are on record urging us to follow the same path as the United States and have ever more borrowing. The extraordinary thing is not that they urged us to do that, because that is what we expect them to do and are running true to form, but that the Leader of the Opposition intervened in my right hon. Friend's speech to deny that they had ever urged this course upon the Government.
  I shall put on the record what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, because it could not be clearer. This is one of a series. He praised America and said:
  "Having … taken the advice of the Labour party, and not being afraid of borrowing, the President of the United States has created 5 million new jobs and a growth rate of 8 per cent. per annum."—[Official Report, 31 July 1984; Vol. 65, c. 298.]
  The right hon. Gentleman talked about
  "not being afraid of borrowing,"
  yet the Leader of the Opposition denied that that was the course—
  Mr. Gould: That is wrong.
  Mr. Lamont: Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps I am doing the right hon. Gentleman an injustice.
  The hon. Member for Dagenham takes a completely different line. In his September speech he said that the great danger was that the United States would correct its deficit far too quickly. What a message for the Labour party to send to the United States. At a time when the whole financial community is of the view that the great danger is the deficit of the United States, we know that Labour speeches are not just listened to in the United States but plagiarised. We know that they are closely followed. We do not want any plagiarism of the fear of the hon. Member for Dagenham that the deficit will be reduced too quickly. When the whole world wants that deficit reduced quickly, the response of the Labour party is that the danger is that it will be reduced too quickly.
  When the proposition that the deficit might be reduced too quickly was put to Mr. Volker, he said:
  "That, at present, is not a problem that is keeping me awake at night."
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over the years many Labour Members have argued that we should follow neither the United States nor any other capitalist Government?
  Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman is always consistent in his convictions. I am sorry that he was not able to intervene in the debate and give us his view, which I know is shared by some of his Friends, that the day that they have been waiting for all their lives has arrived; the collapse of capitalism is upon us. That view is not even shared by his right hon. and hon Friends on the Front Bench.
  Mr. Allan Roberts: We have had 16 minutes of claptrap. Will the Minister now tell us what his Government intend to do?
  Mr. Lamont: I have explained what the Government will do internationally. I reaffirm that the Government will continue with the policies that my right hon. Friend outlined last night at the Mansion house. I am perfectly entitled to reply to the points made by the hon. Member for Dagenham, especially when they are so feeble and so easily knocked down.
  One respect in which the debate has differed from the discussion in the newspapers is that I have not read one article or comment that has implied that what happened in the financial markets was the fault of the Government. The only person who has expressed that view is the hon. Member for Dagenham. He thinks that what has happened in the financial markets is all the fault of monetarism. The trouble is that he cannot make up his mind whether my right hon. Friend has abandoned monetarism or whether he is a dogmatic monetarist. Most people will not be too worried about those arcane points, because they know that the policies of my right hon. Friend have worked and have been outstandingly successful.
  Mr. John Smith rose—
  Mr. Lamont: No, I shall not give way.
  The hon. Member for Dagenham thinks that it is essential somehow to link the Government to the crisis. He has produced the most extraordinary reasons for this. I could not have been more amazed when he repeated, not just the content, but word for word what he said in his extraordinarily prescient speech of 29 September, one month before the stock exchange crashed. He revealed a remarkable sentiment. He said that monetarism had produced
  "the overvalued currency, the product of excessively high interest rates"
  and he repeated tonight that
  "the product of excessively high interest rates artificially raised the value of assets at the expense of the real economy."
  That is extraordinarily interesting. It shows why Opposition Members endlessly talk absolute nonsense. I would have thought that the hon. Member for Dagenham must know that if interest rates rise that lowers the value of assets on the stock exchange and lowers the value of bonds and monetary assets. If that really is the hon. Gentleman's view, I thoroughly understand why he has been totally puzzled by the Government's timely response in cutting interest rates in the light of world developments. The hon. Gentleman does not know whether he is coming or going on interest rates.
  1162
  The hon. Gentleman painted a harsh picture of the economy. However, he perhaps forgets that when he came back to the House after his personal triumph of coordinating the Labour party's third consecutive unsuccessful election campaign he showed signs of getting to grips with economic policy. During the debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill he said:
  "I do not think anyone need to be too alarmed. No major crisis is in prospect. I would argue that the prospects for our own economy depend very much on our own efforts rather than on the impact of the development of world economic factors."
  I do not criticise the hon. Gentleman's lack of foresight over the stock market crash. He made up for that later.
  The hon. Gentleman then said that he wanted to envisage a position in which this country was being completely privatised. He said that if a prospectus was being drawn up for the country it would state that the
  "prospect was not entirely unpromising."
  He said that output was rising "relatively fast" and that unemployment appeared to be falling.
  With regard to the balance of payments, the hon. Gentleman spoke of a
  "deficit of the size that is likely over the next year or two … is likely to he manageable."—[Official Report, 8 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 364–65].
  Ms. Armstrong rose—
  Mr. Gould: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lamont: I shall give way in a minute. The picture painted by the hon. Gentleman was perhaps a little grudging, but it was completely different from the picture that he painted in a most opportunistic way today.
  Mr. Gould: The Minister really cannot get away with the dishonesty of partially quoting from my speeches and statements. If he had the honesty and gumption to complete the quotations — he does not have the time now—he would know that I concluded my speech by saying that if this country's economy was privatised the shareholders would sack the directors. That remains my view.
  Mr. Lamont: As the hon. Gentleman says, time does not permit. However, I would have been happy to read out what the hon. Gentleman said about the economy, because it was extremely different from what he said tonight.
  The hon. Gentleman always talks about the divergence between the money economy and what he calls the real economy. The real economy is doing extraodinarily well. Instead of talking about the real economy, the hon. Gentleman should give the real facts about the real economy. The real facts are that industrial production is at record levels, export volumes in 1987 are 9·5 per cent. up on last year's figures and unemployment is falling sharply.
  The hon. Gentleman betrays his positive dislike of the financial services industry. He seems to believe that the financial services industry and the City are not part of what he calls the real economy. However, the City, which he has attacked and criticised tonight, has generated more than £9 billion of invisible earnings. The City and the financial services industry employ more than 2·25 million people. Do they not count as working in the real economy? Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that the City serves, not just the needs of British industry, but the needs of industry worldwide. It is one of our most outstandingly

  1163
  successful industries. It contributes to real wealth in this country, and it has every bit as much claim to be included in the real economy as everything else that the hon. Gentleman describes.
  The Government have two advantages. First, we have taken difficult decisions in the past, and the British economy is strong. Secondly, we have been re-elected, and we therefore have the mandate, the authority and the freedom of manoeuvre to continue with the policies which have brought us success, and which we shall continue to follow.
  I urge my hon. Friends to reject the motion.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 333.

  Division No. 40]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

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

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Dixon, Don

  Allen, Graham

  Dobson, Frank

  Alton, David

  Doran, Frank

  Anderson, Donald

  Douglas, Dick

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Dunnachie, James

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Ashton, Joe

  Eadie, Alexander

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Eastham, Ken

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Barron, Kevin

  Fatchett, Derek

  Battle, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Beckett, Margaret

  Fearn, Ronald

  Bell, Stuart

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

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

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

  Fisher, Mark

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Flannery, Martin

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Flynn, Paul

  Blair, Tony

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Boyes, Roland

  Foster, Derek

  Bradley, Keith

  Foulkes, George

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fraser, John

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Buchan, Norman

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Buckley, George

  George, Bruce

  Caborn, Richard

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gould, Bryan

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Graham, Thomas

  Cartwright, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clay, Bob

  Hardy, Peter

  Clelland, David

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Cohen, Harry

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Coleman, Donald

  Henderson, Douglas

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Corbett, Robin

  Holland, Stuart

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Home Robertson, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Hood, James

  Cox, Tom

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Crowther, Stan

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cryer, Bob

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cummings, J.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Dalyell, Tom

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Darling, Alastair

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Illsley, Eric

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Ingram, Adam

  1164

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Randall, Stuart

  Kennedy, Charles

  Redmond, Martin

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Lambie, David

  Reid, John

  Lamond, James

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Leighton, Ron

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Rogers, Allan

  Lewis, Terry

  Rooker, Jeff

  Litherland, Robert

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Livsey, Richard

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Loyden, Eddie

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAllion, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McAvoy, Tom

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Macdonald, Calum

  Short, Clare

  McFall, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McKelvey, William

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

  McLeish, Henry

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

  Maclennan, Robert

  Snape, Peter

  McTaggart, Bob

  Soley, Clive

  McWilliam, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Madden, Max

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Steinberg, Gerald

  Marek, Dr John

  Stott, Roger

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Strang, Gavin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Straw, Jack

  Martin, Michael (Springburn)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Martlew, Eric

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Meacher, Michael

  Thomas, Dafydd Elis

  Meale, Alan

  Turner, Dennis

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Vaz, Keith

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Wall, Pat

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Wallace, James

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Warded, Gareth (Gower)

  Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Murphy, Paul

  Winnick, David

  Nellist, Dave

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Worthington, Anthony

  O'Brien, William

  Wray, James

  O'Neill, Martin

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Patchett, Terry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pike, Peter

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Alan Michael.

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Prescott, John

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Alexander, Richard

  Body, Sir Richard

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Allason, Rupert

  Boswell, Tim

  Amess, David

  Bottomley, Peter

  Amos, Alan

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bowis, John

  Ashby, David

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Atkins, Robert

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Atkinson, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Bright, Graham

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Baldry, Tony

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Bendall, Vivian

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Burns, Simon

  Benyon, W.

  Burt, Alistair

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Butcher, John

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Butler, Chris

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Butterfill, John

  1165

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hannam, John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

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

  Carrington. Matthew

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Harris, David

  Cash, William

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hayes, Jerry

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Chope, Christopher

  Hayward, Robert

  Churchill, Mr

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

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

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Colvin, Michael

  Hind, Kenneth

  Conway, Derek

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Holt, Richard

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Cope, John

  Howard, Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

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

  Couchman, James

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Cran, James

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Critchley, Julian

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Curry, David

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

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

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Day, Stephen

  Irvine, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Irving, Charles

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jack, Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Jackson, Robert

  Dorrell. Stephen

  Janman, Timothy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jessel, Toby

  Dover, Den

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dunn, Bob

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Durant, Tony

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Dykes, Hugh

  Key, Robert

  Emery, Sir Peter

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evennett, David

  Knapman, Roger

  Fallon, Michael

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Favell, Tony

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Fenner. Dame Peggy

  Knowles, Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Knox, David

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lang, Ian

  Forman, Nigel

  Latham, Michael

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Forth, Eric

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Franks, Cecil

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Freeman, Roger

  Lightbown, David

  French, Douglas

  Lilley, Peter

  Fry, Peter

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Gale, Roger

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Gardiner, George

  Lord, Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  McCrindle, Robert

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Goodlad, Alastair

  MacGregor, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Maclean, David

  Gorst, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gow, Ian

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Madel, David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gregory, Conal

  Mans, Keith

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Maples, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Marlow, Tony

  Grist, Ian

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Ground, Patrick

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Grylls, Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mates, Michael

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mellor, David

  1166

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Miller, Hal

  Speed, Keith

  Mills, Iain

  Speller, Tony

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Squire, Robin

  Moate, Roger

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Steen, Anthony

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Stern, Michael

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Mudd, David

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Neale, Gerrard

  Sumberg, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Summerson, Hugo

  Neubert, Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Newton, Tony

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Onslow, Cranley

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Paice, James

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Thorne, Neil

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Tracey, Richard

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Tredinnick, David

  Portillo, Michael

  Trippier, David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Trotter, Neville

  Price, Sir David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Raffan, Keith

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Viggers, Peter

  Redwood, John

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Renton, Tim

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Walden, George

  Riddick, Graham

  Waller, Gary

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Ward, John

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Watts, John

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Wells, Bowen

  Rost, Peter

  Wheeler, John

  Rowe, Andrew

  Whitney, Ray

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Ryder, Richard

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wilkinson, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Wilshire, David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Scott, Nicholas

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Woodcock, Mike

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Yeo, Tim

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sims, Roger

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No.30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on restoring the public finances to such strength and soundness that the British economy is growing faster and unemployment falling more rapidly than in any other major industrialised country while inflation remains low, thus enabling the United Kingdom once again to play a major role

  1167
  in international financial discussions and providing sufficient resources, despite the halving of the nation's oil revenues, to enable them to increase spending on the National Health Service, education, law and order, and other priority programmes above previous plans, while ensuring that public spending as a whole continues to grow more slowly than national income and while public borrowing, even without any benefit from privatisation proceeds, has been reduced to its lowest level for 17 years.

  Financial Markets

    Ordered,
    That Mr. Roy Beggs be added to the Public Accounts Commission.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That, at the sitting on Tuesday 10th November, if proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. John Wakeham relating to House of Commons (Services) have not been disposed of before Seven o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall at that hour put the Question on any Amendment which may have been moved, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any other Amendments selected by him which may then be moved, and on the main Question or the main Question, as amended.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

  Underground Fire (Dronfield)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: It is appropriate that we should be discussing this subject on Guy Fawkes night in the House of Commons on a motion to adjourn the House. I hope that we are not tempting fate too much. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the Dronfield fire was not started by gunpowder. However, the way in which it did start is something of a mystery. The speculation is that there was a surface fire that moved underground.
  The fire was on a private industrial estate in Dronfield, Derbyshire which was built in the 1970s. It was established from a tip in an area where there had been industrial waste from an iron and steel works and former railway sidings. It started two years ago on the south-east embankment of the industrial estate at a firm called Cronite Alloys Ltd. The embankment is 40 to 45 ft high and the fire started to develop at the lower regions of the bank near the river below it. It moved over 100 yards in two years, gathering momentum and threatening buildings at Henry Toole Ltd, which has since had to move to Chesterfield, and at Butler Die-Casting Ltd., which owns the land on which Henry Toole was located. All the time it was gathering in ferocity and speed. If it had not been stopped it would have been heading for the major gas supply into Dronfield and parts of south Yorkshire.
  The problem was fully discovered only in February this year when there was heavy snow, which meant that the problem areas could be seen. The fire has since been diverted by a firm called Waddingtons, which was next in line for the fire. It built a barrier and grouted the area. The fire has now turned and moved towards Armeg Ltd and Fusion Ltd.
  A magistrates court in July determined that the district council should take action to put the fire out. The North-East Derbyshire district council does not own the land, but it has been taking action since then. It has attempted to deaden the fire by grouting. It is providing an inert protective barrier around the fire and excavating heated areas of the embankment and sealing them off.
  One problem is that the temperatures are much higher than were estimated. The body of the embankment is 700 deg C above the level estimated. It is giving off greater steam and dust emissions than were imagined, which is producing problems for the workers and residents in the neighbouring area. The residents have this week been involved in problems created by the work being done there. That slowed up the process.
  According to the initial court ruling, the process should have been finished by now, but it will not be completed until January. The work has been much more expensive than was envisaged initially because of the time involved and the amount of grouting that needs to be done. It was originally estimated that it would cost the district council £300,000 to put out the fire but on present estimates the work needed will cost £500,000.
  How is that money to be found? At the moment, the work is being paid for by a small non-metropolitan district council whose total budget is only £4·8 million — a council which the Government would describe as prudent, because it operates within its budget and has never been

  1169
  subject to any penalty clauses. If the council takes action to recover the money from the firms concerned, as is its statutory duty under section 99 of the Public Health Act 1936, the firms will become bankrupt and jobs will be lost on the estate. If the council has to spend so much money without being able to recoup it, it will suffer grant penalty losses and will have to pay the interest charges on temporary loans. If that happens, an 8p increase will be required in respect of the district precept, which represents a 25 per cent. rate increase.
  We have to add to those problems the fact that valuation losses will he suffered because of firms moving out and the fact that valuation and revenue losses will be incurred in my constituency if Renisham park pit is closed and in the district if Arkwright pit is closed. Early-day motion 231 opposes that move, but the development is being pushed hard by the coal board. If those pits close, the district council will be in serious difficulties.
  The council is in the unenviable position of having debts relating to remedial work on land that it does not own when the general body of its ratepayers cannot benefit in any way from the expenditure. Representations have been made to the Department of the Environment but have led to no offer of financial help. We received a letter from the Under-Secretary which states:
  "You will, I know, be disappointed that your campaign on behalf of the local authorities and the industrialists should not have secured Government assistance for them but you may be assured that the case you have made has been considered most carefully and sympathetically."
  We require more than tea and sympathy. We need financial assistance to handle our problems.
  What measures could the Government and the House take to meet all or part of the costs involved? Several possibilities are open to us. First, section 1 of the Derelict Land Act 1982 could perhaps be used as the land concerned was used for tipping and now requires reclamation before it can be of any benefit to the area. It will need landscaping and tree planting. We shall need to improve the appearance of the estate for residents and for those using the main Sheffield to Chesterfield road. The embankment, which supports the industrial estate, is now subject to subsidence because of the burn beneath. The application of the Derelict Land Act would therefore seem appropriate. However, the Department of the Environment interprets the matter differently and does not see that as a possibility.
  The second possibility would be to amend the Derelict Land Act. At the moment, the fact that the area is occupied or partly occupied means that the Act cannot apply.
  The third possibility would be for the Department of Trade and Industry, through an amendment to legislation, to make available to councils funds that could later be recouped by those councils under the Public Health Act 1936. We do not want the issue partitioned between Government Departments so that we fall foul of that divide.
  The fourth possibility would be to waive all grant losses and penalties, so that the sympathy described in the Minister's letter could be expressed in hard cash. The fifth possibility would be a special grant to the council because it cannot recover money from the firms involved. That could be done by means of a private Bill.
  The sixth possibility is the Bellwin scheme —something frequently mentioned in the House in recent
  1170
  days in connection with the storm damage in southern England. A circular from Lord Bellwin on 14 April 1983 shows that a wider interpretation of the word "damage" can be made. It states:
  "It is to provide special financial assistance to local authorities who, as a consequence of emergency would otherwise incur an undue financial burden in providing relief and carrying out immediate works to safeguard life or property or prevent suffering or severe inconvenience to affected communities."
  I think that under that definition funds could be made available to my council.
  A further circular issued on 21 October concerned the recent storm damage. It said that, after an initial rate payment, 75 per cent. of the remaining costs of district councils would be met by the Department of the Environment from central funds, and the remaining 25 per cent. which would have to be paid by the district councils would not be subject to rate penalties. It may not be known generally that district councils, as distinct from county councils, cannot levy a penny rate initially, but only a rate of 0·15p in the pound.
  There is a seventh possibility, which shows the lesson to be learned from Dronfield, and that is to provide funds that could be applied to wider areas. Would the Department of the Environment respond favourably to a Bill to set up a general disaster fund system so that central contingency funds are available for storm damage and other emergencies such as underground fires? I am referring not only to the fire in Dronfield, but to the coal seam that caught light at Oakthorpe colliery. Much of the burden of the costs there were carried by British Coal, although it had disclaimed responsibility. The fund could also be used for floods. A deputation from Strabane district council has visited the House today, and will visit it again tomorrow to tell us about its flooding problems.
  The fund could cover the emergency that nearly occurred at Killamarsh, when there was an explosion at the chemical reclamation plant of Leigh Environmentals. That caused all sorts of problems in the area. The Minister is well aware of that case because in his previous office he had responsibility for small firms and he received a deputation from that company. Indeed, he wrote a sympathetic letter saying that an inquiry should be undertaken. Unfortunately, in his new position, he has now refused to set up that inquiry.
  Such a general disaster fund would have all-party support in the House, especially after the storms suffered recently in the south of England. That has all-party support in Strabane, where, perhaps amazingly for this House, the representation from the district council is presented by a delegation made up of independent, Sinn Fein, Democratic Unionist, Social Democratic and Labour party and Official Unionist councillors. Perhaps a similar arrangement of Labour and Conservative councillors who are affected by the problems at Dronfield could be brought about.
  I ask the Department of the Environment seriously to consider action and not just issue sympathy to my constituency, so that the avenues that I have mentioned, or some combination of those avenues, are used to prevent the district council from being placed in an embarrassing financial position.
  10.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): I am grateful for the

  1171
  opportunity to assure the House that I am fully aware of the anxiety of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) about the underground fire at Callywhite lane industrial estate in Dronfield in his constituency. I am also aware of the concerns of the local authority—north-east Derbyshire district council—and the local industrialists at Callywhite lane.
  I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing a deputation of those directly affected by the fire to meet me in July this year. It was helpful to hear, at first hand, about the problems at the industrial estate. I have also had the opportunity of watching a television report about the fire which was kindly loaned to me by the district council. As a result I feel that I know a great deal about the fire and the problems that it has caused.
  I fully understand the financial implications of dealing with local emergencies such as this underground fire. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's clear explanation of the difficulties involved. I can assure the House that the hon. Gentleman's requests for central Government financial assistance have been carefully considered.
  It would be foolish of me to catalogue the events that have led to the position in which the local authority now finds itself as the hon. Gentleman has accurately dealt with that. However, it is important that I should emphasise that the industrial estate was privately developed and is privately owned.
  It is also important that I stress that, although at first the fire progressed slowly and experts considered that the best action would be to monitor the fire to see that it burnt itself out, at that time the Health and Safety Executive advised that the responsibility for dealing with the fire lay with the occupiers of the land on which the fire started.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, early this year there was clear evidence of the extent of the underground heating from vegetation coming into leaf on the embankment to the estate when there was snow on the ground nearby and from trees dying and falling. Some companies with properties on the estate beyond the extent of the fire undertook work to protect their premises. At their own expense, they inserted underground concrete screens to halt the progress of the fire, and I appreciate that.
  Throughout, the North-East Derbyshire district council has taken the line that liability for the fire, and for any remedial action, rests with the landowners. The council's officers assured officials of my Department that the local authority would use its statutory powers to act against nuisance if and when necessary. It would then seek to recharge the owners for the costs of any action that they had taken. The recommendation in that report, and subsequent local discussions, resulted in the deputations to me in July to see if central Government funds could be made available to help deal with the underground fire.
  In the meantime, two firms threatened by the underground fire complained to the local magistrates court. Their complaint was that the owners of the land on which the fire had started had defaulted on their legal obligation to put the fire out. That fact has not yet been mentioned. The complaint also cited two other firms on to whose land the fire had progressed, because they had
  "failed to take major steps to contain the fire".
  The magistrates found that those complaints were justified. Their ruling confirmed the line taken by the district council that liability rests with the landowners. The
  1172
  magistrates concluded that statutory nuisance existed and, "considering the practical circumstances", ordered the district council to abate the nuisance within 16 weeks. Clearly, the magistrates were determined to ensure that the remedial action needed was put in hand immediately. The district council did that, and action is now in hand to put out the fire. My information is that, to a large degree, that action has been successful. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman joins with me in hoping that that is so.
  Under the public health Acts, local authorities have powers to take action to abate statutory nuisance and to recharge the landowners for the costs they incur in so doing. The authorities also have a duty to their ratepayers to seek to recover the costs of abating statutory nuisance. In this case, the district council has assured me that it will take whatever action is necessary to recover its costs. Clearly any such action by the district council could involve further litigation.
  Mr. Barnes: Will the Minister estimate how long he believes that the litigation might take? The district council will be in an awkward position. It will act as the banker during the period before moneys can be recovered.
  Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman will recall that at the meeting in the Department of the Environment I asked why steps had not already been taken against the landowners. That would have considerably cut the time. If litigation could arise, it is rather difficult for me to comment further on that aspect of the case.
  From the history of events and the facts that I have provided, I am sure that the House will understand that it would not be appropriate to make central Government financial assistance available to help fund the remedial works necessary to put out the fire. Nevertheless, as I promised the hon. Gentleman when he brought his deputation to see me, I have investigated the possibility of using derelict land grant to help in meeting the costs of remedial works. He raised that matter again today.
  I have advised the hon. Member that the engineering works, which are now well under way, are not eligible for derelict land grant. Quite simply, the land is still occupied and, therefore, cannot be regarded as derelict. Even if the land were derelict, it would not be open to the district council to apply for derelict land grant, because the land in question is in private ownership.
  As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, the district council has not yet taken any steps to recover the costs incurred in the remedial work so far completed. It would, therefore, be premature to judge what the outcome of its attempts to recover its costs might be.
  On the various questions that the hon. Gentleman has raised for my attention, of course it may be possible for the Government, through the Department of the Environment to bring forward to the House a change in the policy on derelict land grant. I ask the hon. Gentleman how long that would take. Is it necessary to change the criterion by which we use the derelict land grant? That brings into account much wider policies than we are considering tonight.
  Mr. Tony Benn: That elaborate bureaucratic explanation was brilliantly drafted by the Under-Secretary of State's officials. A natural disaster has occurred. It is exactly comparable to the storm damage. The Government were able to move rapidly in that connection. To say that a fire on private property is not

  1173
  a matter of public concern — the magistrates took a contrary view — misses the point. Either the local ratepayers will have to pay an 8p increase—10 per cent. of their total budget—or, if possible, recover the money from the firm. Otherwise, jobs may be lost. In the light of that, surely the Minister could move with lightning speed if he wished to do so.
  Mr. Trippier: The right hon. Gentleman must accept that it is perhaps a little strange that the district council has not taken action against the landowners. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has heard his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East say that, in certain cases, a number of companies might be adversely affected financially if a case was brought against them. I am not qualified to comment on that. I dare say that the right hon. Gentleman is also not qualified to comment on it. In some cases those companies are subsidiaries of larger companies.
  Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting for one moment that action should still not be taken by the district council against the landowners when that is the law? The right hon. Gentleman must accept that the district council does not appear to have taken much action in this regard. Under the law it is open to the district council to use legislation against the landowners, but thus far it has taken very little, if any, action.
  Mr. Barnes: If the action is taken to recover moneys the consequence—based on the information available about the standing of the firms, particularly firms such as Butler (Die Casting) Ltd., which freely admits its difficult financial situation—is that the firms go bankrupt. Thus the workers lose their jobs and the district council is unable to recover the money. The Minister is encouraging people to respond in such a manner, thus, the creation of industrial dereliction within the area. Therefore, another problem is created regarding how things might be built up in the future. It might be that moneys begin to be available
  1174
  at some later stage so that someone else can operate in the area. We should like to ensure that those jobs are saved now and that, in the meantime, the district council is not placed in the extremely embarrassing position of not having adequate resources without putting the rates up by a considerable amount.
  Mr. Trippier: The logical conclusion to what the hon. Gentleman has said is that he is suggesting—I am sure that this is not his intention—that the district councils placed in such a position in the future, whatever may have happened to the land on which businesses are working, should not go to great lengths to recover the costs from those people who are operating in those industrial areas. I am sure that he would agree that that is complete nonsense.
  I would like to be a little more comforted by the action that the district council has been prepared to take against the landowners. Indeed, I implied that when the hon. Gentleman brought his deputation to see me. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that there is quite a difference on the site in question between those who are operating their businesses and those who own the land—I accept, not in all cases. However, I have said that there are some sizeable companies involved, yet there seems to have been little attempt by the district council to recover the costs.
  The North-East Derbyshire district council has made representations to the Department of the Environment that the unrecovered expenditure incurred by the council in putting out the fire should be excluded from the definition of total expenditure for 1987–88. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take into account the points made to me by the deputation that the hon. Gentleman brought to me and the points that he has made tonight and will announce his decision in due course.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  New Zealand
  Mr. David Marshall
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to increase trade between the United Kingdom and New Zealand; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  New Zealand is an important trading partner. The British Overseas Trade Board actively encourages United Kingdom companies to export to the market, and has a wide range of services to assist them. I visited New Zealand myself in May 1986 in order to promote United Kingdom exports and the BOTB proposes to support 15 trade missions to that country in 1988–89.

  Area

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  North East

  117·8

  115·3

  130·4

  111·2

  82·6

  76·2

  62·0

  108·3

  North West

  98·1

  143·0

  194·1

  152·7

  130·7

  121·8

  96·3

  132·9

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  28·3

  45·3

  54·2

  47·0

  32·3

  36·5

  32·5

  37·1

  East Midlands

  3·3

  3·8

  8·2

  13·0

  16·9

  10·2

  8·3

  10·6

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5·5

  9·9

  South West

  7·7

  11·0

  12·0

  13·7

  9·8

  11·6

  10·9

  20·6

  Scotland

  71·0

  114·1

  144·2

  288·2

  144·3

  72·0

  2·1

  0·6

  Wales

  63·8

  106·0

  123·6

  124·8

  73·3

  58·6

  1·6

  0·9

  Great Britain

  390·0

  538·5

  666·7

  750·6

  489·9

  386·9

  219·2

  320·9

  Notes:

  These figures cover regional development grants and regional selective assistance industrial and training grants. All figures are gross, before deducting domestic and European Community receipts.

  The figures exclude expenditure on the provision of land and buildings through the English Industrial Estates Corporation, the exchange risk guarantee scheme and business improvement services as it is not possible to provide a breakdown of these items by English region.

  In November 1984 responsibility for RDG expenditure in Scotland and Wales was transferred to the Scottish and Welsh Offices DTI expenditure figures for 1984–85 and, more particularly, the two subsequent years are therefore not comparable with those for earlier years.

  Nearly all expenditure on regional aid to industry in Scotland and Wales is now the responsibility of the Scottish and Welsh Offices respectively.

  Lonrho plc
  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to complete his consideration of representations in relation to a possible breach by Lonrho plc of sections 204 to 206 of the Companies Act 1985 in relation to share dealings in House of Fraser plc during the period from the date of the inspector's interim report into share dealings in House of Fraser to the date of its acquisition by Al Fayed Investment and Trust (UK) Ltd;

  (2) when he expects to complete his consideration of representations in relation to a possible breach of section 231 of the Companies Act 1985 by Lonrho plc in relation to its Liechtenstein subsidiaries Blorg and Contango.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Steinberg
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will introduce legislation to require manufacturers of aerosols to state on the can whether the product contains chlorofluorocarbons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government are taking steps to implement the Montreal protocol for the protection of the ozone layer, which will control the future production and use of chlorofluorocarbons. I see no need for additional measures regarding the labelling of aerosols. Individual manufacturers are free to indicate the contents of these canisters if they so wish: doubtless they will consider such action should there be any perceptible consumer preference.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. McLeish
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was his Department's expenditure on regional aid to industry in each of the English regions. Scotland and Wales in the last year for which full figures are available and for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Atkins
  The figures for my Department's spend on regional aid to industry in each of the English regions, Scotland and Wales for the years 1979–80 to 1986–87 are as follows:

  Mr. Maude
  The representations have been considered and my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State is about to write to my hon. Friend and other interested parties on this matter.

  Guinness plc
  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects the inspectors appointed to investigate the affairs and membership of Guinness plc to report.

  Mr. Maude
  The investigation continues, but I am unable to say when a report will be received.

  House of Fraser plc
  Mr. Tim Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects the inspectors appointed to investigate the affairs of House of Fraser Holdings plc to report.

  Mr. Maude
  The inspectors are pressing ahead with their investigation as quickly as possible, but I cannot say when their report will be received.

  British Caledonian
  Mr. Madel
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received from consumer organisations on the proposed take-over of British Caledonian by British Airways; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. and noble Friend has received a number of representations from organisations representing the interests of consumers. These have expressed a range of views. During the course of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission investigation into the proposal those wishing to make representations have been directed to the commission.

  Dumping
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if, to assist British importers, he will seek to establish for the European Economic Commission its definition of dumping, with particular reference to (a) the cost of production and (b) the price at which the goods concerned are ruled in their domestic market; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The definition of dumping used by the European Commission is based on article VI of the GATT and is incorporated in the Community anti-dumping legislation—regulation (EEC) No. 2176/84. Dumping can be established by various methods including the use of domestic prices or cost of production, depending on the circumstances of the case. United Kingdom importers can obtain guidance on all anti-dumping matters from my Department's unfair trade unit.

  Economic League
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has as to the number of companies which declare donations to the Economic League in their returns to Companies House under the Companies Acts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Some of the individual accounts submitted to the Registrar of Companies each year may contain details of such donations by companies. These accounts are available for public inspection. However, the Department of Trade and Industry does not carry out any analysis which would provide the information requested.

  Cash Limits and Running Costs
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether any changes will be made to the Department of Trade and Industry's cash limits or running costs for 1987–88.
  794
  Mr. Butcher
  The cash limit of class V, vote 2 (support for industry) will be reduced by £7 million from £471·249 million to £464·249 million. This change reflects forecast reduced requirements for the innovation programme.

  The running cost limit of the Department of Trade and Industry is reduced by £399,000 from £275·771 million to £275·372 million. This reduction reflects the net effect of the reclassification out of running costs of the cost of external inspections under the Companies Act 1985 and the transfer of provision from the Department of Employment for staff in the inner cities unit and the enterprise and deregulation unit.

PRIME MINISTER

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

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

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Grocott
  asked the Prime Minister how many official overseas visits she has made since 1979; and what has been the total cost.

  The Prime Minister
  I have made 95 official overseas visits since 1979. The total cost to date is £2,987,000.

  EC Budget
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Prime Minister if she will submit proposals to the next meeting of the European Council designed to reform EEC spending within the current legal limits of expenditure; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The European Council in December will discuss the future financing of the Community, including proposals to improve budget discipline and management. I intend to make clear, as I did at the last European Council. that there must be agreement on effective and binding control over Community spending before the question of any changes to the current limit on resources can be considered.

  Accountability
  Mr. Allen
  asked the Prime Minister what representations she has received about her accountability to the House through Prime Minister's questions.

  The Prime Minister
  None, as far as I am aware.

  North-West
  Mr. Butler
  asked the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit the north-west.

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

  European Space Agency
  Sir Geoffrey Pattie
  asked the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit the headquarters of the European Space Agency in Paris.

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

  Inverclyde (Enterprise Zone)
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Prime Minister if she is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Scottish Office and the Department of Trade and Industry about the creation of an enterprise zone in Inverclyde.

  The Prime Minister
  The case for an enterprise zone in Inverclyde remains under consideration, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has already indicated, after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Minister primarily responsible, no decision can be taken until the findings on the current evaluation of the enterprise zone experiment have been fully considered.

  EC (Internal Market)
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the development of the internal market in the EEC.

  The Prime Minister
  The Single European Act (SEA), which was before Parliament when it passed the European Communities (Amendment) Act, which received Royal Assent on 6 November 1986, writes into the treaty of Rome a commitment to adopt measures with the aim of completing the single market by 1992.

  More than 100 individual measures have been agreed towards that goal during the past two years, including 48 during the United Kingdom presidency last year. Priority areas for decisions by the end of 1988 identified by the European Council meeting in Brussels last June include public purchasing, technical barriers under the Community's new approach to harmonisation, insurance, freedom of establishment for the professions and liberalisation of capital movements.

  Mr. Charles Powell
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Prime Minister when Mr. Charles Powell was promoted to the grade of undersecretary of state at the Foreign Office; at what age; what new functions and responsibilities he has assumed; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Mr. Powell was promoted to the senior grade of the Diplomatic Service with effect from I May this year, while in his present post.

  Vancouver Summit
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the Commonwealth meeting in Vancouver and, in particular, of the progress made in friendship, mutal respect and community of aims and interests between the member countries.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement I made on Thursday 22 October 1987 at columns 921–22.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Prime Minister what was the source of the figures quoted by the British delegation in the recent Vancouver meeting of the commonwealth, regarding trade between Canada and South Africa.

  The Prime Minister
  The figures quoted were taken from the International Monetary Fund's "Direction of Trade Statistics" for 1985 and 1986.
  796
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Prime Minister what representations she received from the South African Government regarding her intervention on the issue of sanctions, during the Vancouver Commonwealth meeting; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Storm Damage
  Mr. John David Taylor
  asked the Prime Minister what additional financial resources have been made available to those who suffered from the severe storms and flood damage during the month of October in (a) southern England, (b) Wales and (c) Northern Ireland.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on 21 October 1987.

  In addition, the European Commission has offered £210,000 to provide assistance to those affected by the storm damage in England; and £140,000 for those affected by flooding in Wales and Northern Ireland. Discussions are being held urgently between the Government and the Commission on the distribution of this money.

  In certain circumstances payments may also be available under existing social security regulations.

  Sir Philip Woodfield
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Prime Minister what is the salary that will be paid to Sir Philip Woodfield as a staff counsellor for the security and intelligence services; and what are the terms of his employment.

  The Prime Minister
  The staff counsellor will receive an annual retainer of £5,000 and a daily fee of £100, and will be reimbursed for any expenses necessarily incurred in the course of his duties. These payments are non-pensionable.

  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Prime Minister if authority will be extended to Sir Philip Woodfield to look into allegations of abuses by the security services made by those outside the security service.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Prime Minister what accommodation, office and secretarial facilities and by which Government Department, will be provided to Sir Philip Woodfield as staff counsellor for the security and intelligence services.

  The Prime Minister
  The staff counsellor will have the use of an office and such facilities as he requires in the Cabinet Office.

  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Prime Minister from which vote and sub-head the salary and expenses of Sir Philip Woodfield as staff counsellor for the security and. intelligence services will be paid.

  The Prime Minister
  All costs will be paid from Other Services (Cabinet Office) (Class XX, vote 2) sub-head A 1.

  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Prime Minister if she will arrange for all or part of the reports of the staff counsellor for the security and intelligence services to be placed in the Library; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  SS Titanic
  Mr. Tony Banks
  asked the Prime Minister if she will take steps through international agencies to protect from further exploration the site of the SS Titanic.

  The Prime Minister
  I have every sympathy with those who do not wish the Titanic to be further disturbed by salvage operation. However, any action agreed through international agencies would be unlikely to be effective because it would be legally binding only in states which chose to be party to it.

  Public Money (Allocations)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  asked the Prime Minister what is the total overall identifiable allocation of public money made by the Government since 1979 to (a) Glasgow, (b) Bristol, (c) Lambeth, (d) Newcastle, (e) Hammersmith, (f) Cardiff, (g) Haringey, (h) Southampton, (i) Leicester, (j) Leeds, (k) Wandsworth, (l) Belfast and (m) Northampton (i) in total, (ii) per person, (iii) per unemployed person, (iv) per unemployed person aged under 21 years and (v) per retirement pensioner in each named district; and if she will also express these figures at 1987 prices.

  The Prime Minister
  Apart from expenditure which is the responsibility of the territorial departments, most public expenditure is planned on a national basis and it is not possible to identify separately expenditure allocated to particular areas.

  Audit Commission Fees
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  asked the Prime Minister what information she has as to the margin by which the increase in audit fees proposed by the Audit Commission exceeds the current rate of inflation.

  The Prime Minister
  This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I understand, however, that the Audit Commission proposes an overall fee increase of 6·6 per cent. for the year beginning 1 November 1987. The rise in the retail prices index for the 12 months to September was 4·2 per cent.

  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  asked the Prime Minister if she will request the Secretary of State for the Environment to exercise his powers under section 21(7) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 to make regulations prescribing a scale of audit fees which embodies an increase lower than the 6·5 per cent. rise proposed by the Audit Commission; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Under the Local Government Finance Act 1982 it is for him to consider whether it is necessary or desirable to prescribe a scale of fees in place of the scale prescribed by the Audit Commission.

  Engagements
  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

  Mr. Alton
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

  Mr. Fearn
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 November.
  798
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 November.

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

ENERGY

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Cummings
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will indicate, area by area, the number of British Coal houses sold to financial institutions and the revenue gained from such sales;

  (2) if he will indicate the costs attributed to Dawdon, Murton, Vane Tempest and Easington collieries for transporting coal and minerals by road transport and by British Rail;

  (3) if he will indicate the annual costs of transporting miners in the north-east to and from work;

  (4) what was the level of capital investment in the deep mines of (a) Murton, (b)Dawdon, (c)Vane Tempest and (d)Easington during the year 1986–87; and what is the projected investment during the year 1987–88.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  These are matters for the British Coal Corporation. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Scottish Coalfields
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will make a statement on British Coal's proposals to develop the townhead coal reserves near Ponfeigh in the Clydesdale constituency;

  (2) if he will give details of capital investment figures for the Scottish coalfields for the years 1988 to 1991;

  (3) if he will give details of capital investment in the Scottish coalfields for opencast development for years 1988 to 1991;

  (4) if he will give details as to the capital cost of developing the Dalguhandy coal site in the Clydesdale constituency.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a management matter for the British Coal Corporation. I shall ask the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will take steps to ensure that no private licence to develop opencast mining will be granted outside existing legislation.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Under existing legislation the British Coal Corporation is responsible for the granting of licences for private opencast mining operations.

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give assurances that his proposals for the privatisation of the electricity industry do not result in increased costs to the consumer.
  799
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Our proposals for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry will be designed to increase the efficiency of the industry, for the benefit of consumers.

WALES

  Water
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what information he has on the total volume of water in Llyn Brianne (a) on the first day of the month for every month during the current year and (b) day by day for every day during October;

  (2) what information he has on the total volume of water that flowed from 12 noon Sunday 18 October to 12 noon Monday 19 October (a)from the Llyn Brianne reservoir and (b)downstream through the River Towy in Carmarthen;

  (3) what information he has on the catchment area in square kilometres of (a)Llyn Brianne reservoir, (b)the River Towy above Glanrhyd, Llanwarda, and (c)the River Towy above Carmathen bridge;

  (4) what information he has on how much water in cubic metres per hour was discharged from Llyn Brianne hour by hour from 12 noon on Sunday 18 October to 12 noon on Monday 19 October.

  Mr. Grist
  These are matters for the Welsh water authority and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the capacity in millions of cu m of the Llyn Brianne reservoir.

  Mr. Grist
  The capacity of the Llyn Brianne reservoir is 60·39 million cu m.

  Cwmbran Development Corporation
  Mr. Murphy
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the chairman and members of the board of Cwbran development corporation to discuss the effects of that body's wind-up in 1988 on the local community.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The board of Cwbran development corporation has not asked for such a discussion and I would not expect it to do so. The effects on the local community of the winding-up of the corporation are for consideration by the local authorities and other bodies concerned with the prosperity of Cwbran.

  Cancer Screening
  Mrs. Clwyd
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to introduce a comprehensive scheme of screening for breast cancer among women aged below 50 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  The breast screening programming which is currently being planned for Wales will be aimed at women aged 50 to 64. This is in accordance with the advice of a working group chaired by Professor Sir Patrick Forest, which concluded that the effectiveness of screening has so far been demonstrated only for women aged 50 and over. There are accordingly no plans at present to introduce breast screening for women below this age.
  800
  Mrs. Clwyd
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales how the existing laboratories for the testing of cervical cancer are distributed in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The distribution of existing NHS laboratories used for cervical cytology in Wales is as follows:

  District health authority

  Hospital

  Clwyd

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd

  Ysbyty Wrecsam Maelor

  East Dyfed

  Bronglais

  West Wales General

  Llanelli General

  Gwent

  Royal Gwent

  Nevili Hall

  Gwynedd

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Princess of Wales

  East Glamorgan

  Prince Charles

  St. Davids

  South Glamorgan

  St. Davids

  West Glamorgan

  Morriston

  Singleton

  Neath

  Cervical smears taken in Pembrokeshire and Powys are tested in laboratories in neighbouring district health authorities.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the implications and effects of the proposals in Government consultation and financial delegation documents on the national curriculum, upon physical education, including extracurricular activity in the schools of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Government recognise the importance of sport and physical education for children and for this reason the consultation document on the national curriculum proposes including it as a foundation subject.

  The proposals for financial delegation do not have any direct impact upon physical education, although the consultation document recognises the need to make appropriate arrangements for the use of community facilities in schools.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had on the national curriculum and financial delegation with district and county councils concerning physical education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Copies of the consultation documents on the national curriculum and financial delegation were sent to the Welsh Counties Committee, the Committee of Welsh District Councils and to individual county councils. My right hon. Friend and I have discussed them with the Welsh Joint Education Committee and the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance, and our officials have held a series of meetings with interested bodies. Consultation responses covered the whole range of issues raised and only one county council made any reference to the position of physical education.

  Opencast Mining, Clwyd
  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has had discussions with the chairman of British Coal concerning the Opencast Executive's proposals to mine opencast coal on agricultural land adjacent to residential properties at Cheapside, Ewloe, Clwyd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  No.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will initiate an inquiry into the impact in Clwyd of opencast mining operations upon local communities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  No. In view of my right hon. Friend's statutory responsibility to give impartial consideration to individual applications and appeals in relation to opencast coal mining, it would not be appropriate for me to set up such an inquiry.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  asked the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will receive a deputation from Cheapside, Clwyd residents about the proposals of the Opencast Executive; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will visit Cheapside, Clwyd, and meet on site representatives of residents, the community, district and county councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  No. The Opencast Executive has appealed to my right hon. Friend against the refusal of Clwyd county council to grant planning permission for opencast coal mining at Cheapside, Clwyd. Arrangements are being made for a public local inquiry to be held into the appeal and, in view of this, it would not be appropriate for my right hon. Friend to visit the appeal site or to meet local representatives to discuss the proposed development.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Zimbabwe (Railways)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will open talks with the Government of Zimbabwe, with a view to providing new locomotives and rolling stock for the Zimbabwe national railways; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We are ready to consider assistance for the national railways of Zimbabwe. However, when Zimbabwean and British officials met in September to discuss priorities in the allocation of British aid, the Zimbabweans did not put forward the NRZ as an area for our involvement.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Jack
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to contribute to international attempts being made to stop the destruction of the world's rain forests.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Government play an active part in the Food and Agriculture Organisation's tropical forestry action plan, which is coordinating donor action on the problem of deforestation. The Overseas Development Administration participates in missions 802
  arranged under the auspices of the action plan to discuss the need for conservation with the Governments of affected developing countries and their requirements for institutional and financial support. This has led to the funding of projects under the British bilateral aid programme, in which aid for forestry projects has increased threefold over the last five years.

  The Government also ratified the international tropical timber agreement in 1984 and are a member of the related Tropical Timber Organisation, which was established in 1986. One of the principal aims of this organisation is to encourage trade in tropical hardwoods on the basis of sustainable and renewable resources.

  Food Aid
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if measures have been taken to ensure that Third world countries do not receive food aid from the European Economic Community which is damaged or totally unfit for human consumption.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Yes. The Council of Ministers agreed a new regulation governing EC food aid during the British presidency in December 1986. A subsequent Commission regulation establishing a new system for the mobilisation of food aid, which includes provisions for quality control, became effective in July 1987.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will urgently demand a review of the way in which staff at the European Commission discharge their duties of quality and price control of food distributed either commercially or as aid.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  No. The position on food aid is described in my answer to the hon. Member's previous question.

  We are in touch with the Commission about the tightening up of the management of intervention stocks and we strongly support their efforts, and those of the Court of Auditors and the Budgetary Control Committee of the European Parliament, in this regard.

  Jordan
  Mr. Baldry
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he plans to offer further aid to Jordan in support of its five-year plan.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We have offered a new loan of £5 million, on concessionary terms and tied to the provision of British goods and services, as a further contribution to the Jordan five-year plan. The finance will be spent on capital projects to be agreed between our two Governments.

TRANSPORT

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Waller
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current average waiting time for a driving test at each testing centre in West Yorkshire, compared with the national average waiting time.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Current waiting times in West Yorkshire are:
  803

  Test centre

  Waiting time (weeks)

  Bradford—Wibsey

  17

  —Eccleshill

  10

  —Heaton

  17

  Halifax

  12

  Heckmondwike

  15

  Horsforth

  16

  Huddersfield

  16

  Keighley

  5

  Leeds—Harehills

  20

  —Crossgates

  19

  Pontefract

  27

  Wakefield

  19

  The national average waiting time is 14 weeks.

  Skips
  Mr. Moate
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what are the current regulations regarding proper lighting on skips left on the public highway; who is responsible for ensuring the adequacy of such lighting; and if he has any plans to alter the present arrangements.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Section 139 of the Highways Act 1980 requires the owner of a skip deposited on the highway to ensure that the skip is properly lighted during the hours of darkness. The highway authority may impose conditions as to the manner in which the skip is to be lighted or guarded when granting permission for it to be deposited on the highway. Responsibility for ensuring that the skip is lit in accordance with any conditions imposed rests on the owner. It is a defence against a charge in respect of a lighting offence to prove that the offence was due to the act or default of another person and that the owner took all reasonable precautions to avoid the commission of the offence. In addition to lighting, the Builders Skips (Markings) Regulations 1984 require the owner of the skip to fit red and yellow fluorescent and reflective markings to the ends of the skip. There are no plans to alter the present arrangements.

  Seafarers (Criminal Records)
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether seafarers convicted while at sea for merchant shipping offences, but upon whom no penalty is imposed, acquire a criminal record.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The powers have been repealed under which a ship's master could impose a financial penalty on a seafarer who committed a disciplinary offence. A person now charged with any offence under the Merchant Shipping Acts can be tried only in the courts. Any penalties then imposed would constitute a criminal record. A master now can impose only such penalties as are within the scope of whatever industrial agreement is relevant. Such penalties would not constitute a criminal record.

  M40 (Extension)
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's plan for the extension of the M40 from Oxford to Birmingham; and whether it will be constricted to three traffic lanes along its entire length.
  804
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department is building the M40 north of Wendlebury to dual three-lane standard. Between Waterstock and Wendlebury, where traffic flows are forecast to be much lower, the Department's plans are for dual two-lane standard, but with the scheme designed to accommodate provision of third lanes when warranted by traffic levels.

  Motorway Roadworks
  Mr. Madden
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what additional action he is taking to reduce accidents by vehicles passing through roadworks on the motorway network.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Department is discussing with the police the use of mandatory speed limits at contraflow sites.

  We are about to start a trial of a new system of closer spaced matrix signals, which automatically detects stationary or slow moving traffic, on a 50-mile stretch of the M1.

  We are evaluating the video monitoring of major roadworks to allow earlier detection and warning of breakdowns and accidents.

  The Transport and Road Research Laboratory has recently commissioned a study of accidents at contraflows.

  We shall implement further improvements in the design of contraflow systems in the light of the findings of this study.

  M1 Motorway
  Mr. Madden
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of the M1 are now being repaired: how many miles are reduced to single lane; how many miles to double lane; how many miles are subject to reduced speed controls on the approaches to road works; what was the comparable situation (a) six months ago, (b) a year ago, (c) two years ago, (d) three years ago; what are the estimated completion dates for all current road works; in how many cases completion dates are likely to over-run; and what new road works are scheduled to take place in the next (i) six months, (ii) the next year and (iii) the next two years.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Information is readily available only for major maintenance schemes. No stretch is currently reduced to a single lane because of major maintenance work. Eighteen miles are reduced to two lanes at times and subject to temporary speed limits. In addition, variable matrix speed signals are displayed as the need arises.

  Comparable information for previous periods is not available. The number of major maintenance schemes at each of the dates requested was as follows:

  Number

  5 May 1987

  0

  5 November 1986

  4

  5 November 1985

  1

  5 November 1984

  0

  Such schemes typically involved a two-lane contraflow not exceeding two and a half miles with advisory speed limits.

  The estimated completion dates for current major maintenance schemes are as follows:

  805

  J39–40

  December 1987

  J14–15

  *5 November 1987

  J9–10

  13 November 1987

  *Note: end of contraflow

  None of these schemes is expected to over-run

  New major maintenance schemes are scheduled to take place in the following locations during the remainder of this financial year:

  Bedfordshire

  J12–13

  Northamptonshire

  J16–17

  Leicestershire

  J23

  Five major maintenance schemes are provisionally planned for various periods in 1988–89. Further works will take place in future years; the programme for these has not yet been finalised.

  Technology and Manning Strategic Planning Committee
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the status and remit of the technology and manning strategic planning committee, what are his intentions regarding its function; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  A strategic policy committee has been established under the aegis of the Merchant Navy training board to develop new training and certification arrangements tailored to the industry's needs in the light of the technology and manning for safe operation research report.

  This committee comprises representatives from all sectors of the industry in order that the views of all concerned may be taken into account.

  Ferries (Loading Doors)
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport why the proposed change in the law relating to the closure of cargo loading doors on roll-on roll-off passenger ferries, which provides that criminal offences may be committed, is to be dealt with by means of statutory instruments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Secondary legislation can be enacted more quickly, and imposes less demand on parliamentary time, than primary legislation. Subsection (6)(b) of section 21 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 provides that orders made under that section may make contravention of a regulation an offence.

  Ferries (Research)
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the outcome of his consideration of how best to progress the research effort on roll-on roll-off survivability for which he made £1 million available for further work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  A steering committee of experienced professionals of appropriate backgrounds and interests has been formed to assist and advise the Department in the management of this research programme. The first meeting of this committee was held on 30 October and a further meeting has been arranged.

  Ships (Safety)
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether any research is to be conducted into the
  806
  relationship between fatigue and manning, in the light of increased pressure from shipowners for the single night look-out concept; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  It is the intention to take up recommendation 9 of the technology and manning for safe ship operation research project and set up a new research project into the employment of bridge lookouts at night.

  Ship Survey
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what are his intentions regarding the retention of responsibility for ship survey within the Surveyor General's organisation and marine survey section (a) in respect of the United Kingdom register and (b) in respect of registers of dependent territories.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The arrangements under which classification societies undertake certain marine survey work on United Kingdom ships on behalf of the Department are kept under regular review. Plans are in hand for the transfer of classification societies of the survey and certification of submersible craft, and the assessment of impact stability of mobile offshore drilling units. There are no plans for any further changes at present.

  As regards ships registered in the dependent territories, the Department's surveyors undertake certain surveys, on a repayment basis, depending on the capacity of the administrations in question.

  Spirit Class Vessels (Officers)
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimate of his Department concerning likely deck officer reductions on Spirit class vessels, involving the removal of second officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  [holding answer 4 November 1987]Provided it complies with the Merchant Shipping (Certification of Deck Officers) Regulations, deck officer manning is the responsibility of the owner. The manning proposed for the Spirit class vessels complies with those regulations. It also conforms with the view of the court of formal investigation into the loss of the Herald of Free Enterprise.

  Breath Tests
  Mr. Boyes
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to introduce either random or targeted breath tests.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  The courts have held that a constable may, under section 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, stop vehicles at random in order to decide whether there are grounds for requiring a sample of breath for testing. A sample may be required where the constable has reasonable cause to suspect that the motorist has alcohol in his body; that he has committed a traffic offence while the vehicle was moving; or that he has been involved in an accident. The Association of Chief Police Officers has stated that these powers are sufficient to allow the law to be enforced effectively, and the Government have no plans to amend the legislation. The use made of these powers is a matter for individual chief officers of police.

  Sealink Ferry (Overloading)
  Mr. Adley
  asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will order an immediate inquiry into the recent overloading of a Sealink ferry at Boulogne; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  This incident has been investigated by one of my Department's marine surveyors. His report has been forwarded to the Treasury Solicitor, who is considering the possibility of prosecutions.

  Arising out of a recommendation of the court of formal investigation into the loss of the Herald of Free Enterprise, my Department has now circulated for consultation a draft statutory instrument which would make boarding cards for these short-haul ferries mandatory. A copy of this has been placed in the Library.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Postgraduate Certificate of Education Courses
  Mr. Battle
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the recruitment figures for each of the postgraduate certificate of education courses for 1987–88.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will inform Parliament of the principal findings of the Department of Education and Science's survey of recruitment to initial teacher training, including PGCE, courses once these are available.

  Teachers (Retraining)
  Mr. Battle
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give details of the take-up of places in Her Majesty's Government's specially funded programme allowing qualified teachers to retrain as teachers of mathematics, physics or technology; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This programme is run by the University Grants Committee (UGC) and the National Advisory Body for local authority higher education (NAB). No take-up figures are available for the UGC share of the programme. Returns from the NAB suggest that recruitment under this initiative for retraining and updating courses is running at about 40 per cent. This compares with an encouraging 89 per cent. for initial teacher training places.

  From April 1988, in time for the start of the first full year of courses under the initiative, the Government have ring-fenced grant aid for £4 million of expenditure by local education authorities on secondments of existing teachers to long retraining courses. This should mitigate the secondment funding difficulties associated with the changeover from the old pooling arrangements to the new training grants scheme that have been one of the causes of low take-up of places this year.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Michael Morris
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance is given by his Department to local authorities about the minimum acreage of playing fields for primary, middle and upper schools.
  808
  Mr. Dunn
  The requirements for the provision of playing fields for maintained schools are set out in the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981. The areas required for individual schools are determined by the number and age of the pupils. Additional guidance on the quantity and quality of provision is offered in the Department's building bulletin No. 28, "Playing Fields and Hard Surface Areas".

  Grammar Schools
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to which local education authorities are currently offering less favourable treatment to girls in the provision of grammar schools; and if he will give the names of grammar schools in each local education authority concerned as well as the number of places offered to (i) girls and (ii) boys in each of the schools mentioned.

  Mr. Dunn
  No information is available centrally as to the number of places offered for entry to grammar schools. There were 28 local education authorities in England in January 1987 that had grammar schools of which only Birmingham LEA had more boys' grammar schools than girls'. The number of grammar schools in Birmingham LEA was eight, of which five were boys' schools and three were girls' schools as follows:

  Sutton Coldfield Girls' School

  Handsworth Grammar School for Boys

  Kind Edward VI Aston School

  King Edward VI Camp Hill School for Boys

  King Edward VI Camp Hill Girls' School

  King Edward VI Five Ways School

  King Edward VI Handsworth

  Bishop Veseys Grammar School

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Blackwood County Court
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Attorney-General if he will make available in the Library correspondence between the Lord Chancellor's Office and Blackwood county court, Gwent, in the case of Webber v. Webber in 1981–82.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor's office did not correspond with Blackwood county court in the case of Webber v. Webber in 1981–82. There was correspondence in 1983 consisting of a request for, and a reply giving, factual information which formed the basis of the Lord Chancellor's reply to the hon. Member dated 1 June 1983, which was copied to the court with a formal acknowledgment of the reply.

  Conveyancing
  Mr. Aspinwall
  asked the Attorney-General what is the position with regard to the implementation of the provisions of part II of the Administration of Justice Act 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  As far as the provisions of part II of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 are concerned, the Council for Licensed Conveyancers has been established with the power to issue licences to persons qualified to provide conveyancing services to the public. The first licences have been issued and the council, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, has made certain rules regulating entry to the profession and regulating the
  809
  conduct of licensed conveyancers generally. Rules to enable the council to permit corporations controlled by licensed conveyancers to provide conveyancing services have not yet been made. It is the Government's intention that all of the provisions contained in part II of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 will he implemented as soon as is practicable.

  Mr. Aspinwall
  asked the Attorney-General what is (a) the number of licensed conveyancers thus far registered with the Council for Licensed Conveyancers and (b) the number of applications made for registration.

  The Attorney-General
  Applications for licences are dealt with in two stages. The first stage is the giving of notice of intention to apply, and it is at this stage that consideration is given to the question of the applicant's suitability. The second stage is the submission of a formal application. By 31 October a total of 420 notices of intention to apply had been received by the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, of which 158 are currently being considered, and 223 licences have been issued following the receipt of formal applications.

  Social Security Commissioners
  Mr. John
  asked the Attorney-General if he will reconsider his decision not to replace the Social Security Commissioner for Wales.

  The Attorney-General
  The jurisdiction of each of the social security commissioners for Great Britain extends throughout England, Scotland and Wales. Hearings continue to be held in Cardiff, where appropriate, on a regular basis, although the Cardiff office was closed in 1986 for reasons of operational economy. The Lord Chancellor has no plans at present to reopen that office or to base a social security commissioner in Wales.

  Mr. John
  asked the Attorney-General how many social security commissioners there are for (a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) the Isle of Man; and if he will set out the criteria for appointment of such commissioners for a geographical area.

  The Attorney-General
  The jurisdiction of each of the social security commissioners for Great Britain extends throughout England, Scotland and Wales. There are currently two commissioners based in Scotland, but none in Wales. Appointments of commissioners to be based in England, Scotland and Wales are made to the extent justified by the work load arising there. The Lord Chancellor is not responsible for the Isle of Man.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General what policy the Crown prosecution service has developed in respect of applications for prosecutions costs.

  The Attorney-General:
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 October 1987, c. 13–14:] The policy of the Crown prosecution service is that an application for costs against convicted defendants should be made in all cases, unless in the particular circumstances of an individual case it is apparent that such an application would lack merit or that an order for costs would be impractical.

  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General what policy the Crown prosecution service has developed in respect of prosecution of petty offences.
  810
  The Attorney-General
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 October 1987, c. 13–14]: The general principles applied by the Crown prosecution service when considering the prosecution of any criminal offence are to be found in the code for Crown prosecutors, issued in accordance with section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

  Having satisfied himself that the evidence is sufficient to justify a prosecution, the Crown prosecutor must go on to consider whether the public interest requires a prosecution. Whilst each case will be assessed in the light of its own particular circumstances, paragraph 8(i) of the code enjoins Crown prosecutors when considering offences, the circumstances of which are not particularly serious, to consider carefully whether the public interest would be better served by a prosecution of some other form of disposal such as, where appropriate, a caution. This applies particularly where the offence is triable on indictment, when Crown prosecutors should also weigh the likely penalty with the likely length and cost of the proceedings.

  In deciding whether or not to recommend to the police that a caution might be an appropriate method of disposal, Crown prosecutors will be guided by the criteria set out in Home Office circular 14/1985 on the cautioning of offenders.

  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General what policy the Crown prosecution service has developed in respect of breach proceedings.

  The Attorney-General
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 October 1987, c. 13–14]: As a general rule the Crown prosecution service will not be involved in proceedings for breaches of probation, supervision or community service orders. The exception to this is that the Crown prosecution service has a role in such matters where the breach consists of the commission of a further offence and the proceedings are associated with a prosecution for a criminal offence which the Crown prosecution service is conducting.

  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General what policy the Crown prosecution service has developed in respect of supplying of information to the probation service.

  The Attorney-General
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 October 1987, c. 13–14]: Although the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 does not confer any statutory duty upon the Crown prosecution service to supply information to the probation service, the Crown prosecution service endeavours to assist the probation service wherever possible. The supply of information will be one of the matters which will be discussed at a forthcoming meeting between representatives of the Crown prosecution service, Home Office and the probation service.

  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General what, at the latest date available, was the establishment of lawyers, lawyers' clerks and administrators in each of the 31 areas of the Crown prosecution service.

  The Attorney-General
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 October 1987, c. 13–14]: I take the hon. Gentleman's question to refer to the complement of the relevant categories.

  The establishment of lawyers, law clerks and administrators in each of the 31 areas of the Crown prosecution service as at the end of October 1987 is given in the table.
  811

  Establishment 28 October 1987

  Staff in post 30 October 1987

  Lawyers

  Law clerks

  Admin.(support)

  Total

  Lawyers

  Admin. staff

  Total

  Avon and Somerset

  42

  17

  45

  104

  30

  48

  78

  Cambridgeshire-Lincolnshire

  34

  12

  36

  82

  23

  42½

  65½

  Cheshire

  31

  9

  31½

  71½

  24

  38½

  62½

  Cleveland-North Yorkshire

  46

  17

  47

  110

  37½

  62½

  100

  Derbyshire

  28

  9

  32

  69

  20

  39

  59

  Devon and Cornwall

  37

  14

  29

  80

  31

  36

  67

  Dorset-Hampshire

  66

  21

  63

  150

  50

  75

  125

  Essex

  32

  13

  36

  81

  21

  41½

  62½

  Gloucestershire-Wiltshire

  27

  9

  32

  68

  21

  37

  58

  Greater Manchester

  122

  38

  91

  251

  77

  124

  201

  Hertfordshire-Bedfordshire

  47

  12

  48

  107

  28

  56

  84

  Humberside

  25

  8

  34

  67

  18

  40

  58

  Kent

  44

  17

  44

  105

  30

  58

  88

  Lancashire-Cumbria

  66

  17

  59

  142

  57

  70

  127

  Leicestershire-Northamptonshire

  38

  16

  43

  97

  20

  58

  78

  London (Inner)

  130

  124

  209

  463

  86

  266

  352

  London (North)

  96

  58

  109

  263

  53

  150

  203

  London (South and Surrey)

  87

  45

  84

  216

  48½

  110

  158½

  Merseyside

  74

  30

  77

  181

  57

  105

  162

  Norfolk-Suffolk

  34

  10

  35

  79

  28

  40

  68

  North Wales-Dyfed Powys

  40

  9

  45

  94

  35

  50½

  85½

  Northumbria-Durham

  70

  28

  75

  173

  53

  93

  146

  Nottinghamshire

  39

  12

  42

  93

  37

  49

  86

  South Wales-Gwent

  76

  23

  80

  179

  63½

  94

  157½

  South Yorkshire

  43

  16

  44

  103

  34½

  53

  87½

  Staffordshire-Warwickshire

  41

  15

  43

  99

  29

  57

  86

  Sussex

  41

  12

  40

  93

  30½

  47

  77½

  Thames Valley

  53

  20

  54

  127

  35½

  67

  102½

  West Mercia

  32

  8

  30

  70

  15½

  37

  52½

  West Midlands

  91

  35

  89

  215

  64

  119

  183

  West Yorkshire

  74

  32

  74

  180

  57

  102

  159

  Totals

  1,706

  706

  1,800½

  4,212½

  1,214½

  2,265½

  3,480

  Establishment 28 October 1987

  Lawyers

  Law Clerks

  Administrators

  Total

  Avon and Somerset

  42

  17

  45

  104

  Cambridgeshire/Lincolnshire

  34

  12

  36

  82

  Cheshire

  31

  9

  31½

  71½

  Cleveland/North Yorkshire

  46

  17

  47

  110

  Derbyshire

  28

  9

  32

  69

  Devon and Cornwall

  37

  14

  29

  80

  Dorset/Hampshire

  66

  21

  63

  150

  Essex

  32

  13

  36

  81

  Gloucestershire/Wiltshire

  27

  9

  32

  68

  Greater Manchester

  122

  38

  91

  251

  Hertfordshire/Bedfordshire

  47

  12

  48

  107

  Humberside

  25

  8

  34

  67

  Kent

  44

  17

  44

  105

  Lancashire/Cumbria

  66

  17

  59

  142

  Leicestershire/Northamptonshire

  38

  16

  43

  97

  London (Inner)

  130

  124

  209

  463

  London (North)

  96

  58

  109

  263

  London (South and Surrey)

  87

  45

  84

  216

  Merseyside

  74

  30

  77

  181

  Norfolk/Suffolk

  34

  10

  35

  79

  North Wales/Dyfed Powys

  40

  9

  45

  94

  Northumbria/Durham

  70

  28

  75

  173

  Nottinghamshire

  39

  12

  42

  93

  South Wales/Gwent

  76

  23

  80

  179

  South Yorkshire

  43

  16

  44

  103

  Staffordshire/Warwickshire

  41

  15

  43

  99

  Sussex

  41

  12

  40

  93

  Thames Valley

  53

  20

  54

  127

  West Mercia

  32

  8

  30

  70

  West Midlands

  91

  35

  89

  215

  812 813

  Lawyers

  Law Clerks

  Administrators

  Total

  West Yorkshire

  74

  32

  74

  180

  Totals

  1,706

  706

  1,800·5

  4,212·5

  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Attorney-General what is the estimated annual cost of employing agent lawyers to cover shortages in Crown prosecution staffing.

  The Attorney-General
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 October 1987, c. 13–14]: The cost of employing agent lawyers in magistrates courts in 1987–88 is expected to be some £14 million. Not all of this is attributable to staff shortages. Even if it had been fully staffed throughout the year, the Crown prosecution service would probably have found it cost-effective to spend some £4 million on agent lawyers.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Arms Control
  Mr McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy toward the implications for the United Kingdom of the current round of negotiations between the superpowers on the reduction of nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Mellor
  We warmly welcome the intermediate nuclear force agreement now in prospect. We and our NATO allies regularly assess the level of forces required to maintain our strategy of flexible response and are currently considering the implications of an INF agreement for NATO policy. We look forward to further progress in the talks aimed at achieving a 50 per cent. cut in the strategic offensive weapons of the United States and Soviet Union.

  Mr. Leigh
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current arms control negotiations.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. and learned Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) on 21 October.

  James Abra
  Mr. Ron Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about James Abra, the Briton held by the Libyan authorities.

  Mr. Eggar
  There is an appeal outstanding on Mr. Abra's behalf against his sentence of life imprisonment for spying. The appeal may be heard in November. I also understand that Mr. Abra's family lodged an appeal for clemency with the Libyan authorities in August this year.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Hill
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards reforms to the institutions and practices of the Western European Union; and what was the outcome of talks in The Hague for resiting the offices in London and Paris in some other capital city of a member state.

  Mr. Mellor
  Our policy is that Western European Union institutions should be structured to enable the organisation to be an effective forum for joint security consultations between WEU Foreign and Defence Ministers. The Paris agencies should be responsive to council requirements and merged into a single, streamlined unit under one director reporting to the secretary general. The London secretariat should be strengthened so that it can service the council efficiently. Both bodies should be collocated in one city to form an integrated, flexible, and cost-effective unit. Ministers at The Hague agreed that collocation should take place, but did not agree on a site. This question will now be pursued further, with the aim of drawing up detailed recommendations for the spring ministerial meeting.

  Immigration
  Mr. Vaz
  asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will detail the current waiting lists for spouses applying to join husbands or wives in Britain at high commissions and embassies in (a) India, (b) Pakistan, (c) Sri Lanka, (d) Kenya, (e) Uganda and (f) Bangladesh.

  Mr. Eggar
  The table sets out the number of spouses awaiting interview in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Kenya and Uganda as at 30 September 1987:

  Post

  Numbers in Queue

  New Delhi

  320

  Bombay

  460

  Calcutta

  No queue in operation

  Madras

  No queue in operation

  Islamabad

  965

  Karachi

  78

  Dhaka

  1,780

  Colombo

  No queue in operation

  Nairobi

  60

  Kampala

  No queue in operation

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Mr. Gregory
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch or equivalent schemes are currently in operation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  There are now over 42,000 neighbourhood watch schemes in operation in England and Wales, three times the number of those known to us 15 months ago. We are greatly encouraged by the increasing willingness and commitment which this shows on the part of the general public to be involved in preventing crime.

  Police Establishments
  Mr. Boyes
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications he is currently considering from police forces in England and Wales requesting an increase in their establishment.

  Mr. Hurd
  Nineteen police authorities in England and Wales have asked me to approve increases totalling 737 in their establishments in this financial year. I shall be taking decisions on these applications in the light of advice from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.

  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with chief constables about further increases in constabulary police establishments.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Police establishment matters are often discussed with chief constables during visits to police forces and on other occasions.

  Broadwater Farm Estate
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Metropolitan Police Commissioner's current policing policy towards the Broadwater Farm estate.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The policing of the Broadwater farm estate is a matter for the Commissioner. I understand from the Commissioner that there has been no change in his policy towards the estate. The area continues to be policed by a dedicated team of officers and the police are always ready to meet representatives of the local community to discuss concerns about policing on the estate.

  Knives
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had over proposed legislation to compound further the possession of knives.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  During our recent study of the law relating to the possession of knives, we consulted chief officers of police and some trading interests. We also took account of the views of right hon. and hon. Members, other police officers and the public.

  Mr. Flynn
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has received to his proposals to control the carrying and possession of knives and other offensive weapons.
  816
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government's proposals to strengthen the law on carrying knives in public and to take powers to prohibit the manufacture, sale and importation of specified offensive weapons for which there is no legitimate use seem to have been well received generally.

  Juveniles (Custody)
  Mr. Baldry
  asked the Secretary of State for Home Department if he will make a statement on the limitation Her Majesty's Government are taking in replacements for custody for juveniles.

  Mr. John Patten
  Whilst custody must remain available for the most serious offenders, it is the Government's policy to encourage more use of non-custodial measures for offenders under 21. There has been a positive response to this approach with juvenile offenders under 17, and the Government are considering how the use of such measures might be developed for 17 to 20-year-olds.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to raise the age at which boys are liable to penal custody to that currently applying to girls; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Government propose to replace detention centre orders and youth custody sentences with a unified custodial sentence for young offenders. The Criminal Justice Bill has been amended to include the necessary provisions. The new sentence will be available for boys aged 14 and girls aged 15.

  Firearms
  Ms. Primarolo
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will change the onus of proof for the possession of firearms in the same way that he proposes for the carrying and possession of knives and other offensive weapons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As my right hon. Friend said in the: debate on firearms in the House on 26 October, at columns 28 to 69, the burden of proof on the carrying of firearms in a public place already falls on the individual concerned. Section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968 makes it an offence for any person, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on him), to have with him in a public place a loaded shotgun or loaded air weapon, or any other firearm (whether loaded or not) together with ammunition suitable for use in that firearm. To be in possession of firearms an individual must satisfy the requirements for the issue of a certificate.

  Mr. Graham
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further discussions he has had with the Police Federation regarding the tightening of controls over the ownership and use of firearms.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have not discussed this matter recently with the Police Federation but my right hon. Friend is very much aware of their views.

  Mr. Henderson
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to bring shotguns within the scope of his proposals on the ownership and use of firearms.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend has already announced that we intend to bring self-loading and pump
  817
  action shotguns under the same controls as rifles and handguns. We also intend to impose a statutory obligation on shotgun certificate holders to store their weapons securely when they are not being used.

  Mr. Fallon
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has received to his proposals for the reform of gun controls.

  Mr. O'Brien
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has had to his proposals to tighten controls over the ownership and use of firearms.

  Mr. Yeo
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding reform of the gun control laws.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor).

  Mr. Leigh
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to consult those representing rural interests before introducing new firearms legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We recognise the important role that shooting plays in rural communities, both as a sport and, for many people, as a necessary means of vermin control. We have written to a number of organisations representing rural interests to request their views on our proposals. These include the National Farmers Union, the Countryside Commission, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils and the British Deer Society.

  Mr. Illsley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in order to encourage co-operation from firearms users, any future firearms legislation will include proposals to compensate those owners whose firearms would thereby be rendered illegal.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This is one of the matters currently under consideration.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many firearm certificates were issued in each of the years 1984, 1985 and 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In 1986, 12,074 new firearm certificates were issued in England and Wales, compared with 11,663 in 1985 and 11,413 in 1984. The table shows, by police force area, the number of certificates on issue and the number of dealers registered at 31 December 1986. More detailed figures on the issue of firearm and shotgun certificates will be published shortly in a Home Office statistical bulletin.

  Table

  Firearm and shotgun certificates on issue and firearms dealers registered at 31 December 1986, by police force area

  England and Wales

  Force

  Number of certificates on issue

  Number of dealers registered

  Firearm

  Shotgun

  Avon and Somerset

  6,159

  30,160

  79

  Bedfordshire

  1,410

  9,479

  21

  Cambridgeshire

  3,075

  19,311

  42

  818

  Force

  Number of certificates on issue

  Number of dealers registered

  Firearm

  Shotgun

  Cheshire

  2,689

  17,708

  31

  Cleveland

  900

  3,766

  10

  Cumbria

  4,248

  15,180

  36

  Derbyshire

  2,389

  16,893

  40

  Devon and Cornwall

  9,560

  47,471

  111

  Dorset

  2,902

  15,022

  40

  Durham

  2,355

  8,543

  17

  Essex

  5,205

  27,063

  110

  Gloucestershire

  2,836

  15,447

  47

  Greater Manchester

  2,623

  14,314

  44

  Hampshire

  5,828

  30,115

  67

  Hertfordshire

  1,897

  13,912

  43

  Humberside

  4,858

  15,235

  50

  Kent

  7,428

  31,060

  97

  Lancashire

  3,530

  18,732

  61

  Leicestershire

  2,124

  15,791

  50

  Lincolnshire

  4,644

  23,185

  54

  London, City of

  59

  68

  6

  Merseyside

  2,064

  6,257

  25

  Metropolitan

  9,084

  41,814

  287

  Norfolk

  3,912

  30,335

  44

  Northamptonshire

  2,403

  12,656

  33

  Northumbria

  7,023

  14,417

  42

  North Yorkshire

  6,398

  24,154

  58

  Nottinghamshire

  1,963

  14,856

  38

  South Yorkshire

  1,718

  11,460

  18

  Staffordshire

  3,316

  19,152

  51

  Suffolk

  3,968

  23,016

  55

  Surrey

  2,723

  15,623

  72

  Sussex

  6,097

  29,759

  100

  Thames Valley

  7,199

  33,284

  138

  Warwickshire

  1,655

  12,390

  42

  West Mercia

  5,225

  38,038

  100

  West Midlands

  2,760

  15,997

  99

  West Yorkshire

  3,589

  16,580

  86

  Wiltshire

  2,765

  14,383

  41

  Dyfed Powys

  4,255

  28,160

  51

  Gwent

  852

  10,213

  15

  North Wales

  2,495

  21,250

  33

  South Wales

  2,102

  18,702

  39

  Total

  160,285

  840,951

  2,523

  Mr. Dykes
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will summarise the principal conclusions he has drawn from the representation of gun clubs so far received in the preparation for new firearms control legislation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The consensus of opinion expressed by the gun clubs is against most of the proposals we have announced. We believe that, whilst the interest of legitimate shooters must be taken into account, a substantial shift in the balance of firearms law is necessary to meet the needs of public safety.

  Sir John Farr
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to introduce a Firearms Bill.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As my right hon. Friend indicated during the recent debate on firearms controls—26 October 1987, columns 28–69—we hope to be able to announce a comprehensive package of measures on firearm controls by the end of November with a view to introducing a Bill before Christmas.

  Nationality
  Mr. Darling
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to extend beyond 31 December the period available for registration as British citizen under the British Nationality Act 1981.

  Mr. Renton
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. James Marshall
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider reducing or withdrawing the requirement under the British Nationality Act 1981 that every adult registering as a British citizen pay a fee of £60 and every family pay a fee of £180.

  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reduce or cancel the fee of £60 payable by people seeking to register as British citizens under the provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981 on the grounds of its disincentive effect on poor people.

  Mr. Renton
  No. This would not be fair to all other applicants who have paid the full fee.

  Mr. Nellist
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he now proposes to make for those in receipt of state benefits who wish to apply for registration or naturalisation under the Nationality Act 1981.

  Mr. Renton
  The Government believe that it is right that those who wish to become British citizens should meet the cost of processing their applications and there are no plans to make any exceptions to this general principle.

  Mr. Vaz
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total income received by Her Majesty's Government from those persons applying for registration to become British citizens for 1987 (interim), 1986 and 1985.

  Mr. Renton
  The information requested is not available.

  Net fee receipts in respect of all applications under the British Nationality Act 1981 (including those for naturalisation as well as registration) were as follows:

  Financial year

  Receipts

  1985–86

  £3,269,000

  1986–87

  £4,241,000

  1987–881

  £5,120,000

  1To end October.

  Mr. Vaz
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total numbers of persons applying for registration as British citizens pursuant to the British Nationality Act 1981 for 1987 (interim figure), 1986 and 1985.

  Mr. Renton
  The precise information requested is not available. The following table gives the number of registration applications received in the Home Office for British citizenship, British Overseas citizenship and British subject status.

  Applications received

  1985

  33,756

  1986

  37,873

  19871

  63,000

  1Estimate to end September.

  820
  Mr. Randall
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether those people who are eligible to register as British citizens by the 31 December deadline. and fail to do so will (a) lose their current civil rights including their right to vote, (b) lose, as a consequence, their current rights to any social benefit payments and (c) increase their risks of deportation.

  Mr. Renton
  If people do not apply for registration before the end of the year, their failure to do so will not affect their right to vote, their current rights to social benefit payments or their current immigration position.

  Mr. Randall
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate what effect the £60 cost of registering as British citizens will have on the number of people failing to register by the 31 December deadline.

  Mr. Renton
  It is not possible to make any such assessment.

  Telephone Tapping
  Mr. Cryer
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the latest judicial review of telephone tapping.

  Mr. Hurd
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presented to the House in March this year the first report of the commissioner appointed under section 8 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 (Cm. 108). The Act requires the interception commissioner to report to my right hon. Friend"as soon as practicable after the end of each calendar year".
  I expect my right hon. Friend to present the report for 1987 to the House in February or March 1988.

  Tape Recording
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement about the programme of tape recording of interviews with suspects; and how soon this will be available in all police areas.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Following the completion of field trials in six areas, police forces throughout England and Wales are now making arrangements for the introduction of the tape recording of interviews with suspects. The speed at which tape recording can be introduced within a force area will depend on a number of factors including resource implications for the police and for other agencies in the criminal justice system.

  Broadcasting Standards Council
  Mr. Lord
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has drawn up the terms of reference of the Broadcasting Standards Council.

  Mr. Renton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) on 23 October at column 893. We are currently consulting interested organisations about our plans for the Broadcasting Standards Council, and will announce further details in due course.

  Basildon (Courthouse)
  Mr. Amess
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the building of a new courthouse in Basildon.

  Mr. John Patten
  Essex county council is responsible for providing the new magistrates' courthouse, in consultation with the magistrates' courts committee. We set a cost limit for the scheme earlier in the year and authorised Essex county council to go to tender without further reference to the Home Office.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Sackville
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has drawn up terms of reference for the proposed national crime prevention organisation.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are not yet ready to do so formally, but it seems likely that the functions of the new body will include identifying good practice in local crime prevention and ensuring that it is promulgated widely, advising local communities, businesses, voluntary bodies and local authorities on strategies for tackling local crime problems, raising and distributing pump-priming funds for initiatives on local crime prevention and advising both central and local government on local crime prevention issues.

  Mr. Harris
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to announce the composition of the national crime prevention organisation.

  Mr. John Patten
  We hope to be able to do so before the end of this year.

  Licensing Law
  Mr. Greg Knight
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received in respect of his proposals to amend the licensing law in England and Wales.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the Bill on the reform of licensing hours; and how many representations have been made to him thereon.

  Mr. Colvin
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to introduce the Licensing Bill.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Details of the Government's proposals for the reform of the licensing law were published on 4 August and 528 representations relating to the proposals have been received since that date.

  The Licensing Bill was introduced in this House on Thursday 29 October.

  Mr. Hardy
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to ensure that companies owning licensed premises do not require their tenants or managers to maintain opening hours at all periods permitted by law.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This is a matter for negotiation between the parties concerned. I understand that negotiations are in progress and the parties are hopeful that a satisfactory solution will be found.

  Gambling Machines
  Mr. Speller
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek powers to impose a minimum age limit of 16 years on users of gambling machines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The research announced into this subject on 6 May is now well under way. When we have received the results of that research we shall be in a better position to judge whether it is necessary or desirable to introduce fresh legislation.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding improving electoral registration.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received representations in the recent past on three matters:

  1. That the autumn canvass for the register should be advertised on television;

  2. That people could not vote at the last general election because they had been omitted from the register;

  3. That people resident overseas, who would be entitled to vote, found the procedure to be included in the register unduly difficult.

  It would be unduly expensive to implement the first suggestion. We are looking, in consultation with the political parties, at the second and third matters to see what changes might be made. We have already taken a range of initiatives to improve the accuracy of the register and we shall continue to work for improvements.

  Fresh Start Scheme
  Mr. Rowe
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to introduce fresh start into Her Majesty's prison, Maidstone.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are firmly committed to introducing fresh start at all establishments as soon as possible. Implementation at Maidstone now depends on agreement locally.

  Horse Racing
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the introduction of horse racing on Sundays.

  Mr. John Patten
  Provided suitable arrangements are made for betting to take place lawfully, we see no reason to stand in the way of horse racing on Sundays. That is the view we have expressed on the Bill introduced in another place by Lord Wyatt of Weeford and we are following the debate about that Bill and the public debate which has arisen with interest. We have no plans at present to introduce legislation on this subject.

  British Broadcasting Corporation
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the chairman of the board of governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and what subjects they discussed.

  Mr. Renton
  On 29 and 30 September, to discuss the portrayal of violence and sex on television and the independent production initiative respectively.
  823
  Mr. Grocott
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to meet the chairman of the British Broadcasting Company; and what matters he will raise with him.

  Mr. Renton
  We will be keeping in close touch with the chairmen of the BBC and the IBA in the coming months over a range of broadcasting policy issues. Topics we have discussed with them in recent weeks include the portrayal of violence and sex on television and the independent production initiative.

  Murder (Convictions)
  Mr. Mullin
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the persons whose convictions for murder have subsequently been quashed on appeal or who have otherwise been released before completion of their sentences because of doubts about the safety of the convictions during the period 1979 to the present day.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information is not readily available in the form requested regarding those who have had their conviction for murder quashed on appeal. However, there have been three cases since 1979 where such convictions were quashed following reference to the Court of Appeal by Home Secretaries under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. These are Albert Edward Taylor, conviction quashed on 13 March 1979; Mervyn John Scott Russell, conviction quashed on 6 December 1983; and Geoffrey Mycock, conviction quashed on 20 June 1984. In 1980 David Cooper and Michael McMahon were released early from their life sentences for murder by exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Stevens
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent evidence he has about the effectiveness of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

  Mr. Hurd
  In reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) on 8 April, at column 239, I announced that I had asked Viscount Colville of Culross to carry out a general review of this Act. I hope to be able to place Lord Colville's report before the House shortly.

  Heysel Stadium (Trial Costs)
  Mr. Loyden
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what costs to his Department have arisen as a result of the extradition of the Heysel stadium defendants.

  Mr. John Patten
  The costs that have fallen on the Home Office relate mainly to the time spent by officials who are employed in the division responsible for extradition. No exceptional costs were involved.

  Prisoners (Police Cells)
  Mr. Hanley
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners, either convicted or on remand, are currently being held in police cells; and whether industrial action by the Prison Officers Association is still preventing these prisoners' admission into prisons.
  824
  Mr. John Patten
  On Wednesday 4 November 810 were held in police cells, in England and Wales, most of whom would have been on remand.

  Visitors (Residence Applications)
  Mr. Fraser
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the principles he applies when considering applications to remain in the United Kingdom from persons who have continuously been in the United Kingdom for at least 10 years and against whom no deportation order has been made but whose leave to remain has expired.

  Mr. Renton
  We have recently reviewed our policy on the exercise of discretion to grant leave to remain after lengthy residence in the United Kingdom. Except where the grant of leave would not be in the public interest, a case in which continuous residence exceeds 10 years will be considered on its merits for the grant of indefinite leave to remain. Among the factors to be taken into account are the strength of ties with the United Kingdom and elsewhere, the total length of continuous residence and the proportion of it which has been lawful. In considering possible deportation we have regard to the matters set out in paragraphs 156–159 of the Immigration Rules (HC 169), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Teenage Crime
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he proposes to take to combat teenage crime.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Government have a comprehensive strategy for tackling all forms of crime of which measures to reduce offending by young people are an important part. The police, courts, probation and prison services all have a contribution to make; so have local authorities, social services, schools and voluntary organisations together with parents and responsible citizens. Most counties and large towns now have specific projects aimed at reducing crime, usually with teenage crime as one of the main targets and typically involving co-operation between the relevant services and agencies. The Staffordshire police activity and community enterprise run by the Staffordshire police in my hon. Friend's constituency is one example. These projects are constantly being developed with the Government's encouragement and in many instances financial support. The standing conference on crime prevention will later this month receive reports from working groups which have been examining various aspects of teenage crime; and the national crime prevention organisation, about which we hope to make an announcement before the end of the year, will no doubt make this one of its first priorities.

  Conservative Party Conference
  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received regarding policing costs for the 1987 Conservative party conference.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received representations from the Lancashire county council and police authority and from 14 hon. Members and one member of the House of Lords seeking a special payment from central
  825
  Government towards the additional policing costs of the 1987 Conservative party conference. We have considered these representations carefully but concluded that we would not be justified in departing from normal police funding arrangements in this case, by which the Government meet the greater part of any additional costs.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Madden
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the objectives and current progress of the review of the police initial recruitment test.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The purpose of the review is to examine the feasibility of replacing the existing PIR test with a new test of the same standard which is directed more accurately to the abilities which police officers need to do their job. The first stage of the review required a job evaluation of the tasks performed by police constables. That part of the works is now nearly complete.

  Prisons
  Mr. Stott
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the present conditions in Her Majesty's prisons.

  Mr. John Patten
  Overcrowding, especially in local prisons and remand centres, creates substantial difficulties for management and staff in maintaining satisfactory conditions. We are working to improve conditions through our major programmes for new prisons and refurbishment of existing establishments, the recruitment of more officers and fundamental changes in working practices under fresh start.

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Michael Brown
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assets have been seized as a result of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer my hon. Friend to a reply I gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) on 2 November at column 539.

  Prison Statistics
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current prison population; by how much this has been reduced by his amnesty measures announced in July; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  On 30 October 1987 47,815 persons were held in prison department establishments. The prison population was reduced by about 3,000 prisoners as a result of the increase on 13 August 1987 in remission to one half for prisoners sentenced to 12 months or less announced by the Home Secretary on 16 July at columns 1292–1305.

  Prison Building (Northern Region)
  Mr. Cousins
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total expenditure on work in the prison building and refurbishment programme since
  826
  1983–84; what this expenditure was in each standard region; and how much of this expenditure since 1983–84 was placed with (a) architects and (b) quantity surveyors located in the northern standard region.

  Mr. John Patten
  The total expenditure on the prison building and refurbishment programme from 1983–84 to end September 1987 was £325·16 million, of which £166·68 million was on new prisons, and £158·48 million on the refurbishment and extension of existing prisons. These figures do not include professional fees. Regional figures are available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cousins
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage, by value of work in the prison building and refurbishment programme in the years since 1983–84, was undertaken in the northern standard region; and what percentage, by value of work, in the prison building and refurbishment programme in the years since 1983–84, was placed with (a) architects and (b) quantity surveyors in firms located in the northern standard region.

  Mr. John Patten
  This information can he obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Sumberg
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of television licences issued in the years 1957 and 1986.

  Mr. Renton
  The information available in respect of 1957 relates to the number of licences in force at the end of the 1957–58 financial year: 8,090,003. The number of licences in force at 31 December 1986 was 18,904,617.

  Anton Gecas
  Mr. Cohen
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on what action he intends to take in respect of the alleged war criminal Anton Gecas, a resident of Edinburgh.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to a question from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) on 26 October at column 15.

  Fines
  Mr. McCrindle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to legislate to link court fines to the ability of offenders to pay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Under section 35 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, courts are already required to take the offenders' means into consideration when fixing the amount of a fine. We are setting up experiments to see whether means assessment can be improved so that fines can be linked more closely to the capacity of less well-off offenders to pay them.

  Forensic Science
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the current grades and pay scales of forensic scientists employed by his Department; how many scientists are employed at each grade; if he has any proposals to increase the pay scales; and if he will make a statement.
  827
  Mr. Hurd
  The current grades, numbers in grades, and pay scales of scientific staff in the forensic science service are as follows:

  Grade

  Numbers in grade as at 12 October 1987

  Current pay scale £

  4

  1

  28,975

  29,725

  30,475

  5

  5

  24,765

  25,815

  26,965

  28,215

  6

  8

  18,786

  19,685

  21,335

  23,185

  25,335

  7

  53

  15,030

  15,630

  16,280

  16,980

  17,730

  18,530

  19,380

  119,500

  20,292

  1Interim point from 1 October 1987: Staff on this point proceed to maximum of unified grade 7 (£20,292) on 1 April 1988. From 1 April 1988 there will be accelerated incremental progression for the best performers and for those in grades SO grade 4 who have reached their scale maximum additional increments will be available to reward outstanding or otherwise specially deserving performance.

  Grade

  Number in grade

  Pay scale from 1 September 1987

  Revised pay scale from 1 April 1988

  Senior Scientific Officer (SSO)

  124·5

  11,557

  12,024

  12,024

  12,505

  12,505

  13,005

  13,005

  13,526

  13,526

  14,066

  14,066

  14,629

  14,629

  15,214

  15,214

  15,823

  Higher Scientific Officer (HSO)

  97·5

  9,219

  9,687

  9,687

  10,154

  10,154

  10,622

  10,622

  11,089

  11,089

  11,557

  11,557

  12,024

  12,024

  12,505

  12,505

  13,005

  Scientific Officer (SO)

  125

  7,816

  8,284

  8,284

  8,751

  8,751

  9,219

  9,219

  9,687

  9,687

  10,154

  10,154

  10,622

  Assistant Scientific Officer (ASO)

  57·5

  4,004

  4,004

  4,585

  4,585

  5,250

  5,250

  5,618

  6,011

  6,431

  6,881

  828

  Grade

  Number in grade

  Pay scale from 1 September 1987

  Revised pay scale from 1 April 1988

  6,881

  7,349

  7,349

  7,816

  7,816

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to increase the establishment of forensic scientists employed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend is considering an increase in the complement of the forensic science service to improve turn-round times and to provide new services. But 49 per cent. of the cost of the forensic science service is borne by police authorities and we shall therefore wish to consult them before reaching final decisions.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recruitment policy of his Department's forensic science service.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Department's policy is to recruit suitably qualified staff to maintain the complement of the service. Staff in the scientific grades above assistant scientific officer are recruited on behalf of the Department by the Civil Service Commission in accordance with the principles of fair and open competition. The directors of forensic science laboratories have delegated authority from the Department to recruit assistant scientific officers locally, when vacancies arise, in accordance with these principles.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current average period of delay between the submission of samples by the Metropolitan police for examination at the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory and the provision of the results of such examination; what were the corresponding periods for 1984, 1985 and 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the relevant figures for 1984 and 1987 are as follows:

  1984 Days

  1987 Days

  Chemistry (Criminalistics)

  45

  65

  Biology

  28

  41

  Chemistry (Drugs possession)

  28

  140

  Chemistry (Toxicology)

  21

  21

  Firearms

  58

  70

  Document examination

  70

  70

  Drink driving

  2 to 3

  2 to 3

  The above figures conceal wide variations, since the time taken to deal with cases varies according to the complexity of the case. Figures for 1985 and 1986 are not readily available.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many forensic scientists are employed currently by the Metropolitan police and his Department, respectively; and what were the corresponding figures for 1984, 1985 and 1986.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is as follows:
  829

  Date

  Number of staff in post

  Forensic scientists in the Home Office

  1984—Figures not readily available

  —

  31 December 1985

  480

  31 December 1986

  469

  12 October 1987

  471·5

  Forensic scientists in the Metropolitan police

  31 January 1984

  211

  31 January 1985

  204

  31 January 1986

  204·5

  31 January 1987

  199·5

  31 October 1987

  195·5

  Forensic Science Laboratory
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current average period of delay between the submission of samples by the North Wales police for examination at the Home Office forensic science laboratory at Euxton and the provision of the results of such examinations; what were the corresponding periods for 1984, 1985 and 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The current average period between the submission of crime samples by the North Wales police to the Home Office forensic science laboratory at Euxton (Chorley) and the provision of the results is 44 days. For drink-driving cases, the average period is six days.

  The corresponding periods for the three preceding years were as follows:

  1984 Crime cases: 35 days; drink-driving: 5 days;

  1985 Crime cases: 33 days; drink-driving: 5 days;

  1986 Crime cases: 42 days; drink-driving: 6 days.

  Neighbourhood Watch Groups
  Mr. Terry Davis
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will provide the necessary funds for signs to be erected on street lights to indicate the existence of a neighbourhood watch group.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 29 October 1987 at column 382.

  Economic League
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the use made by the police of files maintained by the Economic League as the source of information for their inquiries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The police obtain information from many sources in the normal course of their duties. Details are not held centrally of the way in which the police use such information.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Cross-border Trade
  Sir John Biggs-Davison
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, in accordance with article 10 of the Anglo-Irish agreement, he has raised in the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference, or otherwise, the restriction
  830
  imposed by the Government of the Republic of Ireland on cross-border trade, whose conditions have been declared illegal by the European Commission.

  Mr. Tom King
  Yes.

  Extradition
  Mr. Beggs
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications for extradition to the United Kingdom of persons in the Republic of Ireland are being processed by the authorities in the Republic and how many of these applications are in respect of terrorist-type offences in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have been asked to reply.

  Figures are not available for the total number of warrants now being processed, but they include warrants relating to eight persons whose return has been requested in connection with terrorist offences.

  Mr. Beggs
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have been extradited to the United Kingdom from the Republic of Ireland for terrorist-style offences (a) in the two years prior to the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and (b) since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Home Office does not have records of individual cases, but I understand that two people were returned to the United Kingdom from the Republic of Ireland for terrorist offences in the two years prior to the signing of the Anglo-Irish agreement. No one has yet been returned since the agreement was signed.

  Anglo-Irish Conference
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the dates and locations of all meetings of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference and the Ministers and officials from the British and Irish Governments who attended them, together with a breakdown of costs involved for each meeting, covering security, administration, transport and logistical support, stating which vote these costs were met from and what proportion of each of the costs was met by the Irish Government.

  Mr. Tom King
  Joint statements issued after each meeting of the conference, copies of which are in the Library, set out details of dates, location and attendance. It is not the practice to give the names of officials attending. It is not possible at reasonable cost to identify the additional costs to United Kingdom public funds of conference meetings. Costs incurred by the Irish Government are a matter for them.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Belfast, South of 2 July, column 161, there has been any increase in the number of officials employed by the Anglo-Irish secretariat; what is the number of support staff; what information he has as to how many are employed by the Irish Government, the number of support staff, the cost to public funds and the proportion of this cost paid by the Irish side; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tom King
  The work of the United Kingdom side of the secretariat is still undertaken by three officials,
  831
  along with six support staff. As to the running costs of the United Kingdom side of the secretariat, I refer the hon. Gentleman to a reply I gave to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) on 4 November. The staffing and expenditure of the Irish side is a matter for the Irish Government.

  Democracy
  Mr. McNamara
  asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list, in relation to the 20 delegations of councillors which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) saw concerning the discussion paper on elected representatives and the democratic process in Northern Ireland, those proposals which were (a) proposed and (b) supported by which delegations.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer, 2 November 1987]: The purpose of my meetings was to explore views on what might be done in response to widespread concern about the problems posed by the presence in council chambers of councillors who support violence. Given the exploratory and wide-ranging nature of our discussions, it would not be practical or appropriate to attribute specific views to individual delegations. All views were, however, taken into account in preparing the discussion paper.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cereals
  Mr. Warren
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will assess the surplus in cereal production in the European Community and make representations to the European Economic Community to halt the imports of cereal substitutes from outside the Community.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Average Community cereals production over the past three years has been about 20 per cent. above the level that can be absorbed on the Community market.

  For the Community to halt unilaterally the import of cereal substitutes from third countries would be contrary to its international obligations and would not be consistent with the commitments that the Community has undertaken in respect of the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations.

  Research and Development
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's policy towards maintaining the public sector agricultural research and development base provided by his Department and the Agricultural and Food Research Council, and towards the maintenance of a public sector advisory service to the rural community through the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The July 1987 White Paper on civil research and development (Cm. 185) made it clear that we are intensifying our review of R and D priorities in order to increase the contribution which Government-funded work can make to the efficiency, competitiveness and innovative capacity of the United Kingdom economy.
  832
  My Department is currently looking at its activities and those of the AFRC against this background and the Government's general view that industry should contribute to the cost of work from which it benefits.

  Prawns and Frozen Shellfish
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made on discussions and deliberations on the ice level on prawns and frozen shellfish.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  We are at the closing stages of considering the comments made on the recommendations in the Food Advisory Committee's Report on coated and ice-glazed fish products, one of which suggested that there should be an indication of net weight of fish core prior to glazing on all glazed products. I expect to make a further announcement shortly.

  Research
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the Government plans for the future funding of his Department's research budget; arid if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The new planning provisions for expenditure on agriculture, fisheries and food, announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Autumn Statement, include reductions of £5 million and £10 million respectively for 1989–90 arid 1990–91 to reflect the changing balance between public arid industry funding which the Government consider desirable for research and development work.

  Sheep (Radioactivity)
  Dr. David Clark
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many farms or parts of farms in Cumbria had sheep movement restrictions reimposed in 1987;

  (2) how many farms or parts of farms had sheep movement restrictions placed upon them for the first time in 1987 in Cumbria.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  None.

  Research Specialists
  Mr. Bermingham
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total number of operational research specialists in his Department, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 4 November 1987]: There are a number of staff in my Department using operational research techniques as part of their work, but there is not a specialist grade. The information is not therefore available in the form requested.

  International Cocoa Council
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals Her Majesty's Government will be making to the International Cocoa Council at the end of November in order to reactivate the buffer stock of the international cocoa agreement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 4 November 1987]: The Government will he seeking implementation

  833
  of the provisions of the international cocoa agreement for a downward revision of the price range for cocoa, taking into account current market developments and long-term trends, so that the remaining resources of the cocoa buffer stock are used as effectively as possible to promote long-term stability in the cocoa sector.

EMPLOYMENT

  Safety Inspectors (Visits)
  Mr. Ashton
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average cycle of farm visits by safety inspectors; and what cuts there have been in the limits of inspectors mileage to make such visits.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Inspections and visits to farms by the Health and Safety Executive's agricultural inspectorate are prioritised and carried out according to the known hazard and the number of persons at risk. Labour-employing establishments are inspected approximately every four years, and other categories less frequently. The budget allocated to the agricultural inspectorate for travel and subsistence has remained the same for the last two years, during which time the number of farm visits has increased slightly.

  Mr. Ashton
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the 176,000 self-employed non-labour premises in farming, forestry and horticulture were visited last year by health and safety inspectors.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive's HM agricultural inspectorate carried out 8,105 inspections of non-labour employing premises last year.

  Pesticides Contractors
  Mr. Ashton
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many aerial and ground pesticides contractors are known to the Health and Safety Executive; how many complaints there were about their activities in the last year; and how many were visited (a) following a complaint and (b) in the course of a formal average visit frequency.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are 35 holders of aerial application certificates known to the Health and Safety Executive; ground crop spraying contractors are not required to he registered.

  The other information is not kept in the form requested but 17 complaints about aerial spraying and 24 complaints about ground spraying involving pesticides were investigated by HSE's HM agricultural inspectorate last year. For further information a copy of the inspectorate's annual report of pesticide poisoning and other incidents investigated in 1986 is available in the House Library.

  Non-agricultural Undertakings (Visits)
  Mr. Ashton
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many known non-agricultural undertakings, involving fish farms, maggot farms, riding schools and kennels, are recorded by the Health and Safety Executive; and how many visits per year the average premises may expect, particularly to check on YTS trainees and the health of young people.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive's HM agricultural inspectorate is responsible for 48,000 non-834
  agricultural undertakings, involving fish farms, maggot farms, riding schools, kennels, contractors, landscape gardeners, golf courses etc. Inspections are planned and carried out according to known hazards on particular premises and according to the number of persons at risk. A total of 800 inspections of non-agricultural premises are planned in the coming year: there is no set visiting cycle for these premises.

  Specific visits are not normally made to check on YTS trainees or young persons but during an inspection an inspector examines the health and safety conditions in which all persons work giving particular attention to the needs of all young people, and also to others who may be affected by the work activity.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Bright
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on the increasing cost of proceedings before industrial tribunals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I am aware that some employers are concerned about the cost of proceedings before industrial tribunals. Industrial tribunal procedures are kept under constant review to ensure that they are as simple as possible. Measures have been and will continue to be taken in the context of the Government's deregulation policy to achieve an acceptable balance between the need to preserve the essential employment rights of the individual and the need to reduce unnecessary burdens on employers.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many (a) women and (b) men applied to start their own business under the enterprise allowance scheme in each of the past years since 1983; and how many (i) women and (ii) men were given an allowance award for each of these years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of entrants to the enterprise allowance scheme for each year since 1983 is shown below, by sex. The number of applications received during the same periods is also shown, but no analysis of these by sex is available.

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Total number of applications

  37,922

  53,939

  68,280

  103,193

  Entrants

  27,629

  46,037

  60,036

  86,751

  Female entrants

  4,034

  9,392

  14,579

  22,902

  Male entrants

  23,595

  36,645

  45,507

  63,849

  Women Entrepreneurs
  Mr. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to publish the results of his Department's current research into the problems facing women entrepreneurs; and whether he will give the terms of reference for this project.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The terms of reference for the study of female entrepreneurs commissioned jointly by my Department and Shell UK Ltd. are as follows;

  1. To establish the personal characteristics, motivations and social context of women who become successfully established in business;

  835

  2. To identify the specific problems faced by women in running a business and the methods whereby these arc resolved;

  3. To examine what advice, training and other support women entrepreneurs need and can obtain at the various stages of setting up and operating a business;

  4. To provide an account of the different ways women can become engaged in enterprise and to identify particular factors which contribute to business viability;

  5. To advise on, and where possible, implement methods of dissemination of the research findings so that they reach the client group in question;

  6. To advise on ways in which initiatives and programmes can be moulded to facilitate women's effective participation in enterprise.

  Employed labour force in Great Britain

  Self employed

  Employees in employment

  Her Majesty's Forces

  Employed labour force

  June of each year

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  1977

  1,463,000

  380,000

  13,077,000

  9,036,000

  313,000

  14,000

  14,853,000

  9,430,000

  1978

  1,478,000

  364,000

  13,097,000

  9,152,000

  303,000

  15,000

  14,878,000

  9,531,000

  1979

  1,494,000

  348,000

  13,176,000

  9,435,000

  299,000

  15,000

  14,969,000

  9,798,000

  1980

  1,567,000

  383,000

  13,012,000

  9,421,000

  307,000

  16,000

  14,886,000

  9,820,000

  1981

  1,641,000

  417,000

  12,275,000

  9,087,000

  317,000

  17,000

  14,233,000

  9,521,000

  1982

  1,647,000

  462,000

  11,930,000

  8,966,000

  309,000

  15,000

  13,886,000

  9,443,000

  1983

  1,652,000

  508,000

  11,674,000

  8,882,000

  306,000

  16,000

  13,633,000

  9,406,000

  1984

  1,849,000

  586,000

  11,627,000

  9,104,000

  310,000

  16,000

  13,786,000

  9,706,000

  1985

  1,923,000

  628,000

  11,709,000

  9,295,000

  309,000

  16,000

  13,941,000

  9,939,000

  1986

  1,936,000

  631,000

  11,653,000

  9,446,000

  306,000

  16,000

  13,894,000

  10,093,000

  19871

  1,994,000

  875,000

  11,725,000

  9,646,000

  302,000

  16,000

  14,022,000

  10,337,000

  1The latest date for which whole economy, employees in employment estimates are available. The self-employment estimates are projections based on the growth rate from 1981 to 1986. The figures, with the exception of those for Her Majesty's forces, are adjusted for the effects of seasonal variation.

  Employment Rights
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment (1) whether he has any plans to increase the number of hours that an employee must work each week before she or he can qualify for the main employment rights such as claims for unfair dismissal and statutory redundancy payments;

  (2) whether he has any plans to change the obligation on employers of more than five employees to allow a woman to return to the same or a suitable alternative job at any time within 29 weeks after the birth of a child;

  (3) whether he has any plans to introduce a requirement for applicants to an industrial tribunal to pay a fee.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Proposals or suggestions on these matters were set out in the White Paper "Building Businesses…Not Barriers" (Cmnd. 9794). They are still under consideration.

  Community Programme
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to change the eligibility rules for entry to the community programme to allow the participation of women who are currently prevented from doing so because they are disqualified from receiving benefit.

  Mr. Lee
  I have no plans to change the present arrangements.

  Training Schemes
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to extend the system of child care payments to single parents on the job
  836
  It is expected that the study will be completed by the end of 1987 and results are likely to be available in early 1988.

  Labour Statistics
  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the numbers of (a) women who are self-employed,(b) men who are self-employed, (c) women who are employed and (d) men who are employed for each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Lee
  The information is as follows:

  training scheme, to single parents on the community programme and youth training scheme; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  There are no plans to extend the system of child care payments currently being piloted on the new job training scheme to single parents on the community programme or the youth training scheme. However, the new job training scheme pilot is being closely monitored and the situation will be reviewed on its completion.

  Job Advertisements (Age Requirements)
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to legislate to prevent age requirements being mentioned in advertisements for employment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The Government do not believe that legislation of this nature would be beneficial or practical.

  Factory Inspectors
  Mr. Dixon
  asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many factories in the west midlands, east midlands, northern and Yorkshire regions were visited by factory inspectors for each of the last five years for which figures are available; what percentage this figure represents of the total number of factories in each of the areas; how many factory inspectors are in post in each of the areas; and if he has any plans to increase the present number of factory inspectors in the areas mentioned.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available in the form requested as the Health and Safety Executive area boundaries do not coincide with those of the Department of Employment regions. It is not possible, without
  837
  disproportionate cost to separate the number of visits made to factories from those made to other premises where the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is enforced by the factory inspectorate. The information available is as follows:

  (a) The number of visits made by factor inspector to premises subject to HSWA:

  HSE Area

  1985–86

  1986–87

  East Midlands

  10,374

  10,421

  West Midlands

  9,963

  10,466

  Marches

  8,041

  9,768

  North Midlands

  7,779

  6,803

  South Yorkshire and Humberside

  9,043

  7,893

  West and North Yorkshire

  11,445

  13,261

  North West

  10,118

  8,358

  North East

  10,465

  10,639

  (b) Not all premises subject to the HSWA are required to send notification to the Health and Safety Executive. The percentage figures are therefore not available.

  (c) On 1 October 1987, the number of factory inspectors in post in each of these areas was a follows:

  HSE Area

  Number of inspectors

  East Midlands

  24·5

  West Midlands

  33

  Marches

  23·5

  North Midlands

  21

  South Yorkshire and Humberside

  24

  West and North Yorkshire

  31·5

  North West

  23

  North East

  28

  It is hoped to increase the number of factory inspectors in the field during 1988–89, but their location remains to be decided.

  Redundant Workers (Benefit)
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State For Employment if following the result of a test case involving a former British Shipbuilders worker in September 1986, he will publish the number of former British Shipbuilders employees in (a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde, (c) Scotland and (d) England and Wales who have now received payment of unemployment benefit for the first 13 weeks of their redundancy; what has been the average payment; what has been the total amount paid so far to those so entitled to this payment of benefit; what estimate he has of the number still to receive this payment and when they will receive such payment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer, 26 November 1987]: No record is kept of unemployment benefit payments arising from claims made in any particular set of circumstances.

  Claims for unemployment benefit made by ex-British Shipbuilders employees and disallowed because of the 13-week payment received have been reviewed and those claimants who have not already been paid 312 days of unemployment benefit (the maximum amount payable in any period of unemployment) have received a payment of the arrears due. In addition my Department is now making special payments to certain ex-British Shipbuilders employees who at the time of their redundancy did not make a claim to unemployment benefit on the advice of their unemployment benefit office. It is too early to say
  838
  how many people have received the special payments. However it is anticipated that the average amount of these payments will be approximately £314.

THE ARTS

  British National Bibliography
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Minister for the Arts what is the number of items in the present backlog of accumulated material awaiting entry to the British National Bibliography.

  Mr. Luce
  As at 30 October 1987, the total number of deposited items which have not completed processing for entry in the British National Bibliography is approximately 39,000.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Minister for the Arts what is the average time between the publication of a British book and its entry details appearing in the British National Bibliography.

  Mr. Luce
  As at 30 October 1987, the average length of elapsed time between the deposit of all newly published British publications at the British Library and the appearance of entries for them in the British National Bibliography is six months.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Minister for the Arts what plans he has to eliminate the British National Bibliography's backlog of unregistered books.

  Mr. Luce
  This is a matter for the British Library, which, following its consultative paper "Currency with Coverage", has recently announced plans to eliminate backlogs and enable its bibliographic services to keep pace with the rising annual numbers of new publications forecast.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Minister for the Arts whether he will make a statement as to whether all descriptive entries for all new British publications appear in the British National Bibliography.

  Mr. Luce
  Descriptive entries appear in the British National Bibliography for all items deposited, except certain categories of publications as listed in the preface to the "British National Bibliography 1986" annual volumes. The exceptions include printed music (covered in another British Library publication), maps, and certain types of official and other "non-trade" publications.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Minister for the Arts if he will consult representatives of libraries, booksellers and publishers on the future of the British National Bibliography.

  Mr. Luce
  The British Library's consultative paper on the future development of the British national bibliographic service invited comments from interested parties, and I understand that further consultations with libraries and with the trade are planned.

  Funding Levels
  Mr. Jessel
  asked the Minister for the Arts whether he will announce levels of funding for the arts in 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  I announced at Newcastle in July the start of a long-term plan for the funding of the arts. The aim of the plan is to maintain the level of support from public
  839
  funds, but to encourage subsidised bodies to become more self-reliant in their development and growth. I am glad to announce today a new departure in arts funding which will carry that plan forward.

  The new departure consists of a three-year settlement of the arts budget. This is a special arrangement providing firm figures not only for the next financial year but for a three-year period from April 1988 to March 1991. This is to give arts bodies a firm base on which to plan their future activities, and if they are successful their future growth. In order to create the right atmosphere and to get this new approach off to a good start, I am providing a substantial increase in funding in the first year.

  The three-year settlement covers much the greater part of my central Government arts programme, including the national museums and galleries; the Arts Council, British Film Institute, Crafts Council and other arts bodies; the running costs of the British Library and the public lending right. It excludes the National Heritage Memorial Fund, for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced a special injection of £20 million this year on 23 October. It also excludes the costs of the British Library capital project at St. Pancras, which will continue to be reviewed annually in the usual way. But it covers all the rest.

  The essence of the three-year settlement is that the figures for the period up to March 1991 will not be reviewed in the course of the 1988 and 1989 expenditure surveys unless the situation changes substantially in ways that cannot be foreseen today. The Government will consider in 1988 what provision to make for the last year of that survey, that is for 1991–92; and similarly in 1989 what provision to make for 1992–93. We intend a rolling three-year programme.

  Thus, arts bodies will be able to plan their own future on a firm basis. We want them to know what the Government are going to do for them—and what they are not going to do; to plan the fund-raising and income generation which they should undertake on their own account; and to match their plans and priorities to a realistic view of the total resources that they can secure for themselves over the three-year period.

  That part of my budget to which the three-year settlement applies will rise from £336 million in the current
  year to £394 million in 1990–91: an increase of £58 million or 17 per cent. To get the new approach off to a good start, the increase in the first year will be 10 per cent. It will not he evenly spread over all my client bodies; most will go where I judge the case to be strongest. My central Government programme as a whole, including the NHMF and the British Library's capital needs, will rise to £440 million over the three-year period. That is a rise of £79 million or 22 per cent. in total.

  The table shows the main allocations over the three-year period. The Arts Council's grant will rise from £138 million in the current year to £150 million next year, £155 million in 1989–90 and £160 million in 1990–91. Over the three years, this is a rise of over 15 per cent. From this increase I shall expect the Arts Council to deal with the financing of overseas tours by our major companies and to set aside sums rising to £7 million by the third year for incentive funding schemes and for increased touring in the regions outside London. The grant to the British Film Institute will rise to £12 million by the third year, an increase of nearly 20 per cent. The grant to the National
  840
  Film and Television School will rise by 50 per cent. to £1·7 million. The Crafts Council's grant will rise by nearly 19 per cent. to £2·4 million.

  I am increasing the provision for the business sponsorship incentive scheme from £1·75 million to £3·0 million.

  The provision for public lending right will rise from £2·75 million to £3·5 million, a rise of 27 per cent, which will bring the fund to its highest level in real terms since its inception.

  The provision for the running costs of the British Library will rise from £51 million in the current year to £56 million by 1990–91, a rise of nearly 10 per cent.

  The total provision for museums and galleries will rise from £126 million in the current year to £141 million next year and £146 million by the third year. I shall make a further statement before Christmas on the allocation of these sums between institutions. But not less than £6 million of the increase in the first year will be devoted to strengthening the building and maintenance programme of the national museums and galleries—a rise of over 20 per cent. The grant to the Museums and Galleries Commission will rise to over £6·8 million by the third year, a rise of over 11 per cent.

  These measures combine a substantial increase with a firm limit. They offer an opportunity to aim for, and secure, a broadening of the base of support for the arts in this country. As living standards rise, we should aim to ensure that increasing numbers of people not only have access to the arts but participate by their own choice in supporting them. My proposals are designed to help to create the climate in which artists and arts bodies can win that support.

  Table of main allocations

  £ million

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Arts

  Arts Council

  138·40

  150·00

  155·00

  160·00

  British Film Institute

  10·03

  11·30

  11·50

  12·00

  NFTVS

  1·13

  1·60

  1·65

  1·70

  Crafts Council

  2·02

  2·25

  2·35

  2·40

  Government Art Collection

  0·16

  0·20

  0·22

  0·24

  BSIS

  1·75

  3·00

  3·00

  3·00

  Arts Marketing

  0·25

  0·25

  0·25

  0·25

  Research and supporting services

  0·22

  0·70

  0·70

  0·70

  Heritage

  NHMF (OAL share)

  1·50

  1·50

  1·50

  1·50

  Acceptance in lieu (OAL share)

  1·00

  1·00

  1·00

  1·00

  Libraries

  British Library

  current grant

  51·00

  54·00

  54·70

  56·00

  capital

  22·70

  32·26

  39·65

  44·19

  New library initiatives

  0·00

  0·25

  0·25

  0·25

  RCHM

  0·53

  0·60

  0·61

  0·63

  Public Lending Right Scheme

  2·75

  3·50

  3·50

  3·50

  Museums and Galleries

  Museums and Galleries total of which:

  125·64

  140·70

  142·66

  145·63

  National Institutions

  119·38

  133·80

  135·55

  138·33

  841

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Museums and Galleries Commission

  6·26

  6·40

  6·61

  6·81

  Research and support services

  —

  0·50

  0·50

  0·50

  Sponsorship
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Minister for the Arts what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure that partial private sponsorship of the arts does not result in financial difficulties for art expressions not associated with establishment values.

  Mr. Luce
  The Government are committed to the maintenance of arts funding in real terms, and they are honouring this commitment. The distribution of funding is a matter for the Arts Council and other major bodies. There is no reason why any individual arts organisation should not be able to finance the growth of its activities by seeking to increase its income from other sources. Nor is it impossible for innovative art groups to obtain sponsorship.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Minister for the Arts what is the 1982 value of the current annual grant to the Arts Council; and what was the level of grant in 1982.

  Mr. Luce
  The 1982 value of the current annual grant to the Arts Council is £111,018,000. The 1982–83 grant to the Arts Council was £90,850,000.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Storm Damage
  Mr. John David Taylor
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional financial resources have been allocated by the European Community to those areas in the United Kingdom which suffered severe storms and flooding during the month of October.

  Mr. Lawson
  The Commission decided on 21 October to provide 300,000 ecu (£210,000) in emergency aid to the most needy families of those who died or were injured in England as a result of the storm of 15–16 October.

  On 28 October the Commission decided to provide a further 200,000 ecu (£140,000) in emergency aid for the families of those killed or in greatest need as a result of the flooding in Wales and Northern Ireland between 18 and 21 October.

  BP Shares
  Mr. Chris Smith
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what form authorisation will be sought for any expenditure arising from the Bank of England's buy-back scheme for BP shares.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The shares will be paid for and held by the issue department of the Bank of England as part of the portfolio of assets backing the note issue, under the provisions of the Currency and Bank Notes Act 1928. Other additional expenses incurred which are specifically related to the share purchase arrangements will be brought to account on the vote which relates to the sale of shares 842
  in BP plc (class XIX, vote 16). Parliamentary approval for such expenses will be sought in a Supplementary Estimate for the vote. Pending that approval of this new service, urgent expenditure will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund. It is not possible to provide a firm estimate of the expenditure that will be incurred as this will depend on the extent to which shares are offered for sale to the Bank of England.

  European Economic Community (Budget)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the proposals presented by the EEC Commission on budgetary discipline (Com (87) 430) and in particular toward whether the exceeding of spending because of exceptional circumstances should fall to be dealt with by unanimity or majority vote.

  Mr. Brooke
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 1 July, the Government consider effective and binding control over Community spending, in particular on agriculture, to be essential. We are not convinced of the necessity for any continuing provision to be made for "exceptional circumstances". The voting rules in relation to such a provision would depend on the legal base for the Council decision or regulation that gave effect to it.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will outline the manner in which decisions on the breaching of EEC budget limits because of exceptional circumstances under the agreement of the Council of 4 December 1984 have been made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The 1984 budget discipline agreement first came into effect with the Community budget for 1986 when the financial guideline for agricultural expenditure was set at 21,012 million ecus. On 7 July 1986 the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers agreed that agricultural expenditure in 1986 could exceed the financial guideline by an amount which could be justified mainly by the exceptional circumstances of the abnormally large depreciation of the United States dollar. The supplementary and amending budget for 1986 subsequently increased provision for expenditure on agriculture from the guideline figure of 21,012 million ecus to 22,112 million ecus.

  The financial guideline for 1987 remains at 22,961 million ecus, as was stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) on 6 February at column 840. It was agreed at the European Council on 29–30 June that agricultural expenditure should be kept within the guideline this year by means of an adjustment in the system of payments to agricultural intervention agencies in the member states, so that payments will in future be made in arrears instead of in advance. The necessary amendment to the EAGGF financing regulation was adopted by the Agriculture Council of 19–20 October. The Government supported this change as a step towards more effective financial control of agricultural expenditure.

  Excise Duties
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the extent to

  843
  which his decisions on excise duties are restricted by EEC policy decisions on convergence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The package of tax measures recently put forward by the European Commission contains proposals for the convergence of excise duty rates in the Community. These have not yet been discussed in the Council of Ministers and no decisions have been taken.

  Official Report
  Mr. Sumberg
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the price of the Official Report.

  Mr. Brooke
  Following a review by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, I have authorised an increase of 75p in the price of the daily part, with proportionate increases in the prices of the weekly part and fortnightly index. The price of Standing Committee debates will be increased by £1·05, bound volumes by £3·00, and the volume index by 30p. Subscription rates and the scale of charges for reprints of Members' speeches appearing in the Official Report will also be raised. Despite these increases, Hansard will still receive a substantial subsidy.

  Board of Banking Supervision
  Dr. Twinn
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Board of Banking Supervision will be set up on a statutory basis.

  Mr. Lawson
  The board, which has operated since May 1986 on a non-statutory basis, has now been established under section 2 of the Banking Act 1987. I am grateful to the independent members of the non-statutory board (Sir Donald Barron, Mr. Andrew Caldecott, Mr. Deryk Vander Weyer, Mr. Nigel Robson, Mr. Harry Taylor and Mr. Alan Hardcastle) for indicating their willingness to serve on the new board. The Governor of the Bank of England and I have jointly appointed them to be the independent members of the new board.

  Eurotunnel
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the liability to stamp duty and the stamp duty reserve tax of the units offerred for sale by Eurotunnel.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The companies, the stock exchange and other interested parties have discussed the offer with the Inland Revenue.

  The Eurotunnel group will be offering for sale to the public units comprising one share in Eurotunnel plc and one share in Eurotunnel SA. They will require that these shares are issued and transferred together, as a single unit, in order to link United Kingdom and French participation in the tunnel project. This arrangement would, however, give rise to complex charges to stamp duties and stamp duty reserve tax. The taxes would sometimes apply to the unit and sometimes to the Eurotunnel plc share only. These results were not envisaged when the legislation was introduced, and would complicate dealings in the units. The next Finance Bill will therefore include proposals to make the unit chargeable security for stamp duty and reserve tax purposes, and to remove the initial charge to bearer instrument duty on the issue of units and warrants to acquire units abroad.
  844
  The intention of these changes is to treat the units for stamp duty and the reserve tax in the same way as a single share.

ENVIRONMENT

  Estate Action Team
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to extend the facility of his Department's estate action team to housing associations and housing societies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Estate Action was set up in June 1985 specifically to help local authorities tackle the problems of their rundown estates. We focused on the local authority sector because all our evidence suggested that the major difficulties lay in this area. At present I have no plans to extend the activities of the Estate Action team to housing associations and housing societies.

  Assured Tenancy Scheme
  Mr. Heddle
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the number of private residential tenancies created under the assured tenancy scheme for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. The number of assured tenancy lettings on 1 April each year since 1983 was:

  Number

  1983

  44

  1984

  244

  1985

  405

  1986

  609

  1987

  2,998

  Sewerage
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the agency agreements between water and local authorities under the Water Act 1973, whereby some district councils retain sewerage functions.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Following a review by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, the statutory basis of these agreements was changed by section 6 of the Water Act 1983. We have since decided to privatise the utility functions of water authorities, and it is inconsistent with the aims of privatisation for local authorities to continue to have the presumptive right to act as sewerage agents. Our proposals for the future of these agreements were set out in a consultation paper in November 1986. I am placing copies in the Library of the House.

  Home Loans
  Mr. French
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the effectiveness of the promotional campaign for the Government's home loan scheme for the purpose of increasing the percentage of eligible first-time buyers who participate in the scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government already make a full range of promotional material for the scheme available on
  845
  request to the savings and lending institutions which operate it. Growth in owner-occupation has been very marked in recent years and very large numbers of people are buying a house for the first time each year. In 1986–87 there were 670,000 first-time buyers—the highest ever annual figure. In deciding on priorities for publicity expenditure, it would be difficult to justify more resources for an area of housing which is already developing satisfactorily.

  Rating Reform
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, if the community charge per adult in Lancaster were to be £190 per annum, what estimates he has to indicate what would be the rate of local income tax that would be required to raise an equivalent overall sum assuming that taxpayers in Lancaster are on a similar tax base to taxpayers in Lancashire as a whole for (1) persons earning £100 per week and (2) persons on the average national wage.

  Mr. Howard
  I estimate that a community charge of £190 in Lancaster would be equivalent to a rate of local income tax of 4·9p. The impact on particular households would depend on their circumstances, but a single person earning £100 per week would pay up to £140 a year of LIT on this basis; a single person earning the average national wage would pay up to £400.

  Mr. Pike
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many copies of "Paying For Local Government—The Need For Change" his Department has had published; what was the cost involved; and what other expenditure has been incurred in publicising his proposals for the introduction of the community charge.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 29 October, at column 438–39.

  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the organisations in Scotland which have notified him of their support of the poll tax legislation.

  Mr. Howard
  The Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714) asked for comments on the Government's proposals from individuals and organisations in Scotland to be sent to the Scottish Office.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes a system of rebates for small business under the unified business rate.

  Mr. Howard
  No. Small businesses will benefit from our guarantee that the rate poundage will increase by no more than the retail prices index. There will be generous phasing arrangements for those businesses facing increases on the move to the uniform poundage.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to make arrangements for contributions to local authority services from foreign diplomats following introduction of the poll tax.

  Mr. Howard
  We will announce details of the proposed arrangements in due course.
  846
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what he considers will be the appropriate time to make an estimate of the number of staff required to administer the poll tax.

  Mr. Howard
  In accordance with convention, an estimate of the staffing implications of the rates reform proposals will be included in the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what information will be available to electoral registration officers as to the reasons names appear on the poll tax register, but not on the electoral register.

  Mr. Howard
  Electoral registration officers will know that the community charges register and the electoral register serve different purposes; the former is a list of those liable to pay the community charge in an area; the latter a list of those entitled to vote.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment for what purposes it is proposed that electoral registration officers will have access to the poll tax register.

  Mr. Howard
  Electoral registration officers will have access to community charges registers to assist them in checking the completeness of electoral register.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek the permission of those organisations which have submitted comments following publication of Cmnd. 9714 "Paying For Local Government" to publish their views.

  Mr. Howard
  No. A list of those organisations which responded is available in the Library should the hon. Member wish to approach respondents directly.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what pay scale is proposed for community charge officers.

  Mr. Howard
  The community charge registration officer in each area will be the officer administering the local authority's financial affairs under section 151 of the Local Government Act 1972. They will continue to be paid on the appropriate scale.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many copies of "Paying For Local Government—The Need For Change" have been printed; to whom they have been distributed; and what was the cost of publication.

  Mr. Howard
  100,000 copies of the booklet "Paying for Local Government—The Need for Change" have been printed at a cost of £16,200. They are being distributed in response to requests from individuals or organisations for their members use. Copies are also enclosed, where relevant, with replies to ministerial and official correspondence on the rates reform proposals.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library copies of work undertaken in respect of the paragraphs on local income tax on page 7 of his Department's leaflet "Paying For Local Government—The Need For Change."
  847
  Mr. Howard
  These paragraphs were based on the consideration of local income tax in paragraphs 3·24 to 3·32 of the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" (Cmnd. 9714), which was published in January 1986.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) on 21 October, column 817, he estimates the information on the poll tax model for 1986–87 will be available.

  Mr. Howard
  Shortly.

  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the organisations which have notified him of their opposition to the poll tax legislation.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor).

  Poverty
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr may expect a reply to his letter of 6 August seeking information about poverty in large cities and London boroughs, which was passed to his Department on 24 August.

  Mr. Howard
  The Department has no record of the hon. Member's letter of 6 August. If he would like to send me a copy of his letter, I will ensure that he receives a prompt reply.

  England and Wales

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987 (to date)

  Number of

  Number of

  Number of

  Number of

  Number of

  Licences issued

  Birds taken

  Licences issued

  Birds taken

  Licences issued

  Birds taken

  Licences issued

  Birds taken

  Licences issued

  Birds taken

  Sparrowhawk

  50

  351

  47

  8

  41

  279

  47

  298

  35

  —

  Merlin

  8

  58

  18

  3

  20

  178

  19

  170

  24

  60

  Buzzard

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kestrel

  3

  5

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Prairie falcon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Goshawk

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  New Zealand falcon

  —

  —

  2

  —

  3

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Red-tailed hawk

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Peregrine

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  10

  1

  —

  Lanner falcon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1985

  1987 (to date)

  Number of

  Number of

  Number of

  Number of

  Number of

  Licences issued

  Birds taken

  Licences issued

  Birds taken

  Licences issued

  Birds taken

  Licences issued

  Birds taken

  Licences issued

  Birds taken

  Sparrowhawk

  4

  2

  6

  4

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Merlin

  1

  10

  —

  —

  2

  48

  2

  35

  2

  —

  Prairie falcon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Local Elections
  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Envionment if he will commission research on the relative voting turn-out at local government elections of those (a) in receipt of rate rebates or housing benefits and (b) those not in receipt of such benefit.

  Mr. Howard
  I have no plans to commission such research.

  Mr. Rooker
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has on the nature of the existing link between those who (a) vote in local elections, (b) use local services, and (c) pay for local services.

  Mr. Howard
  On our latest estimates there are 35·8 million electors in England, all of whom benefit from the availability of local services. Of those, just over a third pay rates directly and in full. A further 3 million pay a proportion of rates. In some areas only one voter in four pays rates directly and in full. Our proposals to reform the system of local government finance will restore the link between those who vote in local elections, those who use local services and those who pay for those services.

  Wild Birds
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment by species of avian predator, and for each of the last five years and 1987 to date, what was the number of licences granted for taking and the numbers of birds so taken from the wild.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The details of the falconry licences issued since 1983, showing the species of predator, and the number of birds reported as taken, are as follows. Similar details for 1982 are not available.

  "Tenants Choice: the Government's Proposals"
  Mr. Winnick
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to distribute the document "Tenants Choice: the Government's Proposals" to right hon. and hon. Members.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Copies of the document "Tenants' Choice", which explains the Government's proposals for legislation to give council tenants a right to opt for new landlords, were placed in the Library of the House on 3 November.

  Councillors (Declarations Against Violence)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to provide for elected councillors in England and Wales to sign a declaration abjuring violence along the lines of that proposed for Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Widdicombe committee on the conduct of local authority business recommended that all local authority councillors in Great Britain should have to make a declaration before exercising their office; that this should have a status similar to the oath sworn, or affirmation made, by juries; and that consideration should be given whether this declaration should be specific as to what the public duty of being a councillor entails. We are considering this recommendation.

  Welsh Footballers
  Mr. Alan Williams
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the Welsh Football Association about the refusal of the Football League to cancel certain matches in which Welsh footballers are involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have received a letter from the Football Association of Wales and from the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) on its behalf.

  This is a matter for the two football authorities. I do, however, sympathise with the position of the Football Association of Wales and hope, even at this late stage, that the Football League can reconsider the matter.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Leighton
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy for dealing with homelessness.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 4 November to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). Additional resources to tackle homelessness and other items in the current financial year were announced by my right hon. Friend on 3 November in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick).

  Dog Wardens
  Mr. Key
  asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether there is a needs element in grant-related expenditure of local authorities relating to the provision of dog wardens; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Grant-related expenditure assessments fully allow for local authorities' need to spend. As with 850
  many other services on which there is relatively low expenditure, there is however no specific indicator related to provision of dog wardens.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Adoption
  Miss Lestor
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what responses he has made to the Council of Europe's report and recommendation on the traffic in children for adoption; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The Parliamentary Assembly's report on the traffic in children and other forms of child exploitation which includes the traffic in children for adoption, is presently in draft form. It is due to be considered by the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers' Deputies in December 1987. We shall not be in a position to respond to the report or to make a statement until it has been examined in detail by the committee.

  World Health Organisation
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to assist the World Health Organisation strategy of health for all by the year 2000; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  the Government have fully endorsed the principles underlying the "Health for All" strategy which are:—the provision of a health care system in which primary health care is recognised as playing a vital role. The Government have conducted a wide ranging review of primary health care services and will shortly be publishing a White Paper setting out proposals for updating these services;
  —promotion of healthier lifestyles and encouraging individuals to look after their own health—an emphasis which is making progress in this country and is exemplified in our national campaigns on drug abuse, smoking, AIDS and coronary heart disease and the creation of the new Health Education Authority;
  —reduction of preventable conditions—for example, the Government's emphasis in relation to children and young adults on the reduction of perinatal and maternal mortality, progress in immunisation rates, new cancer screening programme;
  —development of the necessary supportive measures such as our improved management and planning structures, our development of new information systems and the increases in the numbers of those working in the health services.

  The strategy sets out a valuable framework for all those responsible for health service planning to use in the light of local circumstances and we shall be taking it fully into account in preparing future planning guidelines to health authorities.

  Bedford General Hospital
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the total expenditure derived from central Government sources on Bedford General hospital south wing during each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Currie
  My hon. Friend will be interested to see the figures which follow:
  851

  Total Expenditure on Bedford General Hospital South Wing

  Financial Year

  Regional Managed Capital Schemes

  District Delegated Capital Schemes

  Revenue

  £

  £

  £

  1982–83

  800,867

  161,071

  10,997,777

  1983–84

  404,367

  17,660

  12,305,440

  1984–85

  235,000

  108,645

  13,182,516

  1985–86

  207,000

  81,112

  14,005,133

  1986–87

  1,230,000

  278,650

  15,098,368

  Allocations to hospitals are a matter for the district health authority, and detailed information is not held centrally. For any further information my hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman of North Bedfordshire health authority.

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Foulkes
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the present formula for making extreme weather payments; whether he proposes to make changes to the formula; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 30 October 1987 at column 468–9.

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has on the date to which the United States Surgeon-General has projected the cases of AIDS infection in that country; and whether he will make it his policy to make similar projections for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Newton
  The United States Public Health Service has published estimates of the numbers of AIDS cases in that country up to 1991. These estimates have wide margins of error which increase towards the later years. Our policy is that predictions should be made only as and when justified by the available scientific data.

  Local Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Illsley
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the number of local appeal tribunals which took place in 1986 (a) nationally and (b) in Barnsley; and in what proportion of Those tribunals the claimant was successful.

  Mr. Portillo
  Administrative statistics show that a total of 125,838 appeals were heard and decided in Great Britain in 1986. Of these, 31,675 (25·2 per cent.) were determined in the claimant's favour.

  National administrative statistics of social security appeals are not disaggregated for areas smaller than a social security region. In the north eastern region in 1986, a total of 20,040 appeals were heard and decided, of which 4,653 (23·2 per cent.) were found in favour of the claimant.

  Nurses (Accommodation)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many units of nursing accommodation there are in each health district of the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that information in respect of health authorities in England is not held centrally.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. McTaggart
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he plans legislation further to control private clinics offering cancer screening facilities.

  Mrs. Currie
  We are considering the issues involved in ensuring that users can be confident of private screening services, including the possibility of statutory control. Meanwhile we welcome the steps the private sector is taking to devise guidelines for the accreditation of, and quality assurance in, clinics and laboratories offering cancer screening services.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Galbraith
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what assumptions are made concerning waiting times when determining the number of (a) consultants and (b) beds in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Newton
  The need to improve waiting times is one of the objectives taken into account by health authorities when deciding how best to provide and develop services for patients. Numbers of consultants or beds would form part of those service plans.

  Community Care Grants
  Mrs. Fyfe
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether women leaving Women's Aid refuges on being rehoused will he entitled to community care grants, under regulations for the social fund;

  (2) whether the circumstances of domestic violence will be included in the guidelines for community care grants under the regulations for the social fund;

  (3) whether women who have suffered domestic violence will qualify as high priority applicants for community care grants; and whether they will be entitled to the maximum sums available under those grants, under the regulations for the social fund;

  (4) what amount of community care grant will be payable under the regulations for the social fund to women victims of domestic violence on leaving Women's Aid refuges to move to independent housing; and whether this will be stated in the guidance for social fund officers;

  (5) whether women victims of domestic violence who flee to Women's Aid refuges will be entitled to a community care grant to replace clothing destroyed during the marital or cohabitation breakdown under the regulations for the social fund.

  Mr. Scott
  Community care grants from the social fund will not be subject to regulations but will be awarded at the discretion of the social fund officer, in accordance with the law and Secretary of State's directions and taking account of the Secretary of State's guidance. Guidance about awards in cases of domestic violence is included in part 6 of the social fund manual, a pre-publication copy of which is in the Library.

  Dentists (Computers)
  Mr. Radice
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether he will take steps to inform general dental practitioners about their rights relating to the Dental Estimates Board computer at Bournemouth;
  853
  (2) if he will take steps to inform dental practitioners of the degree of protection given under the terms of the Data Protection Act to records concerning them held by the Dental Estimates Board.

  Mrs. Currie
  Publicity about the provisions of the Data Protection Act is the responsibility of the Data Protection Registrar, who is mounting a publicity campaign to inform all data subjects of their rights. The rights of general dental practitioners and their patients in relation to the Dental Estimates Board's computer records are the same as those of any person whose record is maintained on a computer.

  Abortions
  Mr. Alton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list, for the most recent years for which figures are available, the different conditions, syndromes and diseases diagnosed in foetuses aborted under statutory ground 4 at 18 weeks gestation and over, together with the numbers of each condition and in each case the numbers expressed as a percentage of all abortions at 18 weeks and over.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Mentions of medical conditions for notifications of abortions carried out under statutory ground 4 of the 1967 Abortion Act to residents and non-residents at 18 weeks and over gestation, England and Wales 1986: numbers and percentage of all operations performed at 18 weeks and over

  ICD number and condition

  Medical conditions1 (mentions)

  Percentage of all abortions 18 weeks and over

  655 Known or suspected fetal abnormality affecting management of mother

  635

  7·67

  655·0 Central nervous system malformation in fetus

  297

  3·59

  655·1 Chromosomal abormality in fetus

  175

  2·11

  655·2 Hereditary disease in family possibly affecting fetus

  19

  0·23

  655·3 Suspected damage to fetus from viral disease in the mother

  9

  0·11

  Rubella (056)

  7

  0·08

  Rubella contact (VO1 4)

  1

  0·01

  Rubella immunisation (VO 4·3)

  —

  —

  Number of notifications of legal abortions performed on residents and non-residents at gestation weeks: 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and over, by statutory grounds, age-group of mother and category of premises 1986

  Gestation weeks

  18

  19

  20

  21

  22

  23

  24

  25 + over

  Statutory grounds

  All grounds

  2,611

  1,553

  1,389

  753

  876

  880

  185

  29

  1 (with other)

  4

  3

  3

  1

  2

  2

  1

  —

  2 (alone)

  2,306

  1,338

  1,187

  657

  788

  829

  158

  7

  3 (with or without 2)

  144

  79

  43

  27

  30

  16

  3

  —

  4 (alone)

  131

  125

  138

  60

  52

  28

  20

  19

  5 (with any other except 1)

  26

  8

  18

  6

  4

  5

  3

  3

  5 or 6

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Age group

  All ages

  2,611

  1,553

  1,389

  753

  876

  880

  185

  29

  Under 15

  27

  15

  15

  12

  18

  24

  2

  —

  15

  81

  46

  50

  28

  29

  38

  8

  —

  16–19

  802

  454

  416

  214

  243

  291

  47

  5

  854

  ICD number and condition

  Medical conditions1 (mentions)

  Percentage of all abortions 18 weeks and over

  655·5 Suspected damage to fetus from drugs

  8

  0·10

  655·6 Suspected damage to fetus from radiation

  3

  0·04

  655·8 Other known or suspected fetal abnormality, not elsewhere classified

  96

  1·16

  655·4 Suspected damage to fetus from other disease in the mother and

  655·9 Unspecified fetal abnormality

  28

  0·34

  1 These figures represent the number of medical conditions reported (mentioned) rather than the number of operations.

  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action the Government have taken to ensure the effective implementation of the recommendations for reducing the number of late abortions put forward by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in their study; "Late Abortions in England and Wales 1984".

  Mr. Newton
  The Department has discussed the findings of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists report with regional general managers and regional medical officers, and health authorities have been encouraged to improve their administrative referral systems. Earlier this year family planning and pregnancy counselling projects were set up with central funding in City and Hackney, Milton Keynes and South Sefton district health authorities. These will continue until March 1989. They are being independently evaluated by Isobel Allen of the Policy Studies Institute and we expect to disseminate her findings to the National Health Service when they have been studied.

  Ms. Richardson
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many abortions were performed on residents and non-residents during 1986 at each of the following gestational ages; 18 weeks, 19 weeks, 20 weeks, 21 weeks, 22 weeks, 23 weeks, 24 weeks and 25 weeks and over, respectively; on what grounds these were performed; what were the ages of the women; and what was the number performed in the National Health Service and the number performed in approved places.

  Mr. Newton
  The information is shown in the table.
  855

  Gestation weeks

  18

  19

  20

  21

  22

  23

  24

  25-over

  20–24

  877

  519

  453

  238

  296

  276

  72

  11

  25–29

  414

  245

  212

  113

  140

  114

  22

  10

  30–34

  226

  124

  101

  74

  68

  63

  18

  2

  35–39

  126

  105

  81

  46

  55

  47

  9

  —

  40–44

  47

  38

  52

  24

  22

  24

  7

  1

  45 + over

  11

  7

  9

  4

  5

  3

  —

  —

  Unknown

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Category of premises

  NHS

  452

  219

  267

  84

  75

  37

  23

  22

  Non-NHS

  2,159

  1,334

  1,122

  669

  801

  843

  162

  7

  Mr. Frank Field
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will break down the number of abortions by the social class of the mother for the latest available date.

  Mr. Newton
  Information on occupation status, from which social class data are compiled, is not collected on the abortion notification form.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy that personal details on Department of Health and Social Security computers will not be used for the purpose of implementing the poll tax legislation.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have been asked to reply.

  Our policy is to maintain the confidentiality of social security records and to disclose them only in certain limited circumstances. One circumstance where we would consider such disclosure would be to safeguard public funds. No decision has been taken on whether we should provide for the disclosure of any details of certain social security claims to local authorities administering the community charge.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Leighton
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the cost to the National Health Service of a hearing aid.

  Mr. Scott
  The National Health Service provides a range of different types of hearing aids but the Department does not collect this information centrally. Responsibility for supplying hearing aids in England and Wales was transferred to Mersey regional health authority on 1 April 1985.

  The hon. Member may therefore wish to contact the regional chairman direct.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidelines were issued by the attendance allowance board to delegated doctors concerned with assessing claims following the Court of Appeal decision in the case of Moran v. Secretary of State for Social Services; and whether he will deposit copies of the guidelines in the Library.

  Mr. Scott
  Guidance on the approach to continual supervision at night, taking account of the Moran judgment, has been included in the overall revision of the attendance allowance board's guidelines for delegated 856
  medical practitioners which was already in hand: copies have been placed in the Library. As I stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 26 October 1987 at columns 199–200, the guidelines will be published as a priced document after Parliament has completed consideration of the current Social Security Bill—including any further amendments which may then be necessary.

  Mr. Wareing
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many claims for attendance allowance based upon the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of Moran v. the Secretary of State for Social Services have now been determined; and how many claims were successful.

  Mr. Scott
  Following the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of Mrs. Dorothy Moran, about 73,000 claims to attendance allowance involving continual supervision at night have been decided. In most of these cases the outcome was the same as it would have been before the judgment, but in some 700 cases the claimant received an allowance, or a higher rate of allowance, which would not have been awarded but for the Moran judgment.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people he expects to lose all entitlement to unemployment benefit from the reduction from 60 to 55 years of the age at which that benefit is abated against an occupational pension.

  Mr. Scott
  About 27,000 a year.

  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many people are expected to lose from the tightening of the first condition for receipt of unemployment benefit;

  (2) how many are expected to lose from the tightening of the second condition for receipt of unemployment benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  It is estimated that about 280,000 people a year would lose some benefit from the tightening of the second contribution condition for entitlement to unemployment benefit if it was introduced in isolation. About 350,000 would lose some benefit from the tightening of both contribution conditions simultaneously. I regret that no reliable estimate is available of the number who would lose benefit as a result of tightening only the first condition.

  Single Payments
  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average amount paid in single payments to someone leaving institutional care at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  A special survey of single payment claims made in a sample of offices in October 1986 recorded an average payment of £304 to a small sample of claimants moving from institutional care into the community.

  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the level of single payments made in each year from 1980 to 1986.

  Mr. Scott
  The level of single payments is as follows:

  Year

  Number of payments

  Total cost

  (May-April)

  (thousands)

  (£ million)

  1980–81

  1,049

  48

  1981–82

  1,186

  57

  1982–83

  1,473

  98

  1983–84

  2,129

  166

  1984–85

  3,316

  241

  1985–86

  4,375

  335

  1986–87

  4,230

  330

  Source: Management Information System (100% count). Provisional only for 1986–87.

  Family Credit
  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the value of the cash element included in the rates of family credit to compensate for the loss of (a) free school meals and (b) welfare milk.

  Mr. Scott
  An amount of £2·55 is included in each of the child credit rates and the same amount therefore goes to each child or young person in the family irrespective of whether it is in replacement of free school meals or free welfare milk.

  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the Official Report the basis on which the assumption is made that take-up of family credit will be 20 per cent. higher than take-up of family income supplement.

  Mr. Scott
  The assumption reflects that used in the technical annex to the White Paper -Reform of Social Security" (Cmnd. 9691). Because family credit is a more generous benefit than family income supplement and will go to many more families we expect it to become much better known. There will also be extensive advertising and other publicity when the new scheme starts, as part of our communications strategy. Overall, therefore, potential claimants should become more aware of family credit and the generally higher levels of benefit which are payable.

  Passported Benefits
  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what savings he expects to make from the nonpayment of passported benefits with bridging allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  A person who would have been entitled to income support, and so to passported benefits, but for the proposed withdrawal of general entitlement from 16 and 17-year-olds would be entitled to those benefits on low income grounds while receiving a bridging allowance. There would therefore be no savings for this reason.

  Child Benefit
  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what savings he expects to make from paying child benefit rather than income support to school leavers living at home.

  Mr. Scott
  The saving on income support will be around £84 million in a full year, net of the higher costs of child benefit and child dependency additions.

  Housing Benefit
  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many recipients of housing benefit will lose benefit owing to the exclusion of emergency alarms from eligible service charges; and what savings will accrue from this change.

  Mr. Portillo
  The draft regulations for the reformed housing benefit scheme ensure, in line with current policy, that housing benefit will be available to help with the costs of alarm systems where they are provided in accommodation which is particularly suitable for and occupied by elderly, sick or disabled people. Our guidance to local authorities on the current housing benefit scheme makes it clear that housing benefit should only meet the cost of accommodation-related, as opposed to purely personal services. Accordingly we would not expect any loss in benefit, or expenditure savings where local authorities have followed that guidance.

  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people lost all entitlement to housing benefit as a result of changes in tapers in each year from 1982 to 1986.

  Mr. Portillo
  We do not have separate figures for loss of entitlement through taper changes where other changes were made to the housing benefit scheme. The table shows the numbers estimated to lose all entitlement as a result of changes to the housing benefit scheme between 1983 and 1985; there were no taper changes in 1982 or 1986. The numbers shown should not necessarily be regarded as cumulative.

  Housing benefit: Households losing all entitlement 1983–1985

  Great Britain

  thousands

  April 1983 taper change

  April and November 1984 changes to tapers, minimum and child's needs allowance1

  November 1985 rate taper change2

  400

  500

  450

  1 The figures include those affected by the non-dependant deduction changes.

  2 The figures refer to rate rebates only; some households may still have received assistance with rents.

  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people are expected to lose entitlement to housing benefit as a result of changes made in 1987.

  Mr. Portillo
  An estimated 110,000 households lost all entitlement to a rent rebate or allowance in April 1987 as a result of the increase in the rent taper from 29 per cent. to 33 per cent. A significant proportion will still qualify for a rate rebate.

  Single Childless People
  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the most recent figures for the numbers of single childless people under 25 years drawing the householder rate of supplementary benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 4 November.

  Widows
  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many widows are expected to lose benefit by the payment of a lump sum instead of weekly widow's allowance; and what the savings will be in a full year.

  Mr. Scott
  It is estimated that in 1988–89 about 1,000 widows will receive the widow's payment of £1,000 who would under the current scheme have been entitled only to widow's allowance for 26 weeks at £57·65 a week, without a succeeding benefit. Because of other alterations in the structure of widows' benefits, a further group of younger widows without dependent children—estimated at about 2,000—will receive widow's payment only whereas under the current scheme they would have received weekly benefits. The extent of loss, as compared with the current scheme, will depend on the widow's tax position and her age. The changes in widows' benefits will cost in total an additional £24 million in the first year but savings will accrue thereafter, rising to some £120 million at November 1985 prices by 2033–34. It is not possible to isolate the expenditure effects of the replacement of the widow's allowance from the wider effect of structural changes.

  Board and Lodging Allowances
  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when allowances for ordinary board and lodgings were last increased; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Supplementary benefit personal allowances for people living in ordinary board and lodging accommodation were last increased in April this year at the same time as the general uprating of benefits. Supplementary benefit, for the cost of board and lodging, increases to meet any rise in charges provided they do not exceed limits introduced in April 1985. The limits range from £45 to £70 a week depending on the area in which the accommodation is situated.

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mrs. Beckett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he is taking, following the commissioner's decision in the Clarke case, to ensure that severe disablement allowance is paid as from 22 December 1984 to women who would have qualified for noncontributory invalidity pension but for the household duties test.

  Mr. Scott
  In the light of the judgment by the European Court of Justice, and the subsequent decision by the Social Security Commissioner on Mrs. Clarke's claim to severe disablement allowance, we estimate that about 3,400 other women who claimed SDA in the transitional period from non-contributory invalidity pension may be affected by the court's judgment. All of them are being identified from 860
  departmental records and we will write soon to those who may be entitled, to let them know that we are aware of their claim. It will be necessary to examine each case individually to establish the precise entitlement: about one third of the women involved may since have been awarded SDA on other grounds—or other benefits—which will affect what extra is now payable as arrears or current benefit. It may be some months before the process is completed in all cases.

  Computer Network
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Service if he will make a statement on his plans to put out to contract the design, programming and operation of a combined social security computer network; which companies have progressed to tender stage; and how many of these are United Kingdom-based companies.

  Mr. Portillo
  Design and programming work in some areas is already being done by contractors, working alongside civil servants. I have no present plans to extend this or to put operations work out to contract.

  Electronic Data Systems
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make it his policy not to enter into any contract for computer operations with Electronic Data Systems.

  Mr. Portillo
  There are no contractual arrangements with Electronic Data Systems pending or in prospect.

  Computer Systems (Training)
  Mr. Dalyell
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps are being taken to ensure that his Department's staff are sufficiently trained to enable them to operate the computer systems envisaged in the operational strategy.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department provides a wide range of training courses for its computer staff engaged on both operations and development work. Plans for training the future users of the various operational strategy systems are currently being prepared.

  Disability Premium
  Mr. Corbett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will ensure that the new disability premium is set at a level to guarantee that all dialysis patients on supplementary benefit and currently receiving a heating, bathing and diet allowance totalling £18 a week will continue to receive at least the same amount in total benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  My right hon. Friend announced on 27 October at columns 179–81 that the new disability premium will be set at £13·05 for a single person and £18·60 for a couple. Those claimants whose entitlement is less than their current benefit entitlement at the point of change will have their existing benefit level maintained.

  Private Residential Establishments and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will provide figures to show the total funding

  861
  through his Department of private residential establishments and nursing homes by local authorities in Wales for each of the last five years and the estimates for 1987.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department does not directly fund private residential care or nursing homes but people in these homes can claim supplementary benefit to help meet their fees if they have insufficient resources of their own. Information on the amount of benefit paid to people in homes in Wales is not available.

  Afro-Caribbeans (Mental Institutions)
  Mr. Randall
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what actions he intends to take over the MIND report which indicates that a disproportionate number of Afro-Caribbeans are held in Britain's mental institutions.

  Mrs. Currie
  I am grateful for this report, which officials will study with great care, together with other relevant information bearing on psychiatric services provided to ethnic minorities, which were discussed last month by the Department's mental illness research liaison group.

  Health Authorities (Financial Assistance)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total of the additional funds which he made available to health authorities to assist them with pay rises in the current financial year; when the payments were made; and if he will publish a list of the authorities and amounts concerned.

  Mr. Newton
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) announced on 23 April 1987 that the Government were providing an additional £264 million for the hospital and community health services in England to help meet the cost in 1987–88 of the pay review body awards for doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives and the professions allied to medicine. The additional funds were allocated as follows:

  Regional Health Authorities

  £ million

  Northern

  16·7

  Yorkshire

  18·8

  Trent

  23·2

  East Anglian

  9·8

  North West Thames

  18·8

  North East Thames

  23·8

  South East Thames

  20·9

  South West Thames

  16·9

  Wessex

  13·9

  Oxford

  10·9

  South Western

  16·4

  West Midlands

  26·6

  Mersey

  13·5

  North Western

  22·9

  RHA Total

  253·1

  Special Health Authorities and others

  10·9

  Grand Total

  264·0

  It was for each region to determine how the funds should be allocated to their districts.

  Payments (Credit Transfers)
  Mr. Butterfill
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to offer payment by credit transfer to retirement pensioners and child benefit recipients.

  Mr. Scott
  The issue of invitations to retirement pensioners and child benefit recipients to consider the advantages of payment by credit transfer, which was suspended in 1984, is to be resumed. Invitations to retirement pensioners will recommence this month and to child benefit recipients in January 1988.

  Benefits
  Mr. Blunkett
  asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside about the case of Mr. and Mrs. Ellis of 21 Valentine crescent, Sheffield; and what assessment he has made of the implications of this case for his policy of reducing dependency on the state.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer, 29 October 1987]: The hon. Member wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 2 September and 14 September, and to my hon. Friend the Minister of State on 23 September. I replied to those letters on 29 September, and explained that supplementary benefit is not designed for full-time students, such as Mr. Ellis, who have withdrawn from the employment field to embark on a course of study, nor is it intended for people such as Mrs. Ellis, whose contact with the employment field has been less than six months. These principles are consistent with the Government's policy of reducing dependency on the state.

  People receiving a Manpower Services Commission training allowance are not required to be available for work as a condition for receiving supplementary benefit. If Mr. Ellis were accepted for a course of study which was sponsored by MSC, his income would be adequate for his family because he would receive an MSC training allowance which would be topped-up by supplementary benefit if necessary. There are several MSC-sponsored computer courses in the Sheffield area.

SCOTLAND

  Parliament Act
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of convictions in Scottish courts for contraventions of the Parliament Act in the last three years for which such information is available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

  Sexual Offences (Evidence)
  Mr. Darling
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate when he will make proposals to amend the law of evidence in Scotland in relation to the prosecution of sexual assaults; and what further consultations he proposes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no immediate plans for further change. However, the Scottish Law Commission is considering the law of evidence in criminal proceedings. In particular my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate who has ministerial responsibility for
  863
  the law of evidence, has asked the commission to consider what reforms might be made to lessen the burden of giving evidence by witnesses who are considered to be particularly vulnerable, such as children.

  In accordance with its normal procedure the commission will in due course produce a consultative memorandum providing an opportunity for those interested in this matter to give their views.

  Tourism
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the existing rules and procedures adopted by the relevant local authorities and other statutory bodies interested in the application and development of a coherent valid signposting policy for tourism in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Following discussions with the Scottish Tourist Board and other interested bodies, the Scottish Development Department issued circulars (numbered 17/83, 29/85 and 29/86) which set out the criteria for tourist signs and the procedures to be followed by applicants for signs. The Department, in consultation with tourist interests and local roads authorities, continues to monitor the effects of existing

  Number of objections from

  Year

  Number of applications objected to

  Local authorities

  Other statutory bodies

  Decisions taken on these applications

  1982

  1

  —

  1

  Approved

  1983

  2

  —

  2

  1 Refused

  1 Approved

  1984

  7

  1

  6

  4 Refused

  3 Approved

  1985

  5

  4

  3

  3 Refused

  2 Approved

  1986

  1

  1

  1

  Approved

  1987

  13

  9

  7

  4 Refused

  to date

  4 Approved

  5 Pending

  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications he has received under the forestry grant scheme since the relaxation in March 1986 of policy toward land clearance for afforestation; what area of land is covered by these applications; how many applications have been approved; what area of land is covered by these approvals; and what proportion of the applications and of the approvals are from owners of estates and from farmers farming their own land, respectively.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the period 1 April 1986 to 30 September 1987 the Forestry Commission received 1,448 forestry grant scheme applications in Scotland, covering approximately 147,000 hectares of land. Within that period 1,080 applications were approved, relating to approximately 110,000 hectares. Information about the status of applicants is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  864
  policies and to examine the merits of further innovations. In general, I am satisfied that the procedures are working well.

  Forestry
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to provide for a statutory consultation procedure in relation to applications to the Forestry Commission for planting approval under the forestry grant scheme and to require the commission to take account of any observations and representations made by voluntary bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend is not persuaded that such legislation is necessary or desirable.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for forestry planting licences in Scotland were objected to by local authorities and other statutory bodies, respectively, in each of the last five years and 1987 to date; and how many were refused as a result.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There is no system of forestry planting licences. The following table gives the information in relation to applications to the Forestry Commission for grant-aid for planting:

  Housing
  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his legislative proposals following consultation on the document "Scottish Homes."

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A White Paper will be published shortly which will set out the Government's intentions for future housing policy. It is hoped to introduce legislation, in so far as that is necessary, as soon as practicable.

  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest figures for house building by the public and private sectors (a) in Scotland, (b) in Glasgow and (c) in Glasgow, Provan.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The latest figures were published in table 8 of Scottish Development Department statistical bulletin HSIU No. 31, "Housing Trends in Scotland: Quarter ended 31 March 1987," a copy of which is available in the House Library. Information held centrally does not identify areas other than at district council level or their aggregates.
  865
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest figures for people on housing lists in (a) Glasgow and (b) the constituency of Glasgow, Provan.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 29 October 1987.

  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what security of tenure existing tenants in Scottish Special Housing Association homes will be given if their homes are sold to private landlords;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the effect on Scottish Special Housing Association houses of his private sell-off proposals;

  (3) if he will list the categories of municipal housing which Her Majesty's Government do not intend to put on the private market.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has already made it clear that tenants of the Scottish Special Housing Association will remain public sector tenants, with all of the statutory rights which this Government have conferred on such tenants, under the Government's proposals to create a new unified housing development agency for Scotland, Scottish Homes. The Government's proposals for the future development of housing policy will be set out in full in a White Paper which it is intended to publish shortly.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report all organisations, voluntary bodies and local authorities which made submissions during the consultation process on Her Majesty's Government's consultative document called "Scottish Homes".

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) on 26 October, at columns 149–53.

  Stonehouse and Law Hospitals
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when the vacancy for an anaesthetist at Stonehouse hospital will be filled; and when the vacancy occurred;

  (2) what is the reason for the delay in appointing an anaesthetist at Stonehouse hospital.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Appointments to individual posts are a matter for individual health boards. However, I understand that anaesthetic services at Stonehouse hospital are provided by the division of anaesthetics based at Law hospital, and that there are currently no vacancies in that division.

  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give assurances that ear, nose and throat facilities will be maintained at Law hospital;

  (2) if he will give assurances that the gynaecology ward will not be closed at Stonehouse hospital;

  (3) if he will give assurances that ear, nose and throat facilities will be maintained at Stonehouse hospital;

  (4) if he will give assurances that the gynaecology ward will not be closed at Law hospital;

  (5) if he will give assurances that emergency facilities will be reinstated during the night at Stonehouse hospital as soon as possible.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  These are matters in the first instance for the Lanarkshire health board.
  866
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give the nurse-to-patient ratio yearly from 1979 at Stonehouse hospital;

  (2) if he will give the nurse-to-patient ratio yearly from 1979 at Law hospital.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This specific information requested by the hon. Member is not available centrally, but the following table shows the ratio of the number of whole-time equivalent nurses at 30 September of each year to the average number of occupied beds in the year to 30 September in each case:

  Year

  Stonehouse hospital

  Law hospital

  1979

  0·8:1

  0·8:1

  1980

  0·8:1

  0·8:1

  1981

  0·9:1

  0·8:1

  1982

  1·0:1

  0·9:1

  1983

  1·1:1

  1·0:1

  1984

  1·1:1

  0·9:1

  1985

  1·1:1

  0·9:1

  1986

  1·1:1

  1·0:1

  11987

  1·1:1

  1·0:1

  1 31March 1987.

  Ambulances
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the roadworthiness and safety of ambulances in Clydesdale constituency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No such representations have been received.

  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the number of ambulances in the Clydesdale constituency.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are 12 ambulances at Carluke, four at Douglas and two at Biggar. A further 77 ambulances may carry patients to and from Clydesdale depending on origin destination, vehicle availability and urgency.

  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the number of ambulances over (a) three, (b) five and (c) seven years old used in the Clydesdale constituency.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the number of ambulances in (a) the Tayside health board area and (b) the Dundee district authority area; and how many of these are over (i) three, (ii) five and (iii) seven years old.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Sixty-two ambulances are based in the Tayside health board area, 23 of which are based in the area of the city of Dundee district council. The requested information on the age of ambulances is not available centrally.

  A74
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on when the A74 will be upgraded to M74 status.
  867
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 26 October to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall). The upgrading will inevitably be a long-term exercise.

  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of deaths occurring on the A74 annually since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Number of Deaths

  1979

  17

  1980

  8

  1981

  17

  1982

  15

  1983

  13

  1984

  14

  1985

  18

  1986

  23

  11987

  10

  1 January-October.

  Crime Detection
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he is satisfied with the crime detection rate in Scotland;

  (2) if he will detail the crime detection rate annually since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The figures are as follows:

  Crimes Cleared-up 1979–86, Scotland

  Year

  Clear-up rate Per cent.

  1979

  30·0

  1980

  32·6

  1981

  31·2

  1982

  29·8

  1983

  30·9

  1984

  30·8

  1985

  33·6

  1986

  34·2

  I am satisfied that the police are making every effort to maximise the clear-up rate; and I welcome the increase that there has been in each of the past two years.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many crimes of violence were committed against elderly people in the Clydesdale constituency yearly since 1979;

  (2) if he will give details of the detention rate of violent crimes against the elderly, yearly since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the number of crimes reported to the police annually since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information, on crimes recorded by the police, is set out in the table.
  868

  Crimes recorded by the Police 1979–1986—Scotland

  Year

  Number

  1979

  344,680

  1980

  364,587

  1981

  408,204

  1982

  435,081

  1983

  448,260

  1984

  474,914

  1985

  461,970

  1986

  463,837

  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details on the number of convictions for drug abuse in the Clydesdale constituency each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I regret that the information requested is not available on a constituency basis.

  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give numbers of convictions for drug abuse in Scotland each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information available is given in the table.

  Persons with a drugs offence proved: Scotland

  Year

  Number

  1979

  1,150

  1980

  1,155

  1981

  982

  1982

  1,373

  1983

  1,671

  1984

  2,271

  1985

  2,660

  1986

  2,657

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures the Government are taking to protect the elderly in their homes from violent crime.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Police forces are always ready to advise individual householders about appropriate security measures to reduce the opportunities for this type of crime. Specific measures currently being taken include(a) the campaign to promote neighbourhood watch, which aims to prevent housebreaking and vandalism through improved physical security watchfulness and mutual help within the community; and (b) the national initiative by my Department and the Manpower Services Commission, under the community programme. to promote crime prevention projects including practical improvements in home security for the elderly, the disabled and the disadvantaged.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Hood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the effect on the Scottish coal industry of his proposals to privatise the electrical industry.

  Mr.Lang
  The Government are at developing proposals for the supply industry in Scotland. The industry in Scotland will be

  Prison Service
  Mr. Wray
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he plans, in the light of the recent series of crises in the Scottish penal system, to give more disciplinary powers to prison officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The punishments which a governor can award to a prisoner found guilty of an offence against prison discipline are laid down in rule 43 of the Prison (Scotland) Rules 1952 (and equivalent rules for young offender institutions and detention centres). The procedures and penalties for offences against prison discipline are kept under review. My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present to make changes in the powers available to governors.

  Abortions
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each health board area the number of abortions undertaken in each year since 1968.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Abortion statistics are published annually in "Scottish Health Statistics". Data from 1968 to 1973 are available only by hospital region and from 1974 to 1985 by health board area. Provisional figures for 1986 are set out in the table:

  Abortions by health board of treatment

  Health board

  Number of abortions

  Argyll and Clyde

  552

  Ayrshire and Arran

  521

  Borders

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  246

  Fife

  557

  Forth Valley

  418

  Grampian

  1,224

  Greater Glasgow

  1,972

  Highland

  439

  Lanarkshire

  496

  Lothian

  2,022

  Tayside

  1,080

  Islands1

  22

  All Areas

  9,549

  1 Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles Health Boards.

  Contraception
  Dr. Godman
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the breakdown of numbers of individuals receiving contraceptive advice and treatment (a) by contraceptive method and (b) by source of treatment clinic or general practitioner in Scotland for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) on 26 October 1987 at columns 114–16.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. McLeish as
  ked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are on hospital waiting lists in (a) Fife and (b) Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest information centrally available, which relates to 31 March 1987 and is provisional, shows 5,198 people on waiting lists for hospital in-patient treatment in the Fife health board area in Scotland.
  870
  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients in (a) the Tayside health board area and (b) The Dundee district authority area who are in need of operations have been asked to wait due to lack of medical and hospital facilities for more than three months for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available centrally.

  Schools
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report all organisations, voluntary bodies and local authorities which made submissions during the recent consultation on Her Majesty's Government's proposals on school management.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. We had received some 6,500 submissions by the deadline date of 3 November. The collation and analysis of this material will take a little time.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Kirkwood
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the consultative steps he proposes to take, and the organisations he anticipates contacting, in anticipation of publishing the proposed Bill on the Scottish Health Service.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The discussion document "Primary Health Care: An Agenda for Discussion", which was published in April 1986, was the subject of extensive consultation by my right hon. and learned Friend. The Bill which will be introduced this Session will incorporate measures reflecting the outcome of the consultation. A White Paper to be published shortly will set out that outcome in detail.

  Youth Service
  Mr. McFall
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in the light of the recent increase in the relevant expenditure in England and Wales, he intends to increase Government expenditure on the youth service in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Most public expenditure on the youth service in Scotland is undertaken by local authorities. My right hon. and learned Friend announced the rate support grant settlement for 1988–89 on 21 July. He informed the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 26 October that within the total rate support grant settlement provision for community education (which includes expenditure on the youth service) would be £50 million. This represents an increase of 20 per cent. over provision made in the current year's settlement.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Home Robertson
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the impact of the proposed community charge on monastic communities whose members have no income, and whose premises include accommodation for guests, workshops, and church buildings as well as accommodation for members of the community.

  Mr. Lang
  In general, accommodation in monastic communities which forms people's sole or main residence
  871
  will cease to be subject to rates on 1 April 1989. Other accommodation will remain subject to rates, but rate increases from that date will be pegged to the level of inflation as measured by the retail prices index. Charitable and other reliefs from the remaining rates burden will continue on the present basis. People aged 18 and over who are solely or mainly resident in monastic communities, like other adults, will carry a personal community charge liability. My right hon. and learned Friend is at present considering the position of people in this category in relation to the proposed community charge rebate scheme.

  Mr. O'Neill
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish an estimate of the numbers of staff that the community charge registration officer will be required to employ in order to complete registration on the community charge register of all adults in the Clackmannan constituency.

  Mr. Lang
  No. This is a matter for the local authorities concerned.

  Mr. Maxton
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the numbers of people in Scotland who will be totally exempt from payment of the poll tax in each of the following categories (a) those aged 18 years whose parents are still in receipt of family allowance, (b) those resident in hospitals or homes, (c) those in prisons and (d) those defined as severely mentally handicapped.

  Mr. Lang
  [holdng answer 26 October 1987]: My right hon. and learned Friend has made no estimate of the numbers of people who will be exempt from community charge liability in 1989–90. At present child benefit is payable in respect of some 2,000 people aged 18 in Scotland. Figures are not available centrally on the number of people solely or mainly resident in hospitals, or in nursing homes, residential care homes and hostels providing an equivalent level of care. The number of inmates in Scottish penal establishments is about 5,500. The number of severely mentally handicapped people in Scotland is about 15,000, many of whom will be cared for in hospitals or in nursing homes, residential care homes and hostels providing an equivalent level of care.

  Rates
  Mr. O'Neill
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the average domestic rates bill in the Clackmannan constituency for each year since 1978 in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms showing, in each case, the percentage change between years.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Clackmannan District Council

  Average Domestic Rate-Bill

  Percentage Change

  1987–88 Prices

  Percentage Change

  £

  £

  1978–79

  119

  242

  1979–80

  137

  15

  238

  -1

  1980–81

  168

  23

  247

  3

  1981–82

  224

  33

  299

  21

  1982–83

  267

  19

  333

  11

  1983–84

  278

  4

  331

  0

  1984–85

  283

  2

  323

  -2

  1985–86

  319

  13

  343

  6

  1986–87

  347

  9

  363

  6

  1987–88

  407

  17

  407

  12

  872
  Note: The GDP deflator has been used to convert average rate bills to 1987–88 prices.

  Kidney Patients
  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many kidney patients with a treatable condition have been rejected by National Health Service hospitals in Dundee in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Suitability for treatment is a matter for the judgment of the clinician concerned. I am not aware of any problem with regard to treatment for kidney patients in Dundee.

  Hospitals (Dundee)
  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list new policies from his Department in the past eight years as they affect hospitals in Dundee; and if he will give details of the extra resources made available to carry out each initiative.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Guidance to health boards on overall priorities is based on the SHARE report; in addition, the Scottish Home and Health Department issues guidance on specific services from time to time. It is for each health board to determine how this guidance affects hospital services in their area. Resources available to the Health Service in Scotland have been increased in real terms by 26 per cent. since 1979. Tayside health hoard is the second best financed board in Scotland in relation to the needs of its area.

  Tayside Health Board
  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out the figures for revenue spending for Tayside health board for each of the last eight years at 1987 prices; and what account these figures take of demographic change in addition to inflation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish health authorities revenue equalisation (SHARE) formula—under which financial resources for recurrent spending on hospital and community health services are allocated among individual health boards—takes account of demographic changes as well as a range of other factors. The following table shows Tayside health board's allocation, after adjustment for inflation as measured by the GDP deflator, for each year since 1979–80.

  £ thousand at 1986–87 prices

  1979–80

  123,067

  1980–81

  136,055

  1981–82

  135,204

  1982–83

  133,266

  1983–84

  132,831

  1984–85

  134,342

  1985–86

  132,340

  1986–87

  136,123

  1987–88

  139,633

  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out for each year since 1979 what changes have been made in the National Health Service budget for Tayside health board to achieve savings; how much was saved each year by each of those changes; by how much

  873
  staffing has been cut in each year as a result of those changes and in what grades; and what plans there are for the current year in each of these respects.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In each of the past three years all health boards were asked to introduce efficiency measures which would achieve savings of 1 per cent., 1·5 per cent. and 1·5 per cent. respectively in their recurrent expenditure. Tayside health board has achieved cumulative savings during 1985–86 and 1986–87 of nearly £3 million, and plans to achieve further savings of some £1·6 million this financial year. Boards retain the proceeds of efficiency improvements. No information is held centrally on detailed staffing changes within individual health boards resulting from the introduction of efficiency improvements, although general information on manpower levels is contained in "Scottish Health Statistics", published annually by the information and statistics division of the Common Services Agency. Copies are held in the Library.

  Hospital Patients (Statistics)
  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the best estimate of the numbers of patients in Dundee hospitals with treatable conditions who have become incurable in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available centrally.

  Drug Addicts
  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what funds have been spent in Dundee to rehabilitate drug addicts for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not avilable.

  Deaths from hypothermia in Scotland

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  11987

  January

  39

  37

  86

  44

  53

  70

  26

  53

  65

  54

  45

  February

  23

  68

  43

  20

  29

  26

  38

  24

  35

  28

  15

  March

  17

  8

  30

  30

  24

  19

  18

  16

  24

  28

  19

  April

  10

  11

  11

  14

  13

  5

  19

  13

  19

  16

  13

  May

  8

  11

  7

  6

  7

  10

  7

  5

  7

  7

  6

  June

  2

  3

  2

  7

  9

  9

  8

  5

  1

  2

  4

  July

  1

  9

  3

  2

  1

  1

  3

  1

  3

  2

  1

  August

  3

  7

  7

  3

  1

  3

  3

  3

  7

  9

  5

  September

  3

  4

  12

  4

  3

  1

  10

  4

  6

  9

  7

  October

  4

  6

  11

  11

  18

  4

  10

  10

  6

  11

  November

  20

  15

  26

  17

  11

  11

  11

  21

  32

  20

  December

  28

  26

  21

  41

  85

  37

  23

  21

  27

  23

  Total

  158

  205

  259

  199

  254

  196

  179

  176

  232

  209

  115

  1 Provisional.

  Deaths from hypothermia in Lothian region

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  11987

  January

  6

  8

  12

  6

  4

  12

  5

  10

  13

  9

  10

  February

  5

  7

  7

  2

  7

  4

  7

  7

  5

  5

  1

  March

  1

  2

  8

  5

  3

  3

  2

  3

  7

  9

  4

  April

  1

  —

  4

  4

  5

  2

  6

  5

  3

  —

  2

  May

  3

  —

  1

  —

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  2

  June

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  July

  —

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  August

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  2

  —

  September

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  1

  1

  1

  —

  October

  1

  1

  1

  —

  4

  —

  2

  3

  1

  —

  Hypothermia
  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of hypothermia and cold-related deaths in Dundee as a proportion of such deaths in Scotland for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Death mentioning hypothermia: Dundee city as a percentage of Scotland 1979 to 1986

  Percentage

  1979

  3·1

  1980

  4·5

  1981

  3·1

  1982

  5·1

  1983

  6·1

  1984

  2·8

  1985

  3·4

  1986

  3·3

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give the number of hypothermia and cold-related deaths in Scotland in each year from 1977 to 1987 by monthly total;

  (2) if he will give the number of hypothermia and cold-related deaths in Lothian region in each year from 1977 to 1986 by monthly total;

  (3) if he will give the number of hypothermia and cold-related deaths in Edinburgh in each year from 1977 to 1987 by monthly total;

  (4) if he will give the number of hypothermia and cold-related deaths in Edinburgh, South in each year from 1977 to 1987 by monthly total.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 26 October 1987]: The information is as follows:
  875

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  11987

  November

  3

  2

  3

  2

  1

  3

  3

  5

  6

  1

  December

  4

  4

  5

  8

  13

  10

  6

  3

  7

  8

  Total

  26

  28

  44

  29

  39

  38

  39

  40

  48

  36

  19

  1 Provisional.

  Deaths from hypothermia in Edinburgh city

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  11987

  January

  6

  5

  8

  3

  4

  10

  2

  6

  11

  6

  7

  February

  4

  7

  5

  2

  4

  4

  4

  6

  4

  3

  1

  March

  1

  1

  7

  5

  3

  1

  2

  2

  7

  7

  3

  April

  —

  —

  4

  2

  4

  1

  4

  3

  2

  —

  —

  May

  2

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  June

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  July

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  August

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  2

  —

  September

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  October

  1

  1

  —

  —

  3

  —

  2

  3

  1

  —

  November

  2

  —

  1

  2

  1

  1

  3

  3

  5

  1

  December

  3

  4

  4

  4

  11

  6

  —

  5

  7

  Total

  21

  21

  33

  19

  31

  26

  29

  26

  40

  26

  12

  1Provisional.

  Information is not readily available for Edinburgh, South parliamentary constituency.

  Nurses
  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of full-time nurses in hospitals in (a) the Tayside health board area and (b) the Dundee district authority area for each year since 1974.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Hospital nursing staff. Full-time employees at September1

  Hospital nurses

  1974 to 1982

  n/a

  1983

  4,007

  1984

  4,049

  1985

  3,988

  1986

  3,992

  19872

  4,001

  1 Including qualified, unqualified and learner nurses.

  2 31 March.

  Information on full-time nursing staff pre-1983 is not readily available centrally. Information on nursing staff in Dundee district is not available centrally.

  Ward Closures
  Mr. NIcAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a detailed list of hospital wards serving (a) the Tayside health board area and (b) the Dundee district authority area, which have closed due to lack of funds since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Operational management of hospitals is a matter for individual health boards. Temporary bed or ward closures may occur for a variety of reasons but there is no central record which is either comprehensive or detailed.

  Doctors
  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of full-time doctors in hospitals in (a) the Tayside health board area and (b) the Dundee district authority area for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  1980

  451

  1981

  475

  1982

  463

  1983

  471

  1984

  481

  1985

  474

  1986

  474

  The information for 1979 is not available. No separate details are available centrally for Dundee district.

  Nurse-Patient Ratios
  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the nurse-to-patient ratio for each year since 1979 in (a) the Tayside health board area and (b) the Dundee district authority area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Ratio of Nursing Staff1to Average Occupied Hospital Beds 30 September

  Ratio

  1979

  1·1:1

  1980

  1·2:1

  1981

  1·3:1

  1982

  1·3:1

  1983

  1·3:1

  1984

  1·3:1

  1985

  1·3:1

  1986

  1·4:1

  1987

  21·4:I

  1 Includes qualified, unqualified and learner nurses.

  1 31 March 1987.

  The information for Dundee district is not available centrally.

  Drug Misuse
  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the number of convictions for (a) drug misuse and (b) drug trafficking in the Dundee area for each year since 1979; and what are the corresponding figures for the rest of Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information available is given in the table.

  Persons with a charge proved

  Dundee

  Rest of Scotland

  All drugs offences

  Supplying, possession with intent to supply

  All drugs offences

  Supplying, possession with intent to supply

  1979

  73

  na

  1,077

  na

  1980

  57

  na

  1,098

  na

  1981

  64

  na

  918

  na

  1982

  81

  na

  1,292

  na

  1983

  94

  na

  1,577

  na

  1984

  96

  na

  2,175

  na

  1985

  78

  10

  2,582

  224

  1986

  85

  10

  2,572

  259

  na=Not available. Prior to 1985, offences of supplying and possession with intent to supply were not separately identifiable from other drugs offences in the Scottish Home and Health Department classification of crimes and offences.

  Mr. McAllion
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the funding of treatment and rehabilitation facilities for drug misuses for each health board area in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  NHS services for drug misusers are generally provided as part of the usual range of community and hospital-based services. The Government have made substantial increases in resources available to health boards since 1979 and it is for individual health boards to determine the level of expenditure on particular services from within their overall financial allocations.

  In 1984 and 1985 in addition the Government provided funds to establish a range of local drug projects run by health boards, local authorities and voluntary bodies in places where drug misuse was prevalent. The support of these projects was the responsibility of the Scottish Office until April this year when this responsibility was devolved to the relevant health boards. The Government recently announced that a further £300,000 per annum was being made available, making the total allocation of funds to individual health boards for 1987–88 specifically for the support of local drug projects as follows:

  £

  Greater Glasgow

  415,035

  Lothian

  285,980

  Tayside

  78,900

  Ayrshire and Arran

  29,400

  Lanarkshire

  13,600

  Public Expenditure Statistics
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total identifiable allocation of public money made by the Government since 1979 to (a) Edinburgh, (b) Dundee, (c) Aberdeen and (d) Glasgow (i) in total, (ii) per person, (iii) per unemployed person, (iv) per unemployed person aged
  878
  under 21 years and (v) per retirement pensioner, in each named district; and if he will also express the figures at 1987 prices.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is not readily available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Identifiable provision for public expenditure by Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow district councils from 1979–80 to 1987–88 is set out in the table.

  Cash prices

  1987 prices

  £ million

  £ million

  Aberdeen

  317·452

  394·951

  Dundee

  264·259

  326·321

  Edinburgh

  638·383

  774·564

  Glasgow

  1,918·903

  2,359·128

  Notes:

  (1) table includes provision by way of housing capital allocations, general services capital allocations, housing support grant and current expenditure guidelines.

  (2) Expenditure financed from capital receipts is included in the provision for housing capital allocations but excluded from the provision for general services capital allocations.

  Private Hospital (Clydebank)
  Mr. Worthington
  asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he first heard of Health Care International's proposals for a private hospital in Clydebank; what advice his Department gave to locate in Scotland; and what advice the Scottish Department Agency gave about the development of this project.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 26 October 1987]: My right hon. and learned Friend first heard of Health Care International's formal proposal to build a private hospital at Clydebank in June 1987 when the company applied to proceed with construction. Under the terms of the Health Services Acts, consideration of such an application depends entirely upon the impact of the proposed development on the National Health Service, on which the Scottish Development Agency was not consulted and offered no advice. Partly in response to the hon. Member's own request for a further note on the impact of the project, the agency did, however, commission an independent study from Coopers and Lybrand on the economic and staffing implications of the project. The agency subsequently sent this to the Scottish Home and Health Department and also, I understand, to the hon. Member.

DEFENCE

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Ms. Ruddock
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated unit cost of the European fighter aircraft.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is not our practice to disclose the estimated costs of projects before they enter full development. In the case of collaborative projects, such as EFA, the interests of our international partners must also be borne in mind.

  Gulf Forces
  Mrs. Mahon
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of the Armilla patrol.
  879
  Mr. Wallace
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest weekly cost of maintaining a minesweeper force in the Gulf.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It is not practicable to separate the costs of individual fleet tasks since financial provision for manpower, fuel, supplies, and so on is made to cover the operations of the fleet as a whole.

  Nuclear Defence
  Mr. Ingram
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the number of times since 1979 that he has provided the Select Committee on Defence with confidential information relating to Britain's nuclear defence capacity.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  This information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Armilla Patrol
  Mr. Kaufman
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in view of the live-day journey time and lack of toilet and other facilities aboard Hercules aircraft, he will arrange for crews in the Armilla patrol to be flown to leave in the United Kingdom aboard speedier aircraft with better facilities.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To date, crews of warships deployed on the Armilla patrol have generally returned to the United Kingdom either with their ships or by commercial airline.

  Over the Christmas leave period we plan to use VC10s or Tristars of the RAF air transport force for this purpose. There is at present a regular weekly flight by RAF Hercules to the Gulf area, carrying freight on the outward journey. These aircraft are used to carry small numbers of service men to and from the Gulf when necessary. Travel by Hercules involves a two-day journey made up of two eight-hour flying legs with an overnight stay in Cyprus.

  Mr. Kaufman
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in view of the paucity of local facilities for rest and recreation, he will provide funds to improve furnishings and fittings in ratings mess-rooms aboard the minesweepers and other vessels of the Armilla patrol.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Mess decks in vessels serving with the Armilla patrol are furnished in accordance with standards applying to, and reflecting the operational and safety requirements of, the fleet as a whole.

  Within these limitations, we will continue to seek ways of reducing the particular discomforts of this task. For instance, as I told the House on 28 October at column 312, we are despatching additional air conditioning units to HMS Abdiel.

  Mr. Kaufman
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will arrange for crews of the minesweepers, Royal Fleet Auxiliary and support vessels attached to the
  880
  Armilla patrol to have the same opportunities for rest and recreation in Mombasa as the crews of other Armilla patrol ships.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Unlike the destroyers and frigates of the Armilla patrol, which operate on a rotational basis allowing one to be detached for recreation and maintenance visits to Mombasa or elsewhere, the mine counter-measures vessels and support vessels are all for the time being required to remain continuously in the area of the Gulf. It is, therefore, not possible to detach them for recreation and maintenance visits elsewhere. We endeavour to arrange, at appropriate intervals, rest and recreation visits for these vessels to ports in the area of the Gulf as operational circumstances permit. We are in the course of making arrangements for a period of mid-tour leave for the naval personnel on the MCM Vs and support vessels.

  Overseas Allowance
  Mr. Kaufman
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence why the local overseas allowance for Royal Navy crews in the Gulf has been reduced by 10 per cent.; and whether he will reinstate this cost as from the operative date of 1 October.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Seagoing local overseas allowance, which is designed to make up, where necessary, the estimated difference between the cost of essential expenditure incurred by naval personnel when ashore abroad and ashore in the United Kingdom, was reduced by 12 per cent. in sterling in the Gulf area with effect from 1 October 1987 because the basket of local currencies, from which the allowance is calculated, depreciated relative to the pound sterling in which the allowance is paid. The purchasing power of the allowance is therefore maintained at the same level.

  The SLOA rates are reviewed on a twice-yearly basis and may go up or down depending on the position of the relevant exchange rates at the time of the review. The next adjustment, if any, will be made on 1 April 1988.

  Household Brigade
  Mr. Marlow
  asked the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances officers of the Household Brigade are permitted to spend three days per week hunting in the winter and three days per week playing polo in the summer; and what implications this practice has for the proper supervision by an officer of his duties.

  Mr. Freeman
  Officers in the Household Cavalry have no special privileges in respect of leave or time off duty. Leave entitlement for Army officers is 42 days per annum (including Saturdays and Sundays) and is subject to approval by the relevant commanding officer. Officers may engage in hunting and polo only to the extent that it is consistent with the proper performance of their military duties. These pursuits develop equestrian skills.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwark): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Duke of Roxburghe The Duke of Roxburghe—Took the Oath.

European Consumer Affairs Council
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what items are to be discussed by the European Consumer Affairs Council at their meeting on 10th November, what is the Government's position thereon and what progress they expect to make.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I regret that the Consumer Affairs Council scheduled for 10th November has been postponed, and that a new date has not yet been fixed.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I regret the cancellation of the Consumer Affairs Council and the failure of the Commission to bring forward papers in good time for it. Am I correct in assuming that two items down for definite discussion on the agenda were toy safety and unit pricing? I should like to ask the Minister whether he has in his brief a notice to the effect that on 16th July the Minister told the House that he would look into the ineffectiveness of consumer consultation in the Community and whether he has been able to do so.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I believe that the two items mentioned by the noble Baroness were to have been on the agenda. The Government believe it is important that a full-day Consumer Affairs Council meeting should take place at least once during a Presidency. We hope that the present Presidency will be able to arrange a meeting of the council before the end of the year.
As regards the question which the noble Baroness put to my noble friend in July, my noble friend has reviewed the question as promised. He shares the anxiety of your Lordships' House to see an effective consultation mechanism in Brussels and awaits developments with interest. However, specific reforms are a matter for the Commission. I was pleased to learn that, at working level, the Commission has recently expressed a broad interest in examining measures to help the negotiating position of consumers.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, on the assumption that a new date will be found for the meeting, will the Minister say what consultations have taken place with the National Consumer Council and the Consumers Association in preparation for the meeting?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, there are procedures for consultation but the Government accept that the present consultation arrangements are not satisfactory. The Council resolution adopted last year underlined the necessity for effective and duly representative consultations with consumers. Although the Government have no standing to intervene directly in an area which is the Commission's own responsibility, they want to see a credible package of improvements emerging in line with the resolution, when the Commission reports on the matter at the end of this year.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, as regards the date of the next meeting, I should like to ask the Minister whether it is not now the custom to hold a Consumer Affairs Council under each Presidency. If that is so, and as the Danish Presidency ends on 31st December, will the Minister ask the Secretary of State whether he can bring pressure on the Commission to get on with its business and fix a date before the end of the year?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I can inform the noble Baroness that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs hopes to raise the matter with Commissioner Varfis next week on 10th November.
Lord Sainsbury: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House how long the toy safety draft directive has been in the pipeline?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, it seems a long time but I cannot remember precisely how long. I shall look into the matter and write to the noble Lord.

Control of Weeds: Insects Proposal
3.5 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will sponsor a study of the use of insects to reduce and control bracken, ragwort and other persistent but unwelcome weeds.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I can confirm that my department has already decided to fund a study, as compared with existing methods. The study will be carried out by the University of York which is currently investigating the potential of a number of so-called biological control agents of bracken. Existing measures such as herbicide application and ploughing are adequate to control ragwort and other weeds.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that satisfactory reply. As

1083
pesticides have decimated insects and other small organisms in the countryside without discrimination, is there not now a case for encouraging selected species which have the benign characteristic of destroying those weeds that are the most difficult to keep under control?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, yes and no.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I hope that I get a better answer than that. Is the noble Baroness aware that there is nothing new in predators dealing with pests and weeds? Today, unfortunately, the weeds and pests are on top of the situation. One would need to breed an awful lot of predators to deal with them—particularly bracken.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, yes. That is one of the reasons why tests are being carried out. It is said that bracken is spreading at the rate of 1 per cent. each year. It is normally avoided by animals because they can be made ill and possibly die as a result of eating it. On the other hand, nobody would want to eliminate bracken entirely. It provides variety to the landscape and cover for wildlife such as deer and grouse. It is harvested for fuel.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that imported pests may be necessary to control bracken? In that case, does she know what the NCC might say, bearing in mind the powers of the Government to restrict imports of pests and bugs under the 1981 Act?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the tests are being carried out on caterpillars of the South African moth, one of the Panatima genus and the other named Conservulus insignia. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 it is an offence to release any animal not normally resident in Great Britain without a licence from the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the noble Baroness bear in mind the fact that the history of using insects to control plants or other insects shows that it is a hazardous process and almost always ultimately leads to an environmental catastrophe of some kind or other?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, yes. But there have been successful cases including the introduction of South American moths to control prickly pear cactus in Australia and ladybirds to control pests in Californian citrus orchards. In other cases, the control organisms have succumbed to unfamiliar climatic conditions, or have died out as a result of their own success.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, has the noble Baroness any knowledge of the caterpillar which specialises in eating bracken and does no harm to anyone? I think that this caterpillar has been used in Australia.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the only one that I know about is the South African kind.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is possible to control the spread of ragwort by grazing sheep on an infected field in the month of May?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, quite a lot of things happen in the month of May.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her first very satisfactory Answer. Perhaps I may also add my admiration for her second reply to me which, although somewhat ambiguous, fulfilled the wish that your Lordships expressed in the debate yesterday—namely, the desire for brevity in replies from the Front Bench. May I further ask my noble friend whether she is aware that one does not have to go abroad, because it was only 30 years ago that the larva of the cinnabar moth, which is indigenous to this country, kept ragwort under control in many areas?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend, but unfortunately natural predators tend to keep the numbers down.
Lord Carter: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is just the kind of research that should be undertaken in the public sector? Is she aware that some people have expressed considerable concern that if the department's new-found enthusiasm for industry funding of agricultural research goes too far, the multinational chemical and spray companies may not be prepared to put their full weight behind such research?
Baroness Trumpington: I take note of the noble Lord's statement, my Lords.

EC Own Resources Increase Proposal
3.11 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take steps to ensure that prior to any meeting of the Council of Ministers of the European Communities convened to propose an increase of the Community's own resources from the rate of 1.4 per cent. as agreed in Article 3 (para. 2) of the Council decision (85/257/EEC Euratom) of 7th May 1985 to 1.6 per cent. on 1st January 1988 as envisaged in para. 9 of the preamble to that decision they will seek the consent of Parliament, with due debate, for any such increase or change either above or below the 1.6 per cent. referred to.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, under the terms of the Treaty of Rome, the system of own resources cannot be changed without the approval of the British Parliament.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in those circumstances, I take it that the noble Lord is able to give me a direct reply to my Question regarding whether the British Parliament will be consulted. That being the case, will the noble Lord take note of the fact that the sentiments currently being expressed about a revision to the Community's own resources as enshrined in the original directive were precisely the same farcical explanations that were given prior to the meeting at Fontainebleau itself? Will he take due note of that and also of the use of creative accounting and figure fiddling by the European Commission?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am not entirely clear about what is meant by the noble Lord's phrase "creative accounting" in that context. There is a very carefully set out and complicated formula for calculating the contributions to the Community budget. In answer to the noble Lord's first Question, I think I should further confirm that, under the Treaty of Rome, the own resources system, which is defined in a Council decision, can only be changed following both unanimous agreement by the Council and subsequent adoption by Member States according to their own constitutional requirements. In this country, that means approval by Parliament.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will there be a debate before the decision is made by the Government and becomes reflected in the Council's proceedings?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, that would be a matter for the usual channels at that time. However, I have good news for the noble Lord, in that a debate in your Lordships' House on the report on financing the Community produced by your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities will take place on Monday, 9th November. He is no doubt aware of that.

Geneva Convention: 1977 Protocols
3.14 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: 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 which governments have ratified the 1977 Geneva protocols additional to the 1949 convention; whether they have yet, as promised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in March 1986, resolved their doubts about the protocols, and, if so, why they have not announced their decision.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, as at 21st August 1987, 25 states had ratified one or both of the 1977 protocols additional to the Geneva convention of 1949, and a number of others had acceded to them. I have arranged for a complete list to be placed in the Library of the House. Consultations with our allies are now well advanced. We expect this process to be completed within the coming year, so enabling us to take a decision on the ratification of the protocols.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree that this matter appears to have taken an unconscionably long time, especially having regard to the fact that the original protocols protected civilians generally and therefore the additional protocols to protect them against nuclear weapons hardly seem to have been necessary? What was the reason for the long delay and the great difficulty in coming to a conclusion on this matter?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, our policy is not to become party to binding legal instruments until we are quite sure that they are in accord with other commitments and obligations, and we must ensure that the new obligations which these protocols introduce can be fully met.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I recognise that the Geneva protocols are a very important landmark and welcome the Minister's observations about the progress that is being made. However, does he agree that in practical terms the meeting between President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev promises an even greater achievement? Will Her Majesty's Government give their full support to the signing of the new INF Treaty as a big step in the process of nuclear arms reduction?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, naturally we support wholeheartedly any attempts to reduce the INF and note the proposals referred to by the noble Lord. I think he will be aware, however, that they do go rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

Land Registration Bill [H.L.]
Lord Templeman: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend Section 112 of the Land Registration Act 1925 and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Templeman.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

Farm Land and Rural Development Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Compared with most of the Bills that will be coming to your Lordships' House this Session, this is a small Bill; but, in my view, small is beautiful and the

1087
measures contained in the Bill are of importance to farmers and the agricultural scene of the future. I know that very many noble Lords take a keen personal interest in rural affairs and have considerable experience in matters such as woodlands, and I am therefore opening this debate with a little nervousness, mixed of course with pleasure. Perhaps I may add that my pleasure is increased by the fact that my noble friend Lord Borthwick has chosen this Bill as a vehicle for his maiden speech.
Let me first place this Bill in the context of the Government's policies for the countryside. Although the details of the schemes will be set out in secondary legislation, they are not strictly the subject of today's debate. Nevertheless, today I can give you some information which I hope will assist your Lordships in consideration of this Bill.
As background to the Bill, I should like to remind your Lordships of a Statement made on 9th February this year by my right honourable friend the then Minister of Agriculture, and repeated in this House by my noble friend Lord Belstead. In his Statement he said:
"With the European Community now producing surpluses in many of the main agricultural commodities, a new balance of policies has to be struck, with less support for expanding production; more attention to the demands of the market; more encouragement for alternative uses of land; more response to the claims of the environment; and more diversity on farms and in the rural economy".
My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture in another place went on to announce a series of initiatives which the Government were taking to assist the process of change, which were spelt out in more detail in the farming and rural enterprise package published on 10th March. Those included proposals for a farm woodland scheme; an expansion of the traditional forestry programme with a higher proportion of planting on low ground of better quality than hitherto; an increase in the number of environmental sensitive areas; a scheme to encourage diversification of enterprise on farms; greater emphasis on the possibilities for novel crops in the Ministry's budget for research, development and advice; and parallel changes in the policies of the Secretary of State for the Environment.
The Government have since taken steps to implement all of the measures in that package for which powers already exist. The purpose of this Bill is to provide powers for us to implement the remaining measures; in particular, the making of a scheme to assist the marketing of the products of diversified farm businesses and the making of a farm woodland scheme.
This brings me to the content of the Bill. Clause 1 provides powers for agriculture Ministers, with the approval of the Treasury, to make a scheme of grants in respect of certain farm businesses carried on ancillary to agricultural businesses for any one or more parts of Great Britain. An Order in Council can be made under Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (c.28) enabling the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a similar scheme there. Such a scheme may provide for the payment of grant
1088
towards expenditure of a non-capital nature incurred in the establishment, expansion and promotion of a farm business and in the marketing of its goods or services. The clause also enables Ministers to lay down provisions in the scheme regarding the conditions under which grants may be made and confers discretion on Ministers as to approvals and the amounts and timing of payments.
Clause 2 of the Bill provides powers for agriculture Ministers, with the approval of the Treasury, to make a scheme of grants in respect of farm woodlands for any one or more parts of Great Britain. Such a scheme may provide for the payment of grants to owners and lessees of land towards, first, expenditure incurred or to be incurred in the conversion of agricultural land to woodland; for simplicity, I shall use the term "planting grants", which is what we are talking about; and, secondly, towards abating any financial loss resulting from that conversion. These grants may continue over a period of years during which no income could be expected from the land in question. Again, for simplicity, I shall refer to them as annual payments.
As in the case of Clause 1, this clause enables Ministers to lay down provisions in the scheme regarding the conditions under which grants may be made and confers discretion on Ministers as to approvals and the amounts and timing of payments. The clause as a whole relates only to Great Britain, because the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland already has the necessary powers to make both the kinds of payments that I have described. This means that any scheme will be able to apply throughout the United Kingdom.
Clause 3 of the Bill is intended to increase the limit on the maximum number of members of the Development Commission from eight to 12. The increase would facilitate the merger of the Development Commission with its main agency, the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas. This was announced as part of the Government's rural enterprise package earlier this year and is expected to come into effect on 1st April 1988.
Having briefly described the background to the Bill and its contents, I should now like to turn to the details of the two schemes which the Government would propose to implement once the Bill becomes law. Both the schemes were the subject of consultation with interested parties earlier in the year. The many helpful responses we received have been fully considered and our revised proposals have been drawn up in the light of that consideration.
The first scheme concerns the provision of grants for diversifying farm businesses. We attach importance to the introduction of this imaginative new scheme. It will encourage farmers to find alternative sources of income apart from the continued production of surpluses. Opportunities will be opened up for on-farm employment. New businesses will add to the vitality and diversity of the rural economy.
The core of the new scheme will be a capital grant scheme which will be made under powers obtained under the Agriculture Act 1986 following an amendment made, as some of your Lordships will

1089
recall, during the passage of that Act through this House. We hope to lay statutory instruments before the House soon containing details of the scheme, but I am sure it will be useful for your Lordships to know now broadly what is intended.
As many of your Lordships know, capital grants for a limited range of craft and tourism investments on farms have been available in the less favoured areas since 1985. The new scheme will extend this assistance by making grants available without geographical restriction and for a much wider number of activities.
There are many business activities open to the farmer with true entrepreneurial talents. Some are already grant-aided by other agencies. Others can be privately financed. Our scheme will be targeted on small to medium businesses and on activities which arise naturally on the farm. We intend to aid tourist accommodation of a good standard, including camping barns which provide basic accommodation for walkers and which are attracting particular interest; also leisure, recreation, amenity and sporting facilities for visitors and the catering facilities that go with them. Value-added processing of food and other farm products and timber will also be aided, as will craft work shops together with farm shops to sell the products of the farm business. And for the first time, too, we plan to give some assistance to businesses involving horses; in particular those concerned with the provision of livery and, in the uplands only, accommodation for horses for hire. I am sure that your Lordships will welcome these proposals when we formally lay them before you.
The scope of the Agriculture Act 1970 is not, however, wide enough to permit non-capital grants to be made to diversified farm businesses. Such grants are, I believe, necessary to encourage producers to plan ahead and to investigate thoroughly whether a new business would be viable and, not least, to consider the implications it would have for the existing agricultural business. Above all, it is vital that a proper assessment is made of the market potential for the proposed product or service.
At the other end of the production line, diversified farm businesses need to market their products and services so as to ensure that the needs of the customer are met, in terms of both quality and continuity of supply. We therefore believe that some pump priming is justified to encourage producers to adopt a sound and competent approach to marketing.
Clause 1 of the Bill will permit Ministers to introduce a scheme of grants towards the cost of feasibility studies, market research and the marketing of products and services across a range of diversified farm businesses. These non-capital grants will be complementary to the capital grants, will have broadly the same conditions of eligibility and will cover similar farm-based activities.
For feasibility and market research studies, we are proposing a 50 per cent. grant. As I have said, such studies may also investigate whether changes are necessary to a producer's agricultural business to enable him to expand or establish an ancillary farm business. Before agreeing to pay these grants, Ministers will need to be satisfied that the person
1090
undertaking the study is competent to do so and that all aspects of the proposed business will be analysed fully.
The consultation document proposed a flat rate of 30 per cent. over three years for marketing grants. In the light of comments made on the consultation document, we are considering whether a degressive scale of grants may be more appropriate in order to give a greater incentive in the first year. We will announce revised rates when we have discussed this further with the EC Commission.
The consultation document proposed an annual ceiling on grant of £2,000 for individuals and £5,000 for groups. In the light of subsequent comments, we are looking at these limits again. The ceiling will apply separately to the various types of grant available.
We have decided that the non-capital grants scheme will be subject to prior approval for two reasons. First, although the literature about the scheme will describe the broad requirements for the content of, for example, feasibility studies, it will not be able to take account of the detailed conditions prevailing on any particular farm. As the enterprise to be studied may well be very unfamiliar to the farmer, it would not be reasonable to expect him to commission a study without some advice and confirmation that his proposals would be acceptable for grant. Similar considerations apply to the marketing grants.
The second reason for prior approval is to assist with the monitoring and control of expenditure. However, I should emphasise that we intend that the approval procedures should be as simple as possible. We do not want to impose an unnecessary administrative burden on farmers or agricultural departments.
Subsection (1) of Clause 1 provides for the scheme to specify which types of farm business will be eligible and I have already indicated those which we intend to include. Your Lordships may wish to note that we intend to assist the expansion of diversified farm businesses as well as the establishment of new ones.
Subsection (2) of Clause 1 enables the scheme to specify such matters as the eligibility of applicants. For individuals the eligibility criteria will be the same as those for capital grants. However, in the case of groups we propose that only 75 per cent. of the members will need to satisfy the full criteria, but all members will have to have an agricultural holding number. This will ensure that worthwhile group developments are not excluded from grant simply because a minority of members do not qualify.
Subsection (2) also confers a discretionary power on Ministers to allow them to refuse new applications or to give priority to certain businesses or types of grants. The subsection also provides for the scheme to include terms and conditions of payment of grants such as a requirement for the applicant to carry out the proposal as approved and for accounts to be available to the agricultural departments for inspection.
In regard to advice, producers will be able to have the benefit of general advice from the rural enterprise adviser on diversification possibilities and on

1091
government help for them free of charge. Working up the details of a specific project will be a chargeable service.
I come now to the details of the farm woodland scheme. Our consultation document issued on 10th March proposed a system of annual payments, additional to Forestry Commission planting grants, designed to help bridge the gap between planting and the likely first income from the thinning of timber. It was proposed that the rate of annual payment should vary according to land categories in order to reflect the fact that lesser incentives are needed to take poorer land out of agricultural production. Three rates were proposed: £30 per hectare in the severely disadvantaged areas, also known as the original less favoured areas; £60 per hectare in the disadvantaged areas, otherwise known as the new less favoured areas; and £125 per hectare elsewhere, for example mainly in the lowlands.
The consultation document also set out various scheme conditions for comment. Finally, it made clear that the first three years of the scheme were to be experimental. In the first year a maximum of 12,000 hectares would be accepted. Limits in the second and third years would be decided in the light of uptake of the scheme, but there would be an overriding limit of 36,000 hectares over the first three years.
Now let us look ahead to the scheme we are actually hoping to introduce next year. The first and most important change concerns the target land for planting under the scheme. The scheme as originally proposed would have attracted planting on to the most marginal land available in each of the three proposed zones. The point was made in response to consultation that there was a danger that this would do relatively little to reduce surpluses, which is our primary objective. Many environmental organisations also expressed concern that planting of such marginal land might lead to the loss of valuable semi-natural habitats, particularly in the lowlands.
The Government have therefore decided that the scheme should concentrate on so-called improved land. This would be done by restricting eligibility to arable land and grassland up to 10 years old; that is, grassland which has been cultivated and reseeded within the previous 10 years. Most farmers have some land of this kind.
Because such land is more productive than originally envisaged, higher rates of annual payment would be justified. We are therefore proposing rates of £100 per hectare in the severely disadvantaged areas, £150 per hectare in the disadvantaged areas and £190 per hectare in the lowlands, in respect of arable and improved land only. We shall, however, be sticking to the target of 12,000 hectares a year and the overall target of 36,000 over three years.
However, because there is proportionately less improved land in hill areas—and this applies particularly in Scotland and Wales—the Government have decided that within the overall target of 36,000 hectares over three years, some 3,000 hectares will be allocated for unimproved land planted in the SDA and DA. This would allow some
1092
hill farmers to plant woodlands in areas of permanent pasture or rough grazing, provided that the land had been in productive agricultural use. The rate of aid for all such planting would be £30 per hectare, as originally proposed for the SDA, recognising the minimal CAP savings that would accrue in such areas and the fact that some farmers will be able to plant on improved land and attract the £150 rate in the DA and the £100 rate in the SDA. All the rates of aid under the scheme would of course be reviewed from time to time in the light of relevant factors.
We are also anxious to give encouragement to mixed woodland containing a high percentage of broadleaves. Such woodland offers both silvicultural and economic benefits in some cases and can be a good way of establishing an eventual pure broadleaf plantation. We therefore propose to extend the payment period to 30 years for mixed woodland containing more than 50 per cent. broadleaves. In addition, we intend to introduce an even longer payment period of 40 years for pure oak and beech planting since these traditional species take longer to mature. The payment periods will therefore be: 40 years for pure oak and beech; 30 years for other broadleaves and for mixed woodland of which more than half is broadleaved; and 20 years for other woodland.
We have also decided that the planting of new trees for traditional coppice rotation should be eligible for the scheme, provided that it qualifies for Forestry Commission planting grants. Because of the earlier returns that can be expected from coppicing, the annual payments would only continue for 10 years. Shorter rotation coppice for energy uses would not be eligible.
I should emphasise to your Lordships that the extra incentives which I mentioned for broadleaf planting would be additional to and reinforce the higher rates of planting grant already payable for broadleaves. For a wood of three to ten hectares the planting grant under the broadleaved woodland grant scheme is currently £800 per hectare, whereas the corresponding rate for conifers under the forestry grant scheme is only £420 per hectare.
A number of consultees urged us to impose compulsory minimum proportions of broadleaves that would apply to individual applications. We are not persuaded that such a step is necessary. It is true that in past years much of the traditional forestry planting in the United Kingdom as a whole has tended to be coniferous. But in England where most planting takes place on lower land, 64 per cent. of private sector planting last year under Forestry Commission grant schemes was of broadleaved trees. We remain committed to the aim of achieving at least one third broadleaves under this scheme, and we take the view that the targeting of the scheme on better quality land and the incentives it provides for broadleaf planting will enable us to achieve this aim without compulsory minimum proportions. Moreover, sensitive planting will be encouraged in our advisory literature and the actual planting under the scheme will be closely monitored so that action can be taken if the broadleaf proportions fall short of what we expect.

1093
On the minimum and maximum areas per holding, we now propose a maximum of 40 hectares per holding throughout the UK. The woodland will have to form part of the applicant's farming operations and so afforestation of the whole holding will be ruled out. The minimum per holding will be three hectares, except in Northern Ireland where the average holding size is much less and so the minimum plantation will only be one hectare per holding. The minimum size for each block of woodland will remain at one hectare. The logic of this is to ensure that farmers take sizeable pieces of land out of production.
In drawing up these proposals, we have been concerned to try and simplify the scheme as far as possible and to keep administrative costs to the minimum. To this end, we have decided to reduce the amount of consultation with local authorities on planting of farm woodlands where small areas are involved, particularly on improved land. On larger areas, perhaps of over 10 hectares, consultation continues to be appropriate because of the possible landscape implications. Existing arrangements would, however, continue in national designated areas such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, national parks in England and Wales and national scenic areas in Scotland. National nature reserves will be excluded from the scheme altogether. My right honourable friend will want to discuss the details with representatives of local authorities. But change in the consultation arrangements is needed to save money and speed up the processing of applications which will make the farm woodland scheme more attractive.
Although, as I have said, we are concerned to keep costs down, we shall be allocating some additional manpower to this scheme both at the Forestry Commission and within the agriculture department's advisory services. For many farmers this will be their first venture into woodlands and good advice will be essential to ensure that the investment in young trees is not wasted. As for diversification, general advice from ADAS will be free, but detailed work on a project will be a chargeable service.
On the subject of young trees, the Government are particularly conscious of the need to obtain adequate supplies of nursery stock for planting under the scheme. My department and the Forestry Commission have had a number of meetings with the Horticultural Trades Association on this subject and will be continuing to liaise closely with nursery growers. We shall be doing what we can to ensure that enough young trees are available and that they are of good quality stock and, as far as possible, supplied from domestic sources. I am fully aware of the difficulties caused by the recent storms.
Finally, questions have been raised about landlord/tenant issues in relation to the scheme. The Government are keen that tenant farmers should be able, with their landlords' agreement, to participate in the scheme. Discussions have been taking place between representatives of the National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners' Association and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors on the best way to achieve this. We understand that agreement has been reached on all the fundamental points and that model clauses are being prepared for
1094
inclusion in tenancy agreements under the Agricultural Holdings Act and for use in model forestry leases where a separate long lease seems more sensible. The Government very much endorse this voluntary approach, since agreement between landlord and tenant is sensible on a long-term enterprise of this kind and we should not embark lightly on changes to the landlord/tenant legislation. This represents a careful balance of interests and, only relatively recently, was amended and debated at enormous length in Parliament. We shall, however, exclude from the scheme land that has been taken back into hand by a landlord for forestry under a tenancy agreement resumption clause.
Forestry, and particularly farm forestry, is an important use for surplus farm land. Wood is one of the few crops that can be grown on all but the bleakest and wettest land, and I am told that Britain has an advantage in timber growing conditions over most European countries. Some have criticised our proposals for not going far enough, given the land use problem that we may have to face. I would simply say two things in answer to that.
First, this is an experimental scheme and will be closely monitored. This is surely a sensible way to proceed when we do not have an established tradition of farm forestry in this country as they have in, say, France and Germany. Secondly, although 12,000 hectares may sound a relatively small area, the number of trees needed will not be small. If planted at a conventional forestry spacing of two metres apart, 2,500 trees are required for every hectare planted. This equates to 1,000 trees per acre. That would mean a total of up to 30 million trees per year if farmers succeed in planting the full target area. Even with the losses of mature trees which we have sustained through various causes, including Dutch elm disease and the recent storms in the South-East, on which the Government are taking separate, urgent action, I do not accept that the planting of 30 million trees per year could be described as inadequate.
I apologise for having explained our revised proposals for this scheme at some length. I hope I have not presumed too much upon your Lordships' interest in these matters. But the Government attach considerable importance to this scheme. We have proposed re-targeting the scheme towards better land so that it makes a greater contribution towards the reduction of surpluses and Exchequer expenditure in line with our efforts elsewhere to bring more sense into the common agricultural policy. We have proposed higher rates of payment to make the scheme more attractive to farmers. We have enhanced the environmental benefits it will bring by the changes we have made. The director general of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds recently commented as follows:
"Planting trees on wheat fields or improved grasslands would bring diverse wildlife benefits. A wide range of broadleaves and conifers will grow on this richer land, enhancing the landscape, providing high value timber for the farmer, and giving local fuel, shelter and sporting benefits too".
I shall only add that the contribution which the new woods that will be established will make to our countryside should be additionally welcome after the disastrous damage inflicted by the storms last month.

1095
To sum up, I repeat that this is a small but important Bill. I should simply like to commend it to your Lordships for approval and beg to move that it now be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
4 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I find it difficult to make a start in this matter. When the Minister began to speak, she emphasised that this is an enabling Bill. When she took over her present job, she jokingly came to me and said, "You won't be too hard on me until I find my feet". I do not think that is required. But I must tell her here and now that the armistice is finished.
The Minister said that she hoped she was not presuming. She is presuming with a capital "P". I started to take notes as she spoke in order to reply to some of the points she was making. However, with such a wealth of detail, she has almost moved to the Committee stage of the Bill. It is quite unacceptable that the House should have all those details before it without having seen the Bill in print, other than in a broad way. I hope the noble Baroness will take note of what I am saying. Personally, I am going to treat it as the Second Reading of an enabling Bill, making one or two points on the way.
Clause 1 is definitely an enabling clause. It is full of bureaucratic language. That is necessary, I suppose, to cover all eventualities although some of it requires reading a few times before it is possible to understand what on earth it means.
Clause 1(1) applies to expenses for feasibility and market research studies. This is very necessary. Farmers should be careful before they enter into new projects which they do not know enough about. They should be able to make a study of them. If a scheme is large and particularly if it relates to something which one has to sell, it can be very expensive. Having gone into a scheme and found that it is not workable, would the grant still be paid? I believe it could be very expensive.
I believe that the phrase, "has been or is to be incurred" requires an explanation. The noble Baroness made a point regarding prior approval of a scheme. Does that also apply to the grant because it is mentioned in the clause relating to woodlands as well? As the noble Baroness knows, with grant schemes for improving buildings prior approval is not necessary. I wondered if this was the same.
Can the noble Baroness explain Clause 1(1)(b)? It is not clear to me what it means. The official language in subsection (2)(d) is also very difficult for a layman like myself. I have no doubt that lawyers can deal with it. Subsection (2)(g) says that different provision will be made for different cases. Does this mean a wide range of different grants for all sorts of different schemes? I consider it will be a major task to sort that out. The question I ask is: who decides this?
As the noble Baroness pointed out, Clause 1 is there to encourage diversification of grants. On change of use of farm buildings and farm houses, I believe the noble Baroness mentioned turning barns
1096
into tourist attractions and so on. This may encourage a dairyman to go out of milk and use his buildings for another purpose. I know of one farmer who has turned his buildings into livery stables. But, on the whole, there is bound to be little effect in regard to taking land out of farming.
I do not know whether this will qualify for a grant but two farmers at the bottom of my road have applied for planning permission to build a golf course. Unfortunately, my golfing days have finished and I will not gain any benefit. I wish to emphasise that diversification will have very little effect on crop surpluses unless, as I have said, some people go out of milk.
Clause 2 deals with the grant to plant and manage trees. No one can deny the necessity for more trees in Britain. The demand for timber is increasing as the forests of the world are cut down at an appalling rate—a rate of over 50 acres a minute according to my calculations. Every year we spend on wood and wood products something approaching £5,000 million. No one can deny the necessity for trees but, my Lords, there is a very big "but". The noble Baroness, in the latter part of her speech, tried to incorporate this question with that of taking land out of production. The immediate problem, as everyone agrees, is that of reducing surpluses. But it is simply not practical to join the two issues. It will have a very niggling effect on surpluses.
Various figures have been quoted of how much land should be withdrawn. A figure of 3 million acres has been mentioned. The noble Baroness mentioned a figure of about 30,000 hectares. But the figure of 3 million acres and more of productive land which should come out of production at once has arisen.
Baroness Trumpington: I do not think I said 3 million acres.
Lord John-Mackie: I said 3 million acres and the noble Baroness said something like 30,000 acres, which is a big difference.
I have consulted nurserymen employed by the Forestry Commission. I am told that there are simply not enough tree plants available. It takes quite a while to produce a tree plant because the seed has to be collected and put into a nursery. I understand that the minimum period is two years. Generally, it is three to four years. I believe that we have to reconsider this question.
The noble Baroness quoted a large number of figures. I tried to make a note of some in order to speak about them. Unfortunately, she mentioned too many. I wonder if any farmer with grade 1 or 2 land will ever go over to trees. The grant to tempt him into tree production on that type of land would have to be enormous. I have worked out from the figures the noble Baroness has quoted that the highest grant is £80 per acre which simply will not tempt anyone to produce trees. I doubt whether even on grade 3 land it would tempt many farmers. It may tempt a few but not very many.
There is room in the lowlands for more deciduous trees but this would apply only to small areas; for example the corners of farmers' fields on grade 1 and

1097
2 land and in the renewal of old and badly managed woodlands.
The growing of conifers and deciduous trees on marginal land and in the uplands is a different kettle of fish. There is room there for more trees and for farming. I saw many examples when I was at the Forestry Commission, including the development of forestry on big hill-land farms. One of the best examples I have seen was on the land of the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, in Dumfriesshire. He had gone into partnership with his tenant to develop forestry on the farm and to build roads to serve the forestry. The whole thing was a tremendous advantage to the farmer. It was agreed to be a great advantage. That was on a large scale.
I saw also a farm in Wales of approximately 200 to 300 acres consisting of a little hill land and the rest semi-arable. The farmer had developed forestry on a small scale and it was a tremendous advantage to him not only for selling trees but also for firewood and for his own fencing and so on. It can and should be done. There has always been an antipathy to forestry, but farmers are now beginning to take a different view and there is no doubt that this scheme should help.
Again, it will have a minimal effect on surpluses. Surpluses are not coming from that quality of land at all. I feel that any effort to replace cereal production, in particular with trees, is a complete non-starter. Taking large areas of productive land out of production permanently should be looked at very severely. Sir Kenneth Blaxter, the former head of the Rowett Research Institute, in an article on world food production in The Lancet this spring makes this very clear. He points out that to feed a population which will be 6,000 million by the end of this century, and probably around 7,500 million in the following 20 years, will require—and I should like noble Lords to think on this figure—a 2.5-fold increase per unit area of land in food production.
I quote his conclusion in the article:
"Its divisions"—
that is, divisions of states and so on—
"may well mean that what is possible cannot be achieved and that hunger will continue to be the lot of many throughout the years to come".
We should think on that. Surely it is a grave warning that we should heed before we take land permanently out of food production, particularly by planting deciduous trees on grade 1 and grade 2 land.
Before I conclude I should like to say something about environmental issues. I have crossed swords with environmentalists quite a lot in my time, in one way or another. I get on with some and I do not get on too well with others. However, they seem to be looking forward. From letters I have received, articles I have read and statements that have been made, they believe that reducing production and planting trees on farms will create a countryside bereft of farming activity, open to all and sundry to wander on at will.
The Guardian newspaper had an article along those lines, complete with a photograph of a derelict farmhouse surrounded by a few scrubby trees and a neglected garden. The caption refers to a battle that threatens the tranquillity of the farm in Wales. It is
1098
appalling to think that papers as responsible as the Guardian should put that across. If that is what the environmentalists want in our farming, they will have to think again. I have that photograph, if noble Lords wish to see it.
I believe that the environmentalists have a case in many ways for access to the countryside, but they cannot ask, as the Ramblers Association asks in a letter to my noble friend, for complete access to the countryside. If we are going to farm and produce food, that simply cannot be. On my farm in Essex, which is only 22 or 22½ miles from here, we have five footpaths entering the farm from different sides and I have never yet seen it overcrowded. I have never seen anywhere without plenty of room for the environmentalists to enjoy the countryside without asking for this wholesale access.
Naturally we give our blessing to this Bill and its essential main issues. However, I hope that your Lordships will take note of what it may or may not do to the surpluses that it is so important we get rid of at present.
I took a few notes of what the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, said, but we will have another opportunity either in Committee or at a later stage to go into the detail, which in my opinion it was very wrong to bring forward today.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, at the outset I associate myself very much with the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, made her speech with the best of intentions and had no desire to weary us with a great many details. However, I feel that on Second Reading of a Bill which is a purely enabling Bill, it is not necessary to go into details of the density of planting proposed for certain trees and many other similar details which are of importance—but not on Second Reading. I say that particularly in view of the debate we had yesterday on the need for speeding up proceedings in this House. I hope that the noble Baroness and her colleagues will bear that in mind.
Having said that, I hope I will not unduly surprise the noble Baroness when I say that we on these Benches consider this a good Bill, a useful and a moderately important Bill. However, as I said, it is a purely enabling Bill and whether it is going to be an effective Bill depends entirely on how its provisions are implemented.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and with his warnings. So far as one can understand from the Bill, from what the noble Baroness said and some of the accompanying literature which her department has produced, it really cannot claim to be a serious attempt to cope with the problem of surpluses in this country and in the Community.
The attractive document produced by the Ministry of Agriculture called Farming UK says in its introduction, having set out the various objectives which are contained in this Bill, that the Government will make provision, building up to £25 million a year in a few years' time. If that is all the Government are proposing to devote to implementation of this Bill,

1099
while one cannot mock at it one cannot seriously pretend that the expenditure of that sort of money and the taking out, if the Government succeed in their intentions, of 36,000 hectares—I think that was the figure the noble Baroness gave—partly marginal land, partly less favoured land and partly grade 1 and grade 2 land, will do more than nibble at the problem.
Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, will be able to tell us what is the surplus production of grain—we confine ourselves to grain for the moment—within the Community at present. My own feeling—I have not been able to check the figures and I may be wrong—is that it is in excess of 10 million tonnes per annum. I believe it may be rather more than that, but perhaps the noble Baroness can give the correct figure.
If that figure is approximately correct, as we produce about 20 per cent. of the whole cereal production of the Community our contribution towards reducing the surplus should be 20 per cent. of 10 million tonnes, which is about 2 million tonnes. If 36,000 hectares are taken out and if the average yield of those is about five tonnes per hectare, that is under 200,000 tonnes if my mathematics are correct.
Two hundred thousand tonnes out of 2 million is not really a very significant contribution. I have only put forward these figures to show that however good the intentions of this Bill may be—and they are good and they are right—it cannot make any significant contribution towards solving the problem unless its present scope is enormously increased. Perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to tell us that this is just a trial run and that if it succeeds it will be greatly increased within a few years so that we really can cope with these matters. I would ask her to say what scope she thinks will arise when it is found to work well.
One point that must be borne in mind is what is needed to persuade farmers to give up cultivating some of their land. What many people do not take sufficiently into account is the large proportion today in farming taken by the standing charges that there are for every acre. If, as a farmer, you reduce your acreage by 10 per cent. you still have to pay somebody your rent, if you are a tenant, or pay interest on your mortgage, unless you are one of those rare people with entirely unencumbered land.
You cannot get rid of 10 per cent. of your labour force—you probably have only one man—and you cannot get rid of 10 per cent. of your one tractor or your one combine, and so on. All your standing charges remain, and they may well be anything up to 80 per cent. of your total costs. So those have to be met before you can persuade farmers to do something different, because the variable costs do not come to much more than 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. of the total costs. That is an essential factor to be borne in mind in any attempt to dissuade farmers from cultivating every acre they have at their disposal.
Clause 1 is a good clause. I remember what I said at the beginning of my speech about going into too much detail, and I am not trying to get more detail out of the noble Baroness at this stage; but I think that we must know more about the type of
1100
arrangements the Government have in mind if they are trying to persuade farmers to go over to different activities.
Are they going to be paid the capital grants which will continue, and, if so, what type will they be? Will they be grants, for instance, to assist in the making up of roads so as to leave picnic sites to encourage town dwellers to go and picnic there? Will they go as far as that type of thing, and what form of liaison will there be between the Ministry of Agriculture, which makes the grants, and the local authorities, which give planning permission?
One could get into a rather embarrassing position where the Ministry of Agriculture says, "By all means renew your buildings so as to have a farm shop or in order to have ponies there or to make parking space for picnickers" and the local planning authorities say, "Not on your life: we do not want any new buildings, extensions or alterations". That is surely quite an important matter which has to be looked at before this Bill can be implemented.
I do not think the noble Baroness dealt quite fully enough with the forestry aspect. I was glad to hear from her that it looks as though agreement has now been reached between those representing the tenant farmers and those representing the landlords. There are clearly some difficulties there, as indeed there may be with the various improvements also made under Clause 1, where tenancy agreements may not allow the sort of development which is considered correct and desirable under this Bill.
A further point under both Clause 1 and Clause 2 is the enormous importance of access to the countryside. I hope that my noble friend Lord Hunt will have something to say about that and about the environment in general. But there must be the closest possible liaison between those who are concerned with the protection and the enhancement of the environment, access to the countryside, the preservation of wildlife and the encouragement of more wildlife and those who are encouraging forestry, picnic sites and so on.
It must be borne in mind that forestry is not always the friend of wildlife. Much is said about the advantages of having more woodlands and the fact that birds like them; but quite a lot of birds are not very keen on woodlands, even of the hardwood variety. Also, there are quite a lot of predators on wildlife which do like them. So you must have close co-operation with the Countryside Commission, the Naturalists Trust and all those concerned with the protection of the environment as well as those engaged in the opening up of the countryside to the urban population.
Finally, with regard to Clause 3 I should like to pay tribute to the admirable work done by the Development Commission. I hope the fact that there are going to be additional members of the Development Commission means that there will be additional funds for it and that it will be able to do more of the very useful work it is doing at the present time. Simply adding to its numbers is not enough in itself, but I hope we can be assured that the increase is a symbol of the importance the Government attach to the commission's work, because if this Bill is to be

1101
implemented, as we all hope it will be, undoubtedly the work of the Development Commission will be greatly expanded.
I repeat what I said at the beginning: the Bill itself is a very useful one. It will make it possible for the Government to do the right things. We hope that they will make the fullest possible use of this measure and that the Treasury will not be a brake on what they are able to do and I am sure would like to do.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Borthwick: My Lords, being both a farmer and a forester, I have found the Bill very interesting. After the 1914 and 1939 wars large areas of Scotland and England, and I believe of Wales too—unfortunately I have not been able to visit Wales for many long years but I hope to do so again fairly soon—were planted up. In many areas the planting has grown into substantial forests. They have covered big areas of land with rather bleak-looking timber. Looking at it from the hilltops I would call it "mono-coloured gloom". It does not look very interesting; it is not a very good habitat for animals.
I hear that people want to see more of nature. I think that many of these areas need covering round the edges. If you want to help nature, you have to give nature cover. These woods have no cover. They are tall timber and the winds go right through them. They could be made into good cover by planting the edges. I have tried to do that for sheep cover now and again for lambing and so on. It is quite successful and it also is useful natural cover. I have rather gone away from some of the notes that I made so I shall get back to them again.
When those areas are planted with trees and shrubs, it makes them pleasant for visitors and the natives alike. If the right shrubs and bushes are chosen, we can feed the wildlife in summer and winter, besides creating build for hill stock, which is essential for the farmers who are left.
The Bill seems to be tailored more for smallholders, crofters and family farms rather than for the larger variety. I shall be interested in the Minister's opinion on this matter. It may be claimed that this type of protection is already covered by some other Act.
I notice that Clause 3 increases the number of development commissioners from eight to 12. In most councils one finds that the more members there are, more talk and less work is the result. But in this case, if the extra members are to help the locals by supervising the scheme and help with their technical knowledge as fieldsmen and not as chairborne pontificators, I shall agree wholeheartedly with the proposal.
I should like to ask some of the questions that went through my mind when I heard noble Lords speaking about this matter before. I did not realise that this proposal would apply also to Northern Ireland. If there is a similar scheme in Northern Ireland, the military must be brought in. That is important, and any soldier will understand that. We must watch how we plant timber in dangerous country.
Farmers are good producers, but they are not always good salesmen. What is one to do with a wood
1102
once one has it? There are many stories about that, but they are not satisfactory. Some years ago, after one of my first thinnings, I could not sell my timber. Eventually I obtained a sale. It cost me about £1·35 a tonne to sell it. I decided that that was not a good idea, and so I kept it for two or three years. That did not improve the forest much but it improved my price, because I received a little more for it at that time. The timber went to Sweden. It was pulped there and came back to produce the Morning Times, or whatever it was. That is rather unnecessary. I think things have become a little better now. Two large mills are coming and the timber should be saleable. We must also watch out for saleable types.
Oak has been mentioned. That presumably means English oak. I think that the quicker and easier oak to sell is probably the Turkish. I am not in the trade, so I do not know. The Turkish oak is a fine oak. Furniture-makers think English oak is much better. The best oak of all of course is the Irish. It is mild and beautifully marked for cabinet-making.
I also know about small areas. There is a high cost involved in fencing small areas. Development must also be kept up. The smaller the area, the more expensive the fencing. In some instances, it may be possible to have two or three farmers creating woodlands together.
I had a small area to deal with. I do not remember its size, but I remember that the fencing was five miles long. I went in cahoots with a neighbouring farmer who was also a proprietor. We put up a long woodland which provided cover between two farms. He did one side and I did the other. My part of the fencing was five miles long, and that rather put up the cost. I have not had the cost back yet. We must watch these things. Wet areas are all right, but the draining must be watched because other costs come in. The costs want looking into. I think that I have said all that I want to say. I shall have much pleasure in helping to put this Bill on the statute book. It cannot but contribute in every aspect to the population of the countryside.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, on behalf of us all, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Borthwick, for the enlightening speech he has given us from his great experience. He has a family title which goes back to 1452 and he is the 23rd Lord. I read that the Lordship was dormant from 1910 to 1986. How good it is that it has now become active with such a splendid speech by my noble friend. One of the most attractive qualities of the title is that the holder is the Hereditary Royal Falconer for Scotland. Long may he continue with his falcons!
I do not know much about farming, though I have a little farm of my own. Surpluses in the European Community are a problem which must be tackled. There is far too much milk and butter. There are butter mountains and the like. Something must be done to reduce them for the benefit of all.
The Bill seeks to do that by encouraging farmers to give up a great deal of their agriculture and do other things. The Bill seeks to encourage them to give up their farms or a large part of their land and turn it into woodland. They will receive grants for that

1103
purpose. As one who loves our English countryside, I hope that that will not go too far. I love our countryside with its golden cornfields, meadows, cows, dairies, hedges and the like. Please do not destroy it and turn us into an afforested land like the Lake District.
I plead that we should preserve the amenities of our countryside. It has the best and most experienced farmers in the world. It has the best machinery in the world. Please do not decrease our agricultural industry too greatly though I realise that something must be done. The schemes have been discussed with all those interested. No doubt the Bill will give them force.
Having made that plea for the countryside, I wish to turn to one special subject. I wish to talk about councils and others in the South of England. These schemes all talk about converting agricultural land into woodland. Through large parts of the South of England there are projects for converting woodlands into agricultural land. Planning law at the moment gives the advantage to the person who plans to turn woodlands into agricultural land. Under the 1971 planning legislation there was a provision which enabled local authorities to make tree preservation orders to preserve our woodlands. No one is allowed to cut or fell timber or grub up those woodlands without the consent of the local council.
There was also a provision that if the applicant was refused permission he could obtain compensation from the local authority which had refused him that permission. There have been cases in the Canterbury City Council area. There have been cases in Hampshire, at Oakley, near Basingstoke. The local authority put tree preservation orders on a beautiful copse and woods to save them. They were not to be grubbed up or destroyed. They were to be kept because they were an amenity. That is what local authorities do.
Then what happened? Commercial companies came in and, having bought the woodlands at a very cheap price, applied to the local authority to turn them into agricultural land. The local authority of course refused. It was preserving our amenities. The commercial companies then said, "We claim compensation from the Lands Tribunal. You have stopped us developing this into agricultural land; so you must pay us compensation." Awards have been made—in Canterbury, £50,000 or more. The woods, of course, are never going to be taken down. So this is a sheer windfall for the person making the application. The same is threatened in Hampshire.
As an ancillary part of the Bill, some provision should be made to prevent such exploitation. I have noted down a suggestion for consideration. It is to amend Section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 to provide that compensation is not given for conversion of woodland into agricultural land. The present woodlands, which go back centuries, should not be turned into agricultural land and should not be made the source of profit for the person making the application.
Apart from that, like other noble Lords, I welcome the Bill, although I make the plea that preservation should not go too far.
4.33 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, had it not been for the debate in your Lordships' house yesterday, it would have given me great pleasure to congratulate my noble friend on his maiden speech. However, as it was considered that it would be inappropriate for other speakers to do so, I shall desist. I should declare an interest. I am involved in agriculture and forestry, and I am a director of a forestry company.
I welcome the Bill and congratulate my noble friend on bringing it forward. However, I was disappointed and surprised by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, because he really did wire in to my noble friend. The noble Lord is very agreeable, but it appears that he got out of bed the wrong side this morning. There was my noble friend explaining what the Bill meant and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, saying that he did not know where to start but that he objected to all the detail. I thought that the noble Lord might have started in the wrong place. Like the noble Lord, when I first read the Bill, I did not know where to start because I did not know what it meant. I was glad that my noble friend had the graciousness to explain to your Lordships what this enabling Bill means. Had my noble friend come forward with a Bill saying, "Here is an enabling Bill, but I do not intend to tell you what we are going to do", your Lordships might reasonably have complained. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, joined forces with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. With respect, I think that he too was a little misplaced. Incidentally, having said that he objected to all the detail, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, was not sated with it but proceeded to ask for more. That, again, was curious.
The Bill has wide powers—
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, if I may say so, I asked the noble Baroness about provisions in the Bill. I did not ask for anything outside the Bill. I asked for some explanation of one or two provisions in the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is fine. The noble Lord has it on both counts: he gets what is in the Bill and what is not in the Bill; so he should be well satisfied.
The importance of the Bill is not what it says but what it represents. My noble friend said that it is not a large Bill. It is, however, large in philosophy. It is a positive indication that the Government are helping agriculture to diversify. I do not think that it would be easy to do that, because farmers go into farming to farm. For many, that has been the only way of life. They do not go into farming to run golf courses, to make Victorian rocking chairs or to turn their homes involuntarilly into hotels.
I was interested to note that the Bill makes provision for horses. That must be unique. I understood that the Ministry of Agriculture had ruled that horses were not agricultural animals and therefore that horses were debarred from anything to do with the Ministry. My noble friend has driven a coach and four through those regulations.
I hope that the Government will consider the Bill, modest as it is, as a first step only in helping agriculture to meet the changes of the future which

1105
are unknown. It is right to remind ourselves that agriculture is going through an unprecedented revolution. For the first time in about four decades it lacks a sense of direction. It lacks public support because of such things as the surpluses, and the cost of the common agricultural policy. In the public mind the vast costs of the common agricultural policy, caused, as they are, by the storage and disposal of surpluses, are assumed to have gone to farmers so that the farmers are all right. But that simply is not so. It is true that some farmers, possibly large farmers on good land, may be all right. But most farmers are not large farmers and are not on grade 1 land.
British agriculture is going through an exceedingly difficult time with the prospect of conditions getting worse. Many farmers are in financial difficulties. Many are selling their farms; many would wish to do so were it not for the fact that the farm also happens to be their home. I want my noble friend to understand without any hint of doubt that the farming community is undergoing acute financial strain. After this year's appalling weather in which the harvest was ruined, there are not many farming units—certainly not in East Anglia—that will be in a state of profit. I do not blame the Government for this; it is part of the business of farming. I merely state the fact because it is too often said that the farming community is doing all right.
With that scenario and against a bleak and unexciting outlook, it is not suprising that the industry is depressed. If the Government do not wish to see a declining countryside, they must be fully aware of that fact. I agree very much with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that the British countryside is a fine thing. It would be a great pity if we were to see that countryside become derelict and spoilt. To change it completely is not all that easy. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walston. I do not know whether this would have a vast impact on surpluses. If it did have a vast impact, make no mistake! It would have a huge impact on the countryside as well.
I welcome the Bill as the first step. I am glad that it will enable not just one scheme to be made, but several. The incentives will have to be substantial to encourage change. Whatever may be the income from change, the cost of change—not just the financial side but the managerial, emotional and expertise aspects—will often be way beyond what many people expect.
I am glad to note in Clause 2 provisions for encouraging farm woodlands. I dare say that that will run into difficulties with our friends the environmentalists. Already there seem to be murmurings of disagreement. It is curious that 20 years ago there was an outcry against felling the trees because of the birds, the insects and the landscape. There is now an outcry against planting the trees for the same reasons, which I fancy will increase. I cannot help thinking that there are some people who adopt the old Victorian adage, "Go and see what the children are doing and tell them not to do it."
I hope that the Government will stand firm and encourage this alternative use. If agriculture is considered long-term, forestry is considered very long-term. It is one thing that forestry should provide
1106
an alternative land use but it is quite another that it should provide an alternative income. I was concerned that the incentives would not be high enough and, despite the rebuke which the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, gave to my noble friend today, I was glad that the noble Baroness indicated that the incentives would be larger than had previously been mentioned. That is a good thing.
I hope it will not be totally out of place, while discussing woodlands, the woods and the countryside, to refer to the recent terrible gale damage in some parts of the country—certainly in our area—where whole woods up to and in excess of 100 acres have been blown down as also have freestanding trees, whether hardwoods or softwoods. I believe that the amount of timber which has been blown down varies from 3½ million cubic metres to 7 million cubic metres. That is difficult to comprehend unless one puts it into perspective by saying that the area blown down would normally have been felled at the rate of about half a million cubic metres per year. Therefore at the lower estimate seven years' worth of timber has blown down; and at the higher estimate 14 years' worth has blown down.
Apart from the difficulty and expense in clearing this timber, it will produce a major marketing problem. Prices, like the Stock Exchange, will go haywire. The cost of clearance and of replanting will be phenomenal but, not just in the large forestry areas or in the large estate areas because it is the ordinary small, individual owners and small farmers who have suffered this very great destruction. The irony is that in many cases had the owner wished to fell the tree—the tree which subsequently blew down—when it stood, he would not have been allowed to do so. He would not have obtained a tree felling order because the tree was considered something of beauty. There has now to be replacement at great cost.
I should like to ask my noble friend—if it is not too far outside the ambit of the Bill—whether she would be kind enough to let your Lordships know the rules or the provisions governing the grants for replanting. The Government acted with extraordinary alacrity and allowed I think £3 million for replanting. Is that to go just to local authorities or is it to go to the private sector? Will those private individuals, who whatever the size of their holding may have suffered damage which they wish to repair and replace, be able to have access to any of those funds?
I welcome the Bill. I hope that it will be the first of a number of measures that the Government will introduce in which they will be shown to be actively and unashamedly helping agriculture through a period of unprecedented and unforeseeable change.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I was not in your Lordships' House yesterday when I understand that it was agreed that succeeding speakers would not congratulate a maiden speaker on his or her speech. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me—in fact I hope that you will echo my sentiment—when I infringe that agreement slightly to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Borthwick, on his admirable brevity, setting a splendid example to noble Lords.

1107
I follow the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and previous speakers, in welcoming the Bill. I cannot imagine that anybody would not welcome it. I do not follow the noble Earl further beyond noting his strictures about environmentalists. I know he meant them in the kindest possible way.
I speak this afternoon—as I am sure others do—on behalf of those who are concerned for the conservation of our countryside. The Bill provides the authority for the agricultural ministries to enable and encourage farmers to remain on the land. That must be welcome to everyone who is concerned and cares about our countryside, the wildlife in it, the recreation opportunities, the access to the countryside, and the general enjoyment of the public. I am mainly concerned from the environmental point of view. Farmers are essential to manage and care for the countryside in the way that they have done from time immemorial. For those of us who are or have been concerned with national parks it is particularly welcome that the Bill proposes to make grants to farmers on a positive note. We have never liked the provisions in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which make grants to prevent them from doing things which are deemed to be environmentally damaging. This strikes a positive note and that is surely excellent.
I accept that this is an enabling Bill. I had not expected to hear from the noble Baroness the details which she was good enough to give us. I have done my best to follow them. I shall read them more carefully in Hansard tomorrow. However, I have come bearing a message of concern from a number of environmental bodies—the CPRE, the Council for National Parks and a number of others including those concerned with recreation—which have received no reply from the Ministry of Agriculture to their responses to the consultative document. That was made available to them last May. Am I to take it—perhaps the noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong—that what she has told us and what we shall shortly have laid before us will be the response to that consultative document? At this moment in time these bodies are still concerned about a number of aspects, most of which the noble Baroness covered, and, as far as I was able to follow, some of what she said should allay their anxieties to some extent.
Although this is only an enabling Bill, there are one or two relevant points in the Bill on which I should like to comment. Those of us who are concerned with the aspects of the countryside would like to be reasssured that the requirements of Section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986, dealing with the social, economic and conservation aspects and the enjoyment of the public, will be met. I note that that section is referred to in Clause 2 of the Bill. That is very satisfactory but I am left wondering why there is no reference to it in Clause 1. Perhaps the noble Baroness will comment on that when she replies.
The inclusion of the term "farm business" in the Bill has done nothing to allay the anxiety of those outside your Lordships' House and perhaps of some of us within. Schemes for environmental conservation or enhancement, and schemes designed to allow the public at large to enjoy the countryside,
1108
do not all sit comfortably under the heading of "farm business". For instance, some may not be financially rewarded. One can think of quite a number of activities and provisions for the conservation of the countryside, for the enjoyment of the public, which will not bring in money. One would like to be assured that, nonetheless, the grants will encourage them to make provision as required under Section 17 of the Agriculture Act.
I am particularly interested in and concerned with recreation in the countryside. It would be hard to exaggerate its importance. The Countryside Commission in a recent survey estimated that some 84 per cent. of the public at large enjoy recreation in the countryside, and no fewer than 24 per cent. are regular walkers in the country. According to the Association of National Parks Officers, some 90 million people visited the parks in 1986. I am certain that that number was exceeded last year. That is five times the total number of people attending all professional football matches in a season. Should not the Government reconsider the term "farm business" or perhaps amplify it, so as to ensure that the spirit as well as the letter of Section 17 of the Agriculture Act is adhered to? To that end also, and just to repeat myself, I should like to see a reference to that section in Clause 1.
As regards Clause 2, I, as do others, welcome the fact that grants are to be made not only to convert the land to woodland, but to manage that woodland once it is established. It is no less important that farmers should be encouraged and enabled, through grant-aid, to manage and improve the condition of woodlands which exist already and some of which have been neglected for generations. Those, too, should be eligible for grant. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to reassure us that what we shall have laid before us will make provision to that end.
Here again we await MAFF's response to the comments offered by the voluntary bodies on MAFF's woodland consultative document, which was published last March. Needless to say, the requirements in regard to conservation—conserving the landscape and providing for public enjoyment and access—are just the same for woodland as they are for the countryside. The profit motive implicit in the term "business" in regard to Clause 2 may well encourage farmers to convert land mainly into conifer plantations. I should like to stress, as has one other noble Lord, that that has done much to spoil our upland landscapes.
Finally, on Clause 3 I note that the membership of the Development Commission is to be increased. I venture to hope that that will make it quite certain there will be adequate representation of those interested in conservation and the environment as well as those interested in amenity and recreation.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, this is the first, and I hope the last, time that I have to apologise for having to catch a train so I may not be able to be here for the winding-up speech of my noble friend this evening. The alternative is to face divorce, which after 34 years of marriage would be very expensive. I

1109
doubt whether even this Bill, wide though its powers are, would give me a diversification grant for such an activity.
Your Lordships have noted that this is an enabling Bill, despite the criticisms of the noble Lords, Lord John-Mackie and Lord Walston, who complained that my noble friend on the Front Bench gave them too many details. Like my noble friend Lord Ferrers I think that in agricultural terms they were pushing their luck a little in so far as, if she had not, I would be absolutely convinced that they would have said she should have. But that is par for the course, I suppose.
However, as far as I am concerned it is difficult to interpret what exactly the Bill's details and its effects will be. But I can assure the House that its effects will be minimised unless the Government ensure, realise or appreciate three things: first, that planning authorities will recognise the need to grant planning applications further to encourage diversification. Some local authorities do but others do not. Although I recognise the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, I have a brief from the RSPB. My heart, if there is a conflict, lies with solving our rural unemployment problems rather than with the birds and bees. Sometimes, I am sorry to say, there is a conflict. One has to decide which way to go. I was pleased to note the remarks of my noble friend that small plantations will be free from local authority planning.
Secondly, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, raised this point, unless the basic agricultural financial problems of the CAP can be solved and a long-term plan evolved—which in my opinion must be based on price restraint—the Bill will achieve very little, for the incentive to diversify will be lost. Thirdly, the help for farmers to diversify suggested in the Bill will, I hope, mean more employment in the countryside. Much of it, I believe, will be part-time. Unless the Government come to grips with the problem, those who are in receipt of unemployment or social security benefit and who wish to take on part-time work, will not do so if most of their social benefit is clawed back, which it is at the moment. When that happens they are no better off financially, unless of course your Lordships approve of the black economy. I hope that my noble friend can assure me that the Government will keep these three points in mind so as to make this Bill as effective as I and I think every one of us would wish. I therefore wish it well.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I welcome the Bill and the shift in objectives which it sets out. I was encouraged by what the Minister told us about it. Unlike the noble Lords, Lord John-Mackie and Lord Walston, I found it helpful to have the details that the Minister gave us. I must declare a potential interest in that my wife has a very small hill farm in mid-Wales.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, spoke about public attitudes to farmers. If farmers are to be given more grant support—and I think it is right that they should be given this support, as suggested in the Bill—it is important that public opinion is carried with us. To
1110
secure this, diversification needs to be carried out with real concern for the environment and conservation. The need is to encourage management practices which will benefit conservation while helping farmers to increase their incomes in the way that the Government propose.
The chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council said today in introducing his annual report:
"The advent of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas was an important MAFF initiative which seems to have been greeted favourably by farmers. If the principles established within Environmentally Sensitive Areas were to be extended more widely, I believe we should be on the verge of a major breakthrough. The attitude too of most farmers and landowners has become immeasurably more sensitive".
I am greatly encouraged by those words.
I should like to ask the Minister what safeguards there will be—for example for the protection of wildlife habitats. I hope that grants will not be made if any plans propose damage to landscape or wildlife. Farm improvement schemes should, I am sure, include full details of environmental aspects.
It is reported that the eligibility conditions for the schemes are to be onerous and stringent. If so, I wonder why, because there is a need to encourage, not discourage, new entrants to farming, small, family farms and part-time farmers, who are often those who do most for conservation. It is not usually they who grub up hedges or shovel nitrogen on to the land. If the eligibility conditions are at present stringent, I suggest, with respect, that they need to be reviewed and the scheme made as widely available as possible.
I warmly welcome the objective of the farm woodlands scheme but, like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I am concerned about the possibility of more extensive planting of conifers. It was suggested in the consultation document that the aim should be to have 35 per cent. broadleaves in the lowlands and 5 per cent. in the severely disadvantaged areas. That means in fact 95 per cent. conifers in the uplands and up to 65 per cent. in the lowlands, which seems a lot. I am very concerned about acidification, which is damaging all the life in a number of the upland rivers in my part of Wales. We are quite rightly spending millions of pounds on flue gas desulphurisation to deal with the problem of acid rain, but it is well established now that there is a connection between the planting of conifers and the acidification of streams. This is a matter about which we need to take particular care.
We need to encourage native broadleaf schemes, not least to replace the trees devastated by the recent storms. I would prefer to see two-thirds broadleaves rather than the one-third suggested by the Government. I should like to give one other quotation from the speech made today by the chairman of the NCC. He said:
"Forestry, and indeed farm woodlands, have an important part to play in the rural economy but their design and management should also be related to nature conservation, and this is something which is improving fast. Above all, however, afforestation needs to be located in areas which are not of high wildlife interest and at present, despite intensive discussion with those concerned, we are still far from happy about what is happening".
I hope that the Government will pay attention to those words.

1111
It is important that the few remaining semi-natural habitats should not be disturbed. In her speech the Minister said that the timescale for both broadleaf and mixed woodlands was to be extended, and I warmly welcome that. But I wonder whether we need a cut-off period at all. Any finite period of years will tend to encourage intensive and therefore damaging forestry practices. I wonder whether we cannot have continuing management programmes.
I warmly welcome the Government's decision, announced by the Minister this afternoon, to abandon the plan to concentrate on marginal farming land and to look instead to improved land. That is important. There is also, I believe, a need for annual payments to rehabilitate existing farm woodlands which are at present excluded from the scheme. In my part of Wales where we have sessile oak woods, which used to be extensive but are now confined to steep river valley slopes, there is often a problem with over-grazing preventing regeneration. We must remember that the number of sheep in England and Wales has doubled since 1947. I wonder whether the scheme could not be extended to cover existing farm woodlands and possibly also hedgerow trees.
Lastly, I wonder whether the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council will be consulted about what the Minister herself described as an experimental scheme. It is important that their advice should be available as the scheme develops.
5.5 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I too welcome this enabling Bill. I am grateful to have a foresight into what the regulations might eventually hold. It comes in the face of farming going a little wrong compared with the happier days gone by and in the face of European and world surpluses in commodities. The point of it must be to help the farming community survive properly, the farmers to stay in business and the workforce to remain employed while at the same time doing something towards reducing those surpluses. Perhaps we should wonder whether it will achieve those two objectives in any large way. I certainly hope that it will.
Perhaps I may look first of all at the farm diversification and expansion grants. In regard to existing buildings and new buildings they will presumably give people scope and help them find out how to run businesses and whether they are likely to be viable. Somewhere down the line training must come in. For the life of me I cannot at the moment see some of my extremely skilled workers and those of my neighbours diversifying too far away from what they have been used to doing for a life time. Whether the Agricultural Training Board can deal with the situation I do not know, but it is an area that should be looked at.
Secondly, and perhaps a little contrary to my noble friend Lord Stanley, I wonder a little about planning as regards both diversification and expansion. Perhaps the two join together. Agricultural buildings up to a certain size do not need to have planning permission but if an expansion on a holding is
1112
Contemplated—to make icecream from milk, or something like that—and is successful, where does that expansion stop? Can the man who is successful be told when he wants to put up an enormous icecream factory that he must expand no further? The point intrigues me and perhaps my noble friend will be able to throw light upon it when she comes to reply.
I have mixed feelings about the forestry aspect. I am keen on woods but I feel it is somehow wrong that trees should be grown on grade 1 land, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that I feel it is equally wrong that trees should be grown on wild habitats up in the hills. They should be grown somewhere between the two; and to use an expression that was bandied about some time ago, trees should move down the hill to a certain extent.
It is all very well to say that the surpluses come from the good lowlands. In a way, they are the places where the crops should be grown. The surpluses come from people who grow winter wheat, for example, on land which is marginal for winter wheat but which has been very profitable. Those areas would be better suited to trees.
As regards the details that we have been given so far, I feel strongly that, in spite of the fact that my noble friend has been reasonably expansive, the money is still too little. My noble friend Lord Borthwick, who is no longer in his place, made the point about thinnings. It is so easy to confuse money coming in with profitable money coming in. The sizes are too small. I cannot speak about Ireland but I cannot see that to plant three hectares of any kind of wood, except for fun, is sensible. I think that the upper limit should be expanded beyond 40 hectares.
I should like to make one point very strongly. The trees will be monitored and, one hopes, looked after properly. I understand that the grant paid will be reviewed. That was so with the dedication scheme but the grants were reviewed very seldom and in rather a paltry manner. I suggest that when the regulations come into effect the grants, which have been outlined at so much per acre, should be indexed in some way so that there will be no falling back on an early promise. There was a great deal of resentment from some people who had dedicated their woodlands, which was an irrevocable act, as is planting trees. Over the years the money was gradually eroded until it made no sense at all.
In conclusion, I think that this must be a step in the right direction. In the European context I do not think that this will make a great deal of difference to any surpluses. On the other hand, I think that it is preferable to take a gradual step now rather than a large one.
5.13 p.m.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, I should like to use the description that was used by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and say that I regard this as a useful Bill and potentially moderately important. In the time that I shall allow myself I should like to talk about only one aspect, and that is the question of farm woodlands. I want specifically to deal with Clause 2(1)(b):
"grants for abating any financial loss which has been or will be suffered in consequence of the conversion of land from agricultural use to use for woodlands."

1113
That really is the nub of the clause and the scheme.
More than a year ago we in this House debated the last agricultural Bill. Although I am not given to quoting my own speeches unless I can possibly help it, I should like to remind your Lordships of one thing that I said. It was that pressures on farmers to reduce output were bound to increase whether by quotas or by managed set-asides.
"For the farmer the effect of those is exactly the same. All such pressures reduce his revenue, and most of that will go almost direct to the bottom line".
It is about the bottom line that I should like to talk tonight.
I should like to take one example and try some short verbal arithmetic. Let us assume that there is a farm of 100 acres on reasonable grade 3 land. It is growing 100 acres of wheat at roughly three tonnes to the acre and the farmer receives £100 per tonne—lucky man! Let us also assume that the fixed costs have been pared and are very tight. At the moment his revenue will be £30,000. Let us say that he spends £100 an acre on variable costs, which are sprays, fertilizers and seed—and that is all there are—that his fixed costs are £15,000 and that he makes a profit of £5,000. If he plants 5 per cent. of that land he will take 5 per cent. out of production and his revenue will decrease by £1,500. His expenses will decrease by only £500 because the fixed costs, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, remain exactly the same. Therefore, it is a question of 5 per cent. off the revenue and 20 per cent. off the profit. If one increases the area of land planted to 10 acres, then it will be 10 per cent. off the revenue and 40 per cent. off the profit.
Let us be quite clear about the hard arithmetic. Every farmer must make his own calculations, but in the final analysis he is bound by his profit margin and the ratio of fixed costs to total costs. He will have to bear in mind not only the calculable loss of profit but also the fact that for the first time he is doing something permanent and irrevocable to his land. Next year he will not be able to say, "Well, we made a bog of that one, let's grow potatoes". No, it has gone and gone for good. I think that many farmers are likely to say, "Unless I get a really handsome recompense, it may be better to leave the land fallow. At least it will give me the opportunity to use it when times are better or when a new crop emerges that I should like to exploit". I believe that to be the kind of attitude that will be taken and I believe that it is the kind of attitude that should be taken. The industry is in no condition to do other than look carefully and continually at its costs and profits.
I look forward to hearing the response of my noble friend to a number of points that have been raised by your Lordships. In particular, I hope that she may be able to say a little more than she has said so far about the size of grants proposed. In this respect my hopes are not great because she has told us what they are to be and she has said that she thinks they are adequate. If adequate means fair, then maybe they are and maybe they are not. If adequate means effective, then I am sorry to have to say to my noble friend that I can see precious few farmers taking advantage of the offer from the Government if they apply the hard criteria which I have suggested are essential.
1114
I am not too sure that that will really matter. My noble friend has told us, and I agree, that this exercise is experimental. If we find that farmers are not tempted by this, the Government must think again as to whether it is worth offering more. Forestry is a long-term endeavour and we must not rush into things. I am reasonably happy with the observations of my noble friend, in view of the Government's experimental attitude to this project.
We must bear in mind at Committee stage that the Bill is simply an enabling Bill. However, it occurred to me—and I shall continue to stress this question of financial compensation or grants—that in the subsection to which I am speaking it might be better to use the phrase "loss of profit" rather than the words "any financial loss". I do not know exactly how that subsection should be worded. However, I believe that during the Committee stage we should explore the Government's attitude to this matter a great deal further than we have so far. I hope that as a result we shall obtain at least some useful information, if no immediate change.
I finish as I began by saying that this is a well intentioned Bill which could have some useful if modest results. It is on that basis that I welcome it.
5.21 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I was very pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Ferrers raise the matter of the appalling storm damage that has recently been sustained in the South of England. Before I continue, I must declare an interest in that on my land in the Stour Valley between Ashford and Canterbury where there are three estates—Olantigh, Godmersham and Chilham—the most appalling devastation has taken place. Thousands of trees, including very big trees have been uprooted; the whole park has been decimated. I understand that it will take at least two years to clear up.
Even inside the ha-ha—which means the grounds—pretty well all the trees have come down, including some rare and exotic specimens. The only tree of historic interest that withstood the storm is the king holm oak. Fortunately last year I had the dead wood cut out and the tree wired and supported, so it survived. I must not distress the House with my personal troubles, but I have always been a great planter of trees and taken a great interest in them, so the loss of so many of them has been quite a shock.
I congratulate the Government on what they are planning to do regarding the surpluses, which is a step in the right direction; although it will not solve the problem of the surpluses, even if it helps a little, as we have heard today.
Before turning to the subject of trees and Clause 2 of the Bill, I should like to point out that Clause 1 represents an opportunity for offering further recreational facilities to the public. Problems can of course arise when the public has too much access to nature walks, ponds or lakes that the farmer may create on his land; and to a certain extent such excessive access is destructive of wildlife and the natural habitat. No doubt, however, those problems can be sorted out.

1115
I am worried about taking too much grade 1 land out of cultivation. There is always the threat of disease and crop disasters in the world, and as the population is increasing we may find that by taking too much grade 1 land out of cultivation no more surplus grade 1 land remains available.
Over 20 years ago a friend of mine had an estate in New Jersey (or perhaps it was the state of New York). At that time the American Government had a great surplus of grain and agricultural produce, and they forbade landowners in certain areas to plant any crops but paid them a subsidy of so much per acre. The thinking behind that prohibition was that if there were a disaster in the world and a failure of crops, it would not be necessary to plough up trees that had been planted, as we are proposing to do—I am not objecting to that at all—since it would be very difficult to put that land back into productive use for farming. It would probably take three or four years to do so.
I should like to issue a warning to my noble friend on the Front Bench. There is a danger that if we go too far in this matter, should disaster strike the world—and I am not thinking of a third world war, as an atomic war is unthinkable, but rather in terms of crop disease—in view of the increases in population we might regret having done so if we were short of arable land.
We shall be taking some time this evening on the Committee stage of a Bill about horses. I shall be taking part in that debate, so I shall spend only a few more minutes speaking now. In my experience, often the farmers who own the land want to cut down all the trees—at least many farmers do, though some of course do not. Farmers who wish to take advantage of this scheme and put some of their land under trees must be given extremely good advice on the kind of trees to plant, distances between trees and so on.
What I am driving at, however, is that one must also consider the wildlife. Certain types of trees—spruce, for instance—grow so densely that no wildlife can live under them. Your Lordships will no doubt recall that I have spoken about Sitka spruce before. I understand that the Government want to encourage the planting of broadleaf trees. If such trees are planted in sufficient number they will be very beneficial to wildlife. Of course, as we all know, those trees can only be grown on the best-quality land, and so good land will have to be taken for that purpose. Some of the very poor grade land, if not taken up and planted, will also encourage the wildlife which inhabits those areas.
I must stop speaking soon, having already taken up seven minutes. I should like to end by saying that I support this Bill, though I do not think that it will make a great difference to the EC surpluses. It is a step in the right direction and I congratulate my noble friend on the way in which she introduced it.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I think that I can echo the small welcome given to the Bill by some of my noble friends. But it is an enabling Bill. In fact, it is the most enabling Bill that I have ever come across. The immortal phrase,
"contain such supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the appropriate authority thinks fit; and … make different provision for different cases"
1116
occurs no less than twice. So I think I can say that this is a genuine enabling Bill, and I congratulate the noble Baroness on the vigour with which her noble friends defended her against the vicious attack by my noble kinsman with which I quite agreed.
However, let us take what the noble Baroness said in a Second Reading sense. I gather that the main objective of the Bill is to reduce the surpluses. In regard to that, my noble friend Lord Walston asked: where is the money coming from? The Minister might tell us what progress is being made with the EC in getting some of the money which can be saved from growing cereals. It must be a very great deal. On even two tonnes an acre, £30 to store each tonne of surplus and £70 to £80 of institution money to export it will amount to £200 an acre. At that rate you can afford to spend a good deal on alternatives and keep it. If, therefore, the noble Baroness can tell us what progress is being made with getting the funding from the EC I shall be very grateful. As at present constituted, the Bill will do nothing material to lower the amount of surplus grain produced.
The speeches of the noble Earls, Lord Ferrers and Lord De La Warr, were absolutely on the button as regards the situation in farming today. We need to look at a great many people in very different areas, in good arable areas and in marginal areas in the North-East of Scotland, which are in real trouble. If we are to produce a Bill which will keep people in the countryside, it must be—I have to say this—a great deal larger in commercial content than this one. It cannot really be an experimental Bill for very long, because the need to do something about retaining people in the countryside right now is urgent. Therefore, I think that the enabling Bill should have some broader clauses in it to enable other measures to be taken if money becomes available.
There are a whole lot of things which we shall need to know. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, on the Front Bench taking notes because there are many separate questions in Scotland including that of tenants. We have a much larger proportion of tenanted land—25 per cent. or thereabouts—and the provision for the planting of trees on tenanted land requires co-operation between landlord and tenant which does not exist at the present time. Therefore, there will be a difficulty.
I welcome the diversification part of the Bill. I know a little about it. I have seen a number of people who have done most excellent things in tourism, in retailing their produce and in providing other services. But, again, there are snags. For the crofters in Scotland to receive the hill cow subsidy, they need to derive half their income from farming. If they are to diversify so that they have more income, they can remove themselves from the ability to collect a subsidy on the hill cow. A whole number of these points need to be looked at as a matter of urgency.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and very much unlike the noble Lord, Lord Moran, I believe that the scheme is aimed at the wrong place. The amount of money, if the figure is increased to £100 an acre, could well do a lot of good in a marginal area. If it were extended to putting many of these areas in Scotland, and even in England on the Downs, back into their

1117
traditional role of good, permanent pasture, properly managed in a dog and stick manner and combined with forestry, you might be doing a great deal of good there. But I agree totally with the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, that the amount of money offered will not cover the overheads of an arable farm on even grade 3 land. So there are many complications.
Farm forestry should be encouraged. But, it is no good giving a grant to a farmer to plant trees unless there is a reasonable acreage. It is also no good unless the grant is for over 100 per cent. of the cost. A grant of 90 or 80 per cent. presupposes that the farmer has some profit to plough back into the land when that profit is simply not there. I should like an assurance from the noble Baroness that the grants in these cases for planting and maintenance will be enough genuinely to replace some, at least, of the income which the farmer is losing.
The farm woodlands scheme is particularly important for retaining people in the countryside. What happens about some of the excellent schemes which cover areas of hill land, to the pleasure of some people and the dislike of others? The trouble with the big schemes is that they tend to be done by contractors. The men move in at a certain stage for thinning, felling, or whatever it is, and then move out again. If you can encourage a genuine farm woodlands programme you will hold people on the land and maintain the population of the countryside.
I welcome the Bill. We shall look at it and probably suggest a number of amendments and perhaps extensions. I hate to crab, but I believe that it is too little and too late. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, described it as well-intentioned. You know where good intentions lead us.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Carter: I should like to start by expressing a little disappointment at some remarks that were made by my noble friend Lord John-Mackie at the start of the debate, when he revealed that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, had asked him not to be too hard on her. I was disappointed because I was rather flattered to think that I was the only person on whom she had tried this rather disarming technique.
It seems now that my noble friend and I are founder members of a small and exclusive club.
As has been said, this is an enabling Bill. I do not intend to criticise the Government for introducing the legislation in this way. It is an approach to legislation which will be a very useful device for a future Labour Government and it is well noted. Obviously we must await the detailed orders and instruments which will implement the Act. I too was disappointed by the amount of detail that we were required to absorb at the beginning of the debate. I have to confess that I am not as clever as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, so I found it hard to absorb it all. Obviously I shall have to read Hansard and the noble Baroness's speech extremely carefully, but we shall have a number of probing amendments to put down when we get to Committee stage.
We can all agree that the problems of surplus agricultural production must be dealt with and cured, but I beg leave to doubt whether farming salvation
1118
will be found through a combination of pony trekking, bed and breakfast and 90,000 acres of trees on grade 3 and 4 land—if the full acreage under the woodland scheme is achieved.
As regards Clause 1 I should like at the outset to declare an interest as an agricultural consultant, who might well be involved in some of the feasibility studies which will be grant-aided. There was a comment in the consultation paper and in the speech of jobs in agriculture. The chance to diversify on a larger farm could help to preserve farm jobs.
"to target assistance to small and medium sized farms".
I ask the noble Baroness to look hard at that restriction and to explain to us the reason for it. When we have debated agricultural matters in the past I have made the point on a number of occasions that it is the larger farms which produce the majority of jobs in agriculture. The chance to diversify on a larger farm could help to preserve farm jobs.
We also understand that the restriction of grant aid on salaries for marketing activities will not be paid to members of the farmer's family. The phrase used was "no family ties". I think I understand the reason for that, but again I ask the Government to consider the situation of the son or the daughter who is coming home to the farm and who, if they had the chance to be employed on the farm under this new diversified venture, might be prevented from being added to the pool of the young rural unemployed.
I have some specific points to make about the clauses in the Bill. My first point concerns the use of the phrase regarding "adjacent land". As we all know, a number of holdings are fragmented. What then is the purpose of this restriction on farms with adjacent land? I believe there is also an intention to restrict feasibility grants to one per farm. My experience as a consultant is that the first report one does often reveals that the opportunity being considered is not the right one but it identifies other opportunities. In that case will there still be grant aid forthcoming?
If the feasibility study which is grant-aided reveals that the project which is being considered is unviable, will the grant still be paid? I presume from the wording of the consultative document and from the remarks of the noble Baroness that the scheme will be cash limited. How does the department propose to ration grants as the financial year proceeds?
The noble Baroness mentioned that:
"priority would be given to certain types of farm business".
Will she tell the House the types of farm business that the Government have in mind? Obviously we welcome the suggestions regarding the tapering of marketing grants that the Government are considering and the reconsideration of the limits on the levels of grant aid.
A number of references were made in the debate to planning matters. If in fact there is a change of use will the planning fees which are involved be eligible for grant aid? In this sophisticated combination of capital grants, grants on the feasibility studies and the rest, how will the scheme deal with the definition of working capital? If there is a change of use, for example, and there is a diversification into bed and breakfast, tourism or a farm shop there are a number

1119
of incidental expenses involved which fall outside the capital grant area and the grants on the feasibility studies. Will the noble Baroness say therefore whether there will be any help in the form of grants towards the working capital of a diversified business?
It also seems from reading the consultation paper that conservation activities appear to be excluded as such, or is it intended that they will be caught under the other activities which are listed, which are recreation, amenity and leisure?
As a last point on the first clause, I must say that I was intrigued by a comment in the consultative paper which stated that one of the activities with which farmers could be helped was the provision of:
"wet weather games rooms for holidaymakers".
I wonder what exactly the Minister had in mind when she said that, because in her speech she also referred to those activities which occur naturally on a farm. When the statutory instrument is put down I wonder whether it will describe the equipment required and the pastimes which will be eligible for grant aid.
I now deal with the woodland clause, which is contained in Clause 2. This is extremely detailed. I wish to say at the outset that we can all agree that 30 million is an awful lot of trees, but it is the acres that matter, not the number of trees. The crucial point is the number of acres which are caught by the scheme. Whether the Government are successful in achieving their target of 90,000 acres to reduce the problems of surplus production is the important consideration. As everyone has agreed it is a modest scheme. The target is 36,000 hectares over three years.
I wish to quote from a report by the EDC on agriculture, Directions for change: Land Use in the 1990s, just to give an indication of the size of the problem.
"A study by the Agricultural Departments and the Forestry Commission speculated that the potential for new planting of this type"—
that is, farm woodlands
"might total around 80,000 hectares by the mid-1990s".
That indicates the size of the problem and the fact, as we have all agreed, that this is a modest start.
I must admit that I am puzzled as to the objectives of the Government in the Farm Woodland Scheme. When one reads the document which was released on the scheme one sees that the first intention was:
"to divert land from agricultural production and thereby assist in the diminution of agricultural surpluses".
The Government seem to be in a bit of a muddle on this, because over the page it states that those rates (which of course at the time were the lower rates):
"assume that planting would take place mainly on the more marginal farming land within each area, that such land would be … used for livestock rearing and that farmers would probably not choose to plant their most profitable land".
Obviously that is the crucial question—whether the increase in the grant, which of course we welcome, will be enough to persuade farmers to give up their arable farming and to plant trees. I shall return to that point.
Will environmental safeguards also be built in? One of the objectives that was stated in the consultation paper was:
1120
"to protect important habitats for wildlife".
It seems to me that the Government are trying to carry out a balancing act—to increase the production of timber, to secure improvements in the rural economy, to reduce the surpluses in farm production and at the same time to protect and enhance the environment.
I certainly agree that the numbers of trained staff who will be required to advise farmers on both diversification and farm woodlands should be increased. I should like to refer to the debate that took place in this House last evening on research and development. We would all agree that in the case of research into forestry and woodlands even a combination of the Prime Minister, the Treasury and the scientific adviser to the Cabinet could not argue that research into a crop that has a life of 30 years can be described as "near market research".
There is also a technical point on the effect of the Farm Woodland Scheme on farm tenancy agreements, as they will be involved. It is clear from what the noble Baroness said that arrangements between landlord and tenant will be voluntary and that the model clauses which have been agreed between the NFU, the TFA, the CLA and the RICS will be voluntary. There is a simple question to which I think I know the answer. If a landlord in fact says no, presumably the tenant will not be able to take advantage of the Farm Woodland Scheme?
I should like to conclude by returning to the central crucial point about the reduction of surplus production. We now see that it is suggested that the levels of grant aid on the lowlands will be £76 per acre and not the £50 that was suggested previously, with the maximum of 50 acres increased to 100 acres. The House will see that I am extremely old-fashioned and I work in acres rather than in hectares.
Is that enough? A number of noble Lords, all with experience in farming, would say that it is not enough, as evidenced in the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and the noble Lord, Lord Walston. There is no proportionate reduction in fixed costs as the farmer takes out small acreages of cereal to grow trees; we are all aware of that. What we as farmers will be considering is a judgment between a small acreage which we take out of arable crops and which will reduce our gross margins by perhaps £200 an acre, to be replaced by a figure of £76 per acre, which we are told rather vaguely will be reviewed over time. I should like to agree with the point which was made by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, that the grants should be indexed from day one so that the farmer who is intending to take the decision knows where he is.
I think I must agree that this scheme, which is a modest start and experimental, as we all understand, will at the outset have little effect on surpluses at all. Even if in fact the Government achieve their target of 90,000 acres of land after three years, it will still not be enough to make much difference to surpluses of agricultural production.
As a final word, there has not been much discussion concerning the third clause of the Bill about the increase in the membership of the Development Commission, which we all welcome. It

1121
provides a chance to congratulate the Development Commission and CoSIRA on the excellent work that they do.
From this side of the House, we welcome the Bill. We will be constructively critical. We will obviously have to wait for the various orders and instruments that are required and we shall have much more to say when it comes to the Committee and the Report stages.
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I must say that I was disappointed by the noble Lords, Lord John-Mackie and Lord Walston, in their unusual remarks concerning my opening speech. It just shows that you cannot please all the people any of the time! However, it has always been my understanding that the proposer of a Bill must do his best to explain the contents and consequences of the Bill. I believe that when noble Lords come to read the debate they will find the answers to many of their questions. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, will also see that, contrary to what he said, this is a most helpful Bill for farmers who are looking into the future.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked whether there were enough plants available for farm woodland schemes. We have had meetings with the nursery trade which show that they do not share the noble Lord's pessimism. However, there could certainly be problems if we were planning on planting the millions of acres which the noble Lords, Lord John-Mackie and Lord Walston, have suggested as the way in which the scheme should be expanded.
I should like to reiterate to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that the scheme is experimental over the first three years. The noble Lord asked whether diversification grants will cover, for instance, access roads to picnic sites. He also mentioned the problems that may be encountered by farmers in getting planning permission for diversification. The answer to the first question is that it would be more appropriate to discuss the details of the capital grant scheme when the orders are laid before the House, as they shortly will be. However, I can assure the noble Lord today that access roads will be covered.
Secondly, the onus for obtaining planning permission for a diversified project will rest with the farmer and not with the Ministry. However, we are well aware of the potential difficulties. My right honourable friend the Minister and the Minister of State for Agriculture are in close touch with my honourable friend the Minister of State for Housing and Planning to ensure that unnecessary obstacles are not put in the way of farmers who are planning to diversify. The Government have already issued revised guidance to planning authorities earlier this year in Circular 16/87 on the need to respond sympathetically to applications for the conversion of redundant buildings.
With regard to the environmental point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, Clause 2(4) provides that in exercising functions under the clause Ministers must have regard to the duty to achieve a balance between various interests, including the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside as required by Section
1122
17 of the Agriculture Act 1986. That provision imposes the same duty on Ministers in relation to farm woodland as already applies to them when exercising functions in relation to agriculture.
The noble Lord. Lord Borthwick, in his elegant maiden speech, was obviously worried about farmers not being good salesmen of timber. Clearly a great deal of advice will need to be made available to farmers, both on clearing woodlands and on selling their timber. I can assure your Lordships that that advice will be available from ADAS, the Forestry Commission and other sources. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Borthwick, acknowledged that the markets for timber are now much stronger than they were a few years ago.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, spoke movingly of the glory of the trees in this country. As regards his proposed amendment, my first thought is that it might perhaps not sit happily in the Bill. However, we shall see.
I must thank my noble friends Lord Ferrers and Lord Stanley of Alderley for being my angels on horseback and defending my honour! I share the delight of my noble friend Lord Ferrers in the modest inclusion of the horse in this Bill. However, the possibility of horse activities in the diversification scheme does not mean that we are now treating the horse as an agricultural animal. It means that we may see the promotion of horse enterprises on farms as a very appropriate area into which farmers can now diversify out of agriculture.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about responses to the consultation document on the farm diversification grant scheme. I think he mentioned various countryside bodies who had not received a specific response, I reply by saying that over 100 comments were received in response to the consultation report. All have been acknowledged and carefully considered. As a result, a number of significant changes are being made to the scheme to respond to the comments received. All those who commented will be notified of those changes once the scheme orders have been laid before Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also asked why Section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 was not expressly applied to Clause 1. There was some doubt about whether Section 17 applies to farm woodlands. Therefore, we wished to make sure that it would. There is no need to do that in Clause 1 since Section 17 already applies to diversification.
I take very much to heart the point of my noble friend Lord Radnor about training. It is certainly not our intention that bad husbandry should accompany the planting of trees. He is worried about the rates of payment being too small and feels that they should be indexed. We have today announced significant increases over the original payments. Therefore, we can only wait to see whether they are sufficient. We have said that rates will be reviewed regularly.
I suggest to my noble friend Lord De La Warr that farmers will have to decide what the long-term prospects are for their main business activities. Obviously I understand the point about fixed costs but I say to my noble friend that surely we are right to try something positive, especially in view of the experimental nature of the scheme.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to intervene? The noble Baroness will recall, I am sure, that I said myself that it was experimental. It may work. That does not matter. I gave it a welcome at the beginning and at the end.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am most awfully grateful for everything kind, charming, helpful and intelligent that my noble friend has said.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, which of those epithets apply to my noble friend's intervention?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not think we should go on with this conversation.
I make special mention of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, who quite renewed my faith in the Mackie family. He asked me about funding from the EC. It may seem a small measure, but we are working within the EC to convince member states of the need for such things. My right honourable friend the Minister is working patiently and very hard to achieve results in the next Council meeting in a fortnight's time.
With regard to the progress with EC funding giving potential savings on cereals at present grown on surplus land, the farm woodlands scheme is a national scheme since EC forestry policy does not yet exist. However, my right honourable friend will in the coming weeks be issuing a consultation document on the so-called extensification scheme.
My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, while welcoming the Bill, pointed out that it must be seen in the wider context of reforming the common agricultural policy. This is a point which I am most ready to accept. Our new schemes are complementary to, and will help to contribute to progress in, the reform of the CAP. I also agree that a major plank of that reform must be price restraint because of the need for a clearer signal to be given to farmers throughout the Community of the consequences of surplus production.
However, because of the scale of the change which is facing farmers the Government are also encouraging alternative enterprises and alternative uses of surplus land; hence the need for this Bill.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who introduced some extremely interesting issues to which we shall no doubt return during the later stages of this Bill. Both my noble friend Lord Ferrers and my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard expressed concern about the effect of recent storms. I offer my sympathy to my noble friend Lord Massereene.
The swift response of the Government to the widespread devastation to trees in the South and the East of England has been widely welcomed. A special unit called Task Force Trees has been set up by the Countryside Commission to co-ordinate the emergency programme, to assess the scale of the damage, determine priorities, give advice and arrange for the payment of grants.
The Government are providing the commission with an extra £2·7 million in this financial year towards the cost of the programme. Our aim is to achieve the restoration as soon as possible of our heritage of fine trees for future generations to enjoy.
1124
That money will be channelled to individuals through local authorities. There will be grants for restocking woodlands and they will also be available from the Forestry Commission to individuals.
The Forestry Commission has already appointed a forest windblow action committee to deal with the problems of woodlands owners affected by storm damage. This committee has appointed a windblow task force supported by several advisory groups. Its remit is to look at specific aspects of the problem, for example, harvesting, marketing and restoration of the woodlands. The first priority is to assess the scale of the damage. Action is now proceeding urgently and advice to woodland owners will be issued by the action committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to adjacent land in the definition of farm business. This enables the ancillary business to be situated on a site next to the farm and still be grant-aided under Clause 1. The noble Lord asked about feasibility studies of one per annum. My answer is, normally yes, but with some flexibility for future grants if the study suggests some other approach.
Lord Carter: My Lords, actually it was one per farm and not one per annum.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am terribly sorry. You are perfectly right. I misread my note, and I repeat that for Hansard: feasibility study of one per farm. The next point raised was: if a feasibility study indicates non-viability, will the grant for the study be paid? To that my answer is, yes, if the feasibility study is carried out as approved. The third question was concerned with cash limits and which businesses will receive priority. Ministers may stop approvals if allocated resources appear to be in danger of being exhausted. Ministers have yet to decide how priorities will be allocated.
The noble Lord will forgive me if in my efforts not to upset the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, twice in one day I do not answer any more of his questions. I shall write to him on the other points he made. I shall not attempt an elegant last word. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Social Work) Order 1987
Data Protection (Miscellaneous Subject Access Exemptions) Order 1987
Data Protection (Regulation of Financial Services etc.) (Subject Access Exemption) Order 1987
Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Health) Order 1987
6.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness)The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness) rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 21st October be approved. [3rd Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that the four orders under the Data Protection Act 1984 that stand in my name on the Order Paper be approved. Unless any of your Lordships objects, it will, I believe, be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if we were to consider the four orders together since they all in various ways relate to the common issue of the right of subject under the Data Protection Act.
In briefly introducing them I will, with permission, refer to them more shortly than their official titles, as the health order, the social work order, the financial services order and the exemptions order.
The intention of each of these orders is to modify in some way the operation of the subject access provisions of the Act. Some of your Lordships may perhaps feel that this is an example of the Government trying to take away with one hand what has been provided by the other; that no sooner is a right of access written into legislation than we come along with statutory instruments designed to whittle it away. That is not the case here.
The Act itself recognises exemption from the need even to register in cases of national security. It provides also that the right of subject access should not extend, for obvious reasons, to data held for the purpose of prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension and prosecution of offenders, or assessment or collection of tax or duty. It is recognised in the Act, moreover, that further modifications to the subject access provisions may be needed in certain defined circumstances. The Act empowers the Secretary of State by order to provide exemptions from, or to modify the provision related to, subject access in relation to health, social work and financial service data and data protected from disclosure by other enactments. The orders before your Lordships are in precisely these fields, which, as I say, were quite specifically foreshadowed in the Act itself, as requiring special arrangements.
With your Lordships' permission, I will now deal briefly with the intentions of each of the orders. Section 29(1) of the Data Protection Act allows the Secretary of State to exempt from the subject access provisions or to modify those provisions in relation to personal data consisting of information as to the physical and mental health of the data subject which is held by or was recorded by or on behalf of a health professional.
The health order enables a data user to withhold data which is likely to cause serious harm to the physical or mental health of the data subject and also data which might lead to the identification of another individual other than a health professional who has been involved in the care of the data subject. The general assumption is that information will only be withheld on the advice of a health professional, and then only when it meets the strict criteria of serious harm or when it would enable another person to be identified.
Data users in all other cases will be obliged to supply as much information as possible without causing serious harm or enabling another individual to be identified. In those cases where data are withheld the data subject will not be informed since
1126
to do so may itself cause the serious harm which the withholding was calculated to prevent. The Act is concerned essentially with allowing rather than withholding access and it is possible that where information is withheld the data subject may nonetheless be able to benefit from professional counselling.
The social work order, made under powers in Section 29(2) of the Act, deals with data held for, or acquired in the course of, social work and modifies the access provisions in this area. Article 3 specifies the data concerned which broadly is that held or acquired for social work functions by government departments, local authorities and other specified bodies including designated voluntary organisations of which the NSPCC and its Scottish equivalent are the only ones to have applied for designation. The order does not apply to the subject's health data, to which the health order applies—that is, this order does not apply to data held by, or consisting of information first recorded by, a health professional.
The access provisions are modified by disapplying the requirement to supply data when to do so would be likely to prejudice the carrying out of the social work where there is a risk that serious harm could be caused to the physical or mental health or emotional condition of the data subject or any other person, or that the identity of another individual, not himself a social work professional, could be identified or deduced—unless, that is, he has consented to the disclosure. The order makes clear the intention that as much data as possible should be disclosed so long as the purpose for which it was obtained is not prejudiced. In general terms this means that the benefit which the social work is expected to confer on the subject must not be frustrated by the disclosure.
The third order before your Lordships is the financial services order. This is made under the power in Section 30(2) of the Act and designates certain functions conferred by or under a statute relating to, inter alia, the regulation of financial services. Data held for the purpose of discharging these functions will be exempt from the access provisions where to grant access would be to jeopardise the performance of the functions.
The Act recognised this need for restriction since it might, for example, relate to suspected malpractice. Your Lordships will readily appreciate that to grant an individual access to data from which he could discover exactly what was known about him by the regulatory authorities might lead him to attempt to escape justice or to cover his tracks and make the conclusive uncovering of the malpractice that much more difficult. We have had here to weigh the rights of the individual against the need for confidentiality.
We have thought it right to recognise the special responsibility of the regulatory bodies for identifying and taking action against financial wrongdoing. Your Lordships may recall that a provision was inserted in the Financial Services Act 1986 to make it clear that self-regulating organisations and recognised professional bodies could be designated under the Data Protection Act in order that they might be exempted from the subject access provision in respect of some of the data which they hold.
I come, finally, to the last of these orders, the exemption order, which is made under powers in Section 34(2) of the Act. This exempts from the access provisions any personal data the disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted by the enactments and instruments listed in the schedule. The Government consider that these prohibitions or restrictions should prevail over the subject access provisions. The order covers three broad areas: adoption records and reports used in adoption proceedings or kept in the possession of adoption societies and local authorities; statements and records of the special educational needs of children; and in Scotland, information provided by reporters at children's hearings.
I should refer at this point to an issue which has been raised on this order by the Joint Committee. The committee has taken the view that there is doubt about the vires of the second entry in Part III of the schedule to the order in that it refers to an Order in Council which I am informed is shortly to be laid before Parliament reforming the law in Northern Ireland concerning adoption and which will bring that law into line with that in England under the Adoption Act 1976. It would obviously be inconvenient to have to lay another exemption order before your Lordships' House after the Northern Ireland order has been made, which is why we sought to cover the point in this way.
I accept the committee's objection is arguable, although the point was carefully considered when the order was being drafted and the view was taken that, on balance, this drafting device was both intra vires and perfectly proper. Nevertheless, as the Joint Committee has expressed a doubt about it, we shall consider whether we should take a suitable opportunity of bringing forward another order to clear up the point when the Northern Ireland adoption order has been made.
The orders have all been subject to detailed and lengthy consultations between the Home Office and the Government departments primarily concerned with the subject matter. They in turn have consulted widely among the relevant professional bodies and other groups outside Whitehall. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Data Protection Registrar has been consulted. I invite your Lordships to approve the four orders.
Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 21st October be approved. [3rd Report from the Joint Committee.]—(The Earl of Caithness.)
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the memories of your Lordships may go back, some of them nostalgically and some not so nostalgically, to the deliberations of the House on the Data Protection Bill. This is the first time, so far as I recollect, that the provisions have been brought back here in such a positive form, in that, after due consideration, the exemptions of the rights of data subjects are being considered in four fields, which your Lordships may have felt appropriate after the very clear explanation given by the noble Earl of the provisions of these orders, for which we are all indebted to him.
1128
I do not intend to waste the time of the House in discussing those orders relating to education, adoption proceedings, social services and financial services, which quite obviously I should have thought will have your Lordships' agreement. I merely want to concentrate for a few moments on the important order which deals with the exemption of the rights of a data subject on matters of health.
As the noble Earl rightly said, we had a section in the Act—my recollection is that it is Section 29—which provided for provisions to be made where the mental and, indeed, ordinary health of the subject is in question. I noted, as your Lordships will have done, that the exemption with which we are dealing, obviously a very sensible one, has appended the adjective "serious" to the health and mental health provisions. I do not intend to dwell on this for very long because, as your Lordships well know, it is not possible to move an amendment to an order. One either agrees with or disagrees with the order.
I agree with the order but I cannot move an amendment. However, if I were able to do so I might have proposed that the word "serious" may prove troublesome in the future. It is sufficient to say that as regards the mental and physical health of the subject if the information is deemed to be harmful by those qualified to say whether or not it is, that is a sufficient cause for withholding it. I would have gone that far, and I believe that some difficulty might occur with the medical practitioner or, indeed, a dentist talking in terms of "serious" impairment to health.
Having made that preliminary point, which is not of grave consequence, I should like to refer the Minister to the concern which the national council looking after nurses, midwives and health visitors has about a provision in this order. It is a disciplined body. It has ethical rules and so on, as your Lordships will know, which guide its members, and indeed its members are responsible for keeping those principles. They regard their dignity, status and responsibility very highly. I need not lecture your Lordships on the way in which all of us value the services, particularly of the nurses.
In this order priority is given to medical practitioners—priority is also given to dentists, but I shall concentrate on medical practitioners—to decide about a relevant entry that is made in regard to the medical and mental condition of a patient, as to whether that entry is disclosable or not, bearing in mind the effect it might have on the patient.
The nurses, midwives and health visitors are only to be consulted in regard to such a matter if there is no medical practitioner available. The nurses, midwives and health visitors feel that where they have made a note themselves and where there is recorded data for which they are responsible, bearing in mind their professional responsibility, if anyone wants to shoot at them, if I may use the vulgarism, as a result of that entry, then they themselves ought to be the parties—whether or not there is a doctor available—where they have made the entry, to decide whether the data subject should have access to it.
It is a feeling not just of hurt pride but of professional responsibility. I believe the Minister might well wish when replying to the observations I

1129
have seen fit to make to make an announcement which in some way will satisfy the people who operate in the field of social service and the nation's health, for which all of us have a profound respect.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in thanking the noble Earl for his clear, concise and comprehensive introduction to the scope of these orders. I rise to give a broad but nevertheless cautious welcome to the four orders, for what they are worth. I do not wish to be thought to be damning them with faint praise, because on the whole I feel that they represent a step forward in the right direction.
I certainly congratulate the Government on having resisted the pressure brought upon them from some medical quarters to seek that exemption from access should have been directed to all medical records. I also welcome the change in the text for withholding exemption under the health order, which now includes the expression "serious harm", to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has referred. I think that is an improvement on the terms used in the DHSS regulations issued recently. However, I would tentatively suggest, if without perhaps the charm of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in trespassing upon difficult ground perhaps that the word "serious" in that connotation may bring a certain kind of difficulty in practice.
I also welcome the fact that provisional judgments made by social workers have now been exempted from access in the social work order. Also to be welcomed is the fact that the protection for the identities of third parties will not prohibit the disclosure of the names of doctors, social workers or other professional staff involved with a data subject.
However, I have a fairly serious criticism in that none of the orders, even the orders dealing with health matters, allows access to manual records. I understand that there now appears to be considerable support for such access to manual records. The distinction which is made in the Data Protection Act between manual and computer records seems to me somewhat arbitrary. I should be grateful if the Minister, if he felt able to do so on an occasion like this, could give us some indication of why that distinction is still being adopted in regard to health matters.
It may be known to the Minister that the Data Protection Registrar has recently commissioned a poll and has found that eight out of 10 people in that poll thought that the Data Protection Act was to apply to manual records. As I say, perhaps the Minister may be able to indicate why the reservation is still being pursued in regard to health matters.
I should now like to join the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in what he said so eloquently about the position of nurses. I hope the Minister will be able to say something about the nurses, who do so much for so many for so little. The Royal College of Nursing, as the Minister will know, has raised a claim that the health and social work order, in so far as it affects them, is very restrictive. It produces complex access procedures for nurses and puts the medical and dental profession in a central position, which is not totally acceptable to nurses.
1130
The other question I should like to ask the Minister is whether he can do anything about fees. I believe at the present time that there is a maximum fee of £10 for obtaining simple information from a single computer held by a single computer user. In practice there are bound to be multiple applications, and therefore I wonder whether the Minister has in mind, any method by which the cost might be reduced because of the special circumstances of the people making the application.
The last point I want to raise is this. I have not given notice to the Minister about it but I have given notice to the advisers. I have been looking at the order on financial services and have glanced through the list on the various pages to which the functions apply. I have also read the explanatory note in the order. I only wondered, in view of my special expertise in the field of patents, whether there should be a reference somewhere to the very important activities of the Comptroller-General of Patents under the Patents Act 1977. If I were asked to give an immediate answer, I should have thought that the Patents Act would require to be mentioned on the list, but I raise this in case I am wrong.
Lord Terrington: My Lords, let me say just a few brief words about the third order, because I consider that to be a most important one? During the Committee stage of the Financial Services Bill in 1986 I introduced an amendment on this subject. It was designed to ensure that SROs were able to perform their investigatory duties without fear of falling foul of the Data Protection Act's provisions regarding a person's right to access to any data held on an electronic database.
I was particularly concerned that investigations by the Stock Exchange's surveillance division into breaches of its membership rules could be compromised if a data subject demanded access to all personal information held on the Stock Exchange database. Such access could of course lead to that person who was being investigated destroying or altering prior to a disciplinary hearing whatever he wanted to change. As I understand it now, under this order that is no longer a possibility. I am therefore most grateful to the Government for the action that they have taken following the amendment I introduced in Committee.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to those of your Lordships who have taken part in this most useful debate on subject access. We have had a most interesting debate on the Data Protection Act and the question of subject access. It is a measure of the general interest in this new statutory right for the individual to have access to data recorded about him on computer that your Lordships have been present and contributed.
As I said in my opening remarks, I understand that the registrar is to undertake a publicity exercise shortly so that everyone may be aware of the opportunity which is to be theirs from next Wednesday. I should like to pay a tribute to the work the registrar has undertaken since the Act came into force. It will be an additional benefit from our debate,

1131
and that held earlier in another place, that we too shall have helped to make the availability of subject access more widely known.
I should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for the welcome they gave to the orders. They have been worried about the nursing profession. I have been tackled outside the Chamber by some of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who sent his apologies via me for not being able to be here at the moment. It has been brought to my attention already that the nursing, midwifery and health visiting professions have expressed much concern that the health order denies them the right to be consulted by the data user before the decision is taken as to whether information should be released, and that only doctors and dentists are recognised as health professionals who are qualified in that respect.
I am happy to confirm that nurses, midwives and health visitors are all recognised as health professionals under the order. The data user must consult the most appropriate health professional to decide whether to withhold access. Of course in the hospital environment, in the majority of cases this will be the doctor or dentist carrying overall clinical management responsibility for the patient. I can assure the House that in such circumstances the DHSS guidance makes it absolutely clear that this practitioner should seek the advice of other health professionals who have had a significant input into the patient's care. Those professionals are to be consulted by the practitioner and will include nurses, midwives and health visitors. I hope that satisfies the major concern of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords—
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall go further.
Lord Mishcon: Good!
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there will also be circumstances in which doctors have not been involved. It will be appropriate for the data user to contact one of the other 17 health professionals listed in the schedule to the order. It is for the data user to decide who is the most appropriate health professional. In many cases, especially in respect of work in the community, the most appropriate professional is likely to be the nurse. That position is provided for in the order and is reflected in the guidance issued by the DHSS. I hope that covers the second point of the noble Lord's concern.
Another point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, was the inclusion of the word "serious". I gather that I was pretty unpopular in the office yesterday because I did not have anything to do with criminal justice. I am delighted to get back to drafting such matters with the noble Lords. We believe that to delete "serious" would mean that more information would be withheld than in the present case. That is the reason for including it in the wording. It is also the word used in the Council of Europe recommendation on automated medical databanks.
1132
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, asked about manual records. The proposals do not apply to manual records, though the Government recognise that the public will expect the principles of access to computerised records to be extended to manual records. The DHSS has commenced discussions with the key professional bodies to explore how greater access to manual records might be achieved. The operation of the Data Protection Act will provide useful lessons in that field. I agree with the noble Lord; I doubt whether the Patent Act falls within the vires of Section 30 of the Data Protection Act. I should like to check on that point once again, and perhaps I can write to the noble Lord about it.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I thank the Minister.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Terrington. We owe him a debt of gratitude for introducing the amendment. The provisions of this order flow from what the noble Lord said in Committee.
In conclusion, your Lordships will wish to know that we and the registrar intend to keep the operation of the Act under review, and if it appears necessary we shall not hesitate to revise the procedures in order to improve the operation of the Act, within the framework of the data protection principles set out in the European convention.
The Government believe that the orders are necessary in order to allow the right of subject access under the Act to operate in a satisfactory manner, and that they strike a proper balance between the rights of the individual and the wider public interest. I commend them to your Lordships, and invite the House to approve them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sunday Sports Bill [H.L.]
6.36 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Wyatt of Weeford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD CULLEN OF ASHBOURNE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Admission to tracks on Sundays]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, after ("track") insert ("licensed under Schedule (Licensing of Tracks for Sunday Sport) and").
The noble Lord said: I categorise this amendment as the local option issue. I should like to explain why I believe it is necessary and will be beneficial to the Bill's promoters. I shall refer to the speech made on

1133
Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, in which he said:
"This is a harmless little Bill. It can hurt no one".—[Official Report, 15/7/87; col. 1105.]
I looked at the Independent today. A gentleman called Ken Jones says:
"It is really the Sunday Racing Bill and therefore the Sunday Betting Bill".
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, may be right; Ken Jones may be right. I merely illustrate that there is some dubiety as to the Bill's purpose and consequences. In asking the Committee to support the premise of my amendment, I wish to speak about one or two other interests that do not see the Bill as harmless. In the Newmarket Weekly News in September the head lad at Henry Cecil's yard said:
"I am 100 per cent. against Sunday racing. We work enough hours in the day now. It would disrupt what family life we have. About 55 out of the 60 lads here are against it, and so is everyone I have spoken to".
I listened to a debate on the radio on Tuesday morning in which the whole issue of Sunday, not solely sport, was introduced. I took careful note of one lady who said that she had worked for the Tote. She declared herself to be totally against Sunday racing. She also said that 50 of the employees in the team with which she worked were against it.
I shall bring before the Committee the views of various other interests. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, the picture that he painted is not the picture that has been drawn to my attention. I am certainly not against horseracing or betting. I attend horseracing meetings and I bet. I am against the Bill because it is deficient in a number of important areas.
The Bill says nothing about the protection of employees. I have read the fine words saying that they will be looked after and that negotiations will resolve the issue. We all know that protections must be written into a Bill. I say that with no disrespect to the integrity of those who believe that matters can be resolved. When we consider other issues, I shall be more definite about what those in the industry feel in regard to their chances of proper protection.
The amendment says that when a race meeting takes place other people are affected besides those who race or who work at the racecourse. There are the people round the track; there are those who are forced to work in other ways; there is the total environment. The Bill purports to be concerned not only with racing—if the Bill dealt with racing only it would be easier to debate—but with sport in general. When a sporting event is likely to occur on a Sunday, I submit that the community in the surrounding area can be affected detrimentally.
The schedule proposed in a later amendment says that when the Bill is enacted the licensing authority will have the power to take into account not only those who ride racehorses or make profits out of the industry but also others who are even more detrimentally affected, that is, the people living in the community.
The proposed new schedule states:
"The licensing authority may refuse to grant the licence if they are satisfied that, in the event of the licence being granted, the existence or user of the track would injuriously affect either the health or the comfort of persons residing in the neighbourhood of the track, or be
1134
detrimental of the interests of persons receiving instructions or residing in any institution in that neighbourhood".
It has to be satisfied that that would happen, but no protection would be provided. The schedule continues,
"would seriously impair the amenities of that neighbourhood".
I invite the Committee to say that a responsible body, if it considers that that would happen, has a choice: either to ignore it or act upon it. The schedule continues,
"would result in undue congestion of traffic or seriously prejudice the preservation of law and order".
I suggest that those are reasonable criteria and preconditions for a community that may or may not want the event to take place but that will be affected by the event taking place.
I understand the general trend towards sport on Sunday and what might be called liberalisation. I take strong issue with those who say that it is all or nothing at all, that there are no half-way houses and that because no protections can be built in one must accept or reject. However, if it is a question of the legal right to race horses on a Sunday, that provision can be made without detriment of the kind to which I have referred.
In considering the interests affected, one needs to ensure a balance of interests. I shall be interested to hear the views of those who oppose the amendment and who believe that the interests of residents, traffic and the general environment can be protected by some means other than legislation. I am open to persuasion. As we consider the amendments, I hope to hear that the interests of various groups of people are considered to be as important as racing horses or making money, the two prime purposes of the Bill. If I can be persuaded that those who wish to race horses and make money are prepared to tailor the Bill to take account of the interests that I have put forward, then I believe that the Bill can be passed to the satisfaction of the Committee.
The promoters of the Bill seem to believe that they have taken into account the interests of the people I have mentioned and that they have consulted them. I have not been briefed in detail, but I have read the newspapers. When we come to consider the employee issue, I shall certainly quote the trade union that represents employees and many others. I invite the Committee to say that if the Bill is to go forward we can improve it.
As a local government man all my life before entering the other place and then your Lordships' House, I have always firmly believed in the ability of a local council, regardless of its political complexion, to judge the issues affecting the local community and to be responsible for its interests. The council invariably consists of those living in the locality. Many noble Lords who will vote in favour of racing taking place in certain parts of the country do not live in those parts; they visit on race days. What is at issue is the people who live in an area. Local councillors move about, listen to the people and are advised by them. At the end of the day, they will carry the can. Unless there is a mechanism to provide a voice for the local community, we shall be guilty of enacting one sided legislation. I am certain there will be some contention on that issue.
I seek a willingness on the part of the promoters to take account of the interests that I have mentioned. They should not seek to escape by saying that this is a simple and harmless little Bill.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: In supporting the amendment, I welcome the principle of the Sunday sports law being updated in a form in which it is right. The question before us is what that form should be. I support Sunday recreation—good family recreation or other activity. However, I am not in favour of total deregulation of all Sunday sporting activity.
Let me remind the Committee of the Crathorne Committee of1964. Many of its arguments remain valid. The report stated that,
"there is a case for some relaxation of the prohibition on spectators' sports on Sunday but we do not recommend that it should be completely abolished".
I subscribe to that view. I believe that we need to work out the considered and sensible application of that principle. There should be a balance between the needs of those who want the sport and those whose interests conflict, and we need to find the right balance. It is an important question. The interests of many people will be affected. The noble Lord, Lord Graham refers to the police in the proposed schedule. The local police force is important. Then there are the people who live in the area of the track, the governing bodies of schools, other institutions and the licensing authorities, all of whom could be affected.
If the local community believed that the opening of a track would seriously affect the local amenities, the local authority should have some say as to whether or not it was right to open. The local authority is in a position to balance these conflicting interests. It might give rise to undue traffic congestion on a Sunday. Those who live in the area of a football stadium have said to me that they dread to think of losing the peace of Sunday when the football stadium is opened in their vicinity.
This procedure of a licensing authority has worked well for licensing of sports stadia for betting facilities for many years. I believe that we should give it a try to see whether it will meet the needs of the local authority area. The Crathorne Committee said that we should hit a balance. I believe that we should have a balance, and that the local authority could provide the answer. I support this amendment.
Lord Milverton: I rise to support this amendment. It is very important that a check is kept on Sunday sports. Many people wish that Sundays should not be unnecessarily disturbed by those wishing to play sport. Where this concerns horseracing, or sports where there is gaining and getting of money, one cannot help asking whether it is really necessary on seven days of the week to think just of gaining and getting.
One may ask a person in my position about a sport such as cricket. Perhaps one is splitting hairs if one says that that is slightly different. On behalf of those who have strong feelings on conscience and about family life I support the principle behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of
1136
Edmonton. This Bill needs to be made thoroughly safe. I support this amendment and all the others. Let us not make Sunday simply another weekday.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I support this amendment as moved by my noble friend. It seems to produce a compromise which, as he explained, would allow for racing on Sunday at the same time as providing a safeguard for local communities.
I remember the arguments put forward against the idea of local control on Sunday trading. The main argument was that traders would face a very real risk of losing business to their competitors across local authority boundaries. There was therefore a need to avoid regional discrepancies in order for justice to be done in the market place. However, our local authority sports option deals not so much with public justice as with public nuisance. Moreover, a sports fixture can always be rescheduled. The demand for Sunday sport is not so great that many sports would be competing for spectators within a locality. This contrasts directly with the local trade option, where competition is very concentrated.
The issue here is not one of justice but more of nuisance. Under a local sports option the local community has within its grasp the power to say no to the opening of a track on Sunday because it feels that it would impair the amenities of the district and disturb the peaceful environment that it prefers to have one day a week. After all, the local population will know and experience the consequence of Sunday sport. I feel that on reasonable criteria it is in a better position to decide than a similar form of centralised control.
The most important result of including this amendment in the Bill would be to safeguard the interests of the local community. It is the lack of such safeguards in the Bill at present that worries so many people.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps my noble friend will be good enough to confirm that she is speaking on this matter in a personal capacity from the Dispatch Box, because it is the tradition on our side that we do not take an official view on Private Members' Bills.
Lord Denning: When we had the Sunday trading Bill I was in favour of local options, of the local community granting permission or not, with regard to do-it-yourself centres or garden centres and so on, because this is a matter which concerns a community and the attitudes in one district or county of England are different from those of another. I do not live so very far away from a big racecourse. It is the nuisance—the congestion on the roads, and matters of that kind—which affect the local people. Let it be a local option. Let it be dealt with by the local authority, which knows the feelings of the place. I support the amendment.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: It would not be a harmless little Bill if, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, would like, we spawned from it a vast host of new licensing authorities. I cannot imagine anything worse than the spattering blare of lots of little committees and

1137
authorities all deciding whether or not this cricket field, that football pitch or that athletic ground should be allowed to open.
The schedule provides that one obtains a licence for two years and one has to notify in advance of the whole two years how many Sundays one proposes to use the sports ground on in each year. That is a total impossibility. If one takes the example of football, there might be a replay of some important cup match. How does one know on which Sunday, or on how many Sundays, this will take place? Although there may be a good intention behind this schedule, it is utterly impractical and would make restriction where none exists today.
We already have at least 3 million people a year attending sporting functions for which they are charged entry. There is none of this regulation. I thought that we had reached a period in our lives where we wanted less regulation and not more, especially when it is quite unnecessary. I do not see how anybody will be able to say so long in advance what grounds will be used, when, for what and why.
I should like to correct one misapprehension which seems to be gaining ground quite rapidly this evening. This is not a Bill simply about racing. It covers the whole of sport in Great Britain. It covers Wimbledon finals on Sundays or the Liverpool v. Everton cup match last Sunday, which was broadcast by the BBC. That was of course aiding and abetting the keeping of a disorderly place! Do let us realise that we are not talking in this Bill about one narrow aspect of sport but about all the sporting activities of this country which are very much valued. Many would like to be able to perform them on Sundays as well as any other day.
7 p.m.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has usefully reminded Members of the Committee that this is a Bill not only about racing—although it was as a Bill about racing that it came to my attention very belatedly in the last 36 hours. As it is a Bill on racing, it is also a Bill about betting, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has said.
It is difficult to dissociate the two considerations, but if we can for a moment I should like the Committee to consider the local disruption that can occur when a large sporting event takes place either close to or, as happens in places like Leicester, in the middle of a large community. All the people who live there are affected in one way or another.
There are those who want to take part in whatever joyful activity it may be and there are those who have to provide the services for them. There are those whose livelihood depends upon providing those services and who will not be looked well upon by their employers if they decline so to do, whatever any act of Parliament may say about wrongful dismissal. There are those whose duty it is to keep the traffic moving and those whose duty it is to separate the fierce and sometimes bloodthirsty encounters of those who are not participators in but spectators at the joyful and harmless occupation. There are those who have to get the crowds there and those who have to bring them back.
1138
We are talking not only about the little local cricket club, the ground, that the noble Lord referred to, but also the large amphitheatre and stadium. I therefore think that as long as the Bill is in its present shape and does not distinguish between large and small activities, the onus must be on the promoters of the Bill to protect those affected by the large events they may wish to authorise. They cannot shelter from that duty by saying that it is not necessary to produce that protection in regard to the smaller activities which will thereby be facilitated.
That being so, it seems to me that there is a good deal of sense in giving power to the local authority to decide what goes on in the local community. I must remind the noble Lord that it is not a question of scattering the country with a vast list of new licensing authorities. They all exist. The local authorities already exist; they are licensing authorities; they carry out exactly these functions for other purposes. They have a staff equipped and trained to do so, with remarkably little fuss and at no great expense. This would not add to the expense one whit.
I do not doubt that the Minister—I do not need to read over his shoulder to tell the Committee—will in due course say that the amendment is flawed and that the schedule is wrongly drafted. Ministers always say that and I regret to say that they are always right when they do so. But it is not the function of those noble Lords who wish the Bill to proceed in a proper manner to draft it so that it does. It is the Committee's function to bring upon the promoters of the Bill notice that that is a requirement of this Chamber if the Bill is to proceed. That therefore seems to me good ground for regarding with some favour what the noble Lord Lord Graham of Edmonton, has proposed to the Committee.
I say only this. It is, as the noble Lord has said, a Bill about betting as well as about sport. if the two remain wedded, as they now are in the text of the Bill—it is, after all, also a Bill about racing and we know where the motive power for this Bill lies—if it is a Bill about racing and about betting, then it will not be economically worth while having the Bill unless all the betting shops in the high streets are open when racing takes place. As the Bill is drafted they can be open whenever any function takes place at any venue in the country. That is a sweeping commission.
If the decision as to whether racing or another event is to take place is delegated to the local authority in whose area it is proposed to hold it, and if there is later proposed, very sensibly in my view, permission to keep the betting shops open on Sunday only on days when there is racing, then the Committee would, if the Bill is not amended again after this amendment, be delegating to the local authority in Derby or Leicester the decision as to whether the betting shops should be open on Sunday in Norwich, Exeter, Oxford or Cambridge. I think noble Lords might think twice about that if they happen to live in Norwich, Exeter or Cambridge.
Therefore, I support the noble Lord in his amendment, but, first, he will almost certainly need to have it redrafted and, secondly, if it is accepted it will be necessary also to untie it in some way from this great mass of betting shops, which I do not think any of us want to see open on Sunday anyway.
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps at this stage it would be appropriate for me to say a word or two. The Government's position on racing is that, provided suitable arrangements are made for betting to take place lawfully, we see no reason to stand in the way of horseracing on Sundays. That is the view that we have expressed before and are expressing again. We do not have any plans at present to introduce legislation of our own on this subject, so it will be for the Committee to decide how to handle the amendments before it.
I say to my noble friend Lord Milverton, who is very much one of those who wants to keep Sunday special, that already there are over 5,671,000 people—that is, one fifth of the paid working force in 1986—working on Saturday and Sunday or on Sunday by itself. For them Sunday is a day that is rather like many others. Indeed I suspect my noble friend does one or two duties on Sunday that he does not do during the rest of the week.
Because of the schedule in Amendment No. 19, which is consequential on this amendment, one can see some of the effects that this will have. Indeed my noble friend Lord Elton pointed out that it should be the responsibility of those who organise the events under the amendment to make suitable arrangements if they are held. I take my noble friend back to the Crathorne Committee, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Brentford, because this committee made recommendations for change for sport. It sought as part of its balancing act a distinction between sports played for reward, which should continue to be prohibited on Sundays, and those played by amateurs, which were acceptable even if they drew big crowds. So since 1964 we have had amateurs being allowed to play on Sundays drawing large crowds, and for over 23 years some of the things that my noble friend has wanted have already been in existence.
The definition in the Crathorne Committee report seems an increasingly hopeless distinction for the purposes of Sunday observance and sport. Therefore in view of changing attitudes we do not think there is much purpose in looking back and taking too seriously some of the committee's amendments.
We think that the amendment proposed would be additionally restrictive on the operation of sports on Sundays and we see no justification for applying to sports the burdens of licensing arrangements. It would be a huge burden on a wide variety of sports, as set out in the schedule introduced to this amendment.
If this amendment were to be carried on a Division, if that is what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, would like, it will have very serious repercussions on those people whom he seeks to support in other ways, such as the Prison Officers' Association—some of whom find Sunday is their only free day and would like to go to some of the sports, which probably will not be held under the schedule—or indeed the firemen and police, who work some weekends.
Noble Lords: Oh no!
The Earl of Caithness: That is true, and I hope the noble Lord will take it on board.
Lord Elton: Is my noble friend suggesting that the Prison Officers' Association is actually in favour of this Bill?
The Earl of Caithness: No, what I was saying—my noble friend was quick to try to turn my words, but he was wrong—was that the effect of the amendment would have serious repercussions on other sporting events that exist at the moment. People who work on Saturdays and find that Sunday is a free day may wish to go to such a sporting event but they would not be able to in the future.
Lord Manton: Perhaps I may comment briefly on one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, in proposing his amendment. I am speaking now only from a racing point of view, but I suspect that what applies to racing applies to cricket as well. The racing fixture list is compiled about 18 months to two years before the racing takes place. The fixture list is drawn up in about March of one year for the following year. One may be talking in March about an event that is to happen in December of the following year. Local authorities can change. What is acceptable to one local authority 18 months in advance may well not be acceptable 18 months later.
The racecourses will not have many opportunities to race on Sundays anyway, but if a racecourse gets an opportunity to race 18 months later the amendment suggests that one has to go to the local authority for the licence. I do not think that a local authority would be in a position to give authority 18 months in advance. If it were, there could be a local election and the decision might be overturned. A racecourse which had advertised the meeting would find itself in an extremely difficult position. I suspect that that might also happen to a cricket fixture list and to other sporting events.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps I may deal with the point fairly made by the previous speaker. We are talking about legislation and powers. If this Chamber and the other place were to take a decision on the matter, there is nothing to say that a subsequent opportunity for a change of mind would not result in a change of legislation. If the noble Lord is saying that one council which approved the fixture list that was presented to it would be in danger two years later if there were a change of control and a change of heart, the answer is, yes. That is what we call democracy. If the second group of people were so minded as to change something, they would be doing it because they believed that it was in the interests of the local people. They could be right or they could be wrong.
I should have said this at the beginning, but I did not and so I do so now. I certainly do not put forward the schedule as complete and perfect. I am well aware of the drafting errors that can be pointed out, but let us stick to the principle. The principle I am asking the Committee to accept is that, in addition to the many other people who are consulted about whether a race meeting, a football match a tennis match or a golf tournament is arranged, the local people should be consulted. I suggest that this be done through their representatives. That is a fair point.

1141
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, tried to tell us that this would open up a can of worms. He said that a multiplicity of boards and committees would be spawned. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointed out that if one wants to be dramatic one can use words like that, but if one wants to be practical and if one has good will one can find ways around it.
The Minister told us that the Government see no objection to horseracing and betting on a Sunday if arrangements can be made. I have a letter before me from a Member of Parliament, who says:
"I am very much against horseracing and gambling on Sundays".
It is signed, "Margaret Thatcher". I shall repeat the letter:
"I am very much against horseracing and gambling on Sundays".
The letter was to a constituent. The letter is of some age and she may have changed her mind, but this lady is not for turning. On the other hand, she is apparently able to change her mind. She changed it once and she can change it again. I say to Members of the Committee: besides thinking of your interests in the matter, think of the people who are going to be affected locally.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell us the date of that letter?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It is dated 9th June 1970.
Lord Elton: As the noble Lord has manifestly not sat down, perhaps I may ask him to address himself to one narrow point which I think would help the Committee very much.
My noble friend Lord Manton is concerned about the possibility of the revocation of a licence after it has been granted in the 24 months that may elapse between the grant and the event. Does the noble Lord agree that the power of revocation of licences is restricted to paragraph 13 of the schedule and that the grounds for a revocation are all listed there and relate to the mismanagement of the track, public safety or analogous conditions? There is no power to revoke it on a political whim. It is simply a matter of a clear breach of the circumstances when the licence could be held to be valid. It would be helpful if the noble Lord could confirm that.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Elton. Paragraph 13, which is headed "Revocation of licence and appeal therefrom", takes up most of the schedule. Care and concern has been taken to make sure that there is fair play if the licensing authority considers for one reason or another that the licence needs to be revoked. I say again to the noble Lord, Lord Manton, that I am certainly in the business of looking at amendments to this schedule at the next stage if the principle of the schedule to allow local people to express their views is accepted by the Committee. I wish to press the amendment.
7.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30, Not-Contents, 35.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Ingleby, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Kissin, L.

Attlee, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Brentford, V. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Brockway, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Bruce of Donington, L.

Nicol, B.

Caldecote, V.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Carter, L.

Seear, B.

Coleraine, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Denning, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Elton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Faithfull, B.

Underhill, L.

Gallacher, L.

Vinson, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Allerton, L.

Manton, L. [Teller.]

Balfour, E.

Merrivale, L.

Benson, L.

Monson, L.

Blatch, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craigavon, V.

Newall, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Orkney, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Reay, L.

Greenway, L.

Roxburghe, D.

Head, V.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Hemphill, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Leverhulme, V.

Trevethin and Oaksey, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Windlesham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L. [Teller.]

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly
7.26 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 7, after ("used") insert ("after 2 p.m.)".
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to achieve a degree of certainty in the Bill which is a case of all or nothing. There is no time element in the Bill as regards the sporting event. There is no restriction on the playing hours of other sports. The only restriction is in respect of the opening of betting shops. I believe that two o'clock is a much better time to legalise the other events.
We are looking at a series of imperatives that we are trying to protect. It is not merely a question of Sunday morning and of worship by Christians and others; we are trying to protect Sunday morning as such. In later amendments I shall return to my deep desire of trying to provide the maximum protection for those who are forced by circumstance, economic and otherwise, to work on Sunday. Therefore, I am anxious to make the legalisation of the commencement of sporting events on Sunday as late as is practicable. In practice, a two o'clock start on a Sunday is not far from that which is the vogue. Not many events start earlier than that time on a Sunday. The amendment is an attempt to give the Bill a little more meaning while protecting a number of people who have no protection at all under the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I should like to draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, to the words at the top of the Bill. He will see that the hour of 12 noon is mentioned. I do not think that this has anything to do with betting offices but rather with the starting of events. I thought that the noble Lord had said that the time was not mentioned.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: With respect, I said that the only reference in the Bill to time was the noon in respect of betting but as regards the commencement of events there is no control. The problem is that the Bill seeks to serve a number of purposes, one of which is to legalise betting on Sundays. We are also trying to be fair to the promoters who tell us that the Bill is about more than betting; it is about the holding of sporting events. In this amendment I am proposing that sporting events are not commenced before 2 p.m. It may not be acceptable and the Committee may take the view that it wants no restriction of any kind at all.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Airedale: I should like to interpose a few words at this point. I have tabled two amendments, one of which, Amendment No. 6, is very much on the lines of the present amendment. My second amendment, Amendment No. 11, simply suggests that the opening hours of the betting offices should be the same as those of the racecourses, and perhaps I may now speak to that amendment also. I should make it clear that I am speaking only about horseracing.
I was very impressed by the Second Reading speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford. I remember that some years ago I heard a very impressive speech from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Coggan, who was of course speaking from the Bishops' Front Bench. He spoke several times in this Chamber about a matter which was very dear to his heart; namely, the preservation of family life at all costs. That particular debate was on an occasion very similar to this one. We were discussing Sunday afternoon sport. He was not against the idea at all but his message was: "Don't start too early in the afternoon, that's all, because if you do, you will injure that splendid occasion, the family Sunday lunch". The pace of modern life today and the large numbers of people who do shift work and so on mean that Sunday lunch may be the only time in the week when the family come together. Sunday lunch also ensures at least one square meal a week for young members of the family, some of whom may subsist for the rest of the week on junk food taken at uncertain and irregular intervals.
The other day I opened at random a copy of that reliable guide, Sporting Life, and I found that one of the race meetings that day began at 2.30 p.m. I suggest that we declare that Sunday horse racing shall begin at 2.30 p.m. I do not suppose that at the races a bet for the 2.30 race can be placed with a bookmaker before 2 o'clock, so I should have thought that if a 2 o'clock start were right for the racecourse on Sunday then a 2 o'clock opening would be equally right for the betting shop.
1144
I have heard it suggested that there might be a big race taking place and that there might not be time for all the punters to be accommodated should there be a 2 o'clock opening. I do not follow that argument. I understand that Sunday racing will take place at only one racecourse, so the scene in the betting shop will not be similar to that on a hectic Saturday when there are perhaps five race meetings and races taking place at 10-minute intervals all through the afternoon. I should have thought that the punters could be adequately accommodated on Sunday with a 2 o'clock opening for both the betting shop and the racecourse.
The two amendments that I have tabled refer to British summertime. I have to accept that it might be thought desirable to have a race meeting on a Sunday in the middle of the Christmas holidays, and daylight hours being as they are in mid-winter, it would not be satisfactory for a race meeting to begin at 2.30 p.m. I am afraid that on that particular Sunday of the year the family Sunday lunch might have to suffer, but I daresay that not too much damage would be done.
Viscount Brentford: In supporting this amendment, perhaps I may briefly endorse the remarks of both the noble Lords, Lord Graham and Lord Airedale, with whom I agree. Different groups of people would be affected by sporting activities that go on all day on Sundays. I also endorse everything that has already been said about the family.
Secondly, I think that we should remember the local community. Sunday morning is a time of peace and quiet for many people. I touched on that point earlier when we were discussing the previous amendment. I believe that it is very worthwhile to keep some part of every week free from noise, traffic congestion and everything that accompanies large sports meetings. This amendment will keep Sunday different from every other day of the week. For that reason I endorse the starting time of 2 o'clock. Further, there may be churches close to sporting stadia and it may prove difficult for churchgoers if they cannot park nearby. There are of course many other problems associated with large sports meetings.
For those reasons I believe that the 2 o'clock start is infinitely preferable to having a meeting going on all day.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: I support the amendment because it seeks to limit the harmful effects of the Bill on employees whose needs, as has already been mentioned by many Members of the Committee, are ignored in the Bill. During our discussion of the Shops Bill, this Chamber made it clear that whatever its merits, it was wrong—and I think that it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who used the phrase—to smuggle into the Bill a worsening of employees' conditions. Whatever the standards used, by requiring people to work on Sundays this Bill is worsening their existing rights and expectations as well as those of their families. Therefore any way in which the Bill can be improved so as to limit the ill effects of this legislation on those employees and their families will, I hope, commend itself to the Committee.
Lord Manton: I should like to comment very briefly in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. Certainly the intention of the Bill is for racing to take place on three courses—perhaps geographically in the North, South and Midlands—on the Sundays when racing is allowed. That will initially perhaps amount to seven Sundays, so we are talking about 21 race meetings. The noble Lord seemed to think that there would be only one race meeting on a Sunday.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord, Lord Manton, pauses to recollect what he intends to say next. Where does it appear in the Bill that the intention is only to race on a handful of Sundays?
Lord Manton: That is correct.
Lord Elton: But where in the Bill is it stated that that is the intention? We are debating a Bill, which is a draft Act of Parliament, that may allow these things to happen on every day of the year except Good Friday and Christmas Day. Where is the restriction to which the noble Lord refers?
Lord Manton: We shall come to that when we come to my amendment later on.
Lord Elton: Is my noble friend saying that if the Committee agrees to his amendment that will be the effect of the Bill but that as drafted at present the Bill permits racing on every Sunday? I think that that is the point that the noble Lord was addressing.
Lord Airedale: Do we not have to entertain the possibility that Sunday racing will catch on and that there will be a clamour from racecourses all over the country to have their meetings on Sunday'? We cannot tell how popular it will become.
Lord Manton: The Jockey Club very closely monitors and controls the fixture list. The Committee will have to take it at face value perhaps. The Jockey Club has stated that there will not be more than perhaps 12 Sundays on which racing can take place. There is absolutely no intention of allowing racecourses to say, "We want to race on Tuesday," or, "We want to race next Sunday". As I explained earlier, the fixture list is drawn up two years in advance, and is very carefully approved, controlled and fine-tuned. That is the answer.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has not understood the full implication of his amendment. If it were the case that no sporting event where admission was charged should take place before 2 p.m., it would make utterly impossible such events as one-day cricket at Lord's, because they have to begin well before 2 p.m.; otherwise they do not get a result. Likewise, any sport which requires a great deal of daylight, like motor racing or motorcycle racing, has to begin before 2 o'clock and must be able to do so. On the other hand, if you only begin racing at 2 p.m., in the winter it will be dark before the last race.
So in one way or another, although no doubt the amendment is intended to be helpful, I do not think it would help anybody. Goodness knows what one
1146
would do with the vast crowd of a quarter of a million at Silverstone and their Sunday lunches, while they were waiting for the performance to begin at 2 p.m. Normally I think that they put on other races for them while they are waiting. I think that the amendment would simply wreck a number of sports that take place already on Sunday, because the intention of it is in some way to regulate existing sports.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I always hesitate before disagreeing with a fellow member of the MCC, but if I may say so to my noble friend Lord Wyatt, surely Sunday one-day games do not begin before 2 p.m. Am I wrong about that? Maybe I am.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: The noble Lord is quite wrong. I live close to Lord's and I am frequently woken up early on a Sunday by people queuing at 7 a.m. for a start at 10 a.m. or 11 a.m.
Lord Elton: I do not wish to weary the Committee or my noble friend Lord Manton on this question, but he said that the intention would be evident on his Amendment No. 9. Although I see that there is a reference to permission for racing being granted, I see no reference to the number of permissions that may be given. The Bill, even as amended by that amendment—and we are not discussing that amendment—would appear to give a power to race on every Sunday.
We are familiar with undertakings given by governments, when large powers are claimed, not to use them. The persuasive argument on those occasions is, "If you do not use them you may not have them". So I am not persuaded by my noble friend's saying that this is only to happen on seven days a year, because it seems to me that it is not in his gift, or in anybody's gift at the moment, to say how the power may be used, once it is there, in five, ten or fifteen years' time.
I do not wish to detain the Committee longer, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for the reason given by the right reverend Prelate in the Second Reading debate, that we must seek to limit the effects of this Bill because it is wrong to try to change Sunday by fraying the edges. That is what the right reverend Prelate said. If we are to change Sunday, then let us only change the afternoons.
At present, a great many things happen on Sunday. As I understand it, it is not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to stop those. He wishes to limit the permissive effect. if that is not the effect of his amendment, it can always be rectified on another occasion if he so wishes. In any case, he may wish to reflect until Report.
The Earl of Caithness: That is the effect, as I understand it, of the noble Lord's amendment. It will affect not only cricket matches, but also British open golf and Wimbledon if they start before 2 o'clock. It precisely affects sports that take place now.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It is perfectly true that rather than have, as the Bill stands, a sporting event at which money is charged for admission starting at any time of the day, we are trying to limit the time.

1147
Some people may argue that 2 o'clock is too late. The Crathorne Report suggested 12.30. This Bill is absolutely silent.
Points have been made in the Committee about the manner in which local people may be affected—the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, mentioned this—by people who queue. That may not disturb the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, but it may disturb other people. It may be that 2 o'clock is the wrong time. Certainly one envisages the ability to gain admission earlier, and I wonder whether the noble Lord has heard of arrangements for pre-selling tickets. There is a principle involved in trying to restrict the disturbance on a Sunday to the afternoon, as opposed to having an elastic time.
However, I am not in the business of standing in every ditch and fighting on every issue. There are other issues that need to be debated. I have listened very carefully to what some people have pointed out about the serious difficulties in putting in a time. I am not persuaded that a time need not be put in, though I am satisfied that we have served a purpose on this issue by debating it tonight for 17 minutes. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford moved Amendment No. 3:
Leave out Clause 1 and insert the following new clause:
("Sporting events on Sundays.
The entertainments and amusements to which the Sunday Observance Act 1780 applies shall not include any race, athletic sports or other sporting event.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is intended to clarify what the Act is all about, so that people may not be confused into thinking that every place which has a sporting event is a track. It also makes it clear, doubly sure, that anyone involved in promoting, running, organising or taking part in the running of a sporting event for which admission is charged will be free from prosecution under the Sunday Observance Act.
When the Cuerden Park motorcycle scrambling organisation was prosecuted in 1956, the clerk of the course and the chairman of the stewards were each fined £50 and the convictions were confirmed by the Divisional Court. But there were also further convictions for aiding and abetting against the chief marhsall and the starter. So the net being spread so wide, with various humble officials or insignificant cogs in the wheel being prosecuted, we thought it wiser to make it quite clear that nobody involved in the promotion of such an event will be prosecuted. The amendment, also lets out organisations such as the BBC, which regularly televise sporting events for which money is charged on a Sunday, from being under the charge of aiding and abetting. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: If anybody else is going to speak, I think I should just point out that the effect of this amendment would be to make it very difficult for the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, to move his
1148
Amendment No. 4, and he may not therefore be speaking to it. But if he is going to do so, then I need not say that I do not agree with it.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: May I very briefly say what I said at Second Reading? As a magistrate, I have been very worried for many years that since 1780, when the Act was passed, all the people, not only those promoting but those attending and paying to go to any sporting fixture unless it is for charity, have been infringing the law. I want the law altered so that people are made into law-abiding citizens.
Viscount Caldecote: This amendment clarified the present situation, which is unsatisfactory because a lot of paid sports are taking place which are illegal. I should like to come back to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, made earlier—that we do not want to make Sunday like any other day and have paid sport carried on throughout Sunday. If only we could find some way, perhaps with a different amendment from the one that was defeated earlier, to deal with the subject in that way, I should feel much happier. Perhaps we can come back to this point at Report stage, because this is a very sweeping but tidying-up amendment which does not meet the points that many noble Lords have already made in this debate.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
New Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 4.
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Fine for contravening s. 1.
In the case of any contravention of the Sunday Observance Act 1780 (as amended by section 1 of this Act) in connection with any race, athletic or sporting event taking place at a track on a Sunday, the occupier of the track shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £50,000.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment hinges upon matters that have already been debated. Therefore, in the light of what has transpired, I certainly do not give any undertaking not to return to the earlier debates and the consequences of not carrying through a licence. To be fair to the Committee one needs to reflect upon the consequences of what has transpired. Therefore, to be helpful, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Removal of restrictions on betting on Sundays]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 12, leave out from beginning to (";and") in line 14 and insert—
("(a) in section 5(1)(b) for the words "or Sunday" there shall be substituted the words "or any Sunday other than those Sundays (being not more than seven in number in any period of twelve months) designated by the Jockey Club as Sundays on which betting might take place on Sundays on tracks throughout the United Kingdom (excluding Northern Ireland."").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment. I am trying, as always, to limit the effect of a Bill which has very little restriction whatever. As the Bill

1149
hangs so heavily on racing on a Sunday and betting shops being open on a Sunday I do not want the Bill because it is a unity. However, I acknowledge that there is a desire on the part of certain interests to have racing on a Sunday.
I know that Members of the Jockey Club said on 13th September during their meeting at Sandown that they envisaged that in 1989 racing should take place either on seven Sundays or thereabouts. That does not mean, I understand, seven race meetings. It could very well be 17, 18 or 19 race meetings but held on seven Sundays. In fact it is 21 meetings. It is not so much the 21 spots that may or may not be benefited or affected; it is the seven Sundays that are important. So the purpose of this amendment is to take on board that which has been professed and to decide that if that is what the intention is we must give it effect in legislation. Let us limit it to seven. I beg to move.
Viscount Brentford: I support the amendment. Bearing in mind what my noble friend Lord Manton has said, this amendment puts into the Bill what he says is its intention. It seems to me that we should have in the Bill what is intended. I feel confident that my noble friend will support the amendment. It is an important amendment that will clarify the position. The whole nation will know what is going to happen. Nothing else can go beyond it unless Parliament were so to direct. I therefore feel that the amendment is a right and proper move to incorporate in the Bill.
Lord Manton: I wish to reply to my noble friend Lord Brentford. If he recalls, on Second Reading the current senior steward of the Jockey Club, the noble Lord, Lord Fairhaven, told the House that the intention in year one was to have perhaps three or two but probably one meeting in the North, one in the South and one in the Midlands. I hope that that point is taken. It was to be a special family occasion allied perhaps to a fair or acrobatics— that type of thing. Another point is the early opening or closing of a racecourse. The noble Lord told the House that if that was a success, there could perhaps be an expansion to 12 race meetings. The Committee can read that in Hansard. It is the hope of the Jockey Club that the amendment will not be limited to seven meetings. Perhaps if the amendment were altered slightly there might be more ground for acceding to it.
Viscount Brentford: While my noble friend is still on his feet I wish to ask him whether, if he were to accept this amendment, another amendment could be moved on Report to alter the figure to a slightly higher one if that was thought appropriate on reflection?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: With great respect, I think that this debate is not a particularly serious one. We cannot start having an auction as to whether the number is five, seven or nine. I am not necessarily convinced that picking out racing and taking it up on its own is the right way to do it either. I did not vote for the first amendment, but I at least saw the logic of it. I accept that there are legitimate anxieties on the part of people living near to sites where major
1150
sporting fixtures may take place. But it is not right to have a discussion on the basis of what somebody said on Second Reading and try to write that into the Bill. That is not a way in which we can possibly create legislation in this country.
Lord Elton: I did seek to tempt my noble friend Lord Manton to locate a limitation on the power in the Bill without success on the last amendment. I hope that he will seize the opportunity which this amendment presents him of limiting the Bill to the extent that is in the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has settled on seven days. Twelve days would be one a month. This is a limitation exercise. I hope that we shall not have an auction of any kind.
I hope, however, that the Committee will see reason in this limitation because it provides the means to carry out the experiment which some Members of the Committee wish to see carried out. Members may come back to the Chamber if there is an escalation of the wish to race on Sundays in the five or six years it may take for that escalation to take place. In that case they can seek to increase the permission. Given that the stated intention is to have only a modest number, this is a modest number. I hope the Committee will limit the power thereto.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: The amendment seeks to give the Jockey Club rather unusual powers. It would enable the Jockey Club to decide on which other sports grounds betting might take place through the Jockey Club having horseracing on a Sunday. As the Bill stands at the moment it would be quite possible for Ladbrokes to open a tent on Sunday at Lord's for betting and for betting to take place at show jumping and golf tournaments. That is quite customary on a weekday. One cannot tie this to the number of days on which by whim or necessity the Jockey Club decides to have horseracing on a Sunday because other sports where betting is quite customary take place on a Sunday too.
I understand that the reason for a later amendment is to limit the opening of betting shops off the course to days when there is horseracing on a Sunday. We cannot now put in an amendment of this kind to say that the Jockey Club shall decide whether or not there may be betting at Lord's on a particular Sunday. One reason I am rather pleased about this amendment is that it at last concedes the principle that betting is all right on a Sunday on a track. So the principle has gone. The principle has been admitted that it is all right to bet on Sunday on a track. That is a very good starting point for considering why in that case one should not have betting off the track in betting shops and why it should be limited to seven Sundays or to any other particular number.
I agree with the Jockey Club that one would not wish to begin with more than five, six or perhaps 12 Sundays a year but we have had it clearly conceded by the opponents of the Bill that the principle has gone. They no longer object to betting on Sundays on tracks. I am delighted to hear of their conversion.
Lord Elton: I ask the noble Lord to look at the Marshalled List between Amendments Nos. 11 and

1151
12 and he will see that there is a better alternative available which does not permit betting shops to open on Sunday and which I shall warmly advance. However, it is unwise to count on success. Therefore, it is right to have an alternative open. I dare say that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, may feel it would be prudent to await the issue of the debate on Clause 2 stand part and return to the less attractive alternative—perhaps deposing the Jockey Club in the process—between now and Report. That is the seven day limitation contained in Amendment No. 5. I should be happy to do that and to speak rather more forcefully on the Motion whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill.
8 p.m.
Lord Airedale: I think it follows from most of the speeches which we have had from the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, that the Committee would be a good deal happier if it had two Bills, one dealing with horseracing and possibly greyhound racing and betting shops and a separate Bill dealing with other sports on Sundays with which betting and betting shops are not normally associated.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has done the Committee a service by indicating that once opponents of the Bill concede an inch, they provide the ground for the next step. The noble Lord says that if, in this amendment, we envisage on-course betting on those Sundays then ipso facto we must also concede the case for off-course betting on those Sundays. Nothing of the sort is true. There is a distinct argument.
I take the point which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that the issue has been deliberately confused by certain interests. I mean no disrespect to those interests. They are responsible for running the horseracing industry. However, they have brought before the Committee a Bill which I believe is an attempt to gain popularity by ostensibly legalising the redundancy of an Act which is more than 200 years old.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, tempts me to make more of what he has said. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. However, the fact that we are attempting to improve the Bill as we go along does not mean that we concede for a moment that we may succeed in amending a clause and then eventually decide to get rid of the whole clause. If we wait for the chance to get rid of the whole clause, we may well lose the opportunity to make our argument to improve it.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, is far more experienced in the tactics of the other place than I. In our position, we are attempting to obtain a concession. The noble Lord says that, far from that, when we appear to be conciliatory, we are the ones who concede the point.
Without any prejudice to future action, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 12, leave out from ("words") to ("or") in line 13 and insert (" "Christmas Day or Sunday" there shall be substituted the words "any Christmas Day".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed simply to make Section 5(1)(b) of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 read more simply. I believe that the Home Office prefers this wording. Section 5(1)(b) will then read:
"Betting by way of bookmaking or by means of a totalisator shall not take place on any track … on any Good Friday, any Christmas Day or Sunday before the hour of twelve noon".
It is as simple as that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 14, leave out from ("noon") to end of line 18.
The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment, I should like to make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, in case he is in any doubt, that I am not now a supporter of off-course betting on Sundays, The object of the amendment is to preclude off-course betting on Sundays.
There are a number of points which I should like to make concerning this matter. First, I turn to the question of Ireland. As was said in the Second Reading debate, Ireland has racing on Sundays without having betting shops open. That works very well. I should add that illegal betting is not perceived to be a problem there.
In Ireland, the runners are named on Friday, punters bet on Saturday and horses race on Sunday. That is a neat mechanism which alleviates all problems. That system has been functioning for the past two years and there have been no great problems.
I can see no reason why such a system should not work here. My noble friend the Minister, in the Second Reading debate, referred to a poll. However, the question of their views on betting when names of runners are declared on Friday was not put to the people participating in the poll. Therefore, the argument that many people would bet illegally on Sunday does not, in my view, hold good.
I now turn to consider the matter of illegal betting, which one racing correspondent has described as a red herring. There is and no doubt there always has been illegal betting. However, nobody has convinced me that it will necessarily accelerate enormously. As my noble friend the Minister has said, there may be some five million people already working. However, most of the workplaces which are one of the main sources of illegal betting are probably not those that function anyway. I suggest that for that reason illegal betting will not be a great problem if betting shops are closed on Sunday.
When I spoke on evening betting in the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, produced an argument which I should like to repeat to him because I believe that that argument strengthens my case rather than his. He may not entirely agree with me. When I put forward the argument that evening racing did not produce much illegal betting, he pointed out that 7 per cent. of a day's betting takes on evening racing. If the percentage is so small, surely the same will be true of

1153
Sunday racing when the runners are declared on a Friday. Betting can then take place on a Saturday and there will be no need for betting shops to be open on Sunday.
In this amendment, we are not dealing with the question of on-course betting. People who attend a racecourse will be able to bet at the noble Lord's Tote or on course, as they wish. The amendment simply precludes betting shops being open.
I plead again, as I have so often, for consideration of the impact of deregistration on the communities involved. In this case, I am concerned for those who live in the high street areas. So far as this amendment is concerned, I believe that if betting shops are open on Sundays, there will be much hardship suffered by people who live in such areas. There are some 35,000 to 40,000 betting-shop workers. Many of them work long hours. I plead for them to be allowed to spend Sunday with their families. They need a day off regularly, week by week, and they need to know exactly where they stand. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: I think it is pertinent to this amendment to remind the Committee of something said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on the Second Reading of this Bill. He said that if the Bill goes through as drafted the high street is going to be rather a strange place on a Sunday afternoon. The only shops open will be the betting shops and if you want to buy a loaf of bread at the supermarket next door you will not be allowed to.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: If I might deal with the point which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has just raised, there are 150,000 establishments licensed to sell drink on a Sunday, and they do so. They would be very much missed if they did not. There are only 10,000 betting shops altogether in the country and obviously they would not all be open on a Sunday because many of them are in areas like city centres where there would be nobody to come to bet. I do not think therefore that the danger is very great.
If I might deal with what the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, said. Ireland is a strange place and I do not think we should be drawing our habits from Ireland.
I should like to deal with the question of why there is no illegal betting when there is evening racing and the betting shops close at 6.30 p.m. It is perfectly true that I said that the amount of the betting taken at evening meetings would be about 6 or 7 per cent. of the whole of the day's takings considering the afternoon meetings as well.
One of the reasons for that is the afternoon meetings will already have been an attractive series of meetings for the punter. He may have been betting quite a lot in the afternoon and by the time 6 o'clock or 6.30 is reached he is not particularly attracted to betting. At that hour he is not allowed to stay in the shop to hear the commentary or the result. He would be unable to watch the SIS live picture or anything of that kind. It is quite obvious why there is not the weight of betting on the evening meetings—there has been quite enough available for the punter in the afternoon.
1154
This does not apply to a Sunday meeting, because there would not have been any other race meetings taking place. The Jockey Club has already said it would like to see the Grand National and the Two Thousand Guineas run on a Sunday.
Clearly those are attractive races. Racing on a Sunday afternoon is going to be very interesting to the general punter. You do not get illegal betting necessarily—although I am not sure about that—as a result of evening racing, but you would certainly get illegal betting as a result of Sunday racing if the betting shops were not open. It is very difficult to decide how much illegal betting there is. I heard a figure put today by people who are very knowledgeable in the betting industry that it runs at 15 to 20 per cent. of the amount actually bet.
There is one very interesting illustration of what has happened on course since the 4 per cent. tax on course has been removed. Your Lordships may have seen last Saturday if you were watching racing that the bookmakers were very jubilant as to the amount their turnover had increased since the tax was removed. It was not merely the factor of people not wishing to pay the 4 per cent. tax; it was because previously they were not paying any tax at all. So a great number of illegal bookmakers on course were collecting their wages and the honourable bookmaker who charges tax was losing out.
The reverse therefore would also be the case. You can see at once that if you have any racing at all in England on a Sunday there is bound to be betting on it whether you like it or not. There is going to be racing anyway of a quite legitimate nature at credit offices, where it is perfectly legal. This is the case on foreign courses on Sundays as well.
We are not strangers to betting on Sundays. For some eccentric reason casinos are open on a Sunday; bingo halls are open. There are the one-arm bandits and the other robbers of the poor fully available on piers and other places of amusement. I cannot understand where is the moral distinction in the minds of the Members of this Committee who oppose the proposal to allow betting shops to be open on Sunday when there is horseracing on a Sunday. Where is the moral distinction between a decent, ordinary working man who goes into a betting shop and puts a couple of quid on a horse and a man who sits at home and does it on the telephone? It may cost him more because there may be a minimum bet of £5, as there is with most bookmakers. What is the moral distinction? There is none.
It is an anti-working class device. The person who has the credit account is more likely to be thought creditworthy because he can give bank references and the bookmakers are willing to take the strain of a modest credit account. The ordinary working man is to be penalised and nannied and told, "You are not fit to be allowed to bet on a Sunday because you are so much inferior to these worthy middle-class people with their telephones and credit accounts". They are at home watching television; they have probably three sets in the house and they do not bother anyone else in the family while watching the racing on Sunday. The poor chap who has only one television in his house would have to annoy his wife; but in any

1155
case he is still not allowed to bet because he does not have a telephone or he does not have a credit account.
It is about time that we stopped having this class distinction in betting. Everybody should be treated exactly the same. For those reasons I oppose this amendment.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Elton: The sweeping assumption made by the noble Lord that he has the whole of the working classes on his side is a piece of arrogance which takes the breath away. Will he please accept that there is a depth of genuine objection to high street betting, off-course betting, on Sundays which transcends visibly the party divisions in this House and evidently the social divisions outside it.
It is not the only, but it is by far the principal reason why a number of noble Lords object to what he now proposes. It would be welcome to see even a glimmer of recognition of this or a concession. I regret that we see none.
There was an oddity about what my noble friend described as the situation in Ireland. It did not altogether surprise me and it would not incommode my form of betting at all in my experience of a lifetime. In Ireland they declare the horses on Friday, they bet on them on Saturday, they run on Sunday and there is no mention of a payout. That is my experience of racing. I would not have thought of it as a commercial proposition.
I think that with the Bill as it is the noble Lord has suggested a sensible way out; that is, by moving a separation between the issues of the joyful and moral activity of racing, on the one hand, and another activity which for some people is dangerous and which for other people seems to me is out of tune with the day.
A noble Lord referred to a passage in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, but he should have continued. The noble Lord went on to say that if you open the betting shops in the high street on Sunday and if you proceed with this Bill as it is now drafted, then there is no doubt that the Sunday Trading Bill will have the door opened to it. Your Lordships will be taking a much more momentous decision on this Bill than has so far been represented. I hope at the very least that you accept this amendment.
Viscount Caldecote: I support this amendment. I wholly support the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. The fact is that this illegal betting issue is a red herring, as indeed were a number of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, just now. Life is becoming more and more stressful these days. More and more people are suffering from that and more and more people are having a shorter working week and are now able to do those things which previously they could do only at weekends.
To introduce legislation to open betting shops on Sundays is to add one more item of stress to life. For that reason I oppose it and I very strongly support this amendment.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: Perhaps I may just say a few words. I speak personally and not on behalf of my noble friends, as I have been asked to make clear. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has not proved to me that it is necessary to bring in this very controversial clause. I should have thought that a limitation to on-course betting would be sufficient for most racegoers and the Foundation for Sunday Racing. He has put to one side the example of Ireland in a way which does not persuade me at all. I believe it is fairer to say that the Irish have racing on a Sunday because they are true believers and lovers of the sport and therefore they have not thought it necessary to have off-course betting.
The evidence shows there has been no significant evidence of any illegal betting, and I should have thought that, if there was a place where there might be illegal betting that place could easily be Ireland. My understanding is that there have been very few prosecutions. Therefore, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has given an acceptable reason for instituting off-course betting on a Sunday.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: I support this amendment because of its effect on family life. Every working day I pass a betting shop which has a notice on the outside to that effect that no one under 18 years of age is allowed on the premises. Therefore, the husband will be in the betting shop, while the wife will be left behind, probably because she may not want to go to the betting shop. The children are barred from it, quite rightly in my view. As a result, the family is split. This happens on Saturdays and I believe we should not allow it to happen on Sunday afternoons.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has painted a touching picture of the working man in a cloth cap popping along to his betting shop on a Sunday afternoon to put on a couple of quid. That is no doubt extending his range of choice and enlarging his freedom, and those are very fine matters in themselves as well as contributing to the proceeds of the betting shop owners for seven days a week instead of only six.
However, at whose expense is this freedom to be enlarged? At whose expense is this choice to be widened? It is the expense of 35,000 or 40,000 people who because of the level of wages already have to work for at least five, and in many cases six, days in betting shops and who have to work every Bank Holiday. Surely those people are entitled to some consideration, not only for their own sake, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, because, whatever the morality of the situation, it contains much irony. May I point out that, if we are talking about morality, betting debts cannot be sued for in a court of law, so there is surely a distinction between betting and other kinds of activity?
Sunday opening will be a precedent for many other shops, too, but the point is that there will be an effect on the people working in the betting shops. They will be subject to arm twisting because once one betting shop can open then others will open, taking bets on Irish racing or American racing—you name it, it will be enlarged. Therefore, I believe that the debate has been of extraordinary value in making clear that,

1157
whatever the Jockey Club can do about racecourses, this would give carte blanche for betting shops to open 52 Sundays in the year; and they would.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Does the noble Lord agree that, according to my information, at least two-thirds of all the people who work in betting shops are part-timers?
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: Even if that were true it would leave 14,000 people who would be under great compulsion and great strain. They would have no redress at industrial tribunals unless we adopted certain other amendments, and would have no defence whatever.
The Earl of Caithness: I believe it would be wise for me to say a word at this moment. I go back to what I said at the beginning. One of the keys to this Bill, so far as the Government are concerned, is that suitable arrangements are made for betting to take place lawfully.
My noble friend Lord Brentford rested much of his argument on the validity of the declaration on Friday. Experience does not prove him right. Experience of the betting industry is that most punters want to place their bets on the day that the race is to take place, when such things as the running conditions are known and overnight declarations have been finalised. The poll to which my noble friend referred seemed to bear this out, because that poll, taken by the Jockey Club, showed that some 36 per cent. of regular punters would find unlawful means of placing a bet on Sundays if the betting shops were not allowed to open. That cannot be compared with evening racing because evening racing is not televised.
Let us take as an example the Grand National taking place on a Sunday and being televised. The betting on the Grand National last year totalled about ?30 million, most of which was placed on the day of the race. Does my noble friend really think that people are not going to bet illegally if the Grand National is held on a Sunday?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Earl should appreciate that even if the Grand National were run at midnight on a Tuesday there would be £30 million wagered on it. Everybody would want to see it. The Grand National is one of those events, like the Derby and many other races, that causes enormous interest whenever it takes place. That is a fact.
The main point that I wish to deal with is the attempt to assert that whether betting shops open on a Sunday has nothing whatever to do with the arguments about Sunday trading. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, in his Second Reading speech, said that this Bill had nothing to do with Sundays and the Shops Bill. He is entitled to his view. I can tell the Committee that when the Horserace Betting Levy Board issued its 25th Report it said:
"We recognise that the defeat of the Government's Shops Bill is likely further to delay the introduction of Sunday racing and betting".
If they felt the Bill had nothing to do with it, why draw attention to it? Of course, if the Sunday trading Bill had been passed last year, judging from the
1158
tactics which the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has deployed tonight, he would have said, "The breach has been established. You cannot really argue against Sunday racing". Equally, if Sunday racing in this form comes through the argument on Sunday trading next year or the year after will be, "You cannot really argue because we have already started Sunday racing". They hang together as part of a movement which is designed to liberalise and to allow no compromise at all. I am one of those people who are willing to liberalise but I will try to make sure that the interests of people affected are looked after.
On Edmonton Green this morning Dirty Den from "Eastenders" opened a new betting shop for Mecca. I am certain that that shop will be very well patronised. I have no doubt at all that the event was a huge success. That shop is in the middle of high-rise developments where 2,000 people live. The shop is right outside their door; and I do not mean just one door but the doors of the flats in which 500 people live. They are thankful when Sunday comes. It is a day of rest, with all that that implies.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, was frank enough to admit on Second Reading that he could not guaranteee that betting shops would be closed on those Sundays when the racing that the Jockey Club had authorised was not taking place. He admitted that they would be open for many more than the racing days. That is a theme which is running through this debate. There are some people who see this Bill in romantic, bright—
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: If I may intervene, since I said that, an amendment has been proposed that the number of days on which betting shops may be open off the course shall be limited to the number of days on which horseracing takes place. I am happy to accept that amendment. There is no danger of betting shops off the course being open on days when no horseracing take place.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We have yet to come to that amendment and I await with interest the view of the Committee. If the noble Lord is saying that if all those interests who have already expressed their views have big investments in betting shops they will be satisfied only to open them on seven days, we may certainly get into the illegal argument, not merely concerning the punter but concerning the people who own the shops. I say simply that in a place like Edmonton, where the betting shop is open and where there is the opportunity for other shopkeepers to seize upon the traffic that is coming through in the vicinity, it is only human nature to say, "If the betting shop is open legally I am going to chance my arm because the law is going to be changed and I will open my shop"—whatever it may be.
Before one can turn round, to the people who live in that place Sunday is the same as any other day. I think quite frankly that we have an opportunity to take head-on the argument of those who ask, "Why can you not have racing and betting on racing on Sunday?" So far the Committee is saying "So be it", because that will take place on the track.

1159
However, I argue with the Committee and I plead with those who are in favour of the generality of the Bill: think about other people who will be living in the dirt, the disturbance and the distress, with all the social consequences following the break-up of a family Sunday. This is when you can do it. It is no use crying afterwards or leaving it to the other place. We can do it here tonight with this amendment.
Viscount Caldecote: Before the Minister speaks again, can he clarify a point? As I understand it, the point the noble Lord is making is that we must have betting shops open on Sundays if there is racing because if we do not there will be illegal betting. I understand that is because you must bet through an authorised place of betting in order to collect taxes.
If the argument is that we must have betting shops open to do something on Sundays which we think would be unfortunate, for the reasons which have been very well advanced already, surely that is a very poor argument. If necessary, the law that makes illegal betting other than through a betting shop on Sunday should be changed.
The Earl of Caithness: I am surprised to hear my noble friend advocating illegal betting. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, did not actually answer my point. He freely admitted that a race like the Grand National was bound to stimulate interest. He then said that the new betting shop at Edmonton would be well patronised. If you have the Grand National on a Sunday with the amount of betting that takes place on it on the day, rather than on the Friday or the Saturday before, and the people of Edmonton who are the regular betters who use that shop on a weekday find that on the Sunday of the Grand National they cannot put their bet on, does the noble Lord accept that they will find other means to put that bet on, which would be illegal?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We have already had the profession by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, that 20 per cent. of the betting in this country is illegal already, under the present laws. No one can produce any reliable statistics as to the extent to which there would be an increase in illegal betting. Customs and Excise cannot give a figure because they have no experience since 1963, since the change in the law. There could be an increase. But where does illegal betting take place? At work? We are not arguing about industry being open, so that opportunity for illegal betting will be gone. Where else? In the pub? It already exists in many pubs: you cannot stop that. We know that is the main source of betting on a Sunday in France. Where else? In homes? That is human nature and that is going on now.
If we are asked to accept a possible potential increase in illegal betting or a restriction on the kind of Sunday that people need in order to rest and to be revived and resuscitated for the rest of the week, then I am prepared to say not that I want to encourage illegal betting—putting words in the mouth of the noble Lord behind the Minister—but that if it takes place it has to be proved. Even if it did happen, I would tolerate that rather than damage the environment of millions of families.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord, Lord Graham, sits down, he used the emotive words "dirt" and "distress" in talking about present betting shops. I frequently have occasion to park near betting shops. I have never heard any noise emanating from them. I have rarely seen much dirt and certainly very little distress. I wonder if he would care to elucidate a little more what he means.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I certainly did not mean to refer to the inside of betting shops, because most of them, after certain changes were made, have been vastly improved. I am talking about the ambience in which the betting shop is situated in the high street, in the community. We are talking about the normal dirt and distress which is caused by traffic—not just by motor cars but by people. I can envisage in my mind parts of Enfield, Enfield Town and Edmonton Green, and I can see the way in which certain councils will be called upon to spend more money to clean up the streets. There will be more police and buses and all the rest of it. It is an aggregation of additional aggravation, and in my view we can do without it.
Viscount Head: The working party that was set up by the Jockey Club in 1985 to investigate the effects of Sunday racing disovered in a referendum that 36 per cent. of the people who bet more than once a month would take to back-street betting if the betting shops were not opened. That is undoubtedly what would happen. The back-street bookmakers would be patronised if there was no outlet for legal betting. It is really like putting an iced cake in front of a child and saying, "You may look at it but you may not eat it" to have racing without betting shops being open.
Lord Elton: Let us not entirely lose sight of the major issues. It is no doubt the case that there will be illegal betting on Sundays if there is racing on Sundays. I do not doubt that there is illegal betting on Sundays now. It is admitted that 20 per cent. of betting is illegal anyway. The principle is breached. It is wrong to rest opposition to the amendment on that principle, because that principle is breached.
The major issue is: do we or do we not want betting shops open in the high street up and down the country on Sundays, and manned by people—some of them part-time, it is true, and others full-time—whose Sundays are spoiled and whose families are threatened? It is an occupation which in any case threatens other families simply because of those who are addicted to it. I do not think noble Lords want that. Nor do I think that noble Lords should lightly take a step which makes more probable the success of an attempt to have a Sunday trading Bill passed in this Chamber. I think this is a momentous matter and I hope the Committee will divide on it.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: I find great unreality in these arguments, because my experience of going round London on Sundays is that the shopping centres are thronged with people going to the shops and buying goods in large quantities. Do they create dirt, confusion and so on? What difference will it make if there is a betting shop open?

1161
As regards the question of whether or not there will be any more illegal betting on a Sunday than on a weekday, it stands to reason that if betting shops are open on weekdays there is much more availability for people to go and bet; but if on a Sunday no betting shops are open obviously this must inevitably increase the amount of illegal betting.
Viscount Brentford: I am grateful to all those who have supported this amendment. I make the point to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, that I have no Irish blood in me and therefore I shall not take any personal umbrage at his conversation about brushing aside the Irish experiment. I feel upset, however, that he has not paid more attention to it. I believe that what has been happening in Ireland is a fact. What the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has said about what will happen here is hypothesis. What has happened in Ireland is fact. They do not have problems in Ireland.
I believe that there are many affinities between the Irish and different parts of the United Kingdom. I reiterate that the hole that has been quoted so much did not pose the question of what would happen if the runners were declared on Friday so that bets could be placed on a Saturday. Therefore, we do not know how people would bet.
I believe that there are many law-abiding people who, given the opportunity to bet on Saturday and not on Sunday would do so. There are many people who would like to stay in bed on Sunday and not have the feeling that they must get up, and let peace and quiet reign.
There is a letter in the Daily Telegraph from someone in the betting industry, which states;
"I do believe that most betting shops staff have no desire whatsoever to work on a Sunday".
For the sake of those betting shop staff, the communities in which the betting shops are and families, I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): I apologise to the noble Viscount. I had not realised that he moved the amendment.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
The Chairman of Committees: I think that the Contents have it. The Contents have it. I call Amendment No. 9.
Noble Lords: Not Content.
The Chairman of Committees: I did not hear it.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I said, "Not content". I heard about five people around me saying, "Not content".
The Chairman of Committees: I shall put the Question again.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 21.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Attlee, E.

Brentford, V. [Teller.]

Gregson, L.

Brockway, L.

Ingleby, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Caldecote, V.

Nicol, B.

Carter, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Craigavon, V.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Seear, B.

Elton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Underhill, L.

Faithfull, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Howie of Troon, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Balfour, E.

Manton, L. [Teller.]

Barber, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Benson, L.

Monson, L.

Bethell, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Greenway, L.

Reay, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Roxburghe, D.

Head, V.

Trevethin and Oaksey, L.

Hemphill, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Manton Lord Manton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 15, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) for paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 there shall be substituted—
"1. The licensed premises shall be closed—

(a) throughout Good Friday, Christmas Day and every Sunday on which racing on an approved horse racecourse does not take place;

(b) before the hour of twelve noon on every Sunday on which racing on an approved horse racecourse does take place; and

(c) at such other times, if any, as may be prescribed,

and shall not be used for any purpose other than effecting of betting transactions."").
The noble Lord said: I am speaking also to consequential Amendment No. 25 to the Long Title.
The effect of the two amendments would be to restrict the opening of betting shops to those Sundays on which there is racing on an approved racecourse. An approved racecourse is one that has been approved under the Horserace Tote and Betting Levy Act 1972. The amendments do not seek to change the general purpose of this admirable Bill, to which I gave my full support on Second Reading. I remain totally in favour of legalising admission charges to all sporting events on Sundays and legalising on- and off-course betting on Sundays to enable racing to take place.
I listened to the arguments put forward by other noble Lords on Second Reading and I follow closely the views of the interested parties in the racing and betting industries. Although a large majority of noble Lords on Second Reading fully supported the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, a few voiced their concern about off-course betting. Among them the noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Newall, chairman of the Greyhound Racing Board,

1163
feared that even if the number of Sundays on which horseracing takes place were to be limited, if betting shops were allowed to open they would undoubtedly open every Sunday. By limiting the opening of betting shops to those Sundays on which horseracing takes place, the amendment seeks to meet those concerns.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I wish to be helpful. Can we receive guidance on the stature of the amendment in the light of what has just taken place?
Lord Elton: Are we not seeking to amend a part of the Bill that does not exist? As I understand it, Amendment No. 8 has removed everything in the Bill from "noon" on line 14 to the end of line 18. As Amendment No. 9 strikes at line 15, it strikes at something that no longer exists.
I take this opportunity to say how grateful I am to my noble friend for his courteous move in the right direction, although it goes not far enough.
The Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 8 leaves out from "noon" to the end of line 18. Therefore, Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 are preempted. I think that that is correct.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Elton: There is an understandable pause, because the Clause 2 that we are asked to leave in the Bill is a great deal better than the Clause 2 that was in the Bill when we tabled the amendment. I do not know exactly what my noble friends and other noble Lords who have put their names to the Motion feel, nor have we had a chance to discuss it. I should welcome guidance from the usual source. Although there is no clause stand part procedure—I am not sure whether the usual source is following my question—I should like guidance on whether it is possible to amend the Bill to strike out a clause if so desired. If so, we could leave the decision this evening and speed things up very much.
The Chairman of Committees: I believe I am right in saying that there is no reason procedurally for not moving that a clause be removed on Report. It is undesirable to put down a Motion that a clause be not accepted in order to have a general debate on it. If the clause itself is objectionable, there is no reason why such a Motion should not be moved on Report.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: In order to consider the significance and extent of the vote, I think that we should have time to reflect. I fully understand that means that all sorts of things can happen, not least to supporters and the support at another stage. To be fair to all the interested parties—not least the genuine attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Manton, to seek to overcome the difficulties that he foresaw may arise—we need a period of time. My noble friends and I would be willing not to proceed with the Motion that Clause 2, as amended, shall not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Elton: In those circumstances I would not wish to move the Motion. We can take a proper view later.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 2 insert the following new clause:
("Withdrawal of agreement to work.
. Any agreement by an employee employed in connection with a licensed betting office or a track to do work on a Sunday may be withdrawn by the said employee after one month's notice.")
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 15 substantially all relate to the prime interests of those who could be classified as workers, those who work in the industry. In the interests of making progress and to focus on what I believe is most important, without making any future commitment I shall not move Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
9 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Rights of established employees concerning Sunday working.
All established employees employed in connection with a licensed betting office or a track, shall have the rights set out in Schedule (Rights of Established employees concerning Sunday working) below."
The noble Lord said: The Bill is silent on the protection and interests of those who work in the industry. This is no accident. I cannot believe that those who have drafted the Bill have not considered those interests. I accept what I have read in the press, that the promoters of the Bill have very much at heart the interests of those who work in the industry and are satisfied that there are ways in which they can be protected. If the Bill is enacted, we wish to have established legitimate ways to which employees who do not want to work on Sunday for a variety of reasons can refer.
Members of the Committee may have had a sense of déjàvu when they read the terms of the amendment and the schedule. This is substantially the amendment moved on behalf of the Government on 11th February by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, to protect the existing rights of workers. I know that the noble Earl will be consistent in supporting his noble friend and that the Government will recognise that there must be equity. As the Government were prepared without opposition to add a schedule to the Shops Bill, they must accept this. It is in essence the same amendment relating to those who work in this industry.
I shall not weary the Committee by spelling out the concerns that have been expressed to me in writing. These have come from the Stable Lads Association and from the Transport and General Workers' Union. They tell me that the union is totally opposed to the Jockey Club proposals, although it recognises that different segments of the industry have different views. For example, it represents shop employees, who are totally opposed to the opening of betting shops. It represents also stable staff and transport

1165
drivers. They all have reservations in varying degrees about having to work on Sunday. I use the term advisedly. People can say that they are volunteers, that they do not have to work, that people are queuing up to do this. If the Committee has listened to what is said, Members would be as alarmed as I am.
I do not have a secret source of information. I have before me an article from The Times of Friday 9th October in which a gentleman called Simon Barnes—who no doubt is well known to those in the Chamber closer to the scene than I am—regales the views of those who work in the industry. The article says:
"Both the Trainers Federation and the Stable Lads Association are keen to crack down on such 'cowboy trainers' but lads, fearful of getting blacklisted as troublemakers, will not put their names to such statements. Most of the lads I spoke to were anxious to remain anonymous. They were prepared to give a straight answer to a straight question, without whinging, but very few wanted to test the fragile trust between trainer and staff".
I do not wish to be offensive. There are those who are trainers, stewards or owners. They have their way of going about things. I am prepared to accept that there is some reticence on the part of those whose livelihood is affected to speak out too often.
A gentleman called Bill Adams is the national secretary of the Stable Lads Association. What stable lads are saying appears in that part of the article which states:
"Not a lad I spoke to in Newmarket, probably not a lad I spoke to in the country, wants Sunday racing. Sundays are seen as the last frontier; not something to be crossed for a couple of quid".
I accept that arrangements can be made. Money talks. Those who are on an average wage of less than £100 a week for whatever they do—and it can include six mornings, six afternoons and six nights in some weeks—are being invited to work on Sundays because of the desire of some groups. We are saying that if Sunday racing takes place we ought to have written into statute a means whereby they can seek redress.
I do not wish to weary Members of the Committee. The lineage, the parentage, of the schedule is impeccable. It comes from a first-class stable. It comes from the Government's own parliamentary draftsman who felt that the schedule was needed to protect shopworkers. I say that we also need to protect those who work in industry. I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: This Chamber has agreed that race tracks should open for a limited number of Sundays. But surely the least that we can do as a corollary of that is to ensure that the basic rights of existing employees—of established, not new, employees—are protected. These are rights they have always had and have a proper expectation of maintaining. I have no doubt that some employees support the Bill. I have no doubt that there are other employees who do not like the Bill but who will settle for extra pay on Sundays or extra time off.
However, we are concerned with those who want to preserve their existing way of life, who hold Sunday as a day of worship, or who simply want to go out with the family. There may be only one man or woman in this situation. Are we to say to that person, "You may be a long-serving employee but if
1166
you do not come in on Sunday you can collect your cards or you can forget about promotion". This amendment would give that person some protection. At the very least it would give him the right to go to an industrial tribunal and object to unfair dismissal.
Unless we adopt this amendment the Bill will materially, indeed fundamentally, change conditions of work which these people have always had and thought that they were always going to have. It was reasonable for them to think that. The change proposed in the Bill cannot be right.
Baroness Seear: I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Graham, one question. I entirely agree with what he says in this amendment about the rights of established workers. I am not clear why he limits it to already established workers. These are surely safeguards that should be available not only for people who are now in the industry but for those who will be entering the industry. Will the noble Lord please explain why he has limited the amendment only to those people who are already there?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I do so with some diffidence. In the Shops Bill we moved amendments designed to apply to all workers. In seeking to resist that, the Government conceded that there could be a case for those who were already working in the industry. We were not greedy. We did not try to provide a basis of protection for everyone. We said, "Let us see whether we can get the Chamber to accept that those who presently enjoy whatever they do enjoy shall not have that disturbed". When new people enter the industry they may then be prepared to accept the kind of terms or conditions which they freely enter into.
I deeply respect the noble Baroness, who is experienced in labour and employment matters. She recognises that the horseracing industry is very poorly unionised. It does not have a lot of muscle or clout in its representation. We are seeking to provide legal protection for those who have at present told us that they will be detrimentally affected. If it were felt that something else needs to be added either during the passage of this Bill or in another place that could be done. It is a modest attempt to provide the minimum of sensible protection.
The Duke of Devonshire: I rise with diffidence to support this amendment, partly because I have great sympathy with what was said on behalf of the stable lads employers. I must make it clear that I speak alone. I have the privilege of being a member of the Jockey Club and I have the good fortune to be the owner of racehorses. It is as an owner of racehorses that I support this amendment.
The inevitable result of Sunday racing will be an increase in training fees, because those who have to work on Sundays quite rightly will demand more for their labours on Sundays. That is only right and as it should be. But this, in turn, will lead to an increase in fees.
Anyone who is lucky enough to be financially able to own racehorses is a very lucky man. I am fully conscious of that. Racing in recent years has undergone a period of unparalleled prosperity, but

1167
that may not last. Recent events in the City are perhaps an indication that it will not be so easy to own racehorses. I remind the Committee that it is a very expensive business, and conceivably some noble Lords may not be aware that it is much more expensive to own one racehorse than to have your son educated at Eton. When the chill economic winds begin to blow it is very important, if racing is to continue and flourish, that it should be as inexpensive as possible for the owner. I am convinced that racing on Sunday will add to the cost of ownership.
Times change. When I was a lad we talked about racing as a sport; indeed, it was called the sport of kings. That will not do at all these days. Now we talk about the racing industry, never about a sport; but basically it is a sport. Although the punter, through the levy board, makes an enormous contribution to racing—without the 1961 Act racing as we know it would not exist in this country—at the end of the day it is the owner who is the goose that lays the golden egg. Nothing should be done, privileged though he is, to add to the expense for the owner; for without the owner the racing industry—as I understand I must now call it—will wither away.
Both with sympathy for the workers whom the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has associated himself with and because I believe that in the long term it is against the interests of owners to have Sunday racing, I support the amendment. I can only ask the forgiveness of my colleagues in the Jockey Club and also my fellow members of the Racehorse Owners' Association.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: I support the amendment, but I shall not expand on that. I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, one question. He speaks about:
"All established employees employed in connection with a licensed betting office or a track."
Does that include stable lads?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Yes. If there is any dubiety about that, I should certainly be prepared to bring forward a drafting amendment. As far as I am concerned, this covers all those who are employed in the racing industry.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I object to this amendment because it is one which singles out sport specifically and does not deal with all the other activities that go on on Sundays. If we are to have laws protecting people's rights on Sundays, they should be applicable to all people who are called upon to work, or want to work or have to work on a Sunday, such as coal miners, railway workers, bus drivers, catering staff, the police, the people who provide our electricity, telephone service and gas. It seems nonsensical to say that sport ought to be treated in some curiously different way from all the other activities that go on on a Sunday. There is seven-day working in certain mills and manufacturing industries.
I sympathise with the notion that I believe lies behind this—that people should be properly rewarded and properly respected in relation to their views on working on a Sunday.
1168
As regards the Tote, no one will be required to work on a Sunday who does not want to, and no one will be penalised for not so doing. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, mentioned the lady on BBC Radio who said that she was a member of a tote team and did not want to work on a Sunday. She does not have to. Lots of other people will be willing to do it. Whenever we have our credit offices open on a Sunday, two to three times the number of people want to work as there are places available for them to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, mentioned the phenomenon in which people might work for seven days a week in betting shops. This is simply not possible because neither the employers nor the employees would wish to have such a curious state of affairs. If betting offices are to be open on a Sunday, as appears to be the suggestion hanging in the balance, clearly a proper shift system will have to be worked out by negotiation, and people who did not want to work on a Sunday would not have to. I suppose that railway workers who do not want to work on a Sunday do not have to either.
It is a great mistake to inject into this harmless little Bill, which has been made to look more dangerous every second that goes by, a vast apparatus of legislation which if it is applicable to the sporting industry must be equally applicable to the rest of industry. That is trying to do by stealth something that ought to be done openly throughout the entire country. Therefore I must oppose the amendment.
I should like to say one word about stable lads.
Lord Elton: Before the noble Lord leaves that point perhaps I may ask him to take on board the fact that this amendment is directed to existing members of the industry. The difference between a policeman and a person working now in the racing industry is that when the policeman joined he knew that he would have to work on Sundays. When the person joined the racing industry there was no proposal that there should be racing on Sundays. There is a genuine difference.
The other point that I should like to make (since I do not wish to rise twice and we all ought to go home quite soon) is that a great many of us believe it is not sufficient to ensure that everybody possible gets one day or two days a week of rest if they wish it; we wish one of those days to be the same for everybody in the family.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Order!
Lord Elton: Therefore the day of rest needs to be established on one day a week and that is Sunday. That is aside from the strong convictions I have about Sunday on religious grounds which I think would appeal to a wider audience.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I thank the noble Lord for his intervention but I am still a little mystified. Is he saying that if you join after this Bill becomes law you are not protected against working on Sunday?
Noble Lords: Yes.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: And that you are only protected if you join before?
Lord Elton: It is not my amendment, but that is the effect of it precisely. It is the established workers who are referred to in the schedule, not the new joiners.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: If that is the case it is not a very adequate distinction. Surely newcomers should have the same privileges as those who are there already because those who are there already will die and nobody will be protected by this manoeuvre.
I want to say one word about stable lads, who I feel have been the Cinderellas of the industry. They have been somewhat underpaid and are still underpaid even on their current minimum wages. Not only that, but there have been cases where trainers, either because they have no money or because they are rather unscrupulous, do not pay even the minimum wages. I regard that as a serious matter.
I am sure that the noble Lord will be delighted to hear that, with the advent of Sunday racing, the authorities concerned have been mightily stirred up to make sure that all trainers pay minimum wages. I think we shall move towards stable lads being paid a more reasonable wage. That is a direct result of the idea that there should be Sunday racing. So we have already had a good benefit from it and I can assure the noble Lord that there will be many wider and happier benefits from Sunday racing if it takes place. There will be more employment, not less, because nobody will work seven days a week. Extra staff will be taken on and so on. I still feel that if this schedule is necessary for sport it must be necessary for the entire country. It is not sensible to deal with sports alone with a schedule of that kind.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: This amendment was chosen because the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, moved a similar amendment during the passage of the Shops Bill to protect the workers who were already employed before the law was changed. My noble friend chose this amendment because it had been moved by the Government during the passage of the previous Bill. If the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, does not like the amendment's wording he can amend it on Report. Everything he has just said points to the fact that he himself would very much like to see the workforce right behind the reform which he is bringing about. Successful sport on Sunday would need the support and the backing of the workforce. Therefore, so far as I can see, the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, agrees with the principle of the amendment. Perhaps he would like to re-word it for Report.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I think that two or three points need to be made. I do not doubt for a moment that what the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has told the House is the intention of those who control the purse strings if racing on Sunday comes about. However, the people who work in the industry—and reference has been made to the stable lads—have their own store of experience against which to judge what their employers say will happen in the event of certain action.
1170
I have a copy of the Newmarket Weekly News in which it states that the stable lads are in an angry mood about their present pay and conditions and will use their demands as a bargaining tool. That was said by Mr. Bill Adams. The basic rate is £91·59, but some are paid less. Not for a moment are we saying that they are oppressed or badly done by in total. However, those who represent the interests of those people, including the Transport and General Workers Union, have told me that they would be happier if they did not have to rely on pleading their case. I shall use not the phrase, "going cap in hand".
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, said that if someone does not want to work on a Sunday he does not have to. People are telling me that whether or not they want to work on Sunday there are certain circumstances in which it would be impossible not to do so. The noble Lord says that extra staff can be employed but I can envisage some employers trying not to take on extra staff. I can also envisage a situation where, when it comes to promotion or preferment within an organisation, willingness to work will be a crucial factor.
I do not say that this amendment is the be all and end all but it is a genuine attempt once more to resolve some of the problems that will occur if the Bill is not amended in this way. I earlier pleaded the case for the residents around the track and I am now pleading for those who feel that they need the protection of the law. We in this House ought to give that to them. I beg to move.
Lord Trevethin and Oaksey: Although I do not look forward to working on Sundays, I strongly support this amendment so far as concerns stable lads. It seems to me that a certain benefit of the introduction of Sunday racing may be that the stable lads will obtain a more satisfactory agreement under which the cowboy trainers, to whom the noble Lord has referred, are compelled to pay the minimum wage. Also, a satisfactory wage structure will be built up in the industry to enable lads to improve their status. I cannot speak for Tote or betting shop employees, but from the point of view of the stable lads I believe that this amendment is necessary.
Lord Monson: I wonder whether we could have some guidance from the Government as to the merits or demerits of this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford Moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 1, line 20, leave out subsection (2)
The noble Lord said: This is a consequential amendment because the word "track" has now been removed from Clause 1. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I should be grateful if the noble Lord would say a little more about the significance of deleting the words referred to in the amendment—that is, the whole of subsection (2).
The whole premise of the Bill has rested upon a definition of the word "track", yet the amendment

1171
seeks to delete the only reference that there is to a track or sporting event. There must be some deep meaning as to why, in a Bill that relates to Sunday sports, we should have deleted from it one of the strong pegs on which we can hang our understanding of what is meant. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would explain.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: It is because we have already covered the same situation in an earlier amendment. Originally all sports grounds and suchlike were described as tracks. Even a ping-pong room or a snooker hall came under the heading of tracks. Therefore it seemed wiser, simpler and clearer to leave the amendment that was passed earlier as it stands and alter subsection (2) to match it.
Lord Elton: Can the noble Lord kindly point us to the definition in the earlier amendment, which I take it is Amendment No. 3? It does not contain a definition of "track".
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: It does not have to, because that point has already been covered by the earlier amendment.
Lord Elton: It is late and no doubt we shall return to this point, but I must just stress that I see danger in this amendment and the noble Lord ought to be aware of it. We may have to return to this matter at Report stage, because as I recall the word "track" occurs in amendments that have been put in; in fact, it is essential for the working of the amendment that the noble Lord has just accepted so prudently, courteously and well. To remove the definition in what he has accepted seems to me perhaps to be a considerable mistake which may involve him as well as us in embarrassment. I quite accept that if he is briefed that this amendment is consequential on his first amendment—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to say—
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may first finish what I was saying. I am merely saying that it would probably be open to the Committee to accept on trust that the amendment is consequential, but on the understanding that we shall return to it at a later stage if it makes the Bill nonsensical, which it may do.
The Earl of Caithness: I think that on this occasion my noble friend is wrong. He is not wrong very often.
Lord Elton: Oh yes; all the time.
The Earl of Caithness: With his experience of the Home Office, the noble Lord is seldom wrong, but I think that he may be wrong on this occasion. We gave the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, some help with this matter. The point of Amendment No. 3, which is the main amendment on which the
1172
amendment that we are now discussing is consequential, is in fact better worded. It has the correct wording, in contrast to the first clause which was originally in the Bill.
Lord Elton: My noble friend does not address the point that I am making. The wording may be more effective, elegant, up-to-date and splendid but it does not contain a definition of "track". Unless I am mistaken, it seems to me that the so-called consequential amendment strikes out the definition of "track". The word "track" is in an amendment to the Bill. The Bill now contains the word "track". It did not do so under the amendment referred to by my noble friend, which is the first amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt.
It contains it now that the wording has been amended. In normal statutory procedure it is usual to include a definition of the terms used. I think I may just possibly be right and that my noble friend just possibly is wrong. Indeed, if I keep speaking for long enough, someone may bring him a piece of paper to confirm it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: There is a solution to this difficulty. The amendment that we have just passed, which includes a schedule relating to protection of employees, contains the word "track". To that extent events have moved on since the Committee accepted Amendment No. 3. The way out of this difficulty is for the Committee not to proceed with this amendment if, in order to make sense, at the next stage we look at further amendments. Rather than accept the amendment and then put it right, the sensible thing to do would be not to accept this amendment and if there is need for clarification at the next stage a further amendment can be made.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: Perhaps I may point out that in a moment I shall be moving another amendment which alters the title. That will clear up the mystery for the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps I may clarify this matter. In fact the amendment that we are discussing, which is consequential on Amendment No. 3, is designed to ensure that it represents a surer way of providing that no offence is committed under the 1780 Act if there is Sunday racing. The trouble is now that the Bill is a piece of drafting nonsense.
Lord Craigmyle: If the noble Lord will look at Amendment No. 20, to which we shall be coming in a moment and to which we have already agreed, there is at the top of page 12 of the Marshalled List a definition of "track" which is almost identical to the one which we are now deleting.
Lord Elton: If it is there, I stand or sit corrected.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
9.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 3, insert the following new schedule:

RIGHTS OF ESTABLISHED EMPLOYEES CONCERNING SUNDAY WORKING
Rights not be dismissed for refusing Sunday work
1. Subject to paragraph 3 below, the dismissal of an employee who is employed in connection with a licensed betting office or a track and was employed as such on the day before the commencement date shall be regarded as unfair for the purposes of Part V of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 ("the 1978 Act") if the reason for the dismissal (or, if more than one, the principal reason) is that he has refused to do work in connection with a licensed betting office or a track on a Sunday.
Right not to have action short of dismissal taken for refusing Sunday work
2. Subject to paragraph 3 below, every employee who is employed in connection with a licensed betting office or track and was employed as such on the day before the commencement date shall have the right not to have action (short of dismissal) taken against him by his employer for the purpose of compelling him to do or agree to do, or penalising him for refusing to do, work in connection with a licensed betting office or a track on a Sunday.
Exclusion for contractual Sunday working
3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 above do not apply where the work in question is work which at the time of the dismissal or, as the case may be, of the taking of the action the employee was obliged to do on the Sunday in question by virtue of an agreement made by him before the commencement date or of a written agreement made by him on or after that date.
Modifications of 1978 Act in paragraph 1 cases
4. Section 54 of the 1978 Act (right not to be unfairly dismissed) shall apply to a dismissal regarded as unfair by virtue of paragraph 1 above regardless of the period for which the employee has been employed and of his age; and accordingly sections 64(1) and 64A(1) of that Act (which disapply the right not to be unfairly dismissed in cases where the employee has not been continuously employed for qualifying periods or has attained retiring age) shall not apply to such a dismissal.
5.—(1) Where in the case of a dismissal regarded as unfair by virtue of paragraph 1 above an additional award falls to be made under section 71(2)(b) of the 1978 Act (compensation where employee not reinstated or re-engaged in accordance with an order for reinstatement or re-engagement following unfair dismissal), the amount shall be not less than twenty-six and not more than fifty-two weeks' pay.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph the amount of a week's pay shall be calculated in accordance with Schedule 14 of the 1978 Act.
6. Subsection (3) of section 57 of the 1978 Act (determination of question whether dismissal fair or unfair) shall have effect subject to paragraph 1 above.
Application of 1978 Act provisions in paragraph 2 cases
7.—(1) Sections 24 and 26 and 133 of the 1978 Act (complaint to industrial tribunal, compensation and conciliation officers) shall apply in relation to paragraph 2 above as they apply in relation to section 23 of that Act.
(2) The following provisions of the 1978 Act, namely—

section 129 (remedy for infringement of certain rights),

section 132 (recoupment of unemployment benefit and, supplementary benefit),

section 136 (appeals), and

Part IX (miscellaneous and supplemental provisions),

shall apply as if paragraph 2 above were contained in Part II of that Act.
General interpretation
8. In this Schedule—

"action", "contract of employment", "employee", "employer", "employment" and "original contract of employment", have the meanings given in section 53(1) of the 1978 Act;

"commencement date" means the date on which this Act comes into force;

"dismissal" has the same meaning as in the 1978 Act;

"the 1978 Act" means the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978;

"Track" means premises on which races of any description, athletic, sports or other sporting events take place;

"Week" means a week ending with a Saturday.")

The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential upon an earlier amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 21:
Line 2, after ("tracks") insert ("used after 2 p.m.")
The noble Lord said: May I have guidance from the Table as to whether this amendment is in order in the light of previous defeats? We are talking in terms of after 2 p.m. I simply seek guidance. If we have lost the argument about 2 o'clock, this amendment is a non-starter, is it not?
The Chairman of Committees: I think that the noble Lord is absolutely right and this amendment is pre-empted.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees: The next amendment is No. 22. If Amendment No. 22 is agreed to, I cannot call No. 23.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton: moved Amendment No. 22:
Line 2, leave out from ("Sundays") to end of line 5
The noble Lord said: I am just trying to orientate myself. This amendment needs to be made in the light of the amendment that we carried in respect of the change. In other words, this amendment to the Long Title is in order. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford moved Amendment No. 24:
Leave out the Title and insert the following new Title—
("An Act to exempt races, athletic sports and other sporting events from the entertainments and amusements to which the Sunday Observance Act 1780 applies and to allow betting to take place on Sunday afternoons on tracks and in licensed betting offices.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on another amendment which has already been passed. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees: I have to call, as an amendment to Amendment No. 24, Amendment No. 25.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Lord Elton: This is really for the noble Lord, Lord Graham, but the last amendment which was carried had an effect, and I am just wondering whether it is congruent with the last few words, "and in licensed betting offices", proposed in the new Long Title. I do not know what are the procedural requirements of the Committee, but I should have thought, if it was proper before the Bill was amended to have this Long Title, the Committee might be in order to accept it now and delete the last five words at a later stage. The only alternative would appear to be a manuscript amendment at this stage, and I do not think that we would wish to get ourselves into that procedure. I look for guidance on this. I have expended the sum total of my wisdom.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We seek guidance. We want to be consistent with the earlier amendments which the Committee has accepted. I am certainly willing to move, support or not move that which does precisely that. So I think we need some guidance from the Table.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: If we are left with the old title, that in a way would suit me quite well. The original title was,
"An Act to permit the admission of persons by the payment of money or by tickets sold for money to tracks on Sundays and to permit betting on those tracks after the hour of twelve noon and in licensed betting offices on Sundays after the hour of twelve noon".
Lord Elton: I take that, and it is not acceptable. I merely submit that if the Long Title is to be congruent with the Bill which it may be—I hope that we shall have a definitive decision in a moment—the Long Title which includes the words
"and in licensed betting offices"
should be amended since that effect has now been taken from the Bill.
All I ask is whether this is something that has to be decided now or whether an amendment can be brought in on Report. It would be much cleaner to do it now, but one does not normally proceed with words which are not printed on an Order Paper in this place. There is no doubt a standing order about manuscript amendments. Perhaps my noble friend is in a position to advise us on the matter.
The Earl of Caithness: It is because we are in the mess that we are that my noble friend and I now agree, having agreed to disagree earlier. Because this was a consequential amendment on an earlier amendment, which has now been overtaken by a result of a Division, we are in a mess. I could perhaps suggest to the Committee that this is accepted and that it is dealt with on Report in the normal manner.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If one does that, the Minister is saying that this matter is clearly without prejudice. If on reflection the accepting of this amendment (which is an alteration to the Long Title) does not fit properly with the amendments to the Bill that we have carried, there should be no dispute that we will be changing the Long Title at the next stage.
Viscount Caldecote: Would it not be better in these circumstances not to make any change and to leave the Long Title as it stands and to alter that on Report?
The Earl of Caithness: I have now received further advice from the Table and I believe that the right course is not to accept it. I am happy to change my mind.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is done without prejudice. If the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, or others, after reflection, consider any changes should be made to the Long Title or to the words of the Bill they are free to move an amendment to either at the next stage.
Lord Elton: Everyone is looking at everyone else for an opinion. If it were in order for me to move now that Amendment No. 24 be amended by the deletion of the last one, two, three, four or five words, I would do so, but I gather that it is not. Therefore, I am happy to agree with my noble friend who, before I said that, said that I was right and that he agreed with me and to continue that happy condition until the Report stage.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Title, as amended, agreed to; House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

BA/B.Cal Merger
9.40 p.m.
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, when considering the recommendation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the proposed merger of British Airways and British Caledonian, they will take into account the fact that a merger would give the new company a 92 per cent. dominant interest in British scheduled air transport within Europe and the effect that this will have on the interests of passengers in terms of fares and quality of service.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make little excuse for rising at this late hour to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. We are led to believe that within a few days the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will give his decision on the proposed merger between British Airways and British Caledonian Airways. If that decision is positive and the merger is allowed to proceed, as I have indicated in the text of my Unstarred Question it will leave the new company with as much as 92 per cent. (and some say 95 per cent.) of the British scheduled airline sector in the European market.
The question I should like to put to my noble friend is whether he will take that matter into account in considering the interests of passengers and the comfort and standard of service to be made available to those who fly. I am not expecting my noble friend to give me any decision or any hint of a decision as to what the Secretary of State will decide in a few days'

1177
time. However, I should be grateful if he could tell us whether it is true, as we have read in the press and heard on the media, that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has submitted its report to the Secretary of State. It would be interesting to know when that submission took place, if it has, and how long the Secretary of State is expected to take to consider the matter. If my noble friend is able to give us an indication on that matter it will be a great help to those of us who are following the question with considerable care.
Some of the issues that I propose to raise this evening would have made more sense if they could have been put in the presence of my noble friend Lord King, the chairman of the public limited company that is most closely involved. Until a short time ago, he was within the precincts of the Palace. However, it seems that he has not been able to find time to attend your Lordships' House to speak on the matter. Perhaps we can gather his opinions from the media, television or various other sources.
The problem that seems to concern many of us is why British Airways should have seen fit to offer such a large amount of money—£237 million—for a company whose assets are less than half that sum. It would be a matter of no objection whatsoever if British Airways were to make an offer for the purchase of aircraft, buildings, offices, stands, reservation counters and other paraphernalia at Gatwick Airport. However, it seems that a much higher price is placed on the acquisition of British Caledonian. That leaves one to wonder what British Airways actually hopes to acquire.
It seems to me to be likely that British Airways hopes to acquire certain privileges presently enjoyed by British Caledonian Airways. I have in mind the landing slots, routes and various other facilities available for B.Cal at Gatwick Airport. Your Lordships will recall that British Airways already has a virtual monopoly on facilities at Heathrow Airport, with only a small input in terms of international scheduled travel from British Midland Airways. The proposed merger, if it goes through, will give the new company a pretty dominant position at Gatwick as well.
One therefore must pose the question, in all honesty, whether one major airport is enough. Is it really the case that the company needs the two main London airports? What will happen to the other airlines who run scheduled services to Europe? Will the 5 per cent. or 7 per cent. who remain be squeezed out to airports less attractive to passengers, such as Stansted and airports even further afield from central London?
I have no doubt as to the intentions of the Government in this matter. They have been proclaimed so clearly and carefully in recent years. In a recent White Paper called Airline Competition Policy it was stated that:
"The objectives of UK airline policy are to encourage a sound and competitive multi-airline industry with a variety of airlines of different characteristics".
The predecessor of the present Secretary of State for Transport, Mr. John Moore, said in October 1986:
1178
"We want to break up the cartels, abolish the monopolies, lift the restrictions and let the people fly".
It has been my contention for some 10 years that it would be possible if there were indeed a break-up of the cartels and an abolition of the monopolies to let the people fly. It would give people freedom of the skies and air fares would fall by as much as 25 to 40 per cent. Losses or problems would not be created for airlines in the long term and there would be a certain tightening up and pulling in of slack. Ultimately it would lead to the opening up of an entirely new market in the scheduled airlines sector with people flying on a scheduled basis who had never done so before. In other words the market would increase even though prices might fall. This is the background to the proposal which I believe is now on the desk of the Secretary of State, that a merger should be permitted which would give the two British scheduled airlines most closely involved 92 to 93 per cent. of the market.
The only way that the competition which the Government sincerely support will be brought about is by creating entirely new airlines to compete with the old-fashioned carriers, which up to now have charged very high fares. This means a number of Davids coming to fight against Goliath. It is certainly to the credit of the Government that British Midland Airways has been given every facility to expand its domestic operations in the United Kingdom and on the Heathrow to Amsterdam route. The Government have a lot to be proud of in bringing this about.
If new airlines such as Air Europe, which has been given certain routes to exploit, is confronted with a monopoly of more than 90 per cent. it is like sending David to fight Goliath without a sling and without a stone. It is not fair and I hope that my noble friend Lord Young will take this into account.
I wish to mention certain facts which arouse my apprehension. Last Saturday British Airways lifted its unrestricted one-way fare from Heathrow to Brussels to £101. At the beginning of this year the fare was £93. There has therefore been an increase of around 9 per cent., which is twice the level of inflation. That means that those people who fly on an unrestricted basis from London to Brussels have to pay £202 for a return air ticket plus a further £5 for the airport tax at Brussels.
I suggest to your Lordships that a fare of over £200 for a return trip from London to Brussels is way out of proportion to the service provided. It is out of all proportion when one bears in mind the possibility of flying from London to Tenerife and back for less than £200. There are also the very reasonable fares which are available on the transatlantic routes, including those available on an unrestricted basis.
I see little justification for the increase in fares announced by British Airways last Saturday. I wish that my noble friend Lord King were here to give the reasons especially since on the same day Sabena increased its fare by exactly the same amount and to exactly the same point—£101. I wonder whether this is coincidence, whether it just happened, whether there was consultation or whether it is true, as British Airways have announced recently, that they have abolished or are abolishing their bilateral

1179
agreements with foreign airways in order to comply with the obligations imposed by our membership of the European Community and the requests—indeed, demands—sent to British Airways and other European airlines by the competition commissioner.
One cannot have it both ways. Either the airlines in question have done away with their bilateral agreements which, in the Commission's view, could be shown to have contravened the treaty, or there is still some sort of procedure that allows air fares to be lifted by exactly the same amount on exactly the same day from exactly the same number of pounds to exactly the same number of pounds. The same, of course, applies not only to the London-Brussels route but to the London-Frankfurt and the London-Rome routes.
My noble friend can make no comment on this because we are dealing with a public company but it could well be that the European Commission in Brussels will have to look at this situation very carefully. I do not know if it will conclude that what took place was consistent with European law, particularly if one bears in mind the fact that on certain other routes where there is competition in Europe—namely, Heathrow-Amsterdam and Heathrow-Dublin and Gatwick-Gibraltar—there has not been a hike in prices. Prices have stayed as they were a week ago. It certainly is a question that I wish British Airways could answer. Why is it possible to hold prices down on routes like Dublin-Gibraltar or Amsterdam, where there is competition, whereas where there is no competition prices increase by twice the rate of inflation?
All this augurs badly for the future if the merger is allowed to proceed. It augurs badly for the track record of British Airways, who, while they try to proclaim their belief in free enterprise and liberalisation, and even deregulation, in reality find that they are pitching their prices at what they believe the market will bear. That makes it all the more important for other airlines such as Air Europe, British Midland and London European to have every possible encouragement by the Government to compete with these giants and provide a better service at a cheaper price.
That will not happen if this merger goes through. How can it, given the capacity, the ability and potential for predatory pricing that will be at the disposal of an airline that possesses more than 90 per cent. of the European scheduled market in British hands?
I ask my noble friend whether he will undertake to communicate my remarks to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and whether he will be able to give us some information about the timetable of the decision-making process on this very important matter.
I have to say I think it is a pity that this has been, so far as I know, the only substantive debate on this important decision within the British Parliament since the proposed merger was announced in July. We then had the long Recess and there has been very little opportunity for this crucial matter, affecting a central plank of the Government's policy, to be
1180
debated either in your Lordships' House or in another place.
In particular it is a shame that those persons most closely involved have not been able to take part in this debate this evening. Nevertheless I have made my points. I feel sure that the Secretary of State will study what is said and what other noble Lords will contribute to this debate. I am very glad it has been found possible to interject at least some parliamentary input into the process of deciding on this matter. I look forward with keen interest to what my noble friend will have to say to us in a few minutes' time.
9.56 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am conscious of the lateness of the hour, but I want to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, on seizing the opportunity. I know how these things are handled by the business managers. They have provided us, even as late in the day as this, with the opportunity, although perhaps the significance of what we say may not be capable of being taken into account. But I live in hope.
The Secretary of State has an onerous responsibility. We are aware that he will want to act quickly now that he has the report. I would very much hope that, in the manner in which he constantly seeks to ensure that he has the matter right, he will listen to the words spoken tonight. The debate has provided an opportunity not only for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Bethel, whose experience and tenacity in these matters is well understood. It has also provided my noble friend Lord Underhill with the opportunity to say a few words, as it were, officially from this side of the House.
I speak, if I have any claim at all, without a direct vested interest but with a strong connection, as the House knows, with the Co-operative movement. That movement has always professed to represent the interests of consumers. I was impressed by the words chosen by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell: they were the ones that rang bells with me and my responsibility to look very carefully at what is said in this House.
We are talking here about the possibility of a dominance which certainly amounts to a monopoly. We are talking of the interests of passengers in terms of fares and the quality of service. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said that what we want from anything that happens in the future is better service at a cheaper price. That is a laudable ambition. I very much hope that the decision announced by the Secretary of State, when it comes, will be seen by all as leading to that.
I am bound to say that the Co-operative movement, which has 8 million consumer members and trade amounting to £5 billion, increasingly takes an interest in the travel business, not least from the lower end of the market. Everyone is affected by air fares and service. I respect the interests of the businessman and of the Government, but I am also very much concerned about the effect of prices both on scheduled services and the charter business. It is a totality of business. I am very

1181
interested in the prices at which package holidays can be offered to the kind of people in whom the Co-operative movement has a great interest.
I look at some of the arguments for the merger which may well be approved with or without caveat. The first argument is the need to compete with other airlines of size. The mega-carrier argument is quite plainly a myth. If one wants bigness for its own sake, then of course the merger provides a bigger business. But it will not necessarily provide a more efficient business. Bigness of itself does not guarantee efficiency. It does not guarantee good service.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, was fair enough to mention a number of other independent airlines which are much smaller than BA or the possible merged company. He referred to British Midland, Air Europe and Dan-Air which are all giving first class service to the consumer. I hope that the "mega" argument will not be taken into account whatever decision the Minister comes to. He is of course entitled to come to his own conclusion. I hope that the "mega" argument will not form part of it.
I am conscious of the proscription on the Minister's ability to talk tonight. But if he can I want him to say something which will reconcile the contents of the Government White Paper Airline Competition Policy with a merged company. He will be speaking on behalf of a Government whose White Paper says:
"The object of UK airline policy is to encourage a sound and competitive multi-airline industry with a variety of airlines with different characteristics".
That point needs to be answered. If the merger is approved, it will fly in the face of the Ark of the Covenant of the Government's airline policy—to promote competition in all markets. I cannot see that. I cannot see the Government continuing to profess that they remain committed to airline deregulation in Europe. It is not too strong to say that if the merger is approved, after all that has been said in the past two or three years, it could be seen as a U-turn by the Government.
A number of matters have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. Not the least of those have been some of the nonsensical illustrations he has given of the cost per mile of travelling by scheduled flight in Europe in comparison to travelling in other parts of the world. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me but my prime source is submissions he made to the House of Lords committee two or three years ago when it looked at the whole question of costs. He mentioned the London-Brussels fare. At that time it was £81; it has now been put up. The fare was 38.38p per mile when comparable mile rates for London to New York were 6.22p and for London to Athens 4.19p. Those were the rates of the competitors of the European scheduled air lines.
The noble Lord has played a major part in prodding the Government to do what I think they want to do—to have an impact on the nonsense of the cartel arrangement. It costs more for those who travel on scheduled flights and there is a spin-off for those of us who may not be regular travellers like the noble Lord (that is why he is so knowledgeable and fed up with the situation) but who travel only once a year.
1182
I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise that if the merger is approved there may be some benefits of scale, but I doubt it. The impact on the Government's competition philosophy which is designed to reduce costs and widen opportunities for millions more people will be badly affected.
We need to find ways of opening up the charter market and scheduled flights rather than closing them down. The Government will be well advised to look at ways in which they can encourage some of the entrepreneurs who seek to look after themselves and establish a business but also to provide a service to consumers. Mr. John Moore said:
"We want to see ludicrously high fares within Europe cut down to size. We want to break up the cartels, abolish the monopolies, lift the restrictions and let the people fly".
Those words are being negatived with the possibility of the merger. There is no promise that the merger is designed to reduce costs or to enable more people to fly at a reasonable price. The evidence is that the consumer has been badly affected.
Reference has been made to the European Court of Justice. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done. I do not think that we will have the competition needed to help cut costs to the consumer if the merger takes place.
I appreciate that the Minster will not be able to say very much on the prime issue of what will happen to the reference. However, I think that he can say something useful to those outside the House. Many companies, many individuals and many organisations will want to hear from the Minister that he is concerned continually to provide a better service at a cheaper cost to the consumer.
10.7 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am glad to support the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in the proposition that he has put forward, particularly since he has fought such a long, often lonely and costly battle in his attempt to achieve a better deal for people using air transport. Like him, I regret that the debate is being held at a time when the noble Lords, Lord King and Lord Young, are absent so that we seem to be playing Hamlet without the prince and the ghost.
The Government's position does not surprise us. We on these Benches very much hope that the Government will oppose the increased monopoly power that the merger would bring about. In various privatisation discussions in this House, we have always stressed that what matters is not ownership but competition, because it is through competition that the consumer is served.
The Government in certain moods and with certain hats on have always supported the idea of competition. They have told us repeatedly that competition in a free market is at the centre of their economic policy. In dealing with airlines and air fares in the past they have attempted to put that policy into practice. We recall that it was as a result of such effort that the reduction in the fares from London to Amsterdam was effected—not a great triumph and one that could have gone a great deal further, but it was a step in the right direction.

1183
We hope that the Government are not turning their backs on their determination to introduce competition into civil aviation. As other noble Lords have said, we hope that the Government will be consistent with the policies put forward in their White Paper on airline competition policy, which has been quoted by other noble Lords. The White Paper says that the Government's objective is to encourage a sound and competitive multi-airline industry and to promote competition in all markets. It notes that the Civil Aviation Authority came to the conclusion that there should be some reduction in the relative size of British Airways. It is true that that was three years ago and that times change. Other airlines have an adequate opportunity to develop and prosper, including at least one airline fit to replace British Airways on any major intercontinental route should the need arise.
Which of the Government's two lines of approach will they adopt? Will they back their own conviction and the importance of competition or will they retreat from it, as on occasion they seem to have done in their privatisation policies, and support the large organisation with its near monopolistic powers instead of backing the competitive line which it has been their policy in the past to pursue?
It has already been said that British Airways need to be larger in order to compete with the large airlines throughout the world. But when one looks at the figures which support the claim of these mega-airlines one can easily be misled because the numbers using many American airlines are greatly swollen by internal flights in the United States. That does not affect the competitive position of British Airways vis à vis these airlines because British Airways are not competing and are unlikely ever to compete on those routes. Why should they?
Another point on competition—the argument is surely strongest inside the United Kingdom—is this. Whatever competition will there be on the UK routes if British Airways are allowed to swallow British Caledonian? The great fear is that not only will their strength make it extremely difficult for charter lines and other lines in this country to compete but, as a previous speaker has asked, what will happen at Gatwick?
We have received letters, as I am sure has the Minister, from the charter lines pointing out that if British Airways can dominate Gatwick, as they already dominate Heathrow, the charter lines may well be pushed out to Luton and Stansted, which are by no means such good bases from which to conduct their operations. In the interests of having competition inside this country it is extremely important that British Airways should not be able to dominate the entire field.
It is said, and it is true, that the financial position of British Caledonian at the moment requires that some action should be taken if British Caledonian is to survive and the people employed by British Caledonian are not to lose their jobs. That is a matter of very considerable importance. However, it must be argued that it is not necessary for this salvage operation to be carried out by British Airways. Is it
1184
not possible for an arrangement to be made with one of the other airlines in this country? I do not know whether they are prepared to come forward or not but it could be encouraged.
I would even go so far as to ask why we should be afraid of an amalgamation with a Continental airline. I know that this is anathema to many people, but we are now inside the European Community. I understand that the Government are determined to have a single internal market. How very odd it is that we should be so frightened of money coming in from foreign airlines to collaborate with British Caledonian if that is a possible option. Surely such options should at least be examined.
I know it will be said that there is a limit of 25 per cent. upon ownership by a foreign organisation if it were to purchase British Caledonian. But that is a man-made obstacle. If the Government wanted to establish competition and to salvage British Caledonian without forcing it to sell out to British Airways, then surely there would be some other way in which an arrangement could be made, a sale organised, which would salvage British Caledonian without creating this monopoly which will undoubtedly have a devastating effect on competition.
The Government have declared themselves in favour of competition. We need to reduce the absurd air fares quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, with which we are all familiar. It is perfectly ridiculous that we have to pay the prices we pay in order to fly to Brussels. You only have to compare British fares with the cost of flights internally in the United States to see how farcical the situation is. It is a scandal that it will continue. It will be the negation of the Government's declared competition policy if they support action which will further rather than reduce the already excessive monopoly in civil aviation.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has given an opportunity for views to be expressed on what might be the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's decision on the proposed merger. Very definitive stands have been taken against the merger. Frankly I cannot be so definitive as other noble Lords in saying either yes or no to the merger. I want to see the MMC's report. I want to see the evidence presented to it. I want to see the reasons for its recommendation. I want to see the Minister's decision and I want to see the reasons for it. Then we shall be able to have, I hope, a full discussion on it in Parliament, because this matter just cannot be dealt with by saying, "We think the merger is good", or not, "for these reasons". It involves the whole question of civil aviation policy and of international agreements and the position of BA as our national airline, which is a matter we have discussed on other occasions. Therefore it is not a simple yes or no to the merger.
When the Answer to the PNQ in another place was repeated here on 16th July my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel dealt with the matter on that occasion. He urged that the merger should go to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. He did so

1185
because he said it was of an exceptional nature as it involved a reversal of government policy in trying to promote a second force airline. All noble Lords who have spoken referred to that. I refreshed myself on the Government's airline competition policy over the weekend. Therefore I am fully aware of the difference that a merger could make to the Government's airline policy. I also refreshed myself on the Edwards Report of 1969, which recommended a publicly-owned national airline with a viable second force.
Noble Lords have received briefings from all sides. It is true that figures have been given which would justify the statements that have been made, including the possibility that the merger would mean that 92 per cent. of all United Kingdom passengers to Europe would be carried by the one carrier. There are fears that charter flights may be transferred to Stansted. There are also fears that the BA-B.Cal merger would mean that the airline might be a dominant body both at Gatwick and Heathrow.
What we know is that B.Cal wants a partner. I use that word but we understand that it might have to be a take-over. It is in some financial difficulties. I do not share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that it would not matter if that partner were a Continental airline. There are certain problems about that.
Reference has been made to the United States mega carriers. We ought to look at the position carefully. I do not want to go into detail because, as I said, I do not think this is the occasion to go into details of civil aviation policy. But I have referred on previous occasions to the effects of deregulation in the United States. Figures have been advanced, which have not been challenged, that the original 36 carriers in the States were joined by some 198 new carriers, but 160 of these have been lost by being taken over, by merger or by bankruptcy.
In 1986 five major airlines in the United States handled 76 per cent. of passenger miles. Despite deregulation the nine major airlines carried 94 per cent. of United States traffic. It has been said that we should not worry about the mega carriers. Do the mega carriers pose a threat? I hope that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will go into that question and give us the answer.
Five of the United States airlines each carry 50 million or more passengers a year. In contrast the British Airways-British Caledonian merger will carry some 20 million passengers a year. Therefore there is a great difference. It has been argued that, because a great proportion of the mega carriers' flights are internal to the United States, it is not important; but if it puts a carrier in a financial position from which it can exercise considerable clout in trying to get agreements for other routes then it is of some importance.
I am one of those who believes that for a long time governments will still be involved in bilateral agreements. A carrier carrying 80 million passengers a year compared with one carrying 50 million a year may be in a position with possible financial advantages to exercise clout. I want to know whether the Monopolies and Mergers Commission—and the Minister cannot tell me this yet—has looked at this
1186
aspect and taken into consideration the point that there may a threat. I believe it is correct to say that over the past five years the large carriers of the United States have taken a larger share of the North Atlantic market.
Reference has been made to the traffic to Europe. Of the scheduled international passengers flying in and out of Britain 57 per cent. are with foreign airlines. If that is correct then it is a fact that has not been mentioned tonight. British Airways and British Caledonian between them carry only 38 per cent. If that is true we have to worry about it. We have said before when debating other issues of aviation policy that British Airways—and I am referring to the time when BA was a publicly-owned corporation—had to compete with other international airlines on many of its routes. It had to compete not only with companies from this country but with international airlines. We have to consider whether a merger would assist Britain in retaining and perhaps increasing its share of the airline market for those flying in and out of Britain. That surely is of vital interest to us. Would a strong British airline be better able to resist United States mega carriers pushing into various routes?
Reference has been made to the domestic routes. I understand that airlines other than British Caledonian and British Airways carry nearly half the domestic scheduled passengers in the United Kingdom. My noble friend referred to the independent carriers. It would appear that the independent carriers are doing what we want, at least in competition on domestic routes in this country.
Perhaps I should quote the statement on the merger made by the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority on 23rd July. Mr. Tugendhat said:
"There are benefits to be derived from the takeover and there have been changes in world civil aviation in recent years. Nevertheless, as the CAA has already said, the proposed takeover raises important issues of airline competition and airports policy".
That is why I say it is a detailed question which cannot be dealt with by a short speech at this time of night. The chairman went on to say:
"It is important that those who will have to take decisions about this proposed takeover should also understand what we cannot do"—
that is, what the Civil Aviation Authority cannot do.
"We have the power to substitute one carrier for another on a route, but not in order to make structural changes as such and it is clear that our ability to respond to structural changes in the industry is limited".
I think that is an important statement, because, if the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should approve the merger but lay down certain conditions such as transfer of routes, that does not bring in extra competition but it is a policy of substitution or of transfer. That must therefore be looked at carefully when we see the MMC report.
Major considerations must be to see what is in the best interests of the consumers; that is, the passengers using the airlines. They must also be to see what is in the best interests of the aviation industry. I think that both those aspects must be considered together.
I should like to see the MMC report. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, I wish to be told when we may see it—not just when it will be given to the Minister but when it will be published—rather than have a leakage through the press. I should like to see the evidence

1187
advanced by the various bodies to the MMC; I should like to see its conclusions and to know why it has arrived at those conclusions. When the Secretary of State has made his decision upon the recommendations, I should like to know the reason on which he has based his decision.
I believe that when we have that information it will be the time when Parliament should have a full-scale discussion involving the whole question of civil aviation policy, because I do not believe that the question of this particular merger can be divorced from the general question of aviation policy and even that of airports policy.
10.26 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for raising this matter and for giving me the opportunity to hear the range of opinions which have been expressed this evening about aspects of this Government's policy both towards mergers and towards the airline industry. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has made clear his concerns about the dominance which a merged British Airways and British Caledonian could have in the market for European scheduled airline services. I have noted with interest all the points which have been made by noble Lords this evening and will draw them to the attention of my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham and, where appropriate, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Today is the day on which the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was due to be submitted to my noble friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I can confirm that the report has been duly submitted by the commission within the three-month period which my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham specified in making that reference on 6th August. It now falls to him to read that report and consider its conclusions.
I do not know what that report says; and even if I did it would not be appropriate for me to discuss its findings before they have been fully considered by my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham, the report published and an announcement made. I am sure that he will want to consider the report very carefully in the light of the comments which have been made this evening. I am sure too that he will wish to take into account the Government's policy towards airlines and airports and to seek the views of his ministerial colleagues at the Department of Transport before reaching any decision which may be called for.
At this point I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the commission's reporting periods for mergers. The Fair Trading Act 1973 states that a merger reference shall specify a period not greater than six months within which the commission is required to report. There is also the possibility of one extension of up to three months if it is requested by the commission for special reasons, and agreed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
My noble friend Lord Young of Graffham and his predecessor at his department have been concerned that in general the maximum six-month reporting
1188
period is too long. In response to this concern the commission took steps to speed up its procedures, and such was its success that it has been allocated periods of only three months or four months to report in the case of all the merger references which have been made so far in 1987. The commission deserves particular credit for meeting its three-month target in the case of the merger which we are considering this evening, on which I have no doubt it will have received many representations.
As I have explained, it would not be appropriate for me to discuss issues directly arising from the MMC's investigation, but several noble Lords have raised some other points with which I shall attempt to deal.
One concern that has frequently been expressed—and it has been mentioned tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Graham—is that this merger proposal should be considered in the context of the Government's airline policy and that that policy should be safeguarded.
That policy, which was set out in the 1984 White Paper entitled Airline Competition Policy and reiterated in the British Airways prospectus, is very much concerned with the need to create competition opportunities for United Kingdom airlines and to ensure that there are adequate safeguards against anti-competitive behaviour. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority will wish to consider the commission's report very carefully with an eye to any implications that it may have for airline competition policy and for air transport licensing policy.
My noble friend Lord Bethell made a number of comments on air fares and I think I should just say that the Government's main priority on aviation matters in Europe has been to open up opportunities for competition. Our view is that this is the best way of bringing fares down as well as encouraging more and better services for customers. Notable progress has been made, for instance on the London to Amsterdam route as was mentioned by my noble friend, but we continue to press for more. We hope at last to see agreement on a liberalisation package by the European Commission when the Council of Transport Ministers next meets in December.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made a number of points about transatlantic fares and internal fares in America. No doubt many of the answers for which he is looking will be contained in the MMC report and I am sure that he will look at that with great care and interest.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made a suggestion about the possibility of some other solution for a merger or perhaps for someone to take an interest in British Caledonian. The MMC report is concerned only with the British Airways proposal and I think it is far too early to consider what could happen if there were the possibility of an alternative being required. Again I am sure that she will look at the MMC report with care and interest.
As I said, my noble friend Lord Young is considering very carefully the MMC's report on this merger proposal. I am sure that he will wish to

1189
publish the report and announce his decision, if there is any decision for him to make, as soon as is reasonably practical. I am confident that in considering the report he will take into account all the views that your Lordships have expressed in the Chamber this evening.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before eleven o'clock.

  ARTS FUNDING 1988–91
  ARTS FUNDING 1988–91
  OFFICIAL REPORT: PRICE INCREASES
  OFFICIAL REPORT: PRICE INCREASES
  MAFF: MINIM RETURNS 1987
  MAFF: MINIM RETURNS 1987
  SOUTHWARK SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT OFFICES: STATISTICS
  SOUTHWARK SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT OFFICES: STATISTICS
  COMMUNITY PROGRAMME PART-TIME WORKERS: UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT
  COMMUNITY PROGRAMME PART-TIME WORKERS: UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT