Sitting of 9 November 1987

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

    BEXLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL
    Order for consideration read.
    Lords amendments agreed to.
    To be read the Third time.

  WAYS AND MEANS

    CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the City of Westminster Bill, it is expedient to authorise payments into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    RAF St. Mawgan
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to give financial assistance to the building of an air terminal at the St. Mawgan Royal Air Force air base.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): We expect any proposed development of the civil facilities to be dealt with on a commercial basis.
    Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that virtually every economic report on Cornwall has accepted that customs and freight facilities at RAF St. Mawgan are vital to many industrialists in Cornwall and to those who might come to Cornwall? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is unlikely that the Ministry of Defence, which is responsible for RAF Mawgan, will help in that regard, and does he agree that it is important to encourage both customs and freight facilities at RAF St. Mawgan? Will he comment on the fact that aircraft diverted from Plymouth to Newquay because of fog or other adverse weather conditions are currently unable to bring in any freight cargo that they may have on board?
    Mr. Bottomley: The most helpful thing that I can say is that I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. Friends. They are not matters for the Department of Transport.
    Mr. Harris: When my hon. Friend consults other Ministers, will he have a word with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces and persuade that Ministry to scrap the ludicrous proposal to increase landing charges on Brymon, an important regional airline, by no less than 42 per cent. while the runway at St. Mawgan is being repaired?
    Mr. Bottomley: The general point about the importance of developing local airports is very well taken. I know that the Ministry of Defence will answer the point relating to its responsibilities.

    Cabotage
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the eventual introduction in the United Kingdom of cabotage in the road haulage and road passenger transport industries; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: We have received nine written representations. I met a deputation from the Transport and General Workers Union on 22 October. I have nothing to add to my reply of 28 October to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown).
    Mr. Marshall: Does the Minister realise that cabotage poses a threat to jobs in this country, to safety on the roads and to the environment? Has he answered the specific question put to him by the Transport and General Workers Union, and what positive measures will he take to protect jobs and to prevent overloaded lorries, perhaps carrying dangerous substances, battling it out for business on our roads?
    Mr. Bottomley: The Government take very seriously the point about enforcing the law, and we hope that the rest of the European Community will do the same. We will agree to cabotage if our operators have free and fair access to the markets of all member states. We have much more to gain than to lose from the liberalisation of cabotage if our hauliers grasp the opportunities.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Nevertheless, will the Minister accept that there is much concern about the approach of cabotage? By the Department of Transport's own admission about 3,000 continental hauliers driving on British roads are found to be overloaded and flouting our safety regulations every year. Given the rules on toxic waste and other dangerous substances, does the Minister accept the need to look carefully at the matter before 1992, to ensure that we protect our citizens, rather than simply benefiting road hauliers who want to travel overseas?
    Mr. Bottomley: We do not intend to wait until 1992 to continue to improve our enforcement effort, whether on foreign or domestic hauliers. We do not want different safety standards between now and then. The Polytechnic of Central London report showed that about 1 per cent. of the United Kingdom haulage market was likely to be taken by non-United Kingdom hauliers, whereas if the highly protected German market was opened up 20 per cent. of it could be secured by non-German hauliers. We have more to gain than to lose.

    M40 Extension
    Mr. Roger King: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the date for the completion of the M40 extension.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): Subject to the outcome of the public inquiry currently under way into the Waterstock-Wendlebury section, I hope that the whole of the M40 from Oxford to Birmingham will be completed during 1991.
    Mr. King: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware of the widespread concern felt by many of those living in the midlands and elsewhere about the restrictions that his Department is planning on the lane width of the Wendlebury to Waterstock section of the M40? It is felt that building a two-lane motorway in this day and age is unacceptable in terms of the traffic flows which most people expect on that road. Are the experts who predicted those traffic flows the same as those who predicted traffic flows on the M25?
    Mr. Channon: The answer to my hon. Friend's latter point must be no, because it is about 20 years since the
    4
    M25 forecasts were made. My hon. Friend asked whether I was well aware of the concern. My goodness me, I certainly am aware of it from my recent visit to Birmingham and other parts of the midlands. Of course I am well aware of that concern. The published proposals are for a dual two-lane motorway, with widened structures at that point. The proposals are currently before the inquiry. I have made no final decision, but shall reach it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in the light of the inspectors' report.
    Mr. Boswell: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he accept that even those of us who find that the motorway is to pass through our personal property are anxious that, after this long history of nearly 20 years, work should be pressed ahead as soon as possible, providing a three-lane standard from beginning to end?
    Mr. Channon: I get the impression that that is the general view of my hon. Friends. I note what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Fry: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the latest figures on the increased use of our motorways, showing a 17 per cent. increase between the second quarter of 1986 and the second quarter of 1987, bring into doubt, not only the wisdom of having a two-lane M40, but whether the M40 will be sufficient to relieve the already much overcrowded M1?
    Mr. Channon: I believe that it will have that effect. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to an important point. I am sure that he will enthusiastically support me when I tell him that there will be a £2 billion programme of new construction for motorways and trunk roads during the next three years.

    Air Traffic Control
    Mr. Michael Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to discuss the problems of air traffic control in British airspace.
    Mr. Channon: I meet the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority frequently to discuss matters of common interest. I next plan to see him on 16 November.
    Mr. Colvin: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the enormous contribution to this country's balance of payments made by civil aviation and of the industry's growth. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that our air traffic control system can cope with that ever-increasing growth? Will he avoid taking any action that will merely add to ATC problems, such as the imposition of an unrealistic night-flying restriction at London's airports?
    Mr. Channon: I am well aware of civil aviation's contribution. It has been one of our most successful industries, and I think that that is generally recognised by both sides of the House. Night flights are a different matter. I have sent out consultative documents on this matter in the past few days. I should be interested to have the reactions of my hon. Friend and others to them. As for the general adequacy of the Civil Aviation Authority's ability to deal with air traffic control, the CAA has received investment allocations sufficient to meet planned needs. A total of £125 million has been spent on

    5
    improvements to systems over the past five years and the CAA plans to increase the rate of spend in the future. The answer to my hon. Friend's question is, therefore, yes.
    Ms. Quin: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is great public disquiet about the crowded air space above London? Does he agree that the best way of tackling the problem is by a planned expansion of Britain's regional airports and better services between the regions and other parts of Europe?
    Mr. Channon: There has been rapid growth in Britain's regional airports, and I strongly support their development. There have been outstanding success stories. The air space over London is crowded. The CAA has a duty to deal with that overcrowding. I have outlined the vast sums of money that the CAA is spending and will spend. No sensible proposal from the CAA has ever been turned down by me or by my predecessors.
    Mr. Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend accept that air traffic control and the subject of night flying cannot be divorced? Does he agree that it is intolerable that flights landing between 5 am and 6 am should be able to wake potentially millions of people for the benefit of a few hundred passengers? Will he seriously consider restricting landings until 6 am?
    Mr. Channon: I believe that when my right hon. Friend studies my detailed consultative proposals he will find much to welcome, particularly the restriction of night flights into Heathrow if the proposals are generally agreed.
    Mr. Spearing: Will the Secretary of State raise with the chairman of the CAA the procedures and safety regulations to be adopted by the authority in relation to the new London City airport, which the right hon. Gentleman visited last Thursday? The right hon. Gentleman is directly responsible for these matters in relation to shipping, but with regard to air traffic they are the responsibility of the CAA. Is he aware that vague, bland assurances that cannot be verified are not satisfactory? Will he ensure that the CAA provides facts and figures in answer to questions and letters from hon. Members? Is he aware that if the authority does not do that its sloppy procedures will be made public and open to criticism, and will deserve to be changed?
    Mr. Channon: I will, of course, discuss that with the chairman if the hon. Gentleman wishes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like me, wishes the airport to be a great success. The CAA assures me that it is wholly satisfied with procedures within the airport and with its operation. It is also evaluating how the airport traffic can be properly integrated in the future, and is satisfied with that aspect.
    Mr. McCrindle: In addition to discussing matters of air traffic control, will my right hon. Friend reassure himself in forthcoming meetings with the CAA that related safety matters, such as the provision of smoke hoods and adequate exits from aircraft, are pushed ahead by the authority at all possible speed as it is now some two and a half years since the Manchester disaster?
    Mr. Channon: I have, of course, discussed those matters with the chairman, and I shall do so again. With respect, I believe that they go a little wider than the question on the Order Paper. Nevertheless, they are extremely important.

    Bus Services (Deregulation)
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he is having with London Regional Transport as to the policies to be followed in relation to the deregulation of London bus services.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I am currently discussing with the chairman new objectives for London Regional Transport for the next three years. I expect those objectives to include reference to our policy of extending the benefits of deregulation to bus users in London.
    Mr. Cox: I note that reply, but is the Minister aware of the increasing concern expressed by people in London about the future of their bus services and specifically about the effects of deregulation? Will he assure the House that high on the list of priorities will be the protection of services, the conditions in which staff have to work and the safety of passengers? Will he give an assurance that items of that kind will be discussed in the House and in local communities, and not just with people seeking to run bus services in London?
    Mr. Mitchell: I can well understand people in London expressing concern about the bus services and looking forward to the time when they can enjoy the benefits that other parts of the country have had, including the introduction of minibus services, hail-and-ride services and a whole tranche of innovation which London has only just begun to experience. Safety and other matters remain, of course, of prime importance to the Department of Transport.
    Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend agree that a non-dogmatic view of deregulation suggests that there have been some disadvantages as well as advantages? Before proceeding to consider full deregulation in London, will my right hon. Friend consider the effect of coach deregulation, which has taken away local authorities' power to direct traffic on to particular routes and has led to great parking problems, increased pollution and the use of unsuitable roads? Will he give full consideration to those aspects before reaching a final decision on bus deregulation?
    Mr. Mitchell: I hear what my hon. Friend has said and I will consider his point. However, coach deregulation has brought enormous benefits to a large number of our fellow citizens who can now travel at prices that they never dreamt would be possible. Indeed, the competition has sharpened British Rail considerably.
    Mr. Foot: Will the Minister be discussing with the management of London Regional Transport the kindred subject of the further introduction of one-man-operated buses? Is it really the management's intention to proceed with that programme? Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that any figures given by LRT showing that such a programme is popular with the public must be cooked? Is it not true that the only purpose of the programme—apart from increasing the jams in London—is to throw a few more people out of work?
    Mr. Mitchell: London Regional Transport is not committed to 100 per cent. one-person-operated buses in London, although that is the norm in other major cities in the world. Each major route that is converted to OPO saves £250,000 a year for the ratepayers of London.

    7
    Indeed, OPO is safer for the crew because there are fewer assaults on staff and there are also fewer boarding and alighting accidents.

    Transport Supplementary Grant
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will reconsider the guidelines for transport supplementary grant to enable more schemes costing less than £1 million to be supported.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Transport supplementary grant allows extensive support for schemes costing under £1 million. There are no plans to change the grant criteria. A guide to TSG is in the Library.
    Mr. Bowis: While accepting that some schemes cost under £1 million, may I ask my hon. Friend to note that most schemes cost more? When schemes have sped traffic through the countryside, it tends to end up in bottlenecks in areas such as mine. Will he therefore reconsider giving more money to small schemes, where comparatively small sums for comparatively small jobs could bring joy unconfined—not to mention transports of delight—to travellers in my part of London?
    Mr. Bottomley: We aim to give environmental relief by taking unsuitable traffic off residential roads, by giving greater chance of economic development to badly served areas and by reducing casualties. There are those who want more spent on small schemes, but a significantly greater number want more spent on large schemes. We think that we have the balance right and we have the opportunity to review it each year.

    Road Safety
    Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further efforts are being made by the Government to reduce road casualties.
    Mr. Channon: A major review of road safety has been completed. This makes it clear that we must give priority to those measures which will do most to reduce casualties. That means concentration on urban roads, vehicle design and research into driver behaviour. My target is to reduce annual casualties by one third by the year 2,000—a reduction of 100,000.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of the appalling carnage that occurs on our roads every week could be greatly reduced, especially on motorways, if advisory speed limit signs were mandatory?
    Mr. Channon: That is something that we are discussing with the police. The important point is that whether speed limits are mandatory or advisory people must obey them. They are there for a purpose and those who disobey them are behaving dangerously. Mandatory limits involve police enforcement. Some signs are mandatory, but others are not. The police must decide on the level of enforcement and the priorities that they give to that as opposed to other aspects of motorway enforcement. However, if they decided that that was the priority, I would not stand in the way.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a major way to improve road safety would be to attract more passengers and freight to the railways? Therefore, will he assure British Rail that he will give it the fullest
    8
    support and, in particular, agree to preserve the Settle-Carlisle railway, so that that important and beautiful railway retains full passenger——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is ingenious, but a little wide of the main question.
    Mr. William Powell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that drink is a major factor in many accidents on our roads? Will he confirm that, under the existing law, a constable may require a specimen of breath for analysis if there has been an accident, or a moving traffic offence, or if he has reasonable cause to believe that somebody has been drinking? Does he also agree that the courts have held that such reasonable cause need not arise until after a person has finished driving? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the widest possible publicity is given to that provision in our law so that, if random breath tests as such are not acceptable, at least that step, which is little short of it, is well known to the public?
    Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend has done a useful service in pointing out that fact. He was right on all the points that he raised. In fact, there is considerable misunderstanding about random testing. Police already have wide powers under the legislation. They can stop people at random. They can then test if there is reasonable cause to suspect alcohol in a driver's body, if a moving traffic offence has been committed or if someone is involved in an accident. Two recent cases in Sussex have shown how wide police powers are.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Has the Minister seen the report that Mr. Bill Gillan, the co-ordinator of the Prometheus project into road safety, has told university researchers that there is no point in proceeding with work which does not in some way follow vehicle companies' aims? Is that not crass and insensitive in view of the fact that 2,000 pedestrians were killed last year, that 35 per cent. of deaths on roads involve pedestrians, and that the number is rising? Will he give an assurance that no inhibitions will be placed on any research into road safety under the Prometheus project?
    Mr. Channon: I am not in favour of any inhibitions on research into road safety. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about accidents involving pedestrians. In fact, he will be pleased to see that recent figures show that there has been some improvement. There is no need for complacency in the House, but it is extremely important that hon. Members should understand that the 1987 casualty trends are encouraging and that child casualties and motor cyclist casualties are down substantially. In fact, our road safety record is perhaps the least bad in the whole of Europe. I am determined to build on that record, and the House should be aware of it.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Although I welcome the fact that our record is not as bad as that in Europe, will my right hon. Friend agree that we cannot afford to be smug when the number of deaths is equivalent to those in a jumbo jet crash every month of every year? Is he aware that a substantial cause of accidents is vehicles, particularly heavy goods vehicles, driving too fast too close behind each other? Is he further aware that there are well known technical means of preventing that? Will he bring in regulations to achieve it as soon as possible?
    Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. We have had special publicity about keeping one's

    9
    distance. I am experimenting with special signs on motorways about keeping one's distance and keeping left except when overtaking. Insufficient attention is paid to that matter on motorways. I shall look into the point that my hon. Friend raised.

    Network SouthEast
    Mr. Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he proposes to take on the findings of the inquiry conducted by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into Network SouthEast.
    Mr. David Mitchell: I am discussing the report with British Rail, which will be making its formal response in the new year.
    Mr. Anderson: The Minister must be aware of the report's key recommendation that substantial new investment is required to resolve the chronic problems of overcrowding, cancellations and unpunctuality which plague 400,000 daily commuters in London and the southeast. Does he propose to ignore the recommendation or sweep it under the carpet?
    Mr. Mitchell: It is not for Ministers to propose investment to British Rail; it is for British Rail to propose investment to Ministers. There are no proposals from British Rail that I have turned down that it has not been able to re-present in any acceptable form. The hon. Gentleman may like to know that the average annual investment in British Rail at 1985–86 prices was £112 million in 1970–79, £153 million in 1980–86 and the projected level is £175 million.
    Mr. Moate: Does my hon. Friend agree that he has considerable influence with British Rail? Does he accept that there is serious concern about deteriorating standards in the south-east after many years during which services had improved progressively? Will he talk to British Rail about the need to implement some of the recommendations of the report to ensure decent travelling standards for hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens?
    Mr. Mitchell: Yes, I shall discuss the report with British Rail and, of course, take account of my hon. Friend's points. However, we are sometimes a little unfair to British Rail and its staff, especially in the Network SouthEast area, because punctuality has increased from 84 per cent. of all trains arriving within five minutes in 1979 to 91 per cent. last year. Reliability has also increased with cancellations decreasing from 4·9, to 1·6 per cent. Several other quality standards have been improved.
    Mr. Snape: Does the Minister accept that this is the second such inquiry in seven years and that, like the previous one, the main recommendation of this inquiry has been the need for greater investment in rail services in Network SouthEast? Does he accept that Opposition Members blame, not British Rail and its staff, but the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends?
    Mr. Mitchell: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to seek to do that, but he must know that British Rail proposes investment decisions and that I dispose of them—or, rather, the Secretary of State and I do that—and that in disposing of them I have given approval time after time. I think it is fair to say that no other Minister in a similar period has given as much approval as I have done.
    10
    For good measure, I advise the hon. Gentleman that I have just approved £59·5 million for new electric multiple units for the great eastern lines.

    Bus Services (Deregulation)
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest information on the effect of deregulation on buses.
    Mr. David Mitchell: Bus mileage has increased by almost 12 per cent. over the last year, with 85 per cent. of the mileage now operated on a commercial basis; the number of operators has grown; operating costs and subsidies have been reduced; and the private sector has increased its share of the market.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I welcome the tone of that response and express pleasure especially at the fact that 85 per cent. of road mileage is now supported on a commercially viable basis, but will my hon. Friend comment on what I might describe as predatory subsidies? He may be aware that some local authorities are inserting a subsidised frequency into what was a commercially viable network, thereby destroying that commercial network. That cannot be the object of the Bill nor in the interests of the public at large. Will he also note——
    Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman should ask only one question.
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend has, with great perception, highlighted an area that causes some concern. If local authorities have so much money that they can afford to waste it by providing duplicate services with existing commercial services, that is a matter for the Audit Commission.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware of the chaos that has been caused by deregulation and the fact that more buses on the road does not mean that there is more efficiency? Is he further aware that, in effect, deregulation means more buses on profitable routes, but fewer on routes that are unprofitable, leaving people in outlying areas, not only in Leicester, but throughout the country, suffering as a result of that profit-based and awful scheme?
    Mr. Mitchell: I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that there are more buses in many of our towns and city centres——
    Mr. Janner: Only in the centres.
    Mr. Mitchell: I accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, but I am sure that he will not object to my saying yes to his question. In rural areas socially necessary services that are not profitable are provided by subsidy from the county or passenger transport executive concerned. They have saved £40 million in providing such services. If there is an area in which and the hon. and learned Gentleman feels that there is some under provision, perhaps a small percentage of that £40 million could be devoted to putting that right.
    Mr. Sackville: Does my hon. Friend agree that the deregulation of buses in Greater Manchester has been a success, but that since the control of a major bus operator, Greater Manchester Buses, has been left with local politicians, who have not the first idea of how to run a bus company, the job has been left half finished? When will he

    11
    introduce legislation to ensure that management buyouts can take place and control can pass to the employees of municipal bus operators?
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend has referred to the success of bus deregulation in Greater Manchester, and he is right. Greater Manchester Buses has reported that costs per mile have decreased by no less than 23·3 per cent., that miles per employee have increased by up to 23 per cent., that miles per bus have increased by 17 per cent., and that its costs have come tumbling down as a result of improved efficiency. If, on the back of that improved efficiency, there is pressure for a staff buyout, I hope that local politicians will respond to it.
    Mr. Snape: Does the Minister accept that over Christmas last year there were no buses in Greater Manchester——
    Mr. Sumberg: Or the year before.
    Mr. Snape: That is not true.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That was not part of the question.
    Mr. Snape: If these interruptions are going to be picked up by Hansard, I hope that for once the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) will get his facts right.
    Does the Minister accept that there will be no buses in the west midlands on Christmas day and Boxing day this year, that there will be no train services either and that the main beneficiaries of deregulation in and around our major conurbations are likely to be the manufacturers of breathalysers because of the increase in drink-driving problems that will be caused? The hon. Gentleman, like all Conservative Members, knows the price of anything when it comes to deregulation, hut he has never appreciated the value of services in and around our major conurbations.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am glad that this time the hon. Gentleman has chosen to sing that tune and not to say how much the bus staff look forward to having the time off over Christmas. The opportunity was there for the Greater Manchester PTE to seek to have services provided over the Christmas holiday period if it wished. It did not make such arrangements, and that is why the services were not provided.

    British Rail
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail; and what issues were discussed.
    Mr. Channon: Last week. We discussed a variety of railway matters.
    Mr. Jones: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he discuss with him the state of the north Wales railway line between Holyhead and Crewe? Will he stress the importance of that line, not only to passengers, but to industry, in view of the expected increase in the volume of road traffic from January 1988 when B and I shifts part of its operations to the port of Holyhead? Will he use his influence with the chairman of British Rail and urge him to include in his medium-term strategy plans to electrify the north Wales line and in the short term to include plans to upgrade the line and improve the quality of the rolling stock?
    Mr. Channon: As the hon. Gentleman asks me to do so, naturally I shall discuss that matter with the chairman of
    12
    British Rail, but, as my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, for any programme of electrification—I know that the hon. Gentleman has been in correspondence about this—it is for British Rail to make proposals to me. I have received none, but naturally I shall be happy to approve any proposal that offers good value for money.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the arguments in favour of electrifying the north Wales railway line have been greatly strengthened by the imminence of the Channel tunnel?
    Mr. Channon: I hope that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend will put those arguments to the chairman of British Rail. I repeat that we shall naturally be happy to accept any proposal that offers good value for money.

    Driving Test
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received the report on the future of the driving test; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: I hope to receive a report on the Department's examination of ways of improving the efficiency of the testing system in the next few days.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Minister take this opportunity to deny that he is going to privatise the driving test, and ensure that there are sufficient inspectors to undertake it, especially in view of the problems that the trade unions believe there will be with this extension?
    Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman and I play in the same football team, Mr. Speaker.
    I do not think the hon. Gentleman would expect me to prejudge the report. I should be surprised if the trade unions and driving instructors would either. We want better value for money and better services for the customers. Half the 2 million tests conducted each year are taken by people who have already failed the first time. If people prepare themselves properly for the first test, more of them will pass and there will be less of a queue.
    Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not necessary to have a report to know that it is common sense that people should have a secondary test after they have passed the basic test before they are allowed to drive on the major motorways? It is foolish to allow people who have merely passed in daylight on slack roads to go out on major motorways and compete with the traffic thereon. The Government should do something about that now and not wait for any report.
    Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will be interested to know that at about the age of 24 people start to have more accidents and injuries on motorways than on other roads. Most accidents on motorways happen to so-called experienced drivers—usually the 90 per cent. of us who regard ourselves as being in the top 10 per cent. of those with driving skills.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    "Spycatcher"
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Attorney-General whether he is considering bringing any prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act arising from the "Spycatcher" episode.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): No, Sir.
    Mr. Allen: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us why he is not yet prosecuting Lord Rothschild?
    The Attorney-General: My answer as to why no prosecution was being brought was given several months ago. To bring such a prosecution would not have been in conformity with the Attorney-General's published guidelines for prosecutors.
    Mr. Fallon: Does my right hon. and learned Friend find it extraordinary that, even after yesterday's outrage, the Opposition still do not support the need to uphold the duty of confidentiality of those who work in our security service in order to defend the country from terrorism and subversion?
    The Attorney-General: I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said. There seems to be a certain ambivalence in the attitude of Opposition Members to that litigation. I venture to suggest that if we were not prepared to incur the cost of litigation to uphold the duty to which my hon. Friend has referred, the cost would very soon be more than money.

    Project Zircon
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to reach a decision on the possible prosecution of Mr. Ducan Campbell for alleged breaches of the Official Secrets Act in relation to Project Zircon; and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General: In consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, I expect to have completed my consideration of all relevant matters shortly.
    Mr. Dalyell: That was the answer of some months ago. How, in conscience, does the Attorney-General, who, left to himself, is a decent and humane man, justify dithering about a decision that has been awaited for nine months? Why cannot Duncan Campbell be told one way or the other? Why is the BBC still waiting for the return of the Zircon material from the authorities?
    The Attorney-General: I am grateful for the compliment, but I must make it clear that in matters affecting my prosecution function I am always left to myself. This is a complex matter in which short-cuts would not have been appropriate. They might even have been criticised by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Sackville: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that any money spent on deterring employees or ex-employees of the security services from betraying the trust placed in them is money well spent? It is important to establish——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Gentleman read the question? It is about Zircon.

    "Spycatcher"
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General how much in total Her Majesty's Government have allocated for future expenditure on trying to prevent the publication of the book "Spycatcher".
    The Attorney-General: No specific amount for future expenditure is allocated in respect of any particular case.
    Mr. Winnick: Has Wright expressed his gratitude to the British Government for helping to boost the sale and
    14
    publicity of his book? Would not all the public money that has so far been spent, and probably the greater amount that will be spent in future on this farcical exercise, be better spent on scrutinising the security service and having a parliamentary Select Committee reporting on the matter?
    The Attorney-General: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind two factors. The first is that in litigation it is the ultimately successful party that is normally awarded costs. Secondly, we are claiming an account of profits against Heinemann and Wright in Australia and against newspapers in New Zealand, Hong Kong and here. If those claims are ultimately successful — [HON. MEMBERS "If".]—that will cause money to flow hack to the Treasury. In those circumstances, I would expect the Opposition, with their notable concern for reducing public expenditure, to rejoice.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend considering any changes in the law or in the terms of contract of security service men to stop those who may be tempted to betray their country's secrets for money from doing so?
    The Attorney-General: The present legislation remains in force and work has been in hand for some time on devising provisions that would be an effective, enforceable and reasonable alternative. This is not without difficulties. As my hon. and learned Friend is aware, the Official Information Bill 1979 was found to be unacceptable, although it closely followed the recommendations of the Franks committee.
    Mr. Fraser: As Mr. Wright's disclosures are now about as confidential as a stage whisper, and if the Government are sensitive about the expenditure of public money, why does the Attorney-General not simply pursue Mr. Wright and his publishers for an account of profits? Why is it necessary to proceed with these extraordinarily expensive proceedings in the courts in many countries? The Attorney-General is presently reviewing the legal aid system. Will he be as indulgent to the ordinary citizen pursuing his rights as he is to the Government in pursuing Mr. Wright?
    The Attorney-General: By now it must be understood that it is as important to uphold the principle in this jurisdiction, as it is in every other jurisdiction where it proves possible to do so, that when somebody retires from a position in our security service he continues to owe a duty of confidentiality. If the Government do not take all the steps that are properly open to them to enforce that obligation, they will not be able to do so in any subsequent and perhaps even more serious case.

    Actions for Discovery (Immunity)
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation to confer immunity from actions for discovery in criminal and civil cases upon all correspondence between Members of Parliament and their constituents; and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General: I am aware of my hon. Friend's very conscientious efforts to preserve the privacy of certain letters sent to him by a constituent who was to be a witness in a criminal trial. Those letters became the subject of a subpoena issued by the High Court judge trying the case.

    15
    Nevertheless, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is not at present persuaded of any need to change the law in this area, which is of long standing.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the case that he has mentioned cost me £2,500 and that that was without choice on my part? Could the same thing not happen to any hon. Member, and would that not effect and inhibit future relations between hon. Members and their constituents? If it did, would my right hon. and learned Friend be kind enough to think again and either seek amendments to the law to give immunity to correspondence between hon. Members and their constituents, or allow reimbursement if a case such as the one that I have just gone through were to occur again?
    The Attorney-General: The whole House will have great sympathy for my hon. Friend, but he will know that we are faced with a conflict between two important interests. One is the interest of preserving privacy in correspondence between a constituent and a Member of Parliament, and the other is the importance of not withholding from a court of law material that may be necessary to enable justice to be done in that court. I shall, of course, draw the attention of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to what my hon. Friend has said, but I should be misleading him if I were to hold out hope of a change in the law.

    Judges
    Mr. Alex Carlile: To ask the Attorney-General how many High Court judges and circuit judges, respectively, there are currently in England and Wales; if the Lord Chancellor has any proposals for increasing their establishment; and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General: As at 1 November there were 79 High Court judges and 394 circuit judges in England and Wales.
    An Order in Council has been laid in draft to increase the statutory maximum number of High Court judges from 80 to 85. If it is approved, the Lord Chancellor intends to recommend the appointment of two additional High Court judges as soon as practicable.
    The number of circuit judges needed to dispose of the work load is reviewed regularly. The Lord Chancellor recommends such additional appointments as are considered necessary.
    Mr. Carlile: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that answer. However, does he agree that there are still far too many people spending far too much time in custody between remand and trial at Crown courts, and that more circuit judges should be appointed from both sides of the legal profession, especially including more women judges, to deal with the cases that are awaiting hearings?
    The Attorney-General: My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor makes no distinction between male and female candidates for the bench. He is very anxious to recruit as many as can be recruited without diminishing the judicial quality.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the average waiting time in the Crown court has diminished from 17·3 weeks in 1979 to 12·4 weeks in 1987. I agree that delay is always undesirable. I believe that what I have said about the increase both in the establishment and in the number of judges is reassuring.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Overseas Aid
    Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to reach the United Nations target for aid of 0·7 per cent. of GNP.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has yet set any target date for increasing United Kingdom overseas aid to match United Nations guidelines as a percentage of gross domestic product.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): The Government accept the United Nations target in principle. As with previous Administrations, they have not set a timetable for achieving it, but aid is now planned to grow in real terms.
    Miss Lestor: Does the Minister agree that, despite the small increase that was announced last week, the amount of GNP now allocated is still well below what many of our major EEC partners give and well below the amount achieved by the previous Labour Government when they left office in 1979? Would it not be an encouragement to all those working in aid and development if he were able to state categorically that the increase will be maintained and that it will reach the United Nations target within the next year or two?
    Mr. Patten: I believe that it should be an encouragement to the sort of people to whom the hon. Lady has referred that, on the figures for this year, the aid budget will be increased by £70 million next year, by £140 million the following year and by a further £185 million the year after that.
    Mrs. Ewing: Has the Minister looked at early-day motion 257, which points out that the aid budget has fallen by 15 per cent. since 1979? Why are the Government so loth to set a target? What is the difficulty in naming the date?
    Mr. Patten: We take very much the same view as our predecessors about this. I repeat that the aid budget did fall between 1979 and 1982, but since then it has been maintained in real terms, and this year I was extremely pleased that we were able to announce an increase in real terms.
    Mr. Soames: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the increases that he has achieved in the aid programme. Does he agree that what matters is not targets but the effectiveness of the aid that is delivered? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the great burden of the aid that we give will go towards enabling people of the poorer countries to become more self-sufficient and more reliant on their own resources?
    Mr. Patten: I agree with my hon. Friend about the quality of our aid programme. I am delighted that, not long ago, the OECD complimented us on the quality of our aid programme and pointed out that 75 per cent. of our aid goes to poor countries, as against an average of about 60 per cent. for other OECD donors. I believe that we should continue to concentrate on the quality and effectiveness of what we are doing.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames)

    17
    has just said, it is not so much the volume of the aid as the effectiveness with which it is used that is crucial for development? Does my hon. Friend also agree that it is often much easier for charities and voluntary bodies, which do not have to work through local host Governments and become entangled to the same extent with local bureaucracy, to provide the most effective contribution to development?
    Mr. Patten: I wholly agree with what my hon. Friend said. That is why I am pleased that recently we were able to announce a 50 per cent. increase for next year for the joint funding scheme, which assists non-governmental organisations, and why I am also pleased that we have been able to announce an 18 per cent. increase in the amount of money available to help British volunteers to go overseas.
    Sir Russell Johnston: While we welcome the increases, we must not forget that they are increases on decreases. Is it not a matter of profound regret that in 1979, when the Government came to power, we gave more in overseas aid than France, Germany, Italy and Canada, and now all of them give more than we do? Is the Minister saying that that means that the quality of their aid has declined?
    Mr. Patten: We still have the sixth largest aid programme in the world. It is extremely effective. In 1979 we were undergoing a structural adjustment programme with the support of the International Monetary Fund. Now we are able to go to the IMF and help other countries to go through structural adjustment programmes.

    Immunisation
    Mr. Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about progress in the UNICEF global immunisation project and the United Kingdom contribution to it.
    Mr. Chris Patten: UNICEF says that there is a slow but steady increase in contributions. The British Government have contributed £5·31 million bilaterally to the immunisation programme, and some £2 million through the European Community. Other British contributors, the United Kingdom National Committee for UNICEF and the TUC, have pledged a further £2 million over three years.
    Mr. Chapman: I welcome the initiative and the contribution by Her Majesty's Government towards that United Nations special project, which I am sure has universal support, and recognise that the programme to immunise all the world's children against the six preventable diseases must take some years, but will my hon. Friend look sympathetically at the need to announce a five-year special contribution by the United Kingdom Government to ensure that the programme is given that necessary lift and to encourage other countries to follow the lead given by our Government?
    Mr. Patten: We shall, of course, consider special appeals by UNICEF. It is important to note that our contribution to the core budget of UNICEF has increased to £7·5 million for next year, which is more than the increase in the rate of inflation. It is also important to remember what we are doing to support primary health care in aid recipient countries, which has a considerable bearing on the problem to which my hon. Friend referred.

    Overseas Aid
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of public expenditure was devoted to overseas aid in 1979 and in 1986.
    Mr. Chris Patten: In 1979, 1·1 per cent. of public expenditure was devoted to overseas aid. In 1986 the figure was 0·83 per cent.
    Mr. Fisher: Does not that decline underline the point that our aid budget is now below the OECD average of 0·36 per cent. and that it has been cut more than any other area of public expenditure apart from housing? Is not that underinvestment in aid morally wrong and economically nonsensical?
    Mr. Patten: It is not entirely clear to me which public expenditure programmes the hon. Gentleman thinks should fall as a proportion of public expenditure overall. I am sure that he must have been as delighted by the real terms increase in the aid programme as he was by the real increase in the arts budget.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only is it welcome that the size of our aid programme is now increasing in real terms and that its effectiveness has been improved in recent years, but that there is a role for this country to play in influencing the policies of other countries? In that context, will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the initiative take by our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in adopting a fresh approach to the debt problem, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa?
    Mr. Patten: Thanks to this country's economic strength we have been able to take the initiative in trying to help the most debt-distressed countries in Africa. As my hon. Friend will know, the Chancellor's initiative was endorsed by the Commonwealth Finance Ministers and the Commonwealth Heads of Government.

    Sri Lanka
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present level of aid given by Her Majesty's Government to Sri Lanka.
    Mr. Chris Patten: In the calendar year 1986 aid to Sri Lanka totalled £13·4million, including expenditure£7·8 of million from the aid and trade provision. An additional £2 million was disbursed by the Commonwealth Development Corporation in that year.
    Mr. Cox: I note the Minister's answer, but, in view of the tragic events in Sri Lanka, will fresh aid be given? Is it the Government's policy to work with the Sri Lankan Government to rehabilitate and ensure that confidence returns to that country? Will he, or a representative of his Department, attend the special aid meeting in Paris at the beginning of next month?
    Mr. Patten: We have announced a contribution of £1·5 million for immediate relief work in Sri Lanka. Much of it will be disbursed through non-governmental organisations, such as Oxfam. We will be attending the meeting in early December, held under the auspices of the World Bank, when we shall consider what more we can do to help with long-term reconstruction in Sri Lanka. I am sure that we will be in a position to make a substantial contribution.

Terrorist Attack (Enniskillen)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement on yesterday's terrorist attack at the war memorial in Enniskillen.
This occurred shortly before the parade arrived for the formal wreath-laying ceremony. I should explain to the House that the normal procedure in Enniskillen is that the parade forms up and marches to the war memorial where the act of remembrance takes place and then marches to the cathedral for the Remembrance day service.
At 10 45 am, as spectators were gathering near the war memorial, a bomb exploded in the St. Michael's reading room, outside which a number of people were taking up their normal vantage point. No warning whatsoever had been given. The explosion demolished the gable wall, which fell, crushing the waiting spectators. Eleven people were killed and more than 60 injured. Of the injured, 21 were detained in hospital overnight, of whom five are very seriously injured. Among those killed are three elderly couples, a young nurse, and an off-duty policeman.
I know that I speak on behalf of the whole House in expressing our deepest sympathy to those bereaved and injured, and to all their relatives and friends, at this appalling outrage. I also pay tribute to the absolutely outstanding way in which all the emergency services responded to their terrible task.
It is clear from the location chosen for the bomb and the absence of any warning that those responsible for this monstrous act set out deliberately to kill and maim ordinary members of the public: people from both communities who had come together on a sunday morning, young and old, like thousands upon thousands of others throughout the United Kingdom, to honour the memories of those who had died in two world wars and since. In all the tragedy of the terrorist campaign, this outrage stands out in its awfulness. To perpetrate such an outrage against people, for many of whom the occasion was already one of sorrow and remembrance, betrays a total lack of human feeling. Nor could there have been a more deliberately provocative act, more calculated to stir up sectarian hatred, than this outrage on this special and solemn day.
There is a deep sense of anger and outrage felt throughout Northern Ireland today. I know that many will call for retaliation. I say to them most urgently that they most not be provoked. Further acts of violence will only play into the hands of the terrorists and make more difficult the task of the security forces. What we must do instead is to determine that every possible assistance is given to the RUC and the security forces in their continuing fight against terrorism and in particular to bring those responsible for this atrocious crime to justice, wherever they may be. There must be some who have in the past given tacit support to the terrorists, or who have preferred too often to look the other way, who must be horrified at yesterday's outrage. If they or anybody else have any information at all to identify the culprits, and if their revulsion at this terrible crime is genuine, they must ensure that they give the RUC any help they can, whether by using the confidential telephone or by whatever means they choose.
20
Since my visit yesterday afternoon to Enniskillen, I have had initial meetings with the Chief Constable and also the General Officer Commanding and the Commander Land Forces. I shall be meeting them on my return to Northern Ireland. In addition, in the light of the serious recent events in security both north and south of the border, and the successful seizure of the major arms shipment and the implications that flow from that, I shall be having further urgent talks with Irish Ministers abut security. In this connection I appreciate the strong message of support and co-operation that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has received from the Taoiseach.
There are those who believe that this latest, most foul attack is a measure of the frustration of the terrorists in the light of the considerable recent successes of the security forces. Whatever their motive, the courage and resourcefulness of the security forces, backed up by the same courage and steadfastness of the community, and aided significantly by international co-operation, have inflicted severe blows on the terrorists. None the less, yesterday's outrage shows the evil threat that they still pose and the vital need for the whole community to continue to stand steadfastly against them.
There are two messages that I wish the House to send today. The first is to the people of Northern Ireland of our resolve to stand firmly with them in the fight against terrorism and to assure them of our full support. The second is to make it clear to the men of violence that no threat or outrage destroys our resolve, but makes us all the more determined to rid the Province of the evil of terrorism.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: The whole nation shares the feeling of revulsion caused by this horrible and obscene act. In the past, even the most barbaric have accepted that people should be allowed to honour their dead in peace. It is particularly horrific when we recall that hon. Members were yesterday before their local cenotaphs, not just honouring the dead but, more particularly, welcoming the reconciliation that there has been since two world wars.
Our sympathy, as expressed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and our prayers go out to the families and the relatives of the bereaved and injured. Those who heard Mr. Wilson, the father of the nurse who died, on the radio this morning could not have had a better or a more moving insight into the personal tragedies that have resulted from this dreadful deed, nor a finer example of Christian charity.
Equally, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is correct to urge that the best method of defeating these men of violence is not by taking retaliatory action or by overreacting, no matter how understandable that may be. We must react with a cold anger, with a determination to support the forces of law and order, and the RUC in particular in its efforts to bring these criminals to justice. In this way we can ensure that the rule of law for which those whom we were all honouring at cenotaphs yesterday, and in particular at Enniskillen, died, is upheld.
We join in the tribute that the Secretary of State paid to the emergency services, in especially tragic circumstances, and to the courage, resolution and determination of the ordinary citizens of Enniskillen, who were faced with tremendous tragedy. Their immediate reaction was to help those who were sick, injured or dead.

21
There is a particular message that comes from this tragedy. It gives the lie to any suggestion that any Democrat can flirt with those who support the policy of the bomb and the ballot box. For Democrats, it is the ballot box that matters.
The people of Enniskillen have the knowledge of our sympathy and of the resolute determination of the House that they should be able to live their lives secure and in peace. It is our duty to ensure that that is achieved.
Mr. King: I know that the House will appreciate what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has said on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, on his own behalf and on behalf of his right hon. and hon. Friends generally. I am sure that the House will appreciate especially his comment that no Democrat can flirt with anybody who espouses the cause of terrorism.
Anyone who heard Mr. Wilson this morning—it was one of the most moving broadcasts that I can remember—gained some insight into the amazing courage and wonderful quality of the people of Fermanagh. That came across so clearly in that most moving broadcast.
I think that we in this place can appreciate the horror of this outrage as well as anyone anywhere in the country. Those of us who were involved in Remembrance Day ceremonies in our constituencies saw the sorts of people who were killed in the outrage; for example, parents, old servicemen and others with memories who have regularly attended Remembrance Day occasions. We find that targets for terror are the parents of those with children in the Girl Guides or the Boys' Brigade who go to watch their children take part in a traditional ceremony. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members will understand all too keenly the appalling nature of this outrage.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: I add my words of congratulation to those that have already been uttered to the emergency services for the way in which they worked in Enniskillen yesterday to bring comfort to the injured and for the way in which they have rallied round the bereaved. I thank right hon. and hon. Members of both sides of the House who this morning offered support to me as well as to my constituents.
I was devastated yesterday by the death of another 11 of my constituents, bringing the total death roll in Fermanagh and South Tyrone to 194, but I was doubly devastated to hear the Secretary of State's statement this afternoon. It is an insult to the House yet again to be offered platitudes. It is a let-down for my suffering people.
All that we have been offered is a further abdication of the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office and of the Government to the Government of a foreign state. We who live close to the frontier in Northern Ireland realise that if we get any co-operation on security matters from the Irish Republic that is a bonus and is not the basis of proper security for our people. Instead, the basis of proper security lies in the Government's hands. In other words, it is the Government's responsibility.
I remind the Secretary of State that the death toll of 47 in the year before the Anglo-Irish Agreement has now risen by 70 per cent. to 80 this year. We would do better to tell everyone in Northern Ireland, including the SDLP, that they can no longer get away with simple condemnations of violence and that they must accept responsibility for the welfare of the community in which
22
they live. Will the Secretary of State consider how tragic it is that 169 deaths at the hands of the IRA have resulted in only 14 convictions through the due process of law—a miserable 8 per cent.? Will he therefore not simply encourage, but demand of the SDLP that it turns its words of sympathy into action to protect the people of Northern Ireland?
Mr. King: I know that the whole House will understand the great emotion with which the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) speaks at this moment. We all know the tragic history and the scale of casualties that his constituents have suffered over the years of the terrorist campaign, and this has been a further appalling blow for them. We understand that entirely. Nevertheless, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will fairly recognise the very determined efforts that have been made, and the successes in recent months, in bringing a number of people to justice and in preventing other terrorist incidents—most recently in preventing an attack on the police station at Loughgall, quite close to the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
The hon. Gentleman will have noted that I said in my statement that it was time for everybody to give full support to the RUC and the security forces. I say that very clearly indeed, and look to every party in the House to play its full part. This is a time when there can be no halfway house. There can be no chance of deciding whether to sit on the fence. In the fight against terrorists of such depravity and viciousness, those who are not for us are against us. We need the fullest support of every Democrat in the country and of every Democrat in Northern Ireland, to defeat the terrorists.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Without apology, Mr. Speaker, I rise with deep anguish of heart and deep anger at the massacre that took place in Enniskillen yesterday. As the elected representative of the area in Europe I can also speak in a representative capacity.
I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree with me on one thing, if we agree on nothing else. Someone who has seen a founding member of his own party so brutally murdered, as John Megaw was, and who has visited in hospital members of his congregation who have been barbarously mutilated, must speak with the deepest possible feeling and conviction if there is a spark of manhood in him. If hon. Members wish to condemn the strength of emotion of Northern Ireland representatives, I remind them that I have seen their emotions stirred on other occasions. We feel the same as they would feel. If the House has to receive from Northern Ireland Members some contributions with which it may not agree, it must recognise that as elected representatives we are bound to put to the House the feelings of our constituents.
Is the Secretary of State aware that no amount of condemnation or sympathy from him or the Government whom he represents will allay the real fears of the people in Ulster about the increasing number of IRA terrorist murders in Northern Ireland? The people in Northern Ireland do not want sympathy from the Government or condemnation of this violence. They want action to put this violence down, so that they may live in peace and get on with the ordinary aspects of everyday living.
Does the Secretary of State appreciate the deep anguish of an exasperated population who have seen murder piled upon murder, and massacre piled upon massacre—all

23
carried out without effective action to stop it? This is not the first time that the Houe has heard a similar statement and similar words of condemnation, yet the violence has increased. Does the Secretary of State not now realise that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has not brought peace, stability and reconcilation, but, rather, has brought polarisation, war and increasing bloodshed and violence?
Will the right hon. Gentleman now consider that the signal failure of the Garda recently to deal with the gang of the so-called "border fox" means that the Garda is likely to give him little assistance when he turns to it at this time for help to put down the IRA? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that it is an insult, as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said, even to mention in the House the help of Mr. Haughey, who helped to spawn the IRA? Anyone who doubts that should read the debates that took place in the Dail in Dublin.
I should like the Secretary of State to explain why the reading room was not searched and why the police were not permitted to search it when they went into the area. Last night, when I was in Enniskillen and visited the hospital, the police put it to me that if they had dared to go into that convent property and put in a sniffer dog they would have been at the receiving end of stiff Nationalist opposition and downright condemnation. The police should have had that building searched, because it was a vital place in which a bomb could be laid. I should like an explanation on behalf of the people of Enniskillen.
Mr. King: No hon. Member will resent the hon. Gentleman expressing his feelings and those of his constituents, however emotionally, in the face of the scale of the tragedy and horror that we are reviewing. It is his duty to put those feelings as clearly as he can. I hope he accepts that it is our duty, as elected representatives and as people in positions of responsibility, to ensure that those emotions that inevitably are aroused by an occasion of this kind are channelled into ways that are genuinely helpful and will not lead to further disillusionment, bitterness and hatred.
Since I prepared this statement—I have not yet had further information about this—I have been informed that a member of the minority community in Belfast was murdered this afternoon. I hope that there is no connection, but, as we all know, it is a clear warning of the tragic and destructive way in which emotions can be aroused.
I have no knowledge that anyone in any sense refused permission to search the reading room. It is the practice, I understand, of the security forces to clear the route and perhaps to examine those buildings that might present a real threat to the security forces. The recent terrorist campaign has been targeted directly against the security forces. To anyone who knew the normal arrangements for the parade at Enniskillen, this building was a place from which ordinary members of the public watched the parade, so there was not much risk to the security forces. I think that that may have been part of the thinking. Awfully, that truth proved correct and it was ordinary members of the public who were killed. Certainly there was no question of a search being forbidden.
In dealing with the challenge of terrorism, one must remember that the parade marches for a mile or more from
24
the assembly point to the war memorial and the cathedral. Moreover, there is a whole range of Remembrance Day parades in Northern Ireland, so the challenge to the security forces in terms of what is realistically possible is very great. I know that all possible precautions were taken. Indeed, I have spoken to the Army officers concerned, who played a major role in clearing the route before the parade took place.
Mr. David Alton: Will the Secretary of State convey to the relatives of the murdered and the injured the condolences, prayers and sympathy of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself? Does he agree that the most lasting memorial to the innocent victims of the Enniskillen atrocity will be redoubled determination and resolve to strengthen co-operation between the British and Irish Governments?
To that end, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that on 1 December, in the Dail, progress must be made on a full extradition agreement? Does he further agree that there needs to be simultaneous enactment by the Dail and by Westminster of joint anti-terrorist legislation and the establishment of joint courts? Does he also accept that there can be no room for ambiguity about Catholic support for the security services, and that Catholics in Northern Ireland who wish to see an end to violence must desist and support the RUC?
Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks on behalf of his right hon. and hon. Friends and himself. He referred to co-operation. What I believe will come out of the outrage is a better chance of much closer co-operation within Northern Ireland. I believe that many people who perhaps felt that they could somehow stand aside now realise the awfulness of the menace that threatens every decent person in the Province. The universality of condemnation that has come from right across communities leads me to hope that that will be reflected in the strongest support.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) for not replying to his point about co-operation with the Irish Government. Although it is within Northern Ireland that these matters have first to be tackled, the security forces who have had to cope with the challenge of terrorism over the years operate to a highly sophisticated and professional standard and we are, of course, keen to find ways for co-operation with the Garda. If any hon. Member who knows the geography of the island of Ireland seriously suggests that we will make the best progress in fighting terrorism by somehow doing it in separation from, rather than in co-operation with, the Government of the Republic, I must make it very plain that I could not disagree more.
On the need for there to be no hiding place within the island of Ireland, I have made my views very clear as to what I hope will happen. The Irish Government are well aware of our views and it is vital that we stand together.
As we are talking about a European convention, I pay tribute to the international co-operation that we have had, and I believe that it is the countries of Europe in particular that must stand together in the fight against terrorism.
Mr. James Kilfedder: I wish that the distraught and hard-pressed people of Ulster could have heard the warm and supportive words of sympathy from

25
hon. Members from all parties that greeted me when I arrived at Westminster this morning. It would give them hope for the future.
I preface my question to the Secretary of State by repeating what I have said before—that I hope that there will be no retaliation in Northern Ireland as a result of this obscene act. However, it should be remembered by all hon. Members—and I hope that the Secretary of State will pay the appropriate tribute—that the people of Northern Ireland have for 17 years suffered grievously at the hands of the Provisional IRA, whose systematic, ruthless campaign of murdering Protestant men, women and children has been going on for far too long.
Instead of a war of words from the Despatch Box and press releases from Stormont Castle, will the right hon. Gentleman now wage all-out war against the Provisional IRA? It will not be beaten by any other means, and certainly not by concessions, weaknesses or the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I believe, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees, that in Northern Ireland there must now be a proclamation of martial law, the introduction of identity cards for every person—with fingerprints and photographs stored in a central computer, and anyone moving from an address must notify the authorities—the abolition of the 50 per cent. remission for terrorists who have been sentenced to prison, the restoration of the ordinary remission terms that apply to the remainder of the United Kingdom and the introduction of internment — something with which I disagree, but which is necessary.
The Secretary of State said that there should be no hiding place, but there is a hiding place in the Irish Republic, and there is a hiding place in Northern Ireland. I have been told by police and Army officers that they can identify the IRA men wandering around, but they cannot arrest them because they do not have sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction in court. Those men are planning operations and training youngsters to carry out atrocities, but they can defy the law while walking past police and UDR officers.
Perhaps I have become cynical after 17 years of violence in Northern Ireland, but there is no sign of its coming to an end. The Government, unfortunately, show weakness to the IRA in many ways. May I give the House a prediction? I hope that I am proved wrong, but I believe that within a few weeks — yes, even a few weeks — representatives of Republicans, both north and south of the border, will be engaging in bogus criticism of the police, Army and UDR if they kill or capture some IRA terrorist. Let us ensure that if they make such a criticism, this House will give them its answer.
Mr. King: I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman's support for the call for no retaliation, which was very well put. He mentioned a number of specific items that he wants to see pursued further. We keep a number of matters regularly under review. I do not propose to comment on any of them today, but I have taken note of the hon. Gentleman's comments.
I was struck by the hon. Gentleman's opening comment about the warmth of welcome and words of sympathy that greeted him when he arrived at the House today. Other hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, had a similar experience. The awfulness of this outrage is how counter-productive and stupid it is. The incident has, in fact, drawn together
26
all those for whom Remembrance Day is a very special day, and the outcome of the incident is that it will enlist substantial support for hon. Members, their constituents and those who have to face the horror of terrorism. In that respect, the whole country has drawn together in its feeling of outrage.
Mr. John Hume: I join other hon. Members in expressing abhorrence at the appalling atrocity yesterday, which was an act of sheer savagery. The choice of the occasion yesterday, when people were commemorating the dead of two world wars, who came from every section of every community of both islands, was cold and calculated and designed to stir and hit the deepest emotions of the Unionist and British people. It was the deepest act of provocation against the Unionist people that has taken place in my lifetime. I sincerely hope that no one will fall into the trap that has been laid by retaliating, because the doctrine of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind.
This House can do no more today than endorse the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that there should be no hiding place anywhere in these islands for those who committed the atrocity. We should also endorse the Irish Prime Minister's statement that every step should be taken by his Government, together with the British Government, to ensure that those who committed the atrocity are brought to justice.
There is a lesson to be learnt by the representatives of Northern Ireland. It is clear to me, as it must be clear to anyone, that it is the past attitudes in Northern Ireland that have brought us to where we are today. Unless we are prepared to re-examine those attitudes, we will stay the way that we are. If we are to live together, the first lesson that we must learn is that we need each other. We will discover how much we need each other, and how we are to live together, only when we sit down and talk about it.
Mr. King: The whole House will have listened to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. He obviously has an important role to play in the process. If, out of all the misery and tragedy, one benefit might flow, if it brings forward closer co-operation, a united determination to fight against evil men and the commitment of men of good will to work together, that, at least, will be some not entirely tragic epitaph to this awful incident.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: Were not the word of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) a welcome lead? However, when he said that the atrocity was deeply provocative to the Unionist people, should he not also have said that it was deeply provocative to Irish people as a whole? At remembrance time at our war memorials, do we not commemorate the many Nationalists who fought and died with our forces?
Mr. King: Of course, I accept what my hon. Friend said. Many from both communities have served and died in two world wars and since, as I said in my statement. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point absolutely clear.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Secretary of State accept from my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself our sympathy for the bereaved and injured and our revulsion, shared with people throughout the length and breadth of the realm, at such a cowardly attack upon those gathered to commemorate those who lost their lives in defence of freedom? We note

27
with satisfaction the right hon. Gentleman's expression of determination to bring to justice those who perpetrated this atrocious deed, wherever they may be.
Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is practical and effective co-operation on the ground between the security forces in the border areas — especially in the light of the report this afternoon of the discovery by the Garda of a battery and command wire connected to an unexploded bomb in Donegal? Does he believe that such co-operative activities can play a more effective role in preventing such a tragedy? We are convinced that terrorism and such acts serve only to strengthen the determination of our people to sustain, or to secure, by democratic means, the peace and government of Northern Ireland.
Mr. King: I make absolutely clear our determination to bring to justice the perpetrators not merely of these crimes but of the other awful crimes that have been committed. I hope that the sheer awfulness of this outrage will assist that process. There will be many for whom it is so intolerable that they may at last, as I said in my statement, abandon what one might see as an ambivalent view and understand the importance of supporting the security forces. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. The cross-border incident is still under investigation. It appears as though it was an attempt to commit another attack at the same time as the attack yesterday. It will be the subject of close co-operation between the Garda and the RUC.
Mr. Alistair Burt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever other motives may have lain behind yesterday's tragedy and outrage, two victories were sought by the perpetrators? The first was an undermining of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and the second was the return of capital punishment for terrorist murders. Will my right hon. Friend set his face against the undermining of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and, from his great office, do his best to urge the House to resist the second, which would give terrorists the propaganda victories which their outrages so deservedly refuse them?
Mr. King: I certainly accept—all my information confirms it—that the people who most fear the Anglo-Irish Agreement are those in the IRA. They will do everything that they can to smash it. They perceive that truth which the House endorsed a few moments ago. I made the point that the greatest threat to them lies in closer co-operation between the two Governments. There may be those critics who do not believe that such co-operation can be achieved, but I trust that nobody will say that co-operation is not a prize well worth striving for.
On the second point, I recall that when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke on the subject of capital punishment he quoted the views of the Chief Constable of the RUC. The Chief Constable made it clear to my right hon. Friend, my predecessor in the office that I now hold, that, in his view and in those of his senior officers, it would make the RUC's task of fighting terrorism more difficult. My right hon. Friend asked me whether that was still the view of the Chief Constable and senior officers, and I confirmed that it was.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Does the Secretary of State accept that the time for the platitudes
28
of the past 18 years has now expired? Does he also accept that hon. Members have a duty to bring forward, debate and implement political decisions? Is it not our first duty to deprive terrorists of the hope and expectation that they will achieve their objectives? They were given such hope and expectation exactly two years ago. In response to what the Secretary of State said—if I did not misinterpret the words that he used in a broadcast this morning—can we not now get together within the United Kingdom to reverse the disastrous and fatal message of 1985?
Mr. King: I have tried to make it clear to the House already that, with the responsibility that I hold, I should not think it the least bit wise somehow in isolation to seek to pursue the interests of security and to make a real improvement in security in Northern Ireland. From my experience since the Agreement was signed, I strongly believe in the progress that has been made and in the relationships that are being established. In the long term, they can prove to be of great benefit to the people of Northern Ireland and, indeed, of great benefit to the people on both sides of the border in the island of Ireland.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Secretary of State allow me to record my appreciation of the multiplicity of expressions of condemenation and sympathy from hon. Members during the course of the day about the events that occurred in Enniskillen? It would be difficult for any Northern Ireland hon. Member to go back to the Province unable to carry such messages with him, but will the Secretary of State accept from me that it will be equally difficult to go back to the Province without a message from him that demonstrates a new initiative or a new resolve on the part of the Government to defeat terrorism?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also accept from me that there is a widely held view in Northern Ireland that the doctrine upon which the British Government's security policy is based is that if we take tougher action we might drive Nationalists further towards the IRA? Rather than take tougher action, the Government choose to make concessions to what they describe as constitutional Nationalists, in the hope of winning the Nationalist community away from the IRA.
After Enniskillen, does the Secretary of State accept that that policy does not work? It causes the IRA to step up its campaign of violence and to believe, as it has some justification to do, that more violence brings more concessions. Will he tell us that he is prepared to have a resolute policy against the Provisional IRA which hunts and harries its members, which corners and captures them, and, when they are caught, makes sure that they are sentenced to sentences that fit the crime that they have committed?
Mr. King: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks about the expressions of sympathy that have been given to him. It widely reflects feelings right across the United Kingdom.
On the second point, the hon. Gentleman's criticisms fly totally in the face of the reality of the situation. If he examines the facts he will find that, in terms of losses and casualties, this has been the most serious year for the IRA, certainly in recent times, and that the number of terrorists lost is substantial indeed. We must look at the incidents and the successes of the security forces. In terms of recovered weapons and explosives, prevented attacks and

29
arrests—including one last night in Belfast in connection with a bomb which, arguably, was destined for the centre of Balfast — the hon. Gentleman will note that the activities of the security forces have been extremely energetic. I certainly give him a clear pledge. We shall not rest until we carry forward the fight. We can point to some successes, but, as I warned the House, we still fight a dangerous, evil adversary. Of our resolution let there be no doubt.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Last night I called on the elderly widowed mother of a former RUC member who was murdered at Enniskillen. She said:
"They got him this time."
He has previously been shot and ambushed.
I ask the Secretary of State, on reflecting upon Warrenpoint, Birmingham, Ballykelly and Enniskillen, to undertake to resign if another such incident occurs in Northern Ireland and he fails to take advice from Ulster Unionists. We have been ignored. Our advice is of no account in the House. What do we find? We find that death, murder and maiming continue. In fact, it is escalating. There were two extraditions in the two years prior to the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. No persons have been extradited in the two years since it was signed.
We live on promises. I and my constituents in the east of the Province, and people across the Province, accept the sincere expressions of sympathy and the condemnations of violence and the retaliatory action that we have heard about. I shall be pleased to convey them to those with whom I make contact, but we cannot go on endlessly ignoring the views expressed in the House on behalf of Unionists, who are being selectively butchered and murdered. It is genocide. It is war. The Government have failed miserably to use their power with their own security forces. This summer I visited Cyprus, where I saw an attempt to create a border that appeared to be working. I have travelled almost to Dublin and along many of the byways across the Province, from north to south, but there is no evidence of security. Until attitudes change in the House, and especially that attitude of the Secretary of State and his Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, regrettably we can look forward to yet another similar incident in the not too distant future.
Mr. King: I would welcome the hon. Gentleman's co-operation, the opportunity to listen to his views on the security situation and to hear any ideas from him. I confirm that my door is open, as are those of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Northern Ireland Office. We are ready to work in any way that we can and to consult Unionists who would like to put forward their views. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my complaint has been the lack of that advice and the lack of Unionists who are willing to put forward their views. It would be overwhelmingly in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, including those whom the hon. Gentleman represents, if we could work more closely together.
Rev. William McCrea: I join many other hon. Members from Northern Ireland in expressing my appreciation to those who genuinely feel for the deep hurt and anguish of the people of Northern Ireland. I speak as a member of a family that has been savagely hurt during the troubles by the murder gangs of the IRA. I pay tribute to the excellent services of those who assisted and helped
30
in Enniskillen during the great crisis about which my lion. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) spoke.
Many of the people of Northern Ireland find that much of the sympathy rings hollow when they consider that the troubles have been going on for 19 years. We have listened to expressions of sympathy for 19 years and have been told continually that the resolve to defeat terrorism is there. Surely, after 19 years the Secretary of State must believe that if a policy has not succeeded in destroying the curse of the IRA that policy has failed and needs to be changed. There is nothing wrong in a person admitting that a policy has failed and in realising that life is at stake and that British citizens are suffering. Coffins will be carried out, and when I return to Northern Ireland my constituents along the border will ask not how many expressed sympathy but what the Government are going to do to stop it.
How many more coffins containing the cream of Ulster will have to be carried out before the Government wake up to the fact that one cannot negotiate away terrorism? One cannot defeat terrorism by sitting politicians around a little conference table, as I have heard some hon. Members suggest. It can be defeated only by military means. As is known, we were commemorating previous wars yesterday. The enemy of freedom and liberty was destroyed, not by a little conference, but by military might. Therefore, I ask the Secretary of State what measures he believes will defeat the murderers and bring an end to this tragedy in our Province. When will the Government have the courage to act on the Prime Minister's conviction that the death penalty should be restored in the United Kingdom? With the greatest respect to certain hon. Members who represent seats far away from the murder gangs, I would rather have a dead terrorist any day than a dead British subject who wanted simply to live in peace in the Province.
Is it not interesting that certain hon. Members are missing from their places today? Last week in the Central Lobby of this House those hon. Members greeted with open arms a member of Sinn Fein and his deputation. Is it not hypocrisy that hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench should tell the people of Ulster how sorry they are, when other hon. Members of Her Majesty's Opposition flirt with that terrorist organisation of Sinn Fein? Instead of giving such people the respectability of holding positions in local government, is it not time that Sinn Fein was turfed out? It is time that the House realised that many members of Sinn Fein hold high positions and office in district councils in Northern Ireland with the support of the Social Democratic and Labour party. I name Magherafelt district council and Omagh district council. With the support of the SDLP a member of Sinn Fein was elected to the key position of the chairmanship of the latter council. Let us have a bit of honesty, because the people of Ulster have had the reality of murder and destruction for 19 years.
Mr. King: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have made my views on those who support terrorist organisations absolutely clear. I have made clear also my concern about the present unsatisfactory situation in the council chambers, which we are not prepared to tolerate. Appropriate action needs to be taken.
With the resources and the scale of the involvement of the RUC, the regular Army and the UDR, nobody can

31
doubt the Government's commitment to providing the resources necessary to the fight against terrorism. Yes, we shall face terrorism with the security forces in every way that we can. However, we should also undermine and wean away those who might be inclined to allow terrorism to continue. That means the greatest effort by all those in Northern Ireland who are in any responsible position to try to show some understanding of and respect for the other community and the two traditions. In that way, they can back up the policing activities of the security forces and give them the support that they deserve.
Mr. Harold McCusker: Is the Secretary of State aware that, if the truth were told, in the aftermath of this latest tragedy the people of Northern Ireland are just as cynical as the House and officials in the Northern Ireland Office, because one tragedy is piled on another, and perhaps therein lies our greatest danger?
On the basis that hope is perhaps one of the ways in which we can avoid retaliation, and that the responsibility for giving that hope must lie with the Secretary of State, what hope can he offer people in the Province this afternoon? What hope can he offer to the people who have said to me, "You are wasting your time going over there. They are not going to listen to you"? When this ritual is over and the dead are buried, it will simply be a matter of my colleagues and I waiting for the next time.
Mr. King: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's first point. I do not think that people in the Province are cynical about what happened yesterday or about what will happen in the future; nor are hon. Members or people in this country cynical in any sense. I agree with Bishop Hannon, the Bishop of Clugher, whom I heard speaking this morning. When asked about the scale of the outrage and the difference that it made he said that every death is a tragedy for the family and relations. Northern Ireland has had to face too many such tragedies. As I said in my statement, I believe that there is something about this incident and its awfulness that will prove hugely counter-productive for the terrorists who perpetrated it. That is my first hope.
Secondly, we are determined, and we are slowly and steadily getting results. It is easy to disparage every success of the security forces, say that it is merely a flash in the pan and point to another murder or atrocity that has been committed, but, considering the figures over the past few years, we can see that there has been an overall improvement. With ever-closer international co-operation, and with a growing and widening realisaton of the evil of terrorism, we can at last see the platform from which the final assault can be made against that evil.
Mr. Ian Gow: Does my right hon. Friend accept that all hon. Members on this side want to associate themselves with his opening statement and hope that no one masquerading under the title of Loyalist will resort to terrorist methods which that person would be the first to condemn when employed by the IRA? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Anglo-Irish Agreement would never have been signed unless it had been preceded by a prolonged campaign of terrorist violence? As a consequence of that agreement, predictable and predicted, has been still greater terrorist violence, will my right hon. Friend now consider activating article 11 of the agreement?
32
Is it still my right hon. Friend's belief that it is only by giving the Irish Government the right to put forward views and proposals about the government of Northern Ireland that we can obtain greater co-operation from the Republic for the defeat of terrorism? If that is the continuing belief of my right hon. Friend, would it not be strengthened if the Irish Government had not connived at the payment of ransom money to terrorists, if they had acceded to the European convention on the suppression of terrorism, and if there were greater signs of competence and security on the part of the Garda?
Mr. King: I have no detailed information on that kidnapping, and my hon. Friend will understand why it is not possible for me to comment. I have made my views on the European convention, some would say, abundantly clear. I propose to leave it at that, because I have made my views absolutely clear.
I respect the sincerity with which my hon. Friend holds his view on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, but I believe that the agreement can be of benefit to the people of Northern Ireland. Because it addresses the concerns of the minority, some Unionists think that it is somehow to the disadvantage of the majority. If ever there was a clear illustration of the importance of addressing minority community concerns, this is it. Those who will gain the greatest possible benefit from a minority community that feels that its issues are fairly addressed are the majority community.
I would not consider it appropriate to accelerate the review period for the conference, which will come at the end of three years.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On behalf of my hon. Friends in the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, may I also extend our sympathy to the families and friends of the maimed, dead and injured in Enniskillen? As constitutional Nationalists, we have always believed that constitutional change can come only through the ballot box and democratic negotiations. We have always said categorically that violence, far from advancing a cause, devalues the principles of freedom and democracy. Therefore, we shall support all steps that will bring this problem to the negotiating table, both cross-boundary and internationally.
Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, speaking with her particular insight and from her particular viewpoint, for her clear endorsement of the constitutional path for any Nationalist politics. The House will have listened with respect to what she said.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Important though the matter is, I must bear in mind that we have another debate ahead of us. I shall allow two further questions from each side.
Sir Eldon Griffiths: May I ask my right hon. Friend, whose personal agony the House will understand, some questions which I know to be in the minds of those to whom we are now looking—the men and women of the RUC—not only to catch the butchers of Enniskillen, but to prevent a bloody backlash from the majority community.
First, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the professional and technical support from the Garda are sufficient? If not, will he take what steps he can to improve them? Secondly, will he seek to ensure that more Army

33
support, particularly in the form of helicopters is available to the RUC? Thirdly, will he re-examine the Prevention of Terrorism Act to see whether it is right to include some form of preventive detention so that men who have killed and whom the police know will kill again are not free to walk the streets of Belfast and plan further attrocities? Finally, will my right hon. Friend consider publishing through British posts abroad a brochure setting out the true horror of Enniskillen, with photographs, so that those who misguidedly provide money and arms to support terrorists will recognise the full horror of what they are doing?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He referred to a potential backlash, but I am sure that there is no question of that. The Unionist community is most courageous and resilient and I have absolute confidence in the steadfastness of a people who have shown such courage in the face of such provocation. Nevertheless, a few on the margin could cause serious damage.
My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on the technical support and back-up from the Garda, but I take careful note of what he said. He will understand that we, particularly my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, take a particularly close interest in his view. We have increased the number of helicopter hours, and we shall certainly keep that under review. I am grateful for the support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on that.
My hon. Friend raised the fundamental issue of preventive detention. That is something that we keep under review, and we have always made it clear that we shall keep it under review. The House knows of its difficult history, but the power remains in certain circumstances for the Government to invoke it if they thought it right to do so.
My hon. Friend referred to increasing international understanding of the real awfulness of the terrorist threat. The House will have seen the message to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister from the President of the United States, showing clearly American understanding of this matter, and I shall certainly take up my hon. Friend's helpful suggestion.
Mr. David Winnick: May I support one of the points made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), namely, the need for British missions to do more in European countries and the United States to publicise the horror of what occurred yesterday? Is it not encouraging that the Soviet Union has made the response that it has done, bearing in mind that until now it has painted a somewhat distorted picture of what has been happening in Northern Ireland?
Mr. King: I believe that I am right in saying—hon. Members may correct me if I am wrong—that this is the first occasion on which the Soviet Union has made such a comment. It is significant and, clearly, did not happen by accident.
A most significant step, to which I attach importance and in which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is closely involved, is European co-operation in the fight against terrorism. The development of this co-operative approach is of enormous importance. Anybody who studies recent events and issues, such as arms availability
34
and procurement, knows the international nature of the challenge of terrorism and the need for international co-operation between democratic states to fight it.
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at our Remembrance service yesterday in Cambridge, we also honoured and remembered the tens of thousands of young men of all Ireland who served and suffered in the British armed forces in two world wars—with my father in the first and my brothers in the second? They fought together for the cause of democracy. Is he also aware that the agony of the people of Enniskillen is our agony, and that their cause is our cause? Has not this barbarous act demonstrated that we are at war together again against another tyranny, that of terrorism?
Is it not time that all the British people and Irish people realised the mortal peril to both nations—a peril that must be fought and defeated? Surely, in the exigencies of war, some of the constraints that we have in times of peace must be reviewed.
Mr. King: The House will appreciate the eloquent way in which my hon. Friend put his very personal feelings about Remembrance day and the people from both our islands who fought and lost their lives in the cause of freedom.
I also take note of my hon. Friend's other comments. We shall take all the necessary and possible steps that we believe could be helpful in the fight against terrorism. I choose my words carefully, and the House will understand why. Let no country doubt our resolution in this matter.
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: When I was elected to this House I was proud, for two reasons. First, I was proud to have been elected to the mother of Parliaments; and, secondly, I was proud to represent my 60,000 constituents. I came here with high hopes to listen to the mother of Parliaments, but unfortunately, since I was elected in 1983, and through all the tragedies, murders and bombings that have taken place in Northern Ireland in that time, I have found the House wanting. I have found that it is not capable of restoring their British citizenship to the British citizens in Northern Ireland. The House does not seem capable — with all the power that it has throughout the world—to restore peace and security to the people of Northern Ireland.
It is said that politicians merely talk, and I have heard politicians talking here again today. The people of Northern Ireland do not want talk. They want action to restore the peace and stability that have been promised them by this House. I reliase that those who exercise power have a tremendous responsibility. However, sometimes when I look at Conservative Members a certain amount of time after the beginning of questions or a debate, I see them seeming to relax and saying to themselves that that little bit is over and they can look forward to getting back to normal business.
The real tragedy is that 11 people will be buried, and a greater tragedy is that others will follow them. What message will the Secretary of State give to my constituents, who phoned me continually for two hours yesterday evening, about the action that will be taken to resolve the position?
Mr. King: I have tried to give the House those messages today as clearly as I can. I hope that the hon. Gentleman

35
will study what I have said and see that the path we must follow is that of co-operation in Northern Ireland and internationally, and of determination together in the face of terrorism. That offers us the best prospect of the improvement that the hon. Gentleman longs for.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell hon. Members whom I have not been able to include in the questions on the statement that I shall bear in mind their position when we come to Thursday's questions on Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland (Terrorism)
4.44 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the increase of IRA terrorism in Ulster and the massacre at Enniskillen yesterday."
I know, Mr. Speaker, that I must not argue the case, but simply establish to the House that an important and specific matter should have its consideration, but I want to give the House some facts to establish that. In Northern Ireland there were 47 murders in 1984, in 1985 there were 86, and this year—I hope that all hon. Members will listen carefully—there have been 79 deaths. Two thirds of the deaths of which the Army was accused were resolved in the courts in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Of the 22 deaths of which Protestants were accused, 11 were resolved. Of the 169 of which the IRA was accused, only 14 have been resolved. Those figures speak for themselves.
The House would do well to hold a proper debate on this matter so that the views of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, and those of all hon. Members, could be heard. I trust that if you. Mr. Speaker, cannot see your way to accepting what I propose today, we may have a proper, full-scale debate on this urgent matter at a future time.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the increase of IRA terrorism in Ulster and the massacre in Enniskillen yesterday."
I have listened with great concern to what the hon. Gentleman had to say and, indeed, to Question Time, which has now continued for well over an hour. As the hon. Gentleman — and the House — knows, my only consideration when looking at a Standing Order No. 20 application is to see whether it meets the criteria laid down in the Standing Orders. I regret that I cannot find the matter appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 8845/87 on toy safety be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.
That European Community Document No. 11063/86 (Part 3) on pre-packaged liquids (bottle sizes) be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Orders of the Day

  Licensing Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.48 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second Lime.
  It happens quite often that the House moves from dramatic business to ordinary business—we have a way of doing that. It is particularly difficult to do so this afternoon because of the tragedy we have just been discussing, and the way in which everyone, including those who have some personal knowledge of Enniskillen and its people, joins in the sadness and anger that have been expressed. However, the people of Northern Ireland have to carry on their ordinary lives today—that is one of the badges of their courage—and we have no option but to do the same.
  Over the past 30 years the English pub has become a much more cheerful and welcoming place. I do not suppose that that fact has been recorded anywhere in Hansard, but it certainly should be on the record. Here and there we complain about the architecture and the furnishings, or we press for better beer, but the improvements in style, standards of food and friendliness, and the general feel of pubs, are among the most striking social changes in our cities, towns and villages since the war. The pub, with its range of food and soft drinks as well as alcohol, now compares favourably with the average French, Italian or American bar.
  There is one considerable oddity. On a normal weekday a pub is compelled to stay shut between 3 pm and 5.30 pm. The central purpose of this relatively modest Bill is to put that right and to open up the forbidden afternoon. Clause 1 will allow licensed premises to open from 11 am to 11 pm, thus removing the present restriction on afternoon opening from public houses, hotels, wine bars and other licensed premises as well as registered clubs. There is, of course, no requirement to open for longer hours; the provision really removes the obligation to close.
  I cannot think that anyone settling down to devise a system for regulating the consumption of alcohol would light upon our present law as a sensible way of doing so. It is worth looking for a moment at the origin of the law. Through the 18th and 19th centuries there were various attempts to control drinking hours, but they were almost entirely directed at keeping drinking places closed on Sundays. The substantial legislation of 1872 and 1874 left it possible for a public house to remain open on weekdays for up to 19½ hours. The position changed dramatically as a result of the growth of the temperance movement, its links with the Liberal party and, above all, the conclusion reached during the great war that too much drinking was harming the production of munitions and was thus a threat to national security, especially near war establishments and naval ports. The forbidden afternoon which we are now proposing to abolish was established for that wartime purpose in 1915.
  Much has changed since then. I cannot see why it is acceptable to drink at lunchtime, wicked to drink in the afternoon and acceptable to drink again in the evening.
  38
  We must remember that most drinking nowadays does not take place in public houses. Scottish evidence suggests that less than one third of drinking takes place in pubs. It is perfectly possible for someone to walk into a supermarket and load himself up with liquor to be consumed at any hour that he wishes. I would guess—though it can only be a guess—that someone is, on the whole, more likely to drink himself into a state of violence or ill-health or misery or nuisance to others if he drinks outside a pub than if he drinks sociably in one. Let me make it clear that it is no part of the Government's case that alcohol abuse does not exist or that it is not serious.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: As a result of what the Home Secretary calls this modest measure, does he expect alcohol consumption to increase or decrease?
  Mr. Hurd: The Scottish evidence on that point shows that the extension of opening hours does not add to the dangers of misuse. I shall come to that in a moment. The hon. Gentleman has fired his shot a little too early.
  As any Home Secretary must know, alcohol abuse is a serious and continuing threat to the individual and to society. I shall shortly examine what we arc doing about it. If I felt that by opening up the afternoon in the way that we propose we were increasing the dangers of alcohol abuse, I would not move the Second Reading of the Bill and we would not have put it in our manifesto. The evidence does not support such a fear. Let us look at the position in Scotland where afternoon pub opening is not, in effect, forbidden.
  Since the Scottish Act of 1976 came into force there has been widespread use of extensions to allow licensed premises to open during the afternoon. Incidentally, this gives some indication of the demand from the public.
  I now come to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). Total consumption of alcohol by men in Scotland determined by surveys by the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys did not differ significantly before and after the 1976 Act, although the average time spent drinking increased by over an hour. There was a significant increase in the consumption of alcohol by women who drank for an average of one and a half hours longer. However, in view of the figures for men, the OPCS concluded that this seems more likely to be due to changes in attitudes towards women drinking and is unlikely to be a consequence of the changed law. It is also worth noting that only 18 per cent. of women did most of their drinking in public houses.
  Mr. Tony Favell: There has been much correspondence about the increased consumption of alcohol by women following the relaxation of the licensing laws in Scotland. It would help the House a great deal if my right hon. Friend would tell us whether there is any evidence about what has happened during the same period in England and Wales.
  Mr. Hurd: I do not have that figure, but I shall ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to supply it if he can when he replies to the debate. As I have said, there is no reason to suppose that the clear increase in Scotland in the total consumption of alcohol by women is related to the change in the licensing laws — especially when one considers, as I have said, that less than one fifth of Scottish women do most of their drinking in public houses.
  Figures for drunkenness offences in Scotland show little change, either in the number of offences recorded or the

  39
  charges proved, before and after the passage of the Scottish Act. The statistics for drunk-driving offences do not provide any evidence that flexible licensing hours have had any significant effect. Because of changes in recording and procedures, the figures are not easy to interpret. Police procedures have changed during this time. If anything, there appears to be little change in the trend in Scotland and an increase during the same period in England and Wales.
  Dr. Lewis Moonie: The Minister mentioned two matters. He said that no danger had resulted from the change in Scotland and that there has been no difference in convictions for drunken driving. How does he explain the fact that the peak for drunk driving in Scotland occurs in the late afternoon which is not the case in England and Wales?
  Mr. Hurd: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures before and after the change in the licensing hours, he will see that he will be unable to show that there is any relationship between the incidence of drunk driving in Scotland and the change in the licensing law. As I have said, he will find that, although the trend in England and Wales was upwards in this period, there has been little change in the trend in Scotland.
  Sir Philip Goodhart: My right hon. Friend will be aware that some road safety organisations are worried that the Bill may increase the amount of drinking and driving. He will also be aware that they consider that as a quid pro quo there should be a clear Government statement allowing random breath testing. Could he touch on that?
  Mr. Hurd: I shall cover that aspect later. I was speaking about the evidence from Scotland. It is true that alcohol-related health problems have for a long time been higher in Scotland than in England and Wales, but the proportionate increase since the Scottish Act was passed in 1976 has been smaller in Scotland than in England and Wales. A study by Edinburgh university looked at all these figures. The study was published in the British Medical Jounal in 1986 and concluded:
  "in relation to health, the new Scottish licensing arrangements can be viewed neither as a source of harm nor as a source of benefit. They have in effect been neutral".
  Sir Bernard Braine: No improvement.
  Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend is correct; there has been no improvement. I do not claim that the change in the licensing laws in Scotland secured an improvement. Equally, there is no evidence to show that they brought about a deterioration. Our conclusions from the Scottish evidence is that there is a demand for pubs to be able to open in the afternoon and there is no evidence to show that if they do so there will be a harmful effect on society or that it will, in itself, lead to further misuse of alcohol.
  It seems that, although people may drink over a slightly longer period, they do so in a more leisurely manner without increasing their total consumption. I fully recognise, of course, that there are dangers in making too close a comparison of different parts of the kingdom. We are not saying that the changes in Scotland have led us to introduce changes in England and Wales, but rather that
  40
  the evidence from Scotland has not produced findings that suggest we should not make the changes contemplated in this Bill.
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: I share the view of the Home Secretary that the Scottish evidence is wholly inconclusive. Why did the Home Office statement of 30 October assert that the Scottish experience demonstrates that there would be no change in drinking habits, just a more leisurely approach to drinking?
  Mr. Hurd: I have been through the evidence. I am not claiming that and nor did the statement to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. There are no inconsistencies. I am not claiming, and nor does the statement, that the Scottish experience suggests that there has been an improvement. I am saying, as did the statement, that the effect is neutral. There is no evidence from Scotland which would lead anyone to argue against the change proposed in the Bill.
  It was no doubt with these thoughts in mind that the British Medical Association wrote to us on 15 October, concluding:
  "While opposed to any action which might lead to a significant increase in alcohol consumption in this country, the Association accepts the modest changes proposed in the Home Office Consultation Document, including those designed to bring opening hours for on-licensed premises more into line with those of off-licensed outlets."
  A little earlier, the Royal College of General Practitioners wrote to us with the following conclusion:
  "The College believes that a liberalisation in drinking hours should be supported with the aim of reducing the image of the bar as a place to drink, to get drunk and quickly. We believe that such liberalisation would encourage the image of alcohol being incidental for the consumption of snacks and meals and also as an incidental in places where coffee, tea and soft drinks are also sold."
  Those are the reactions of two substantial medical groups to our proposals. There have been other reactions, but I am simply trying to nail any suggestion that medical opinion is united against the Bill. Two prestigious and substantial organisations have written to the Home Office, rather unusually, in substantial support of our proposals.
  Dr. Moonie rose——
  Mr. Hurd: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and I do not intend to do so again. He has already shot his bolt. That is his concern.
  Clause 2 is a safety net provision.
  Mr. Charles Morrison: My right hon. Friend has made an eloquent case for greater flexibility of opening hours on weekdays, but, before he finishes dealing with clause I, will he explain why he has not made the same decision in regard to opening hours on Sundays?
  Mr. Hurd: I know my hon. Friend's views on this matter. I shall give what I hope he will not regard as too crude an answer. I want to get this Bill through. I do not want to overload it with a new argument which I know, from scars that I carry, arouses serious and emotional division on both sides of the House. That is a frank answer.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend realise that being timid in this matter has not significantly lessened opposition to the principles of the Bill? This is an important point for many rural areas involved in the tourist trade. Does my right hon. Friend

  41
  recognise the need for more flexible licensing, as in Scotland, to cater for the circumstances of particular areas?
  Mr. Hurd: If my hon. Friend and others support the Bill in sufficient numbers, no doubt this is a point which he will wish to raise in Committee, but I must quarrel—
  Mr. Hattersley rose——
  Mr. Hurd: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman when I have answered my hon. Friend's question. I do not agree with the analysis of my hon. Friend. The provisions in this Bill have been substantially welcomed. Since we published our proposals, the opposition to them has been considerably more muted than I had expected and I believe that that illustrates the basic good sense of what we propose.
  Mr. Hattersley: Can we get this absolutely and categorically clear? Is the Home Secretary saying that if the Bill receives a Second Reading there will be an opportunity for it to be amended in Committee to allow Sunday opening? Is the answer to that question yes or no?
  Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman has made an entirely bogus point. If the Bill gets a Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman will, of course, be able to move such an amendment should he wish and so will any other member of the Committee. That is so.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he would vote against an attempt to extend the Bill to Sundays?
  Mr. Hurd: I am not. I am simply stating facts.
  I made it clear in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) why I do not believe it would be sensible to overload the Bill. However, my hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to make his point in Committee, should he wish.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hurd: May I move on a little?
  Mr Kellett-Bowman rose——
  Mr. Hurd:I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: If such a misguided amendment were brought forward to try to include Sundays in the Bill, may we have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that he would not back such a move?
  Mr. Hurd: I have already stated why I believe that it would be a mistake to overload the Bill by including such a provision. I am glad that I gave sway to my hon. Friend because I believe that she supplied the necessary counter-balanced to the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson). I have given three answers to this question and I wish to move on.
  Clause 2 is a safety net, which, we hope will be unnecessary. However, in case the relaxation of licensing hours in the afternoon gives rise to unforeseen problems of annoyance, disturbance or disorderly conduct, we have made provision for restriction orders whereby the licensing justice, or the magistrates' court in the case of registered clubs, can reimpose closure for all or part of the afternoon break.
  I do not believe that the House would want me to describe at length the other, mainly streamlining, procedural provisions of the Bill. They are designed to ease
  42
  unnecessary burdens on the courts and licensees and remove some of the anomalies that have come to light in the existing legislation.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: If the Home Secretary does not intend to deal in detail with the various points, will he say something about clause 10? It appears that those who traditionally have a right to object to a licence will now face the possibility of being saddled with court costs. Surely that greatly undermines a person's freedom to object — a freedom which exists in every other area including planning procedures. Would my right hon. Friend be willing to reconsider this matter in Committee, because it means that individuals are deprived or are put at risk if they put forward what they regard as a valid objection?
  Mr. Hurd: I believe that it is a reasonable proposal, but I note what my hon. Friend has said. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary may wish to deal with that in greater detail when he replies, but if my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is a member of the Committee he may wish to bring that matter forward.
  I should like to return to the question of alcohol abuse because I believe that part of the early opposition to the Bill—as I have said, the opposition has been less fierce than I expected—came from a feeling that we were not sufficiently alert to this evil. I hope that we have shown otherwise. The House will have welcomed the decision of the Prime Minister to ask my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal to chair a new ministerial group on alcohol misuse. Perhaps I should make it clear to the House that it is a standing group and it is not its intention, as has been suggested, to work towards the production of a single report.
  The group had its first meeting recently. Its aims are, as the published terms of reference made clear, to pull together the activities already undertaken by Government, by the drinks industry, by voluntary and other bodies as part of a general strategy for combating the misuse of alcohol. The group will look at priorities in the allocation of resources, it will be open to new ideas for remedying misuse and will seek to arrange for the better co-ordination of policy.
  Young people have already been identified by the group as a priority. Indeed before the formation of the ministerial group, a working party was set up under the chairmanship of Baroness Masham to examine the part that alcohol plays in the commission of crime by young people and the problem of under-age drinking. The working party will present its report soon to the standing conference on crime prevention, which meets under the auspices of the Home Office. Obviously we in the Home Office will examine the report from the crime prevention angle and the Lord Privy Seal's group will, as part of its new remit, consider at its next meeting the working party's recommendations.
  Mr. Graham Allen: Does the Home Secretary accept that the evidence relating to crime and other aspects in the Bill is not inconclusive, but rather contradictory? Does he therefore agree that tonight would be an ideal opportunity to put his weight behind a move to suggest that the Bill be considered by a Special Standing Committee for a period of one or two months before going on to Committee?
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: A Select Committee?
  Mr. Allen: No, a Special Standing Committee. That Committee would ensure that all the evidence could be considered before the Bill reached Committee.
  Mr. Hurd: We have opened up this subject for wide consultation. I have already said that it was contained in the election manifesto. Indeed, I believe that, in August, we published an outline of our proposals. There has been a long time for discussion and examination of the proposals by interested groups. Indeed, those groups, as one would expect and hope, have come forward with their proposals. Although this is not a matter for me but for the House, I would not wish to press that such a procedure as a Special Standing Committee was necessary on this occasion.
  A great deal of welcome activity on alcohol abuse is undertaken by probation services, the voluntary sector and other organisations. For example, I recently visited an interesting project in Coventry where, since February, a team led by the chamber of commerce and including representatives from the city council, the licensed trade and the police have been looking closely at the problems caused by irresponsible drinking in the city centre. The team has proposed a number of measures which it is hoped will go a good way to reducing those problems.
  Misuse takes many damaging forms, but I suppose that drunk driving comes to public attention most often. As regards the Bill, the figures from Scotland for pedestrian casualties, child casualties, and pedal cyclist casualties during peak times all show that the proportion involved in drink-driving accidents decreased between 1975 and 1985, which covers the time when restrictions on the licensing hours in Scotland were relaxed. There is, thus, no evidence to link extended licensing hours with an increase in drunken driving or in road casualties. However, I accept that the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) went wider than that.
  On the general problem of drink-driving, the Government and police forces are taking effective action. The police carried out 300,000 breath tests last year, and the Government's publicity campaign to persuade everybody that drinking and driving do not mix continues. Police powers are important as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham has said and we have considered carefully the calls for random breath testing. In fact, existing police powers are more substantial than is usually recognised. It is not always known—indeed, I am not sure that the Opposition have hauled this on board—that the police may use their general power under section 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 to stop any vehicle at random to decide whether there are grounds for requiring a breath test under section 7 of the Act.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: We are aware of that.
  Mr. Hurd: Well, sometimes the Opposition carry on and make public statements as if they were not aware that the police already have substantial powers.
  Section 7 requires reasonable grounds, before testing, to suspect that the motorist has alcohol in his body or has committed a moving traffic offence or has been involved in an accident. Thus, the law as it stands permits random stopping though not random testing. In practice the police
  44
  are content with this and the Association of Chief Police Officers stated that it sees no need for wider powers. However, the door is not closed on our search for better ways of tackling this problem.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Home Secretary agree that the case in the House of Lords the other day—I forget the name—that has called into question the use of intoximeters may well cause some difficulties for the police force? Would he care to reconsider that matter and rectify the decision in that case?
  Mr. Hurd: It is partly with a recollection of that decision — the hon. Gentleman is shrewd to draw attention to it—that I said that the search for effective ways of dealing with the problem must go on. The doors cannot be closed.
  To conclude, I believe that this is a common sense Bill designed to remove an absurdity that has come into our law as a result of history rather than logic——
  Mr. Stan Crowther: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hurd: No, I shall not give way, because I am coming to a conclusion and I have given way a great deal.
  The British Tourist Authority has estimated that the relaxation of hours provided by the Bill will provide an additional 50,000 jobs, mainly part-time and in catering. I cannot vouch for that figure, but I do not doubt that there will be significant additional employment. This is not a Bill to please foreign tourists, although there is nothing wrong with doing that. Let us remember than most of the tourists in our country are British. Let us concentrate by all means on real ways of dealing with the dangers and miseries of alcohol abuse. Meanwhile, let us remove the irritation and absurdity of the forbidden afternoon from our statute book.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Labour party is to have a free vote on the Bill, so I can do no more and no better than to offer the House my own judgment rather than my party's opinions and policies. It is not an altogether unique experience for me and I know that advantages and penalties are in that course. The advantages allow me to say things about policy that I dare not and would not say were the imprimatur of Walworth road to be stamped upon them.
  To begin with, the Home Secretary told us about the improved conditions in public houses in the United Kingdom. I do not now when he was last in an inner-city public house and what his experience of inner-city public houses is this year compared with 1975 or 1965, but were he ever to take a Sunday morning pint outside Oxfordshire his judgment about the conditions in British public houses might be significantly different.
  Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman talked about history. I confess that my preparations for the debate were enormously interrupted by reading Morley's "The Life of Gladstone" and the Gladstone diaries for the period of the first licensing Bill. I shall give only two quotations from what I learnt. First, Mr. Gladstone did not regard the subject of licensing hours as appropriate for debate between gentlemen, which at least allows me, if not the Home Secretary, to continue. Secondly, after his defeat in the 1870s, he remarked that the Tory party was invariably washed to power on a sea of gin and beer.

  45
  Perhaps more important than that was what the Home Secretary said about Sunday. With the freedom of the free vote that is to follow, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that I am a great deal more relaxed than some hon. Members about Sunday opening. I am also a great deal more relaxed about Sunday trading, which I may have the opportunity to debate as the year goes on.
  There is no doubt from what the right hon. Gentleman has said—he should not deceive the House; not by intention, but by some other means—that if the Bill is given its Second Reading, it will pave the way for Sunday opening. Hon. Members will take their own view on whether that is desirable or undesirable, but, judging by what the Home Secretary said, there is no doubt that that is what is prepared for in the Bill.
  Mr. Crowther: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a considerable distinction to be drawn between the matter covered by the Bill, which is essentially a leisure activity, and ordinary retail trading, which clearly is not? Is it not illogical to exclude from leisure activities the one afternoon on which most people have the most leisure?
  Mr. Hattersley: I have considerable sympathy for what my hon. Friend says. I hedged it about in terms that I hoped would not be revealed until my hon. Friend asked that question, but I have that sympathy. Irrespective of my personal position, hon. Members should not vote for the Bill under any misapprehension. If the Bill is given a Second Reading, there will be pressure for Sunday opening and, sooner or later, that pressure will be irresistible. However, that is not the central issue of the debate, although it was inevitably raised by the Home Secretary. The central issues are whether we want more drinking, whether we want what I regard as the inevitability of extra drinking and whether there are penalties to be paid for that.
  We should understand that the debate will be dominated by speakers who are, as the Under-Secretary of State described them on 30 October, "responsible drinkers". Most speakers will be in that category. In the context of the debate, I believe that "responsible drinker" is a most dangerous animal, for the responsible drinker — I flatter myself by saying that I am among that number — is far too often incapable of facing and understanding the real dangers of alcohol abuse and over consumption. Were some of those who will speak in the debate offered cannabis, they would be frightened as well as offended, but, were they offered alcohol, they would take it as the normal round of social intercourse. There has never been a candidate for judicial office, either in the United States of America or in Great Britain, who has withdrawn his nomination because, as an undergraduate, he experimented with alcohol. In Great Britain, alcohol is the acceptable addiction of the middle classes and most of us in the House—[HON. MEMBERS:"Oh."]—
  Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, in the context of what he has just said, that there is an organisation in the House called the all-party clubs group, which represents working men's clubs, with some 6 million members, a large part of whose enjoyment derives from consuming alcohol in the privacy of their clubs?
  Mr. Hattersley: Of course. Nothing that I have said in any way undervalues or contradicts that. I am saying that
  46
  most hon. Members who speak for liberties and freedom will represent the acceptable addiction of the middle classes. If the hon. Gentleman wants to qualify that to refer instead to the acceptable addiction of the whole British population, I shall not argue with him. I say simply that we should debate licensing laws in the knowledge that most of us, by our upbringing and cultural background, are prejudiced in favour of alcohol in a way that makes us less than wholly unbiased on the subject.
  Notwithstanding that, I make no apology for, or qualification about, my support for the general principle of more liberal licensing laws. I support that principle because I am opposed to the intrusion of the state into the private lives of its citizens, except when it is absolutely necessary in order to support and protect the welfare of society as a whole. However, we cannot support extensions of freedom for one group that imperil the interests—indeed the lives, in some particulars—of another group.
  That is why the Home Secretary supports, in defiance and contradiction of the libertarian bodies, stop-and-search powers, tougher gun laws and the prohibition of knife sales. It is why the Prime Minister argues with the libertarian lobby which wants fewer police powers by saying that there is a freedom to be protected against burglary, mugging and assault.
  The right to be defended against the penalties of extended freedoms offered to a single and specific group must be applied to the provisions of the Bill. The problem with the Bill is that it provides extra opportunities for drinking among a limited group of people. I support those opportunities, but the Bill provides none of the safeguards that should accompany those extra opportunities and protect the interests of society. The necessary safeguards concern far more fundamental matters than disorderly conduct in an individual public house, with the disadvantage and detriment to the neighbourhood, which are dealt with in clause 2.
  We need safeguards that are intended to reduce the amount of alcohol-related crime. We need safeguards to reduce the amount of drunken driving. Above all, we need safeguards to ensure that afternoon drinking does not produce an even greater problem of alcohol addiction among teenagers and the very young.
  The need for some safeguard is not in dispute. The facts of alcohol abuse demonstrate the need. For example, 45 per cent. of all violent crime in Great Britain is alcohol related—that is 50 per cent. of murders and 25 per cent. of child abuse cases. Each year there are between 1,400 and 1,500 road deaths caused by some form of alcohol abuse, and between 8 million and 14 million working days each year are lost through absenteeism caused by drunkenness.
  The most important and terrifying figures are those revealed by the Health Education Authority survey which revealed a terrifying increase in drinking, not only among teenagers but among children. Thirty per cent. of the children aged between 11 and 12 who answered the questionnaire said that they had had some experience of alcohol during the previous seven days. That figure demonstrates the need for the most important safeguard if there is to be an extension of licensing hours. With juvenile drinking such a growing problem in society, it seems absurd that so much money and television time should be spent on advertising alcohol and promoting its sale. I can only support a relaxation of licensing hours

  47
  —although I support the general principle—if there are much more stringent controls over television advertising than the IBA is now able to manage and organise.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: My right hon. Friend is right to emphasise the increase in drinking among children and women, but there is evidence that this is not related to pubs and to pub opening hours and that we should be examining the huge number of supermarket and off-licence outlets.
  Mr. Hattersley: I support my hon. Friend's view. If the Government brought in a Bill to relax the sale of alcohol in supermarkets and chain stores, I should have reservations about that, too, if it were not accompanied by a crackdown on television advertising which pretends that the nature of the good life — of social and economic success — depends on regular drinking. We have to debate what is before us and we are debating the relaxation of licensing hours without any of the safeguards which I consider would make such a relaxation possible.
  Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, however, that he is wrong to claim that there are no safeguards in the Bill? Clause 2(2) gives just the safeguard that he wishes to see. If, as a result of afternoon drinking through the extended hours to which he referred, there is a nuisance or disorder, redress is given to apply for a restriction order which would close that pub for all or part of that afternoon period for up to 12 months.
  Mr. Hattersley: I have been a neighbour of the hon. Gentleman for nearly 10 years and I should have known better than to give way to him. I dealt specifically with that point 10 minutes ago. I shall now explain it slowly for the hon. Gentleman. If a pub opens and causes nuisance to its neighbours, the licensing justices can take action against it. That is an admirable safeguard for neighbours. If that pub is full of teenagers drinking silently but to excess every afternoon, the licensing justices can do nothing whatsoever. I am more concerned about teenagers drinking silently to excess, than about the annoyance to the families on either side of a public house.
  I shall now pursue the real argument, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do his best to follow. For drunken driving, juvenile drinking, and the cost to the Health Service and to the economy of alcohol abuse over the past five years, the Government have offered nothing but platitudes and promises.
  That is why, before I examine the safeguards that should be put in place, I wish to ask the Home Secretary about his timing and tactics. I hope that the Under-Secretary will answer my simple questions when he replies. Why are the Government in such a hurry and why do they support their case with such dubious arguments? Two months ago, the Wakeham committee was set up with the widest possible terms of reference. Its duty was
  "to review and develop the Government's strategy for combating the misuse of alcohol."
  I was told by the office of the Leader of the House that there is a chance that the first of the Wakeham committee's casual reports will be made some time in the new year. It is extraordinary—indeed, it is irresponsible—that we should have the Bill to extend licensing hours first and the report into alcohol abuse later. Will the Under-Secretary of State explain the timing to us?
  48
  Another question on timing relates to the activities of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport. No one can complain that he does not report frequently. He seems to report all the time—usually on television and radio—and his reports make the flesh creep in a variety of ways. Sometimes he draws attention to accident statistics. Sometimes he suggests bizarre penalties, such as making publicans responsible in law for damage caused by drivers whom they have served with alcohol. All that he does is tell us about the terrible road safety problems caused by alcohol, that something must be done about it and that he will do things of which he has not yet conceived. But all that the Government do is extend the licensing hours without implementing, or considering or recommending the implementation, of any of the things which the Under-Secretary of State for Transport constantly tells us must be done. Why do the Government wish to alter the licensing laws before they have received reports on the problem of alcohol abuse?
  Mr. James Couchman: The right hon. Gentleman has accused the Government of acting in haste, but it is about 15 years since the Auld committee reported. That report has been gathering dust on the shelf ever since. It is 10 years since the Clayson reforms were implemented in Scotland. We must have had enough time to study the position.
  Mr. Hattersley: During that period, alcohol abuse, alcohol-related crime and juvenile addiction have increased. All the problems have intensified. The Erroll committee offered a much more comprehensive answer to the problems than a simple manipulation of the licensing laws. Indeed, the Erroll committee convinced at least one right hon. Member that there should be a comprehensive examination of alcohol abuse and the licensing laws, which is the proposition that I make today. That right hon. Member was the former Secretary of State for Social Services, who is now Secretary of State for Employment. Had there been such a comprehensive examination, many Opposition Members would have been much more sympathetic to the Home Secretary's proposals.
  Mr. Allen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this would be an ideal Bill to refer to a Special Standing Committee so that we could hear evidence from expert witnesses for a few weeks or months? Will he support me and my colleagues when we move that such a procedure be adopted?
  Mr. Hattersley: It would be the ideal procedure, and I wish that I had thought of it. This is a proper Bill for a free vote of hon. Members. If it is a matter for individual judgment, it is ideal for the type of investigation which my hon. Friend described. There is general agreement that the Home Secretary's consultation period was woefully short. But the Government will vote against my hon. Friend's proposal because, as I understand from my conversation with the brewers a fortnight ago, they have been promised that the Bill will be law soon after Christmas. I doubt Whether the Home Secretary would agree to such a procedure, but the Under-Secretary of State can tell me later whether I am wrong.
  The Government have used strange arguments to justify the Bill. The main argument on which they rest their case is that the relaxation of licensing hours will not result in an increased consumption of alcohol. On 30 October,

  49
  the Under-Secretary of State, in his exuberance, speaking for the entire British population and interpreting the national psychology in a single sentence, said:
  "People will exercise the freedom that this Bill will bring not by drinking more but by adopting a more leisurely approach to drinking."
  Mr. Anderson: My right hon. Friend will recall that in their 1981 policy statement, entitled "Drinking Sensibly", the Government concluded:
  "Available evidence suggests that licensing restrictions may have a broad influence on both the level of average consumption per head of alcohol and the influence of alcohol-related harm."
  Nothing that the Home Secretary said today suggests anything to the contrary. Would it not be appropriate for the Government to provide us with the evidence on which they changed their mind?
  Mr. Hattersley: The main change is that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) arrived at the Home Office and, with that natural exuberance, announced his judgment on the conduct and character of the entire British people. Today the Home Secretary was much more cautious; he said that there was no evidence either way. The Under-Secretary of State was given the onerous and unpleasant task of announcing the Government's certain view——
  Mr. Roger Gale: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: No, I will not.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Is the right hon. Gentleman frightened to give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: The Minister is right: I am terrified out of my wits by the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale).
  If there will be no increase in the consumption of alcohol, why are the brewers so keen that the Bill should be passed? What is more, if there is no increase in the consumption of alcohol, how will the brewers finance the extra 25,000 jobs which they say will be the product of the Bill? The claim that there will be no extra drinking is wholly implausible. To their credit, the brewers make no such categorical suggestion. They say that there will be no additional alcohol abuse, which is open to some argument. The Government, in the form of the Under-Secretary of State, say that there will be no extra drinking. As I understand it, the Government base their claim on the Scottish experience following relaxation in 1976.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: Not for the moment. I have given way a great deal. Hon. Members will wish to make their own speeches, and I must bring mine to a speedy end.
  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys considered the Scottish experience, and its conclusions were quoted by the Home Secretary. He said:
  "There is no evidence that the 1976 Act has caused an increase in alcohol consumption." — [Official Report, 4 February 1986; Vol. 91, c. 102.]
  That must mean that the conclusions to be drawn from the operation of the 1976 Act are neutral. The Home Secretary has no reason to assume, demonstrate or argue that that
  50
  Act proves that a change in licensing laws will not increase consumption. He can conclude only that no evidence in either direction is available from the operation of that Act.
  Those who support the Bill with less discrimination than the Home Secretary showed today have chosen to take the evidence of what happened in Scotland to suggest that a relaxation of the law will certainly not increase drinking and might reduce its overall incidence.
  Mr. Gale: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Favell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: No, I will not give way.
  Such a conclusion from the Scottish experience is justified only by a misuse of the available statistics. The available statistics from Scotland prove, first, that alcohol consumption among women has increased. I ask the Secretary of State—yes or no?
  Mr. Hurd: Less than one fifth in pubs.
  Mr. Hattersley: In other words, it has increased. Secondly, the statistics prove that alcohol consumption among men in general has not reduced but has remained steady, largely because the consumption among the unemployed has fallen as unemployment has increased and the purchasing power of the unemployed has fallen.
  The statistics also prove a third point and, if the Home Secretary wants to contradict me, as he did a moment ago, I will gladly give way to him. Thirdly, convictions for drunkenness in Scotland have fallen largely because of changes in prosecution practice following the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 rather than changes in drinking habits. Whatever else one may say about the Scottish evidence, none of it is strong enough to justify any additional extension of the licensing laws in Scotland or anywhere else.
  Mr. Gale: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hattersley: No.
  The reasonable conclusion of the experience from this country and others must be that extra drinking hours mean extra drinking, particularly among vulnerable groups. I make no apology for bringing to mind at once the unemployed teenagers in my constituency who have nowhere to go, nothing to do and little hope. If the Bill becomes law, we will find that the public houses of Sparkbrook, not at all the welcome hostelries that the Home Secretary tried to describe 40 minutes ago, will be open to them during their long and desperate afternoons.
  We ought not to comfort ourselves, as I fear the Home Secretary tried to do, with the pretence that the longer hours allowed under clause I will not become universal. The brewers are changing the clause in their contracts with tenants that requires those tenants to be open at all permissible hours, but that clause is likely to remain in the contracts of licensed managers and, more important, the pressure on public houses from brewers, users and every sort of group able to exert pressure is likely to mean that every public house will open for the full 12 hours. It only needs a public house around the corner to open for managers, licensees or tenants to know that if they do not open, they will lose business that they cannot afford to lose.
  I suppose the Home Secretary has read the explicit and precise evidence of Clayson that, whenever there is a

  51
  permissible increase in opening hours, that permission becomes the universally applied rule. I have no doubt that that will happen here.
  Mr. Peter Hardy rose——
  Mr. Hattersley: I really must continue and I hope that my hon. Friend and hon. Gentlemen will forgive me.
  The conclusion that it is a virtual certainty that there will be additional drinking leads some of those who are most concerned with alcohol abuse—for example, the campaign Alcohol Concern—to to insist that restrictions on opening hours are necessary and should be a permanent safeguard. That is not my view. Safeguards other than restrictions in opening hours would be far more effective and far more acceptable in a free society.
  I should like to see longer opening hours and more effective safeguards of a different sort. Were those more effective safeguards in place, I would vote for the relaxation in opening hours that the Home Secretary has proposed. For example, I think that we need a general and widespread use of the random breath test. We understand perfectly well section 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. It is a question not of the stopping of drivers but of the certainty of the testing of drivers. The Home Secretary knows as well as I do that the most dangerous driver is the man who says, "I may be above the limit but because I can hold my liquor, I will not commit a traffic offence and therefore I will not be breathalysed." That driver has to be convinced that, even if he believes, rightly or wrongly, that he can hold his liquor, if he drives while over the alcohol limit he may be stopped at random and be breathalysed. That will be the greatest inhibition on over-limit drinking that it is possible to imagine. Were that provision general within the United Kingdom, that would substantially cut road deaths.
  We need a more effective programme of education about the problems associated with alcohol and we need far fewer advertisements pretending that alcohol is inevitably and irrevocably associated with economic and social success. We need the brewers to commit themselves to a real campaign, not simply to keep under-age drinkers out of public houses, but to reduce the drinking of alcohol by teenagers in general. Perhaps we should make low-alcohol or alcohol-free drinks a compulsory feature of every public house so that it is possible for teenagers to go into public houses to socialise without being forced to booze.
  Most important, we need a drive by the Government, that the Opposition would gladly support, to try to explain to the population that alcohol, whether used moderately or not, is not the pattern and model of the good life, that it carries with it severe penalties and that nobody should use it without being conscious of those penalties.
  Were those safeguards on offer and were they firm, definite and certain, I should gladly vote for the Bill, for my instincts are against extended controls over licensing hours. As I half hinted earlier, I would vote for more extensive relaxations of opening hours, but, as the Government choose to relax licensing laws without providing any of the alternative and, in my view, necessary and much more effective safeguards, I shall vote against the Bill, and I urge other hon. Members to do the same.
  5.48 pm
  Sir Bernard Braine: This modest measure can be properly judged only against the changes, for good or for ill, that have taken place since the Licensing Act 1961.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is inclined to speak as if licensing restrictions have remained unaltered since the first world war. That is not so. The Bill is not the beginning of liberalisation of permitted hours, but a continuation of a process of weakening control. The 1961 Act was hailed as a measure that would set the people free. I know — I was here at the time. The Government spokesman who wound up the Third Reading debate became quite lyrical. He ended with a quotation:
  "Now is the time to drink. Now is the time to stamp the floor with the feet of freedom".
  It seemed quite right at the time to take that view, because the Ministry of Health was claiming that alcohol abuse was not a problem. Indeed, at that time we had a national reputation for sobriety. The question is: what has happened since 1961? It can be answered quite simply. We have seen a doubling of alcohol consumption and with it more than a doubling of alcohol-related harm. The situation deteriorated so rapidly that in 1972 Sir Keith Joseph, who was then the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, invited me to become chairman of the National Council for Alcoholism, because in his view alcohol abuse had already become a major problem. He told me that if I agreed to do the job he would find the resources. I accepted the challenge, and successive Governments kept faith with me by finding increased resources, at least until the late 1970s. Those of us who have worked in this area know that in Britain, as elsewhere in the world, increased consumption means increased harm. The clarion call in 1961 may have been, "Now is the time to drink," but it has led to an appalling state of affairs.
  Consider the facts. For the first time in this century, 16-year-old boys are more likely than middle-aged men to be convicted of offences of drunkenness. Under-age drunkenness has increased ninefold. In 1965, under-21s accounted for one in 12 of all drunkenness offences, and by 1985 they accounted for one in four. Goodness knows what the figure is now.
  Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Sir Bernard Braine: No, I shall not give way to my hon. Friend. If he has the opportunity to speak in this debate, I hope that he will declare his interest in these matters.
  The Blennerhassett committee, in reviewing the reasons for the declining effectiveness of drink-drive legislation, pointed to increasing alcohol consumption as a major factor. Alcohol is a contributory factor in one out of three domestic accidents, in four out of every 10 fires, in one in five deaths from drowning and in two thirds of all attempted suicides. Alcohol abuse by a parent is one of the major reasons for children being taken into care. One in three divorce petitions cite excessive drinking as a contributory factor.
  The link between alcohol and crime, especially violent crime, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made clear, is indisputable. One in five of our hospital beds is occupied by a patient with an alcohol-related disease. It is clear that that fact was in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State

  53
  for Social Services when, at the Conservative party conference at Blackpool, he referred to the enormous saving of Health Service resources that would be achieved if the problem of alcohol abuse were to be brought under control.
  According to the royal medical colleges, alcohol is responsible for thousands of premature deaths each year and is the third largest killer after cancer and heart disease. We do not hear the Department of Health and Social Security saying now that there is less alcohol abuse in England and Wales than there was in the restrictive 1950s.
  Contrary to the claim advanced constantly by the drink industry, alcohol problems are by no means restricted to a small minority of alcoholics. The levels of consumption that are known to cause medical and social damage are substantially lower than those required to produce alcoholism. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) was responsible for the nation's health — my right hon. Friend is now the Secretary of State for Employment—he said:
  "The problems of alcohol abuse are not those of a small minority. We are not concerned solely with those whose lives have been totally destroyed by drink … or with the problems of liver cirrhosis or alcohol psychosis … They arc a tiny part of the total problem although they are also useful indications of trends in the overall size of alcohol misuse in our society."
  Precisely. I hope that that statement will be accepted as a definitive rebuttal of the myth assiduously cultivated by those with a vested interest in the sale of alcohol that its victims are only a tiny minority.
  How do the Government respond to this appalling state of affairs? Do they bring before us a Bill to end the scandal of under-age drinking or to reduce the carnage on the roads by introducing random breath tests? Do they introduce stringent controls on advertising? No, they do none of those things. Instead, they have introduced the modest measure that is now before us, the sole purpose of which is to increase the sale of alcohol.
  Those who claim that licensing controls are irrelevant to alcohol abuse, or even counter-productive, should explain why all the indices of alcohol-related harm have increased steeply since the 1961 Act ushered in an era of increasing alcohol availability.
  We have been told in the past, and no doubt we shall be told again—there have been some interventions on this issue already—that the Scottish experiment proves that licensing restrictions can be loosened without a harmful effect. In reality, the evidence from Scotland is ambiguous, inconclusive and quite insufficient to give the green light to further liberalisation in England and Wales. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has conceded as much. The idea that Scotland is now largely free of the sort of alcohol-related violence and disorder that previously disfigured it is another myth.
  An article that appeared in The Daily Telegraph of 26 October stated:
  "Inside a young girl is pinned to the wall by a big angry drunk wielding a long knife. Another girl is grabbed by the throat while a clean-cut, sober-suited young man tries to wrestle her attacker to the ground … This is Edinburgh Royal Infirmary's accident and emergency unit—Britain's biggest and busiest and arguably fast becoming the most dangerous and violent.
  Said a young registrar, 'You'd he a fool not to expect violence any night of the week here … It is no longer a question of whether you will be assaulted on duty but when. A lot of medical students coming here are terrified. They are not taught to cope with the drunkenness and violence …
  54
  Something like 80 per cent. of all the patients we see in here at night have alcohol on board. Fifty to 60 per cent. of those can best be described as legless.'"
  That was said by a registrar of a fine hospital in the capital city of Scotland, where no one, we gather, is very sure of what happened as a result of the 1976 Act. The consultant in charge was reported as saying:
  "The genuinely ill are having their treatment compromised by rampaging drunks."
  If that is Scotland after the supposed benefits of liberalisation, I shudder to think what it was like before.
  England is not to be compared with Scotland. In considering the Bill, it is what we know has happened in England and Wales that matters. The 1961 liberalisation coincided with rising living standards. Both factors worked together to increase consumption, and with this to increase harm. The consequences of further liberalisation in England and Wales must be assessed also against the background painted by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, presenting us with the happy news of increasing real incomes. The drinks trade claims that the Bill will create 50,000 additional jobs—three cheers! — but that in itself must lead inevitably to increased consumption. It is inevitable, too, that that will lead to increased harm.
  I must be fair to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and accept that he had to respond to the commitment that was set out in the manifesto to introduce a Bill to liberalise the licensing legislation. I accept also that there may be practical reasons for introducing this measure early in the new Session. I recognise, too, that my right hon. Friend has moved some way towards the amendments that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and I tabled to the Bill that was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) in the last Parliament. For example, my right hon. Friend has accepted 11 pm as the closing hour, and that is excellent as far as it goes. That was also reflected in the Conservative party's manifesto, which promised that a Conservative Government would
  "keep a sensible limit on late-night opening".
  I am pleased about that.
  That is something that must not be forgotten by my right hon. Friend, nor by those who seek to become members of the Committee that will consider this measure. I trust that my right hon. Friend will vigorously resist any attempt to introduce a later closing hour. To do otherwise would be to renege on our electoral commitment and go against public opinion. A MORI poll conducted over the past few weeks has shown that 61 per cent. of the population oppose public houses remaining open until midnight, and there is similar opposition to extended hours on Sundays.
  I welcome, too, the provision to allow licensing justices or magistrates courts to exercise discretion in granting special hours certificates and to attach limitations to them. This reform is long overdue. The proposals for the administration of licensing committees will, I know, be welcomed by the justices' clerks. However, the Government should reconsider the proposals to award costs. We should take account of the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) on this issue. By giving powers to award costs against objectors the Bill does not reflect what the Justices' Clerks Society wanted, and it is likely to deter residents from objecting. That is not sensible, it is not just and the proposal should be changed.

  55
  Nor do I approve of the dismantling of a 70-year-old safeguard, the afternoon break. Without doubt, this break has helped to make British pubs the orderly and pleasant places that many of them are. Many licensees I know want the afternoon break to be retained. They work damned hard, as do their wives, and they deserve this break. Whether they will be allowed to have it if the Bill is enacted, bearing in mind all the pressures that will exist, is another matter. It is ironic that, just when the Government are introducing a Bill to destroy the afternoon break, the New Zealand Ministry of Justice is recommending the introduction of an afternoon break for the first time in that country's history, precisely because it has concluded that the break here has helped to advance sobriety in this country.
  Hon. Members will have received a personal communication from the Campaign against Drinking and Driving, a group which represents the innocent victims of alcohol-related road crashes. The campaign's anxieties regarding the Bill's likely effects on road safety — particularly the fear that it will increase the number of' alcohol-related road casualties during the afternoon — must be taken seriously. This is, after all, a matter of life and death. Unfortunately, it does not seem to me that the Government are taking it at all seriously, although I look forward to hearing what they have to say.
  The consultative document promised that one of the grounds for the imposition of a restriction order on afternoon opening would be public safety. The licensing justices could impose restriction orders if they were convinced that all-day drinking had contributed to increased deaths and injuries on the roads. However, the Bill contains no such provision. Public safety is excluded altogether as a ground for imposing a restriction order. That is wholly unacceptable, and I hope that the Government will look at the matter again in Committee.
  Let me now deal with the Bill's gravest omission, the absence of measures to deal with under-age drinking. I cannot understand why a Government who are prepared to tackle the problems of drug abuse with stringent legal measures, and who responded so promptly to the tragedies of Zeebrugge and Hungerford, should appear so unconcerned and so reluctant to make decisions on the problem of under-age drinking. Only last Thursday The London Evening Standard carried the headline
  "Half our children are regulars at the pub",
  and reported the results of a survey by Exeter university based on a sample of 18,000 schoolchildren throughout the country, which revealed that almost half our 14 to 15-year-old boys — and almost as many girls — had visited a pub or bar in the two weeks before the survey was carried out.
  Such findings are not new. They merely confirm what the Government already knew in October 1985 when the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys handed a report that it had commissioned to the Department of Health and Social Security. I have to speak as I feel and say what I know. The history of that document is a disgrace. The Government's behaviour remains a complete mystery to me. When I tabled questions about the report in February 1986, I was fobbed off with the reply that it would be published later in the year, and so it was. It was sneaked out a few days before the Christmas recess. The findings confirmed that, for adolescents, the
  56
  major drug of abuse was not glue, or heroin, or cannabis, but alcohol, and that adolescents suffer many more problems from alcohol than from all the other drugs combined.
  The Government have now sat on that report for over two years. It concluded that under-age drinking was rampant and, if not tackled seriously, would be completely out of control by the end of the decade. In spite of that, the Government now bring before the House a major piece of licensing legislation containing no measures to deal with the problem. Indeed, the very extension of hours that the Government seek in the Bill would worsen what has already become an epidemic—and I choose that word carefully.
  The Government know that one in five 15-year-olds drinks more than 25 units of alcohol a week, which is well above the maximum regarded as safe for an adult. They know that the law on under-age drinking is not only flouted by young people, but, if their own surveys are correct, that it is ignored by the majority of publicans. More than 1,000 young people die every year as a consequence of alcohol misuse. In 1984, 2 per cent. of resident patients discharged from detoxification centres in the North East London regional health authority area were under 15 years of age, and in some district health authority areas the figure was 5 per cent. That number is increasing.
  The Government are very well aware of the situation. Their consultative document, published on 4 August, recognised that action was needed. Indeed, the document clearly implied that the Bill would contain provisions to tackle the problem of under-age drinking. It was no doubt the promise of such action, coupled with the announcement of the inter departmental committee that persuaded the British Medical Association an the Institute of Alcohol Studies to be less hostile to the Bill than they had been to the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood. Last Christmas the Institute of Alcohol Studies called for rigorous enforcement of the law on under-age drinking and urged that the court should no longer need proof that a licensee knowingly sold alcohol to a minor in order to prosecute, a view widely expressed in editorials throughout the country, but the Home Office had already been alerted to the need in 1983 by no less a body than the Justices' Clerks Society. The justices' clerks administer the law and recognise the gravity of the problem. They are the people who know, and who hear the facts in court.
  I find one matter extremely puzzling. According to the press, a working party of the standing conference on crime prevention set up by the Home Office to consider the problem of under-age drinking is due to issue its report later this month. I am led to believe that it will recommend tough action, including a ban on drinking in public places by persons under the age of 18, the removal of the word "knowingly" from those sections of the Licensing Act relating to the selling by licensees of alcohol to children and the raising of the age limit for persons to enter licensed premises.
  It seems that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be present at a meeting on 24 November at which the report will be discussed. That means that the recommendations must be known to him already. Why, then, are they not reflected in the Bill? Are we to understand that the Government intend to deal with this aspect of the law in Committee, or will they at some time in the future introduce another Bill to deal specifically with under-age

  57
  drinking? Or are we to assume that the Government intend to ignore the recommendations of their advisory committee? Whichever is the case, it is difficult to see what useful purpose can be served by debating the Bill, let alone passing it, when we are ignorant of the Government's intentions.
  I might not have spoken so strongly had I not seen an article dated 22 October in a journal entitled Publican, which stated that the proposals of the standing conference on crime prevention would not be entertained by the Home Office. How does the author know? The article states that the Home Office is known to want a smooth passage for the Bill and will not entertain the addition of
  "anti-alcohol measures or fresh restrictions which might delay its progress."
  Is that so? We need to know whether that article truly reflects the view of the Home Office. I read the consultative document and learned of the establishment of the interdepartmental committee, and I warmly wlcome the latter initiative because I know that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal is a man of firm principle, sincerity and integrity; I expect action from him, and I know that we shall get it. But clearly in this the Government are putting the cart before the horse.
  Originally, I took the view that I would not vote against the Bill on Second Reading but would abstain. That was when I had not seen the Bill. I have seen it now and I cannot acquiesce in a measure which is so untimely and which fails to tackle the problem of under-age drinkers. I trusted the Government and thought that they would at least be prepared to grasp the nettle and seek ways and means of reducing alcohol-related harm.
  I am sure that my hon. Friends will forgive me if I begin to have a lurking fear that the Government intend to do nothing that might offend the drinks industry. I hope that I am wrong about that. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will assure me that the Government intend to act positively and that further legislation will follow. I hope that my hon. Friend's reply is helpful because, if it is not, the Government cannot count on my support.
  I hope too that throughout the debate, both in the House and in Committee, we will all bear in mind the escalating drain on our Health Service, the increasing number of broken homes, the harrowing loss of a child, parent, husband or wife because of the criminal action of a drunken driver, and the blighting of the lives of more and more of our young people. That is what we should consider before we chance our arm with this further increase in drinking hours. I hope that we bear in mind that it is not the public who are clamouring for the Bill, but those who make money out of peddling our No. I drug of abuse.
  This morning I had a telephone call from a licensee who wished me to make these comments to the House. I venture to suggest that a number of licensees—decent, responsible people—do not want further deterioration. We should bear in mind the fact that, with events already out of control, there is no case for risking further deterioration. We should also remember that the World Health Organisation has urged all member states, including Britain, to reduce their consumption of alcohol by 25 per cent. by 1995, for health reasons. Will this untimely and incomplete Bill really be our country's answer to that sensible and urgent plea?
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Clearly, a large number of hon. Members are seeking to take part in the debate. Brief speeches will reduce the number of disappointments.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: Although the speech of the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) may not have been particularly brief, many hon. Members should pay attention to it. The right hon. Gentleman described the Bill as "modest", but the arguments that he advanced demanded a sense of responsibility which we have not yet seen from the Government. We certainly did not see it from the large number of Conservative candidates in the general election, who gave a remarkably high priority to the liberalisation of licensing laws but much less to issues such as unemployment, which may well have been worthy of a little more attention.
  Two or three years ago I would probably have voted in favour of liberalisation, but the experience in my constituency since then and the growing concern about the matters raised by the right hon. Member for Castle Point have convinced me that this measure is not merely "modest", but is extremely harmful. It will give a great deal more power and opportunity to publicans, but even more to the breweries.
  I have been concerned about the fact that the major brewery in my area—my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) pointed this out after he declined, not unreasonably, to allow me to intervene—requires its landlords to be open during every permitted hour. On Thursday I asked what steps the Home Secretary was taking to ensure that the flexibility to which the Government claim to be attached is achieved. The Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg)—replied in a written answer:
  "This is a matter for negotiation between the parties concerned."
  Therefore, whether the breweries allowed their tenants or managers to provide the flexibility which the Conservative general election manifesto said would be sought was nothing to do with the Government. The Under-Secretary said:
  "I understand that negotiations are in progress and the parties are hopeful that a satisfactory solution will be found."
  I suggest that the Bill should not have been brought before the House until proper arrangements had been made to give that flexibility.
  My main reason for speaking is to express my deep concern because of the experience in my constituency over the past two or three years. Two licensed premises enjoyed late night hours until 2 am. When one stopped being open for those hours, the local crime rate fell by nearly 50 per cent. It might be worth the Home Office asking the South Yorkshire police to comment on the effect of extended hours on society in the Rotherham area.
  The second of those licensed premises, which is now closed—the name is about to be changed—was called "The Kiss of Life". I reckon that I received up to 30 complaints a week about that public house, to which people repaired after they had done a great deal of drinking at other hostelries. I was pleased—as, I believe, were many hundreds of my constituents—when "The Kiss of Life" ceased to operate. It is about to re-open as a more respectable establishment.
  Mr. Favell: I refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 4 which, I hope, will resolve the very problem of public houses that obtain special hours certificates, especially in residential areas. We have all suffered from such problems. The powers given to the licensing justices to deal with these problems have now been greatly enlarged.
  Mr. Hardy: There are all sorts of protective arrangements in other clauses. The licensing benches had a certain amount of power before, and I have been disappointed that they have not exercised that power. I do not enthuse when it seems likely that those who appeal to the licensing benches may suffer financial forfeit.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I have a similar problem in my constituency. A number of people, having drunk all day in Scotland over the border, cause a great deal of public disorder while availing themselves of the opportunity to go to a late licensed premises in my constituency.
  Mr. Hardy: The problem of the mobility of the inebriated is serious, and the Government will make it worse.
  The real reason for my involvement in the debate is the experience of two landlords in Wath upon Dearne, which is where I live and is within my constituency. I know "The Oak Tree Inn" and its landlord. I spent most of my childhood within about 100 yards of that establishment, which is 250 yards from my home. The landlord is on four weeks' notice to vacate his premises because he has not reached the brewery's barrellage target. I wrote to the brewery, John Smiths, which took over the local brewery, Whitworth, Son and Nephew, which I think is now the preserve of an Australian commercial enterprise. John Smiths has given that landlord and the landlord of another public house in Wath upon Dearne four weeks' notice because they have not reached the beer sales target set by the brewery.
  I pointed out to the brewery that the population is stable, that disposable household income has fallen and that there are three or four new public houses within the former urban district. I asked the brewery how on earth they expected the landlord to maintain or increase his sales when there was the same population, less money and more public houses. The brewery has not answered that point. It has said that its managers should be able to exercise ingenuity and industriousness. The right hon. Member for Castle Point will recognise the sort of ingenuity and industriousness which landlords could demonstrate.
  The brewery thinks of its obligation to its shareholders. It is not concerned about under-age drinking or about encouraging its landlords to refuse to serve a person who has had enough. The brewery is not concerned about the noise and other problems that can arise. It is all very well hon. Members wanting to be flexible, but if they live on or close to a route from public houses where ingenuity and industriousness have caused a social nuisance to develop, they may feel, as many of my constituents feel, that flexibility and freedom must be considered at the same time as responsibility.
  Only a few months ago I saw a girl in the middle of Wath upon Dearne completely inebriated at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. Only three of four months ago my wife and I went to the police station to bring the police to four teenagers—I doubt whether any was anywhere near the age of 18—who were completely drunk at 3.30 on a
  60
  Saturday afternoon. One was so drunk that he could not get up and was lying in the middle of the road. That type of scene in my home town would not have existed 20 years ago.
  Mr. Couchman rose——
  Mr. Hardy: I am sorry, but I shall not give way. I have given way twice and I want to finish soon.
  We did not see such scenes until relatively recently. As a former schoolmaster and one who is concerned with the health of my constituents, I believe that drunkenness among young people and alcohol abuse among the community generally have reached serious proportions.
  It is time that the Government recognised the severity of the situation rather than appearing merely to be the pawns of those who manufacture drink. Decent landlords should be able to remain within the community, but the breweries want landlords who will maximise profit. The Government have an obligation to ensure that breweries' profits take second place to the interests of the community. The present proposals and current practices in the industry certainly do not put the interests of the community uppermost. I am deeply concerned at what is happening in my constituency and I fear that things will become a great deal worse if the Government have their way.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Allan Stewart: I shall return to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy). My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), as eloquent and well informed as ever on these matters, reminded the House that I had the honour to introduce a private Member's Bill last Session. That Bill involved more flexibility in licensing hours than the present Bill. Nevertheless, it had all-party support. It was supported by a number of Labour Members and especially by Sir Clement Freud from the Liberal Bench. It had a Second Reading without a Division and went through its Committee stage. That experience established that there was widespread, if not universal, support in the House for a modest reform of licensing hours in England and Wales.
  The House must recognise the absurdity of the present law. A person visiting this part of London in the afternoon and wanting a drink can acquire alcohol without difficulty by going to a restaurant and consuming alcohol with a meal, by buying alcohol in a supermarket or off-licence and consuming it in St. James's park, by taking a train to Brighton and back and consuming alcohol throughout both journeys, or even, perhaps, by persuading his or her Member of Parliament to buy drinks in one of the bars here. The one place where such a person could not consume alcohol would be in the controlled social environment of a public house. To me, that is absurd. Surely the essence of reform is that it is better to allow the consumption of alcohol in a socially and legally controlled environment than to encourage people to buy alcohol from supermarkets and to consume it wherever they like, which is the effect of the present law.
  The hon. Member for Wentworth spoke eloquently of the problems of late-night opening. Clause 4 provides new discretionary powers for licensing justices and courts in relation to late-night nuisance. That is an important additional safeguard. The fact that there are serious alcohol-related problems in our society is not in dispute.

  61
  The question before the House is whether a measure of this kind would improve the situation, have a deleterious effect or have broadly no effect, given the natural arguments in favour of choice and of measures likely to increase choice.
  As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, one must be cautious about drawing too dramatic conclusions from the evidence of Scotland. Nevertheless, I congratulate from the Labour Government—I hope that some Opposition Members will do so, including the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) whose expertise in these matters is well known—on introducing the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. I think that it is universally agreed, first, that no one wishes to return to the status quo before that legislation; and, secondly, that it has led to more civilised drinking. Thirdly, it is an unquestioned fact that the police now support the reforms that were implemented.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point referred to the present situation in Scotland. It is no part of my case or of anyone else's to be complacent about the situation in Scotland. Nevertheless, before the 1976 Act, Dr. Clayson himself stated that on every index for studying the misuse of alcohol, the Scots were worse than the English. One may interpret the statistics optimistically, pointing out that between 1981 and 1986, when one would have expected the effect of the 1976 Act to become apparent, figures for cirrhosis fell by 16 per cent. in Scotland but increased by 14 per cent. in England and Wales. The decline in cases of drunkenness was also sharper in Scotland than in England and Wales. The number of drink-driving convictions in England and Wales rose by 64 per cent. between 1975 and 1985 but increased only slightly in Scotland. The overwhelming weight of evidence gives no comfort to the opponents of a modest reform of this kind.
  It has been suggested that the figures for alcohol consumption were affected by the recession, but the figures do not bear out the contention that Scotland was worse hit than England and Wales. Between 1974 and 1984, unemployment rose by 126 per cent. in Scotland compared with 139 per cent. for Great Britain as a whole, and personal incomes rose more in Scotland than in the United Kingdom as a whole.
  I should be interested to hear any further comments from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with regard to Sundays. I have some sympathy with the case so honestly stated by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that doing nothing about Sundays would make it less difficult to get the Bill through. That is why my Bill did not touch Sundays. But there is a difference between a private Member coming eighth in the ballot and a Government, with all their advantages, implementing a manifesto commitment.
  I would not go so far as the Erroll committee recommendatision. Of course there are arguments for keeping Sunday special, but that is not an argument for the status quo. In my view, the argument for liberalisation in principle applies strongly to the very limited period of two hours available at lunch-time on Sundays, which in my view is likely to lead to "beat the clock" drinking and to discourage leisurely drinking at a time of major importance for the leisure and tourism industries. I have no doubt that these aspects will be considered in Committee. The Erroll committee recommendation may be too radical, but that should not lead us to regard the status quo as the best of all possible worlds.
  62
  The House is rightly concerned about the problems of under-age drinking. The Scottish Council on Alcoholism has pointed to the problems in Scotland and, in particular identified consumption from supermarkets as being a major cause. The law in England and Wales varies unsatisfactorily and is in need of amendment. The Bill will bring undoubted benefits in choice, employment and tourism. I am not one of those who take an extreme stand on the Scottish figures. They must be interpreted with caution. However, I believe that the arguments from Scotland point in the direction of a sensible and modest reform, and I wish the Bill well.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Although I shall speak in favour of the Bill and vote accordingly, there is to be a free vote from the alliance Benches. We accept that the issues that we are called upon to determine today require the exercise of individual judgment. As has been eloquently demonstrated in some of the speeches, there is genuine concern about the effects of relaxation. I do riot share that concern, but I accept that it is not to be discounted or lightly disregarded.
  I find myself substantially in accord with the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). However, before I expand upon that, it would be proper to declare an interest in two respects. First, as a practising advocate in Scotland, I have appeared on a number of occasions on behalf of companies that might be expected to profit from the provisions of the Bill. Secondly, I had the good fortune to be a member of the Clayson committee that sat contemporaneously with the Erroll committee. Indeed, the Clayson committee's proposals were surprisingly rapidly enacted in the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. It is to the particular provisions of that Act that I wish to direct the attention of the House, especially in relation to clause 1 of this Bill, which has justifiably been described as a modest proposal.
  The provisions of section 64 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 allow for the regular extension of permitted hours. Extensions have been sought for the period between 2.30 pm and 5 pm to such an extent that they have been granted virtually as a matter of course. That can only be because the licensing boards charged with the responsibilities of administering the Act have decided that such extensions can be granted without causing undue public nuisance or a threat to public order or safety — the statutory grounds for refusing an extension. Indeed, the fact that the period between 2.30 pm and 5 pm has been treated in that way by licensing boards was reflected in the consultative document produced by the Scottish Home and Health Department this year, which suggested that, in parallel with clause 1 of this Bill, 11 am to 11 pm could become the basic terms of a licence in Scotland.
  The experience in Scotland does not suggest that the extension of hours in the afternoon has had anything approaching the adverse consequences that have been predicted for the provisions of clause 1. In a country that is endeavouring to expand the tourist trade, it has become clear that the facilities now available in Scotland in the afternoon have frequently proved beneficial. That is in line with the consequences of relaxation generally in Scotland, which has improved the standards of comfort and hygiene and been a civilising influence, even in licensed premises in urban areas.

  63
  A rather curious consequence of that relaxation is that the range of non-alcoholic drinks available in public houses has been extended and expanded. Whereas, prior to 1976, the atmosphere in a public house would have dissuaded someone from entering if he was not intending to drink alcohol, now he may more freely enter and have a non-alcoholic drink. The success of reform in Scotland has to some extent arisen because the powers of the licensing authorities were properly defined in the 1976 Act and because there was a proper recognition of the public interest and the right of the public to object either to applications for licences or to an extension of the hours otherwise permitted by the Act.
  The extended power of licensing authorities in Scotland to intervene when standards have not been met has been effective, especially in the regulation of licensed premises after 11 pm and into the early hours of the morning. Certain enterprises, such as discotheques, are, by their very nature, operating at an hour when many people have already retired to bed. Clauses 2 and 4 of the Bill similarly reflect the principle of giving licensing authorities an effective policing power for premises under their jurisdiction.
  The Clayson committee was concerned to ensure proper monitoring of the effects of changes in Scottish legislation, but that has not happened. I hope that, recognising some of the apprehensions voiced today, the Government will feel that that should now be done in the whole of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it may be a topic for consideration by the interdepartmental committee.
  Having regard to the strictures about short speeches, I wish to conclude with a specific reference to clause 10. As I understand it, it gives power to licensing authorities to grant expenses against those who oppose applications if that is thought to be just and reasonable. That might impose a rather severe test on members of the public who wish to object to applications. I draw to the Minister's attention section 16(6) of the 1976 Act in Scotland which provides a similar power, but which requires the licensing authorities to be satisfied that the objection is frivolous or vexatious. If those principles are applicable north of the border they could, with considerable common sense, be incorporated into similar provisions south of the border. My experience of Scotland, however, is that the power to award expenses has rarely, if ever, been exercised.
  The proposals in the Bill have been described as modest by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I think the description appropriate. They represent a modest liberalising of the law, and should commend themselves to the whole House.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Robert Banks: I am grateful for this opportunity to intervene in the debate. I especially want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on securing this piece of legislation in our programme for this Session. The Bill responds to what the public at large feels has been a successful change in Scotland. If it goes through Parliament, it will bring us more into line with practices in Europe. Many people from all parts of the world who visit this country are confused by our licensing laws.
  I am pleased to say that the legislation is based on conclusive evidence. In that respect, I am pleased to follow
  64
  the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) who, with his experience on the Clayson committee, has brought an important contribution to the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) knows more than anyone else about the effects of changes in the licensing laws in Scotland. Through the introduction of his Bill on licensing reform, he too brings to the debate the sort of evidence that we are looking for as justifying such changes. It is important that the changes that we make do not exacerbate the problems of alcoholism and misuse of alcohol. It is to ensure that we are in a better position to deal with such problems, but, at the same time, allow people to enjoy themselves and go about their lives in a civilised pattern.
  Much is said about the Scottish evidence. Some studies have found no significant increase in the consumption of alcohol among men as a whole between 1976 and 1984. In 1976, an average of 14·3 units a week were consumed, as opposed to 1984 when 14·5 units per week were consumed. The difference is so minute as to be almost insignificant. The increase was due to an increase in the number of men's visits to public houses. Among women, there has been an increase. In 1976, 2·8 units of alcohol a week were consumed, and in 1984 the figure had risen to 3·8 units a week. That is a modest increase. In the main, it is due to the fact that more women are going to pubs in Scotland with their husbands and men friends, whereas hitherto they were put off by the general state and order of pubs. Since 1976, there has been an upgrading of public houses—the provision of more food and a much more civilised atmosphere — and that has been more acceptable to women who wish to go in and enjoy themselves.
  Mr. Favell: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are no similar figures for England and Wales? It is impossible to say whether alcohol consumption has gone up by that modest amount in England and Wales. It could reflect a general trend throughout the United Kingdom towards greater equality for women who, at one time, were treated as second-class citizens in pubs and clubs, including Conservative clubs.
  Mr. Banks: I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will understand that point. I certainly agree with what was said by my hon. Friend.
  The final drink-up time that occurs just before closing is important. To my mind, the restrictions placed on the closing of pubs at 10 o'clock in Scotland before 1976 and at 11 o'clock now in England and Wales tend to accelerate drinking just before the pubs are about to close. That is the crucial time when people will drink just too much, putting them over the limit before they go and drive away in their cars, or they drink that much more, which leads them to commit some stupid crime or to do something silly. I prefer my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to accept that it is better to have greater flexibility so that, through the Bill, we may suggest that pubs can open at, say, 11.30 in the morning and close at 11·30 at night, with all the restrictions that would be imposed by licensing magistrates as a result of local opposition and objections if they were proved to be unacceptable.
  If hours are staggered to take account of local conditions—prticularly in areas in which there are a great number of tourist attractions, such as cinemas and theatres, and people want to go to a pub and enjoy a drink

  65
  and perhaps have some food before they go home—extra time would allow that to take place in a civilised and reasonable way. It would also have the effect of reducing the snap drink-up time, which happens at the moment when people go to a pub a little later in the evening. It would also he of general benefit to the police. They will find that it is easier to police pubs that close at different times rather than try to police all the pubs that close at the same time every night.
  The survey of licensed premises that the Government commissioned showed that a significant reduction in the pattern of acceleration of drinking towards the end of the evening had not disappeared in Scotland but had diminished. Senior police officers much prefer the situation, but the decline in the proportion of drinkers on licensed premises at closing time who had either bought a drink for themselves or were bought one in the last 10 minutes has gone down from 51 per cent. in Scotland in 1976 to 42 per cent. in 1984. We need to take that argument on board.
  One point that has emerged in this debate and that will emerge in all other debates on licensing reform relates to the drunken driver and drunkenness. I shall continue to advocate that we should have personal breathalysers. They should be freely available on the market at reasonable prices, so that, if somebody feels that he may be over the limit, he can at least test himself. If he is over the limit, he can wait until he is under the limit or he does not drive. It is extraordinary that we do not take action to try to propel the matter forward and give drivers an opportunity to test themselves in their cars, or before they get into their cars, to see whether they are over the limit. Certainly, insurance companies have a role to play in abdicating insurance if a drunken driver is found guilty of an offence. Nobody should be able to drive a car if he is in a condition which could cause grave harm to someone else.
  Mr. Colvin: I go further and ask my hon. Friend to reconsider what he said. There is a good case for a driver who goes to a pub not to have any alcohol at all. The licensing trade may welcome, not resist, that suggestion.
  Mr. Banks: I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend's point. We can debate it on other occasions. It is reasonable to have one or two dinks. As Members of Parliament we may often go to functions. It is normal to take a glass of wine and then go to another function. We can drive quite safely on that basis.
  Experience in Scotland has shown that the number of drivers who have been convicted of offences arising out of being drunk in control of a vehicle has declined in relation to the number in England and Wales, which has increased.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) referred to problems associated with under-age drinkers. His speeches on such matters are always listened to with great interest. Under-age drinkers are undoubtedly a major problem for the publican who cannot determine the age of some of the people whom he serves. It is a major problem when young people, who should not drink, do so wildly and to excess. It is up to the publican to say to somebody about whom he has any slight hesitation in serving because he believes that they may be under 18 years of age, "I shall serve you with a drink if you can prove to me that you are over 18." That is another way of saying that we should have identity cards. It would make it simple and easy for anybody to make a straightforward challenge of that sort.
  66
  I welcome the work that brewers and the Brewers Society have done in bringing forward alcohol-free beers. I have sampled some of them, and they are good. People can enjoy the conviviality of drinking in a pub with friends without the risk of going over the limit. An enormous amount of work must be done to deal with the problem of alcohol misuse. I warmly welcome the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to co-ordinate the activities of the various Departments. That is a major step forward. In time, I am sure, we shall see the action that many of us believe is necessary to educate young people about drinking sensibly and the problems that emanate from too much alcohol consumption.
  At the end of the day, the Bill will be of benefit. It will not exacerbate the problem of alcohol abuse, but it will make us a much more civilised nation. I support the Bill.
  6.49 pm
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: I want to make it clear that I am putting forward the views of the National Association of Licensed House Managers. Whatever is said by Front Bench spokesmen and whatever is decided upon, the licensed house managers will have to deal with the problems created by the Bill.
  Of course, those managers are prepared to go part of the way to assist the implementation of the Bill. They would not, for example, oppose the extension of licensing hours from 11 am to 11 pm; they are quite agreeable to that, although it goes further than they would have wanted. However, they would oppose any interference with or extension of Sunday or bank holiday opening hours, such as those for Good Friday or at Christmas.
  Licensed house managers want to retain some control over the operation of licensed premises. They would especially like to retain the law that provides specifically that licensees are not obliged to open for all the permitted hours. They feel that if all the other pubs in a town or village opened, the pressure on them to do likewise would become intolerable unless some provision enabling them to avoid having to do so were written into the Bill.
  I know that I shall elicit a response from the Minister by saying that licensed house managers would like removed from their contracts the clause that obliges a licensee to open his licensed premises during the whole of the available permitted hours. It is no good saying one thing if licensed house managers are obliged to do the opposite because the brewers insist on keeping the premises open. That is a most important point.
  Another important argument relates to flexibility. The licensed house managers understand local conditions. I do not think that there will be any extension of licensing hours in many areas. In many residential and industrial areas the local need can be met under existing licensing arrangements. Indeed, I do not think there will be the demand that the brewers think. However, in many other areas the position many be different. One example is the City, where people appear to have nothing better to do than to drink in the afternoon — indeed it might be better for them to drink in the afternoon than to make the mess that they have made recently of stock market prices.
  Another such instance of need would be in seaside resorts. In the holiday trade there is need to maximise the hours available. Similarly, holiday resorts need to be flexible in winter. Surely it is best to leave it to the manager or to the licensee to know his own area and, in knowing his locality, to reach the decision, rather than having

  67
  pressure placed on him by the brewer who might say, "This is now the law and we expect you all to be open." We know that that pressure could arise if the Bill is left as it is. We should take account of local conditions and meet the need rather than create one. I am sure that that is the way in which licensed house managers would look at the matter.
  Hon. Members of all parties have said that the Bill aims to enable people to use licensed premises rather than to encourage them to drink more. We should examine that matter in relation to the problems that face us. Licensed house managers are especially concerned that the extended hours provision must not provide a basis for a later terminal hour on a regular basis, as occurs now, for example, in some pubs on Friday and Saturday evenings.
  Hon. Members have also touched on the fact that alcohol is available from sources other than public houses and restaurants. Much of the increase in drinking habits has occurred because of off-licences and supermarkets. Many statistics have been given on under-age and children's drinking and on the fact that more women are drinking. It is far easier for an under-age person to go into a supermarket to obtain drinks than it is for him to do so on licensed premises. It is also far easier for women or other members of the family, when shopping, to put drinks in the supermarket trolley. I am sure that that is why an increase in drinking has occurred and we should pay more attention to it.
  At football matches, the closing of pubs around football grounds has not stopped people who are drunk entering the ground. Indeed, some people try to take drink into the ground. That happens because they have been able to obtain the alcohol from surrounding supermarkets. I should like to see, as would many licensed house managers, supermarkets having their licences revoked when such things happen. They should be responsible for the disorderly conduct that can occur.
  The hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) referred to the non-alcoholic beverages that taste like beer. They are not perfect, but they are still being worked on and I welcome them. However, one of the difficulties at the moment is that they cost more than ordinary beers. If we want to promote them, surely the price should be less than that of beer. Perhaps the Government could do something about that: possibly the Chancellor could seek to extend their sales and divert people from alcohol.
  There is nothing wrong with going into a pub. Indeed, pubs are the central feature of many villages, because they are the places where people gather. That is not a bad thing, and I should like to see all the family going in. It does not necessarily follow that that would lead to more drinking. If a pub is well run — many licensees are responsible people—that need not happen and licensees often kick out people who are nuisances.
  I do not want extended licensing hours to be imposed on areas where it need not happen. I do not want to see the pressure to be open being put on licensed house managers by brewers. Where there is a need for an extension of the licensing hours or at bank holidays such as Christmas, it should be the individual licensee who makes an application rather than the area manager or the brewery.
  I shall probably support the Bill. However, I give fair warning that I shall watch what happens. I should like to see some of the conditions and ideas that I have put
  68
  forward incorporated in the Bill. I shall certainly consider the Bill most carefully on Third Reading to decide whether I shall continue to support it. However, for the moment I wish it not a fair wind, but a little wind. I shall probably continue to support it, but only on the understanding that flexibility must remain with the licensee and especially with the house manager. We must protect them against the undue pressure that could come from breweries.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Greg Knight: Mr. Deputy Speaker made a plea for brief speeches and I shall attempt to follow that advice.
  We live in an enlightened age — the age of the microchip, of man in space and of nuclear power—yet in England and Wales it is still not possible to get a drink in a public house during the afternoon or after 11 pm. The truth is that our licensing laws are not relevant to today. They are restrictive and inconvenient to everybody. I applaud the Government for seeking to bring about a modest change through this Bill.
  The arguments put forward by critics of the measure are that the Government should leave the law as it is because of the problem that, regrettably, a minority of people have with alcohol. I have never understood why the majority should face the inconvenience of severe restrictions on pub licensing hours because of the unfortunate minority. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) made several good points, but he omitted to mention that public houses are controlled drinking environments. The licensee is in charge of what happens on his premises and has a duty to keep an orderly house. There are certain ways in which one cannot conduct oneself in a public house; for example, one cannot behave in a threatening or abusive way to other customers and one cannot be served if one is intoxicated or if one is under age.
  The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) gave a graphic description of several drunken youths collapsing and milling about outside his house. I, like the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) must ask him where those youths bought that drink. The chances are that they bought it, not in a public house, but in a nearby supermarket. If there is a case for the Government strengthening the law, it is in relation not to public houses but to supermarkets.
  Often, the licensee in a supermarket is not in charge of alcohol sales. He may visit the licensing area of his store only once a day, and invariably it is under the control of a fairly junior shop assistant. Many hon. Members will have seen a shop assistant serving a customer with drink who is obviously under age, and on two recent occasions I saw an assistant selling alcohol to a customer who was clearly intoxicated.
  Mr. Hoyle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a supermarket licensee does not see the consequences of the drink bought from his store?
  Mr. Knight: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The consequences are often scenes of drunken behaviour on the streets, such as the hon. Member for Wentworth described.
  Other critics outside the House say that the measure does not go far enough, and I have some sympathy with them. Obviously clauses 2 and 4 are right, but the licensee

  69
  of a public house is adjudged by a magistrates court to be a fit and proper person. He must provide references; he knows that his behaviour is under continual police scrutiny and that he must run an orderly house. I wonder why in 1987 we cannot therefore allow a publican to open at his discretion within a maximum number of hours each day. That is the nettle that we should grasp tonight.
  Even the Erroll report of 1972 recommended that pubs should be able to open between 10 am and midnight, yet 15 years on we are being asked to consider only a minor relaxation. Even if the Bill is passed, most of Europe and the United States will still have more liberal licensing laws.
  Some opponents of the Bill have provided statistics. I will do the same. United States law varies from state to state. In Alabama, the closing hour for bars is 2 am, in Arizona I am, in California 2 am, in Florida midnight, in Indiana 3 am and in Nevada the bars are open 24 hours a day. It is disappointing that the Government have not seen fit to include measures to postpone the terminal hour here.
  As the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) said, it is disappointing that the Bill does not include measures to allow greater flexibility on Sundays. As he pointed out, it is ironic that the day of the week when most members of the public have most leisure is the one day when we shall not allow them to choose how they use that time.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will be pleased to know that Derby and District Licensed Victuallers Association is wholeheartedly behind the measure. However, it has expressed some anxiety about the operation of the drinking-up rule and I hope that my hon. Friend will consider this in Committee. The association feels that the allocation of 10 minutes which is given to licensees to collect alcohol from tables and to persuade customers to leave is a narrow period in which to operate. It would welcome the Government reconsidering this point and, hopefully, relaxing it somewhat.
  The Bill is not a drunks' charter; it is a modest measure. In my view, it is rather too modest, but in politics one soon learns to grasp what one can while one can. On that basis, I shall support the measure tonight.
  7.5 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: At least the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) had the honesty to say that he was grabbing what he could and wanted the measure to go even further. Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) were throwing dust in our eyes in trying to turn our attention to the off-licenses and supermarkets. Naturally, one must consider all the outlets available to the public. Both tried to exonerate public houses by describing them as "controlled environments", but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) said—in this matter he is my right hon. Friend — the recent Health Education Authority survey stated that 49 per cent. of 14 to 15-year-olds visited a pub or bar in the two weeks before the survey was carried out. That hardly supports the argument of a closely controlled environment, nor the argument that one need simply look into supermarkets and off-licences.
  This is pre-eminently a matter on which we should all declare our interests, so in all honesty I shall declare mine. Together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, I am a patron of the Alcohol Safeguards Campaign
  70
  and Familybase, and I am president of the West Glamorgan council group on alcohol and drug abuse. I hope that all Conservative Members will declare their personal interests in that same spirit and that the Government will lay on the table their close personal and financial links with the drinks trade, which have existed ever since William Ewart Gladstone lost the 1874 election, having been drowned by torrents of gin and beer following the Licensing Act 1872. It was introduced by Henry Bruce. who, like me, was not only a member of the Bar, but the only other Member who attended Swansea grammar school. Clearly, there have since been substantial links between the drinks industry and the Conservative party.
  The Minister will not be surprised that the bodies with which I am closely linked are opposed to the Bill. We have several questions. Who wants the change? Where is the pressure for this change coming from? Certainly pressure has come partly from the tourist industry. Since the Scottish precedent is quoted with such relish by Conservative Members, I note that in Scotland tourism increased by only 8 per cent. between 1979 and 1985, compared with 24 per cent. in England and Wales. That hardly argues eloquently for a direct correlation between the accessibility to drink following the 1976 change in Scotland and benefits to the tourist industry and brewers.
  Following the excursion through history of my right hon. Friend, we recall that Bishop Magee of Peterborough said during the debate on the 1972 Act that he would like to see
  ''England free better than England sober."
  I recall that Peterborough is not too far from Grantham or rural Oxfordshire, and I wonder whether there is an echo today of "rather England free than England sober" in speeches from the Government Front Bench.
  Who is concerned about the Bill? Medical experts on the subject and the general public certainly are. There is no evidence of any support for the Bill from the general public—on the contrary. Why the hurry? What is it that impels the Government to press forward with this so-called modest change, when we hear that the Government's legislative programme is overloaded and their business managers are seeking opportunities of jettisoning parts of it? I commend this Bill for that purpose straight away. It is a poor measure and the Wakeharn committee gives the Government an opportunity to examine the whole issue of alcoholism in the round, rather than going ahead wilfully with only part of this area.
  How far do the Government really want to go? Some Conservative Members have let the cat out of the bag: they have an incremental view of the Bill As the Home Secretary was honest enough to admit, it is as far as he can go now. He knows that if he put forward the package that he and his hon. Friends wanted, it would include Sunday, too. Having sustained a bloody nose over the Shops Bill in the last Session, he is not prepared to go ahead with that aspect now.
  The Government like to portray the Bill as a modest, tidying-up measure, to get rid of what the Home Secretary called the dead afternoon. If so, are they prepared to give an undertaking to the House that in no circumstances will they support any further liberalisation for, say, the next five years? Or do the Government see the Bill purely on an incremental basis—something that they can get away with now in the hope that they can build on it by salami tactics, bit by bit, supporting their friends in the brewing

  71
  industry? Of course the brewers will come back asking for more, and the Government, on present form, will give it to them.
  The key question surely is whether consumption will increase as a result of the measure. We know that the Scottish evidence is contradictory and inconclusive. Why do the Government not promote research that can give us a clearer idea of what has happend in Scotland? For example, the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys survey, prepared for the Scottish Home and Health Department, has produced figures that must be viewed with considerable caution. They are based on people's opinions of what happened rather than on what actually happened.
  It is clear that increased road traffic offences due to drunken driving have continued to be higher in Scotland than in England. There has certainly been an increase in consumption among those in work, particularly among women. The only group among which there has been a reduction in consumption has been the unemployed—for obvious reasons. If the brewers are really saying that they do not expect an increase in consumption—we hear that the Government have promised them the Bill by February—why are they investing more——
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: We have promised nobody the Bill by any time.
  Mr. Anderson: That is some small mercy.
  Why do the brewers intend to invest more if they do not expect higher profits? The Home Secretary contradicted himself by quoting with approval suggestions by the tourist industry that 50,000 jobs—albeit part-time jobs—would be created. If those 50,000 jobs were created within the public house system as a result of the Bill—the Home Secretary seemed to adopt that figure—who will pay their wages? Surely they can only come from increased consumption—from projected increased consumption — by the public. Who else would pay? The money will not come out of the brewers' pockets.
  I made the concession that the Scottish evidence is inconclusive, but the reaction of the brewers and the evidence from other countries suggest that there is a direct correlation between availability and consumption, and between consumption and the range of social problems that my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point described. I do not propose to go over all the social consequences for the family, industry and personal relationships, but hon. Members who are concerned about the effects of alcohol know about them.
  I want to inject one other matter that has not yet been discussed in the debate — the Welsh dimension. The Home Secretary talked about "England and Wales" as against Scotland. I submit that there is a special Welsh dimension to the debate. The Home Secretary is well aware of that because of a letter, dated 25 September, that was sent to him by the Welsh Health Promotion Authority. It charted a growing problem of alcoholism in Wales. It described it as being of epidemic proportions, with enormous costs to industry and the family. For example, alcohol consumption in Wales is 25 per cent. higher than in England. Average expenditure on alcohol, in spite of our lower per capita income, is 15 per cent. greater. Alcohol is much cheaper in Wales—20 per cent. less
  72
  expensive than in London. There are 25 per cent. more licensees per hundred thousand of the population in Wales.
  So we are bound to reflect on whether this modest change is likely to exacerbate or help the problem. We are going ahead with this corner of the matter without looking at the whole range of problems that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) mentioned: the effects of advertising and the commercialism that encourage people to drink: taxation policy and its effect on consumption: and other areas that we know can affect the total picture of alcoholism in this country.
  The Government press ahead as a result of pressure from known quarters in this one area, yet public opinion polls among the Welsh people have decisively rejected this liberalisation measure. Heartbeat Wales carried out a special survey in September. It showed that 54 per cent. of people in Wales were opposed to change or wanted even tighter controls on opening hours. So there is clearly no mandate for the change in Wales. The Home Secretary may insist on a merrier England, but it is clear that the people of Wales do not want a merrier Wales, with all its social consequences. If the Government were at all sensitive to Welsh public opinion—they have and had no mandate from Welsh opinion from the last election—they would allow us to opt out.
  Bills normally have a clause with estimates of Civil Services manpower and Exchequer costs that are likely to result from their implementation. With a Bill of this sort, we need a rather broader social audit. For example, if, as some suggest, there is likely to be a 15 per cent. increase in consumption, and as the brewers prepare to invest more money and produce those extra part-time jobs, it is estimated that such an increase would result in 9,000 more violent crimes, 1·2 million more working days lost, 350 more deaths a year from cirrhosis of the liver, and 50 to 100 extra deaths and up to 2,000 injuries on our roads—all as a result of the increase in alcoholism and alcohol-related effects.
  The Bill is not part of a comprehensive strategy to combat alcoholism, but a shameless concession to an interest group and a reckless gamble that ignores the social costs to the country.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Gary Waller: I shall start by affirming that alcohol misuse is undoubtedly one of the greatest causes of human misery today, not only among those that it affects directly but also among their relatives and those who are close to them. If a continuation of the existing licensing controls could help in some way to reduce the scale of the problem or to prevent it increasing, then I would be among the first to argue against the change that is proposed in the Bill. However, the existing laws are illogical and arbitrary. Whether they ever did any good must be in some doubt. It is certainly difficult to argue that they do any good today.
  At the beginning of this century total abstinence was very much the message that was preached by those who saw the effects of alcoholism in the home, in the street and in the workplace. The message was preached effectively because Lloyd George is quoted as saying in 1915:
  "We are fighting Germany, Austria and the drink. And, as far as I can see, the greatest of these deadly foes is drink."

  73
  King George V was responding to that mood when he pledged that drink would not be served in the royal household until the war was over. A law that restricted the times during which drink could be obtained over the bar thus appeared early in the century to be a step in the right direction.
  There are still many things that we do not know and do not understand about why some people become victims of alcohol whereas the majority appear able to enjoy alcohol in moderation. However, there is one thing about which we can be absolutely sure: that simplistic solutions like those adopted in 1915 are not helpful. We require more subtle and more complex measures as part of a total strategy that recognises the realities of the situation that we face.
  There is evidence that the present restrictions on afternoon opening hours only cause irritation to the tourist and to the moderate drinker. Anyone who is determined to drink—as is the problem drinker—will have no difficulty whatever in obtaining alcohol from one of very many retail outlets.
  Let no one imagine that because we want the Bill to bring about a relaxation in these archaic restrictions that is in some way an indication that we believe there is not a problem. Clearly and sadly the problems are all too apparent. The costs of alcohol abuse in the workplace have been estimated to range up to £1·5 billion in terms of absenteeism, lost production and accidents. Heavy alcohol consumption accounts for, perhaps, 15,000 premature deaths every year. As many as one third of all patients in general medical wards appear to have an underlying problem that is in some way related to alcohol. It is a problem that may immediately affect 1 million people in the United Kingdom. Few people do not know of somebody who is affected in some way by the problem of alcoholism or of alcohol abuse.
  The social ills associated with alcohol are greater than the ones relating to alcoholism alone. While 14 per cent. of men and 3 per cent. of women are thought regularly to drink more than the amounts which require that they be described as problem drinkers, according to recent assumed criteria, many tragedies are caused by people who may drink to excess only occasionally. The drunk driver who kills may never before have driven when over the limit, but his action on just one occasion may have disastrous consequences, as many of us know from the sad constituency cases with which we have to deal. One in three drivers killed on our roads had excess alcohol in the blood.
  It is easy to understand why many well-meaning people come to the conclusion that restriction is the only means of averting such tragedies. However, history surely shows us that restriction may sometimes make the situation worse rather than better. In the United States, prohibition, which was introduced in 1919, glamorised law-breaking and ushered in a period when violent crime escalated alarmingly and underground drinking prospered until, eventually, those who made the laws in the United States saw the error of their ways.
  Those who argue against the Bill do so because alcohol misuse can be and often is a serious threat to the individual and to society. There can be no doubt whatever about that. The only question to ask is what we can do about it. The Government can play an important part in answering the challenge. Only the Government can initiate the better designed and better targeted campaigns that are needed to
  74
  influence the young. We hear much about drugs, but alcohol kills 10 times as many teenagers as heroin and two thirds of drug-related deaths also involve alcohol.
  For many young people alcohol is the cheapest and most fashionable drug available, and the research into drinking shows that the young are the most frequent drinkers. More money should be provided to the Health Education Authority specifically to fight alcohol misuse among the young. It cannot be right that, when £17 million has been spent fighting heroin and cocaine abuse, less than £1 million has been spent on the campaigns against alcohol.
  The education message for young people is a difficult one to put across, because the message cannot just be, "Don't drink" in the same way as we would say, "Don't take drugs". Not only is it clear that drinking moderately will do no harm, but many cardiac specialists believe that moderate drinking may have some modest medical benefits. No doubt the argument about that will continue. The Bill has encouraged its proponents and, indeed, its opponents to produce figures that only go to show that one can prove anything with statistics. This applies riot only to the situation in Scotland, which many hon. Members have said is inconclusive, but to opinion surveys, the responses to which vary as much as the questions that are asked in the surveys.
  I hope that the interdepartmental committee that has been set up under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will not hesitate to press forward with initiatives designed to improve the situation, even if they are costly or difficult. It may he asked, for instance, whether we should not give legislative teeth to codes against advertisements that portray alcohol as attractive to under-18-year-olds if the existing voluntary code is not seen to be working effectively.
  Most of the changes that one could envisage do not fall within the ambit of the licensing law. Issues that do, and which might be considered in Standing Committee, relate to the fact that publicans are hardly ever charged with the offence of selling alcohol to a person who is clearly already intoxicated, even though there must often be justification for such a charge. The majority of publicans do their best to control their saloon bars and to prevent people from drinking too much. However, of the many tens of thousands of people found drunk in the streets, surely some could have been seen by more than three licensees—which I think was the figure for a recent year—to be already far too intoxicated to be served with more alcohol. We could also consider whether there are adequate deterrents against selling alcohol to those who are under age. As I have said, the difficulties that licensees face should not be underestimated. Equally, they have a vital role to play in the front line against irresponsible and anti-social behaviour.
  It is a frightening fact that 29 per cent. of 13-year-old boys and 11 per cent. of 13-year-old girls said in a recent survey carried out by, I think, the Department of Health and Social Security that they drank at least once a week. I would think that relatively few of them obtain their drink in public houses. This shows only that our major thrust must point in other directions.
  There is plenty to be done in areas where legislation is only one of several options open to us. There has been plenty of debate over many years, if not decades, about these modest changes. We should not allow the broad

  75
  nature of the problems to which I have referred to stop us making progress in this field. That is why I welcome the Bill.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), I shall support the Bill. Traditionally, the licensing laws have been concerned with the social consequences of the use and abuse of alcohol, but change must come. We must acknowledge that we live in an alcohol-using society.
  As we all know, the present pattern of licensing hours stems from the first world war. Strict controls were introduced to curb drunkenness among munition workers. Surely today one cannot sensibly argue a case for controlling the sale and consumption of alcohol on licensed premises on the basis of what happened 70 years ago. It is generally agreed that there is a need for some control over licensing hours, but the reasons are very varied. Relying on the control of licensing hours as the principal means of preventing alcohol misuse seems to be inappropriate and ineffective. It prevents a person from enjoying a social drink in the afternoon, after, say, 3 pm. On the other hand, it simply makes it awkward for the determined drinker who can always purchase a drink at the local supermarket.
  The present licensing hours do not prevent the hardened drinker from obtaining a drink. One need only look around my constituency to see young people, well below the legal age for consuming alcohol, drinking cider and cans of beer purchased from supermarkets and off-licences. I do not suppose that my constituency is out of the ordinary. No doubt a similar state of affairs exists throughout the country. Only last Saturday morning, constituents came to see me at my surgery complaining that the off-licence near their home was selling cans of beer to under-age youths who were then causing a disturbance.
  We should address the real problem, which is not so much a fear of increased alcoholism and alcohol-related diseases—which some people see as an obvious spin-off from extending licensing hours—as the danger of the increased availability of alcohol in supermarkets and off-licences. Both young people and hardened drinkers may purchase alcohol virtually from Monday to Saturday, from about 9 am to 10 pm. They are not dependent on the opening of licensed premises. That is the real cause for concern.
  Our present licensing hours prevent shift workers, at the end of their working day, be it early afternoon or late evening, from having a social drink. It prevents the frustrated tourist and the moderate drinker from obtaining and enjoying a drink after 3 pm. It makes little sense to allow a customer to buy a drink at 2 pm but not at 4 pm. It restricts freedom of choice. Is there any reasonable explanation for distinguishing between one part of the afternoon and another? The main argument for retaining the present licensing laws is that their removal will encourage increased alcohol consumption and widespread misuse, but that is not so.
  The main conclusion to be drawn is that the liberal reforms in the Scottish licensing laws have not had a dramatic effect, so it would be unwise to base the possible results of licensing changes in England and Wales on the Scottish experience. The evidence suggests that neither
  76
  benefit nor harm would result from licensing changes. Indeed, they would create more jobs. It is estimated that more than 20,000 jobs would be created in public houses alone; indeed, I have heard mentioned the figures of 30,000 and 50,000. However, I must stress the need for safeguards for staff if that happens. Most of those jobs would stem from the supply of food rather than the sale of alcohol.
  Since the introduction of more liberal licensing laws in Scotland, about one third of public houses have taken on more staff, mostly on the catering side. Pubs will be able to expand to provide more services and meals, snacks and refreshments will be available all day long. Such expansion would appear reasonable and is supported by the family expenditure survey which states that going out for a drink accounts for the largest single item of leisure expenditure for the average family and is greater than the amount spent on holidays. It seems logical that people should be able to enjoy a drink where they want and when they want.
  It is regrettable that a small minority of people unable to cope with alcohol have been used as the reason for restricting the choice for the vast majority of moderate, sensible and sociable drinkers. There is insufficient evidence to establish a causal link between alcohol availability on licensed premises and drink-related problems. Scotland has proved the case—less control has led to less trouble.
  The problem to which we must address ourselves is the increased availability of alcohol in supermarkets and off-licences. Over the past few years the number of off-licences has grown considerably faster than the number of public houses. However, relaxing the restrictions on licensing hours does not carry any obligation for premises to open. Licensees will not be obliged to open for the available permitted hours. The Bill includes a clause that gives the licensee the choice of opening for any hours within the 12 hours permitted. Effectively, that choice establishes flexibility in opening hours to meet customer demand, which is good. Often premises have been forced to open when there is no custom, which is silly. Licensees know their areas and they know the needs of their customers.
  The existing law on the 10-minute drinking-up time is ludicrous and should be abolished, as it causes nothing but trouble and problems. Customers rush to get the last drink and that causes conflict and confrontation between the licensee and the customer. At the moment, there is great difficulty in keeping within the law on drinking-up time and in some cases it is an almost impossible task.
  The whole objective must be a society in which the majority who wish to drink peaceably and sociably can do so at a time when they wish. The minority who abuse alcohol must not be allowed to influence the licensing hours for the majority. Although I do not believe that stringent licensing laws have a significant part to play in preventing alcohol abuse, I should like to see safeguards in the new law to enable licensing justices to ensure that the public are protected from any nuisance that may arise as a result of extended licensing hours. However, the liberal reform of the Scottish licensing laws has proved that there is no cause for concern in Scotland.
  The present licensing laws are complex and varied. They date back to the Licensing Act 1921, which provided a similar timetable to that in operation today. That Act followed the stricter regulations that were introduced as a result of the first world war. Those regulations originate from a different era and, although they were effective at

  77
  the time, there is little reasonable justification for retaining them. Although the dangers of alcohol abuse have become apparent over the years, I do not believe that restricted licensing hours are appropriate or effective in controlling alcohol misuse. The Bill will give the customer freedom to enjoy a drink in the afternoon. I do not believe that the legislation will have any significant effect on the overall consumption of alcohol. However, I believe that the Government must urgently address themselves to the availability of alcohol in supermarkets and off-licences, which are particularly attractive to under-age people.
  Restricted licensing hours do little to prevent the problem drinker from getting a drink but they restrict the freedom of choice for the moderate drinker who may wish to purchase a drink after 3 o'clock. If heed is taken of the issues that I have raised and, in particular, if safeguards for staff are included, I shall welcome the Bill. Quite honestly, I am dying for a drink now.
  7.39 pm
  Mr. James Couchman: First, may I say how delighted I am to have caught your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, this evening.
  May I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg)—a great deal of good sense came from the Opposition side of the Chamber, for a change.
  To prevent any misunderstanding, may I once again declare my financial and vested interest in the licensed trade and hence the reform of the licensing laws. I am a managing director of a small family company, of which I own 75 per cent. of the shares, which operates, under tenancy from three different breweries, five public houses in the London area. Together with my managers, I am licensee of those five pubs and I am registered as a multiple licence holder with the Metropolitan police.
  For the past 17 years, my wife and I have earned a substantial proportion of our income from the licensed trade. For four years we ran an extremely busy south London pub with a ballroom. I followed my father and grandfather into the trade, and I believe that I am the hon. Member most closely involved with the operation of public houses. I am not a brewer, nor a freeholder—I am a tenant licensee. Although the brewers and myself have much in common concerning the Bill, there are certain areas on which we will probably find ourselves in dispute.
  I believe that this is the seventh occasion on which I have addressed the House on the subject of licensing reform. I should like to think that the Consolidated Fund debate that I initiated in 1983, soon after I was elected to the House, played some small part in spurring the Government to undertake, at last, this long overdue reform. It is unnecessary for me to rehearse the history of restrictions and regulations on the sale of alcoholic drinks. It is sufficient to say that, during most of our 80 years as publicans in Pimlico, my forebears and myself have enjoyed a somewhat uneasy love-hate relationship with that old harridan the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act 1916. We shall shed no tears if DORA finally succumbs this year. The 1916 Act may have had some relevance during the first world war, but it has none today.
  I shall illustrate just a few of the ways in which the present laws relating to licensing have become anachronistic. In 1916 Britain was at war and it was essential that the war effort should be maximised. However, even if we had
  78
  not been fighting a desperate war, the lifestyle of our people was very different. Far more people worked at hard manual jobs for long hours each day on low wages. Many homes were less than comfortable and the installation of electricity was far from common. Television was a dream, or perhaps a nightmare, of the future. I guess that people went to bed early to save on the gas lamps and because it was cold indoors. Amusement was man-made. Few people had paid holidays, and, even if there had been no war, only the wealthy travelled abroad.
  Let us contrast that with our lives today. The inward and outward tourist industry ensures that many foreign visitors are able to witness, at first hand, our antiquated drinking laws, while many of our people are able to experience the more relaxed hours on the Continent. It is an eye-opener to all.
  The greatest difference is the greater flexibility in our working hours. The hon. Member for City of Durham talked of shift work. Many people start work early in the morning and finish early in the afternoon, for example, milkmen, postmen, policemen, delivery men and nurses. Indeed, even people working in the much abused City tailor their hours to the 24-hour markets throughout the world. Those people's working day ends as the pubs close for the mandatory afternoon break. There is no after-work pint for them.
  It would be very ungracious of me not to welcome the Government's willingness to introduce the Bill. It is 15 years since the Erroll committee reported, and 10 years since the Clayson reforms were implemented in Scotland. Previous Governments have been unwilling to confront the issue, preferring to sit on the fence while allowing hon. Members successful in the Private Members' Bills' ballot to fall victim to the anti-alcohol tendency. I have criticisms of the Bill as presented today, and I hope that the reports that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will listen with an open mind to arguments deployed to amend the Bill are true.
  The two major criticisms that I have concern the terminal hour, particularly on Friday and Saturday evenings, and the hours permitted for opening on Sundays. With regard to the terminal hour on Friday and Saturday, many houses with a supper hour certificate, or an extended hours certificate—often granted to disco houses, which are more rather than less likely to cause annoyance to neighbours than ordinary pubs — already offer an opportunity for legal late drinking. The option of staying open to midnight on Friday and Saturday evenings would allow licensees to offer an opportunity to customers, which undoubtedly they would welcome. If disco houses and restaurants are deemed responsible enough to open until midnight, why not the best-controlled outlet of all, the traditional British pub?
  My second point of difference with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State concerns opening hours on Sundays. Let me say straight away that I do not want to see all-day opening on Sundays. My staff value their long Sunday afternoon break. However, the two-hour Sunday lunchtime session is popular with staff and customers alike. From my experience as a resident manager, I can vouch for the fact that it is the most pleasant session of the week to work behind the bar. There is no difficulty in getting staff to work on a Sunday. So popular is that short session that, increasingly, licensees are applying a Nelson eye to the clock, either before midday or after 2 pm. That is now happening in many parts of London. If customers

  79
  know of one pub where the doors open a few minutes early, they go there. In defence, other publicans tend to follow suit to defend their trade.
  That brings the law into disrepute. On previous occasions I have spoken of the law being brought into disrepute, and I do not propose to repeat myself. Suffice it to say that I recognise that a law in disrepute is not a reason to change the law. However, perhaps it is a reason to look at it.
  Sunday is a day when many people, whether relaxing locally or out for the day with their families, would welcome the opportunity of a more leisurely drink than the short midday to 2 pm session allows. The Licensing (Restaurant Meals) Act 1987 allows restaurants and pubs with separate rooms used as restaurants the opportunity to serve their customers with drink accompanying a meal for much longer hours on a Sunday, but that is an inequitable situation for pubs serving bar meals or just serving a cool pint of beer to their customers on a hot afternoon. There is a strong case for extending the Sunday lunchtime session to a maximum of four hours between 11 am and 3 pm. That would bring more benefit to customers and licensees alike than opening the mandatory break on, say, a Monday or Tuesday afternoon.
  Much has been written of the clause in tenancy agreements, which brewers impose on their tenants, insisting that the latter must open for all the hours permitted by the law and licensing justices. This very day I signed such a tenancy agreement with that clause in it. I did so on trust that the brewers will take a sensible and responsible attitude if the Bill becomes an act.
  The Brewers Society issued a statement in September this year to the National Licensed Victuallers Association, of which I am a member, stating that such clauses would be deleted from tenancy agreements and that a new clause would be inserted, the effect of which would require the hours during which the premises would open to be such as would be mutually agreed by the landlord and tenant, having regard to the needs of their customers. In the event of a dispute, there would be an arbitral procedure.
  There is still suspicion among tenants fearful that the extended hours allowed under the Bill might be used as a stick by the brewers intent on dispossessing the tenant of his house by making it unviable for him. Clearly the owners of a commercial property are entitled to an input in to its use. I should prefer licensees and licensing justices to have a predominant position in deciding the appropriate hours for any house, but at the least I am convinced that it behoves each and every brewery to send out to each and every one of its tenants a letter implementing the terms of the Brewers Society's commitment for his or her house in respect of his or her current agreement. That should be done before any changes under the Bill are implemented. I recognise the position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that that must be a point of negotiation between the parties.
  I should like to refer to the abuse of alcohol and the possibility that the Bill will exacerbate the state of affairs in the United Kingdom. The National Licensed Victuallers Association, the Brewers Society and the Wine and Spirit Association are as aware as are individual licensees of the perils of drink. Indeed, trade interests give large sums each year in grants and donations for work associated with
  80
  alcohol misuse to organisations concerned with alcohol and research bodies. Britain has a low percentage of people who seriously abuse alcohol and low levels of liver cirrhosis due to alcohol. As has been said, the people who abuse it seriously almost certainly obtain the bulk of their supply from the off-licence trade because of price advantage. In any case, no publican wants a drunk on his premises, for such people disrupt other customers and put the licence at risk. The same applies to the young, for we, as licensees, are very concerned to ensure that the young do not come into licensed premises—public houses—and drink. It is disruptive and they are a nuisance.
  It is generally held that moderate drinking can be beneficial to health. It would be iniquitous if the 98 per cent. of people who drink sensibly were to be penalised to try to influence the 2 per cent. who regularly abuse and who do not, in all probability, frequent that most controlled of retail outlets, the pub.
  In recognising the problem of alcohol abuse, one must also recognise that anti-alcohol organisations have been guilty of peddling some misleading and, in some cases, downright untrue figures and statistics, particularly the 1986 Action on Alcohol Abuse figures, which multiplied by 200 a small sample in Malmö in Sweden, to obtain the number of deaths through drink in the United Kingdom. Even the authors of the Malmö research cautioned against such extrapolation. The circulation of misleading scare figures is profoundly unhelpful to the cause of sensible drinking. Having said that, I, too, welcome the setting up of the committee under my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal to examine the many and complex factors involved in alcohol abuse.
  I operate five London pubs under tenancy. Their locations differ markedly. Some do the bulk of their trade at weekday lunchtimes, and others are busy in the evenings and at weekends. The flexibility of permitted hours offered by the Bill, particularly if amended in the two respects that I have suggested, and if applied sensibly after discussion between brewer landlord, the licensing justices and tenant licensee, will represent a major step forward to a more sensible and relaxed way of drinking in our traditional British pubs.
  I for one do not believe that all pubs will use the 12 hours that will become available to them. I know for certain that mine will not, and I believe that the bulk of pubs throughout the country will not open 12 hours a day. They may tailor their present hours to more sensible and viable hours than those which, at present, they are forced to operate, as laid down by the justices and the present law.
  I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill. I, for one, support it with no equivocation and with considerable enthusiasm.
  7.52 pm
  Mr. Doug Henderson: I thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I support the principle of the Bill, but not without important reservations. I firmly believe that the impact of off-sales outlets and supermarkets has changed our drinking habits dramatically, especially in two sorts of community. The first is where there is high unemployment and people find it cheaper to buy alcohol in supermarkets and off-sales outlets. The second is where there is probably much less unemployment and more wealth. There is much evidence that the yuppie drinkers who consume more wine tend to purchase it in supermarkets and off-sales outlets.

  81
  If I could he shown conclusively that extending our licensing hours leads to an increase in alcohol consumption and alcohol abuse, and if I could also be shown conclusively that that increase in abuse leads to an increase in the damage to the health of a considerable number of people, that would heavily influence my assessment of the case for extending the licensing laws. However, having heard the evidence so far in the debate—I know that there are a number of important speeches to come—I am not convinced that the link is proven. Recent Scottish experience shows that economic and social factors have far more influence on alcohol consumption than do opening hours.
  In the area of Newcastle that I represent, public opinion supports the extension of licensing hours for reasons of leisure and recreation. If a publican wishes to open in the afternoon or later at night, and if the public wish to give him that trade, the licensing laws should allow that to take place. Indeed, the reforms will be widely welcomed in the social clubs which are major social centres in my constituency. They provide an invaluable community service and always ensure strict rules of conduct. Reference has been made to Conservative clubs. If anyone is in doubt whether the same strict rules apply in working men's clubs in the north of England, they should ask anyone who has fallen foul of the club secretary or steward, or perhaps more intimidatingly, the doorman. They will find that good order is kept in our clubs throughout the country.
  I do not know whether there is such a thing as civilised drinking. My mother would certainly say that there is not. But I am not sure that her view is wholly representative of the public. I have always felt, from my experience north of the border, that long hours slow the pace of drinking. If I can describe its effect in the parlance of a Scottish public bar where I confess to have spent part of my youth — and I have to say that not all of my youth was misspent—longer hours "slows the swallae and reduces the par". The slowing of pace is something of a civilising influence.
  My major reservation is that the Government make no provision for the protection of workers in the industry. That reservation is a sticking point. The brewers undoubtedly think that they will make bigger profits from extended hours or they would not have made such a massive investment in lobbying and advertising in recent weeks, but I want to know what the workpeople will get. If there is no protection, they will get more low pay, longer hours, more split shifts, more part-time working and fewer breaks. The pay is low enough now, as I shall show the House.
  The average earnings for a barmaid, according to the 1987 new earnings survey, is £93·80 for an average 40-hour week, which is £54·30 below the average earnings for a woman. Average earnings for a barman are £133·70 for an average 46-hour week. That is £90·30 per week below the average earnings for men. Before 1986, people who worked in the industry had some protection under the rules of then governing wages councils, but, as the House knows, the wages Act 1986 stripped the councils of many of their powers. In the case of the licensed non-residential establishment Wages council, rest day protection, public holiday payment guarantees, and annual holiday entitlement were ended.
  As for the licensed residential establishment wages council, spread-over payments were ended — that is
  82
  particularly important in regard to this legislation—statutory protection for intervals for rest, again a crucial issue, was stopped and holiday provisions were withdrawn. Crucially, all the wages councils — several cover this industry—lost their power to protect workers under the age of 21.
  Many hon. Members regularly visit public houses and clubs, although, in case the public get the wrong idea, I should say that we do not always go there to consume alcohol. In the north of England, we often visit our constituents in such places. An hon. Member who visited a public house would notice that many of the staff are aged between 18 and 21. If the Bill is not amended, they will have little protection at their workplace. He would also notice that many of the staff were women. Two thirds of the 1 million people who work in the industry are women, and three quarters of them work part time. If the Bill is not amended, it will become a brewers' charter for bashing, our barmaids.
  Defending the need for strong wages councils, Winston Churchill identified the fact that they prevent the good employer from being
  "undercut by the bad, and the bad employer … undercut by the worst."—[Official Report, 28 April 1909; Vol. 4, c. 388.]
  I agree with that. The proper way to protect employees would be to strengthen our wages councils, which were undermined in 1986, but I am not so gullible as to believe that the Government will introduce accompanying legislation to achieve that.
  Therefore, I propose that protection should be written into the Bill. The Shops Act 1950 had built-in statutory protection for employees, and is a clear precedent for dealing with young people, shift arrangements and meal breaks. I challenge the Government to include similar protection in this Bill for shifts which last longer than eight hours, shifts which finish late at night, split-shift working, rest-day working, the minimum rights of young people aged between 18 and 21, the taking of meal breaks and holiday entitlement and payment. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), who is an employer in the industry, mentioned the importance of shift working. I hope that he will urge on the Government the need to include protection for his staff.
  If the Chancellor of the Exchequer can write in protection for the BP underwriters, the Home Secretary must be able to write in protection for workers in hotels, bars and clubs. The Government cannot resist that proposal on the ideological grounds of non-intervention, because the idea of licensing laws is itself interventionist.
  Despite my reservations, I shall support the Second Reading, but if the Government do not accept amendments to include protection for staff, I will no longer support it.
  8.3 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: It is with some regret that, in only my second speech in the House, I must express grave reservations about the Bill. I welcomed many of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), not least his Pauline conversion to the rights of the individual over the incursion of the state. I look forward to Labour Front-Bench spokesmen having an illustrious champion of the individual's rights to private education and private medicine and of denationalisation.

  83
  I speak, not from the point of view of the temperance lobby, but as what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook called a dangerous animal—a sensible drinker. However, perspectives on that may differ, and I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) does not believe that someone who likes one, or preferably two, drinks is a sensible drinker. The fact that one enjoys a drink, or even two, is not to say that one would welcome a society in which the sun was perpetually over the yardarm — in which there were only a few hours of daylight and a great deal of twilight.
  The objective of the Bill is to introduce afternoon drinking. I ask myself — it is one way of getting a sensible answer—who is likely to benefit from afternoon drinking? My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) made a persuasive and eloquent speech, saying that the Bill would benefit shift workers. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) made a similar careful argument. But one immediately asks where it will stop. Some people come off shift at 7 am. Should pubs be open for them? Hon. Members sometimes serve a 24-hour shift and then stagger out, if only through fatigue. Should the pubs be open for us? Why select shift workers and say that those who leave their place of work at 3 pm must be allowed the right to an after-work drink?
  Those who will take advantage of afternoon drinking fall largely into two categories: first, tourists and those on holiday. Were they the only people who would avail themselves of afternoon drinking, no one would have much objection to it. Those who will not be drinking in the afternoon are those who are gainfully employed and at their places of work and those who, over a lifetime, have gained the habit of drinking only at certain hours. That leaves the young and the unemployed. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was right to draw special attention to those two groups, especially to where they merge. A combination of youth, unemployment, inner-city conditions and the pubs being open all day could be extremely dangerous and will need careful thought before we allow the Bill to go through.
  I do not wish to exaggerate the position, but many studies have shown a large increase in under-age drinking. I do not wish to paint a picture of schoolboys dropping in at the pub on the way home from a rugger match before they do their homework, but there is increased drinking among the young, especially the young who, by chance or by choice, are idle and have time on their hands.
  I appreciate the argument that abuse does not abrogate the lawful use of alcohol, but there were advantages in the old system. It forced a break at 3 pm, so that someone who was considering drinking unwisely for the rest of the afternoon had to be determined to wait for the pub to reopen, or visit the supermarket. If he made a casual decision, the break helped him to make the right decision.
  The break also creates social acceptance of certain hours of drinking. Essentially, the old law said that when someone was not supposed to be working—at lunch time and in the evenings after work—it was all right to drink. I do not know why it is that I regard with pleasure a gin and tonic at 7 o'clock in the evening but regard with revulsion a gin and tonic at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. I suspect that it lies in the habits of a lifetime and the social rule that drinking at certain hours is taboo. Unless I see evidence that alcohol consumption will not go up as a
  84
  result of the Bill, it is essential that we have those sort of taboos to encourage people voluntarily to control their drinking.
  In the eloquent speeches of hon. Members we have heard that supermarkets are somehow at the root of the excesses of alcoholics. If supermarkets bear the sole blame for the alcohol problem, why is it that in a Bill that controls licensing laws we do not seize the opportunity to control the sale of alcohol in supermarkets? If the Government had done that I could look more sympathetically at the argument that the Bill will not increase alcohol consumption.
  The only thing that makes me hesitate before absolutely opposing the Bill, or abstaining from voting on it, is the possibility that something will come out of the ministerial group that has been set up to achieve interdepartmental co-operation on the problems of alcoholism. However, I believe that we are putting the cart before the horse. We should have had that group, had some recommendations and had some action before we had the Bill. At least the group is there. However, my principal concern is about what we can expect to come out of a combination of departmental examinations of the problems of crime, health and social services and their relationship to alcohol.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House and from both sides of the argument have quoted many statistics, which I do not intend to repeat. However, there is one chilling statistic that has not been mentioned, although I was temporarily out of the House and it may have been quoted then. Published figures reveal that in one third of cases of child abuse there is an alcohol-related factor. At a time when child abuse is a major concern, we need to think carefully before promoting the consumption of a substance that causes or contributes to such crimes.
  In the discussion of the Scottish statistics we did not hear that, in the period following liberalisation of licensing laws, cirrhosis of the liver went up by 45 per cent. in Scotland, while it went up by only 17 per cent. in England and Wales. It is an uncomfortable statistic, but it still needs to be considered.
  Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend give way? She is wrong.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am sorry, no. My hon. Friend suggests that I am wrong. If I am wrong, the Government's published statistics are wrong. My hon. Friend should write to the Minister and ask for a correction. Statistics are cold figures. Behind every statistic on alcohol lie devastated families, ruined health and wasted lives. Above all, alcohol abuse affects the innocent, the victims of drink-driving accidents, the victims of assault and the families who have to suffer the effects of its abuse on a loved one.
  The ministerial group that has been set up has in its terms of reference the phrase "It will make such recommendations as from time to time it may seem fit." That is wonderful. Anybody with elementary logic could work out that that could also read, "If from time to time no recommendations seem fit, they need not be made." I want some reassurance that there is a timetable, some definite aim, or something concrete expected from that ministerial group that will so far combat the effects of alcoholism that it will overshadow any effects of rising alcoholism that might result from the Bill. If I can have that assurance from the Dispatch Box, I shall be delighted

  85
  to vote at least in favour of referring the Bill to Committee. I hope that in Committee some of those aspects will be addressed rather more assiduously than they have been tonight.
  I am not opposed in principle to making life easier for publicans or for those who want a drink during the afternoon, but the adverse social effects need to be more carefully looked at. They need more than the cursory acknowledgements that hon. Members on both sides of the House have given them. They need to be addressed in detail. I should like that assurance before I can support the Bill.
  8.16 pm
  Dr. Lewis Moonie: I feel a certain sense of déjà vu, as most arguments have already been gone over at some length. I am also reminded of the old saying that there are none so deaf as those who will not hear, because when hon. Members hear statistics they automatically say that they are not true. The statistics are true.
  The Bill purports to make relatively minor changes in the hours within which licensed premises in England and Wales are permitted to sell alcohol. The changes are being enthusiastically supported by the major drinks manufacturers and distributors and, sad to say, are being rushed through in indecent haste so that they may be implemented early in 1988, at, we are led to believe, the behest of the brewers. Why are the Government in such a hurry? Are Ministers blissfully unaware of the potential consequences of their actions, or are they, because of outside pressure, reprehensibly pushing through as fast as possible a measure which will damage people's health? I should like to know. Moreover, the Bill is not supported by the majority of people in England and Wales, according to recent surveys, so it makes no sense to me to proceed with such haste.
  Alcohol consumption in England and Wales, as in Scotland, has risen over the decades as the price of alcohol has fallen in real terms. The damage that has risen in parallel with that increase is well documented and has been gone over today in some depth. To summarise, drinking and driving, accidents, assaults, ill treatment and deprivation of families, ill health and death have risen year after year. However, the Government propose to increase the availability of the most socially damaging substance, without any effective action to attempt to tackle the problems associated with its consumption and abuse.
  I shall vote against the Bill. I am not opposed to the consumption of alcohol. I consume it myself, occasionally in some quantity, but within the security of my own home. I enjoy it in moderation. I recognise that there is a happy medium to be struck and that, given that other circumstances were tackled, there might be a case for revising the licensing laws, but surely not in the absence of action on the other problems that have been mentioned.
  I do not believe that extending by one third the hours which public houses may open is a minor cosmetic change. Like other hon. Members, I do not believe that there will be no change in the level of alcohol consumed. It defies belief that the brewers and licensees, out of the goodness of their hearts, will open public houses for one third longer merely to gratify the interests of a few tourists. That is not the object. The object is to increase the sale and consumption of alcohol. There can be no other reason for the drinks industry to be pushing for the Bill to go through.
  86
  There is evidence that the relaxing of licensing laws increases consumption and, conversely, that tightening those laws reduces it. That has been the position whenever licensing laws have been changed. For example, when the licensing laws were relaxed in Finland, consumption increased dramatically. When the Finns became alarmed about the rise and licensing laws were made more restrictive 10 years later, consumption fell. In the three years following the implementation of the Clayson proposals in Scotland, the consumption of alcohol rose. The fact that it fell between 1980–82 cannot be attributed, in the opinion of the experts, to the Clayson report. The fall in consumption is thought to be due to the recession and the massive increase in taxation that took place in 1981.
  There has been a fall in the number of convictions for drunkenness because the police no longer charge people with being drunk and disorderly. That offence used to he common, but I cannot remember the last occasion when I became aware of it being dealt with by the magistrates. It seems that the police no longer deal in that way with those who are drunk and disorderly. The evidence on which the Clayson committee based its claim and on which the Government now base their case — that the implementation of the Clayson proposals in Scotland has been successful—is spurious.
  I believe that the relaxation of licensing laws in Scotland over the past 10 years has produced no beneficial effect on Scottish society. In the Clayson report we read about the family pubs that would serve soft drinks and tea and coffee. We were told that these would be cosy, social places in which the public would congregate. There have not been many pubs of that sort appearing in my neck of the woods over the past 10 years, and I do not think that many have appeared in other parts of Scotland.
  The result of the Bill will be more physical and mental damage. We shall see more under-age drinking, more problems for women and more drunken driving, leading to more road accidents and more deaths. There is a clear difference between England and Scotland in the incidence of accidents involving drunken driving. When I intervened in the speech of the Home Secretary on this issue, the right hon. Gentleman refused to answer me. In Scotland, the peak time for such accidents begins at 4 pm, whereas it begins at 10 pm in England. At 4 pm, my children and the children of others are returning home from school, and it is they who will be so much at risk from afternoon drinkers.
  We know that some applications for licences for premises on which alcohol may be served and consumed are refused. One such application was recently refused in my home town. Why was that? The application was rejected because there would be inadequate parking facilities. What sort of reason is that for a magistrates court to reject the application of a licensee? The provision of "adequate" parking facilities increases the likelihood of people drinking and driving. That is symptomatic of our attitude to alcohol. There is the casual attitude that we can introduce a small measure such as the Bill without doing harm to anyone, and in doing so we ignore all the problems that alcohol produces for the people.
  We must not ignore the problems that are caused by the consumption of alcohol. Indeed, the Government are establishing a committee to investigate the issue, which will be the first of its sort to be formed. I understand that all Departments that have any link with the provision and

  87
  sale of alcohol will be involved. Against that background we are galloping to enact the Bill before the committee has a chance to report its findings and perhaps to produce some inconvenient conclusions for Ministers to digest.
  I worked for many years in psychiatry and preventive medicine and I, like many others, have seen the damage and suffering that have arisen from the increased consumption of alcohol. Psychiatrists, general practitioners and those in the medical profession working in general wards with beds taken up by those suffering from the late effects of liver failure—cirrhosis—along with social workers, policemen and the representatives of many volunteer agencies, have provided us with a great deal of information over the past week or so. They all point to a massive amount of evidence that an increase in the availability of alcohol increases the consumption of it. The workers in the field, as it were, are opposed to the change because they know what the result will be.
  The problem of alcohol in our society must be faced honestly and constructively. It must be addressed in the House by co-ordinated action that crosses departmental boundaries. Every Minister is involved in some way. When a strategy has been developed, and not before, let the Government bring forward a reform of the licensing laws, if that is seen as a reasonable and constructive part of the plan. Let us have no truck with this shabby attempt to preempt effective action and let us not pretend that licensing has nothing to do with the real problems of alcohol abuse. I urge hon. Members on both side of the House to join me in opposing this ill-considered piece of proposed legislation. Let use send the Minister away to think seriously about the problems that it will cause.
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: I am glad to have the opportunity to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). I have a properly declared interest — it appears in the Members' Register — in Scottish and Newcastle Breweries. I spent some time with the company and had the opportunity to study the position north of the border. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) have graphically described the situation as they see it, and I would not presume to improve upon their special and local knowledge. However, I shall offer the House some comparisons and personal observations.
  First, I challenge the assertion that there has been an increase in consumption north of the border related to the change in the law. I endeavoured to intervene in the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on this issue, but the right hon. Gentleman declined to give way to allow me to do so. I suspect that he did so because he knows that there is no fact or statistic to substantiate the claim that there has been an increase in the consumption of alcohol in Scotland in the 10 years since the law was changed and that that is related to the change in the law. It is correct that there has been a small increase in overall consumption, and it is correct also that that is attributable to an increase in the number of female drinkers. That is the direct result of a social change and has nothing to do with the change in the law. It stems from the fact that the premises provided for the consumption of alcohol have improved.
  88
  I spent some time on Tyneside 25 years ago, and at that time it was a symbol of a boy's virility that on his 18th birthday he was given membership of the local social club by his father, uncle or the family generally. He then became a man and went to drink beer with men. Twenty-five years have passed and the days of the big swill on Tyneside are over. Social clubs of the sort to which I have referred are in decline. That is due partly to the decline of the smoke-stack industries and the rise of employment in high-tech industries. The after-work thirst is no longer as great. It is due also to a desire, especially on the part of the young, for improved surroundings and circumstances in which young men and their girl friends can drink and eat.
  The company to which I was attached and its major competitor north of the border have made a major investment in modern premises of good design and with good decor. In some instances family rooms were provided. The company has ensured that it provides excellent facilities for its customers. It seeks to provide a relaxed atmosphere and what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to as "a more cheerful and welcoming pub." There was no comparison between what I found last year north of the border — I spent a considerable amount of time there — and what I experienced over 20 years ago in Sauchiehall street on a Saturday night. It was not possible to make a relevant comparison. In hard, statistical terms there has probably been little change in alcohol consumption, but I believe from what I have seen that socially there has been an immeasurable improvement.
  This must be contrasted with what has been found by myself and my colleagues who represent seaside constituencies in the north-east, the north-west and the south coast of England. On many Saturdays in the summer we experience what is known as the beano party. A coachload of day trippers empties a crate of brown ale kept in the back of the coach before arriving. They tip out of the coach and into the pub and are hell-bent on getting drunk. At 2.30 on a Saturday afternoon the day visitors, undeniably having had far too much to drink, empty themselves en masse—or are emptied by the police—on to the sea front. The reason why they drink so fast is that they say, "We've got 10 or 15 minutes, lads, to get another five pints in before we're chucked out." Not surprisingly, that creates problems of crowd control.
  The same people who are thrown out of the public houses go on to supermarkets or off-licences in my constituency and others and clear the shelves. They take canned beer to the sea front and drink it there, with no control whatever. It is nonsense that a landlord is required to empty his pub at 2.30 on a hot summer's afternoon so that his customers can go across the road to the off-licence and take iced cans of lager or beer from the fridge only to go back to the pub where they will sit and drink on the doorstep, leaving the cans for the landlord to clear up. It is nonsense, too, that one can buy alcohol in an off-licence from 8.30 am until 10.30 pm without a break, while one is not allowed sensibly and responsibly to consume alcohol in a pub, where one is under supervision.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred to those "dangerous animals", the "responsible drinkers". I should like to think that I could class myself as one of them. The right hon. Gentleman said that we did not understand the problems. However, I spent some time training in the counselling of those with alcohol-related

  89
  problems. I have worked with problem teenagers and made television programmes for them, and I think that I am aware of the problems. I have also been involved personally in the treatment of alcoholics. I know that there is a dark side. Anyone who has had to search a home to find half a bottle of whisky hidden in the stuffing of an armchair or the cistern of a lavatory knows that. Anyone who has seen the dog being taken for a walk too frequently and who knows that somewhere out there in the hedgerows is hidden a half bottle of spirits knows that. Anybody who has had to strip someone off and remove urine-soaked underwear and vomit knows that. Anyone who has experienced the knock at midnight and the request, "Please come and identify the bodies; there's been a crash," knows that there is a problem.
  However, that problem would not be exacerbated by reforms such as that before the House. The problem is caused by the solitary abuse of alcohol bought cheaply from off-licences and supermarkets. The problem of under-age drinking will be solved, I believe, by education — by the teaching of what are known as "sensible drinking skills". The brewers and the drink trade probably contribute more than any other sector to education programmes for young people. I have a daughter of 15. She is bright, responsible and attractive, and I hope that I am justifiably proud of her. She has attractive male and female friends, many of whom look older than 18, and it would be naive of me to think that some of them do not sometimes go into public houses. I would not wish to encourage young people to break the law. However, I would sooner the young drank in the controlled atmosphere of a public house, under the watchful eye of a good landlord, than that they cleared the supermarket shelves, then had a wild party and got drunk at home.
  It is a pity that the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) cast a slur on the brewers—I think inadvertently—because I do not believe that the Bill is driven by the profit motive or that it would cause a massive increase in the consumption of alcohol. I believe that the Bill paves the way for the better use, and probably the better management, of public houses. Many brewers, landlords and tenants are seeking to diversify into soft drinks, tea, coffee and food. The Bill will result in an increase in employment. I hope that there will be an increase in profits, too. But I do not believe that that profit or the increase in jobs will be related solely to an increase in the consumption of alcohol.
  The Bill has been described as a measure introduced with indecent haste. The Erroll committee reported 15 years ago and the Clayson reforms were introduced 10 years ago. If 10 to 15 years of consideration represents indecent haste, I shudder to think what real speed might look like. The effects of such a measure have been tried and proven in Scotland over a period of 10 years. Those effects are socially acceptable and they will be good for the tourist industry. Safeguards are built into the Bill to prevent nuisance and abuse. The Bill is a modest measure on which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should be congratulated, and I hope that it receives wide support throughout the House.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that the Register of Members' Interests is not yet available? According to a resolution passed by the House on 12 June 1975
  90
  "any interest disclosed in a copy of the Register of Members' Interests shall be regarded as sufficient disclosure for the purpose of taking part in any Division in the House or in any of its Committees."
  The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) properly disclosed an interest. However, I am concerned that many hon. Members who have not taken part in the debate have not been able to disclose their interest. When similar circumstances arose in 1981 in connection with the Lloyds Bank Bill, Mr. Speaker felt it necessary to issue guidance on the matter. He said that it would help if hon. Members with financial interests did not vote. I wonder whether you, Sir, could consider the matter before the vote so that hon. Members representing the brewers' interests who have not been able to declare a financial interest may receive guidance that they should not take part in the vote. I understand that the brewers are fairly well represented on the Tory Benches.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that every right hon. and hon. Member will vote in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: I have two difficulties. First, as a new Member I am faced with my first free vote. I therefore have the serious problem of having to analyse the debate and listen to the contributions rather than simply turning up and voting on request. I am trying very hard to overcome that handicap and I have been in the Chamber as much as possible.
  Secondly, this is a difficult debate because it involves complex issues. I have listened to the arguments in all conscience and tried to reach a decision. I have found that some facts support one side of the arguments while other statistics support the other side of the argument. All hon. Members have called in aid medical authority and some hon. Members have called in aid the great and eminent authorities of other professions.
  We should also consider the civil liberties not just of those who wish to drink at the time and place they feel are appropriate but of those who suffer—the people injured in car accidents, the children injured on the way home by an afternoon drinker and the children abused by parents who come home drunk during the day or night.
  I was disturbed by the Home Secretary's remarks about the possibility of amending the Bill in Committee. His almost throwaway line about also extending drinking hours on Sunday frightened many of those who entered the debate with an open mind. Many people, including me, will wonder what other secrets may emerge in Committee.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Plainly, hon. Members can table any amendments they choose in Committee, but the Government will oppose any relaxation of Sunday licensing hours. We will try to persuade our friends to support us.
  Mr. Allen: I am grateful for that reassurance. But the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when the Home Secretary gave his reasoning. The right hon. Gentleman felt that he could not get away with it this time and that such a proposal would compromise the rest of the Bill. If Conservative Members have a different interpretation of his comments, I shall gladly give way to allow them to make their view plain.
  I regret the fact that Conservative Members have not been given the same liberty as Labour Members and been

  91
  given a free vote. Because we have a free vote, democratic decision-making processes can be brought to bear, which perhaps does not happen in other circumstances, and the facts can be considered. I suggest that we take that process a stage further, so that the Bill's broader effects—not just its effects on hours and licences—such as health, social and economic implications, are reviewed and better understood than they would be under normal procedures in the House. I suggest that we create either a Select Committee or a Special Standing Committee to examine in detail for a few weeks or perhaps a month or two—I am not familiar with these operations — the various facets of the legislation and their possible effects.
  A Special Standing Committee could call as witnesses representatives of landlords and their various associations, brewers' representatives, representatives of the trade unions of the full-time and part-time workers in the industry and the medical and professional experts to whom reference has been made. That Committee would take evidence, including that being considered by the Wakeham review. Its members would have the benefit, when they become members of the Standing Committee, of having heard for six, eight or even 10 weeks solid evidence from all parts of the political spectrum and all the interested groups which wish to contribute.
  With that in mind, after the Second Reading vote, a motion will be moved calling for the question of a Special Standing Committee to examine the Bill.
  Dr. Moonie: Only if the Government win the Second Reading Division.
  Mr. Allen: As my hon. Friend reminds me, that will happen only if the Government win. My mathematics may be a little awry, but I would not put a drink on the vote going the other way. I commend the proposal that a Special Standing Committee be constituted so that we can carry out our functions relating to the Bill.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Michael Colvin: I have never failed to declare an interest in the House, no matter what it is. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) has never failed to remind me to declare an interest in any debate that may relate to the licensed trade. Therefore, I happily declare an interest on two counts. The first is as a parliamentary adviser to the National Licensed Victuallers Association. I say "adviser", and not "spokesman," because there are many occasions on which I do not agree with the association's view. An adviser would be useless if he did not occasionally disagree with those who appointed him to tender advice. Secondly, I declare an interest as a tenant licensee. I do not call myself a publican because the manager of my pub has a fit if I ever go behind the bar to pull a pint. He knows that on those occasions people usually get over the measure and are charged under the price. Nevertheless, I have some knowledge of the trade, and it is with that knowledge to assist me that I take part in the debate.
  I pay tribute to the establishment during the last Parliament of the all-party group for the licensed trade under the joint chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). That group assisted my hon.
  92
  Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) in promoting his private Member's Bill which, alas, was killed off—if that is not too strong a description—by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and others who shared his view. I do not think it will be quite as easy to kill off this Bill, because it has Government backing. The Bill also enjoys a great measure of all-party support, which we all welcome. It has the benefit of a so-called "mandate", because the Conservative party was the only party to include in its general election manifesto a commitment to reform our outdated licensing laws.
  I accept, to some extent, the suggestion of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) that this is the sort of measure that should be considered by a Special Standing Committee, but the hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that this issue has been debated ad nauseam for 15 years. I think that all the views that have to be expressed have already been expressed, to such an extent that many of us are sick and tired of hearing them and are profoundly relieved that the Government have decided at last to bring forward what many have described as a "modest" measure.
  The Bill has been described by some hon. Members who seemed to be talking against it as a "step-by-step" measure. I welcome that. The Government would be wise not to proceed too far too quickly. We should get the Bill on the statute book and then consider in the light of experience where we should go next. That is what happened with Scotland, and it is on the grounds of the Scottish experience that the Bill will find its passage easier.
  As so many people have said, the Bill is a long overdue reform. A. J. P. Taylor described our licensing laws as
  "a lasting memento of the Great War".
  I believe that he was referring to the Defence of the Realm (Amendment) (No. 3) Act 1915, which related to the danger of munitions workers drinking in the afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood referred to the many places where tourists can obtain drinks in the middle of the afternoon, although he omitted to mention riverboats from Westminster pier. He was right to point out that there are many places where people can obtain a drink when it is not possible to do so in a traditional pub. That is the nub of the case for reform. The law is daft and needs reform.
  The threat to the traditional British pub is another reason for reform. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point has often waxed eloquent in the House on the merits of the traditional English pub. I would argue that my right hon. Friend is himself a traditionalist. Yet when it comes to a measure of this kind he goes off at a tangent—some might say over the top—in arguing against a measure that would enhance the British pub and enable it to survive in the face of mounting and at times unfair competition. I shall give some figures to show the amount of competition that has arisen in recent years. In 1904 there were 6,600 clubs in the United Kingdom. There are more than 30,000 today. In 1904 there were 90,000 pubs. Today the total has declined to around 70,000. The trend for clubs is up, and the trend for pubs is down.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: The hon. Gentleman talks of an unfair trading relationship between pubs and clubs, but clubs, whether political or otherwise, provide an outlet for the brewers where the on-costs are met by members of the club, so they are very profitable for the brewers. Moreover, landlords and brewers do not provide

  93
  the social aspects and the services that are found in clubs in communities. The Bill will not redress the balance. It will have the opposite effect and distort the trading relationship. As a supporter of clubs, I should be most disappointed if the measure was used to distort trading patterns to the disadvantage of clubs.
  Mr. Cohin: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. At present, clubs have a somewhat unfair advantage over pubs. They benefit from measures such as those related to gambling and amusement machines with prizes. I take no brief from the brewers, but I imagine that they would he keen to see an increase in the number of clubs as well as in the number of pubs.
  Another aspect of competition for the traditional English pub is the proliferation of outlets, a subject touched on by several of my hon. Friends. The way in which people can walk into off-licences, grocers' shops, supermarkets, wine shops and so on, and buy drink, often without any supervision from behind the counter, is most alarming. Indeed, I believe that it is perfectly legal for people under age to walk into a cash-and-carry warehouse and walk out with a case of wine, provided that they have the money to pay for it. If the Government wish to deal with under-age drinking and alcohol abuse, they should consider the proliferation of off-licences and the like. That was a point made by many hon. Members who referred to the dangers of under-age drinking.
  Mr. Allen: Rather than simply suggesting that someone somewhere should look at that, does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is exactly the kind of point that could be examined in detail by a Special Standing Committee? Will he therefore consider supporting that suggestion?
  Mr. Colvin: I do not support such a procedure in this case, as I believe that the issue has been debated quite enough, both in public and in private.
  With regard to alcohol abuse and the dangers of underage drinking, some hon. Members suggested that the publican was at fault in permitting it. In fact, a publican who permits it puts his livelihood on the line. For that reason, the public house is probably the most controlled and socially acceptable place for drinking to take place. The hon. Member for Kirkaldy (Dr. Moonie), who is a doctor, referred to the dangers of drinking in isolation. That cannot happen in a pub, but it can happen at home if people stock up with alcohol from supermarkets.
  On the question of under-age drinking, the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) that identity cards should be carried seemed a good idea and one that could perhaps be debated on another occasion.
  I think it is generally accepted that there is public support for the measure. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) claimed that that was not so, but a survey published this month showed that there was substantial support in England and Wales, and that the measure was backed by a majority of pubgoers. The survey is entitled
  "Attitudes to Longer Pub Hours"
  and was carried out by Public Attitude Surveys Research Limited on its own initiative, without any pressure group sponsorship. 'The survey found that just over half—51 per cent.—of all adults in England and Wales thought that pubs should be allowed to open for longer in the afternoons for at least some days of the week, whilst only
  94
  35 per cent. were against any afternoon opening. The survey also looked at the attitudes of regular pubgoers, whose support for the Bill was also clear. Among those who visit a pub or club for a drink at least once a week, 64 per cent. support afternoon opening on one or more days, and 55 per cent. specifically want Sunday afternoon opening. That is pretty strong support.
  A number of hon. Members have referred to what they describe as the "drinking-up rule." Rather more crudely, I would call it the "10-minute swill." It is acknowledged by the trade and by customers that more flexible opening hours and longer opening at night would reduce that danger. As we see far too often, the so-called "one for the road" often becomes one for the morgue.
  Several hon. Members have mentioned the possibility of additional jobs being created, and estimates have varied between 25,000 and 50,000. Christie's, the estate agents who specialise in the licensed trade, suggested that almost 100,000 jobs might be generated. I endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), that there should be proper negotiations between employers and employees about the rates of pay for an extremely arduous job. Perhaps that is why employees' organisations were not exactly quick to voice their support for the campaign for flexible hours. However, generally speaking, they now support the proposals.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) questioned increased consumption resulting from the proposed reforms. Everyone acknowledges that consumption might increase. However, although the evidence in Scotland shows increased consumption, it is not directly attributable to flexible hours. That could be the case in England and Wales as well. The important aspect of flexible hours is the increase in other forms of business in public houses—meals, snacks and coffee—and is one reason why additional employees will be required. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook did not believe that additional jobs would be created without a massive increase in alcohol consumption. However, people use pubs to eat and to drink beverages, and are not necessarily going to consume alcohol.
  Many hon. Members have referred to the Scottish experience. When my right hon. Friend reviewed the liberalisation of licensing laws in Scotland, with the benefit of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, he concluded that the majority thought that extending licensing hours had resulted in a more sensible pattern of drinking. Certainly there has not been the explosion of lawlessness predicted by the doom merchants. The number of drink-related offences is down, and although the revised licensing laws cannot be the sole factor for that, there can be no doubt that reform has played its part.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Kirkcalcly referred to the impact of drink on health. I rudely interrupted my hon. Friend and said that her facts were wrong. She suggested that there had been an increase in deaths from cirrhosis of the liver because of the more flexible drinking hours in Scotland. That is manifestly wrong. A detailed survey by the specialist alcohol unit at Edinburgh university, conducted by Dr. Martin Plant and Mr. John Duffy, show that health harm indicators were neutral — that licensing hour changes had neither improved nor worsened them. They also noted that public

  95
  order offences had shown a marked improvement. The figures are interesting. Cirrhosis takes several years to reach a terminal condition, so 1976 should not be taken as the base. Indeed, 1981 would be a fairer base, and between that year and 1986, deaths in Scotland from cirrhosis of the liver were down 16 per cent., while in England and Wales they had risen by 14 per cent. Those are the real facts.
  I wish to refer to some of the shortcomings of the Bill. The right to open from 11 am to 11 pm is welcome, but surely it would be better if there was a right to open for any 12 hours between 10 am and midnight, with the licensee deciding what hours were best. For the majority of licensees, afternoon opening may not be worth while. The licensee understands the local trading conditions and, after all, if freedom of choice is an important principle, he should be allowed to choose.
  Secondly, the right of the licensee to determine the hours that he will trade is important. Should the brewer insist on imposing the so-called permitted hours clause in licensees' agreements, it should be resisted. I doubt whether the Bill is the right vehicle for changing the law. Perhaps we can get support from the Opposition when it comes to re-examining the landlord and tenant legislation, which needs to be reformed to give licensees protection against brewers who, in some cases, can use the permitted hours clause to get rid of tenants.
  There has been much debate about pubs opening on Sundays. Today the House has had a great deal to say about events at Enniskillen and has expressed outrage, anger, concern and sympathy for those in Northern Ireland. It is ironic that the last time the House debated licensing laws was to permit pubs to open on Sundays. I hope that the House will think again about the facility for England and Wales. If an amendment is brought forward in Committee, I ask my right hon. Friend to think carefully about it before being firmly against it.
  I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the measure. Britain is still one of the most sober nations. The Bill will enable it stay sober.
  9.5 pm
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: The debate has shown hon. Members' strong concern about problems related to the misuse of alcohol. That anxiety has led hon. Members on both sides of the House to declare their opposition to the Bill, and for many it overrides the acknowledgement that our existing licensing laws may not be perfect.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) pointed out that Opposition Members will have a free vote. In view of the speeches made by many Conservative Members, I wonder what the outlook would be if the Government had a free vote. I shall vote against the Bill, and I urge anyone who shares my concern about alcohol abuse to do the same.
  Some hon. Members are opposed to alcohol as a matter of principle or on grounds of religion. I respect such views, although I do not share them. My opposition to the Bill is not based on any killjoy motive. I enjoy a social drink and, like many hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I regard myself as a responsible drinker, but I am not convinced that we need to extend pub opening hours
  96
  to meet a need or demand for extra time for social drinking. The arguments against extra opening far outweigh any advantages to the social drinker.
  Earlier today, the Home Secretary acknowledged that alcohol abuse is a significant problem in our society. The Government should tackle that problem before encouraging greater consumption of alcohol.
  I remind the House of the size of the problem that we face. In the United Kingdom, we spend over £16,000 million a year on alcohol. The consumption of alcohol has more than doubled over the past 30 years—a staggering increase, which has largely been related to the cost of drink. The Home Secretary said that he did not know whether the Bill would lead to an increase in the consumption of alcohol. He acknowledged that it might do so, but he said also that, even if consumption increases, abuses may not increase. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to tell the House of the evidence for that suggestion. Every increase in alcohol consumption has led to increased problems of alcohol abuse. Why should it be different now? At present, alcohol abuse costs the country £2 billion each year. There is a vast cost to our Health Service and to industry. Even Government research shows that, through alcohol abuse, industry loses between 8 million and 14 million working days a year—far more than are lost through strikes.
  Alcohol abuse costs the country over £5 million per day. That does not include the individual and family misery of those directly affected or the impact on those who are victims of the many who turn to crime. Alcohol is often a factor in criminal activity, including, most significantly, drinking and driving. One in five of all deaths on the road is the result of drinking and driving. Each year between 1,400 and 1,500 people die as a result of drinking and driving and 8,000 people are found guilty each month of driving when over the limit. Half of them have driven with twice the legal limit of alcohol in their blood. Since the introduction of the breathalyser, more than 1 million people have been found guilty of driving when over the limit. There is a dreadful picture of avoidable deaths.
  The misuse of alcohol also does much damage in other ways. About 45 per cent. of violent crimes are committed by people who have been drinking—60,000 crimes per year. Alcohol misuse is involved in half of all crimes, in two thirds of suicides, in one third of all cases of child abuse, in many cases of domestic violence and in one third of all divorces.
  Alcohol abuse leads to premature death and to avoidable health problems for many people. As the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) said, deaths from cirrhosis have increased during the past 15 years from 1,600 a year to more than 3,000, hospital admissions of people with alcohol-related mental disorders have increased in the same period from 8,000 to 15,000 and one in four hospital admissions are alcohol-related. About 36 per cent. of accidents involving pedestrians are alcohol-related, as are 33 per cent. of all domestic accidents. Many fires and many deaths in fires are also related to alcohol. Action on Alcohol Abuse put the figure at 52 per cent. The brewers say that we do not need to worry because the figure is only 36 per cent. About 45 per cent. of all fatal accidents involving young people are alcohol-related. Figures from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents show that 20 per cent. of drownings occur after alcohol has been consumed.

  97
  While we must all be horrified that the misuse of drugs kills many young people in this country, 10 times as many youngsters are killed or seriously injured by the misuse of alcohol. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Royal College of General Practitioners has estimated that there are 40,000 preventable deaths each year in the United Kingdom. It is now generally accepted that alcohol is the third largest killer in this country after heart disease and cancer.
  Mr. Hurd: That body supports the Bill.
  Mrs. Taylor: The Home Secretary says that the royal college supports the Bill. I shall come to that in a moment.
  It is not surprising that representatives of all the medical royal colleges are against the Bill. At their meeting on Friday, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Surgeons of England — I believe that the Royal College of General Practitioners was represented — the Royal College of Occupational Medicine, the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh and the Royal College of Physicians of Glasgow announced their opposition to the Bill because they said that it would make alcohol more available, that there would be more drink-related problems and that it would cause more harm to our society. They accept, as do many Ministers, that the cost of alcohol misuse is £2 billion per year.
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Is the hon. Lady therefore suggesting a reduction in the current licensing hours?
  Mrs. Taylor: I am willing to discuss any details and perhaps we could discuss that in Committee. If the hon. Gentleman wants to put forward some positive suggestions for reducing alcohol abuse, some of us will be open-minded in Committee about any means of doing so.
  The medical profession realises that alcohol is putting an extra strain on our doctors at the very time when the Health Service is crying out for resources. Yet against that background the Minister has chosen to introduce legislation to relax the licensing laws. Why? The cynics may say that it is because of pressure from the brewers—a simple reward for all the poster sites made available during the general election. I believe that the Home Office is far less willing to move against alcohol and more inclined to be swayed by the brewers than other Departments, although perhaps I am exaggerating the influence of those concerned about alcohol.
  Earlier this year the Secretary of State for Social Services said:
  "We have to go further in persuading people who are not anywhere near becoming dependent on alcohol that their consumption at the wrong time during the working day can be damaging."
  He also stated:
  "Because it is so widely and pleasurably used, the general public is largely ignorant of the cost of alcoholic misuse to our society."
  The recognition of that problem is perhaps the reason why the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) was moved from the DHSS, just as previous Ministers who have been convinced about the dangers of alcohol or smoking have been moved.
  The Opposition want to be positive and to help the Minister by suggesting some of the steps that he should take to deal with alcohol abuse before we legislate. The Minister should at least delay the Bill until he has received
  98
  the views of his interdepartmental committee which, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) suggested, could monitor the evidence in Scotland. Alternatively, the Home Secretary and the Minister could support the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) to send the Bill to a Special Standing Committee.
  There are other steps which the Minister should take. Whether or not he proceeds with the legislation, he should tighten the law on drink-driving. As I have said, 1,400 to 1,500 lives are lost unnecessarily each year. More lives will be lost if the Bill is passed, especially if there is more late afternoon drinking which will endanger youngsters who come home from school and play outside. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) pointed out that the peak accident hour for drinking and driving has shifted to the late afternoon in Scotland. If the Scottish pattern is repeated, we shall, as Dr. James Dunbar, the Tayside police surgeon pointed out, have 50 to 100 more deaths a year at this critical playing time for children in England and Wales. Even supporters of the Bill can see a need for action on drink-driving.
  We should have random breath tests and reduce the limit of alcohol allowed in the blood of a driver. The hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) said that a little alcohol — a glass of wine or two — did not matter. Indeed, he implied that Members of Parliament are obliged to drink that much at receptions; only a man could have made that remark. Obviously, it matters how much people drink. It is a fact that at 60 mg per 100 ml a driver is twice as likely to have an accident as a non-drinker. At 80 mg, which is the present limit, a driver is four times more likely to have an accident. The limit should be reduced and we should consider a still lower rate for new drivers who are usually young. That could be helpful.
  Mr. Robert Banks: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is reasonable to drink a glass of wine or two and to drive a car afterwards?
  Mrs. Taylor: The Minister's advice is that if one is driving it is better to abstain completely. We should all do well to heed that advice.
  The third thing that the Government should do—it might help the hon. Member for Harrogate in his predicament about what to do at receptions — is to encourage the drinking of non-alcoholic or low-alcohol drinks. A whole range of those drinks is now available, and the Government could do simple things to help that part of the drinks industry. Although I am generally in favour of raising the tax on alcohol at least in line with inflation, I believe that there is one area on which the Government could act directly. It is wrong that lower-strength alcoholic beers and wines should be taxed at the same rate as their higher-strength counterparts. Simple measures such as correcting that defect would help to deter alcohol abuse.
  The fourth thing that the Government should do before relaxing licensing laws is to deal with the advertising of alcohol. Several countries that treat that problem seriously have already banned advertising on television. I am not sure whether that is the answer, but it is in the Government's power to alter the balance of spending on the advertising of alcohol. Last year, £200 million was spent on advertising by the drinks industry. That is £60 a second. The Government's proportionate response to that £60, in terms of spending on alcohol education, is 10p.

  99
  In the single month of December, the drinks industry will spend more than £20 million encouraging us to drink more over Christmas. The total budget of the Department of Transport's campaign on safer driving for a full year is £2·5 million, and it is planning to reduce that next year. That is completely petty by comparison with what is spent on encouraging people to drink more.
  I want to say a word about young people; hon. Members on both sides of the House have recognised this subject as a major problem. The Health Education Authority's survey, which showed that 65 per cent. of all 14 to 15-year-olds and 30 per cent. of all 11 to 12-year-olds have had a drink in the past seven days, is worrying for everyone. A person arrested for being drunk is more likely to be a 16-year-old boy than a middle-aged man. On Friday, we had a debate on crime prevention, during which the Minister of State, Home Office emphasised that the peak age group for crime is that of teenage youths, many of whom offend while under the influence of drink.
  It is not easy to determine what could be done to stop that. Spending money on education about alcohol is obviously a factor; but much more important is the whole atmosphere and image of drinking. That atmosphere encourages young people to think that success, both economic and social, is linked with the advertisers' image of drinking. The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) emphasised that fact. He explained that alcohol is a much more serious problem than glue, drugs and all the other things, yet it does not have the priority that it should from the Government.
  There is much that could and should be done before we legislate to change licensing laws. The Government may soon be advised by its own advisory body, which was set up, only recently, to take a different course from that which the Minister is proposing. The Home Secretary never answered the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook about why he has set up the interdepartmental committee under the Lord Privy Seal while pressing ahead with the Bill. Why legislate first and examine the evidence and obtain the advice second? Why is the Secretary of State doing things with this haste and in this order? Perhaps the explanation can be found in something that the Minister of State said on Friday; perhaps he was referring to the committee chaired by the Lord Privy Seal when he said
  "It is sometimes said in Whitehall that setting up interministerial groups is a mark of complete despair and that they are unlikely to he effective." — [Official Report, 6 November 1987; Vol. 121, c. 1177.]
  I do not believe that the Government want positive measures from that interdepartmental committee, because they have already prejudged the issue and that is why they are rushing the Bill through.
  The Home Secretary said nothing that takes us any further in dealing with the problems of alcohol abuse. He did not announce one initiative and did not even try to reassure the House by telling it that new measures are on the way. His speech was a one-sided case for liberalising the licensing laws and he said little about action on the dangers and the damage caused by alcohol. He was asked by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) why he had not gone further and included Sunday opening hours in the Bill. With complete honesty, the Home Secretary admitted that that was for tactical
  100
  reasons. He said that he did not want to overload the Bill and endanger its success. When pressed, the Home Secretary refused to be drawn on whether he would support a Back-Bench amendment. That was later clarified in an intervention by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, and that happened after obvious and hasty consultation outside the Chamber. I hope that the Home Secretary will stick to the assurances given by his junior Minister, because several of his hon. Friends have indicated their intention to press firmly for extending the Bill to Sunday opening.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us that not only will the Government vote against all attempts to extend the Bill to Sunday, but they will also vote against any attempt automatically to extend opening hours to midnight. If he will not give that assurance, it will be clear that the Bill is the thin end of the wedge and is not concerned with the problems caused by extra drinking. The Home Secretary implied that he would like further to extend opening hours and would like to extend the changes to Sundays, and that only tactics had stopped him.
  Mr. Hurd: I think that in my speech I met that point three times, and explained why I did not think it sensible to overload the Bill by including Sundays.
  Mrs. Taylor: That is another admission by the right hon. Gentleman that he would like to do that, but does not feel that he could get away with it at this time. If the Bill is accepted, there will be extra drinking. About 90 to 95 per cent. of adults in Britain already drink alcohol. Therefore, the emphasis of the Bill and the reason behind it cannot be to attract new drinkers. The emphasis will be to increase the consumption of those who already drink, but nothing will be done about drinking and driving, crime and alcohol, the problems of under-age drinking, the weight of advertising or the lack of education about alcohol.
  The Bill will make changes, but will do nothing to improve the safeguards and reduce alcohol abuse. It cannot be supported. Every increase in alcohol consumption in Britain has led to an increase in alcohol-related problems. Simply to encourage more drinking, as this Bill does, without providing safeguards is irresponsible. I urge hon. Members to oppose the Bill.
  9.28 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The Bill is founded on a proposition with which I hope all hon. Members will agree, that restrictions that cannot be justified in terms of principle or of practical application should not remain part either of our law or of our national life. It is because there are elements in our licensing laws that are unduly restrictive and that cannot be justified that we are asking the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  That approach has been supported in express terms by the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners. Both bodies wrote to us formally, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has read to the House what they said. They gave our measure express and clear support.
  Before I respond to the arguments, it is right that I should remind the House of the main features of the Bill, the changes that it makes and those that it does not make. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir

  101
  B. Braine) said, it is a modest Bill, the main object of which is to do away with the compulsory afternoon closing period of two and a half hours on every day save Sunday. It is a reforming Bill, in that it improves procedures and removes unjustified features within existing practice. I was very glad that my right hon. Friend was able to support some of the measures in that regard.
  It is a balanced Bill because it gives local residents, the police and justices a greater power to revoke licences than they previously enjoyed. Of course, it is a Bill that is associated with a reinforced commitment on the part of the Government to bring together, co-ordinate and give fresh impetus to those departmental policies that are designed to tackle the problems of alcohol abuse. That is the purpose, the justification and the long-term strategy of the ministerial group chaired by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. I very much hope that this ministerial group will not disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe).
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I wish to ask the Minister a simple question. If this interdepartmental committee is so important, why is the Minister pushing forward this legislation before that committee reports?
  Mr. Hogg: That is precisely the point to which I shall come very shortly, if the hon. Lady will be patient.
  I wish to deal with several issues raised in the debate, including that mentioned by the hon. Lady. The first and principal question is whether the Bill, if passed, will lead to a significant increase in the consumption or misuse of alcohol. I want to make it plain that I do not accept that the Bill, if passed, will lead to a significant increase in the consumption or misuse of alcohol. [HON. MEMBERS: "How do you known?"] I am trying to explain in some detail to Opposition Members the evidence that supports that conclusion.
  There are a number of points on which we need to focus. First, the relaxation contemplated in the Bill is extremely modest. It does away with the compulsory closing time of two and a half hours and, in some places, extends evening opening hours by 30 minutes. This is far less than the 1977 extension in Scotland, which allowed pubs to he open on a Sunday when previously they were not, extended evening opening hours by one hour and permitted afternoon opening hours. It was significant that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). who has personal experience of the working of the law in Scotland, supported the Government's proposals in this regard and said that the reform in Scotland was both desirable and long overdue.
  The evidence from Scotland is plain. It shows that, among men, the relaxation in the licensing hours did not lead to a statistically significant increase in the consumption of alcohol. That evidence is spelt out in detail in this report, which I commend to Opposition Members for detailed study.
  Mr. Anderson: Does the Minister accept that there is a major difference in the statistics for employed men and those for unemployed men, and that the rate of consumption among employed men increased substantially, whereas that among unemployed men, for obvious reasons decreased?
  Mr. Hogg: I do not accept that point in the way that it has been put by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr.
  102
  Anderson). It is true that consumption by unemployed men fell. However, I do not accept the second part of the hon. Gentleman's proposition.
  Mrs. Taylor rose——
  Mr. Hogg: No, not at the moment. I propose to proceed, if only to inform the Opposition Front Bench who are clearly ignorant of the evidence.
  Mrs. Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hogg: No. We will begin——
  Mrs. Taylor rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Hogg: It is remarkable how unwilling the Opposition Front Bench are to listen to a little fact, but unfortunately they must listen.
  We will begin at page 43 of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys report, which states:
  "Alcohol consumption among men as a whole was virtually the same in 1984 as it had been in 1976".
  The report goes on to detail that proposition. For example, page 7 of the report says that table 3.1, the relevant one,
  "shows that for men as a whole consumption rose very slightly from 14·3 units a week in 1976 to 14·5 units in 1984. Neither this increase nor any change in a particular age group is statistically significant."
  The report also contains an examination of the detailed figures. For example, on page 12 we learn about the average consumption among drinkers in 1976 and the average consumption in 1984. In 1976 average consumption was 18·7 units; in 1984 it was 19·3 units. The point that hon. Members must grasp—a point that I have already made—is that the relaxation in Scotland was much more dramatic than the relaxation that we are contemplating in the Bill. There is no evidence whatever——
  Mrs. Taylor rose——
  Mr. Hogg: I shall give way in a moment. There is no evidence to show——
  Mrs. Taylor rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. One at a time, please.
  Mr. Hogg: I shall give way to the hon. Lady when I have finished this point.
  There is no evidence whatever that there has been a significant increase in consumption due to a change in licensing laws, but there is evidence that there has been a fall in the rate of consumption.
  Mrs. Taylor: I should like to ask the Minister a simple question regarding the Scottish evidence that I believe will clarify the position. Is it not a fact that, for every single group, except unemployed males, consumption in Scotland has increased?
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady is wrong. There was a substantial increase in the case of women. That consumption has already been dealt with in previous speeches. The major and fundamental conclusion is that to which I have already referred the House at some length. It is a conclusion that is supported by consideration of the effects of the licensing law change on health and public order offences.
  Dr. Moonie: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hogg: No. I am going to continue for the moment.

  103
  We have had the advantage of reading an article written by Messrs Duffy and Plant in the British Medical Journal, published on 4 January 1986. That article contained a comprehensive review on the effect of alcohol on medical conditions. They examined, for example, mortality from liver cirrhosis, mortality due to alcohol dependency, total alcohol-related mortality and hospital admissions through alcohol dependence. They examined all those issues in considerable detail, and the conclusion to which they came was:
  "In relation to health, the new Scottish licensing arrangements may be viewed neither as a cause of harm nor as a source of benefit. They have, in effect, been neutral."
  That conclusion is justified under each heading to which I have referred.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Hogg: I shall give way when I have made my next point.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Hogg: No. I shall give way when I have made my next point.
  Several Hon. Members rose
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has said that he will give way in due course.
  Mr. Hogg: I come now to the next point. I am not surprised that the Opposition do not like it, because I am giving the facts. They are never keen to listen to the facts. We are now coming to some more.
  The point that I have been making is that the changes in Scotland have had no deleterious effect. We can establish that by looking at convictions for drunken driving, which is a persuasive guide. For the decade 1975–1985, in England and Wales convictions for drunken driving rose by 64·1 per cent. In Scotland over the same period, convictions rose by 4·99 per cent. Because in all three countries 1977 was a low year for convictions, I thought it proper to do another calculation—contrasting 1977, when the measures were introduced, and 1985. Between 1977 and 1985, in England and Wales drunken driving offences went up by 102 per cent. In Scotland, over the same period, they increased by 41 per cent.
  There are several other relevant indicators, most notably the casualty rate in drunken driving road accidents among the most vulnerable groups — pedestrians, children and cyclists. This answers the point made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). Contrasting 1977 with 1985, between 3 pm and 6 pm and 10 pm and 3 am, there was a fall in the number of pedestrians involved in drink-driving accidents. A similar fall can be seen in child casualties in the period from 3 pm to 7 pm. In 1985, fewer child casualties were involved in drink-driving accidents than in 1977. If one applies the same test, the same conclusion is true of pedal cyclists involved in drink-driving accidents. The only conclusion to which one can properly come is that relaxation in the licensing laws has not had an adverse effect on road safety.
  Mr. Allen: Will the Minister consider the point that I made earlier: that the evidence is not incontrovertible? There are different interpretations. Therefore, on that matter, along with drunken driving and abuse of children due to alchohol, is it not the ideal opportunity to refer the
  104
  Bill to a Special Standing Committee for eight or 10 weeks' consideration so that evidence can be drawn from all facets of the community and proper consideration given to the Bill?
  Mr. Hogg: That is the sort of loose thinking which, over the years, I have come to associate with the Labour party. In the first place, there is nothing equivocal about the evidence. It is wholly plain. It may not be easy for Opposition Members to understand, but that it is plain is beyond dispute. Secondly, we published our proposals in full in August 1987. If hon. Members have not had time to study or consider them or to come to a sensible view, that is hardly our fault. It is the fault of the Opposition Members. The Bill is inappropriate for a Special Standing Committee.
  I should now like to make a little progress——
  Mr. Favell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hogg: I shall give way to my hon. Friend later.
  Several of my hon. Friends, notably my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) and for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) asked us to make a substantial change in the licensing laws operating on a Sunday. My hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) put it more modestly and suggested that we should make a small change. The Government's position is plain. It was explained candidly by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I shall be equally candid—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] It is nice to make such a well-received remark. I have no objection in principle to the proposals of my hon. Friends, but we want to get this Bill through—[Laughter.] We are pragmatists. Opposition Members may have a death wish—many of their policies display a death wish—but we do not. We do not wish to disturb the existing law on Sunday licensing because we wish to ensure the maximum possible support for the Bill.
  The right hon.Member for Birmingham, Spark brook (Mr. Hattersley) mentioned amendments.
  Sir Bernard Braine rose—
  Mr. Colvin rose—
  Mr. Hogg: Hon. Members can table amendments in Committee. It would be wrong for us to try to stop that, but I can tell the House that we shall oppose amendments in Committee, and, what is more, we shall try to persuade all our hon. Friends to do likewise.
  Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for kindly giving way. Since he intends to get the Bill through, since the Bill is about England and Wales and not about Scotland, since he is concerned about the evidence and the facts and since the Government have for two years sat on a report about under-age drinking in England and Wales, can he explain the Government's intentions in Committee, or later, to end the scandal of under-age drinking?
  Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend has raised one of the most serious issues of this debate, both in his intervention and during his extremely passionate speech. He raised with my right hon. Friend the report of the working party and the committee dealing with young people and alcohol, which, as my right hon. Friend knows, will be published on 24 November, or thereabouts. On its publication, we propose to give those considerations extremely careful

  105
  thought, as will the ministerial group, and we have to decide how to meet any recommendations in that report. If we decide that the recommendations merit a substantial change to statute law, clearly this Bill is the proper and convenient vehicle.
  Mrs. Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hogg: Not at the moment. I have given way to the hon. Lady often enough, and I propose to continue.
  Mr. Colvin rose——
  Mr. Hogg: We have to consider the extent to which we need new laws and the extent to which existing laws need to be properly enforced. I have been reminded by my hon. Friends the Members for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) and for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin)—to whom I will give way—that in essence it is for licensees properly to enforce their responsibility and trust, and we intend to raise that matter with the police.
  Mr. Colvin: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend on the extent to which we need new laws. It was set out in the Conservative party manifesto for the general election. I am pleased that the Government are honouring the commitment to reform the licensing laws. Why is there not the same determination to reform the law applying to Sunday trading, which was also a manifesto commitment?
  Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have listened to the points that he has made.
  The right hon.Member for Sparkbrook and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) called for random breath tests. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that if we introduced random breath tests, he might support the Bill. I hope that on further reflection he will support the Bill. He should study in some detail the provisions of section 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. Under that section, the police have a right to stop vehicles at random with intent to determine whether a breath test should be administered. That is the law. Chief constables believe it to be sufficient, and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook would have done better to have explained that to the House than to call for something which, in substance, already exists.
  Mrs. Taylor rose——
  Mr. Hogg: No, I must press on.
  Mr. Bermingham: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hogg: No. I have already told the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) that I will not give way.
  Mr. John Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for St. Helens, North has been in the Chamber for only the past 10 minutes and has not attempted to intervene.
  Mr. Hogg: I meant the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
  Several of my hon. Friends suggested that we should extend drinking-up time on Friday and Saturday. There is a variety of opinion on this. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham said in terms that we should extend closing time on Friday and Saturday. In a well-argued speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) said that we should extend drinking-up time. A similar view was expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Derby,
  106
  North and for Romsey and Waterside. There are arguments in favour of that, but we regard the measures as a package, and we have decided that, if we agreed to such a change, the package would become unbalanced. The present drinking-up time of 10 minutes is frequently extended. If we allowed a further extension, it would become extremely late for local residents. I do not commend that suggestion to the House.
  Mr. Favell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hogg: No; I intend to proceed.
  Mrs. Taylor rose——
  Mr. Hogg: No; I intend to proceed. I cannot be criticised for not giving way frequently. I now wish to get on. Several hon. Members have made good points which merit a considered reply.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East, who gave the Bill considerable support in the light of his experience in Scotland—for which the Government are extremely grateful—puggested that we should mount a survey to monitor the effect of the change in England and Wales. I wholly agree with him. The Home Office has commissioned the social services division of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to undertake an up-todate survey of drinking habits in England and Wales so that we have data against which changes can be measured. Field work on the survey was completed in the last couple of weeks. In due course we will commission a further survey so that we can try to determine the extent of the change. I rather fancy that that will be welcomed by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East and by many other hon. Members.
  Mr. Allen rose——
  Mr. Hogg: I will not give way at the moment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and the hon. Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) referred to the position of tenants and managers. The statutory position is quite plain. The law does not oblige a licensee to remain open during all licensed hours, but it is undoubtedly true that the terms of a tenancy or management agreement can require a tenant or manager to keep open for the permitted hours. I am glad to say that there have been negotiations between the brewing industry and those who represent tenants and managers.
  In the case of brewery-owned tenancy houses, the brewery companies have agreed to withdraw the clause in many tenancy agreements that requires pubs to open all the permitted hours and to replace it with an arrangement whereby the brewers and the tenants will discusss the hours requirements for public houses. There will be arbitration proceedings if there are disputes. Brewery companies will also discuss with their managers the hours arrangements for brewery-owned managed pubs, although the owning brewer will have ultimate responsibility for determining opening hours. That is the proper way to go forward. The House should be extremely slow to try to alter by statutory intervention the freely negotiated terms of a freely entered into contract. If it can be achieved by negotiation, that is the proper way forward.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) asked the Home Secretary whether we could reconsider costs. I put forward this consideration: the Bill provides for justices to award costs if they think it just and

  107
  reasonable. The Bill also provides a greatly extended ability to local residents and the police to apply to revoke a licence or to impose a restriction order. The ability to apply for a revocation order is far in excess of anything previously granted and can be made at any licensing session, other than the one at which the application is made. There is always a risk, however small, that the right to make such an application will be abused. Therefore, I suggest that it is right to give the justices a residual power to impose costs where the facts justify it.
  The right hon.Member for Sparkbrook and the hon. Member for Dewsbury raised the status of the ministerial group and asked why the Government have decided to proceed with the Bill without awaiting a full report from that group. We did not introduce the Bill lightly. We considered the facts carefully, and we are confident that the Bill will not lead to an increase in alcohol misuse. The clear evidence of that is justification for the orderly introduction of the Bill. The ministerial group will try to identify those areas where we can best deal with the misuse of alcohol by the vulnerable and risk groups. That is clearly proper. Mr. Speaker, I fancy that shortly you will put the question.
  Mr. Stuart Randall: I certainly hope so.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member said he hopes so.
  Mr. Stuart Holland rose——
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is now presuming. I must conclude. To those hon. Members to whom I have not responded in detail, I apologise. No discourtesy was intended.
  I commend the Bill. I reject the argument that it will aggravate the problems associated with the misuse of alcohol. It is a balanced package, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes, 87.

  Division No. 41]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Boswell, Tim

  Alexander, Richard

  Bottomley, Peter

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Allason, Rupert

  Bowis, John

  Amos, Alan

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brazier, Julian

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bright, Graham

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Ashby, David

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Ashdown, Paddy

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

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Atkinson, David

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Baldry, Tony

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Burns, Simon

  Batiste, Spencer

  Burt, Alistair

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Butler, Chris

  Bellingham, Henry

  Caborn, Richard

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Benyon, W.

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Carrington, Matthew

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Carttiss, Michael

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cartwright, John

  108

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Heddle, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Henderson, Douglas

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clelland, David

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Colvin, Michael

  Holt, Richard

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

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

  Cope, John

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cran, James

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Crowther, Stan

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cummings, J.

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Curry, David

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Day, Stephen

  Irvine, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Irving, Charles

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Janman, Timothy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jessel, Toby

  Dover, Den

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dunn, Bob

  Key, Robert

  Durant, Tony

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knapman, Roger

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Evennett, David

  Knowles, Michael

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Knox, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Lang, Ian

  Fatchett, Derek

  Latham, Michael

  Favell, Tony

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Fearn, Ronald

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Leighton, Ron

  Flannery, Martin

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lightbown, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Lilley, Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Forth, Eric

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Foulkes, George

  Lord, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  McCartney, Ian

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  McCrindle, Robert

  Freeman, Roger

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  French, Douglas

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Fry, Peter

  Maclean, David

  Gale, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gardiner, George

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  McWilliam, John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Madel, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Malins, Humfrey

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mans, Keith

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Maples, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marek, Dr John

  Gow, Ian

  Marland, Paul

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Marlow, Tony

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gregory, Conal

  Maxton, John

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Grist, Ian

  Mellor, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Grylls, Michael

  Miller, Hal

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mills, Iain

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

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

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Harris, David

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

  Hayes, Jerry

  Mudd, David

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hayward, Robert

  Neubert, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  109

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  O'Brien, William

  Sims, Roger

  O'Neill, Martin

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Onslow, Cranley

  Snape, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Page, Richard

  Speed, Keith

  Paice, James

  Speller, Tony

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Patchett, Terry

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Steinberg, Gerald

  Pendry, Tom

  Stevens, Lewis

  Pike, Peter

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Portillo, Michael

  Summerson, Hugo

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Price, Sir David

  Thomas, Dafydd Elis

  Radice, Giles

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Raffan, Keith

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Redwood, John

  Thorne, Neil

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Thurnham, Peter

  Renton, Tim

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Trippier, David

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Trotter, Neville

  Riddick, Graham

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Robertson, George

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wall, Pat

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Waller, Gary

  Rowe, Andrew

  Walters, Dennis

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Ward, John

  Ryder, Richard

  Whitney, Ray

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Wilson, Brian

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Anderson, Donald

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Hardy, Peter

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Battle, John

  Holland, Stuart

  Beggs, Roy

  Hood, James

  Beith, A. J.

  Howells, Geraint

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

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

  Illsley, Eric

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ingram, Adam

  Boyes, Roland

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Kilfedder, James

  Buckley, George

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Lamond, James

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Clay, Bob

  Livingstone, Ken

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cohen, Harry

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Corbett, Robin

  Macdonald, Calum

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Cousins, Jim

  Meacher, Michael

  Cryer, Bob

  Michael, Alun

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Dobson, Frank

  Mullin, Chris

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Murphy, Paul

  Eastham, Ken

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Prescott, John

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

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Flynn, Paul

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Randall, Stuart

  Foster, Derek

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Fraser, John

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Rooker, Jeff

  110

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Short, Clare

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

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

  Winnick, David

  Soley, Clive

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Spearing, Nigel

  Straw, Jack

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Dr. Lewis Moonie and

  Vaz, Keith

  Mr, Graham Allen.

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill Read a Second time.
  Motion made—[Mr. Allen]—and Question put, That the Bill be commited to a Special Standing Committee:—
  The House divided: Ayes 74, Noes 247.

  Division No. 42]

  [10.45 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Kilfedder, James

  Anderson, Donald

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  McCartney, Ian

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Battle, John

  McWilliam, John

  Beggs, Roy

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Beith, A. J.

  Meacher, Michael

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Morley, Elliott

  Boyes, Roland

  Mullin, Chris

  Buckley, George

  O'Brien, William

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Patchett, Terry

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Pike, Peter

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Prescott, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Corbett, Robin

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Cousins, Jim

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Cryer, Bob

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Cummings, J.

  Short, Clare

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Soley, Clive

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Foster, Derek

  Steinberg, Gerald

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Straw, Jack

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hardy, Peter

  Vaz, Keith

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Henderson, Douglas

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Hood, James

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Howells, Geraint

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Illsley, Eric

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ingram, Adam

  Dr. Lewis Moonie, and

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

  Mr. Graham Allen.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Alexander, Richard

  Bellingham, Henry

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Allason, Rupert

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Amos, Alan

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Boswell, Tim

  Ashby, David

  Bottomley, Peter

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Ashton, Joe

  Bowis, John

  Atkinson, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Brazier, Julian

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Bright, Graham

  Baldry, Tony

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Batiste, Spencer

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

  111

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Gill, Christopher

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gow, Ian

  Burns, Simon

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Burt, Alistair

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Butler, Chris

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Gregory, Conal

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Carrington, Matthew

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Grist, Ian

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Grylls, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clelland, David

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Colvin, Michael

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

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Harris, David

  Cope, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Couchman, James

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Cran, James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Curry, David

  Hayward, Robert

  Dalyell, Tam

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

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

  Heddle, John

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Day, Stephen

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Devlin, Tim

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Holt, Richard

  Dover, Den

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Dunn, Bob

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

  Durant, Tony

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Evennett, David

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Fallon, Michael

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Favell, Tony

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Fearn, Ronald

  Irvine, Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Irving, Charles

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Janman, Timothy

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Jessel, Toby

  Forman, Nigel

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Forth, Eric

  Key, Robert

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Freeman, Roger

  Knapman, Roger

  French, Douglas

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Fry, Peter

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Gale, Roger

  Knowles, Michael

  Gardiner, George

  Knox, David

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Lang, Ian

  112

  Latham, Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Redwood, John

  Lead bitter, Ted

  Renton, Tim

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Lightbown, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Lilley, Peter

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lord, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  McCrindle, Robert

  Ryder, Richard

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Maclean, David

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Madel, David

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Malins, Humfrey

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Mans, Keith

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Maples, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Marland, Paul

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Marlow, Tony

  Sims, Roger

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Speed, Keith

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mellor, David

  Stevens, Lewis

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Miller, Hal

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Mills, lain

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thorne, Neil

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trippier, David

  Neale, Gerrard

  Trotter, Neville

  Neubert, Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Waller, Gary

  Paice, James

  Ward, John

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Portillo, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and

  Price, Sir David

  Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

  Raffan, Keith

  Question accordingly negatived
  Bill committed to a standing Committee pursuant to standing Order No. 61 (Committee of Bills).

  Food Aid
  Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  10.25 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a Standing Order of the House that the Scrutiny Committee—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly if they are not taking part in the debate?
  Mr. Spearing: It is a Standing Order of the House that the Scrutiny Committee, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, reports to the House on matters relating to EEC legislation and makes recommendations for debate. On this topic we have made a report, which will be printed. It is the fourth report, HC 43 IV. The memorandum states:
  "The Committee looks to the Government for additional information on these two issues in due course and any other clarification which seems necessary, and may then wish to report further."
  Last Wednesday, after the Committee had met, a further regulation was received from Brussels. It is the numbered regulation in the motion, No. 9138/87, on which, unfortunately, the Committee did not have an opportunity to report. Article 1 of that document refers to designated organisations. The Minister tabled a supplementary memorandum, which was requested by the Committee. It stated that he wished to point out to the House how the proposal differed from that on which earlier explanatory memoranda were based. He then listed the main points. However, I understand that the Commission has deposited yet another document, namely, No. 9227/87, which was a report on the previous working of the scheme, not a regulation for its adoption, which relates to part of the debate tonight. A paragraph on page 10 states:
  "Organisations recognised by the Member State concerned or (if no recognition had been granted in that Member State to such organisations) the Commission would implement the programme in the relevant country. These organisations need not necessarily be charities."
  I raise this point of order because, unless the information is available to the House in the form of a report—which through an oversight is not in the second supplementary memorandum—the House will not be aware that it is possible, under the regulation, for a wider set of bodies, possibly statutory bodies, to be involved as designated organisations. That may have a bearing on the debate. Is it possible for the Minister to confirm that point? Unfortunately, his second explanatory memorandum is dated 11 November. He was a little ahead of time.
  10.28 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am happy to agree with what the hon. Gentleman said. It will be understood by the House that I do not have control over the timing of documents as they emerge from Brussels. The hon. Gentleman rightly suggested that we should discuss the matter and that it is important that such discussions should take place before decisions are made by the Community. Therefore, I considered it right to put the
  114
  documents before the House as soon as we received them. When we finally received the report in an acceptable form—in other words, in English—I put it before the House as soon as I could. In fact, I agreed it while out of London so that it should be before the House as quickly as it could be presented. The difficulty is that we have only what is before us. I have yet to receive confirmation from the Commission that it will lay regulations that will apply to any organisation, or whether there will be restrictions on those organisations. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to draw attention to this and I would have hoped to do so in my own speech. It is better to have the debate before the decisions are made than to wait until one has all the answers, by which time the decisions will have been made.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the debate should proceed.
  Mr. Gummer: I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9138/87 on general rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks for distribution to the most deprived persons in the Community.
  We are debating both the past of this scheme and the proposals for the future in so far as we can decipher them from the various documents. I should like to confine myself to a few short comments to start with and, if the House will allow me, to give myself a little time at the end to answer the points that will have been raised. I am sure that that would be more helpful to hon. Members.
  The House will remember that the United Kingdom Government were not enthusiastic about the terms of the original proposals. We said that it would be extremely difficult to prove additionality in the decisions that were made and wondered how much effect that would have on the surpluses of food in store. We were concerned about the fact that we were to ask charities to carry out that work without any warning and in conditions for which they were totally unable to prepare.
  We were especially concerned that the decisions were made irrespective of the individual and different needs of each country. It was in no grouching or miserable manner that we put forward those points, but we were unsuccessful in getting our colleagues in the European Community to accept them. On the other hand, having lost the day on the terms in which the proposals were put forward, we set out to try to make the exercise as successful as it could be within the terms under which we were able to operate. ln other words, we returned immediately, called together the charities that seemed to be the most obviously affected, and discussed the matter with them on the day after the decisions had been made. I returned from Brussels immediately.
  As a result, the Commission's report shows that the United Kingdom spent about 45 per cent. of the amount of money that was spent in the Community as a whole. Indeed, we spent more of the available money than France, Germany and Spain put together. After us, those countries were the three largest spenders. We did extremely well in trying to use the available resources, given the problems about which we had already warned the Community.
  I wish to make three comments, although I shall say more in answer to any questions. First, I am second to none in my considerable admiration for the charities' work in circumstances that were intolerable for them. They had

  115
  to operate under wholly unsuitable conditions and immediately, without any advance warning, and they did so remarkably. It would be invidious to refer to any particular charity, although the Salvation Army especially was a tower of strength in areas that would not otherwise have been covered. It also helped other charities. Several other charities had a national distribution, such as the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and the Red Cross, and were extremely helpful and I should like to thank them.
  Secondly, I am extremely doubtful whether the scheme had any real effect on the surpluses. I do not regard this as an effective system for reducing surpluses. To do that effectively one must prove at least some additionality and that the food that was given out from surplus stores did not replace food that would otherwise have been bought. There is considerable doubt about that. Certainly some food was not simply replacement food, but I do not think that it was of sufficient quantity to make this a sensible scheme for removing the surpluses.
  Thirdly, we are a country that has every right to criticise and propose any future scheme, because we did everything in our power to make the last scheme work, although we did not like it, objected to its terms and tried to have them changed. We cannot be faulted on our efforts to make this work. Therefore, it is reasonable for us to say that we have considerable doubts about the scheme, as we understand it, proposed by the Commission. We remind the House that the scheme will run permanently. It is not merely for an emergency. It does not appear to have benefited from the many lessons that we could have taught the Commission. It does not appear to meet either the budgetary worries or the additionality concerns about which most people would be anxious. It is difficult to see any sign that the scheme overcomes the difficulties that our charities found and—I do not wish to put words into their mouths—they are hesitant about joining in any future scheme. The scheme does not seem to meet their major problem, which is that they do not see, as the Government do not see, that proper account has been taken of changes that would enable the scheme to make a proper contribution towards helping the most needy.
  Obviously, there would be some help. It is difficult to envisage a scheme that would not do something, but it is difficult to see, even in the suggested changes, that any future scheme would make a contribution commensurate with its cost and the diversion of effort of anybody who carried it out. The scheme would have to be carried out by somebody—whoever we are allowed to suggest—who is likely already to be doing something useful. Therefore, if that somebody carries it out, he may well find himself having to carry out the scheme instead of what he might otherwise be doing.
  For that reason, we are at present criticising the Commission for seeming not to have learnt the lessons that we could have presented to it. We are worried that the scheme does not solve the problems that have been shown, not only to the Government, but to the charities. Therefore, we enter these discussions with considerable doubts that the Commission can produce a scheme that will meet our needs. That seems to be a not unreasonable position to uphold, although, naturally, if something happened to make the scheme more effective we would consider it carefully, as we did the original scheme. Our bona fides are clear from our previous efforts.
  116
  If the House gives me permission, I shall be happy to answer any questions that are raised, but I think it would be best for the House first to discuss the proposals.
  10.37 pm
  Dr. David Clark: I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add
  "and noting that the earlier free food scheme of 1987 led to considerable difficulties for charities responsible for food distribution and caused inconvenience and hardship to many of the intended beneficiaries, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the new scheme takes note of this earlier experience and to devise means of guaranteeing that the distributive process does not lead to a financial loss to the charities involved and that the recipients are treated equitably.".
  The official Opposition welcome the opportunity to debate the distribution of so-called free food from EEC intervention stores and we trust that the Minister will reflect our views when the matter is discussed at the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 16 and 17 November.
  Perhaps we should first dispel once and for all the myth of free food. That term is a misnomer because the food has already been paid for four times over by its recipients. We should do well to remind ourselves that, first, the recipients have paid a high price in the shops because of the artificially high EC support systems; secondly, they pay as taxpayers for the cost of the food going into intervention; thirdly, they pay for the storage of the food in intervention; and, fourthly, they contribute towards the cost of the £70 million for the operation of the concessionary food schemes. Therefore, I hope that the House will accept that the term free food is merely shorthand for the scheme and that the food is far from free.
  As the House knows, the Labour party views the common agricultural policy of the European Community with great dismay. It seems to set prices so high that food cannot be sold in the open market, which is crazy. It results in the scenarios that we face today, and regularly. It strikes us as ludicrous that in order to reduce food surpluses we have to feed them to animals, contemplate destroying them, or sell them to the Russians at knockdown prices. I am sure that the whole House agrees that that is not a sensible policy.
  The Minister rightly pointed out that the item that the Government and this country gave most effectively in the last concessionary scheme was butter, but we still have 200,000 tonnes of butter in intervention stores in this country and more than 1·25 million tonnes in the Community at large, so the fact that some of that surplus food might find its way into the mouths of 5 million of our more deprived fellow citizens is laudable and sensible.
  It is worth reflecting on what a condemnation of the Government it is that we have 5 million deprived people. The Government have a deplorable record of assisting the less well-off. I recall the miserly 40p pension rise last year for single pensioners and the fact that 700,000 of our poorest people will be still worse off under the new social security system that the Government are introducing next April.
  The free food scheme is a palliative measure in the fight against poverty, and, in the short term, we support it. In the long term, surely the objective must be for all the people of the Community to have incomes that are sufficient for their food requirements.
  As the Minister said, we are discussing what is essentially a mark II version of the concessionary scheme.

  117
  We must learn the lessons of the previous one. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the positive suggestions that I am sure will come from both sides of the House. Perhaps we should remind ourselves that the new scheme is crucially different in several respects from the previous one. The Minister was right to draw our attention to one of the main differences—that of duration. The previous scheme existed for a mere 10 weeks; This one is envisaged as being permanent, so the responsibility to get it right is paramount, and we should not duck it.
  Secondly, this is a narrower scheme, restricted entirely to stocks from the intervention fund, which was not the case last time. What lessons can be gleaned from the previous experience? The efforts of the various charities that were involved last time were commendable. As the Minister said, they did everything asked of them in intolerable circumstances, and the successes of the scheme were entirely to their credit. I regret that many of the dedicated workers of the various charities ran into problems which were the Government's fault and not their own. They were at the sharp end—angry pensioners had queued in the cold for hours, only to be told sometimes that supplies had run out.
  Why did the Government work solely through the charities? My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has already pointed out that the EEC directive does not, and did not, require them to do so. "Designated organisations" were the relevant term.
  Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House. As we understand it, the future scheme does not use only charities, but the previous scheme required us to work through them. There was no way that the Government could have avoided doing so.
  Dr. Clark: I thank the Minister for his remarks. It now appears that although the Government's explanatory memorandum on the new scheme speaks only of charities, the definition is not to be so narrow. EC document 9277 talks about recognised organisations and mentions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South said, that those organisations need not necessarily be charities. We could discuss with the local authorities whether they could help. Local authorities have much of the expertise to identify the recipients, which was one of the points of consternation last time, and they have the means to assist in the distribution. The House will recollect that one of the main criticisms of the previous scheme was that in some parts of the country distribution worked very effectively, while in other parts it hardly worked at all.
  If the Minister asks the local authorities to assist and to expend money on the scheme, will he give the House an assurance that such expenditure will be free from rate-capping calculations? If we follow the route that I have suggested, anything other than exemption would be crazy.
  Do the Government intend to explore the possibility of using the expertise and facilities of the food retailers? They have an efficient system of distribution for all types of food to all corners of the kingdom. That is one thing that Britain does in an exemplary fashion. That might save many of the unnecessary and fruitless journeys made by pensioners on the previous occasion. It would also ensure a uniform distribution system, which I am sure that the Minister and the House want to see in the new scheme.
  In our positive amendment we emphasise that the Government should not expect the various charities to
  118
  bear the cost of administering the scheme, as they were forced to do previously. Age Concern incurred costs of almost £200,000 for the distribution of food in the previous system. Will the Minister ensure in any new scheme that such expenditure will be reimbursed? It is permissible for such payments to be made from national sources if the EC will not foot the bill.
  Will the Secretary of State have discussions with the Secretary of State for Social Services? The negative attitude—I can use no other words— of the DHSS last year caused annoyance to many people. The House will recall that on 27 January the DHSS sent an insensitive circular to all its offices. In essence, it urged non-co-operation and reminded DHSS staff that responsibility for distribution and publicity and for identifying recipients rested with the charities alone. I hope that in future there will be a more positive attitude.
  Perhaps the Minister could tell us what discussions he has had with the charities that will be or could be involved, and whether any charities that co-operated last time will not co-operate in future. Perhaps he will also tell us whether any new charities that did not co-operate last time will consider co-operating this time. Will the Minister ensure that the necessary distribution network is set in place before there is any publicity? Last time there was so much publicity prior to the establishment of the network that many people were disappointed. I hope that we can get the distribution network right before the Ministry pushes ahead with its publicity.
  The Labour party welcomes the concept of redistributing surplus food to the needier members of the community. That is much more sensible than selling it to the Russians. We hope that the Government will work positively to devise such a system. I thought that the Minister's speech was a little negative, but I hope that in the debate he will reflect on some of the points made to him by hon. Members.
  The earlier scheme had considerable success due to the initiative of the charities involved and the dedication of their workers. The charities did the hard work and footed much of the bill, while the Government took the credit. The Minister looks a little surprised, but we got rather tired of seeing the Minister and his colleagues in funny hats doling out butter and sides of beef.
  I do not want to dwell on the past. What Britain needs is a sensible agriculture and food policy, but until we have such a policy we call on the Government to introduce a system of concessionary food for our neediest citizens and to ensure a fair and equitable distribution. The Government must also guarantee that no charity loses financially in assisting them in providing that concessionary food.
  10.50 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): I welcomed the tone of the Minister's speech because it has become obvious to most Conservative Members, but apparently not to Labour Members, that the original scheme was not only ill-conceived, but ill-devised and it operated in a most ineffective manner.
  Such failure was inevitable because the scheme, by its very conception, undermined the whole essence of the common agricultural policy. I may agree with many Opposition Members that the very nature of the common agricultural policy is due for fundamental reappraisal—I put it no more strongly than that. However, as long as we

  119
  have such a policy, based as it is on the principle of minimum intervention prices, any system that sets out to offer something at a different price or seeks to give something away, will start to undermine that policy.
  Some people may want the common agricultural policy undermined, but the Minister, our Government and the Commission of the EC would be well advised to think carefully before setting out to undermine the principles of a policy to which they still claim to be committed. That is the first problem.
  The next problem is the equally obvious one of the black market possibilities of such a scheme. I believe that it is obvious that when one gives away a desired product that is already on the market and has an established price, that practice is open to the possibility of black market operations. In other words the recipients of the product can decide whether to use it themselves or to offer it in some subsidiary or illegal manner on the market. Again, that further undermines the original market that we are trying to operate.
  That problem leads to the next difficulty—sheer and rather unpleasant greed. I do not know about the experience of other hon. Members, but in my constituency the scheme attracted an unpleasant reaction when people got wind of something that could be got for nothing. There was a rather undignified response and in some cases people scrambled to get their hands on what was thought to be desirable. Unpleasant accusations were made by one set of people against another: "Why did they get some and I did not? Why is that charity not giving me something? Why is the person up the road getting it? What is the queue all about?" Any scheme that brings the greedy aspects of human nature to the surface is unfortunate to say the least. There must be much better ways of alleviating human need rather than a selective and ill-organised system that brings out the worst in people instead of the best.
  Faced with such problems I was heartened to hear the Minister say, with honesty, that not only did the Government have reservations about the original scheme, but the experience of the previous scheme has left the Government suspicious about what is now to be attempted. Although the charities tried the first time round, they may not be the vehicles with which to attempt a second effort.
  In my constituency I have been contacted by at least one charity previously involved that has made it clear that it has no desire to be involved in any subsequent exercise whether it is given money, subsidies, subventions or anything else such as the Opposition have suggested. I do not think that the charities want to touch this new scheme with a barge pole. They were disillusioned by their experience the first time round. They disliked the reaction that they received from the public. They disliked the ill-organised imposition of the scheme on them. I am sure that they would not be happy, and most of them would not be prepared, to contemplate taking part in a subsequent scheme.
  Therefore, my right hon. Friend the Minister has my complete support in his scepticism and his grave doubts about whether we should undertake such a scheme again. He will continue to have that support. I hope that the Government will resist the attempts by the Commission to bring forward that ill-founded scheme, certainly on a
  120
  permanent basis, which undermines our agricultural policy and brings out the worst in people throughout the Community.
  10.56 pm
  Mr. Geraint Howells: I differ in my approach from that of other hon. Members who have spoken. Many people in my constituency and in Wales generally were proud when they were given extra food at the beginning of the new year. That was welcomed by many of the needy and the elderly. However, I should like to express a cautious welcome to the European Community document that we are considering. It is an excellent idea in theory to distribute surplus stocks from intervention stores to those in need in our society. To some extent it eases the embarrassment over the wastage of keeping produce in intervention in the first place.
  I have always been against hoarding meat and other surpluses. Will the Minister say which commodities are in surplus? I have been told that there is little best beef in surplus in the Community. There is plenty of cow beef, but I do not believe that many of the elderly will be interested in that. Will any beef be given away this Christmas or at the beginning of the new year? The other commodity in surplus is butter. Will the Minister list the commodities and tell us what percentage of those in surplus will be given to the people?
  My reservations about the scheme are based on our experiences during the earlier part of this year when there appeared to be a great deal of public and official confusion about the working of the scheme—dare I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth)? It came about because the distribution was in the hands of charities that had neither adequate resources to cope with the demand nor sufficient warning beforehand to organise the operation properly. I understand that there was a great deal of resentment at the lack of consultation. Whether it was between the charitable organisations and the Department I am not sure, but I have been told that there was a great deal of unease.
  The other main problem has been identified as the imprecise definition of those eligible to receive the food and exactly how much food each person was to receive. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that issue, too.
  We must welcome the initiative and its development into a permanent system, not linked to a cold weather factor as it was earlier this year. But from now on it is important to ensure that the rules are made crystal clear and that the organisations in charge of distribution are well prepared for the work involved, so that the food reaches the maximum number of those who deserve it.
  There must also be adequate funding. Does the Minister consider that £70 million per annum is enough, bearing in mind that expenditure on distribution last time was £110 million for three months? There is a great discrepancy in that. Are the charities involved likely to be given sufficient support this time round, to avoid the tremendous financial and organisational strains that they suffered last time? Age Concern incurred costs of £ 195,000 for its part in the operation, and it has asked for consultation well before the public announcement of any future scheme.
  Is there a case for involving local authorities, which probably have better local knowledge and comprehensive lists of those in need? They may also have more resources

  121
  for distribution. Could there be co-operation between authorities and the charities? In Wales, the distribution could be carried out by county and district councils. Community councils are extremely strong in the Principality, and their members could do excellent work in helping to distribute food to the needy, the young and the elderly. When he announced the scheme, the EC Agriculture Commissioner hinted that the Government had asked him not to involve the local authorities. What was the reason for that? However, I understand that Mr. Andriessen said that local authorities might play a role in the future. I would welcome the Minister's comments on whether there is any truth in what the Commissioner said.
  Another essential ingredient of a successful scheme must be the detailed description of the categories of those in need and eligible for free food. Last time varying interpretations in different areas led to confusion and resentment among the elderly and the poor.
  We must accept this document with enthusiasm, but from now on the British end of the scheme must be organised as efficiently as seemed to be the case in other countries. The British public cannot put up with the confusion and disappointments that were such a feature of the original scheme.
  11.1 pm
  Mr. Tim Boswell: I need not detain the House for long at this late hour. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Minister's healthy dose of scepticism in these matters. As we are about to enter international negotiations on a concept and on a set of documents that are most kindly described as opaque, it might be helpful if I offered some general considerations to the House.
  Such a scheme could not make more than the tiniest dent in the huge mountains of surplus food that have accumulated under the common agricultural policy. My right hon. Friend the Minister has said many times that we need radical changes in the policy, but the scheme would make little difference to it. It must not be prayed in aid as an excuse for not taking action to tackle the surpluses at source. If one wishes to empty the bath, it is a good idea to turn off the tap before taking out the plug, however slightly, as this scheme would do. In conformity with that thought, the scheme should be limited to a modest sum—in Community terms—of 100 million ecu. As it is likely to make only a small impact when one allows for substitution and the rest, the scheme must be confined in cost.
  As the documents suggest in outline, it is essential that the member states retain individual control over the designation of authorities for the distribution of food. We do not want to lose that power to a Commission diktat. In that connection—here I may part company from some of my hon. Friends—I favour the retention of the charities as the distribution agencies. In many cases, they are economical. Their overheads are low and their effectiveness high. I understand that the Salvation Army, which bore the brunt of distribution in the United' Kingdom, spent just over £100,000 on the job, which was cost-effective. Secondly, if the matter is remitted to charities, there is no question of any charge of political favouritism or jobbery. Also, it is an advantage if it is at arm's length.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that if we gave the job to local
  122
  authorities we would have to ensure that they did not spend more money distributing the scheme than the scheme would bring into the country? We would have to watch some local authorities particularly carefully. Does he also agree that the suggestion from the Labour Front Bench that we should exclude GRE expenditure could allow councils to go haywire in adding on extra costs?
  Mr. Boswell: Perhaps I should say that I think that some local authorities would do better than others. My right hon. Friend referred to the remarkable performance in a short time of the United Kingdom charities in mounting such an effort. If it is to be put on a long-term basis, we will need to consider how we monitor the scheme on a regular basis, not because we do not trust the charities, but because we need to see that there is proper accountability and that a pattern of control is established, particularly within the Community.
  One or two points in the documents are disturbing. There is an assertion on page 4 of document No. 9277/87 that
  "it is not possible to give a sound estimate of the total number of beneficiaries".
  Presumably that means that it would be possible to give only an unsound estimate of the total number of beneficiaries. At page 5 there is reference to very few cases of abuse mentioned in the material that was received from the member states and the charities. My comment on that is: "Well, they would, wouldn't they." If this is to be made permanent, we should accept the scheme, with no illusions as to its tremendous benefit. It may have some marginal benefit, but if it is to do even that without becoming an abuse, it must be properly defined, we must keep some controls within our own purview and not remit the whole job to Europe, and we must ensure that both domestically and in Europe there is better accounting than there has been.
  11.8 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I should declare an interest. I have a dual mandate. I am a member of the Common Market Assembly and I receive a third of the parliamentary salary which, after tax, is divided between the Sheffield and Bradford Labour movements. I have made that declaration publicly before.
  Charities were not consulted and the Minister is disingenuous if he suggests that it was not open to the Government to recommend in the Council of Ministers that local authorities should be used. Of course, there was a political basis for the decision. An election was in the offing. The Government thought that it might be useful if they were seen to be distributing food and that it might also improve the tarnished image of the Community, which spends 67 per cent. of its expenditure on farming, a large chunk of which goes to building up the food stocks that cost about £2,000 million a year to store.
  Since 1984 we have contributed £5·3 billion to the Community in net revenue. The free food distribution gave the false impression that we were getting something back for our money. In fact, we got very little, and in the new scheme we will get even less—£70,000 below the amount spent on the last occasion.
  The British Government were rather parsimonious once the PR exercise had been completed. It should be emphasised that the charities, and even the Ministry, did not know what would be the organisational application of

  123
  the scheme. The Minister rushed off to television studios, but his officials did not have the details of how the scheme would operate to make foodstuffs available to the charities or any other organisations.
  The charities are cynical about any new scheme that is to be introduced, because they lost thousands of pounds that they could ill afford to part with in the course of distribution. Age Concern has estimated that the scheme cost it over £195,000, and it was not the largest charity involved. It has made various representations about that loss. If the Government want the charities to be involved, they must be prepared to meet some of the costs arising from the previous scheme. That will have to be done before the charities will show any enthusiasm for the new scheme.
  The Government were even churlish in the way in which they approached the old scheme. They refused to distribute the foodstuffs that were involved and available such as flour, sugar, vegetable oils, fruit and vegetables. That reflected mean-mindedness on their part.
  The efficiency of the old scheme in reducing the huge mountains of foodstuffs was laughable. About 13,624 tonnes of butter were distributed in the United Kindom, which was a small fraction of the 243,036 tonnes which were in store here when the scheme started. The distribution of beef was an even greater disaster. Only 1,041 tonnes were given away, but there were 48,671 tonnes in store at the end of January. By the end of the scheme, the amount of beef in store had increased. In terms of effectiveness, the scheme was counter-productive. I hope that the new scheme will result in a genuine distribution of significant quantities of food.
  I must tell the Minister that my faith in the Commission is extremely limited. I would not allow it to run a fish-and chip shop. I regard fish-and-chip shops as far too important to be subjected to that treatment. Indeed, the Commission is trying to impose a tax on vegetable oils to increase the cost of fish and chips. It is even now engaged in pursuing that absurd task.
  I hope that the Minister will use his influence in the Council of Ministers, which in theory is the power organisation in the Common market, and press for a wider application of the scheme. Let him do so with a view to ensuring that the Commission produces a better scheme that will lead to the distribution of significant quantities of food.
  When I was temporarily absent from this place, it enacted the Communities (Amendment) Act 1986. Hon. Members can see in document No. 9138/87 that there is now a qualified majority voting procedure. Even if the Government put forward sensible proposals, they can be out-voted. That is a consequence of the foolish legislation that the House enacted that gave more powers to the Common market, which continues to be a millstone round our neck.
  The previous distribution of food humiliated many applicants. There were many who were told that they did not qualify, or that their friends did, because of the uncertainty of definition. Of course, those who did not have to go through that procedure thought that everything was all right. It would seem that there is common consent this evening that the scheme was a disaster and that there must be a radical improvement before a new scheme is even vaguely acceptable. I hope that the Minister will take these comments on board——
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has made an outspoken criticism of the arrangements for the distribution of food aid to the poor. Bearing in mind his attacks on the Government and the Common Market—and he knows that I share some of the concern that he has felt for many years—would he tell us how he suggests the European Community should tackle the distribution of surplus food to the poor of the world and how much his proposals would cost?
  Mr. Cryer: I would certainly include a much wider range of foods, because they are presumably still available. I would define much more widely and generously those entitled to receive free food and I would ensure that the local authorities were involved because, of all our organisations, they are the best equipped to pick out people in need—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Hon. Members shout "Nonsense," but the local authorities run social services departments. They deal constantly with people in need of housing — people in private accommodation that is not fit to live in and who are forced to seek council housing. Social services departments deal with those in genuine need.
  I suspect that the reason why the Government did not call upon the local authorities or press the case for their use in the Council of Ministers is that the distribution of free food might reflect a certain amount of credit on the local authorities. The Government are obsessive in their hatred of local government, as has been demonstrated in virtually all their legislation. I would call upon the expertise and knowledge of local authorities and ask them to help to produce an adequate definition of the groups that should qualify.
  Furthermore, local authorities would have the facilities available to enable them to achieve a distribution that was not arbitrary. In the previous scheme, for example, some centres in Sheffield ran out of butter, although there were 30 tonnes stored in the central depot.
  I have much greater faith in local authorities than in charities to achieve efficient distribution. Although the charities tried their best, they found the whole exercise very burdensome, and the costs enormous. Consequently, the charities are cynical about future distributions. We probably need both local authorities and the charities, but we certainly need to invoke the local authorities' support in defining those eligible for the food.
  That is a thumbnail view of what I would do, and when we have a Labour Government we shall make sure that the thing is done properly.
  11.17 pm
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I welcome the debate because it gives us an opportunity, at least in principle, to consider ways in which the elderly, less well-off and needy in our society can be helped. Many people are understandably concerned and bemused by a system that allows vast quantities of food to be stored at vast cost when many in our society go without.
  I remind Conservative Members who criticise the scheme that it is a valuable aid to the pensioner living on a state pension who has to decide in the middle of a cold snap in winter how best to spend his or her money—on heating, on food or on clothing. Similarly, a single parent has to decide between the competing claims of herself and her children. One could go on to list many more examples of needy people in our society.

  125
  Personally, and on behalf of my party, I welcome the provision to allow intervention stocks to be made available to those who desperately need them. I also welcome the fact that such distribution need not be linked to the cold-weather provision, as it was last winter.
  I ask the Government to note a few points, already made, in part, by Opposition members, based on the experience of the distributing organisations during the winter of 1986–87. It must be made clear to those who administer the system exactly who is to benefit. It was appalling that in some parts of the country people who turned up with their benefit books were turned away because some members of some distributing organisations interpreted entitlement differently from others. Many people who were already embarrassed at having to make a claim left empty handed, feeling humiliated and degraded.
  We must ensure that the distributing organisations have the capacity to do the work properly. I do not criticise the volunteers who worked extremely hard last winter, but I am sure that some did not appreciate the enormity of the task that they had taken on. It is in the nature of people who work for charities, many of whom are volunteers, that they often do what is asked of them. They were asked to distribute the food. They volunteered, not realising in many instances what was really asked of them. We should not take for granted those who work for charitable organisations. What the scheme involves should be made clear to them at the outset.
  The Government have shown, through the Minister's remarks, what can only be described as less than enthusiasm for the proposed scheme. I urge the Minister to reconsider, because a great deal can be achieved, provided that the scheme is worked out properly, that we know who is to benefit from it, and that the distributing organisations—I agree that a combination of charities and local authorities would be an excellent concept—are agreed. The Minister should make a positive contribution at the Council of Ministers. We are talking about a scheme which helps the needy. If it is a proper scheme, I am sure that it will benefit everyone in need.
  11.22 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: This has been an interesting debate. The tone was set by the Minister's opening comments. He did not give us a lot to go on, other than a heavy dose of scepticism. I understand the reasons for that, and it is interesting that his scepticism found ready echoes in the speeches of the hon. Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) and for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). Our scepticism is reflected in our amendment. I am surprised that the Government, in the shape of the Minister, have not been more conciliatory towards it.
  I welcome the comments of the hon. Members for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) and for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), both of whom supported the views of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). I welcome particularly the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer)." I assure him that it is in a sense of comradeship that I say his speech was moderate, well thought out and constructive. I look forward to continued contributions by him in that light. [Interruption.] I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has taken those comments to heart.
  126
  The Government's proposition represents a fairly important landmark in the development of the European Community. Last year, the arrangement for the distribution of what we call free food was a one-off, justified as a response to help those in need during a period of cold and inclement weather. This year it has been made clear that the scheme is to be permanent. That is a major transition. Last year, through the Government and through charities, the EEC was using its surpluses for a social purpose. This year it is to be written into EEC regulations that common agricultural policy surpluses will be an instrument of social policy rather than a mere by product of a financial mechanism for the control and development of agriculture. That is a significant development.
  The irony is that the concession has been drawn from the Government — they are perhaps not kicking and screaming, but we have argued for it on a number of occasions—at a time when the era of surpluses is almost at an end. As a result of catastrophic climatic conditions which even I would not attribute entirely to the Government, wheat will be in short supply for the first time, the dairy industry expects to pay no superlevy for the first time in several years, creamery sales are 39 per cent. down on last year and there are unlikely to be any additional surpluses of butter or cheese. Moreover, beef production is suffering as a result of quota systems and by 1989 we shall be importing beef. It is ironic that now that surpluses are coming to an end the Commission is moving towards using them for this social purpose.
  I think that the Minister was teasing the House, as is his nature, when he seemed to imply that the Government might not proceed with a food distribution policy if the Commission decided to authorise such a scheme. In view of the Government's take-note motion and the political realities that they will face, I believe that they will proceed with the policy because the pressure will force them to do so
  We recognise the benefits of the scheme, as we did last year, and we unstintingly praise the efforts of the voluntary sector. In the debate last year, the Minister took issue with some Opposition Members, but I assure him that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields and I do not believe that last year's scheme should be subject to heavy criticism, despite the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South.
  Our view is clearly shared by the Minister. In April this year, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), the Minister said
  "The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should learn lessons from the scheme. I hope that he would not say that it was a complete loss."—[Official Report, 23 April 1987; Vol 114, c. 783.]
  That was an honest comment from the Minister. Indeed, he could do little other than take that view, given the publicity that the scheme had received. For example, on 8 February The Sunday Times carried the lurid headline:
  "Great meat handout is pie in the sky".
  A few weeks later The Guardian reported:
  "DHSS blamed as free food fails to reach needy".
  That was followed by The Independent on 6 March saying perhaps most disturbingly of all:
  "Scramble for free butter turns violent".
  Those were the descriptions in the press of last year's scheme, and those were some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South.
  Mr. Spearing: If there is to be a scheme of definitions — which, on the face of it, is equitable — will not amounts and quantities also follow? Therefore, the whole logistics, especially when taken in conjunction with a permanent scheme, would take on a different tone. Permanent problems would result from a permanent scheme. Is not that one of the dilemmas?
  Mr. Davies: I agree absolutely—and I know that the Minister also agrees. The essence of the debate is that the scheme is to be permanent. It cannot be operated with the assistance of charities, as happened last year, with the Minister saying "So what?" if a few million deliveries of butter go astray or if the charities have to meet a few pounds of extra costs. We are now being asked to institutionalise a system for the dispersal of European surpluses. That new institution requires that we are especially vigilant in our examination of the proposals and that we put these valid points to the Minister.
  I wish to put to the Minister a number of specific points on which I hope that he can reassure the House when he replies. Last year, there were criticisms of the quality of food distributed. Certainly in south Wales—and it will not be lost on the Minister that my constituency is Caerphilly—there were a number of complaints about the quality of cheese. It had clearly passed its shelf life and was unfit for human consumption. I understand that that cheese was not out of intervention, but was bought on the market. That is worrying, and I ask the Minister to tell us what steps he will take this year to ensure the quality of food distributed.
  I understand that about 50,000 tonnes of beef are in store in this country. I note that the Minister acknowledges that. He will recall that earlier this year the Government agreed to the Commission's proposal to outlaw the production and sale of beef produced using growth hormones. Therefore, that 50,000 tonnes of beef cannot be sold on the open market. It would be quite inappropriate if beef that is not fit for human consumption, not fit to be produced and not fit to be sold on the open market, is now to be given to charities. Do we now have food that is fit for the poor but not fit for the open market? That is an important question, and I hope that the Minister will tell us the Government's attitude.
  Much has been said about the costs that the charities had to bear last year. We will not criticise the Minister if he says that, this year, the charities will play some part. I understand the strong feelings expressed by some of my hon. Friends who said that local authorities would have to be involved. The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South were constructive. He said that local authorities would best be able to identify those in need——
  Mr. David Harris: Why?
  Mr. Davies: We would have welcomed the hon. Gentleman's contribution to our debate, but he chose not to make it. However, he has asked a question and I will answer it. Despite the ravages of the Government, local authorities still understand the needs of their local communities. They are still able, through their welfare and social services departments and their contacts with the voluntary agencies, to identify those most in need. However, to some extent I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South because I have my doubts about the extent to which they should be involved
  128
  in the distribution of food. That is a role well fulfilled by the charities, even though the local authorities have a valid role to play.
  Mr. Harris rose——
  Mr. Davies: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman asked a question and I answered it. He could have made his speech during the debate. On another occasion I will give way to him, but not tonight. I also know that the Minister is anxious to reply to the debate.
  I hope that the Minister will give some assurance on the extent to which charities have been involved in the consultations. There were difficulties last year. We will support the Minister if he uses the charities again this year, but as a prerequisite we expect them to be involved in the consultations.
  I take issue with the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire. He talked about the subsidy that was given to charities last year. His comment was unfair to the Minister. The Government did not give subsidies to charities. They helped to meet the costs that were quite properly incurred in the distribution of free food to the needy. I understand that they will do so this year. Frankly, to talk about subsidies is not only a gross misrepresentation of the fact, but is a quite deliberate and offensive insult to the recipients of the food and to the thousands of people who were involved in the distribution of it.
  I now refer to the way in which the food will be distributed. I understand that it is likely that the food surpluses in this country will involve only beef and butter. They are the commodities that we have in store. Despite some of the claims, particularly those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), we shall not participate in the share-out of the wine lake. This year, the share-out will be restricted to beef and butter. I know that the Minister will assure me that he will examine the matter. Will he assure the House that we will ensure that we get our fair share of the commodities from the European Community? What steps will he take to ensure, as far as possible, an acceptable spread of such commodities throughout the different parts of the country? I am well aware that some counties that were first off the mark last time were those in the south of England—I make no criticism or party political point—and were geared up because of their network of social support. Frankly, they have a network involving the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and the Red Cross. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may mock cynically. It is a fair point. Many deprived communities in the country, where free food needs to be distributed most urgently, do not possess that social network. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that, as far as possible, that distribution applies equally?
  Will the Minister state his attitude to individual requirements and the criteria that voluntary organisations and charities will adopt in the distribution of products? For example, it will be quite wrong if the WRVS, in establishing its criteria, determines that one individual is entitled to receive free beef, and the Red Cross or the Royal British Legion, in adopting their criteria, say that that individual is not entitled to it. I do not ask the Minister to lay down guidelines or to dictate. I ask him to state whether he will advise charities that certain broad criteria should be met. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire's comments are fatuous. He

  129
  made a speech. Frankly, he did not have the guts to attack his Minister. On this occasion, he did not have the wisdom to support his Minister. In future, if he has comments to make, perhaps he will make them openly and honestly in debate, rather than snipe from a sedentary position. His remarks certainly carry no weight with me. He will find that the Minister is equally dismissive of his comments.
  Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I have no intention of giving way when I have responded to an intervention which the hon. Gentleman made from a sedentary position. He had an opportunity to make a speech. He has been sniping at my comments. I suspect that he has been elsewhere this evening and has not followed the debate as carefully as he should have. He left the Chamber for a large part of the debate. On those grounds, I shall not give way. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have future opportunities to make his case.
  I ask the Minister to give an assurance that the guidelines that I seek will be available to the charities involved.
  We have tabled an amendment setting out our position. Given the response of hon. Members to the Minister's opening statement, we are entitled to give the proposals a cautious welcome. The Minister is surrounded by sceptics on his own side. Our view is best expressed by saying that we wish to see the system changed so that surpluses are not produced, but, if there are surpluses, this is the best way of dealing with them. We hope that the new scheme will be an improvement on last year's scheme, and in that expectation, we shall not divide the House.
  11.39 pm
  Mr. Gummer: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank hon. Members for this evening's helpful debate. Again, I apologise to the Scrutiny Committee for the fact that the debate had to take place in these circumstances, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) will agree that it has been worth having it in advance, rather than in retrospect.
  I agree with the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that there is no such thing as a free lunch, or free food, in the European Community. His comments lead me to remind him that, because, in his terms, we have paid four times over, we should be hesitant about paying for it yet again. One of the difficulties is that if it were shown that the handing out of so-called free food meant that people did not buy food that they would otherwise have bought, and that that food then went into intervention, the British taxpayer would have paid for it yet again. That does not seem to help anybody. We must face this problem, and say that with great care because if we could find a way that avoided it we should take it. That is why I am being sceptical, but not dismissive. I am always hoping that some answer to this central problem can be found, but so far I have not found it.
  I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman's general condemnation of the Government. However, when he talks about disadvantage, I remind him that, on average, pensioners' incomes since 1979 have grown twice as fast as those of the population as a whole. I could give a whole series of arguments to answer the points that the hon. Gentleman has put forward, but I must say that one part of his speech was party political rather than helpful.
  130
  The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to describe the efforts of the charities as commendable. We are at one on that. However, I hope that he will agree that the efforts of the many civil servants who were involved in making the scheme work as well as it could in the circumstances were also commendable. His hon. Friends have pointed out that there was a feeling of a lack of consultation. However, consultation with the charities took place the day after we were first consulted. We were bounced into the scheme and brought the charities together at 4 o'clock the following afternoon, which was as fast as we could. I apologise, but I do not see how we could have done that any quicker. I hope that our bona fides are supported by the fact that I brought the charities together immediately we knew that there was any possibility of a new scheme. They kindly came in and we discussed the matter.
  Opposition Members have asked about the response of the charities. Again, I do not want to avoid the Government's responsibility for making up their mind on these matters. There should be no suggestion that I asked the charities for their opinion, acted on it and then blamed them for it. This is a genuine answer because, as far as I can see, the charities would be extremely reluctant to continue a scheme of the type proposed by the Commission. They feel that it lacks a whole range of extremely important and necessary features. Above all, they feel that it diverts their activities from the things that they should be doing. I do not wish to tie them to that, but at the moment that is their view.
  Dr. David Clark: I am grateful for the Minister's response, but will he inform the House whether the charities would feel the same if their distribution and administration costs were met? As I understand it, that was one of the prime reasons why some of the charities felt that they could not go ahead with the scheme.
  Mr. Gummer: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that I try hard to understand what the charities feel about this. I do not think that that is the central issue. Without putting words into their mouths, I think they feel that they are set up for particular purposes. They seek to carry out those activities as well as they can and feel that a permanent scheme of this type would distort the activities in which they are engaged. They may well be prepared to take advantage of the availability of food in certain circumstances, and they would take that into account if they took on extra work or sought to work differently. I understand their feeling that they have a particular role and that, whereas it was possible to respond to the invitation in a one-off emergency, to be institutionalised into a permanent system poses a whole range of new difficulties.
  The question then is whether this would be a role for local authorities. Whatever Opposition Members may feel generally towards Conservative Members, they will find it difficult to suggest that I have ever taken an antagonistic view towards local authorities. I am lucky in having two extremely good ones in my area. If they wished to participate I am sure that they would be most helpful in a distribution scheme of this type, but I ask myself whether it would be helpful for them to do so and whether it would not divert them from the job that they do.
  I note that the hon. Member for Caerphilly said that he was opposed to local authorities distributing food, and wanted their advice. I can see that argument. The House

  131
  must bear in mind that the scheme might divert people doing useful work into doing something less useful. We must consider that. I am sorry that this sounds so critical, but we have experience of people undertaking the work with the best will in the world who still feel that this is not what they should be doing. I think that many local authorities would feel the same.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said that when the charities undertook the work there was a difference in application from one area to another. If some local authorities feel that it is suitable and some do not, if some distribute and some do not, and if some merely give advice and some distribute and give advice, we shall have exactly the same problems unless we force them to do something, but that would mean forcing them to take part in a scheme about which we feel unhappy. Surely there can be no question of giving a special advantage to those who choose to do this in order to avoid any penalties under the rules and not to those who choose to do what local authorities would normally consider more important. That distortion would be extremely difficult to promote.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend is advancing a most constructive argument. Does he accept that local authorities, dealing with both services and housing, so being able to respond to the social service needs of many people, could supply to voluntary organisations the names of those— they are many—who could benefit from the free supply of surplus foods from the EC under this sort of scheme? Does he agree that they could co-operate more positively and constructively with the voluntary organisations, which did a superb job under the scheme that was operated a year ago?
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right, but many local authorities did precisely that on that occasion. I am merely suggesting that voluntary bodies may feel that this would be a diversion from their normal activities.
  The hon. Member for South Shields talked about involving food retailers. One of the problems that we face is that if there is a permanent scheme and an extensive amount of substitution, the small shopkeepers will be affected and they, after all, are used by the older members of the population. They play an important role in all our constituencies—town and country. There is no doubt that on the last occasion a large proportion of the products that were handed out resulted in people not buying what they would otherwise have bought. It is difficult enough to explain that to the small shopkeeper with narrow profit margins, but then to ask him to join in as a means of distributing the food would require a good deal of public relations over a long period. I wonder whether that would be the right direction in which to go.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) that I, like him, am concerned about the misuse of these products. The difficulty is that if there is a permanent scheme, there is more time in which people can work out ways of misusing it. One of the reasons why there was so little fraud relatively — speaking— during the emergency scheme was that there was so little time in which to organise ways of getting round it. I am much more worried about a permanent scheme in which the wide boys will find all sorts of ways in which to operate. That would make the situation even
  132
  worse. It would be almost one of 100 per cent. substitution, and then we would, indeed, be paying five times over instead of the four times that the hon. Member for South Shields mentioned. That, too, worries me.
  As for the issue of greed, I do not believe that the scheme creates greed. In some cases it merely brings it out. I am not sure that that would be a key issue in my mind if I were deciding about the scheme, although I might have a theological discussion with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire about that at some time.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) said that the scheme would ease embarrassment. I can see the hon. Gentleman's position. If I felt, in all honesty, that a scheme could be devised whereby, in addition to food already sent, food that would otherwise remain in intervention could be distributed, I agree that that would ease embarrassment and do positive good. The problem is that the present scheme does not do that. Unless we can find a way of doing it, it will make the embarrassment worse.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South is right. He said that if we were not careful there would be more in store when we had finished than at the beginning. He also said that that had happened last time. If so, the reason was partly that more was coming in than was going out, and partly that a large amount of the beef was substituted for beef that would otherwise have been sold. That is difficult to defend and makes for greater, rather than less, embarrassment.
  The hon. Gentleman also said that there was a lack of consultation, and there was. I consider that it was not the Government's fault, and I believe that the charities would agree with that. I tried to avoid a lack of consultation by bringing in the charities even before we had had any official notice. I think that the hon. Member for South Shields would agree with that. The minute that there were rumours we discussed with the charities the basis for such a scheme.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made some important points. The scheme was an expensive one for many of the charities, but I remind the House that some charities managed to do their job at a lower cost than others. One of the problems is assessing the real cost. I do not pretend that there is an easy way of doing that. It is another of the many difficult areas. My hon. Friend was right to say that we must confine the costs, designate the authorities and be concerned with accountability. All that makes the scheme even more difficult for charities to be involved, because the more carefully one avoids fraud, and the more one tries to make the scheme operate successfully, the more problems one will lay on the shoulders of the charities. Once there is a permanent scheme, the Public Accounts Committee will seek to ensure that it is properly operated. That will mean the charities doing things for which they are ill-equipped. As the Opposition has suggested that this is not a suitable area in which the local authorities should become wholly involved, it is a difficult problem to overcome.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South was a little unfair. First, he said that the House was in some way remiss in passing the Single European Act. The Single European Act made no difference at all, because this would still have been a majority decision whether or not we had had the Act. Perhaps during his absence from the House he misremembered that. I am entirely in favour of the Single European Act. One of the great views of his

  133
  party ought to be the growing together of countries so that they are able to make joint decisions. I find it difficult to understand why he believes so much in democracy in this country, but does not believe in it when it comes to nations working together. His views are extremely old-fashioned and very much out of line with those of most of his Socialist colleagues. The Single European Act does not affect the case. The decision would in any case have been made by majority vote.
  It is odd for the hon. Member for Bradford, South to suggest that we should have distributed flour. We would have had to import the bread-making wheat from the rest of the Community, turn it into flour, and distribute it through charities that did not want to distribute it. That is a good reason for not doing it. It is not a question of meanness on the part of the Government, but one of trying to make the thing at least a little more sensible than when the Commission gave it to us.
  We would have had to import sugar from Italy to give it away in Britain. I cannot think of a more barmy concept than that. If anything is substitution, it would be to follow the line suggested by the hon. Member for Bradford, South and import sugar from Italy in order to substitute it for sugar sent here by the Third world.
  Mr. Cryer: Little Englander.
  Mr. Gummer: I am prepared to be narrow on behalf of the poor, arid prepared to be tough when it comes to defending the interests of some of the poorest nations on earth. I will take no seated attacks from the hon. Member for Bradford, South on that issue, because I have a record on that issue that bears examination. Perhaps he would like to refer to it. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has been found wanting and might, therefore, be found more silent.
  The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) rightly raised the question of the cold snap and the difficulty with the weather. The problem that he has to face on this issue is that it is not an emergency scheme connected with specific difficulties. It is a permanent scheme and, because of the usual distribution of food, the problem arises of increasing the amount going into intervention because of the substitution. There is also the problem of deciding whether this is a proper use of resources. I cannot easily be convinced that money spent in this way is money best spent. We must ask if this is the way to help the poor, or whether we ought to look for other ways of spending the money, if we have the money to spend. Given its budgetary problems, the Community ought to ask itself whether it has much money to spend.
  The hon. Member for Caerphilly said it was an instrument of social policy. I doubt whether it is a very useful instrument of social policy, and I do not know of any area where is has been successful. He said the era of surpluses is at an end. If they are, it is because of policies that the Government have carried through in Europe. I do not think that the surpluses are at an end. There is still a long way to go. I might tease the hon. Member for Caerphilly, but I never tease the House. I am worried about this issue. We should learn lessons from this scheme. So far the lesson that I have learnt is that it must be very different from the last scheme before it can be of any use at all. The hon. Gentleman will remember that no Caerphilly cheese is made in Caerphilly, unless some has suddenly been made.
  Mr. Ron Davies: Some is made there.
  Mr. Gummer: I am glad that some is now made there, but the cheese that was distributed under the scheme was bought off the market, and I find it difficult to believe that it was different from any other cheese sold on the market.
  I must protest about the hon. Gentleman's comments on hormones. He has been eating beef with hormones in it all his life, because any self-respecting animal is filled with hormones. That is what makes the poor old thing wander about, and if it does not have hormones it does not wander. The hon. Gentleman wanders more effectively because of the hormones that are coursing round his body. The minuscule additional number of hormones that one gets from hormone beef make no difference at all. It is only the lunacy of the Common Market that suggests that we should get rid of hormone beef.
  It being One and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted Business), to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings.
  Amendment negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9138/87 on general rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks for distribution to the most deprived persons in the Community.

  Food Aid
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community documents.)
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
      LEGAL EXPENSES INSURANCE
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5156/82 on legal expenses insurance and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 23rd June 1987; and endorses the Government's intention to proceed in due course with legislation to implement the Directive in consultation with interested parties.

      CREDIT INSURANCE
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7194/82 on credit insurance and the Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 16th September 1986 and 11th May 1987; and endorses the Government's intention to proceed in due course with legislation to implement the Directive in consultation with interested parties. — [Mr.Maclean.]
      Question agreed to.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

      CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
      That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (No. 2) (Amendment No. 10) Order 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1804), dated 14th October 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st October, be approved.—[Mr. Maclean.]
      Question agreed to.

    AGRICULTURE
    Question proposed,
    That Mr. Tim Boswell, Mr. John Carlisle, Mr. David Curry, Mr. Martyn Jones, Mr. Calum A. Macdonald, Mr. Seamus Mallon, Mr. Paul Marland, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. Jerry Wiggin and Mrs. Ann Winterton be members of the Agriculture Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox,on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
    Hon. Members: "Object."

    DEFENCE
    Question proposed,
    That Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Dick Douglas, Mr. John Evans, Mr. Bruce George, Sir Barney Hayhoe, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Michael Mates, Mr. Jonathan Sayeed, Mr. Neil Thorne and Mr. John Wilkinson be members of the Defence Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox,on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
    Hon. Members: "Object".

    EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND ARTS
    Question proposed,
    That Mr. David Evennett, Mr. Martin Flannery, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Win Griffiths, Mrs. Maureen Hicks, Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson, Mr. Timothy Raison, Mr. Gerry Steinberg, Mr. Jack Thompson, Mr. Malcolm Thornton and Sir Gerard Vaughan be members of the Education, Science and Arts Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
    Hon. Members: "Object."

    EMPLOYMENT
    Question proposed,
    That Mr. Simon Coombs, Mr. Ken Eastham, Sir Philip Goodhart, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Ron Leighton, Mr. lain Mills, Mr. James Paice, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Lewis Stevens and Mr. David Young be members of the Employment Committee.—[Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
    Hon. Members: "Object."
    Mr. Speaker: I get the impression that, to save the time of the House, I can now put together the Questions on motions 10 to 18 inclusive.

    ENERGY
    Questions proposed,
    That Mr. Michael Brown, Dr. Michael Clark, Mr. Geoffrey Dickens, Mr. Eric Illsley, Mr. Ted Leadbitter, Sir Ian Lloyd, Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse, Mr. Rhodri Morgan, Mr. Peter Rost, Mr. Alex Salmond and Mr. Tony Speller be members of the Energy Committee.

    ENVIRONMENT
    That Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Paul Boateng, Mr. John Cummings, Mr. Richard Holt, Mr. Andrew Hunter, Mr. Robert B. Jones, Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. Tom Pendry, Mr. Peter Pike, Sir Hugh Rossi and Mr. Robin Squire be members of the Environment Committee.
    FOREIGN AFFAIRS
    That Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Michael Jopling, Mr. David Howell, Mr. Ivan Lawrence, Mr. Jim Lester, Mr. Ted Rowlands, Mr. Peter Shore, Mr. Ian Taylor, Mr. Peter Temple-Morris, Mr. Bowen Wells and Mr. Michael Welsh be members of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
    HOME AFFAIRS
    That Mr. David Ashby, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. David Clelland, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. John Greenway, Mr. Ivor Stanbrook, Mr. Keith Vaz, Mr. John Wheeler and Mr. Tony Worthington be members of the Home Affairs Committee.
    SOCIAL SERVICES
    That Mr. Jerry Hayes, Dr. Lewis Moonie, Marjorie Mowlam, Mr. Terry Patchett, Sir David Price, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. Roger Sims, the Reverend Martin Smyth. Audrey Wise, Mr. Nicholas Winterton and Mr. Tim Yeo be members of the Social Services Committee
    TRADE AND INDUSTRY
    That Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. James Cran, Mr. Stan Crowther, Dr. John Gilbert, Sir Anthony Grant, Dr. Keith Hampson, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop, Mr. Barry Porter and Mr. Kenneth Warren be members of the Trade and Industry Committee.
    TRANSPORT
    That Mr. David Gilroy Bevan, Mr. Sydney Bidwell, Mr. Jim Callaghan, Mr. Derek Conway, Mr.Terry Dicks, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Peter Fry, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. David Mudd and Mr. Neville Trotter be members of the Transport Committee.
    TREASURY AND CIVIL SERVICE
    That Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Nicholas Budgen, Mr. Neil Hamilton, Mr. Terence L. Higgins, Ms. Joyce Quin, Mr. Giles Radice, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mr. John Townend, Mr. John Watts and Mr. David Winnick be members of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee.

    WELSH AFFAIRS
    That Mr. Nicholas Bennett, Sir Raymond Gower, Mr. Gwilym Jones, Mr. Richard Livsey, Sir Anthony Meyer, Mr. Paul Murphy, Mr. Keith Raffan, Sir John Stradling Thomas, Mr. Dafydd Elis Thomas, Mr. Gareth Wardell and Mr. Alan W. Williams be members of the Welsh Affairs Committee. — [Sir Marcus Fox, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
    Hon. Members: "Object."

  PETITION

    Rating Reform
    12 midnight
    Mr. Adam Ingram: I wish to present a petition objecting to the poll tax from 3,790 of my constituents. They call for the repeal of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 because they consider that it introduces a system of local taxation that takes no account of the ability of the citizens to afford such a tax. They also consider that it will cause further hardship to those who are already poor.
    My constituents further consider that it will redistribute resources away from under-provided areas to areas that are already prosperous. They object to the introduction of a personal computer identification number as an attack on their civil liberties. My constituents call for the repeal of this iniquitous Act, and I give them my full support.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Smoke Detectors
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]
  12.2 am
  Mr. Ian McCartney: It gives me great pleasure to introduce this Adjournment debate on an issue relating to fire safety and the promotion of fire safety measures, in this instance, smoke detectors.
  I should declare an interest as an honorary adviser to the Greater Manchester civil defence authority. I took up that post on my election to Parliament as I had been a former member of that authority. As a member of that authority one has the harrowing experience, at meeting after meeting, of reading fire reports showing loss of life, horrendous personal injuries and loss of property. Those reports become the all too familiar press headline, "Family wiped out", "Mother trapped with baby", "Father dies trying to rescue children", "The heroism of the fire fighters".
  Behind the press headlines are the chilling facts. Each year there are 700 deaths and 7,000 injuries. More than 50 per cent. of fatalities involve the very old or the very young. Do we accept such deaths as inevitable in an age when human kind can harness the power of gas, electricity, coal and paraffin for better living, when the misnamed "pleasure" of smoking and the misuse of matches is so widespread and carelessness can arise with all fuels because of alcohol abuse? I think not.
  It is not for me as a Scot, albeit from the safety of the south Lancashire coalfields, to argue that an Englishman's home should not be his castle, but I shall argue for some way in which we can ensure that the castle remains a safe haven rather than a seething cauldron of flame and toxic fumes that all too often ends in tragedy.
  Smoke detectors are not a panacea that will dramatically alter the rate of fatalities and imjuries overnight or cut the millions of pounds lost to the economy each year because of fires. They must be seen in context of the flammability of domestic furnishings. I pay credit to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) who, on 1 July this year, introduced a debate on the flammability of domestic furnishings. It is suggested that 3,000 lives will be lost over the next 10 years because of the flammability of domestic furnishings, and that, from other sources, a further 4,000 lives will be lost. It is in fighting fires involving polyurethane that the role of fire fighters has been changed radically and dramatically. Because of the flash-over point of between two and four minutes and the fact that the estimated arrival time of the fire brigade is between five and eight minutes, all too often the fire brigade goes not to save life but simply to cool down the area, use breathing apparatus and bring out the families.
  Mr. Conal Gregory: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, as well as for his acknowledgment of the Adjournment debate that I introduced some time ago. Does he acknowledge the work that the Department of Trade and Industry has done, particularly my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs? He has gone a stage further by introducing arrangements for a match test for such material as the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
  Mr. McCartney: Later in the debate I shall give some details of my views on the Government's position on that and in general on their attitude towards smoke detectors. I welcome the movement of the Government, but I shall await the final consultation to see whether that movement has been sufficient for those on both sides of the House who want a radical change.
  Even if there is a radical change, we must accept that for the next 15 or 20 years a huge proportion of family homes will have within them combustible materials, which, at a flash-over point of two to four minutes, will still raise the horrendous possibility of a large-scale loss of life annually. Therefore the issues of foam-filled materials and smoke detectors are inextricably linked.
  Over the past 10 years the fire services have been well aware of the need to change attitudes to the introduction of new technology—foam technology, ladder technology and telecommunications technology. On that score the fire service has been well served by ACO Bob Graham of Greater Manchester fire authority, the author of "Fire Safety in the Home" and CFO Karron of West Yorkshire, who did a great deal of work on promoting fire detectors in the community.
  To be fair to the Government, the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry have responded to the pressure. Indeed, on 29 April this year Lord Caithness made a statement on behalf of the Government about fire detectors. He said:
  "Smoke detectors can give those precious few minutes warning which could make the difference between life arid death.
  They can make a valuable contribution to fire safety, but, sadly, too few households know about their benefits arid their relatively low cost. We are lagging behind other countries in their installation and are paying the price, in a horrifying toll of death and injury."
  "Lagging behind other countries" is a significant but sad admission. I shall therefore refer to the experiences of Sweden and the United States on smoke detectors.
  In 1981 the Swedish Fire Protection Association informed the Government of the day that only 79,000 homes in Sweden had smoke detectors. The association and the Government set themselves a target for 1986 of 60 per cent. of all homes being fitted with smoke detectors—2·3 million homes. They said that it would reduce property damage by 10 per cent. and the death rate by tires by 20 per cent. They also did a cost-benefit calculation, which showed that over 10 years' installation costs would amount to £2·3 million per annum while damage costs would be reduced to £5 million per annum, a net gain of £27 million to the Swedish economy.
  The Swedish Government introduced the first stage of the five-year plan in 1982 with a series of television commercials. By Christmas, more than 400,000 devices had been sold. In 1983, almost 50 per cent. of one-family homes in Sweden had smoke detectors, and insurance companies started a programme of distributing smoke detectors free to policy holders. In 1984, about 700,000 smoke detectors were sold. One hundred lives had been saved directly because of the introduction of the device, and 45 per cent. of the population was covered by smoke detectors. In 64 per cent. of one family-households, smoke detectors had been introduced, while 83 per cent. had no problems with the alarms. Within 24 months, the Swedish Government were well on their way to reaching their 1986 target.

  139
  The problem in the United States, with its different federal and state legislatures, is more complex and we do not have time to discuss it now. But I recommend the House and the Minister to read "Fire Safety in the Home" by Bob Graham, especially pages 25 to 31, which set out in detail the experience of the Greater Manchester fire authority's investigations into the American experience of smoke detectors. The new legislation introduced at federal and state level has cut by half the risk of death by fire. Most small fires are now dealt with at source by the householder, and fire safety awareness has increased dramatically. The introduction of such safety measures into households will increase people's awareness, and there is a new consciousness in people's reactions and attitudes to fire safety.
  The installation of free smoke detectors in the homes of low-income families was the most important lesson learnt by the United States authorities. Those who need protection most are those with the least means to obtain it. The Government must tackle that central issue. Those who are most in need must not be left to the last if the Government decide to introduce a national scheme.
  I welcome the views expressed by the Home Office and Department of Trade and Industry officials at the Fire Protection Association meeting on 12 June. They expressed support for several key elements: first, a pilot television advertising scheme; secondly, a home safety check scheme; and, thirdly, free provision for groups most at risk. I congratulate the Home Office and the Labour-controlled Tameside borough council on the recently announced pilot scheme to introduce smoke detectors to about 5,000 council homes at a cost of £50,000. My fire authority will monitor the success of the scheme, and we should wish everyone concerned in it well, in terms of its introduction and its effect in reducing the number of fires, fatalities and serious injuries.
  The most recent data show that 83 per cent. of home fire deaths could have been influenced by the introduction of smoke detectors. In 48 per cent. of deaths, the time between ignition and the discovery of the fire was estimated at a staggering 30 minutes. There is no doubt that an early warning system would have played a significant part in saving many of those who perished.
  I hope that the Minister will discuss the promotion of such a scheme. I wish to mention seven measures—I call them the magnificent seven. The first relates to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his next Budget. Will the Minister ask the Chancellor to reduce to zero, VAT on the sale of smoke detectors, and to consider the possibility of providing resources for free adaption to families on supplementary benefit or low incomes? Will he ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to consider changes in building regulations for new build and refurbishment? This is not an attempt to introduce more red tape. It costs, on average, £35,000 to £40,000 to build a new house and between £12,000 and £15,000 to refurbish an old one. With that sort of expenditure, it would seem common sense to introduce in the building regulations an awareness that, when that money is spent, included within that expense is a facility to include smoke detectors in redevelopments and refurbishments.
  Thirdly, much money is spent by local government through improvement and repair grants on older
  140
  properties. When improving and repairing properties it would seem sensible if cognisance were given to the introduction of smoke detectors.
  Fourthly, I would like the Minister to look at local authorities' HIP allocations for refurbishment and rewiring programmes. In my constituency, for example, £3 million is currently being spent on house improvement on one of our run-down estates. Again, it would seem sensible if, included in that expenditure, was an allocation for smoke detectors. It is precisely in that sort of estate where major problems arise—where many fires, loss of life and injuries occur. In such large schemes it would seem sensible to include fire safety measures.
  Fifthly, the Government are placing great stress on the role of housing associations. I would like to see housing association funds used to encourage housing associations to include smoke detectors in their refurbishment programmes.
  Sixthly, the most difficult area in which to legislate is multi-occupancy dwellings. We need fire prevention regulations that require owners to install smoke detectors to a standard that one would expect in an ordinary dwelling house, but with an additional row frame sprinkler system to be fitted as part of a fire containment programme. In the United States there has been a dramatic decrease in fires in multi-occupancy properties because of fire containment programmes, at little cost but saving many lives and a great deal of property.
  The seventh issue is security and insurance. The Government should exert pressure on companies to give discounted premiums to householders who fit smoke detectors. The Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities the Child Accident Prevention Trust, the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers' Association and the Fire Brigades Union would generally support my views.
  In conclusion, I ask the Government to reconvene the discussions held on 12 June with the Fire Protection Association so that priority can be given to the preparation of a five-year programme with targets similar to the schemes introduced in Sweden and the United States with such dramatic results. To do anything else is to be a handmaiden to the continuing unacceptable levels of carnage that currently exist around the nation's firesides.
  12.18 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) for raising this subject and for the brief contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory).
  I appreciate that the hon. Member for Makerfield has wide experience in this area. I acknowledge that fact and pay tribute to him for the work that he has done. He is right in saying that recent statistics produced by the Home Office show that about 700 people are killed in fires in the home every year and another 7,000 are injured. We believe that many of those deaths and injuries could be avoided if early warning of fire could be given while there was still a chance of escaping from the premises. It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know, if he does not already, that the 700 figure that he quoted has been constant over the past few years, but that the 7,000 injured figure has increased.
  We believe that smoke detectors could help, but the potential benefits are not simple to assess. Fire conditions such as smoke behaviour and detection are especially

  141
  complex and there may be equal or greater benefits to be derived from emphasising normal fire precautions, practice and personal vigilance. The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that fire brigades throughout the country have played a significant part in increasing public awareness.
  It cannot be assumed that one smoke detector in every home would give adequate warning of all house fires. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman knows of the joint research project that the Home Office is planning with the Tameside metropolitan borough council and the Greater Manchester county fire service, under which it is hoped to install smoke detectors in more than 5,000 homes in the Tameside area.
  The neighbourhoods and dwellings selected for installations will be on a random basis to reflect as wide a cross-section of the community as possible. I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said about those who are on low incomes, and many of these people will be covered by the pilot scheme to which I have referred. The results of the scheme will be carefully monitored over a three-year period to ascertain the effectiveness of smoke detectors in alerting occupants to the outbreak of fire and reducing casualties. The proposed initiative will not offer the relevant households any guarantee of safety from fire in the home, although it will undoubtedly provide significant early warning potential if a fire occurs. Some valuable lessons are expected to be learnt from the experience of those who may be involved in the scheme. The Home Office is actively considering the possibility of a similar project elsewhere.
  The hon. Gentleman has referred to building regulations, and he will be aware that currently they do not require the installation of smoke detectors. However, my Department is conducting a technical survey that will include a review of all the regulations. The consultation document that we issued recognised that there was scope for allowing a trade-off between active measures for fire protection, such as sprinklers and smoke detectors, and current passive measures such as structural fire resistance and compartmentation.Trade-offs will allow the degree of compartmentation or perhaps other matters now required by the regulations to be relaxed if active measures are used.
  Mr. McCartney: Is this trade-off to be something similar to that which has been introduced in the United States, where the authorities, in active co-operation with the construction industry, are offering alternative building regulations? In some instances, compartments are most advisable in new constructions and in others smoke detectors and other measures are to be recommended. Will the trade-off be similar to that?
  Mr. Trippier: My answer must be in two parts. First, the review to which I have referred is still at an early stage. We are seeking advice and opinions from everyone who is involved. We shall take full cognisance of what the hon. Gentleman has said; I am sure that that will impress him. Secondly, we must be careful to try to strike the right balance between deregulation and increased regulation. We have often believed that increased regulation, especially in the building industry, can act as a disincentive to enterprise. We must balance that consideration with the safety factor, which the hon. Gentleman has rightly dealt with at considerable length. It is our purpose to achieve the right balance, and we shall study all these matters and make comparisons with the United States.
  142
  For the moment, the possibility of trade-offs is being considered for buildings such as offices and shops which are covered by legislation for continuing control when the buildings are occupied. In domestic buildings, continuing control is a problem. Domestic smoke detectors can be simpler and cheaper than commercial types. They are mostly self-contained devices and they are often powered by batteries. There is concern about the lack of maintenance of such systems and the possibility of misuse.
  Domestic smoke detectors are meant to be fix-and forget types that do not need much maintenance. The manufacturers thought that it should suffice to test the detectors by pressing the test button at monthly intervals. However, that was not enough. According to research in the United States, one third of installed domestic detectors in Dallas, Texas are not in working order, mainly because they have not been maintained properly. Detectors may suffer from an accumulation of dust and so on, so regular inspection and occasional cleaning are necessary. That concerns me, just as it will concern the hon. Gentleman.
  Nevertheless, the desirability and cost-effectiveness of using smoke detectors for domestic buildings needs to be seriously examined. Any reservations about continuing control and misuse have to be balanced against the undoubted advantage of early fire detection assisting with life safety. To that end, my Department is currently undertaking a study of the potential of automatic smoke detection as a means of improving life safety in residential buildings.
  We are considering the research that has already taken place in the United Kingdom and overseas and propose to move to an experimental programme which will examine the performance of various types of smoke detection tinder different fire conditions. However, building regulations apply only to new dwellings or dwellings subject to significant structural alteration. We have never imposed requirements retrospectively on buildings in single family occupation — whether owner-occupied or rented. Fire safety is no exception to that rule.
  Mr. McCartney: I understand the Minister's point about the difficulties involved. However, when it comes to refurbishment, authorities have an obligation to agree a schedule of works and at that point, there may be a way round the problem. In providing grant it could be specified that the schedule of works must include a requirement to include smoke detection measures.
  Mr. Trippier: It would be wrong if I said that we would ignore that point. We can certainly consider it while conducting our pilot scheme in the greater Manchester area.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to resources for local authorities to fit smoke detectors. The local authorities' housing investment programme allocations are largely distributed in relation to a number of basic indicators of need—for example, to take account of housing stock condition and the need for renovation. These do not specifically include a measure of need for smoke detectors. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how that could be done. However, it is for local authorities to determine their spending priorities within the resources available to them and as the House heard last Tuesday, gross provision for local authorities' expenditure on housing has been increased for 1988–89 and for the third consecutive year to over£3 billion.

  143
  In April this year we published a revised edition of the booklet "Smoke Detectors in the Home", which is available to the public, free of charge, from local fire brigades. I see that the hon. Gentleman has it. I am impressed to discover that about 658,000 copies of the booklet have been given out in the past six months, along with a further 12,000 copies of a shorter leaflet on the subject.
  To increase public awareness of the importance of these devices a pilot television advertising campaign is planned in the Tyne Tees television area to promote better awareness of the value of smoke detectors. The success of that campaign will have to be monitored and if, as is hoped, this demonstration is successful, consideration will be given to extending it nationally. No doubt the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
  My Department has already advised that the costs of providing any necessary means of escape from fire may be acceptable for improvement grant purposes. In the case of houses in multiple occupation, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, special grant is available towards the cost of such works. It is for local authorities to decide whether the provision of smoke detectors and alarms could be included as eligible works in any particular case to bring a property to the relevant standard. However, in the Department's view, it would not be appropriate for such works to attract grant unless they formed part of a wider scheme of improvement. Quite apart from the statutory provisions, it would clearly not be cost effective for grants to be assessed in respect of works costing only a few pounds and works which are unrelated to the basic condition of the property.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Would grants for smoke detectors be made available to homes that were considered particularly vulnerable to fire? There are what are called Spooner houses with timber frames in Heath in my constituency. Within the past three years there has been a fatality—three people were involved—and a fire gutted such a house. In such circumstances it might be appropriate if smoke detectors were installed. Will the improvement grant system relate to such
  144
  buildings? Has anything emerged from the experiments under the Tameside scheme to direct assistance towards homes that are expected to be especially vulnerable?
  Mr. Trippier: Nothing in the Tameside scheme deals with home improvement grants. I think that the hon. Member for Makerfield would acknowledge that. In answer to the first question, such grants may be appropriate, but there could not be access to a home improvement grant unless it was for a wider scheme of improvement. We have to devise a system whereby it would be cost effective for grants to be assessed. Obviously, that would be extremely difficult in relation to work that would cost only a small sum.
  Mr. McCartney rose——
  Mr. Trippier: With great respect, I have only a minute left to reply. The hon. Gentleman has asked me several questions and I shall try to deal with all of them. I shall answer by letter those that I miss because I have allowed so many interventions. The hon. Member for Makerfield asked about zero-rating of smoke detectors. Obviously that is a question for my hon. Friend the Paymaster General. I shall pass the hon. Gentleman's points on to him. I shall draw the attention of my hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry and in the Home Office the hon. Gentleman's point about insurance discounts on premiums.
  The main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's comments concerned the use of smoke detectors in homes, whether they are owner occupied or tenanted. The traditional view has been that people in existing dwellings occupied by a single family are generally best able to secure their own safety without the need for legislation. We shall have to consider that point. It is obviously difficult for us to enforce this form of legislation mandatorily. How does one police it? I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I gave him earlier—his points will be taken into account in all our deliberations.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to One o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER
  United Democratic Front
  United Democratic Front
  Mr. Frank Larsen
  Mr. Frank Larsen
  Core Curriculum
  Core Curriculum
  Schools (Opting-out Provisions)
  Schools (Opting-out Provisions)
  Ministers (Accommodation)
  Ministers (Accommodation)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  GCE and CSE (Easington)
  GCE and CSE (Easington)
  St. Andrews University
  St. Andrews University
  School Leavers (Qualifications)
  School Leavers (Qualifications)
  Departmental Press Advertising
  Departmental Press Advertising
  Rock Ferry School, Birkenhead
  Rock Ferry School, Birkenhead
  Schools Outreach Project
  Schools Outreach Project
  Teachers' Pay
  Teachers' Pay
  Teachers' Negotiating Rights
  Teachers' Negotiating Rights
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Universities (Funding)
  Universities (Funding)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Developing Countries (Debt)
  Developing Countries (Debt)
  Overseas Aid
  Overseas Aid
  Bangladesh
  Bangladesh
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  Famine
  Famine
  Voluntary Agencies
  Voluntary Agencies
  Guatemala
  Guatemala
  Nicaragua
  Nicaragua
ENVIRONMENT
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  Housing
  Housing
  Housing Statistics
  Housing Statistics
  Storm Damage
  Storm Damage
  Housing Investment Programme
  Housing Investment Programme
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  Council Rents
  Council Rents
  Local Authority Services
  Local Authority Services
  Basking Sharks
  Basking Sharks
  Audit Commission
  Audit Commission
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Palace of Westminster
  Palace of Westminster
  Defective Housing
  Defective Housing
  Homeless Families
  Homeless Families
  Consultation Papers
  Consultation Papers
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Local Government Employees (Pay)
  Local Government Employees (Pay)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Conveyancing
  Conveyancing
  Mr. Frank Larsen
  Mr. Frank Larsen
  Terrorism (Prosecutions)
  Terrorism (Prosecutions)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Colonel Robert Crowther
  Colonel Robert Crowther
  Mr. Frank Larsen
  Mr. Frank Larsen
  Iran-Iraq War
  Iran-Iraq War
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Post Office (Investment)
  Post Office (Investment)
  British Airways-British Caledonian Merger
  British Airways-British Caledonian Merger
  FIMBRA
  FIMBRA
  Upholstery (Flammable Materials)
  Upholstery (Flammable Materials)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Motorists (Breath Testing)
  Motorists (Breath Testing)
  Football Violence
  Football Violence
  Bail
  Bail
  Prisoners (Nationality)
  Prisoners (Nationality)
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Press Advertising
  Press Advertising
  Colonel Robert Crowther
  Colonel Robert Crowther
  Mr. Frank Larsen
  Mr. Frank Larsen
  Entertainment Certificates
  Entertainment Certificates
ENERGY
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Gas Disconnections
  Gas Disconnections
  Nuclear Inspectors
  Nuclear Inspectors
  Electricity Industry
  Electricity Industry
  Sizewell B Power Station
  Sizewell B Power Station
  Magnox Stations (Decommissioning)
  Magnox Stations (Decommissioning)
  Electricity Disconnections
  Electricity Disconnections
  House Insulation
  House Insulation
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Conservation (Investment Return)
  Conservation (Investment Return)
  Sulphur Emissions
  Sulphur Emissions
  Pressurised Water Reactors
  Pressurised Water Reactors
  Electricity Prices
  Electricity Prices
  British Coal Houses (Wakefield)
  British Coal Houses (Wakefield)
  Fuel Bills
  Fuel Bills
SCOTLAND
  Illegal Abortions
  Illegal Abortions
  Prisoners (Schizophrenia Psychosis)
  Prisoners (Schizophrenia Psychosis)
  School Boards
  School Boards
  Community Centres
  Community Centres
  Pupil Statistics
  Pupil Statistics
  Further and Higher Education
  Further and Higher Education
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Development Areas
  Development Areas
  Stracathro Hospital Junction
  Stracathro Hospital Junction
  School Leavers (Qualifications)
  School Leavers (Qualifications)
  Protected Birds
  Protected Birds
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Parole Board
  Parole Board
  Forestry
  Forestry
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  Stoneyetts Hospital
  Stoneyetts Hospital
  State Security
  State Security
  Restart
  Restart
  Cabotage
  Cabotage
DEFENCE
  United States (Secretary for Defence)
  United States (Secretary for Defence)
  Conventional Forces (Balance)
  Conventional Forces (Balance)
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
  Montebello Agreement
  Montebello Agreement
  NH90 Helicopter
  NH90 Helicopter
  Low-level Flying
  Low-level Flying
  No. 2729 (City of Lincoln) Squadron
  No. 2729 (City of Lincoln) Squadron
  El Salvador (Military Cadets)
  El Salvador (Military Cadets)
  Bullying and Brutality
  Bullying and Brutality
  Type 23 Order
  Type 23 Order
  Departmental Civilian Personnel
  Departmental Civilian Personnel
  Swinnerton Camp
  Swinnerton Camp
  General John Singlaub
  General John Singlaub
  Household Cavalry (Hunting and Polo)
  Household Cavalry (Hunting and Polo)
  Army (Equestrian Skills)
  Army (Equestrian Skills)
  Contracts (Boeing)
  Contracts (Boeing)
EMPLOYMENT
  National Dock Labour Scheme
  National Dock Labour Scheme
  Dockers (Take-home Pay)
  Dockers (Take-home Pay)
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Job Advertisements (Age Requirements)
  Job Advertisements (Age Requirements)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Regional Tourist Boards
  Regional Tourist Boards
  Women's Employment Rights
  Women's Employment Rights
  Benefit Refusals
  Benefit Refusals
  Job Training Scheme
  Job Training Scheme
  Teachers (Unemployment Benefit)
  Teachers (Unemployment Benefit)
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Jobcentres (Greater London)
  Jobcentres (Greater London)
  Settle-Carlisle Railway
  Settle-Carlisle Railway
  Mr. John Craig
  Mr. John Craig
  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Benefits (Glasgow, Pollok)
  Benefits (Glasgow, Pollok)
  Coal Industry (Injuries)
  Coal Industry (Injuries)
  Job Training Scheme
  Job Training Scheme
  Restart
  Restart
  Action for Jobs Campaign
  Action for Jobs Campaign
  Dock Labour Scheme
  Dock Labour Scheme
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Conway Mill Education Project
  Conway Mill Education Project
  Housing
  Housing
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Border Incursions
  Border Incursions
  Kilroot Project
  Kilroot Project
  Fuel Supplies (Disconnections)
  Fuel Supplies (Disconnections)
  "Ulster Year Book"
  "Ulster Year Book"
  Roadworks (Comber)
  Roadworks (Comber)
  Education Statistics
  Education Statistics
  Prisoners (Transfers)
  Prisoners (Transfers)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Farmers (Grants)
  Farmers (Grants)
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Fishing Grounds (Pollution)
  Fishing Grounds (Pollution)
  Lambs (Skipton-Ilkley)
  Lambs (Skipton-Ilkley)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  Inheritance Tax
  Inheritance Tax
  British Petroleum Share Offer
  British Petroleum Share Offer
  Savings Interest
  Savings Interest
  Tax Evasion
  Tax Evasion
  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Sub-Saharan Africa
  EC Budget
  EC Budget
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  Information Services
  Information Services
  Residential Property
  Residential Property
  Diplomats (Local Authority Services)
  Diplomats (Local Authority Services)
  Share Prices
  Share Prices
  Dividend Income
  Dividend Income
  Property Relief
  Property Relief
  Poverty and Unemployment
  Poverty and Unemployment
TRANSPORT
  London Regional Transport
  London Regional Transport
  Bus Services (Deregulation)
  Bus Services (Deregulation)
  National Bus Company
  National Bus Company
  Network SouthEast
  Network SouthEast
  British Rail Engineering Ltd.
  British Rail Engineering Ltd.
  East Coast Main Line
  East Coast Main Line
  Roads (Maintenance Expenditure)
  Roads (Maintenance Expenditure)
  Trees
  Trees
  Roads (Design Costs)
  Roads (Design Costs)
  Motorways (Speed Limits)
  Motorways (Speed Limits)
  Transport Act 1985
  Transport Act 1985
  Air Traffic Control
  Air Traffic Control
  Taxis
  Taxis
  Non-Passenger Train Services (Halifax)
  Non-Passenger Train Services (Halifax)
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Public Transport (Fares)
  Public Transport (Fares)
  Isabella Colliery, Blyth
  Isabella Colliery, Blyth
  Lighthouse Tenderships
  Lighthouse Tenderships
  European Air Fares
  European Air Fares
  British Airways (Merger)
  British Airways (Merger)
  Cars and Motor Cycles (Headlights)
  Cars and Motor Cycles (Headlights)
  Air Safety
  Air Safety
  Manchester International Airport
  Manchester International Airport
  British Rail
  British Rail
  A642 (Oulton-Woodlesford Bypass)
  A642 (Oulton-Woodlesford Bypass)
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  London Underground Ltd.
  London Underground Ltd.
  M25
  M25
  Roads (London)
  Roads (London)
  Road Links (Bristol)
  Road Links (Bristol)
  Pacer Trains (Sunderland-Newcastle)
  Pacer Trains (Sunderland-Newcastle)
  A629/A650 (Airedale Route)
  A629/A650 (Airedale Route)
  Motorway Safety
  Motorway Safety
  North Committee
  North Committee
  Double Decker Buses (Hirings)
  Double Decker Buses (Hirings)
  Intersections (Congestion)
  Intersections (Congestion)
  Roads (Durability)
  Roads (Durability)
  London City Airport
  London City Airport
  Traffic Commissioners
  Traffic Commissioners
  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Public Service Vehicle Drivers
  Public Service Vehicle Drivers
  Uncontrolled Air-space
  Uncontrolled Air-space
  East Leeds (Traffic)
  East Leeds (Traffic)
  Eurocity Express
  Eurocity Express
  Settle to Carlisle Line
  Settle to Carlisle Line
  Seafarers (Criminal Convictions)
  Seafarers (Criminal Convictions)
  Dock Labour Scheme
  Dock Labour Scheme
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Mr. M. C. Ward
  Mr. M. C. Ward
  Means-tested Benefits
  Means-tested Benefits
  Banstead Mental Hospital
  Banstead Mental Hospital
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Children (Hearing Impairment)
  Children (Hearing Impairment)
  Oswestry District General Hospital
  Oswestry District General Hospital
  Storm Damage
  Storm Damage
  Hospital Staff (Attacks)
  Hospital Staff (Attacks)
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Medical Service Cases
  Medical Service Cases
  Private Nursing Homes
  Private Nursing Homes
  Maternity Benefits
  Maternity Benefits
  Local Offices (Staffing)
  Local Offices (Staffing)
  Social Security Reform
  Social Security Reform
  South East Thames RHA
  South East Thames RHA
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Telephone Exchange for the Deaf
  Telephone Exchange for the Deaf
  NHS Property (Insurance)
  NHS Property (Insurance)
  Citizenship Registration
  Citizenship Registration
  Single People
  Single People
  Rate Rebates
  Rate Rebates
  Washington Community Hospital
  Washington Community Hospital
  Brighton Office
  Brighton Office
  Social Fund
  Social Fund
  London Lighthouse
  London Lighthouse
  Benefits (Delays)
  Benefits (Delays)
  Fuel-Direct Payments
  Fuel-Direct Payments
  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Leukaemia
  Leukaemia
  Christmas Bonus
  Christmas Bonus
  Severe Disability Premium
  Severe Disability Premium
  Benefit Regulations (Interpretation)
  Benefit Regulations (Interpretation)
  Hospitals (Birmingham)
  Hospitals (Birmingham)
  Invalid Care Allowance
  Invalid Care Allowance
  Nurses (Salaries)
  Nurses (Salaries)
  Blood
  Blood
  Social Security Bill 1987
  Social Security Bill 1987

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

Electricity: Winter Supplies
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: 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 are the prospects of maintaining the electricity supply to all parts of the United Kingdom during the coming winter.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the electricity supply industry plans to meet demand during cold winters and has sufficient generating capacity plant to meet forecast demand for the coming winter. The area boards' distribution network in southern England was severely damaged in the storm of 16th October. The boards mounted a massive exercise to effect repairs rapidly and to restore power to all customers. Some of this work was, of necessity, temporary. The boards have now embarked on a major programme of permanent repairs. The system will be more vulnerable until this work is complete, but every effort is being made to restore the system as quickly as possible.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that full reply. Does he agree that it was the dedication of the staff and the integration of the system that saved the country, particularly the South of England, from absolute catastrophe on the night of the great hurricane on 16th October? Does he also agree that the South of England is under great threat because of a shortage of generating capacity and a lack of transmission capacity to transfer electricity from the north to the south of the country? Are the Government urging along the two new power stations in the South of England and making it possible for them to be completed at the earliest moment?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that after the unprecedented devastation caused by the storm on 16th October there was a magnificent effort by the electricity industry to reconnnect so many consumers so quickly in such dangerous and arduous conditions.
As regards future power stations in the South of England, the CEGB has recently lodged an application for a pressurised water reactor at Hinkley Point in Somerset and has announced its intention to submit applications around the end of the year for two new coal-fired stations. One is planned to be sited at Fawley near Southampton. Each application will be considered on its merits and will be subject to obtaining the appropriate planning, safety and environmental consents. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are fully apprised of the urgency of this matter.

BR: Locomotive Tenders
2.43 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what proportion of the 100 Class 60 new locomotives for British Rail were tendered for by British Railway Engineering Limited and by United States and European companies respectively.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I understand that in August the British Railways Board issued invitations to tender for new diesel locomotives to a number of British and overseas engine manufacturing companies. British Rail Engineering Limited, which does not manufacture engines, was not invited to tender as a main contractor. Tenders were due to be submitted to the Railways Board by last Friday, 6th November. The Government have no information on the tender responses, which are commercially confidential.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful for that detailed reply from the Minister. Is he aware that, because I was formerly a locomotive engineer of 20 years' standing, I am absolutely appalled to learn that the workforce of BREL were not allowed to tender for that work, which they should have done? We shall not therefore even know whether the price from abroad is really competitive compared with that from our own people. Will the Minister use his best endeavours to place a moratorium on the letting of this contract in order to give the British workforce an opportunity to tender, and not once again appear to be making it easier for our competitors both on the Continent and in America to take work that is sorely needed from this country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, British Rail wished the tender to go to manufacturers of engines rather than manufacturers of locomotives, and British Rail Engineering Limited does not manufacture engines. It is not true to say that British firms have not been invited to tender. I understand that both GEC and Hawker Siddeley (Brush) have tendered.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister not consider it a strange attitude towards competition policy for the board to issue, as recently as 26th October, a statement to the effect that the fact that BREL has not been asked to tender is not disadvantageous to the company, as it might become the major subcontractor? Does he not agree that it could possibly work the other way: that one of the other firms could be the main subcontractor to BREL, if BREL were successful in its arguments? This procedure seems to be standing competition policy on its head. Is it not a fact that when BREL was reorganised one of the groups was called the New Build and Repair Group? Does that not imply that it was able to build equipment of that kind? Is this

1199
decision not also linked with the terrible cuts and redundancies in the railway works?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not believe that it is disadvantageous to BREL not to be able to tender as the main contractor. In fact, in many ways it gives it a better chance of getting business than if it had been the main contractor. If BREL had been the main contractor it would have either won or lost the tender. As it is, it can tender for subcontracting work from anybody who wins the tender. The redundancies at BREL have no connection with the question of tenders for the new locomotive. Job losses are due to a fall in the repair and maintenance workload and much of that is an inevitable consequence of investment in modern rolling stock, which is designed to need much less maintenance and repair.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I apologise for rising after my noble friend but I should like to put a question on the issue of employment because it seems to me to be a very important one. Is the Minister aware that the trade unions were advised last September that there would be reductions of 2,939 jobs at Crewe, Derby and York, 487 of them being salaried posts, and that those redundancies have been announced by BREL? Does the Minister agree that we must give some priority to trying to maintain the skilled workforce at BREL and that work should be put its way wherever possible.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if BREL is a successful subcontractor in this contract, it will of course gain from it. But as I said, this proposed contract is not a reason for the redundancies at BREL.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that the workforce in BREL are of the opinion that they could be a successful main contractor? Bearing in mind that the French, the Germans, the Americans and other people involved in the tendering never appear to make it easy for us to obtain work in those countries and also bearing in mind the terribly adverse balance of payments on manufacturing industry in this country, with special emphasis on engineering, may I ask the Minister whether this policy will he looked at again? I am sure that if this work were done over here, it would have a beneficial effect on our balance of payments in manufacturing industry.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I have already said, British Rail decided that it wanted to go to an engine contractor rather than a locomotive contractor as the main contractor for this project. British Rail Engineering does not make engines. The chairman of British Rail has, however, said on a number of occasions that B.R. would prefer to buy British if UK manufacturers can match overseas competition. I am sure that my right honourable friend would endorse that thinking of the board.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, while fully subscribing to the ideals of competitive tendering for
1200
contracts, does my noble friend agree that we might learn something from our French friends across the Channel when they look at tenders from friends nearer home with a slightly favourable eye?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that would be a matter for British Rail. It has of course invited two British firms, anyway, that I know of, to tender for this work, and I hope that they are successful.
The Lord Bishop of Derby: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for the factual nature of his replies, are Her Majesty's Government aware of the local feeling—for example, in Derby where there are to be 1,500 job losses—that these redundancies are due to this particular element of government policy? Can he do something to allay the suspicion there and elsewhere that the Government have in mind a policy of reducing British Rail Engineering to such an extent that there will he more and more job losses in the future?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, obviously I appreciate the concern of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, but I have to say that British Rail Engineering has to compete for new build orders both at home and abroad. So far as at home is concerned, British Rail plans to spend 1 billion on new locomotives and rolling stock over the next five years, so there will be plenty of business around to be tendered for.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will there not be many more complaints if British Rail buys the wrong engine and so increases its losses, which then have to be paid for by the taxpayer? One man's subsidy is another man's tax rise.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I certainly sympathise with the views of my noble friend. In the past British Rail has not always got the best equipment that it might have got. That is why I believe that it is taking a more commercial view about the tendering process in the future.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister give any details in relation to the reply that he has just given, criticising British Rail? He said that off the cuff so easily, and his noble friend asked the question so easily, that I think we are entitled to know if he has any details to substantiate that.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have no details with me at the moment. But I think it is a fact that is widely recognised that some of the equipment it has had in the past has not been reliable.

Speed Limits: Enforcement
2.46 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: 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 are satisfied with the enforcement of speed limits on motorways and other roads and, if not, what steps they intend to take to see that the law is obeyed.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the responsibility for enforcing speed limits rests with individual chief officers of police, and we are satisfied that the police give a proper degree of attention to the performance of this duty. Nevertheless, the Government and the police arc at all times looking for ways of improving enforcement.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Perhaps I may ask him whether he saw a programme on, I think, Channel 4 last week, where a police officer said that when he travelled in a police car on a motorway he was travelling in a small bubble of law observance. Will my noble friend consider the suggestion that more police cars should travel on the motorways and fewer lurk on bridges and in lay-bys? Although they may catch one or two offenders by doing that, by actually driving on the motorways they may prevent far more offences taking place, because they are happening all the time.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have to tell my noble friend that I did not see that programme on television last week. However police cars are deployed, whether it be on bridges, on motorways themselves or on certain roads, their purpose is the same— to apprehend any culprit and indeed to try to deter any would-be culprit.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, have the Government received certain police representations that the speed limits should be raised? If so, what is their attitude, and what is their attitude in general to the present speed limits?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, there are currently no plans to alter the motorway speed limit. Reviews of the speed limit in 1984–85 concluded that the present limit gives the correct balance between the need for safe travel and convenient travel.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that a speed limit of 55 mph is enforced beneficially in the United States of America; and would it not be a good idea to introduce a similar limit in this country with a view to reducing accidents? Is the noble Earl aware that if the police in this country are unenthusiastic about enforcing even the present limit, it would probably be a good idea to create a special national traffic police authority?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am not aware of the methods adopted in America. I think it really is up to each individual chief constable in his particular area to decide how to go about enforcing the law.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that on the basis of accidents per car mile British motorways have the best record of any roads anywhere in the world?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, while I am delighted to know that that may possibly be true, I cannot actually confirm that. I can tell the noble Lord however that motorways are seven times safer than urban roads.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that because the speed limit in the United States is so low it is unenforceable? If one tries to drive at 55 miles an hour there trucks and every other kind of vehicle race past.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am glad to hear that that is true. Obviously the reason why we keep to the present speed limits in this country is so that the law can be enforceable.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I appreciate that the Question deals with other roads as well as motorways. However, does the Minister recall that on 22nd October the Minister sitting on his left promised to look into whether or not there had been a survey into the cause of accidents on motorways? Has that survey been put into operation? I understand that in January 1985 a road traffic law review was set up under Dr. Peter North. That was two and a half years ago. Will the Minister tell us how that is progressing and whether it will deal with the question of enforcement as well as other aspects of road traffic law?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord is that the road traffic law review's report is expected to be published in the early part of next year. It is expected that it will take account of all the forms that the noble Lord has mentioned.
Lord Foley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the 55 miles an hour speed limit introduced in the 1950s in America was not introduced in order to lower speeds, but because of the petrol shortage at that time? It was introduced as a method of saving fuel. Therefore it is not relevant in today's circumstances. But is my noble friend not of the opinion that if people drive at 70 miles an hour today on the motorways of this country they are passed by virtually everybody? Would it not be more practical to impose a speed limit of 80 miles an hour and then enforce it rigorously?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I was under the impression that I had just answered my noble friend on that very point.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, first will the Minister say what the speed limit is for lorries on motorways? Secondly, will the Minister say whether there is any speed limit within London at all? Does the 30 miles an hour speed limit apply in London? It seems that the traffic in London is either crawling at about two miles an hour because of intolerable congestion or, when it is freed on to roads out of London, it is travelling at around 60 miles an hour. What steps are the Government taking to deal with the general problem of congestion in the capital city?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in reply to the first question of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition on speed limits, for cars and light vehicles the limit is 60 miles an hour on single lane carriageways unless otherwise marked or lined with street lamps. The speed limit is 70 miles an hour on dual carriageways and motorways. If the noble Lord wishes to have more data on those vehicles which exceed 7.5 tonnes I can continue.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the American experience on motorways, which is far greater than anyone else's, shows clearly that traffic police is the only way to control speed on motorways? Is my noble friend prepared to take a real, long and critical look at that point to see what it costs and whether we could afford it?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that. I am very aware that obviously the more police cars there can be on motorways, or indeed on ordinary roads, the better. As I said originally, as much as possible is being done to find ways and means of improving safety on roads. It is regrettable but nevertheless a fact that many of the accidents that occur on our roads are due to either foolishness or selfishness. Both show scant regard for the safety of fellow motorists and can often result in tragic circumstances.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether the Government are giving any thought to introducing the kind of equipment which the police in Holland use? There photographs which show both the speed, the time and the number plate of the car are taken. That makes enforcement far easier than in this country.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government are always looking at improvements, and particularly at the moment at technological improvements.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, the House may feel that we are moving slowly on this Question. We have had it before and perhaps we can return to it again on another occasion.

Pirate Radio Stations: Investigation
2.55 p.m.
Lord Aylestone: 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 strengthen the Radio Investigation Service of the Department of Trade and Industry with a view to expediting the closure of pirate radio stations and clearing the frequencies for the existing legal local radio stations and the proposed community and neighbourhood radio stations.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, we are concerned about the interference which unlicensed broadcasting stations cause to legal radio users. My department's Radio Investigation Service already acts promptly by removing offending transmitters when unlicensed stations disrupt authorised radio communications. Where possible, it also prosecutes those responsible. It has taken account of the need to make spectrum provision for the new services contemplated in the broadcasting Green Paper.
The cost of radio regulation is largely met from fees paid by legal radio users. We have to consider whether the benefits they could expect from a strengthening of the Radio Investigation Service would justify the increased costs to them. So far broadcasters have been unwilling to see their costs increase substantially.
In order to free resources for the important work of keeping the radio spectrum clear of unacceptable interference, I have decided that in future dealers will be required to show that they have taken measures to cure broadcast reception problems before referring them to the Radio Investigation Service.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for his reply and acknowledging fully the work that the Radio Investigation Service has already done, is the Minister aware that the pirates are rather like mushrooms? They spring up overnight. At the present moment in the Greater London area there are over 20 of them and there is probably an equal number in the rest of the country. Does the Minister agree that a strengthening of his department's RIS by an increase in numbers would speed up this work in preparation for the work that has to be done under the proposed Green Paper on Broadcasting? For example, I am told that in the whole of the county of Sussex there are only two of those offices functioning, and they cover part of Surrey as well. Of course chasing the pirates is not their only function.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, so far this year the Radio Investigation Service has carried out 309 raids against 66 unlicensed stations. That is a 50 per cent. increase on last year. Of the 309 raids, 257 were carried out against 38 stations in the London area. So far this year some 45 people have been successfully prosecuted. This is a difficult problem. We suspect that there are about 86 unlicensed stations in the country of which 39 are in London. But about a dozen, mainly in London, attempt to operate commercially on a daily basis. There are many technical problems involved in catching people. Since the practice has grown up those undertaking this kind of pirate radio station separate the studios from the transmitters.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, does the Minister realise that many of the larger stations in London not only advertise the frequency on which they are broadcasting but the address of the transmitter?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, if they seriously broadcast the address of the transmitters

1205
we would have few problems. What they are actually doing is using unmanned transmitters and separate studios at a different location. That presents us with technical problems, but I should be happy to accept any advice from the noble Lord if it will help to increase the number of prosecutions.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord say where the finance comes from to support these pirate radio stations? Would it he possible to look into the matter from that point of view to see if the problem can be tackled in that way?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, often this is carried out by groups who fund themselves. It is rarely carried out on the commercial radio services, of the kind that noble Lords would recognise. I suspect that there are on occasion those who actually pay money in order to have records broadcast, but that is very much in the minority.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Lyell will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on the terrorist attack in Enniskillen.

Infant Life (Preservation) Bill [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
As the House will recall, the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill was introduced in the last Session by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. That Bill and the Select Committee to which it was referred came to an end with the Dissolution of Parliament in May. However, a similar Bill was re-introduced during the current Session and after a Second Reading on 22nd July was referred to a Select Committee.
The Committee of Selection have now proposed the Members of the Select Committee as set out on the Order Paper. However, I should mention that when the Committee of Selection met they did not know that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans, who had been a member of the committee in the last Session, would be unable to serve. He has been replaced by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. I have consulted all the members of the Committee of Selection concerning the change and they have raised no objection. I beg to move.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee on the Bill:

Brightman L. (Chairman)

Butterworth, L.

Faithfull, B.

Gloucester Bp.

1206

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Warnock, B.

That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out.
That the Proceedings of the Select Committee on the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill [H.L.] in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the Committee.
That the Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers.
That the Committee do meet on Tuesday. 10th November at eleven o'clock.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financing the European Community
Lord Kearton Lord Kearton rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Financing the Community. (4th Report, 1987–88, HL Paper 14).
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move that the House takes note of the report, Financing the Community, submitted by the Select Committee on the European Communities. In so doing, I must first thank the noble Lords who were members of Sub-Committee A and who worked so assiduously on the considerable volume of papers and tables of figures with which they had to deal. In particular, I should like to record the contribution of our late colleague Lord Rhodes. He studied and commented on the documentation and the transcripts of evidence, although he was unable to attend the committee. He will be greatly missed, especially for his wisdom and his great good nature.
The sub-committee was also much indebted to its specialist adviser. Professor Stephen Holt, and to its indefatigable clerk, Mr. Andrew Makower.
The report concerns itself with a series of Commission papers which deal with the deterioration of the Commission's finances in recent years. They also put forward initiatives and specific recommendations to improve the situation. Those recommendations take account of significant new developments in the role of the Community. As the minutes of evidence show, the sub-committee was fortunate in the very high calibre of those witnesses appearing before it and in the frankness of their answers to questions.
It is a pleasure that one of the witnesses, the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, who was a president of the European Parliament, has chosen the occasion of this debate to make his maiden speech in this House. We look forward with the keenest interest to hearing him.
The future development and prosperity of our country greatly concerns us all. It is now generally accepted across the political spectrum and in the country that our economic future is indissolubly tied to that of the European Community. In that future, the programme introduced two years ago to complete

1207
the Community's internal market by 1992 and the ratification last year of the Single European Act were major advances. As the Committee's report reminds us, those giant steps involved the Community in new commitments, both moral and financial.
The present difficulties with the Community budget must be kept in proportion. They are symptoms of changing circumstances and priorities within the Community. They should be approached rationally and not emotionally. Excesses are to be deplored and must be corrected. But let us not forget that the Community budget is, in relative terms, a modest affair. It is a very small percentage of the total of national budgets and even if it is reformed and enlarged, as it will be if the Commission's proposals for the future are accepted, it will remain relatively modest.
Obviously we all want Community funds to be spent wisely and constructively. That is a purpose which is strongly evident in the Commission itself. With the lessons of the past painfully learnt, wiser spending is a firm prospect for the future. The forthcoming Copenhagen Summit gives us the opportunity to make that prospect a reality.
The Commission's proposals for a reformed budget—the so-called Delors package, named after the president of the Commission—are summarised in paragraphs 7 to 17 of the committee's report. The reform of the Community's common agricultural policy—the CAP—is absolutely fundamental in the package. The CAP fulfilled its purposes and had great success in the past. But in recent years it has produced services which are costly to Community taxpayers and Community consumers, and it has been put into effect by complex and costly administrative procedures.
The present defects and excesses of the policy, both in the round and in detail, have been fully disclosed in the series of reports from the agricultural subcommittee of the select committee. The Commission now puts forward measures to bring agricultural output under control by a comprehensive system of stabilising mechanisms. Those mechanisms would control both output and product prices. A key feature of the new system is that the mechanisms would have legal force and would he administered by the Commission.
The failure of previous efforts to reform the CAP in any effective way lies with a basic defect in previous budgetary arrangements. The collective Council of Agricultural Ministers regularly agreed measures for agriculural support not covered by the EC budget. The Council of Finance Ministers did not bring them to order. The adoption of support measures meant that the Commission was legally committed to the spending consequences without having sufficient funds to meet the bills. As a result, unfunded deficits built up and the Commission and the member states had to take special steps—one might almost call them dodges—to close the books each year. Those were steps of a nature which repeatedly brought strongly adverse comment from the Community's Court of Auditors.
The committee fully supports the Commission's intention to bring agricultural spending under control and to make budgetary discipline legally enforceable. Since the committee reported, details of the Commission's proposals on output ceilings and on prices have been released. Whether they are sufficient to bring spending under control as quickly as the committee, from a financial standpoint, would deem desirable is still a matter of consideration. The views of the agricultural sub-committee will no doubt soon contribute to the debate on that matter.
It must be recognised that the new measures, however sensible and constructive, will not have much effect on the present level of agricultural spending. They will be largely concerned with preventing further runaway growth in such spending and in preventing the building up of unwanted stocks. The committee hopes that further developments will ensure that the present level of spending will be directed in future, as the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, suggested in his evidence, more to people than to product. It would be a disastrous and unacceptable output of the reforms if they led to rural depopulation and dereliction.
Although the reform of the CAP is, in the committee's view, a sine qua non, the Delors proposals have many other aspects for the Community's development. As a package, they are dedicated towards making a success of the many facets of the Europe of the Twlelve, a community of more than 300 million people. That is a vision that has been profoundly and deeply expressed by many national leaders, and by none more than our own Prime Minister.
Perhaps I may say at this point that in my view, praise is due to the right honourable and learned Foreign Secretary and his department for the patient and tireless way in which they have pursued the path forward to turn aspirations into reality. I feel also that Members of this House can take pride in the fact that it is one of their own number—the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield—who, as a Commissioner, has produced the detailed plan and timetable of the measures needed to make a reality of a true Community internal market by 1992.
A complete internal market will be a major component of our future economic growth. It will require the relinquishment of national exclusivity in many areas not least in matters of tax and fiscal harmonisation. In the immediate context the actions which need to be taken will not in themselves directly affect Community spending.
A key area which has budgetary consequences is the development of the Community's structural policy. The goal is further convergence and improved cohesion between member states. Paragraph 10 of the report of the Committee summarises what is intended and paragraph 32 touches upon some of the considerations which are relevant. The structural proposals are developments on which the poorer members of the Community place great store.
The Committee supports the Commission's proposals and supports increased Community spending, competently managed and controlled, to meet the stated objectives. The report of the

1209
Community's Court of Auditors, which is largely accepted by the Commission, has highlighted past deficiencies in the carrying out of structural policy. It is clear to us that there is now a determination within the Commission that in the future monitoring of spending will be much tauter and much more up to date than it has been in the past.
There are other policies and programmes which are part of the Delors package which will affect budget expenditure. The Committee did not consider these in detail. It contented itself with observing in paragraph 45 that in such fields as research and protection of the environment Community spending could be encouraged if it offered better value for money than spending at national level.
So far I have discussed the Delors proposals in terms of the direction and control of expenditure. Equally important are the proposals to change the basis upon which revenue is raised. The main change is that the present VAT revenue, consisting of a variable levy on a notional base, should be replaced by a fixed levy of 1 per cent. on each member state's actual VAT base, plus a new resource levied at a variable rate on that part of each member's GNP which is not subject to VAT.
The amount of Commission revenue would be limited by reference to a ceiling expressed as a percentage of total Community GNP. The Commission proposes that this ceiling should rise to 1·4 per cent. of Community GNP by 1992. There are other minor changes and the effect of all the changes together is that by this date, namely 1992, resources available to the Community would be up by about 50 per cent. on the 1987 level.
A corollary for Britain of the new system is that the calculations would be changed in which Britain's budgetary refund, agreed at the Fontainebleau Summit in 1984, is calculated. This would not affect the 1987 refund receivable in 1988, but it could mean a reduction in future years, especially in the earlier period of such a re-arrangement.
I refer the House to the report itself for the evidence and the discussions relating to the totality of the new budgetary proposals. I am sure that noble Lords speaking later in the debate will take up specific points and amplify them.
The Committee itself was satisfied that the Community needed more resources and that the build-up proposed by the Commission was broadly right. The financial settlement of 1984, which was intended to set the course for the future, was, in the event, fatally flawed. The accumulated liabilities of the past and the measures needed to ensure progress in the future—a future which will bring very considerable economic and structural benefits to the community—inevitably means that new revenues will have to be provided.
The Committee thought that the plans of the Commission to relate contributions to each member state's GNP were fair. This main conclusion and others are set out in paragraph No. 49 of the report of the Committee.
It seems clear from generally published information that all the 12 member states and the
1210
European Parliament look reasonably favourably on the Commission's proposals. The individual states have different reservations about various aspects of the package as does the European Parliament. These differences are almost certainly soluble without sacrifice of larger aims.
However, there is a particular sticking point of principle for Her Majesty's Government. Where Her Majesty's Government differ from fellow members is in their absolute insistence that the debacle of Fountainebleau should not be repeated. This debacle in budgetary control was not the fault of the Commission in Brussels. As I have made clear, it was due to the power of the Council of Ministers to commit the Community to legally binding expenditure without increasing the receipts to meet the expenditure. Her Majesty's Government wishes to see firm, precise and legally binding budgetary discipline a fundamental part of any changed way of raising, let alone increasing, the level of Community resources. The Committee unreservedly agrees with this objective of Her Majesty's Government which, when it is achieved, would be a major factor in strengthening the Community.
Where the Committee does have some misgivings is about the wisdom of insisting that any future system of budgetary refund arrangements for the United Kingdom should be at least as favourable as those which at present exist. It is also a matter for regret that the impression is sometimes given that an extension of Community spending in any field is inherently likely to be extravagant and inefficient.
With regard to the first of these points the Committee naturally welcomes the desire of Her Majesty's representatives to protect British interests. The Committee also hopes that longer term considerations which offer a much greater prize are fully taken into account when negotiations about the rebate are conducted in earnest.
With regard to the second point, the Committee feels that, it is right indeed to insist upon proper monetary accountability. It also believes that a positive acknowledgement by Her Majesty's Government that some transfer of wealth within the Community is essential for cohesiveness and solidarity for the future, would be realistic and constructive. The richer members of the Community have special responsibilities. The recent progress and growth of the United Kingdom economy is relevant in this regard.
The Committee earnestly wants the Government to win their argument at the Copenhagen Summit for proper budgetary control for the EC. With such control they trust that the Government will go along with an expansion of budgetary resources on the lines proposed by the Commission. They feel that obtaining success in the budgetary control argument is likely to be helped by the Government stressing even more than they have done in the past the deep commitment which they have to the future development of the Community, with an acknowledgement of the moral and financial obligations such a deep commitment entails. My Lords, I beg to move that the House takes note of the Committee's report.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Financing the Community (4th Report, 1978–88, HL Paper 14) —(Lord Kearton.)
3.19 p.m.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, if it is not too presumptuous of me as a newcomer and as a member of another parliamentary institution—a mere infant by comparison with this noble House—may I first of all congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, and the noble Lords on his Select Committee for their excellent report, the conclusions of which I heartlily agree with.
I should also like to thank them for affording me the opportunity of giving evidence to the committee last July. I therefore welcome in particular this opportunity today to speak to the report following the excellent presentation by the noble Lord, Lord Kearton.
On that occasion when I was privileged to give evidence I was asked whether I thought that the next five or six months were critical, particularly on financing the EC. I had no hestitation in saying that they were critical; indeed, they were crucial. As is so well stated in the report, the 1987 budget procedure was unusually lengthly and involved a tortuous dispute over a relatively small sum of money. Since then we have grappled with a supplementary budget, but for 1988 the situation is far more desperate since the deadline has passed when Council should have placed a draft budget before us.
Therefore, the need for progress, for the exercise of political will by governments and by member states, is today all the more urgent and all the more crucial. As the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, said, the forthcoming Copenhagen summit must break the back of the problems before it if the European Community itself is not to slide backwards with a detrimental effect for every one of our 321 million citizens.
When I spoke at the last European Council, the last summit meeting in Brussels, I concentrated on four main points. I believe they remain valid today. First, there is the achievement of the internal market in Europe and the closer identification of our economies. That is not just a vaguely desirable objective but a commercial and economic necessity. It is indeed the motor of economic growth, especially in these uncertain times, and it sits squarely with the priorities of the economic policies of Her Majesty's Government. It seeks to liberate the European market from the unnecessary constraints often imposed by nationalist objectives. In all of this, of course, protectionism within Europe as well as anywhere else is in the long run self-defeating, illusory and negative. However, an extension of free trade, on the contrary, holds out the glittering prospects of more prosperity and more jobs.
Secondly, and at the heart of the many problems we face in the Community, is the overwhelming need to modernise the common agricultural policy. Our surpluses damage the Community's reputation while paradoxically failing to give sufficient benefit to many
1212
of its farmers. The present situation damages our trading system and therefore we must take resolute action to correct the many imbalances. When 50 per cent. of the money spent in supporting the common agricultural policy goes towards the cost of storing or disposing of surplus stocks, it is of no benefit to the farmer or the consumer and is a useless burden on the taxpayer.
The central element in all this, therefore, is a managed market, particularly in the cereal sector where we need an effective set-aside scheme to reduce the volume of production. This is not just a British problem and not just a European problem, but a problem of world-wide proportions. That is why I have initiated a world food conference to be held next April in Brussels; a conference hopefully drawing together the experts from every continent and every link in the food chain, to search for a coherent set of proposals and to help to bring the food equation into better balance. This is a matter of high degree and high importance on the agenda of GATT, and I hope we are in a position to make a substantial input into those deliberations.
We in the European Parliament have proposed a clear shift in agricultural expenditure towards structural support. Therefore we must think not only of products but also of people. We must think not only of technology but of the very life of rural societies which depend not only on an economically healthy farming community but on employment in rural areas. However, we must do so in cost-effective ways. We obviously must operate under budgetary control and under budgetary discipline.
Thirdly, and against this background, the Community will need to finance its existing commitments and new obligations which it has taken on with the Single European Act. Additional resources will be necessary. The Community simply must be put on a sound financial footing, one that is sensible, adequate and fair. It is indeed longer-term proposals which we are looking for. We cannot afford ad hoc annual budgets. Each failure to agree adds to uncertainty and frustration; and it certainly adds to confusion. In all this, it is the ordinary people in member states who end up suffering—those who are involved in small organisations, the beneficiaries of the social and regional funds.
Lastly, we must concentrate on the positive aspects of building the Community. It is time to put aside the deplorable waste of time and energy which for so long Europe has suffered over the budgetary questions. There are many other important tasks to consume our energy, not least the building of a politically united Europe. Yesterday we remember; today we must concentrate on the peace and security of our people. These therefore are the main items of immediate concern.
In my other institutional incarnation, we are energetically coming to grips with our co-legislative role under the Single European Act. I shall be privileged on behalf of the European Parliament to put its views forward to the European Council when it takes place in Copenhagen. Today I welcome this report and welcome in particular the interest of your

1213
Lordships on these many issues which are of such importance to us all.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, it is a particular privilege this afternoon to follow the noble Lord, Lord Plumb. I congratulate him most warmly on his maiden speech, both on the way in which he delivered it to the House and on its content. It is appropriate that the President of the European Parliament should take part in this debate in this House this afternoon. I am sure that the whole House wishes to congratulate the noble Lord on having been elected to such an important position of leadership within the Community. His speech was made with all the authority of his years in the European Parliament since 1979 and his leadership for five years of the European Democratic Group, together of course with his distinguished service to the National Farmers' Union in many capacities and latterly as its president. We look forward to many equally authoritative contributions from him in the future.
I join him in thanking Sub-committee A of the Select Committee for this most valuable report. It is indeed a particularly significant one since it deals with matters which have been at issue between our country and the other countries in the Community. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, for his clear and comprehensive introduction of the report to the House.
I believe we have three views outlined in the report. First, there is the Commission's view in two documents; the immediate subject of the report supported by the evidence of Commissioner Christophersen. Secondly, there is the British Government's view as expressed at the Brussels summit and in the evidence to the committee of Mrs. Chalker and Mr. Brooke. Thirdly, there is the committee's view which takes a middle way, upholding the Commission on some points and the Government on others. I am glad that the report places the blame for the present financial situation of the Community firmly on the shoulders of the Council of Ministers, the 12 Governments, and not on the Commission. It is clear that there are many complicated aspects of the problem. Three overriding issues are raised in the report. The first is: does the Community need further resources? The second is: how can budgetary discipline be established, particularly in view of past failures? The third is: should the implementation of budgetary discipline precede any agreements on increased resources for the Community?
First: does the Community need further resources? I think it is widely felt that the effect of completing the internal market by 1992 will, among other things, be to accentuate regional disparities within the Community, and that that will need rectification. Such rectification will involve Community expenditure. The importance which the Government of Ireland give to that aspect of the development of the completion of the market was demonstrated by the recent speech of the President of Ireland to the European Parliament. I think that he was probably expressing the views of many of the 12 Governments in what he said.
1214
It is generally agreed that the admission of Spain and Portugal has placed further burdens on the Community's budget. The Single European Act has legitimised, if that is the correct word, many aspects of Community expenditures and has given rise to the supposition that those will be further developed. In his evidence before the committee and in his speech this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, has made it clear he is convinced that further resources are necessary; and so did the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, in his introductory remarks this afternoon. The Commission has suggested a change from basing contributions on VAT to basing them on Community GNP. I was glad that the committee approved of that. The total level of expenditure, as the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, explained, which the Commission recommends is 1.4 per cent. of the Community's GNP.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? Out of kindness to my noble friend Lord Plumb, I do not remember that he said that extra resources had to be forthcoming, irrespective of whether the vital economies and greater efficiency in running the Community had been first brought about.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I was merely saying that, as I understood it, the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, said in his evidence and in his speech this afternoon that he believes there will be a need for further resources. I have no doubt he believes that many other things must be achieved as well. One may possibly depend upon the other. He has expressed a view in favour of an increase in Community resources.
As I was saying, the Commission has suggested that the total level of expenditure should be 1.4 per cent. of the Community's GNP. That would involve a 50 per cent. increase in resources. That has of course led some people to point out that in recent years there has already been an increase in resources. The point we must bear in mind is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, that the Community's total budget is less than 1 per cent. of the GNP of the EC. The British Government will no doubt be satisfied if they can hold their own expenditure at something like 40 per cent. of the country's GDP. Community expenditure is less than 1 per cent. of the GNP of the EC, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, said, is a modest affair. It is about half of what we spend on social security in Britain alone.
It is 10 years since the McDougall Report suggested 2.5 per cent. of GNP as an appropriate target level. Against that, 1.4 per cent. appears to be rather modest. Hearing all the talk which one hears from time to time of inflated Community expenditure, the public may not realise that the Community of 12 nations spends only about 15 per cent. of what the United Kingdom Government alone spend. It may be argued that the expenditure could be better applied, and that we do not receive the value for money that we should like; but that is another matter.
I welcome the Committee's statement:
"The Committee agree with the Commission that the financial settlement of 1984 was woefully inadequate, and that the Community needs more resources".

1215
I am sure that is right. It seems that the Government hesitate to agree with that.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Will he clarify the position by saying he appreciates that if the 1.4 per cent. were applied to GNP it would need, according to the Treasury, an extra £900 million net per annum from this country to accommodate that?
Lord Banks: My Lords, I fully accept that that was the Treasury estimate. It seems to me that the Government hesitate to agree, although Mrs. Chalker said in evidence:
"We have never ruled out a further growth in funds".
She went on to say:
"One point four per cent. of GNP is equivalent at the present time to 2.25 per cent. of VAT…. Certainly, 1.4 per cent. of GNP is not acceptable".
Mr. Brooke said of the Commission's proposals:
"Increases on this scale are totally unrealistic".
We are entitled to ask why those measures are regarded as unrealistic, and, if that is the opinion, what the Government feel is the appropriate level for Community expenditure in the years which lie ahead. The Government may be persuaded by the committee's view expressed in this report to give us some indication of their feeling on this matter. It would ensure a better hearing for the Government's case on control of expenditure if it were clear that they were not opposed, in principle, to a significant increase in resources.
My second question was: how can budgetary discipline be established? The noble Lord, Lord Kearton, pointed out that even if budgetary control were established it would not necessarily and immediately mean a reduction in expenditure. It means control of expenditure—keeping it within limits. If a reduction is to be achieved it no doubt would mean lower prices and targets. To establish control the Commission proposes the introduction of a system of stabilisers—quotas, cut-off points, co-responsibility levies and so on.
The committee likes some of those proposals; it does not like others. I think that is also the Government's view. As I understand it, the Government are in favour, in principle, of a system of stabilisers, but the point which the Government and the committee make is that control must be legally enforceable.
I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply on behalf of the Government whether he is confident that an agreement on that point will be achieved at Copenhagen. I am bound to say that is a point which seems to be eminently sensible. But how far does that system of control have to be in operation before any increase in funds can even be considered?
It seems as though the Government are requesting reductions in the CAP without any commitment to increase resources. In that context, I should like to quote again an article by Derek Prag, a Conservative Member of the European Parliament, which I quoted in the debate on the Address. He wrote this article in the May/June issue of the European.
1216
It was an article in which he was putting forward what he thought were the good points of the Government's policy with regard to Europe, but he ended on this critical note:
"What is criticised above all"—
that is, by others in the Community—
"is the locking of further expenditure in desirable policy areas until the CAP has been reformed. Since as everyone knows, reform of the CAP without a major social upheaval would have to be spread out over a minimum of three years—and probably nearer five—this looks suspiciously like holding up the development of the Community. The aim of reforming the farm policy is impeccable—the method, perhaps, in this case, too harsh".
It seems that the whole exercise ought to proceed together. For example, farmers whose incomes are reduced below an acceptable level should have a means of directing the support available; and that, if it is to come from the Community, involves increased Community expenditure. The Commission has suggested a plan on these lines which the committee thinks is inadequate. However, that scheme, or an improved scheme as the committee wants must be in place as lower prices targets and budgetary discipline begin to bite. While the Government should seek agreement on budgetary discipline, including legal enforceability, I think that they should indicate the increase in funds that they feel could accompany the introduction of such a regime.
Finally, in presenting the United Kingdom view to the Community, why do the Government have to represent it in such a way as to antagonise all our partners? We seem to have done the same thing in the Commonwealth. Surely much clearer support for the development of the EC budget, coupled with a more diplomatic attitude, might make some of our other views more acceptable to our partners.

Enniskillen Terrorist Attack
3.41 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will repeat a Statement which is at present being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"I will with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a Statement on yesterday's terrorist attack at the war memorial in Enniskillen. This occurred shortly before the parade arrived for the formal wreath-laying ceremony. I should explain to the House that the normal procedure in Enniskillen is that the parade forms up and marches to the war memorial where the act of remembrance takes place, and then marches to the cathedral for the Remembrance Day service.
"At 10.45 a.m., as spectators were gathering near the war memorial, a bomb exploded in the St. Michael's reading room, outside which a number of people were taking up their normal vantage point. No warning whatsoever had been given. The explosion demolished the gable wall, which fell, crushing the waiting spectators. Eleven people were killed and more than 60 injured. Of the injured, 21 were detained in hospital overnight, of

1217
whom five are very seriously ill indeed. Among those killed are three elderly couples, a young nurse and an off-duty policeman.
"I know I speak on behalf of the whole House in expressing our deepest sympathy to those bereaved and injured and to all their relatives and friends, at this appalling outrage. I should like also to pay tribute to the absolutely outstanding way in which all the emergency services responded to their terrible task.
"It is clear from the location chosen for the bomb and the absence of any warning that those responsible for this monstrous act set out deliberately to kill and maim ordinary members of the public: people from both communities who had come together on a Sunday morning, young and old, like thousands upon thousands of others throughout the United Kingdom, to honour the memory of those who have died in two world wars and since. In all the tragedy of the terrorist compaign, this outrage stands out in its awfulness. To perpetrate such an outrage against people, for many of whom the occasion was already one of sorrow and remembrance, betrays a total lack of any human feeling. Nor could there have been a more deliberately provocative act, more calculated to stir up sectarian hatred, than this outrage on this special and solemn day.
"There is a deep sense of anger and outrage felt throughout Northern Ireland today. I know there will be many who will call for retaliation. I say to them most urgently that they must not be provoked. Further acts of violence will only play into the hands of the terrorists and make more difficult the task of the security forces. What we must do instead is to determine that every possible assistance is given to the RUC and the security forces in their continuing fight against terrorism and in particular to bring those responsible for this atrocious crime to justice, wherever they may be. There must be some who have in the past given tacit support to the terrorists or who have preferred too often to look the other way, who must surely be horrified at yesterday's outrage. If they or indeed anybody else have any information at all to identify the culprits, and if their revulsion at this terrible crime is genuine, then they must ensure that they give the RUC any help they can, whether by using the confidential telephone or by whatever means they choose.
"Since my visit yesterday afternoon to Enniskillen, I have had initial meetings with the Chief Constable and also the General Officer Commanding and the Commander Land Forces. In addition, in the light of the serious recent events in the security field both north and south of the border and the successful seizure of the major arms shipment and the implications that flow from that, I will be having further urgent talks with Irish Ministers about security. In this connection, I appreciate the strong message of support and cooperation my right honourable friend, the Prime Minister has received from the Taoiseach.
"There are those who believe that this latest, most foul attack is a measure of the frustration of
1218
the terrorists in the light of the considerable recent successes of the security forces. Whatever their motives, it is true that the courage and resourcefulness of the security forces, backed up by the same courage and steadfastness of the community at large and aided significantly by international co-operation, have inflicted severe blows on the terrorists. Nonetheless, yesterday's outrage shows the evil threat they still pose and the vital need for the whole community to continue to stand steadfastly against them.
"There are two messages that I wish the House to send today. The first is to the people of Northern Ireland of our resolve to stand firmly with them in the fight against terrorism and to assure them of our full support. The second is to make clear to the men of violence that no threat or outrage destroys our resolve but rather makes us all the more determined to rid the Province of the evil of terrorism".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we on this side of the House join with the noble Lord. Lord Lyell, in our total condemnation of the appalling atrocity committed in Enniskillen. There are no mitigating circumstances, no vestige of defence which can be advanced in support of this terrible act. It has nothing to do with patriotic loyalty. It is in fact an unmitigated evil and it reflects the extent to which these wicked people are prepared to go.
Those responsible for supplying these people with the means and weapons to commit these crimes must also be condemned; and if there is any government who assist or condone the supply of arms then they too are guilty of criminal conduct.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we must not overlook the fact, as the Statement points out, that one of the objectives of this calculated outrage is to secure a reaction by way of reprisals. I am sure that all of us would strongly support the appeal that no such action be taken as it would only play into the hands of the perpetrators.
I also join the noble Lord in expressing our very deep sympathy for the families of those who died and for those who are injured. We also express our great appreciation for the courage and compassion shown by the emergency services—the police, the fire brigade, the army, the ambulance service and the nurses—and indeed by civilians, who did all they could to help those involved in this tragedy.
It is of course too soon to examine this event in detail, but perhaps the noble Lord will be kind enough to answer one or two questions. First, will he assure us that the Government will move very quickly to set up a review of the machinery of the security services in Northern Ireland? We shall at the end of the day be judged by the effectiveness of the action we take. Does he not agree that security cannot be really effective unless there is complete understanding, coordination and co-operation on both sides of the

1219
border? I welcome the announcement that the Secretary of State is to meet officials in Northern Ireland very soon, and also Irish Ministers.
Will the noble Lord also urge his right honourable friend the Prime Minister to initiate talks as soon as possible with Mr. Charles Haughey, whose condemnation we also noted with satisfaction? Close and understanding co-operation between the two governments in London and in Dublin is now absolutely essential.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, my noble friends and I should like to associate ourselves with everything the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, have said. Is the Minister aware that many of us have in the past used harsh language to describe terrorist incidents in Northern Ireland, but that it is extremely difficult to find adequate language to describe what happened yesterday? It was an ultimate act of obscenity on a day of remembrance for those who have died to save the freedom of the people of Britain and indeed the freedom of the people of Ireland as well. Is the Minister aware that we should also like to be associated with everything he said about the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and obviously the need, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, to further improve security in the border areas and the degree of collaboration between the security authorities on both sides of the border?
Is the Minister also aware that many of us very much hope that those who have been responsible for raising money in the United States, through organisations such as NORAID, will pause when they realise what happened yesterday, and that it is quite impossible for terrorist organisations such as the IRA to exist without substantial financial support from outside Ireland? Let us hope that as a result of what happened yesterday there will be some pause, there will be some hesitation, among those who have supported NORAID in the past.
I also ask the Minister whether he agrees that all those who deplore violence in Ireland—I am sure that many do, both south and north of the border, in the aftermath of this appalling tragedy—will realise that nothing would do more to improve the general security climate in Northern Ireland than to obtain support in the Dail for the extradition provisions of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Nothing would do more damage to the IRA. Let us hope that the only memorial we may be able to achieve for those innocent people who were murdered in Enniskillen yesterday is to ensure that that agreement is ratified.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I think that all your Lordships will be most grateful, indeed, heartily grateful, for the forthright comments that have come both from the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and from the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I shall pass on all their thoughts and good wishes to my right honourable friends and to everyone in Northern Ireland, especially the security forces.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, wished me to assure him that we would be reviewing the role of the security services in Northern Ireland. I assure the noble Lord and your Lordships that my right
1220
honourable friend has had meetings already this morning. He is returning tonight for further meetings with the relevant gentlemen and, I suspect, one or two ladies, in Northern Ireland. The effectiveness of the security services in the fight against terrorism is a continuous process. If there is anything that we have learnt from what happened yesterday I have no doubt that we shall take swift action to remedy any shortcomings.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, may wish to know that on his return my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be discussing security policy in the light of recent events. I am advised that the additional battalions of the army which are at present in the Province will remain as long as necessary. I understand that there may be an increase of 150 personnel in the Ulster Defence Regiment. I wish to note the successes of the security forces in Belfast. I am sure your Lordships will be pleased to know that a van containing over 1,200 pounds in weight of explosives was intercepted and the driver was arrested. That is as far as I want to go today. But this was clearly the forerunner of a further outrage last night. I hope that the security services have learnt—if there is anything that we may learn—from yesterday's incident and that we may apply those lessons very quickly.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, expressed very clearly any civilised person's feelings about yesterday's outrage. Perhaps I should remind your Lordships that among the victims who were injured, slightly or more seriously, were girl guides, boy scouts and members of the British Legion. Security co-operation on the border and all over the Province is a problem that is occupying both my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my honourable colleagues who are specially charged with this aspect in Northern Ireland. I am sure your Lordships would not wish me to give you details today.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in wishing that this dreadful outrage will at least be some form of brake on NORAID and other similar organisations in the United States. The fruits of their financial collections are only too evident in scenes such as we saw yesterday in Enniskillen. I shall also note the noble Lord's comments about the Dail, the review of the extradition provisions and the European convention on the suppression of terrorism. But that is something very much for the Dail. I am sure it will note both what has been said in your Lordships' House and the events of yesterday.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, will the noble Lord convey to the Prime Minister the gratitude of the vast majority of the Irish people for the expressions which she made and the words which she used in the aftermath of this terrible disaster on Sunday when she spoke outside Downing Street, particularly when she referred to the desecration of the dead—those dead who included many thousands of Irishmen, north and south of the border, who gave their lives in the two world wars?
Will the noble Lord also accept that of all the tragedies that have been brought about by the activities of the IRA, this was by far the most

1221
identifiable as a vicious, ruthless, heartless attack on the Protestant community in Northern Ireland? This is a community which has suffered so much over the past 20 years.
Finally, will the Minister say what it is necessary should be said: that the IRA could not carry on its activities, could not survive, were it not for the help and the support that has been given to it by a considerable section of the Catholic community? A considerable section of the Catholic community, a number of people in Northern Ireland, today know the identity of these murderers who perpetrated this terrible crime. There cannot be any hope of any political advance for anyone, but in particular the Catholic minority, until the minority begins to cooperate with the security forces by making certain that these acts can never again be repeated.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, all of us agree that comments such as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, of all people in your Lordships' House, are most welcome. Indeed, all of us support him as a man of immense courage since he has lived in West Belfast. Those of your Lordships who know a little of Belfast, as I do, will appreciate the courage and steadfastness that has been shown by the noble Lord throughout the years. Certainly I shall convey the comments and thoughts of the noble Lord to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I am sure the noble Lord and the House will accept that it is a bit early and that I could not give any reaction, but I shall certainly pass on to my right honourable friend everything that the noble Lord has said.
As regards the noble Lord's thoughts on the acts of the Provisional IRA, in so far as one can decipher any rational process in its thoughts this is probably the meanest and most vicious act that it has carried out. It seeks publicity; it has had publicity. But the Statement, I hope, shows that such appalling attacks will not deter this Government or this nation from attempting to suppress the evil of terrorism which has plagued Northern Ireland for far too long. Indeed, what the noble Lord has said reiterates what I set out in the Statement. I stressed that the Provisional IRA and terrorism could not succeed and could not live or even thrive—if one can use those two words—in Northern Ireland or anywhere else without the tacit support of, I suspect, a relatively small number of people and the support through looking the other way of, I hope, an equally small number of people. As I said in the Statement, I hope that the outrage at Enniskillen yesterday will at least cause people who have expressed genuine revulsion to examine their consciences and to do what is necessary to suppress terrorism.
4 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should like to support what noble Lords have said in expressing my condolences to the families of the victims of the atrocity and to wish them courage in the time ahead. In support of what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said, the best way to commemorate the dead is to examine, clearly and closely, our own actions in the wake of these disasters. I should like to ask the Minister three questions. First, arc we quite sure that
1222
we give Northern Ireland a high enough priority on our agenda? Secondly, are we going to use the Anglo-Irish Agreement, unpopular though it is at the moment with the Protestant community, for the purposes for which it was set up—to co-ordinate the actions of the security forces of the North and South in order to ensure that no opportunities are lost to wage war against the men of violence? Thirdly, when there is a disaster on this side of the Irish Sea, very often a fund is set up to show the good will of the public. The people of Northern Ireland endure crisis all the time. Would it not be right if on this occasion we set up a fund to help the relatives of the victims who have been so grievously hurt?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness for expressing her condolences to the bereaved and injured in Enniskillen. I shall see that her condolences are passed on and I am sure that her remarks will be read widely in Northern Ireland.
I hope that our actions both in Government and in security matters are relevant. Indeed, in the Statement I repeated my right honourable friend's steadfast plea in another place not to retaliate. This plea was put most eloquently last night by the Primate of All Ireland.
The noble Baroness asked three questions. As regards the high priority given to Northern Ireland, I am too often absent from your Lordships' House working in Northern Ireland but I believe that the Government put a very, very high priority on matters in Northern Ireland. I believe that in the past three years we have shown that commitment with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I hope your Lordships will see that it is a first step and an important and crucial step in attempting to remove the threat of terrorism and to bring a happier chapter into the history of Ireland and indeed Anglo-Irish relationships.
I note the noble Baroness's remarks about a fund. I am not able to give any information today about what funds are being set up in Northern Ireland or elsewhere. However, we are most grateful for her thoughts on that matter.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, while it is understandable that we should express revulsion and an appalling sense of outrage at these events, will the noble Lord accept, as I have said before in your Lordships' House, that this is very unlikely to have any effect on the people who have committed these crimes? This is after all what they are about doing. They want to create a sense of fear and outrage.
Perhaps I may put two points about the security situation in Northern Ireland which I hope the noble Lord and his colleagues will take into account in considering further steps. Is the noble Lord happy that the security forces in Northern Ireland are not operating at the moment under undue restrictions? I have to tell him that many people think that they are. Many people believe for example that, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has said, the identity of a great number of these criminals is known not only to the Catholic community, or certain sections of the Catholic community, but to the security forces? Is it not now time to consider some form of action which would prevent these offences taking place rather than waiting until they have taken place?

1223
Is the noble Lord happy that all modern technology and systems of defence are taken into account in the business of protecting the border? Finally, is he not now convinced that this is not just a simple internal security operation? This is a terrorist organisation with which we are at war. Should we not now be taking far more drastic action against it?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord asked whether the security forces are under undue restrictions. It is the Government's view that they are free to carry out their duties but—and I have to add three words—within the law. This is particularly relevant and particularly necessary. I have an idea of what the noble Lord would wish me to go on to, but I can tell him that we have further powers in reserve. These are only in reserve. I hope that we shall not want to take any further action than we need to take at the moment.
The noble Lord asked about technology on the border and elsewhere. I am constantly amazed by the use of modern technology and by the ceaseless work and dogged persistence involved in tracking down criminals and, indeed, all aspects of security on the border. The security forces are using all aspects of modern technology. I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State gives a particularly high priority to law and order and to the protective services in Northern Ireland.
With regard to the noble Lord's third question, all of us are aware that this is a terrorist organisation. But, as I said in the Statement, we believe that terrorism can only be eliminated by persistent and continual efforts allied to firm action by the security forces within the law. This has been our policy and what it will continue to be. I am in no doubt that we shall persist until such time as we can eliminate terrorism. I note what the noble Lord has said.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, this is, I suppose, by far the nastiest piece of terrorism that has happened in Northern Ireland, on a par perhaps with Eichman and his horrors. Is it not worthwhile getting together with the Government of the Republic and using this absolute horror for a major publicity campaign in the United States to try and further dry up the already falling funds to NO RAID? Anything that can be used to dilute those funds must be to the benefit of us all. If it can be done in conjunction with the Government of the Republic, and if we can use this dreadful and appalling massacre, perhaps there is something that may come out of it.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I have no doubt that when my right honourable friend meets the Irish Ministers, and when they continue to discuss security and other matters, this outrage will be fairly high on the agenda. I have no doubt that both Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic will want to take every possible action to try to reduce the flow of arms, materials and money to the terrorist cause. What my noble friend has suggested may well come to pass. I hope it does. However, I shall see that his comments are passed on to my right honourable friend and I hope they will be of some help.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I make a small point on behalf of the Royal British Legion, of which I am the metropolitan area president? Perhaps I may inform the Minister that there is anger, shock and grief at the moment, but mostly anger. Will the Government endeavour to do what they can to stop Libya supplying arms to these people? That is shocking. It is even worse when they can get financial assistance from the country we regard as our greatest ally. The United States of America cannot have it both ways. This matter is creating a great deal of anger—and I can speak with some authority—among members of the Royal British Legion.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord has said. Indeed, I referred to members of the Royal British Legion who were injured yesterday in the outrage in Enniskillen. I am sure that his remarks will be much appreciated by members of the Royal British Legion in Enniskillen and throughout Northern Ireland.
In reply to the noble Lord's two questions, we have a certain amount of assistance around the world in trying to suppress terrorism. I believe that your Lordships would agree that arms, from wherever they come, destined in furtherance of terrorism should be taken out of circulation. We are aware that the flow of arms continues to swirl around the world but we hope that there will be further successes, as has recently been evidenced. We are very grateful to our French friends for what they have achieved so far.
The noble Lord mentioned the United States and NORAID. We have had firm and forthright messages of support from all over the world—and not least from President Reagan. I am sure that the outrage at Enniskillen will be prominent in the news headlines in the United States. One would hope that would go a considerable way to cutting funds to well-wishers and, I quote, "sympathisers" of the Irish cause in the United States. It has been made abundantly clear by politicians of all shades in the United States of America that contributions to NORAID and similar such funds do nothing at all to help the situation in Ireland, north or south.
Lord Moran: My Lords, while joining in sincere condolences to those who have suffered in this terrible crime may I ask the Minister whether it is correct that Enniskillen lies in a constituency in which 194 people have been killed by terrorists since 1970? If that is correct, does it not suggest that it is necessary for the Government to take more determined action to protect innocent people in this part of the United Kingdom?
Concerning cross-border security, I am glad to hear from the Minister that the Secretary of State proposes to have discussions with Ministers in the Republic. However, do not the rather bizarre events following the recent kidnapping in the Republic suggest that the security forces there do not have the numbers, the resources, or the training to deal adequately with the terrorist threat, so that it is therefore for us and for our security forces to protect people in Fermanagh?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, regarding the noble Lord's first question, I understand that the honourable Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone has frequently asked how many people have been made amenable for this number of murders, which I think the noble Lord said is in the region of 194 but I am told that it is close to 200. I understand that 31 persons have been charged in Northern Ireland over the years in connection with deaths in this particular constituency of the honourable Member. Apart from these 31, one more has been charged with murder in the Republic of Ireland, but the murder took place at Belleek in Fermanagh. Therefore, that is a total of 32 who have been made amenable for these murders.
To turn to the events that we have read about in the Irish Republic, I certainly would not want to comment at all on what has happened there since I have not seen—and I suggest that your Lordships do not know—the full details as to what has happened or what has not happened. I would not wish to criticise in any way some particularly brave men in the Garda Siochana who have a particularly hard job. We are particularly grateful for much of their co-operation. Your Lordships may read things in the media; but, as the noble Lord of all people should know, perhaps we should not take it all as gospel truth.

Financing the European Community
4.16 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, in returning to the debate on the European Communities Committee, I am happy to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, on a most excellent maiden speech. I am sure that your Lordships will have been delighted to hear him and will look forward to hearing him on many future occasions given his expertise, his knowledge and experience in this important field. I certainly shall, and I am grateful to him for the contribution he made to our debate.
I should also like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, and his committee. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord himself for the way he spoke today, and the committee for the report which they have delivered to your Lordships' House. I would want to put a slightly different emphasis on it—although I agree with much of what is in the report—and I should like to note just one or two of the inconsistencies in the report.
I have always strongly believed that it is in the national interest that the European Economic Community should succeed and that we should be a strongly-working member of that Community. At the same time, when (as I have) one has been for some years or more attending finance meetings in Brussels, Luxembourg, and Strasbourg, it is difficult to retain initial enthusiasm and willingness to be optimistic at all times. That does not mean that we should not retain that optimism and should not seek to achieve the success that I still believe to be in the national interest.
1226
The central question, as has been pointed out by the committee, is the budget itself and particularly the agricultural question. The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, emphasised to us some of the particular nonsenses that relate to the excessive cost of the agricultural element in the budget. The committee do so in paragraphs 49(i) to 49(v).
I both agree and disagree—as the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, might sometimes say—with what the committee said in paragraph 49(ii). I think it is worth quoting:
"Additional resources must not be made available until Community spending is properly controlled. The system of 'budgetary discipline' agreed in 1984 is fundamentally flawed; new machinery is required."
I entirely agree that a system of budgetary discipline is required and that the present system is fundamentally flawed. But to precede that by saying:
"Additional resources must not be made available until Community spending is properly controlled"—
is something I do not entirely agree with. The fact is that you will never totally control any expenditure—and I have tried my hand at it for some years—and it is particularly difficult in the field of agriculture.
I do not pretend to be as expert as the noble Lord, but you will always have either under-production or over-production in the field of agriculture. There are some areas which affect this particular industry. We think we have troubles in the rest of our industries; but there are areas which affect the agriculture industry that it is just not possible to control, as we all know. It is declared that we will not move forward at all until we get total control of that particular item of expenditure. I know that that is not precisely what the Committee said, but I shall come later to some of the things it did say. However, for anyone to say that we must not make any progress in an area that is vital to our national interest until we can totally and properly control something that it is impossible, totally and properly, to control seems to be as much a nonsense as the agricultural policy itself.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, surely it is possible to control the amount of money available. We need not have increased the 1 per cent. to 1.4 per cent. If the amount of money available is controlled, then it is up to the people to ensure that expenditure is kept within those limits.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I must tell him that the fact is that one cannot control it in that way precisely because of the reasons I gave. One would need to have the kind of supplementary budget that we have had over recent years, because there will be people within the agricultural community who, as the noble Lord would be the first to agree, we must help out of particular difficulties. So my answer to that point is to say that, no, that is not a solution, much as I should like to it be. As he knows, throughout much of my political life I have tried to control public expenditure. I did not have always the degree of success that I should have liked, although I am happy to say that I left a percentage of GDP in public expenditure lower than it is likely to be in the current year.

1227
Perhaps I may turn to what the committee noted in paragraph 44 as an especially vital area. It is again worth quoting from that paragraph:
"In view of the vital importance of the completion of the internal market for the Community, and the benefits which will undoubtedly accrue to all the Member States, the Committee recommend that Her Majesty's Government agree to such increase in the structural funds as will help to secure this objective".
I very much agree with that statement. However, as I have pointed out, the committee also consider that we must wait until the budget is under control. Fortunately, the Government seem to take a slightly different view.
The other day, in answer to a question that I put to him about zero rating for VAT—something which I happen to believe is impossible to continue along present lines if we are to have a true internal market—the noble Lord, Lord Young, started off by commenting on something which I had not said: I certainly did not suggest a desire to unify all VAT rates. He went on to refer to the Prime Minister, saying:
"She has also said that it is not right that anyone should tie the hands of the Chancellors of the Exchequer for an indefinite period".
The noble Lord did not clarify what was an indefinite period, but continued:
"Therefore she has confined her requirement to food, gas, electricity and children's clothing. There are no present plans for making any changes".—[Official Report, 3/11/87; col. 891.]
That is a delightfully ambiguous statement, if I may say so. I personally should be delighted to hear the Minister make it less ambiguous or unambiguous when he replies.
I appreciate the political problems that face any government in this field. Any government will be attacked from all sides, even by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, if they concede one inch in the negotiations. I hope that they will not be attacked by the Select Committee and I do not believe that they will be. Certainly they will not be attacked by me.
However, for reasons implicit in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, the committee happily concluded its report on an inconsistent note. After the comments from paragraph 49 that I have already quoted, the committee then states in paragraph 49(vii):
"The Committee conclude that although these developments are likely to work to the short-term financial disadvantages of the United Kingdom, Her Majesty's Government must be prepared to give some ground for the sake of the future of the Community".
I entirely agree with that statement but it is not consistent with everything in the report that has gone before.
I understand the Government's difficulties. I do not expect them to enter negotiations by admitting in advance just how much they will give way, whether it be the 1.4 per cent., or whatever percentage, of GDP. That is a ridiculous way to negotiate. Of course they cannot say in advance what they will do.
For myself, I am willing to accept what I conclude to be the deliberately ambiguous statement of the Secretary of State, and I hope that it signifies some willingness to give ground. Certainly we shall need to give some ground and show some flexibility and willingness to compromise if there is to be any chance
1228
for that vision of the European Economic Community, which I believe would be of enormous benefit for all the member countries in the Community and not least for ourselves.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, I can understand the anxiety of the House to return from discussion of Northern Ireland to this Select Committee report, but I was disappointed to be deprived of asking questions about Northern Ireland. However, I shall ask them and pursue the matter in a different way. I intend to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied with the way the churches are handling the present situation there. I do not want to pursue this matter any further now but shall do so outside the Chamber.
I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, on his effective maiden speech and I should also like to thank him for his work in the European Parliament. It has enhanced the reputation of that institution and reflected credit on this country. I know that it is customary to pay tribute to the chairman of a sub-committee on which one has served, but I think that in this case a special tribute is well merited for the very effective chairmanship by the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, of a committee dealing with a very complicated question.
Discussion on a Select Committee report in this Chamber is designed to draw out the views of those Members of the House who did not serve on the committee. So far that has effectively been done, as was demonstrated particularly by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. As a member of the committee I do not want to take up the time of the House by repeating views that have already been trenchantly expressed in the document under discussion, but I should like quickly to draw particular attention to four simple and basic points made by the Select Committee.
It is said, first, that Her Majesty's Government are entirely justified in insisting that Community spending is brought under firm control; secondly, that it is reasonable for the Commission to aim in the long term to increase its expenditure to accommodate the legitimate requirements and expectations of members, especially the new members; thirdly, that the European Council of Heads of State and Governments bears the heaviest responsibility for the proper co-ordination and advancement of the Commission's work, but that this Council has generally speaking failed to discharge adequately that responsibility; fourthly, that the right atmosphere for agreement in that Council is not necessarily achieved by confrontational attitudes since, for historical reasons, sometimes justly and sometimes unjustly, the United Kingdom is still regarded with some suspicion, and ministers should therefore seek to minimise that suspicion by well-chosen speeches and sensible compromises.
Lastly, I should like to mention one additional point that I am tempted to elaborate but which goes outside the scope of the present debate. The budget problem is only one part of a much larger problem. In the past, international crises of the kind that we are now experiencing have served only to increase

1229
nationalistic selfishness. One has only to recall the oil crisis in the 1970s. In my view it is vitally important for this country that such nationalistic attitudes are replaced by genuine international co-operation. I believe that the Government are perfectly aware of that. However, first and foremost the Government should give urgent priority to making a success of the European Community in the widest sense.
The United Kingdom and its European partners are in danger of being overwhelmed by future developments in the Far East and by changes in United States' policy, to say nothing of possible advances in the Soviet Union. If we do not make a reality of European co-operation and consolidation in foreign, defence and economic policies we must fear for our future.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, and his colleagues for this admirable report. I have worked with the noble Lord in a more distant part of the world and appreciate his quite remarkable ability to cope with complex problems. This is a Select Committee report of which your Lordships should be proud and, as may have been said before, the reports of your Lordships' European Communities Committee are considered—I think the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, would agree with this—to be the best of all those emanating from the 12 national parliaments.
In mentioning the noble Lord, Lord Plumb I, too, should like to congratulate my noble friend on his excellent and remarkably uncontroversial maiden speech; yet he made the essential points. I hope that your Lordships will think it appropriate that the first British Vice-President of the Parliament, your humble servant, should congratulate its first British President, which is a post of great importance and significance in the European Community. After six and a half years in the Parliament I know full well the sort of extremely difficult problems which which he has to deal. I had the privilege of sitting on the Budget Committee of the European Parliament for some six and a half years from 1973 to 1979 and continue, therefore, to be interested in following EC budgetary matters. At one time I did indeed lead the delegation of the European Parliament to the Council of Ministers in what was described as the "conciliation procedure".
From what I read in the press and elsewhere the wrangling between Parliament and Council seems to continue and I only hope, as I said in our debates on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill when we were discussing the Single European Act, that the conciliation procedure between Parliament and Council can be made to operate more smoothly and effectively. Indeed, when I was concerned with this and when the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was Chief Secretary to the Treasury—and I was most interested in the noble Lord's contribution to this debate—certainly it seemed to me that the conciliation procedure worked quite well. However, I must stress that I am being entirely non-party-political in this matter.
I had a meeting in Paris only last Thursday which was attended by distinguished personalities from all
1230
12 member states. Following this meeting I had a conversation with a well-known permanent representative of another member state in Brussels, who is a great friend of this country. He said that what distressed him most about the British policy in the Community—and I am only quoting it and reporting it here; I am not agreeing with it exactly—was that when we held the presidency of the Council we would put budgetary questions first on the agenda rather than perhaps discussing primarily questions in which progress was being made, namely, political cooperation, the Single European Act, joint ventures in research and development, the internal market and bringing down non-tariff barriers to trade. However, I fully agree with Her Majesty's Government that revenue should determine expenditure, and not the other way round.
I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a moment. All I wish to say this afternoon is that in principle I am supportive of the Delors package and its concern with stimulating economic growth. I hope that my noble friend Lord Brabazon will be able to confirm, or partly confirm, the report in The Times of 7th November that this new method of paying for the EC is backed by the Government. I was interested to read in that report that Danish hopes were boosted by the talks in September between my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and Mr. Paul Schluter, the Danish Prime Minister, who is now President of the Council, whom I knew and greatly respected when we were both members of the European Parliament. I shall certainly be interested in the comments of my noble friend Lord Brabazon on this report.
Overspending amounting to £3 billion a year must be stopped. I agree with our Select Committee in paragraph 46 when they state that they would welcome a new GNP-based resource and a new ceiling based on GNP and, I assume, on economic growth rather than on 1·4 per cent. of VAT. I am not going to discuss what percentage on GNP would be appropriate, although I noted what noble Lords opposite said on this. I agree that the "budgetary discipline", as agreed in 1984, is fundamentally flawed and that new machinery is required.
I was one of those responsible in the European Parliament's Budget Committee, together with my honourable friend Michael Shaw and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for setting up the Community's Court of Auditors. Both my honourable friend and the noble Lord made important contributions for controlling expenses. However, not all is well at the moment for it must, in the end, be for the Council itself to act. I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, and his committee that Her Majesty's Government may have to give some ground for the sake of the future of the Community; I was certainly most interested that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, agreed with this.
I am all for careful examination by our own Department of Trade and Industry and other departments of spending on every European science and technology project, but I hope that consideration of budgetary aspects will not halt the advance of Europe in competing with Japan and the United States of America.

1231
I was also glad to hear my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham say to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, on 4th November that the Government will do their utmost to ensure that the Community does not adopt a budget in excess of its own resources' ceiling, unless and until the Council decides unanimously to raise that ceiling. It is quite clear that the Community cannot spend money that it does not have.
Finally, I should like to go a bit further than the report and take this opportunity of expressing the hope that the Government will now agree that the time is ripe—and we have heard this quite often—and indeed right to accept the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system in order to show that we are now prepared to play the game—the European game—under the same rules as other member states. I say this despite the fact that I recognise that being part of that mechanism would not have changed our position in so far as recent adjustments in the stock market were concerned. Moreover, now that the United States dollar is weak, I should like to see more general use made of the European Currency Unit which might eventually be thought of as an alternative to the dollar in international markets. Then ultimately I hope we might achieve European monetary union. I know that this goes beyond the scope of the noble Lord's report, but I hope that my noble friend Lord Brabazon will forgive me for having transgressed in this way. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kearton for his report and my noble friend Lord Plumb for his highly important maiden speech.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I should like to start by adding to what seems to have been a chorus of praise, in which I think the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, participated in his very powerful maiden speech, for the committee and its chairman on what seems to me as a non-expert to have been a really first-class report. I—again as non-expert— wholly agree with all the conclusions in this report. I only hope that Her Majesty's Government when they come to reply to this debate will announce their ability to do so too. If not, I shall be very interested to hear exactly why they object to any of these conclusions so that we may know where we stand. I may be wrong, but I think that Her Majesty's Government have already accepted—have they not?—the proposal that in principle members' contributions to revenue should be based on GNP rather than on VAT. If that is not so, I shall be interested to hear it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, the whole matter is summed-up in the final paragraph, subparagraph (vii) of paragraph 49, which states that:
"The Committee conclude that although these developments are likely to work to the short-term financial disadvantage of the United Kingdom, Her Majesty's Government must be prepared to give some ground for the sake of the future of the Community."
That sums up, broadly speaking, the whole purport of the report.
Having said that, I should like to devote two or three minutes to considering the report in the light of the rather hazardous situation in which we now find ourselves as a result of the recent stock market crash
1232
and the accompanying weakness of the dollar. We must all hope—no doubt with some confidence in view of the latest reports we have on the tape—that these events will be followed by, at any rate, some recovery in the markets and some stabilisation of the exchanges. Most experts, anyhow on this side of the Atlantic, seem to think that the chief reason for the collapse—and certainly the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to think it—lies in the fearful United States budget deficit resulting from the disastrous "supply side" economic policy, as it is called, adopted by President Reagan in 1981 and resolutely pursued ever since. "Reaganomics" were, I believe, originally approved by our Prime Minister though it seems she has now seen the light, her recent intervention with the President and her whole attitude having been denounced by what seems to be a majority of Republican spokesmen in the United States. Naturally everything depends in practice on whether the President himself sees the light.
But it also seems that we are unlikely to be out of the wood unless the Germans and the Japanese, even at some risk of a return to a measure of inflation, by one means or another do something to prevent the dollar from disappearing over the horizon. We can only hope that that will be so.
However—and this is the only point I really want to make—it is possible, and even probable, that we may soon find ourselves having to cope with an American recession necessarily involving some protection of the United States market. Surely therefore we must now at least be thinking of what we should do in such a distressing event.
The French have a phrase "envisageous le pire"—that is, to contemplate the worst—which is a very wise thing to do. To say this is not to be pessimistic, which is the last thing I want to be. I only suggest that there are now some precautions which should necessarily be taken.
I have long believed—and have indeed said—that one of the less fatal results (perhaps the only good result) of some American recession would be actually to oblige members of the Community to advance much more rapidly in the direction of real economic and indeed political unity. Surely in such circumstances, if the worst should happen, there must be an increase in inter-Community trade, if only to offset any loss of trade—and there might be a very great loss of trade—with America. If the Community were to survive at all in such circumstances, it must be by accepting very quickly what the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, has been trying so long to achieve—namely, the abolition of all remaining barriers to trade—and also by agreement on the budget, which as recommended essentially by our committee, would involve our having to abandon our rather individual approach by making some concessions to what is undoubtedly the majority view, and also—I say this in parenthesis—by joining the EMS.
I know it is useless to ask the Government to consider specifically what they would do in a hypothetical situation—I quite recognise that—but I suggest that they should at least ponder on such possibilities and on what they might have to do if

1233
some recession should unfortunately occur. There would obviously be political consequences, too, and they might be dire, for there would be many in America who, faced by a recession, would no doubt be inclined for one reason or another, to blame the Europeans and this might result in a majority in Congress deciding to withdraw a portion, if not all, of their troops in Europe leaving the Europeans to look after their own defence. It would clearly be out of order at the moment to go any further in that direction; but I suggest it is something that might be pursued even now, in increased collaboration with the French who, whatever their policy may be at the moment, in that regrettable event would undoubtedly find themselves with us in a rather leaky boat.
I repeat that I have no desire to appear pessimistic, but I should like to be reassured that the Government arc at least conferring with other members of the Community on steps that might have to be taken in Europe, more especially if by any chance the situation produced by the worldwide collapse of shares were to take a serious turn for the worse.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, this is a comparatively short report and I strongly recommend anyone who has not done so to read it. It gives a fairly clear explanation of how the Commission got into this state and, the recommendations seem to me not only sensible but much in line with government thinking. There is one point that I ought to make right at the start.
In my view, and I think in the view of the Committee, the Commission itself is not responsible for the mess we are in. The fault lies almost entirely with the Council of Ministers. The oral evidence given by Mr. Christophersen—he is the EC Budget Commissioner—was very interesting and most revealing. I have little doubt that if his recommendations and those of his predecessors had been followed the present chaotic situation would not have arisen. The calibre of the Commission and of the Commissioners has been underrated. The Commissioners are of a very high quality. Any policy giving them more powers of decision and legal authority to implement the general directions of the Council of Ministers would be a good thing.
I do not wish to dwell to any extent on the troubles with the CAP. We have had several separate debates in the House on this subject and it need not be pursued by me. But the Agricultural Ministers have consistently ignored the Commission, have made no provisions for the writing down of stocks and have set their faces in the past against price reductions.
Anyone with accountancy experience or who has been involved in business would find it quite incomprehensible how people of ministerial status should pile up liabilities in the future with no arrangements whatsoever for their liquidation. They must have known that those liabilities were quite beyond the resources available to the Community.
It must be aknowledged that outside events have contributed to the problem. I must say that to ameliorate the feelings that I have about the Agricultural Council. One such event is the slide of
1234
the dollar. Over the years that may have cost the Community something in the order of 4 billion ecu. That is the equivalent of £3 billion. It will be even worse this year with the continued slide of the dollar.
It is now vital to make the budget a legally enforceable instrument rather than a guideline. As Mr. Christophersen said, that must apply right across the board, not only to agriculture. The Council and Parliament as well as the budget authorities must all be involved in the monitoring of the execution of the budget.
As has already been said, the expenditure of the Community in terms of the GNP of the Community as a whole is not very heavy. I should like to see the development of the internal market supported financially, if that is necessary. I should like to see more expenditure on helping the backward nations and the derelict areas. I would approve of greater contributions from member states if we were certain that those funds would be wisely spent. The Prime Minister is absolutely right to insist on financial discipline as a sine qua non for additional finance.
So what of the future? Since the report we are debating was finalised, there have been a number of communications from the Commission which I imagine are intended to crystallise the agenda for the Copenhagen meeting. But perhaps it might help your Lordships if, first, I explain very briefly the present system of decision-taking. Reference is made frequently to the Council of Ministers which has to approve any regulations or directives or the budget and so forth.
Whatever was stated in the treaty it has evolved since then that there is no such thing as the Council of Ministers. There are six Councils: the Budget Council, the Internal Market Council, the Economic and Finance Council, the Agricultural Council and the Transport Council. Each takes its own decisions and consists of the appropriate Ministers of member states. There is no overriding Council apart from the summit of Heads of State which meets twice a year. That is where important decisions take place and where more should take place. As noble Lords can see, at present there is little or no possibility of real discipline being exercised.
I wish to make brief reference to what I think has occurred in some of the documents that have appeared since our report was published. The documents' first proposal is that the Commission should be empowered in future to adopt a very strict approach to forecasting and budgeting and to create an overall general reserve from which to draw in case of need. At this point I should like to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, by saying that I am sure that he knows perfectly well and better than I do that in the United Kingdom there are always provisions in the Budget for unforeseen events. It is perfectly possible to allow the same provisions in the agricultural sector as in any other sector.
The second proposal is to change the present system in the agricultural guarantee section from advance payments to reimbursements in order to move to the principle of providing a safety net rather than a fixed price. Thirdly, in the spirit of the Single Act there is the proposal to develop the use of the ecu

1235
not only as an accounting instrument but also as an instrument for expressing the Community's financial rights and obligations and as an instrument of payment thereby avoiding the complication of 12 different currencies and moving exchange rates. It has now become clear that with the unreliability of the financial policies of the United States and the ability of Japan to see its own interests with the utmost clarity, it is necessary for the Economic Community to become a reality so that it can stand up and not be blown over by the United States' or Japan's misbehaviour.
All those suggestions and some others which I have not had time to mention depend in my view on giving the Commission legal powers to see that the budget, once agreed, is binding and that the appropriate machinery is in place for continuous monitoring of the expenditure.
I have made no mention whatsoever of increasing the competence of the European Parliament. I had rather hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, might have said something in his very excellent speech. I expect that it will be the subject of another debate. Certain proposals are now coming forward from the Commission. I have read them. They seem to me to be basically sound but rather cumbersome in execution. That is all I wish to say.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Benson: My Lords, I have only one short point to make. I should not have asked for permission to do so if I had known what the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm intended to say. The report follows a number of others which have drawn attention to the sorry state of the Community's finances. One of the main thrusts of the report is contained in six lines in paragraph 39 which states:
"The Committee consider that the blame for the state of Community finance rests not with the Commission, but with the Council of Ministers…This is in part due to the composition of the Council of Ministers, since no specific Council has ultimate financial responsibility. The Committee consider that this can only rest with the European Council of Heads of State and Governments; but that Council has not yet succeeded in producing either effective procedures or the political will to use them.".
The plain fact is that until the European Council of Heads of State and Governments does exercise political will, so long will the European finances be in a disorganised state.
For my part I feel that unless this position is grasped, unless political will is expressed, the whole future of the European Community is in doubt and in danger. I do not think that my colleagues on the sub-committee feel quite so strongly as I do, but it is common ground that unless political will is exercised and the organisation put into a proper state, the fulfilment of the short-term and long-term aims of the Community will be frustrated.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, the report is an admirable one. It was introduced by its admirable chairman in an admirable speech. I do not say that out of politeness. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Kearton,
1236
goes much for insincere politeness. I say that because I believe it to be true; and it is manifestly true.
This debate has been first class, with many outstanding speeches. I must mention the speech of the noble Lord whom I shall for the moment call my noble friend; that is, the noble Lord, Lord Plumb. It is good to see him sitting on any Bench, though it would be nicer to see him sitting on these Benches. However, it is far better to listen to his wisdom and to his experience.
Two points which my noble friend made stand out in particular. He made the point that the whole report must be set in a far wider context than that of agriculture, important though agriculture is, especially from the financial point of view. That was emphasised by the noble Lords, Lord Seebohm and Lord Benson. Whether their prognostications and forebodings are true or not, there can be no doubt that the world is crying out for a strong and wise financial and economic leadership. Regrettably, that is sadly lacking both from the other side of the Atlantic and in the Pacific, from Japan. The European countries should be able to provide wisdom individually. However, they are not strong enough economically to be listened to as individuals. It is only as a collective body that they can have the influence which is so badly needed at the present time.
Having said that, I reiterate what other noble Lords have said in that from the purely financial point of view agricultural spending is the key to the whole spending of the Community. That takes between 60 per cent. and 65 per cent. of the total amount.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, told your Lordships that it was impossible totally and properly to control agricultural expenditure. Those words are his and not mine. Of course that is true. But for all that, there can be a far stricter control on agricultural spending than there now is within the Community. I suggest that the key to achieving that is to place an absolutely firm limit on total spending for every significant agricultural commodity which would have to be adhered to.
I know that in theory that has been done. However, the controls, such as they are, are far too remote, far too slight and far too delayed. There is now something which is called a stabiliser. That system has been operating in a mild way for a year or two with regard to certain commodities. As your Lordships will have read in the report, the Commission proposes to bring in a series of automatic budget stabilisers, which are defined as being any mechanism which operates within a CAP regime to keep expenditure within the budgetary allocation. That can mean anything or nothing, and if one goes on past experience and what we have heard from other noble Lords it may mean nothing.
In Community spending on agriculture today there is a double paradox. If there is a good harvest in the conventional sense, the treasuries of the member states wring their collective hands. For them it is a bad harvest because it will cost them more. That is the first paradox. The second paradox is that when there is a good harvest, farmers do not need much support because they have a lot of grain, sugar, milk or

1237
whatever to sell. However, that is the time when it costs the Community most. With a bad harvest, farmers need more support but the treasuries rub their collective hands because they will have to fork out less at a time when it is most needed.
That cannot be a wise policy upon which to base the expenditure of the greater part of the Community budget. Without going into great detail, I suggest to your Lordships, as I have done on previous occasions, that the solution must lie eventually in increased liberalisation of agricultural trade and, at the same time, retention of the essentials of the common agricultural policy to ensure that there is not only free trade in agricultural commodities between all member states but that the costs of production are, to as great an extent as possible, maintained at an even level. As a result, no one country should have a greater advantage over other countries than that which was given to it by its soil, climate, the skill of its farmers and so on. Free trade in agricultural products should be maintained and, where possible, enlarged outside the Community as well. I believe that that is possible.
We should ensure that such cash as is available goes only to producers and is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, so rightly pointed out, syphoned off for the cost of storage, disposal of surpluses, and to other people who come in to achieve the objectives. The vast amounts of money which are spent (and they should be smaller amounts) should go directly to the people for whom it was originally intended—the producers of food.
That leads to the inevitable and logical conclusion that there should be a support policy of social rather than economic payments to farmers who will suffer if the present common agricultural policy is to continue. That is well brought out in paragraph 43 of the report, which says:
"the Committee are disappointed with the limited plan of direct income supplements which the Commission is proposing, and consider it would still leave large numbers of small farmers in serious trouble when support prices come down. (The Committee would make a similar criticism of the British Government's new measures of 9th February which will involve expenditure of only £25 million: this is a small sum in relation to the need)".
I am in full agreement with that, although I would, with some hesitation, point out that not only small farmers are liable to suffer because of the change in the common agricultural policy. There may well be some large farmers and many farm workers who will also suffer. We must not lose sight of that.
Since social needs and methods of meeting them vary greatly between the member states, payments should be partially funded by Community resources. It should be open to individual member states to supplement social payments—provided that they are not used to further increase production—according to the various levels of standards of living and amenities enjoyed by other workers within each country. There is no need to remind your Lordships of the differences between Greece and Portugal, on one hand, and the Netherlands and Denmark, on the other. It should be open to each member state to supplement whatever the Community is able to provide for purely social reasons. The administration of such payments should be left to individual
1238
governments so that bureaucracy is minimised and distribution is carried out to the satisfaction of the individual country.
Your Lordships may feel that I have spent too long on the common agricultural policy, but I make no apology for that because, as I said at the beginning, and as we all know, unless the CAP is drastically reformed there will be no curtailment of expenditure and the budget will not be brought under control. Without some radical solution on these lines, that over-spending will continue; the Community as we know it will be placed in increasing jeopardy and its ability to play the part that it should play in the world economic scene will be even less than it is at the present time.
My final comment is to give the strongest possible support to the two points mentioned in paragraphs 47 and 48. At the end of paragraph 47 the report says:
"if the Government are right in claiming, as they do, that according to several indicators the British economy is improving relative to that of other Member States, some concession on the abatement would be appropriate, and it would help secure an agreement which will, among other things, bring the benefits of the completion of the internal market".
The report continues in paragraph 48:
"Finally, the Committee urge on Her Majesty's Government the importance of improving the presentation of their policies in the Community. National interests must of course on occasions be protected, and all Member States do so, but this should be done in a context which is more recognisably communautaire. The Government must emphasise that their refusal to discuss increasing the Community's resources is based not on considerations of national profit and loss but on the desire shared by citizens of all Member States to see an end to the excesses of the CAP, and in particular to the surpluses which damage the Community in the eyes of the world".
This is a report which I hope will not only be read very widely but will influence Her Majesty's Government in this country and the Community and its members in Brussels and their respective capitals.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we on this side of the House are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, for having introduced to your Lordships' House perhaps one of the most important reports that it has had the opportunity to lay before it over the past four to five years.
I personally am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, who presided over the committee concerned with investigating this matter with the indulgence and kindness he extended to me in allowing me to participate fully in the proceedings of the committee. In fact his kindness went further. In my view he dealt very kindly with the evidence that was laid before the committee, and I invite the House to give urgent attention to it.
I am afraid that I shall have to interpret the evidence in slightly more astringent terms than those with which the report itself deals with it and also the manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, himself has touched upon the evidence. Unusually perhaps for me I find myself firmly behind the iron resolve of the Prime Minister in this matter. I am surprised that tribute has not been paid to her resolve from all quarters of the House.

1239
The title of the report and the subject we are discussing is Financing the Community. I hope I take the House with me when I say that the purpose of financing is to provide funds for the achievement of specific projects or objectives. Some of these objectives may be very wide in scope and cover whole industries. I take the example of agriculture. Some will be devoted to more specific and possibly smaller purposes. I think it must be agreed between us that if a project or a purpose is to be financed, it must be financed adequately. In common with normal business and accounting principles we should have an adequate reserve for contingencies. Above all, I trust you will all agree, my Lords, that there must be value for money.
There will be few who will dissent from the general philosophy of Her Majesty's Government that problems are not solved by slinging money at them. That applies in the same manner to any project in the United Kingdom and in the EC as well. A problem is not solved, an objective or an ideal reached or perhaps the Holy Grail obtained purely by slinging money at it. As the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, will confirm, because he and I, together with Sir Michael Shaw worked very closely on these matters the expenditure of the EC is divided into two. One kind of expenditure is obligatory (or in Continental terms, compulsory), and the other is non-obligatory or non-compulsory.
Dealing with the latter type of expenditure first, this occupies about 25 per cent. of the Community's expenditure and comprise expenditure on the regional social funds, on research and development and a limited part of the farming funds in terms of the guidance funds. It is widely used by member states including the United Kingdom in substitution for expenditure that would normally be incurred within our own budget.
Strictly speaking, this is slightly dishonest from the EC standpoint. I deplore the fact that governments have adopted this device because EC expenditure on the regional social funds is supposed to be additional to that provided by member states. As the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will well appreciate, there is the obligation of additionality which was very rarely observed by member states. Nevertheless, the non-obligatory expenditure, broadly speaking, is easily controllable.
It is the obligatory expenditure or the compulsory expenditure which is overwhelmingly the common agricultural policy. That expenditure is in fact the Community itself and it is important. It is all very well to say that one does not want to discuss the CAP unduly because the CAP is not the whole Community. In fact I would draw your Lordships' attention to the last speech of the right honourable Roy Jenkins, to the European Parliament on the 17th December. He said in, I thought, a somewhat melancholy fashion:
"As I told the European Council, we have a largely agricultural community with political trimmings and an incomplete common market in industrial goods with a common external tariff".
That indeed is a fair summary of the European Community—a common agricultural policy with a few peripherals.
1240
It is important that your Lordships should realise that there is virtually no control at all over 75 per cent. of the budget of the European Community. There is no control over common agricultural policy expenditure under the CAP. Budgets are entirely immaterial. As the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, knows—I am quite sure he would confirm if necessary, though he would not wish to interrupt me—the budget entries in respect of the common agricultural policy are merely guidelines. They are likely to be varied by supplementary estimates at a later stage, and for all practical purposes nobody pays the blindest bit of attention to them.
It is the regulations that are passed by the European Council—whether or not these are based upon proposals arising from the Commission—that govern the amount of expenditure. They are open-ended. There is a legal responsibility by the European Community backed, if necessary, by the European Court of Justice, that according to the price levels for the commodities affected, determined in the agricultural council of Ministers and enshrined in the regulations, any farmer can obtain subsidies on the basis of whatever production he produces and on the basis of the stipulated intervention price. The greater the amount he produces, the greater the income he receives in respect of it.
There is no question of any budgetary control in the normal sense that we understand it. This can be verified. I will not waste your Lordships' time by citing the passages, but I can assure the House that they are all here and can be produced out of the excellent evidence of Mr. Christophersen the Europe Budget commissioner. I pay tribute to him. In my experience over the past seven years he has probably been the most honest and forthright of all the commissioners in telling the whole world the unvarnished truth of exactly what happens in the finances of the Community. It is a great pity that the national media of this country—press, radio and television—have not devoted sufficient importance to this vital item in the whole of the finances of Europe so that, in the main, the population do not know of the existence of the facts or of the procedures that actually take place there.
Of course some of the agricultural expenditure does an enormous amount of good. There is no question about that. The farming communities in parts of Europe would have been very ill-placed if it had not been for the provision of finance in this way. However, with regard to the United Kingdom, let there be no doubt that the funds available to British agriculture from the CAP—incidentally, they also go on the Minister of Agriculture's estimates and are paid direct by the British Government to the intervention agencies, and so on, through to the farmers—have benefited, in the main, some 12 per cent. of British farmers. They have mostly benefited the larger ones; and it is not the case, as in some cases on the Continent, that the smaller farmers have benefited all that much.
Therefore, some of the money—remember, you cannot solve a problem by slinging money at it—has been well expended and will continue to be well expended. However, the setting of prices by the intervention board on the basis of the regulations

1241
that are passed by the council has resulted in the overproduction of butter, beef, cereals, wine and milk to an extent which amounts to billions—I repeat, my Lords, billions—of pounds that is entirely wasted. There is this element of wasteful expenditure of which the United Kingdom itself bears its share and to which our attention should be directed. If one eliminated all the items of waste and all the items of fraud—and I am going to refer to that as well—it would be unnecessary to raise the finances of the Community beyond its present 1.4 per cent. based on the VAT base. We have billions of surplus items in store which are rapidly deteriorating and for which the Commission itself admits it has made no provision whatever. It is going to have to write them off at the rate of £1.5 billion per year, of which the United Kingdom is going to have to bear its share. There is another waste in the Community funds of which the United Kingdom is paying her share; that is, the cost of refrigerated storage throughout Europe. About £2 billion a year is spent on excess storage costs for goods that are not going to be required and that are deteriorating. Therefore there is that continued drain on the resources of the Community.
That is not all. Your Lordships may have noticed a report in The Times of 15th October last from which we now learn that the European Commission is launching a fraud inquiry as losses rise to £2 billion a year. We are talking of billions. We are talking of fraud on a massive scale occurring not, I am happy to say, in the main in the United Kingdon, as perusal of the auditors' report will show, but in other European countries. This is done by driving cattle to and fro over the frontiers and by a whole series of other measures. That money is being lost.
I submit to your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government are right to insist that no further funds be made available to the European Community until proper financial control is exercised. This is not only the philosophy of the Prime Minister, but it happens to be my philosophy as well, and it is extraordinary that that should be so.
It is not enough to eliminate the frauds and the wasteful expenditure which runs into billions of pounds. It is all very well when one refers to billions to say that it is only X per cent. of the national income or only X per cent. of the budget. One does not use the same terms when people are dying in our hospitals because of lack of medical equipment. One does not say it then when people are dying because of lack of treatment due to artificial cash limits being imposed upon the National Health Service and the local authorities. One does not say then that it is only an ignominious proportion of the national income.
The reason it is happening was clearly put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Seebohm and Lord Benson. We can quote the old proverb that the fish rots from the head and not from the tail. Where it is wrong is in the Council. The report of the evidence makes clear how that happens. Agricultural Ministers meet year by year to determine prices. They decide what the price should be. Mr. Gaston Thorn of the little republic of Luxembourg put forward a suggestion that finance Ministers should be involved in this at the same time so that when they reach a price
1242
decision, they (including the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury) could advise them of what the consequences on national finances should be.
That was the suggestion of Gaston Thorn, but the British Government and other governments neglected it, as a result of which the agricultural Ministers determined a price level on the basis of which they could go back to their constituents and say, "Aah! We fought for your interests." They can say to the farmers, "We protected your interests in the matter." However, at the same time, the finance Ministers, who were not involved, and who in one instance walked out of the meeting at Luxembourg, could avoid taking responsibility but could also take the credit by protesting at the lack of financial stability. That is hypocrisy on the worst possible scale.
One of the cures for that would be for the Prime Minister possibly to relinquish her chairmanship of the Cabinet sub-committee on privatisation, which has perhaps fallen rather into temporary disrepute, and to form a new Cabinet sub-committee to deal with EC finances and presided over by the Prime Minister, because, clearly, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are incapable of dealing with the problem themselves. There therefore have to be changes at the top. There has to be change in the agricultural regulations, including the stabilisers which have been mentioned. There has to be a ruthless prosecution of fraud and a tightening up of procedures. There has to be the adoption of an agreed system of accounting, instead of the miserable creative accounting which amounts to the fiddling of accounts with which the public are presented at present. There has to be a repatriation of some of the agricultural support away from the community, where it cannot presently be controlled, to the United Kingdom where it can.
I am sorry to have to adopt a slightly more astringent attitude towards this report than some of your Lordships. I do so more in sorrow than in anger. I am one of those who, together with the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, devoted four years, practically full-time, to supporting the Community as a United Kingdom representative. I do not think that even my worst political enemy would accuse me of neglecting my duty in that regard. It is a matter of great regret to me to have to address your Lordships' House in these terms.
Like so many of your Lordships' I am a member of Europe. I am also a Briton. So long as I speak in your Lordships' House, it is as a Briton that I shall continue to speak with the European being a second priority.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, this debate has been both important and timely. Important, because of the large sums of money involved in the proposals under discussion, and also of course because of our very real commitment to the European Community. Timely, because we are now in the thick of negotiations on the future financing of the Community, leading up to the European Council at Copenhagen next month.

1243
I have listened with great interest to the points made by noble Lords today. I am sure that noble Lords will not think it invidious if I select two of them for special mention. First, the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, to whom we owe thanks not only for proposing today's Motion but also for chairing the sub-committee which produced the report we are considering today. Secondly, perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend Lord Plumb who selected an opportune moment for the first British President of the European Parliament to make a most impressive maiden speech in this House.
I should like, if I may, to begin by outlining very briefly the Government's general approach to the current negotiations on financing the Community; then to respond to the main points in the Select Committee's report; and, finally, to reply to some of the other matters raised by noble Lords today.
First, I should like to stress that the UK is adopting a constructive approach to the future financing negotiations. The key areas are CAP reform and budget discipline. The UK made clear at the European Council in Brussels in June that we were not prepared to address the question of additional resources until agreement is reached on effective and binding control over Community spending, particularly agricultural spending. The proper and effective control of agricultural expenditure, as identified by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is absolutely essential. I am delighted that he supports the Government's approach of seeking proper reform of the CAP.
The essential requirement for reform of the CAP is the introduction of automatic stabilisers together with other provisions to ensure that any given limits on agricultural expenditure can be respected. If an agreement is to be reached at Copenhagen in December, the widely accepted principle of stabilisers must be translated into specific, quantified decisions so that it is certain that the new arrangements will work effectively and as intended. In other words the agricultural guideline must become a real limit on agricultural spending.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred to the Commission's proposals for agricultural stabilisers. The Government have made it clear that agreement on effective agricultural stabilisers is essential if there is to be a settlement at Copenhagen. We are pressing hard for agreement within that timetable, but my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that we shall not accept measures that are not effective.
We also need to ensure that effective budget discipline applies to non-agricultural spending. The proposal by the Commission for a doubling of the structural funds is in our opinion quite unrealistic—I shall come back to that point in a moment because I know that the Select Committee had its own views on the matter.
As far as the UK abatement is concerned, any changes to the Fontainebleau abatement system (which has served us well) must improve our overall position.
1244
We accept that the Commission's proposal for a new own resource based on the difference between GNP and the VAT base could make the own resources system fairer. The proposal deserves consideration, although, in answer to a question from my noble friend Lord Bessborough and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, we have not at this stage agreed to the proposal, whatever it may have said in The Times on Saturday. The Government are working hard for agreement at Copenhagen, though clearly agreement will not be easy. The noble Lord, Lord Benson, referred to the importance of political will to solve the Community's problems. We have that will. Heads of Government agreed in June that decisions on all issues must be made together. Interim or partial solutions would not do. We need an overall agreement which is clear, complete and legally binding.
Against that background, perhaps I could now turn to the Select Committee's report. First of all, I should like to welcome the committee's endorsement of our general negotiating position. As the committee says:
"spending must be brought under firm control before any decision is reached on increasing the Community's resources".
A number of noble Lords have echoed that today. I was pleased, for instance, to hear the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, say that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is absolutely right to insist on control of expenditure as a sine qua non before there is any question of extra finances.
Secondly, the committee is absolutely right to stress the importance in this context of budgetary disciplne in general and control of agricultural spending in particular.
The Government are firmly committed to ensuring that budgetary discipline in the Community is made more effective, building on the Council's unanimous budgetary discipline conclusions of 1984. We must now ensure that the constraints agreed then bite more effectively on expenditure.
On agricultural spending, the committee has rightly drawn attention to the need for the guideline on agricultural expenditure to be made effective by legally binding and effective controls in each product régime. These "stabilisers" and other budgetary controls of the kind are needed to ensure that any potential overspend in a particular commodity régime will be dealt with before it becomes irreversible. There is now widespread recognition in the Community of the need for stabilisers. Our aim will be to reach agreement on specific quantified mechanisms for each régime.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett suggested that introduction of proper budgetary discipline in agriculture was not a feasible aim. The Government do not accept that any area of Community expenditure should be exempt from the need for budgetary discipline, as applies to domestic expenditure; proposals for stabilisers are part of the Commission's response to the need to control agricultural expenditure. This was a point made by the noble Lords, Lord Seebohm and Lord Walston.
The committee has also stressed the importance of tighter budget management, drawing attention in

1245
particular to the question of transfers of unspent balances. It is a key principle for the UK that funds controlled by the Community should be managed at least as efficiently as they are in the member states. We have proposed specific improvements to tighten up on the use of funds and ensure more effective control by the budgetary authority. These ideas and proposals put foward by the Commission are now under detailed discussion in Brussels. We have made clear that we expect to see real progress in this area.
Thirdly, there is the question whether the Community needs more resources. The committee says that it does. The Government's position, as I said earlier, is that until we have agreement on control of spending it does not make sense to address the question of any increases. What I would say, however, is that the increase in the own resources ceiling proposed by the Commission—equivalent to an increase of 45 per cent. in 1992—is quite unrealistic, as well as being inconsistent with the need to make budget discipline more effective.
Fourthly, the committee says that once agricultural spending has been brought under control, spending should be increased on the structural funds, and on other policies such as research and the environment, so long as action at Community level offers value for money. We could certainly endorse the emphasis on value for money. But I would sound a couple of notes of caution about the rest of the recommendation.
We need to ensure that "non-obligatory" expenditure—broadly speaking, non-agricultural spending—does not grow excessively. This is best achieved through respect of the so-called "maximum rate" limitation on such expenditure in the annual budgetary procedure, which is an important element in budgetary discipline.
On the structural funds, yes, we recognise the role that they play. But that does not mean that we should go along with the Commission's plans to double them in size. We should not forget that they have grown by almost a third in real terms over the last three years and if the Community gets its priorities right, there will be scope for further real growth in the years ahead without infringing budget discipline. Moreover, the funds have always taken account of the problems of the poorer member states. However, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, and others, we do not accept that increases in the funds are needed specifically to "compensate" for completion of the internal market. That is a process from which all member states, not just the more prosperous ones, should gain. Therefore there is no justification for the Commission's extravagant proposals to double the structural funds in real terms.
Fifthly, the committee recommends that if agricultural support is to be brought under control, parallel steps should be taken to prevent rural depopulation and dereliction. They refer specifically to income supplements. I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, had to say on this subject. Direct income aids to farmers could be considered as being one way in which the transition to a more market-oriented CAP could possibly be eased. It is important however that any such aids, if
1246
they were agreed, should be linked to the achievement of genuine CAP reform. They should also be degressive and time-limited, and financed by member states within a Community framework. The Government have of course already announced a package of measures to assist the process of adjustment in this country under the Farming and Rural Enterprises Initiative. Indeed, your Lordships are currently considering the Farmland and Rural Development Bill which includes powers to introduce the new farm woodland scheme and grants for diversification.
Sixthly, the committee supports the Commission's proposals for a new own resource related to GNP, and for the own resources ceiling to be based on GNP. I have already said that we think the new own resource deserves consideration. As for the ceiling, while recognising the arguments in favour of the proposal, we also need to bear in mind that using a GNP base—whatever the percentage rate chosen—would mean that the ceiling could be substantially higher by 1992 than if defined on the present basis. The question of moving to a GNP ceiling, like the proposal for an increase in the ceiling, cannot sensibly be addressed unless and until we have agreement on effective control of expenditure for the future.
Lastly, the committee recommends that the Government should show some flexibility over the proposals to replace the UK's abatement mechanism, which has served the UK well. I would remind your Lordships that by the end of 1987 we shall have benefited from abatements worth over £2.8 billion. I should like to explain why we cannot accept the committee's charge of over-rigidity on this issue.
I listened with care to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, about the need for the UK to give ground on this point. However, I feel I must remind the noble Lord and others that despite our abatement our net contribution has increased substantially since Fontainebleau in 1984. We are the second largest net contributor to the Community budget. Any changes in expenditure along the lines proposed by the Commission would be likely to make our imbalance significantly worse. Meanwhile other member states more prosperous than us remain substantial net recipients from the budget.
The new mechanism proposed by the Commission would cut the UK's abatement by about half. Overall the commission's proposals could, on our estimates, increase our net contribution by about some £800 to £900 million a year at today's prices—a point upon which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington commented. I am sure therefore that noble Lords will understand why we are not prepared to change the present system (which can only be changed by unanimous agreement and with approval of national parliaments) unless our overall position is thereby improved.
I have tried to cover many of the issues raised by noble Lords today, but there are a few specific points on which I should like to respond now. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, talked about the additionality of Community expenditure and suggested that expenditure on the social and regional funds was not additional to domestic spending plans. This is not

1247
strictly accurate. The availability of Community spending allows total public expenditure in the UK to be higher than otherwise would be the case.
My noble friend Lord Plumb and others have stressed the importance of competing in the internal market. We quite agree with that. It is indeed a major United Kingdom priority. During the United Kingdom presidency last year the Council adopted or agreed 48 individual measures which will help to remove barriers, but this momentum needs to be maintained if the internal market is to be achieved by 1992.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, and others stressed the need for the Government to show a positive approach to Europe. We thoroughly agree. It is significant that future financing negotiations are not one against 11: the United Kingdom against the rest. The need for CAP reform and better discipline is now widely accepted.
Lastly, on specific points, my noble friend Lord Bessborough and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, spoke once again of the desirability of our joining the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. I fear that once again, having answered that question on several occasions I have nothing further to add other than to say that we keep the issue under continual review—a reply with which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will be thoroughly familiar.
As I said before, this has been an important and most interesting debate. I should like to conclude by referring to the comment in the Select Committee's report that the Government should stress the positive side of its approach to Europe. Our approach to the European Community is positive. We are committed to the Community and that is one reason why we are striving to put its finances in order. At the same time of course we are determined to protect the interests of British taxpayers and consumers. These objectives are not incompatible. In the current negotiations we are doing our utmost to ensure that the deal that is reached is good for Britain and good for Europe; and I am sure that noble Lords would support that approach.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Kearton: My Lords, in winding up the discussion I should like very sincerely to thank all those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I should particularly like to refer to the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, whose contribution was so powerful. We are delighted that he has appeared here to make his maiden speech and we look forward to many more speeches from him on European affairs in particular.
I think all the speakers were commendably brief. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, had the record. I am sure he wanted to speak for longer than anyone else. He mentioned that he was astringent. I should have used the word "strident" myself. Nevertheless, many of the things that he said were not in conflict with the committee's general conclusions.
I should like to thank the Minister for his reply in winding up for the Government. I should like to compliment him on the way he presented it. He was
1248
extremely clear and cogent, and the speech was courteously and lucidly argued. Having paid the Minister this compliment, I hope he will not mind if I say that I found his speech like the curate's egg—good in parts and not so good in others. The Government, as they often do, take the line that if you agree with them you are splendid people. If you venture to have a slightly different point of view you are spendthrift, narrow-minded, unrealistic and really a very doubtful character indeed.
When one looks at the membership of the Select Committee one finds a high concentration of financially eminent people of great distinction. I think the idea that they are recklessly improvident with the interests of the United Kingdom is a charge that cannot be sustained. So I am taking the charitable and very natural view that the Minister must retain the Government's bargaining position in negotiations at Copenhagen. I very much appreciated his comment that the Government really wanted to see the Community succeed and that they shared the vision expressed so powerfully by many Members of this House today.
We wish the Government well and hope that in the outcome they move a little further than in the Minister's speech towards the recommendations of the Select Committee. I formally beg to move that the House takes note of the report.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Overseas Trade: Select Committee's Report
5.52 p.m.
Lord Aldington Lord Aldington rose to ask Her Majesty's Government on what grounds they consider the 1985 Report of the Select Committee on Overseas Trade to have been largely discredited by events (per Lord Beaverbrook 21st October HL Deb. col. 121) and which of the recommendations they regret having accepted.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I propose this evening to do my best to show to the House that the report of the Select Committee on Overseas Trade published in October 1985 has most certainly not been "largely discredited". I propose to do this in the hope that my noble friend will be able to agree with enough of what I say to withdraw from the records of this House a rather sudden Government slur upon and condemnation of that report.
The report's analysis and conclusions, which cover the long term in the past and the long term in the future, are still relevant and will be relevant for some years to come. They form a report that many of us had hoped—this applied, I believe, to the whole House when it was discussed two years ago—would be studied by many students both now and in the future. That is why I have asked your Lordships to discuss the matter this afternoon, so that we still have a report which does not suffer from discredit by the Government.
I am in the difficult position of anyone asking a Question in not knowing what the Minister will say in reply and, because it is an Unstarred Question, not being able to challenge any of the points he may

1249
make. Thus, I shall have to spread my fire rather widely. It was a wide ranging report which offers a wide target. I must make clear that I am not in any way questioning the Government's right to disagree or, indeed, to raise their disagreements. Those matters can be debated. The report was designed to provoke a nationwide debate. This House welcomed it as a basis for such an important nationwide debate. And that debate has indeed been going on. My only concern tonight—I ask your Lordships to be similarly concerned—is that the Government no longer think it worthy of debate, for that is what the words mean.
We are not dealing this evening with disagreements. We are dealing with the charge of discredit. It would have been no surprise to me if my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook had said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, that he disagreed with the report on some points including its references to Neddy, to consensus and to co-operation. That is a point of view. I do not agree with him; I stand by what was said in the report. But my noble friend would most certainly not have provoked me to start this debate if he had merely said that he disagreed. Instead—I must remind the House of the words—he used these devastating words:
"the Report … has largely been discredited by events since then".
He went on to rub it in when the noble Lord, Lord Ezra gave him a chance to retreat. The House has learned to take my noble friend's words most seriously. Not only do we like him, but we admire his mastery of all kinds of briefs and the admirable way in which he speaks to us on behalf of the Government. I welcome his courage tonight in standing here alone in defending himself and not inviting either the Leader or the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, to answer me directly.
It is possible that if I had been here that afternoon I might have been provoked into teasing my noble friend by asking him to which of the three questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch—because that is what the matter amounted to—he was directing that devastating answer. He was asked, first, whether he had read the report; secondly, whether he had noted the recommendation referred to; and, thirdly, whether the Government were acting accordingly. His dismissive reply reads to me as a strong negative answer to all three questions, including the first. Of course, I forgive him for that. He has a great deal to do. As a penance for him I have felt bound to read the whole report again, and I imagine he has had to suffer the same burden.
First, let me try to remind the House of the theme and main points of the report and of some of the Government's considered statements in this House in the past two years on the issues. While doing that, I refer to some very welcome improvements during those two years which seem to confirm, not discredit, what we said. I shall summarise some of the relevant events in statistics that have taken place since July 1985 when we finished the report. Our analyses showed that there had been a deterioration in British manufacturing performance as a whole over very many years, indeed over many decades. Of course there are a number of first class manufacturers, and we said so; but there are not enough. That is still true.
Our theme was that the national attitude to trade and manufacturing—I stress the words "trade" and "manufacturing"—needs to change and change radically if we are to avoid a major social and economic crisis in our nation's affairs in the foreseable future. We were not saying tomorrow, or the next year or the year after; we were looking far further ahead. The Goverment agreed with us about long term deterioration. They agreed with us about the importance of a change in national attitude which they said applied to the whole of the non-oil trading sector. I have no quarrel with that. We were not asked to report upon the whole of that sector.
The Government did not agree with our warning of the direness of the consequences of failing to change those attitudes and failing to reverse the long-term trends. That warning was directed, as most of the report was, at the longer term future and not at the next few years. It was not a forecast; it was a challenge. There is no way in which rational minds can discredit in two years that warning.
The warning struck a note of urgency because we were persuaded that it would take many years to reverse the long-term trends of deteriorating manufacturing performance, many years to build up a larger and more modern fully competitive manufacturing base, and many years to pull ourselves up the international league table of GDP per person. At that time, we were seventeenth. The sooner the process started the better, so it seemed to us. And, my Lords, as I shall show, it has started. Certainly, we gave a special importance to manufacturing—we were asked to do that—but we did not undervalue other sectors of the British economy such as the services sector, much of which is interdependent with manufacturing.
As to the importance of manufacturing I need only refer to the debate of 11th March 1987 on a Motion from the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the House supported the Motion calling attention to the importance of manufacturing industry to Britain's economic prosperity and added:
"Nor can there be any disagreement over the vital responsibility on the government of the day to pursue policies conducive to the health of manufacturing industry".—[Official Report, 11/3/87; col. 1058.]
So I do not think that we need argue much about that. There are no events in the past two years that could have discredited what we said on the major long-term issue of the importance of manufacturing to Britain's future. Certainly, the debate on the powerful report on civil research and development of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and his committee did not.
I return to 3rd December 1985, the day on which we debated the report. It may have been forgotten that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, speaking for the Government, used these words:
"I should like the House to be clear at the outset that there is much in the committee's analysis and in their recommendations with which the Government unreservedly agree. But we have serious misgivings about some parts of the report".—[Official Report, 3/12/85, col. 1202.]
Misgivings do not discredit. The noble Lord specifically welcomed the call to change attitudes and stressed the importance of the role of the education system, as we had done in the report. I want to say here that in my opinion the Government themselves

1251
have played a big part by their policies and by their leadership in starting a real change in those attitudes and in coaxing a welcome change in education circles regarding the importance of manufacturing as a career. But they would agree that we have a long way to go. The fruits of these changes will not mature for several years yet.
My noble friend went on to take the next six major points of the report and gave his views on every single one beginning with the word, "Yes". What we said on the need to improve competitiveness he blessed; what we said on the importance of restraining pay settlements he blessed. We said that there must be regard to cost competitiveness. Happily, in recent months, this regard has been had, with the result that unit costs have risen only a small bit. But the point will always be valid.
My noble friend liked what we said about productivity. Happily, productivity has improved sharply in recent quarters, and the average increase in manufacturing productivity of 4 per cent. per annum since 1979 is an important achievement. But, as the report stressed, it is relative productivity with our competitors that matters even more. I want to quote from page 336 of the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin of August 1987 which makes the same point:
"The rather encouraging picture needs qualification in two ways. First, despite better productivity performance in the UK in recent years than in other industrial countries, UK levels of productivity remain below those of many of our major competitors".
The second point was a warning about unit labour costs rising too fast in the future, when productivity increases which have been considerable—7 per cent. in recent quarters—average 4 per cent. and not higher figures. Both these points are implicit in the so-called discredited report.
Critics have argued that the report was directed solely towards the Government, whereas in fact it keeps on saying, if one reads it, that all people and all sections of society are involved. A large part of its discussions and conclusions refer to what industry, all who work in it, need to have in mind—competitiveness, investment, quality, design, reliability, delivery times, after sales service and marketing generally. All were discussed and illuminated by the evidence given to us by the successful leaders of great companies, and much progress has been made in all of them. Of course, these factors depend upon the people who manage and work in industry. Managers must be allowed to manage; and that is much better now than when we wrote. It is not unconnected with the Government's industrial relations legislation.
It remains true that in the modern world all governments have the role of leadership and help. I say again that the Government are to be praised for their role in starting a change in national attitudes. I do not mind at all if they say that that role had been performed before we reported. It merely proves how right they should think we were in our report. Their benificent action has not been confined to climates and tones. I am pleased that their exchange rate policy now has the same aim as we suggested; namely, stability at an industrially competitive rate. Of course, world events may intervene to upset the rates
1252
from time to time. But it is the aim of policy that matters. Likewise, with interest rates, the aim has been lower rates subject to exchange and anti-inflationary requirements. We stressed that rates of interest higher than our competitors were harmful. There is nothing discreditable about that, my Lords. The CBI is still emphasising the point even now.
Let us look for a moment at the very important measures in training taken by my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham. Certainly, industry itself ought to have done more in the past. There were some praiseworthy exceptions but not enough. What my noble friend has done is very much in keeping with the challenge from overseas and with what we had in mind. May the whole of industry follow up!
I know I have taken some time but I said that I would have to range widely. I come now to the statistical matters reflecting events since 1985. I have already said that manufacturing industry has done well. It has increased its output, its productivity and its general competitiveness. Exports have risen in a splendid way and the loss of share of world trade has been halted. I shall give a few figures. I have already given output per head. Output itself is 5 per cent. higher than in 1986 and probably more; but in 1986 it was only I per cent. higher than in 1985. Output is now higher than in 1979 but it is still below the level of 1973, whereas other countries' output is well above their 1973 performance.
There is one very important theme to our report. Manufacturing output in 1986–87 rose faster than did gross domestic product, as achieved by our richer competitor countries over the years. This is the first time for many years that it has happened. As to exports, in volume, the third quarter of 1987 showed an increase above the 1985 average of 12½ per cent., but the ratio of exports of manufactured goods to manufactured sales plus imports has fallen in that time; so we want to be careful that we do not get too complacent.
We must not forget imports. The report did not; some people do. Imports in volume in the third quarter of 1987 were 23 per cent.—not 12½ per cent.—above the 1985 average. This leads to the balance of trade in manufactured goods, which is what this House asked us to look into when they set us up in 1984. In 1985 there was a deficit of £3 billion; in 1986 it was just under £5½ billion; in the first three quarters of 1987 it was £4.8 billion; and the Financial Statement and Budget report forecasts a deficit for the year of £8 billion. I do not think it will be as much as that.
Import penetration has generally worsened since 1985 for most parts of manufacturing. The exceptions are chemicals, other transport equipment, and one or two smaller activities, but in the main it has worsened. Which of those events largely descredits the report? None, I submit.
Now it is said, "But look at the great strength of our total economy"—which I do—"and the quite sustainable position on the current account"—which I do too. I have all the confidence that the Chancellor has in the strength of our economy at the immediate time. Some will be heard to say, "You despondent members of the Select Committee forecast great doom by now". We did not, my Lords; never did we do that.
I have to repeat something here which my noble friend the former Under-Secretary of State for Trade—and he is a friend as well as my noble friend—in this House refused to hear on a famous occasion. We were not despondent. We issued a challenge. We had a faith in the British people once they understood the real position, and that is what we tried to show. Many of us had faith in Her Majesty's Government too. To be despondent is to be without faith.
We made no forecasts ourselves. We referred to the oil situation, but we did not base our report on the difficulties of oil, and we specifically said that if, for example, the price of oil fell sharply predictions would alter. But our report did not depend on estimates of what would happen in the short-term future. We were concerned with long-term trends and the need to reverse them for long-term reasons.
The oil balance has fallen by £4 billion. That gap has been partly filled by the wonderful performance of invisibles—a sign of the great success and value of our financial services and of the product of overseas investment. But the gap has not been wholly filled. So why, oh why, are the theme and conclusions of our report suddenly thought to be largely discredited? I wait to hear, and to hear which of the important conclusions that the Government told us they had unreservedly accepted they now largely regret having accepted.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, has reminded us, it was the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, who told me a few days ago, on 21st October, that our report was largely discredited. When the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, gave him an opportunity of withdrawing that charge he went on to say that it had been overtaken by events.
I sympathise with the Minister. He was not a Minister when the report was published, and no doubt he was largely ignorant both of its contents and of its reception. I believe that tonight he should not have been left to answer this charge, because he was speaking for the Government when he made those charges against a committee of this House and we should be entitled tonight to have a senior Minister answering this charge on behalf of the Government. Indeed, I should have expected, when those two comments were made and the Leader of the House was sitting next to the noble Lord, that he would have got up then and withdrawn the Government's charge that the committee's report was either discredited or overtaken by events.
I have no doubt that the Minister has read the reports of the CBI conference last week. No doubt he will have read the comments of the director general, John Banham, who called for a rebuilding of the industrial base of this country; who called for greater investment in plant and equipment, in innovation and technology, and above all in people. He went on to propose that there should be greater partnership between business and the public sector, particularly in education, in training, and in the inner cities. This is entirely in accord with what your committee reported to this House, and those parts were certainly
1254
sympathetically received by the Government if not totally approved.
Today we are told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we have a strong, booming economy. If it is so strong, then how is it that the indicators show that we are about to face a reduction in growth next year? It would appear to me, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, has said—and here I disagree with him—that the Government have been only half-hearted, if that, in putting our recommendations into practice.
When we examined the Chancellor as a committee he made it plain that he was the high priest of cutting public expenditure. Last week he appears to have been hoping to be recognised as the angel of greater spending. When he boasts both ways of keeping spending under control and of increasing spending, if those increases are looked at and put beside the increase in prices and the inflation that he himself forecast for next year, they become very small beer indeed.
Even when he was meeting us at the time that he was so opposed to any increase in public expenditure, public expenditure had increased under this Government. It had increased by 11 per cent. since 1979 in real terms. But on what has it been increased? So far as I can see, one of the pariahs of government expenditure has been in the encouragement of British industry and the restoration of our manufacturing base.
We are told that growth will be between 3 per cent. and 4 per cent. this year, but we are then told that it is going to fall to 2½ per cent. next year and that inflation is going to increase. Is that the sign of a strong economy? On the other side, if one follows the Chancellor and argues both ways, if we have a strong economy why is that not being used for the purposes of restoring our manufacturing industry, and particularly for cutting the growing deficit in our manufacturers?
Other countries do it, and our committee, as your Lordships know, went to look at other countries to try to learn some lessons. We found that since 1966 West Germany's share of world manufacturing exports has increased to 20 per cent., allowing the West Germans to spend over 40 per cent. more on health care than Britain does; allowing West Germany to provide an average pension of 41 per cent. of the average weekly wage, whereas in this country the figure is only 23 per cent. How is it that the Germans can do it and we are not doing it? I believe that the report is still relevant in the answer to that question. We have seen the trade deficit increasing year by year since 1983, and we pointed out in our report the grave dangers of that. We are now told that this year that deficit will be £7.5 billion. Next year it will be £9 billion.
If the manufacturing base of our exports is going to decline as it is declining, what is going to take its place? The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, half suggested that the service industries might do it, but not exports. This country's wealth and economic strength has been built up on manufacturing exports, and certainly our export industry is not going to be helped by the increases of 15 per cent. in electricity

1255
charges over the next two years. Nor should we neglect the fact, as again was referred to in our report, that it is not just a deficit in manufacturing exports that is undermining the economy of this country. According to the Chancellor, the balance of payments deficit is due to increase by 40 per cent. next year to £3.5 billion, despite the fact that we still have the windfalls of North Sea oil every year.
When the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, talked about increased productivity he quite rightly compared it with that of other countries. My Lords, do you realise that since 1979 output per head in this country has increased in the non-oil industries by no more than 1¾ per cent? Nor can we expect that industry in this country is going to regain its strength when the Government—and this is totally against all the recommendations of the Select Committee report, carefully worked out—are decimating the use of the National Economic Development Councils.
We have pointed out in the report that in Germany, in France and in Japan the combination, the co-operation between the trade unions, the management and the Government is the bedrock on which manufacturing industry has been based. When this Government start to undermine the use of the NEDDYs of this country they are undermining the chance of that national consensus on the importance of manufacturing industry which we found in our major industrial competitors.
I must say one last word about the subject that I dealt with almost exclusively in the debate that we had when the committee's report was published, because this has been my special interest through the committee and in its report; that is, the relationship between this country and the potential in the third world; between this country as an aid donor and this country as a potential beneficiary of that great untapped market.
I received only today from the major British exporters a letter from which I should like to quote one paragraph. It reads as follows:
"We are concerned that the Government is still not giving sufficient lead in the promotion of a much more enterprising attitude in relation to overseas trade. It is most important that Government and Whitehall representatives in the UK and overseas promote the UK in competition with other Governments. This change should include a much more robust attitude to the use of UK's overseas aid budget for the benefit of the UK as well as the recipient countries".
This was the theme of the speech I made in the debate on the report. I believe it still stands, and I believe that if you read the evidence that was given to our committee you will see that one industrialist after another said that when the Government cut overseas aid they are making it more difficult for manufacturers to get markets overseas, and therefore they are reducing British employment. I have given this example many times. We have seen this in the British Leyland example in Bathurst. We have seen it many times since, but the Government are still cutting overseas aid.
I should like to ask the Minister one question of which I have given him notice. Is it the case that in last week's Autumn Statement the Chancellor announced that only £90 million was to be added to our present overseas aid budget? If that is correct,
1256
what percentage increase does it represent? And if it is correct, when that £90 million is added to our present overseas budget where will that leave the United Kingdom in face of the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of GDP to be given in overseas aid each year? This is not simply a question of charity; it is intimately and directly connected to the whole burden of our report. It is intimately and directly connected to the restoration of manufacturing industry in this country. It is directly connected to our future as an exporting nation, and it is directly connected to employment in this country.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am very pleased to be standing here tonight in support of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. Together with other Members of the Select Committee, I spent many months in very fruitful and useful discussion on the issue which was put to us by your Lordships' House.
I should like to say, before proceeding to the substance of the Question, that I believe we are here faced with an issue of principle. Your Lordships have recently been debating the procedures of this House. We have generally agreed that, on the whole the procedures work fairly well; but one thing is of great importance when we consider our affairs, and that is that we have gained in the public mind an increasing reputation for free objective and frank discussion of the major issues facing the country.
I believe that the report which we are here discussing was an illustration of that. After all, the Members of the Committee were representative of all the parties in your Lordships' House. We came out with a very clear analysis, having heard the leading personalities in the country concerned with these matters, in Government; in industry; in trade and in the trade unions.
We came to our conclusions; and as the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, said, many of our recommendations were accepted specifically by the noble Lord, Lord Young, when he spoke in the debate on the report. Some of the emphasis in our report was not accepted, but I feel that that in no way justifies the views recently expressed in answer to a supplementary question in this House. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, for whom I have a great regard, will explain to us precisely what he had in mind, and no doubt he will do so. I also hope that he will confirm that it remains the Government's policy to enable this House fully and freely to confront all the major issues that may arise and that any reports which may be prepared by future select committees will be dealt with in debate as objectively as possible by the Government Benches as well as by all other Benches.
Turning to the substance of the report, if the Select Committee had been set up today to look at the issue, let me ask whether it would have reported differently. I think that is a fair test because in fact the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, said that events had changed. Of course much has happened since the Select Committee reported; and I am sure that my colleagues on the Select Committee would agree that there would have been a different emphasis. For

1257
example, we noted at the time of our report that the productivity of British industry was lagging, whereas now we would note that it has shown considerable improvement. That is a positive statement that would go into a report written today. However, what we should still have drawn attention to—and our inquiry would still have been entirely relevant to it—is our balance of trade in manufactures. It is almost precisely four years to the day since I put an Unstarred Question on this subject in this House. The date was 10th November 1983, which was the year in which we started showing a deficit in our manufactured trade for the first time for very many years.
It was as a result of the ensuing discussion that the Select Committee was set up. Regrettably it is still a fact today that we have a problem in that connection. In the Autumn Statement, and in his subsequent speeches, the Chancellor of the Exchequer freely admitted that with the decline in oil revenues we shall be running into a balance of payments deficit of something of the order of £2·5 billion this year. He admitted that it could be £3·5 billion next year, and he has not estimated what the position might be thereafter.
That is the essential problem that the committee was tackling and it made recommendations on how to overcome it. I am glad to say that many of the recommendations were not only accepted but acted upon, as the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, pointed out. The fact remains that we as a country are still faced with that problem. As the oil revenues decline, and in spite of substantial earnings from invisibles, there is likely to be a progressive increase of the deficiency in our balance of payments. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to be concerned about that issue. It is the specific issue which the Select Committee was set up to consider.
In the Government's reply to the report we were told that the committee should have concerned itself more widely with the economy. That is not what the committee was set up to do. It referred more widely to the economy but specified in particular what it considered ought to be done about manufacturing industry.
I conclude that had the committee been set up today, while it should of course have paid tribute to the progress made in the productivity of the manufacturing industry in the interval, it should still have drawn attention to the underlying problem of the balance of trade and still have made what I consider to be the same thoroughly constructive proposals on how that problem should be resolved. I think that that is all the more relevant in the present context.
The British economy is doing relatively well compared with others but Britain cannot isolate itself from the rest of the world. After all, one third of our GDP involves overseas trade; and the rest of the world is in serious difficulty, as we well know. This has had an immediately unsettling impact on financial markets, and there is a risk, which is being considered in the press, in television and radio, of that unease in financial markets spreading to industrial markets. That must be avoided and we must hope that it will be. However, we have to make
1258
absolutely sure that should that event take place in world terms, it is minimised so far as we are concerned.
Therefore many of the recommendations in our report are extremely relevant to the situation today. For example, there is the need to reduce interest rates, which in some measure the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already undertaken, and the need to establish a competitive currency on a stable basis, which was also a recommendation of our report. There is the need to make absolutely sure that we undertake the necessary investment not only in manufacturing industry itself but in the supporting infrastructure. That is being done progressively. Those are all measures that we recommended and they are all as relevant today as they were at the time that the report was written.
Therefore I conclude by saying that I am indeed disturbed, as must be the other members of the Select Committee, that this very constructive report which as the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, rightly said, concerns itself with the long term and makes very positive recommendations—many of which the Government supported at the time and have since implemented—should now be regarded as outdated. Indeed even stronger words were used about it.
I very much hope that as a result of this debate and in due course the reply from the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, we shall have confirmation of what the noble Lord, Lord Young, said in receiving the report, and that many of the measures that the committee recommended should be taken have in fact been implemented and will continue to be undertaken in order to ensure that our manufacturing industry returns to the position that it held in the past so that it makes good the gap that will surely otherwise open up in our balance of payments.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, I share the dissatisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, and I look forward to his elaboration of them. I am confident that the noble Lord will be able to look after himself; I do not concur with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that he needs the protection of a senior colleague.
Since the report was published the Government have been justly able to claim credit for the improved situation in industry and overseas trade. That improvement is undoubted in the short-term but likely to be insufficient in the long-term. However, important long-term anxieties were voiced in the report and I should be most interested to learn how the Government now view them.
Among the long-term anxieties were the unsatisfactory public attitudes to trade and industry, educational short-comings, the impossibility of service industries wholly filling the gap left by manufacturing decline and doubts about the automatic growth of new and unforeseen industry, and particularly the possibility of balance-of-payment problems towards the end of this century. Can these anxieties now be ignored?

1259
So far as the change in public attitudes to industry is concerned, a determined effort has been made by many, and I have little doubt that some headway has been made and is being made.
However, the events of the past few weeks, when the vision of the City streets paved with gold has blurred, will perhaps do more than anything to raise doubts in young people's minds about the choice of their careers, and these doubts may well be helpful to industry in need of talent. This country's educational shortcomings are undeniable at all levels. The Government, and many of the educational institutions themselves, have shown a welcome determination to tackle these problems over a wide area. However, any beneficial effect cannot be but long-deferred and our relative disadvantage must persist for some time.
During recent years the service industries have achieved much both in terms of earnings and in numbers of employees, but they can never fully substitute for the loss of manufacturing capacity. That was the view that the Government seemed to share at the time the report was published.
The events of recent weeks have reinforced the view of the committee for there is surely at least a prospect of reduced earnings in the longer term for invisible exports, and the income from our vast overseas investments seems more likely to fall than to increase. In their evidence to the committee, Government witnesses made much of their assertion that new sunrise industries would automatically and inevitably arise. The committee was sceptical about the extent of this automaticity. Do Ministers believe that this sceptism has been in any way discredited?
However, the most serious anxiety of the committee was the possibility in the long-term of severe balance of payment difficulties, if not a crisis. It is true that the decline in domestic oil production is more gradual than was once anticipated. There is the possibility of a significant rise of the future oil price; this has been frequently forecast. Can our visible and invisible exports possibly increase to an extent which would preclude such a balance of payments crisis? It is perhaps too much to ask Ministers to forecast the long-term future. However, I hope that in their calculations they do not dismiss or discredit the warnings which the Select Committee recorded.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hanson: My Lords, once more the House is indebted to my noble friend Lord Aldington for raising this matter representing, as he does, such a formidable body of committee members experienced not only in manufacturing but in financial services, energy, and international trade.
Manufacturing, as I said in the original debate on 3rd December 1985, is the subject of particular importance to the nation, to us all, and to me in particular. I think that the central theme of my noble friend, Lord Aldington's speech at that time was that there was a need, as he said tonight, to change attitudes, and while I did not agree then with some of the points made by my noble friend I think that as the
1260
noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said that is somewhat a question of emphasis. There is much in the report, as everybody agreed at the time, that was extremely valuable to note; but it was my own view, and it is my own view today, that there was a little too much argument about the primacy of need of manufacturing over service industry: that our oil reserves are peaking so we must busy ourselves to stimulate the manufacaturing sector. That was, I believe, where we began to differ on this matter: this question of stimulation. My own view is that events have proved over the past two years that while the basis of the Committee's report was very accurate, and pointed out most of the things that obtain today, the course was already set for a good deal of improvement in manufacturing, and this of course has been proved. My noble friend Lord Aldington, has answered his own questions very well tonight by reciting all the good things that have happened and therefore it is not up to me to go over those again.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, took us on a slightly different path which I do not attempt to address; but, nevertheless, all the things that have happened have addressed the basic problems that face manufacturing in this country today. That is to say, the question of self-help. We are now the second-creditor nation in the world. The United Kingdom economy has grown faster than all the major countries since 1980, and with it the productivity growth in Britain's manufacturing industry has been among the highest in the major industrial countries. The inflation rates have been held down, a factor of the utmost importance to all of us in industry; indeed, the most important factor. Progress has continued in dealing with the loss-making nationalised industries and restoring them to their proper place in the profitable private manufacturing sector.
At the time of the debate I said that one of the principal problems of manufacturing has been that we have priced ourselves out of competition, and when we price ourselves back into competition our industry will grow, and I believe that has happened. It may well have happened as a result of the report; it may well have happened that there has been stimulation to manufacturers reading the words of the noble Lord's report. However, I took the view—and this is a question of emphasis—that it has been, largely with this whole problem, one of going out and getting the job done oneself. It is not a question that any goodwill will come from proposals for more government tinkering with this and that; interfering with that or, throwing money at the other. That was what I said at the time, and I still believe it now very strongly.
I feel that the point about education made by both the noble Lords, Lord Aldington and Lord Underhill, is still of primary importance. I said this at the time; and I think this is something which came out of the report very truly: education has a crucial role in this matter of change because there are so many examples of change taking place already.
These are encouraging signs from the Government that will encourage us in industry to see more young people coming into industry. We shall hear it talked about. It is no longer the dirty word that it has been in the past, to a degree, among certain governments.

1261
Now the encouragement is there. Therefore, my Lords, I welcome the formation of the city technology colleges and their concentration on educating our boys and girls to play their part, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, in an economy to which it is increasingly recognised they must be attracted. It must be made known to them that wealth must be created before it can be distributed.
We in industry look forward very much in due course to the influx from among the children of today coming to join us tomorrow; and in particular those graduates from city technology colleges. Therefore I am happy to give my own view that some aspects of the report have been overtaken by events. The positive attitude of this Government, as my noble friend Lord Aldington said, is having its effect on all parts of the economy; in particular, manufacturing. There is evidently no need for the stimulation which excited my attention in the original report as being unnecessary. I believe that industry itself will continue to create the success that it is creating at the moment.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, I am flattered to be mistaken for the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I hope that that is correctly reported in the record.
Lord Hanson: I apologise to the noble Lord.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, in his attempt to support the Government. I am always interested to hear his support for the Government, but I should just have thought that occasionally he might be slightly more discriminating in that support. Tonight, even with his support, he was not able to agree with his noble friend the Minister in the words that the report was discredited. I noted that he could not quite bring himself to say that.
I do not wish to take up too much of the time of your Lordships' House, but, like others, I have said that the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, is a very nice man. I like him very much indeed. Indeed I thought the debate would not take place today, because I half thought that he would make a grovelling apology to the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and then we would not have had a debate, instead of which I assume that he is now going to defend what he said. At least I must assume that, or maybe he is now going to make a grovelling apology.
However, I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, who tried his best, while strongly defending the committee and, rightly, saying a few words in support of the Government. I understand that, as we all do in your Lordships' House, and he was quite right. The economy is stronger today than it was when the report came out. But, as he rightly said, the report was not dealing with the short-term strengths or lack of strengths of the economic situation. That is why I simply cannot understand how it can be said to be largely discredited. I take it as read that, provided there is no disagreement about the facts, the facts are not discredited. They are facts on the record. The noble
1262
Lord, Lord Aldington, quoted quite a number of them and they are not to be either agreed with or disagreed with. They are facts.
Indeed the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, in setting up the committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, gave it the following terms of reference, which are quoted on page 86 of the report:
"That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the causes and implications of the deficit in the United Kingdom's balance of trade in manufactures; and to make recommendations".
As has been said, the committee was not being asked to look into the strengths and the weaknesses of the immediate economic situation. The report mentions one or two things that are now wrong, and in paragraph 231.2 one reads that they:
"led to such a severe fall in the output of manufacturing that output has yet to recover its 1979 level".
I am delighted that output has now recovered to that level, but I am bound to say that, as a member of that administration, the level in 1979 was not particularly high. It was not something with which I was delighted. It was quite a low level.
Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and other members of the committee have made clear exactly what the Prime Minister has always said, that it is as much the responsibility and fault of past governments, both Labour and Conservative. She does not quite put it in that way, but she hints at it. She has constantly blamed those past governments for precisely the kind of problems that the report brings out. I am delighted to see the noble Lord nodding. If I had not said that, it would not have been known that he had been nodding.
However, the central point, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said, was the question of the deficit on manufacturing trade. We have had some facts from the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and I shall not repeat them, but the fact is that there is a huge deficit on manufacturing trade. That is a fact which cannot be discredited. It happens to be regrettable, but it cannot be discredited, neither largely nor "smally"—if that is the right word. It is not in any way discredited.
Can anybody doubt that if we did not have North Sea oil—which is a central part of what the committee was saying—either today or in some years' time, and there was a deficit on the current account of the balance of payments of something like £12 billion to £15 billion, that would not be a serious matter which would affect the decisions we needed to make on economic matters? So can anybody really say, and can the Minister really say, that this report is largely discredited when you take the central point on page 83, which reads:
"Taken together, these"
and this is giving various reasons for the deficit—
"constitute a grave threat to the standard of living and to the economic and political stability of the nation.".
Surely nobody can dispute that. Of course we shall have to take different economic decisions long before we reach that position, but can anyone imagine that it is not serious, that it is not grave? If one accepts that, how can one really say that this report is—and I quote the Minister's words—"largely discredited"?

1263
I hope that in the event when he winds up the debate the Minister who, as I have said is a very nice man, will say that he apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, who on general matters wholly supports the Government on almost everything else. Therefore, while the report is not discredited, it is basically putting before your Lordships major problems which face this nation, and I hope the Minister accepts that serious steps will need to be taken to deal with them.
6.57 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships long, as I am following in this Unstarred Question some masterly and robust speeches, particularly the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and of my noble friend Lord Ezra. I do not believe for a moment that the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, actually meant what he said when he chose the word "discredited", because it is quite plain, and it has been demonstrated here, that the report of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House and the findings of that committee have not been discredited. The fundamentals are exactly the same as they were when we reported to your Lordships' House in 1985.
As my noble friend Lord Ezra has said, in the short term since 1985 quite naturally there have been very important and very encouraging changes, as many noble Lords have said. There has been an encouraging change of attitude in the country towards wealth production and the importance of wealth creation to the future standard of living of our people. There has been an important increased income into the coffers of the Exchequer, although one must say that one cannot expect that kind of income to continue indefinitely. The bedrock of our prosperity in this country in recent years has been manufacturing. The manufacturing base of this country has been reduced. The manufacturing base which remains is more efficient. All this is encouraging.
However, what worries me is the fact that after a Select Committee of your Lordships' House met over 10 months and was, apart from myself, I modestly say, composed of a dozen or so highly distinguished members, people who have held high office in public and private life in this country, and who made that effort and that gesture to public life, the Government should now feel, if they do feel—I do not really believe it and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, will prove me right—that those findings, which were agreed at the time by the Government, have been discredited.
There was when the report was first published what certain sections of the press called a "knee jerk" reaction to it. Why there should have been a knee jerk reaction was not clear except that there were certain differences of opinion on matters of emphasis in that report. That came out when we discussed it. There are still differences on matters of emphasis in that report such as the relative importance of services to manufacturing, and so on.
However, what worries me more is the fact that after this period of time a Select Committee of your
1264
Lordships' House should be felt to be an irritation to Her Majesty's Government The other day I read a copy of Hansard concerning the report of the group which was set up to examine the working of the House. One noble Lord said that it was a fact of life that Select Committees of this House (and presumably of the other place as well) are always a matter of irritation and annoyance to civil servants and the Government. I am not too bothered about that because I speak to a number of schools about the workings of our House. I expect that many noble Lords receive such invitations. Something that I always stress to the schoolchildren, and something in which they are always particularly interested, is the workings of Select Committees.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, the standing of your Lordships' House in the country today is very high. I know that it is also very high in the eyes of young people because I speak to sixth formers. One thing on which they all agree is that there is no forum in our land which is better placed or better qualified to examine subjects of national interest in depth and take a long-term view than the Select Committees of your Lordships' House. That is precisely what this Select Committee did. It reported to your Lordships' House. Unlike many Select Committees' reports, this committee's report was given prime time in your Lordships' House. It received a good deal of publicity and for several weeks it was the subject of press comment.
I suggest that what has needled the Government is of course the fact that certain people have used the report time and time again to bang the Government over the head. That is irritating and I myself would feel irritated by it. Therefore I am hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, will in some way prove me right and concede what needs to be conceded—as the country knows what the situation is—that forums such as your Lordships' House are an extremely valuable contribution to thinking in this country. However, I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, to admit that the Government are needled at being banged over the head.
The financial aspects of this country are very short-term. Many aspects of this country are very short-term. We need people who consider things in depth and who take at least a 10 to 15 year view. That is precisely what we did, as the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, said. We had the time to do that. The Select Committee took up the time of people who were extremely busy and that of people who gave up their time for no remuneration. That is always the case with Select Committees of your Lordships' House. A great deal of public service goes on here and that is not something which is given great credit in the country today. But I believe that the country as a whole and those who increasingly watch television and see the proceedings of your Lordships' House, and who understand the kind of activity that goes on behind the scenes in Select Committees, place great value upon them.
At first I took the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook—which I thought were liverish to say the least—as slightly unmannerly. I think that that view would be shared by those who were in the Chamber at the time. I was not in the Chamber but

1265
I read the noble Lord's remarks in Hansard with astonishment. Anyone who saw the debate on television would have been surprised. I am sure that as the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, is charming and able he will have the grace to say to us that he acted or spoke impetuously. In my book he certainly chose the wrong word. I have been through Roget's Thesaurus and the Oxford Dictionary and I can find absolutely no justification for the word "discredited". I hope that the noble Lord will at least find another word with which he can correct the impression that he gave on that day. The country does not expect that kind of criticism of what is an extraordinarily effective forum for examining matters of national importance. Select Committees are also one of the few forums for examining such matters.
This debate has been a remarkable one for an Unstarred Question at this time of the day. If I may comfort the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, my impression is that this debate will have done nothing but good so his remarks may well have been of benefit to us all.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I would not deny the importance of your Lordships' Select Committee's report, published as it was in mid-1985. However, it addressed questions which were largely apparent in 1984. I cannot see in any way that the Government have cast a slur on either that committee or the report, or indeed the members of the committee. Indeed, I find the putting down of this Unstarred Question by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, as being a little oversensitive. The noble Lord referred to our debate on 11th March this year. His actions were not recorded in Hansard on that evening although his words were, and I found his words also to have been somewhat oversensitive. But perhaps that represented the degree of importance that he felt about this matter.
It is not for me to answer in any way for my noble friend or for the Government. They can do that perfectly well for themselves. However, on that afternoon of 21st October when I was in your Lordships' House and heard the exchange I felt that my noble friend had used the word in the context of the NEDCs. Perhaps rather more broadly and generously we might have thought that my noble friend was indicating to your Lordships that the Government were shifting the emphasis of what they were doing in response not only to the report of your Lordships' Select Committee but to what they have always wanted to do.
In paragraph 7 of Chapter 1 of the report the committee considers the need for a change of attitude to manufacturing industry. That is repeated in paragraphs 126 and 232. In paragraph 232 the Select Committee states that it hopes the Government will support such initiatives as Industry Year. Industry Year 1986 was the child of the Royal Society of Arts. It was fostered by the Government, by industry and by education. It is true to say that there has been a significant shift in attitude. That change is continuing and will, I believe, continue as a result of the relationships that have been formed between educational establishments and industry.
1266
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, tried to establish a difference between manufacturing industry and the service industry. I do not believe that those two industries can be separated, because very much of what went on in a manufacturing industry and was considered by the standard definition and classifications as manufacturing has now moved out of manufacturing and gone into what we popularly call the service industry. Many of the separations are quite arbitrary and do not reflect truly what manufacturing industry is about.
As other noble Lords have suggested, manufacturing industry with its service sector is enjoying a historically high annual growth rate. That reverses the trends of the late 1970s and the early 1980s. It is to those trends that I think the Select Committee report was particularly directed. It is a fact that the manufacturing sector contribution to total exports by the old classfication of both visible and invisible is at present double that of the more popularly called service sector.
As my noble friend Lord Hanson has said, a number of changes have occurred in recent times. Output, productivity and profitability are all on an ascending curve. That has led us to have a far greater competitive edge in the world market which has in turn become increasingly more competitive. While profits are relatively high, we can now see adjustments by industry. A number of people might call that fine tuning. It is fine tuning in terms of the relationship between industry and education, the skills requirement, investment and research and development.
Most of those things are directly the responsibility of industry. I believe that that is accepted by industry. They are conditional upon the Government's domestic policy. I have believed for many years that those policies are, broadly speaking, right within this context. For example, the Ford Motor Company has announced a £1.9 billion investment programme. It has announced the building of a new plant in Dundee which will employ some 450 people. For an American-parented company—although I believe that the Ford Motor Company is as English as almost any other English company— to announce that kind of investment demonstrates confidence in the economy and in the way that the Government are managing the economy. Therefore, I believe that those things have changed.
The other condition which industry must take cognisance of is the world situation. Much emphasis has been placed on that in recent days. As regards the Government's resolve that we should remain an open trading society, non-protectionist and seek to reduce protectionism wherever it may occur, I attended, on behalf of the Government, a GATT meeting in New Zealand in February. At that meeting there was an absolute resolve that protectionist policies should be removed wherever possible and a fair trading policy adopted, certainly throughout the Community and among the members of GATT.
Perhaps I may also comment on the Government's support not only through BOTB but notably through the overseas posts, which is not always seen or recognised. In the short time I was with the

1267
Department of Trade and Industry, I visited some 30 overseas posts. I think I saw many of the commercial officers working in them. They have become increasingly more sophisticated and more aware of the needs of industry at home. I believe that they are doing a very good job and that they should have all the support that industry and indeed your Lordships can give them.
Finally, I believe that the Government show a commitment to the Select Committee' report in general terms. The parts where they perhaps disagree are set out quite clearly in the Command Paper published in December. I believe that the Government should, as is already happening and as is necessary, shift some of their emphasis from that which we perceived to be absolutely paramount in 1984 and 1985 at the time of the publication of the report. It is for British industry to show an equal commitment to change and to the world's market places. Then we shall see, as we are beginning to see, a change in the curve to which the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, referred.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Kearton: My Lords, coming ninth in the list of speakers I find that most of the things I might have said have already been said more powerfully and more effectively. However, there are one or two considerations which it may be worth while to draw to the attention of your Lordships.
One matter is that in 1984 and 1985, when the relative decline of manufacturing industry in this country was causing great concern in many quarters, a number of government speakers made statements which indicated that they regarded the decline of manufacturing industry with equanimity and even complacency. I think the report refers to certain speeches which more or less said just that.
By the time the report was published, the attitude of the Government had changed and they had become much more aware of the fact that it was not a good thing for manufacturing industry to continue to decline. Like the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, I feel that the Government deserve enormous credit for the changes they have effected in national attitudes and priorities. One of the outcomes has been that manufacturing industry is truly in a much better state today than for some years past. It looks as though the decline has been halted.
But is that enough? I suggest it is not, as my noble friend Lord Greenhill has pointed out. The deficit in manufactured trade has continued to increase. Our exports have risen, but so have our imports. The right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is suggesting that the decline will continue into 1988.
One of the recommendations of the committee was that much new investment in industry was going to make existing industry much more efficient. That has been achieved. However, the report also went on to say that the committee was worried that there was not sufficient investment in new industry and products. That worry still exists. In fact, at the recent CBI conference it was one of the points made by several speakers and by the director general. Industry
1268
needs to invest more, and to invest more in new products.
Another matter which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was the cushion of oil. In the debate two years ago I gave some figures concerning oil reserves and production. In his answer, the noble Lord, Lord Young, said:
"I hope that the noble Lord will accept that somehow as time goes by the reserves seem to be more and more".—[Official Report, 3/12/85; col. 1290.]
That optimism has not been borne out by Department of Energy statistics. For instance, 12 years ago at the end of 1975 the total proven and probable initial oil reserves were 2,210 million tonnes. But at the end of 1986, according to the Department of Energy, the initial proven and probable reserves were 2,280 million tonnes. In other words, there was practically no change over a period of 11 to 12 years in spite of over a thousand experimental and appraisal wells.
In an Answer in the other place only a week or two ago the Minister mentioned that to date cumulative production was 952 million tonnes. He also mentioned that the rate of production had now begun to fall. From 1984 to 1986 the rate of oil production had been steady at about 122 million tonnes per year. So far in 1987 production is down by about 5 per cent. One can therefore hazard a guess that by the end of the year production will be perhaps 116 million tonnes. The significance of this figure is that it is at the lower end of the Brown Book estimates from the Department of Energy.
In his Autumn Statement the Chancellor acknowledged that oil production would decline. He said that he hoped that in 1988 production will be midway between the upper and lower of the Brown Book estimates. That would represent an improvement over the 1987 performance and one can only hope that he is right.
In the debate two years ago I drew attention to the fact that we might no longer have an exportable oil surplus in the early 1990s. The Brown Book published this year gives oil production in the year 1991 as lying within the range of 70 to 105 million tonnes. The lower end would just about satisfy home demand and leave no surplus. One hopes that oil production will stay high for rather longer, but it would not be prudent for the Government to depend on it in their forward planning. That was the point made two years ago, and I think it is valid to make the same point today.
Another point on the trade figures which I do not think has been mentioned is that in the last two years they have been considerably helped by devaluation of the pound. If we have a situation now where the pound increases in value relative to other currencies, as it is doing at the moment, if we do not increase our investment in new industry, and if oil production does not do better, then a main conclusion of the report of two years ago, that in a period in the early 1990s we may be facing serious problems, still seems to me to be a very valid conclusion.
I can say no more than state how much I enjoyed and agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Aldington's, robust defence of the original report.
7.23 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, there can be very few people in your Lordships' House who have not at some time or other made a rather rash and foolish remark off the cuff which they wish subsequently that they had not stated. If the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, says that on 21st October he had a headache or even a hangover, I for my part certainly would not hold it against him and would be very relieved to hear that that was in fact the case, because, with great respect to him, that would not matter very much. What would matter would be if he was, as he is always supposed to be—and it must be very boring always to have to do it—speaking strictly for the Government and expressing only the serious and considered view of the Government. If he can get himself out of it by saying he was not doing that, he may not endear himself to the Government but I think it would endear him to your Lordships' House.
I was not on the committee and I am not included among the august people who made up that committee, but it really was a most distinguished body. The years of experience in industry of all kinds and the level of responsibility that has been handled by the members of that committee mean that they are a very formidable band. It is the privilege of your Lordships' House that we have such people here on our Select Committees. It is for this reason, as other people have hinted but I can far more easily say because I am not one of them, that this is a major reason that your Lordships' House has the respect in the country that it has.
That level of experience and knowledge is not to be compared in any way with the level of experience and knowledge of most politicians in or out of government or which the departments can bring. They cannot compare with the knowledge and experience of that committee. To challenge them in that kind of way is rather like the first year student taking on the professors. Just occasionally the first year student is right, but not usually. So it is as well to have regard to the calibre of the people who have in fact put forward these proposals.
I want to pick up a point which I think was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hanson. We perhaps confuse ourselves somewhat by trying to make a sharp distinction between manufacturing and services. The fact of the matter is that I do not believe that classification is valid. It is a very crude one at any time. I do not think it helps very much to understand what is going on because so many things which are considered to be services are directly used in what is considered to be manufacturing industry. Without them those industries would be unable to make the progress that they do. If we ceased using those two very crude definitions, I think that we would get on a great deal better.
What we are really interested in are the economic activities which most add value and which most increase our share of world trade. One can identify certain developments in certain forms of economic activity which have a greater added value and which do more to increase the share of world trade. If one analyses them in detail one would find that they were made up of a mixture of what we have traditionally called manufacturing and what we call services. The
1270
interplay between the two is considerable and progessively in the future it will be more so. If we did not talk quite as much in those terms as we have done in the past, it would help us to clear our minds.
I think that everybody has admitted that since the report came out there has been progress. Up to a point the Government take credit for this. It is also fair to say that matters over which they have had no control have contributed very greatly to the success which has taken place. In part this has been due to the fall in commodity prices, which nobody has mentioned. It certainly made it easier to get inflation under control and it has contributed to a reduction in manufacturing costs. As the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, said, unquestionably another factor has been the change in the value of the pound which has made us a great deal more competitive than we were at the time the report was written. If you were out to fault the Government on it, you could say that it was the excessively high level of the pound in the early 1980s which to a considerable extent put manufacturing industry into the bad position in which it found itself. The righting of a mistake is always to be welcomed, but it does not undo the fact that it was a mistake in the first place. However, progress there certainly has been. It really is not the enormous success which it has been cracked up to be.
As other noble Lords have pointed out, we are now back to where we were in 1979 and our share of world trade for manufacturing industry is still lamentable. I notice that in the Autumn Statement and in the material backing up the Autumn Statement, the only claim which is made is that the share of world trade, which fell so heavily from the later 1960s, through the 1970s and into the early 1980s, has fallen no further since 1981.
At the turn of the century we had 33 per cent. of world trade and in 1963, according to the Autumn Statement, it was at 16 per cent. In 1981 that had fallen to just about 7 per cent. It is not therefore a very proud claim that that position has now stabilised. One is glad that it has now stabilised otherwise we would have gone right through the floor. It is still something which leaves a great deal of room for improvement.
Need for improvement plainly still exists. Much of what has happened deals with the immediate present and, as is said in the Select Committee report, to a considerable extent we are under the tyranny of the immediate; and yet it is the long-term, as I think everybody has said, to which the committee was drawing attention and it is to the long-term that we should now be drawing attention.
That is true but so far from the report having been overtaken by events, in the past three weeks events have underlined the importance of the report in the sense that it is ever more important that we should improve our competitive position. In view of what has been happening over the past three weeks we can no longer assume that the more favourable trends which could and have been identified, are going to continue.
I draw attention briefly to some of the areas in which it is of the greatest importance that the points made in the report should be emphasised even more than they needed to be emphasised in the past. I dare

1271
say that a good many people have read the report from the chief economist of the NatWest pointing out the very great difficulties in which we find ourselves, assuming, as we must, that the American trading position will become very difficult indeed. The need is for greater competitiveness with Japan and with the European Community. Unless we are able to shift our trade in that direction, the position which has been created by what is happening in America may well land us in a very serious position indeed. That underlines the importance of doing even more of those things which have helped us along the way so far.
First, with regard to exchange rates, we must look very carefully again at how competitive we can make ourselves and how far we can let out exchange rates fall in order to increase our competitiveness. We need to look again, too, at the EMS. I know this has been raised already in your Lordships' House this afternoon and I know the inevitable answer and the reason why, but if we want to deal with problems of exchange rates intelligently inside the European Community—and the need for this gets greater and not less because of the current situation—then surely the EMS is where we ought to be.
We must also, if we are to increase our competitiveness, get inflation down. If we are to run into a very difficult trading situation, we must lower exchange rates so that we can trade more competitively overseas, and there must be a reduction in interest rates so that to some extent we can boost the domestic economy. That is what we seriously must do. Both measures were recommended by the committee's report and, so far from being out of date, both have a new relevance because of what has happened in the past three weeks.
I briefly also underline the education question. We should increase our quality as well as our price. Members of your Lordships' House have been saying that much has been done; I can only say that a great deal remains to be done. It will not be achieved over the long-term if we skimp on payments to universities and undermine civil research. Those are some ways in which the points made in the report, far from being overtaken by events and discredited, have a new urgency because of the situation in which we now find ourselves.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, for putting this Question to the Government. I do not mean that the noble Lord was right in picking up what was perhaps an unpremeditated remark by the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, at Question Time and I am certainly not asking for the grovelling apology to which my noble friend Lord Barnett referred.
I believe it is extremely useful every two years or so—after all, it is just over two years since this report was published—to review the analysis and recommendations in the report and that your Lordships should be able to discuss progress. Therefore, I concentrate on that particular aspect of this question rather than asking the noble Lord, Lord
1272
Beaverbrook, what his reply will be in response to the particular remark he made.
A number of your Lordships, particularly those on the Select Committee, have drawn attention to the terms of reference of the Select Committee, and that is absolutely right. The committee was set up to look at the long term and not at the short term. It was also set up to look at the manufacturing trade balance and the causes and the implications of that balance. This evening I believe that we should look at two aspects. The first is whether that analysis contained in the report still stands up in the light of events and with hindsight to what has happened in the past two years, and, secondly, to see whether the recommendations which the report made have been followed and if not, why not?
The noble Lord, Lord Kearton, I thought was absolutely right to draw our attention to one event which has taken place since the publication of the report: the very successful devaluation of the pound sterling during 1986, particularly against the deutschemark. This gave a substantial boost to our manufacturing exports and has fed its way through into the surge of exports that we have seen in 1987. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, was also right to draw our attention to a slightly negative factor; namely, that the world stock markets over the past months have engaged in a sharp correction—some may call it a crash—and that may affect in the medium term the level of world economic activity particularly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, in the United States.
In the context of those two developments it is right, proper and opportune at this moment to look again at the analysis that the report produced for us. The noble Lord, Lord Kearton, also made a very important point—which is my first point about the analysis—in looking at North Sea oil production. It is sometimes claimed, occasionally by some euphoric articles in the press, that North Sea oil production is not really in decline, that it is not a secular trend but that somehow exploration is going to get going again and that in the next decade we shall see much more development.
We can only rely, as always, on government figures and what the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, correctly refers to as the facts. The noble Lord, Lord Kearton, rightly pointed out that the Department of Energy Brown Book in 1987 does not in fact produce forecasts which are materially different from those contained in the report of your Lordships' Select Committee. The 1988 House of Lords estimate, which the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, says was not an estimate made by his committee but drew on statistics provided from the Department of Energy and the Treasury, was between 85 million tonnes and 120 million tonnes. The latest Department of Energy Brown Book figures are between 105 million tonnes and 125 million tonnes. Indeed, the Department of Energy produces an estimate for oil production by 1989 which is more or less exactly what Lord Aldington's committee produced for 1988. Therefore, if anything, there has been perhaps a year's imbalance between the two; but that is not a bad record of forecasting, if I may put it like that. By 1991, as the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, pointed out,

1273
the Department of Energy itself forecasts oil production from the North Sea at between 70 million and 105 million tonnes per annum. That is significantly worse than anything which your Lordships' committee produced in its report.
Of course, that is reflected in the oil balance which is forecast by the Chancellor for 1988, which is a surplus now of only 3 billion, and as production goes down, we can see that growing smaller and smaller.
On the score of North Sea oil production, I do not believe that the analysis contained in the Select Committee's report was grievously at fault. I believe that the secular trend has been established and will continue. There is no evidence of a turn around in that. The central problem that the Select Committee points out is: what happens when North Sea oil stops bailing us out?
The second point of the report's analysis to which I should like to refer relates to the invisible balance. There was a great deal of discussion as to how far services would be able to take over from manufacturing. I use the expression, despite the strictures of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, because we do not have statistics to mingle services with manufacturing; we have to look at what we have.
In 1985, the United Kingdom ran a surplus of £5·38 billion in services. In 1986, the surplus was £4·99 billion. In other words, on services we lost a further share of world trade. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, frowns at me. I have to tell him that I am quoting from government figures upon which I always have to rely.
Overall, of course, in our invisible balance, there was a move from £5·1 billion in surplus to £7·48 billion in surplus. But that improvement was due, first, to the reduction in overseas earnings from the North Sea—in other words, a repatriation of profits from the North Sea due to the price decline and, secondly, a reduction in net transfer payments to the European Community, which together made up approximately £3·1 billion. So any argument that the invisible balance would in some way come to the rescue of the visible imbalance has yet to be proved by the statistics.
Indeed, when the Chancellor forecast, as he has just done, that we will run an £8·5 billion surplus in invisibles in 1988, I can only reply that we have had many discussions in this House—the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will remember them well—about government estimates of what the invisible surplus is. Somehow it seems to vanish like the snow in spring, as we get down to reality.
The third part of the analysis relates to the manufacturing trade balance. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to our share of world trade. She rightly said that we have just been moving along, not very happily; but we are stabilised. I point out that in 1979—like the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, I am not proud of anything that we came out with in 1979—the United Kingdom share of world manufactures was 9·1 per cent. In 1983, it was 7.9 per cent., and since then until the second quarter of 1987 it goes 7·6, 7·9, 7·6, and 7·8 per cent.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I did not say that we had been going on happily. I said that we had been falling seriously.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. We have not been going on happily; we have been going on unhappily. It has not been falling seriously in those years; it has been static since 1983.
I regard 7.9 per cent. to 7.8 per cent. as a "situation status" if I may use that expression. Manufacturing output has picked up—that is welcome—in the past year or so. Nevertheless, I have to remind your Lordships that the committee pointed to a serious comparison with other industrial countries. The latest figures, for the second quarter of 1987, show US manufacturing output up by 18 per cent. since 1979, German output up by 8 per cent. and Japanese output up by 30 per cent. Our manufacturing output was down 2.3 per cent. and France's down 3 per cent. We cannot claim that there has been a great turn around.
When we look at the main points of the analysis that the Select Committee made, I cannot believe that they have been shown by events and with hindsight to be discredited. I believe that they were one of the most remarkable pieces of forecasting and prediction that I have seen. As we all know and as the Chancellor said in his Autumn Statement, forecasting is a very, very difficult business, and, given the effect of the world stock markets, it has now become more difficult.
If the analysis is still valid, what of the recommendations? I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, said. There has been an improvement in competitiveness thanks, in my view, to the devaluation of 1986—in particular, the devaluation against the deutschemark. I accept somewhat more reluctantly than other noble Lords that there has been a change in national attitude. I believe that there has been a change in government attitude; I am not sure that there has been a change in national attitude.
The change in government attitude has been rather subtle. Whereas three or four years ago, as noble Lords will remember, we were run by a doctrinal Government with a specific theological view of how the economy behaved, we are now run by a rather pragmatic Government who say, "Oh, sterling M3 is not very right. Perhaps Mo is not right. We will now have the exchange rate as the main indicator. Public spending is perhaps not all that bad. It might come in." Now, we have, I think, a pragmatic Chancellor. I welcome that, because I think it is one of the points that the Select Committee was trying to make.
I am not sure that we have achieved exchange rate stability. Until a few weeks ago, I thought that we were tracking the deutschemark in the shadow exchange rate mechanism, and that we were on the point of achieving at least that exchange rate stability. But now all that is a bit open. The sterling/dollar exchange rate has moved rather sharply, and we do not know where it will go.
The main recommendations of the Select Committee on interest rates; on the consensus for the

1275
National Economic Development Council, trade unions, management and government working together; on investment; on civil research and development; on training; and on the support by government for major export projects: where are all those? I would argue that the Government have not yet learnt the lesson that your Lordships' Select Committee tried to put to them—that in order to get the manufacturing trade balance anywhere near where it has to be when North Sea oil starts to run down, they must take the lead themselves.
I believe that the question of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, is well put. I do not ask the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, to retract in any way. He may wish to apologise, or whatever. I do not ask for that. I ask him for a serious reply to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and other noble Lords have made this evening.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, when the report of the Select Committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Aldington was first debated in this House, my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham acknowledged both the importance of the subject and the contribution which the Select Committee had made to the discussion. Both have been amply confirmed by what we have heard tonight.
Many of the Select Committee's conclusions were then and still are accepted by the Government. I cite as examples the committee's findings on the importance of initiative and enterprise; on the need for both price and non-price competitiveness; on the priority to be given to positive attitudes to business among the young, and to fostering the development of the skills needed in industry. The Government not only accepted the views of the committee; we have acted on them.
Where the Government differed from the committee was over its central thesis on the origins and significance of the deficit in the balance of trade in manufactured goods, and over the policies which the committee's reasoning led it to propose. We believe that the committee took too pessimistic a view of the resilience of manufacturing industry; and that the performance of manufacturing in the period since the committee reported has not borne out the committee's fears, but has confirmed the correctness of the Government's approach. This is the point that I was making, perhaps in a rather shorthand way, when I responded to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, in your Lordships' House some two weeks ago. If my choice of words has given offence, I of course unreservedly apologise to your Lordships and most particularly to my noble friend Lord Aldington. I was perhaps using words in a robust tradition set by the committee itself when in its report it describes the report of a senior Treasury official, Mr. Byatt, as discredited.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. Does the noble Lord agree with that analysis?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, to have read all these reports for this debate would have been perhaps a little time-consuming; but now that the noble Lord brings it up, I shall of course look at Mr. Byatt's report with some interest.
In the two years since the committee reported, manufacturing output has risen by 5 per cent. and is now rising at a rate of 5 per cent. a year. The whole of the loss in the recession of 1979 to 1981 has now been made good. The important point—and this is a point that was brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett—is that it is not only back to the 1979 level but it is still growing and is forecast to continue to grow.
Two years ago manufacturing productivity had risen by 30 per cent. since the depth of the recession. Now the rise has been extended to 48 per cent. This is a rate of productivity growth matched by none of our competitors. As a direct result, over the past year unit labour cost growth in British manufacturing industry has fallen and is closer to that of other major industrial countries. This has happened despite a continuing tendency for pay settlements in British manufacturing industry to run ahead of those of our competitors. But the committee was quite right to see excessive pay settlements as one of the main threats to the continuing improvement in the competitive performance of British industry.
Trends in manufacturing investment were until recently distorted by the progressive withdrawal of 100 per cent. first year tax allowances for capital investment which provided an incentive to bring such investment forward. Now that this distortion is out of the system, we see that manufacturing investment rose by no fewer than 7 per cent. between the second half of 1986 and the first half of 1987. Earlier projections of 4 per cent. growth in manufacturing investment for 1987 as a whole now seem likely to be exceeded, and healthy growth is expected to continue into next year.
Profitability is of course a major determinant of investment. After five years of uninterrupted growth, the real rate of return on assets achieved by manufacturing industry last year had recovered from a low point of 2 per cent. in 1981 to 7·2 per cent. last year. This will not only provide the resources companies need for investment, it will give them the confidence they need to commit these resources.
There are encouraging signs too that industry has taken to heart the committee's words on non-price competitiveness. The quality and design of British products has improved immeasurably over the past few years. Together with more favourable exchange rates, and the increasing realisation that improvements in labour relations are here to stay, this is leading more and more international companies to increase the output of their United Kingdom operations, both to supply the British market and for export. Partly because of this, in the third quarter of this year, the volume of our manufactured exports, excluding erratics, was at record levels, 11 per cent. higher than a year ago, and 40 per cent. up on their trough level of early 1981. After many years of decline, our volume share of world trade in manufactures has held its own since 1981. And if world trade expands as forecast, British

1277
manufactured exports should continue to grow through 1988.
Imports of course are rising a little faster, and the Industry Act forecast published with the Autumn Statement predicts that there will be modest deficits in the balance of payments this year and next. With last year's collapse in the price of oil only partly made good, and the British economy continuing to expand faster than those of other major industrial countries, this is only to be expected. There will continue to be a deficit in the balance of trade in manufactured goods, and it may even widen a little. But this one indicator is, I believe, less central to the underlying performance of the economy than the committee suggested. Its view that "sustainable growth has not been possible, and will not be possible without a favourable trade balance in manufactures" has not been borne out by events. Indeed, both the progress of manufacturing industry over recent years, and the prospects for the future, are widely seen by outside commentators as one of the most encouraging features of the British economy.
The Select Committee was of course right to point out that North Sea oil revenues are bound to decline. Indeed, they have done so much more rapidly than either the committee or anyone else could have foreseen, as a result of the collapse and partial recovery of the oil price. Now, the volume of North Sea oil production is also beginning to decline, and the oil trade surplus is likely to fall by about £1 billion in 1988. But this will in part be offset by buoyant earnings from invisibles, and particularly from the returns on our increasing portfolio of overseas assets. What matters is that the whole of the British economy, manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors alike, should be equipped to meet the demands of a rapidly changing commercial environment, alert to the needs of the market, and quick to take advantage of all opportunities.
The Government differed from the committee in our analysis of the problem; so it is to be expected that our policy prescriptions should also differ. We recognise that manufacturing will have a vital place in the economy as far ahead as any of us can foresee. So of course will the service industries. As it is, the contributions, both direct and indirect to export earnings of what are classified as manufacturing and service activities are very similar. Estimates indicate figures around £30 billion for manufacturing and £25 billion for services for 1985. Nor can we foresee with any precision the relative importance of different sectors in the years ahead, and all our experience suggests that we should be very ill-advised to try. Indeed, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, the very distinction between manufacturing and services is becoming less and less helpful. I would not go quite as far as the adviser to President Reagan, who said that manufacturing would become a service activity. But when computer hardware is a manufacture and software is a service, and when the effect of a manufacturing company contracting out its legal advice, or the disposal of its factory waste, is to boost the share of services in the economy at the expense of manufacturing it is at least legitimate to wonder whether the distinction has much value as a basis for policy.
1278
Indeed, Mr. John Banham of the CBI said last week:
"Manufacturing and services are interdependent; we do not need to choose between them. We must not choose between them".
This is why the Government see no reason to discriminate in their policies towards industry between manufacturing and service industries, still less for "picking winners" between manufacturing sectors, with the costs that implies for those not selected. What is needed is a climate in which industry—in the broad sense of those who are part of the market economy, not of manufacturing or of service industry—can expand and flourish. This requires low inflation; control of public spending; low taxes; the removal of unnecessary burdens on business; an expanded role for the private sector; and measures to enable markets to work more flexibly and effectively. All these this Government have provided.
Many of the Select Committee's specific recommendations were very much in tune with this approach, and were well calculated to improve both the capacity and the willingness of those in business to take advantage of new opportunities, wherever they appear. These are the qualities needed if the revival which the British economy has experienced in the 1980s is to continue into the 1990s. But they are needed in banking as much as in chemicals; in software as much as in hardware; in consultancy as much as in construction. Policies which discriminate between sectors implicitly second guess the way markets will develop. That is hard enough in all conscience for those who make a career in business. It is a field in which governments have not excelled in the past, and which they would be well advised to avoid in future.
I shall now turn to some of the specific points made by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, asked me a question about overseas aid. After the Autumn Statement the UK will devote 0·32 per cent. of GNP to official development assistance. This compares with France's figure of 0·49 per cent., with the United States of America of 0·23 per cent., and an OECD average of 0·36 per cent. Overseas aid expenditure in 1988–89 will increase by £100 million on the 1987–88 estimated outturn. That is an increase of 7½ per cent. in cash terms. The increase in the net overseas aid programme provides for growth in real terms over the next three years.
My noble friend Lord Hanson and the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, mentioned the importance of the awareness of wealth creation and enterprise in schools. My noble friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has just announced the new objectives for the department. One objective is the encouragement of the growth of links between schools and the world of work. The Government will be taking initiatives in this area. The Government, through the industry education unit of the DTI, has taken a number of steps to promote awareness of both wealth creation and enterprise in schools. Examples include the mini enterprise in schools project which is designed to promote enterprise activity in schools throughout the United Kingdom. The schools curriculum industry partnership aims to promote students' understanding of industry and

1279
industrial society through the school curriculum and the work-shadowing programme, under which students shadow people in business for a week to try to dispel myths about industry.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth mentioned Industry Year. I can tell him that the Government gave full support to the Industry Year campaign to change attitudes to industry organised by the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. The Government have provided £1 million towards the £1·5 million central running costs of the campaign and contributed to regional activities. On top of this, the Government launched new initiatives for Industry Year totalling £6 million. Additionally, many existing government activities support the Industry Year objectives of increasing awareness of the importance of industry and wealth creation.
The noble Lord, Lord Kearton, mentioned the difficulties of unstable exchange rates. Since the Plaza agreement of September 1985 the pound has appreciated against the dollar but fallen significantly against the yen, the deutschemark and the French franc. This exchange rate pattern has benefited many but not all United Kingdom exporters. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned the decline in the exchange rate, particularly against the deutschemark. I welcome the recognition both from the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that manufacturing exports have responded to exchange rate movements in the way that the Government anticipated.
The noble Lord, Lord Kearton, also mentioned the trend in imports. Recent figures have been very erratic, but some rise in imports is inevitable as the economy expands. As expected, much of the rise in imports over the past year is of basic materials, semi-manufactures, capital and intermediate goods reflecting rising output and investment.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, mentioned the OECD economic outlook. This shows that the United Kingdom had the largest invisible surplus in the world in 1986. It is likely to maintain its leading position in 1987. The invisible surplus is forecast to rise further from £7.5 billion in 1987 to over £8.5 billion in 1988, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, noted. The net overseas assets of the United Kingdom rose by £37 billion since the end of 1985 to £114 billion by the end of 1986. This is the highest recorded level since the war and is second only to Japan.
We have all along accepted a number of the committee's individual conclusions and recommendations, and we have no reason to change our mind on those. But from the beginning the Government have been unable to accept the committee's view on some fundamental issues. Far from posing the grave threat to our economic and political stability which the committee foresaw, a sharper than expected fall in oil revenues has contributed to a more favourable pattern of exchange rates which in turn has contributed to improved manufacturng performance.
In our view, the committee attached both to manufacturing and to the manufacturing trade
1280
balance a special significance for which there is perhaps no economic justification. All wealth-creating activities are important and the manufacturing trade balance is only one element in the overall balance of payments. Furthermore, the trade balance of any sector is not a reliable indicator of its performance. Events since the committee reported have vindicated both our analysis and our policies. We shall therefore continue to pursue those even-handed policies which have served all sectors of industry so well, and which offer the best prospects for our future prosperity.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Aldington will recognise that in obeying this summons to the headmaster's study this evening I have at least now made quite clear the Government's position on his committee's report.

British Rail Bill
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Bexley London Borough Council Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes past eight o'clock.

  VIETNAMESE REFUGEES IN HONG KONG CLOSED CAMPS
  VIETNAMESE REFUGEES IN HONG KONG CLOSED CAMPS
  PRIVATISATIONS: UNDERWRITING COSTS
  PRIVATISATIONS: UNDERWRITING COSTS
  QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, BIRMINGHAM: CANCER TREATMENT PROVISION
  QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, BIRMINGHAM: CANCER TREATMENT PROVISION
  WORCESTER HEALTH DISTRICT: ORTHOPAEDIC SERVICES PROVISION
  WORCESTER HEALTH DISTRICT: ORTHOPAEDIC SERVICES PROVISION
  SOUTHEND RADIOTHERAPY UNIT
  SOUTHEND RADIOTHERAPY UNIT
  RUSKIN COLLEGE: REPORT ON ACADEMIC FREEDOM
  RUSKIN COLLEGE: REPORT ON ACADEMIC FREEDOM
  ARMAGH: MR. COLIN SAMPSON'S REPORT
  ARMAGH: MR. COLIN SAMPSON'S REPORT
  RUC CODE OF CONDUCT
  RUC CODE OF CONDUCT
  CRUMLIN ROAD AND MAGHABERRY PRISONS: CAPACITY
  CRUMLIN ROAD AND MAGHABERRY PRISONS: CAPACITY