Sitting of 25 November 1987

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

    ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS BILL
    Order for consideration read.
    Lords amendments agreed to.
    To be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Manufacturing Output
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by how much he now expects manufacturing output to increase during 1987.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): In his Autumn Statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer forecast that manufacturing output would be 5 per cent. higher in 1987 than in 1986.
    Mr. Bennett: May I start, Mr. Speaker, by wishing you many happy returns of the day on behalf of us all.
    Does my hon. Friend agree that the enormous increase in manufacturing productivity of the past two or three years means that we shall be in very good shape to weather the storm caused by the international fall in equity prices?
    Mr. Butcher: For the past three or four years the British economy has celebrated particularly happy anniversaries, in that it has grown faster than nearly all our major industrial competitors. As to the fall in equities, I am encouraged by the fact that the main barometer used by the manufacturing sector — its order book position — remains healthy, and recent CBI reports confirm that.
    Mr. James Lamond: Is the Minister aware that textile firms, such as Lees-Newsome Ltd. in my constituency, have been badly affected by the increase in electricity charges? The company has written to me, and perhaps to the Minister, claiming that its export potential will be diminished by that increase. Was there any consultation with the Department before these increased charges were allowed?
    Mr. Butcher: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall deal with the detail of the hon. Gentleman's question under question 5. Suffice to say the textile industry has enjoyed a remarkable recovery. It is getting its order share back and is concentrating on improving its design. It is obtaining higher value and has become very competitive. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be proud of that.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Does it not augur well for manufacturing output in 1988 that 49 per cent. of CBI companies expect to increase their investment in plant and machinery next year? Given the uncertainties in the financial markets, is that not a positive endorsement of the strength of the British economy and of the new competitiveness of British industry?
    Mr. Butcher: That is very much the case. In the Autumn Statement, growth is projected at 3·5 per cent. for manufacturing output in 1988. It is a long time since the British economy has been able to sustain good, non-inflationery, real growth arising from increased competition and improvement in market share. All the signs are good.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Given that manufacturing investment in Britain is still lower than it was in 1979, that British real interest rates are higher than those of our competitors, that manufacturing imports have a higher share of our market than of any other advanced industrial country and that the pound against the deutschmark is now up by 11 per cent. in real terms compared with February, the Minister will not be too optimistic about prospects for manufacturing, so I shall ask him a simple, straightforward question: can he name one industrial country that has had a lower increase in manufacturing output than Britain since 1979?
    Mr. Butcher: I can understand why the Opposition are getting increasingly desperate in their search for bad news. Throughout the 1970s we were at the bottom of the league table in manufacturing output and growth, and we are now consistently at the top. This country is now enjoying increased competitiveness in each of its major sectors and has an excellent future.
    Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend will be aware that many economic pundits wrote off manufacturing as a source of new jobs. How does my hon. Friend expect this increase in output to be reflected in the manufacturing sector and employment?
    Mr. Butcher: Until recently it was fashionable to say that, with the introduction of new manufacturing techniques, especially automation, it would be impossible to reverse the fall in employment in the manufacturing sector. That need not always be the case in future. It depends entirely on the way in which we continue to increase our market share. I fully agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) in July that inflation is certainly under control, that the balance of payments is likely to be manageable and that output is rising relatively fast.

    Balance of Trade (Manufactures)
    Mr. Cummings: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the most recently available monthly figure for the United Kingdom balance of trade in manufactures.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): For the month of October there was a deficit of £0·7 billion in trade in manufactures.
    Mr. Cummings: According to recent figures, we are heading for a £7·5 billion deficit this year. Is it true that the deficit is not just in traditional industries but in high technology new industries? Does the Minister agree with

    243
    the Chancellor's statement that the deficit is neither here nor there? Will the hon. Gentleman direct his attention away from the City and concentrate on those parts of the economy that are creating wealth and providing and selling goods and services?
    Mr. Clark: The deficit estimate has already been revised downwards twice. The estimate by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Autumn Statement was already a downward revision from the estimate in the March Budget review. I believe that the figures will undershoot that estimate when the whole year is assessed.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Is it true that under the Labour Government and, indeed, for most of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s our balance of trade in manufactured goods moved rapidly towards deficit, but that in the past four years, for the first time in many years, not only has that deterioration stopped but our share of world trade in manufactures has increased?
    Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is right. Plainly, I have no responsibility for the direction of events under the Labour Government. The important point is that the quality of new manufacturing in terms of productivity and commercial resilience is now quite different.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Minister know that, according to answers given by his colleagues, since 1980 about 22 million tonnes of hot-rolled steel have been imported? Does he also know that last year £1·1 billion worth of hot-rolled steel was imported? What will the hon. Gentleman do about this ruinous situation? Privatisation will not help.
    Mr. Clark: The traffic, both inward and outward, in steel is, to a large extent, a function of our obligations under the treaty of Rome as a member of the European Community.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the outrageous position whereby British manufacturers of shoes and leather goods are handicapped when seeking to enter the Japanese market, not only by levies but by quotas? To add insult to injury, no one can find out who owns those quotas. Will my hon. Friend see whether he can knock some sense into the Japanese?
    Mr. Clark: I am always delighted when the House returns to the subject of our trade relations with Japan. In fact, the shoe and leather section is one of the least satisfactory in that regard. However, I must say in all honesty—I hope that the House may take some credit for this improvement having expressed its indignation so forcefully last July—that our manufactured exports to Japan have increased by 30 per cent. over the past year.
    Mr. Kennedy: What analysis is the Department making of the effect of the Governments regional policy — particularly the cuts in regional grants that the Government have made over the past three years—on our ability to contribute towards manufacturing output, not least from the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Clark: The question refers to the balance of trade in manufactures. However, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make a short answer, I understand that there have been no cuts in regional development grants.

    Inner Cities
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give the most recent figures for the establishment of manufacturing and service industry firms in the inner cities.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I regret that the information requested by my hon. Friend is not available because we do not keep the statistics on this basis.
    Mr. Bowis: Nevertheless, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, although the Government are making great strides in their policy towards encouraging investment in the inner cities in both manufacturing and services, there is still great scope for more private investment? Will he examine in particular the concept of the tax-exempt bond, along the lines of the industrial revenue bonds that have worked successfully in America?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree that there is scope for more encouragement of new investment and start-up business in inner-city areas. That is why we are working so closely in many ways with Business in the Community, Investment in Industry and the clearing banks, and with the task force areas in particular, to try to boost investment. I am familiar with the tax-exempt bonds used in the United States. My hon. Friend will no doubt address questions on that to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, too. I am not sure that the tax relief policies of the United States would automatically command support here.
    Mr. Madden: Is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster aware that while he and Lord Young have been conspiring to get control of the Prime Minister's inner-city campaign, that campaign has died a death? Will he confirm that unless the Government are prepared to inject substantial new money into rebuilding inner cities, such as Bradford, private investment will not have the confidence to be forthcoming? When will he revive the campaign and inject substantial new money so that the important job of rebuilding our inner cities can get under way?
    Mr. Clarke: I thought that public interest in a non-existent campaign by my noble Friend and myself had died a death. No such campaign is taking place. The Governments inner-city policy—the urban development corporations, the city action teams and the inner-city task forces—is going ahead with great strength. More than 200 private sector firms are collaborating with our 16 inner-city task forces in projects of all kinds.
    Mr. Holt: Would my right hon. and learned Friend care to refute the statement by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) by pointing out to him that £100 million of private investment has been put into Teesside development corporation in the 10 weeks since it was established?
    Mr. Clarke: I can certainly confirm that. There is very widespread support in Teesside for the work that is beginning in the urban development corporation area. We are backing the Cleveland youth business centre, and that idea is now making very reasonable progress, with private sector and public sector funds going into the project.
    Mr. Caborn: It is appalling that the answer to the question is that the information is not available, especially

    245
    as the Minister is personally in charge of the inner-city task force and, as I am led to believe, gives his personal endorsement to every scheme. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many organisations—particularly chambers of commerce, chambers of trade and local authorities — are highly critical of the Governments unco-ordinated piecemeal approach to the inner-city and urban regeneration policies? What exactly is happening on the Government side? The Daily Telegraph on Monday said:
    "Thatcher set to appoint Inner Cities Minister."
    Who is now co-ordinating the policy? The Prime Minister seems to be setting up yet another Ministry for the inner cities. Will the Chancellor tell us the exact position with regard to the co-ordination of inner-city policies? Who has control?.
    Mr. Clarke: No Government have ever kept statistics on a separate inner-city basis of the kind that have been asked for. I certainly agree that there is a case for considering whether we should keep statistics on that basis. We have always had the support of chambers of commerce and we have had the support of growing numbers of private sector companies. I have had discussions with the CBI, and I am already working with Business in the Community. Since the election most local authorities, too, have been working with us on inner-city policy.
    On the last question, the hon. Gentleman knows that the Prime Minister is co-ordinating the Governments inner-city policy, which is consuming a great deal of effort and many resources in a large number of Government Departments.

    Financial Fraud
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many staff his Department s companies investigations department employs; and if he will make a statement on its investigation of financial fraud.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Francis Maude): The current figure for staff in post in the companies investigation branch of my Department is 53 — a 50 per cent. increase during the past 12 months.
    The branch's own investigators are mainly engaged in fact-finding inquiries under section 447 of the Companies Act 1985, but the branch also acts as a point of reference within my Department for non-departmental inspectors appointed to carry out investigations under sections 431, 432, 442, and 446 of the Companies Act 1985.
    Mr. Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that in recent years record numbers of overseas banks, financial institutions and companies have come to the City of London to raise funds and that they have received an extremely efficient and effective service from the City? Is he aware that they respect the integrity of the companies that operate in the City, and that that is of immense benefit for invisible exports in our balance of payments?
    Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Every financial centre depends on maintaining and enhancing its level of business and on showing itself to be a safe and clean place to do business. The City of London is showing itself to be just that.
    Mr. Bermingham: Bearing in mind recent history in the City, and as the special fraud squad has been created under the Director of Public Prosecutions, is it not time for closer liaison between the two departments to ensure the speedy prosecution of fraudsters?
    Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that close co-ordination is important. Indeed, that already exists at a hitherto unknown level, with the precise object of ensuring that investigations are completed swiftly. The results are processed quickly so that, if prosecutions are desirable and necessary, they can be got under way at the earliest possible opportunity.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the investigation and prosecution of modern, highly sophisticated fraud the authorities are rather like a penny-farthing bumbling about in the jet age? Will he therefore fight the Treasury to ensure that those departments have the latest examples of information technology, which will be an advantage in speeding up the process of justice for both the defence and the prosecution?
    Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is right to say that it is essential that regulators and those concerned with the enforcement of the law are sufficiently well manned and equipped to match the challenges that they face. The serious fraud office, which is now being set up, will operate on a multi-disciplinary basis and a number of professional people will be involved. It is important that it has access to all the equipment and personnel that it needs.

    Energy Costs
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the effect of energy costs on industry's competitiveness.
    Mr. Butcher: On average, energy costs account for 3 per cent. of industrial gross output. The impact of changes in energy costs on competitiveness depends on a variety of factors, including the movement of other costs.
    Mr. Wallace: Does the Minister accept that, until the commission reports, the news on today's tapes that British Gas charges to industrial competitors have been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is welcome? Does he further accept that the recent announcement of increases in electricity charges is of considerable concern to industry as it will add £1 billion to its costs?
    In future, will the Minister ensure that the priorities of industries have some bearing in these matters? When will the eight detailed questions asked by the director general of the Confederation of British Industry be answered?
    Mr. Butcher: I share the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the referral announced at half-past 10 this morning. It is right that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should consider the prices for contract gas supplies, and we look forward to its report. I am aware that energy costs are a controversial matter that is continuously focused upon, in particular by the manufacturing sector. Even after the proposed increases, our prices will be at the lower end of the range of world prices.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that the proposed increases in electricity charges will be a severe disadavantage to British manufacturing industry, especially the chemical industry? Does he realise that in recent years production has increased directly as energy prices

    247
    have fallen in real terms? Does he further accept that if the increases are allowed to go through British industry will be placed at a disadvantage compared with its European competitors?
    Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend makes a valid point when she says that some industries, especially the intensive energy users, are significantly affected by movements in energy prices. But, in the generality, the proposed increase will account for no more than one sixth of 1per cent. of industry's costs, and prices for industrial consumers have fallen by more than 15 per cent. in real terms during the past five years.
    To answer the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I am sure that she will be as pleased as I am that the qualifying industrial consumer scheme, introduced in October 1986, will continue to give intensive users a price reduction averaging 6 per cent.
    Mr. Crowther: Does the Minister accept that to talk about generalities of 3 per cent. is no great consolation to the energy-intensive industries, such as steel, coal, aluminium and chemicals, in which energy costs may account for as much as 25 per cent. of production costs? What will the Department do to protect those industries from the enormous electricity price increases that will take effect from next April? Does he accept that Ministers have a responsibility to ensure that British manufacturers are not placed at a competitive disadvantage?
    Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard the second part of my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). For the reasons that he cited, we are pleased that the qualifying industrial consumer scheme will continue to help those who have high energy-intensive production processes.
    Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend should not accept the Opposition's statements without reminding us of their record in government. Is it not a fact—[Interruption.]Labour Members do not like it. Is it not fact that, under the Labour Government, electricity prices increased by 112 per cent.? Yet they are complaining about a 3 per cent. increase. Is it not a fact that gas prices increased by 28 per cent. in real terms, yet they have the gall to criticise the Government for increasing prices only modestly?
    Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend speaks with the directness and candour of an ex-miner, and I welcome his comments. His figures are correct. Under the Labour Administration the price increases were almost exactly twice as high as they have been under this Administration.
    Mr. Blair: Instead of standing there and supporting the attempt by his colleagues in other Departments to get industry and the consumer to bear the cost of saving the Government's face on their privatisation programme, which is what this is about — the country knows that, even if Conservative Members do not — why will the Minister and his colleagues not fight for British industry in the Cabinet instead of selling it down the river?
    Mr. Butcher: For many years we have been defending the interests of the British manufacturing sector, to the extent that our industries are better placed than their international competitors. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has introduced policies that will ensure that the Conservative Administration in the
    248
    year 2000 will be presiding over an economy that is still underpinned by a cost-effective and efficient energy industry.

    Space Spending
    Mr. Eastham: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations his Department has received on Britain's space spending.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We have received letters from hon. and right hon. Members, space companies, interested organisations and members of the public. I and other Ministers have had several meetings with representatives of the aerospace industry.
    Mr. Eastham: Is it not a further symptom of complete despair to learn that the director general of the National Space Centre recently resigned? Is the Minister concerned that it is expected that during next year there will be a reduction of 40 per cent. in contracts related to the industry?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is bang up to date with events. The former director of the British National Space Centre resigned early in August of this year. Up to that time he had been criticising the way in which the European Space Agency programme had been going increasingly towards grandiose manned space projects, so it cannot have come altogether as a surprise to Mr. Gibson, the gentleman who resigned, that we exercised our option not to join in those projects at the meeting at The Hague.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Government have a duty to examine the value for money that we receive from the funds that we put into space research? The European Space Agency's plan to put a French midget into space hardly seems productive.
    Mr. Clarke: I have heard comments of that kind that are related to the design of the proposed spacecraft. It is an optional programme, and other countries appear to have decided to go to the next phase of developing a spaceship that does not seem to have adequate scientific or technological advantages for us. We put our money in other aspects of space work. As a country we invest £4·5 billion in scientific and technological investments of one type or another.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Chancellor nevertheless accept that, since his announcement that we will not support the next phase of the ESA programme, there has been genuine concern amongst the hundreds of companies in Britain that are involved in the space programme that the consequences of that decision will be to cut them off from valuable future orders? Given that there is a three-month period in which the decision can be reviewed, will the Minister listen to the representations that are made to him? I accept that the criticisms that he has made of the programme may be valid, but we should be arguing within the programme rather than hurling abuse from outside it.
    Mr. Clarke: Most of the representations that are reaching us come from companies that hope to participate in contracts using the money that the Government were putting in. We do not put money in merely to hand it on to a British company. A project must be evaluated in terms of its long-term potential to the economy as a whole, to

    249
    see whether sufficient technological and scientific advantages will flow from it to people other than the companies that are directly concerned. We are receiving representations from companies and I am having meetings with several of them. If they can satisfy me that there is some valid national interest to be had from taking part in parts of the space industry, we shall of course do so.
    Mr. Mans: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that, now that we are not providing extra funds for the ESA, extra money will be found from Government sources for the continuation of the HOTOL project?
    Mr. Clarke: I have had yet another meeting to discuss the HOTOL project with British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce. We must look for other international collaborators and see what the next step is if we are to continue to evaluate the project. This is a long-term matter, and it will have to be considered carefully once we have found what other industrial and governmental partners we might be able to collect for it.
    Mr. Stott: I am sure that the Minister now realises that his decision to do nothing has presented us with the worst possible scenario. Will he tell us what he will do with the 300 firms that are now investing their own private money in space research and related activities? How does he see that money being used in the future? Are the Government expecting the private sector to make up the gap between what the Government would normally put in and the position now, and if so, what mechanism do the Government propose to use to ensure that those private funds are put into the programme?
    Mr. Clarke: We are already spending more than £100 million each year on our space programme, which is not doing nothing, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested. We have declined to spend £200 million a year on a project to put Europeans—probably Frenchmen—into orbit by the year 2000. That does not have adequate advantages. We are now examining what other projects might be of industrial advantage to us, and what participation the private sector is prepared to contemplate to obtain commercial advantages for itself. Those discussions are continuing.

    Departmental Budget
    Mr. Douglas: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the main priorities for his Department's budget for 1987–88.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The main priorities for my Departmenfs budget in 1987–88 were set out in the last public expenditure White Paper and were reflected in the Supply Estimates and Supplementary Estimates for 1987–88. All of these have been presented to Parliament.
    Mr. Douglas: May we have some assurance from the Minister that these priorities are set against the real needs of the United Kingdom as a whole? May we have an assurance that there will be a review of regional policy, because, while we might expect work to be done in the inner cities, there is a great deal of work needed to correct the imbalance between the north and the south of the United Kingdom? Aid needs to be given to mining areas, such as my own area in Fife, that have been in decline for a long time because of pit closures and because of other aspects of the recession.
    Mr. Clarke: I can certainly give the assurance that our increased budget will be devoted to the priorities of the United Kingdom as a whole and to all its industry and commerce. We are reviewing the objectives and policies of our Department and will give a detailed statement on that in due course. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not our intention to reduce the expenditure that we incur in the assisted areas either north or south of the border.
    Mr. William Powell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the administration of regional funds in the assisted area of Corby has been an outstanding success, and that the lessons to be learnt from that could be applied to other assisted areas in which aid should be concentrated in future?
    Mr. Clarke: We take great encouragement from what has occurred in Corby, where the local community has taken advantage of what is on offer and of the state of the British economy to establish a great deal of new employment and a new economic base for the town. To a certain extent the same thing has happened in Consett, Scunthorpe and other places hit by steel closures. Obviously, that is the kind of thing that we all want to see in all parts of the country that have been most adversely affected in the last 10 years by rapid industrial change.
    Mr. Radice: Can the Minister tell the House when the Government will publish their review of regional policy?
    Mr. Clarke: As I said, we are reviewing the policies of our entire Department. I have no doubt that some time next year we shall come forward with our conclusions.

    Motor Cars
    Mr. Curry: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of the United Kingdom motor car market was taken by British-made cars in the first eight months of the current year; and how this compares with the last three years' performance of the United Kingdom motor industry.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): British-made cars took 49 per cent. of the United Kingdom car market in the first eight months of this year, compared with 43,41 and 43 per cent. for the corresponding period of the previous three years.
    Mr. Curry: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Rover Group has fully shared in this progress and that he will therefore be reinforced in his determination to privatise that company as soon as practicable?
    Mr. Atkins: I am as encouraged as is my hon. Friend by the news that Austin-Rover's total sales at home and abroad in the first half of this year increased by nearly 3 per cent. over the same period in 1986. Together with a 15 per cent. increase in export sales, that is particularly welcome and, clearly, will certainly not harm the prospects of the Austin-Rover Group when it comes to privatisation.
    Mr. Hoyle: Conservative Members are fond of quoting statistics about the Labour Government. Does the Minister not know that in 1979 foreign imports accounted for only 38 per cent.? This year they are accounting for 50 per cent. and in September United Kingdom car sales were down by 15 per cent. How can this be a success story?
    Mr. Atkins: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the penetration of foreign vehicles into Britain has declined in

    251
    recent months. That is a sign of the impressive performance by the British car industry and by the component industry, which is so important to it.
    Sir Ian Lloyd: In view of the complex interdependence of the modern motor car industry, which I am sure my hon. Friend understands only too well, do the terms "British made" and "Foreign made" have any real significance, and what does the term "British made" mean today?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is as informed on these matters as I am—[Interruption.]—and he makes a good point about the country of origin of cars. Certainly we have noticed in recent months and years a reduction in foreign penetration. As I said, we take a continuing interest in making sure that the component sourcing from the United Kingdom is on the increase. We shall continue to do that.
    Mr. Cryer: Is it not true that British Leyland has been rescued from its private enterprise fate-worse-than-death by billions of pounds of taxpayers' money, and that the people of Britain would find it extremely offensive if, after having rescued this firm, it is slimmed down yet again and sold off? Is it not the truth that British Leyland is barely holding its market share and that, with only about 18 per cent. of the United Kingdom market, it cannot survive?
    Mr. Atkins: Many hon. Members will recognise that there has been a great improvement in the performance of the Rover Group, partly as a result of the vast sums of taxpayers' money that have been put into the company. All hon. Members recognise that that success story should be told worldwide. That does not necessarily mean, however, that all hon. Members would agree with the hon. Gentleman in saying that we should not return the company to the private sector as soon as practicable.

    Textile Industry
    Mr. Waller: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent representations he has received about the impact of United States protectionist measures on the British textile industry.
    Mr. Alan Clark: My colleagues and I have received a number of representations about the United States Textile and Apparel Trade Bill currently before Congress. The Government have repeatedly made clear their concern about this proposed Bill, and the European Community has warned that it will respond to any restrictive United States measures in accordance with its rights under the GATT.
    Mr. Waller: If the American Trade Bill is enacted, would it not heighten international trade tensions and undermine the whole progress of the GATT and multilateral negotiations? Will my hon. Friend therefore emphasise the fact that if the measure is passed the Government and the European Community as a whole will not hesitate to act with firmness to ensure that the diversion of trade does not harm our industry?
    Mr. Clark: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. This would be an acutely damaging measure if passed. We and the European Commission have repeatedly made our views clear on that. My right hon. and learned Friend and I saw the United States trade representative Clayton Yeutter only last week and repeated our concerns to him.
    Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister and his colleagues start to speak out on this issue rather than whisper in dark corners? This has been a very important issue for the textile industry for a long time and we hear too little from Ministers protecting our textile industry.
    Mr. Clark: I have heard the House of Commons called a number of things in recent weeks, but a "dark corner" has not been one of them. The negotiations would have to be conducted by the European Commission. At present the Bill has not been passed by Congress and we are lobbying very strongly in Washington to ensure that it will not be passed. It is a matter of judgment whether national agitation at this time would be likely to inflame or moderate Congressional attitudes.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend accept that protectionism measures implemented by the United States of America would be particularly damaging to the textile and allied industries, many of which are located not only in inner-city areas but in other areas where there are currently economic problems? Such a measure would reduce investment in those industries and have a direct impact on employment in those areas. Will he therefore take this matter—as hon. Members on both sides of the House are urging — very seriously and ensure that the diversion of trade which could result will not have an unfair impact on this country?
    Mr. Clark: I am glad of the opportunity that my hon. Friend gives me to repeat the very serious concern with which we view this prospect. As my hon. Friend is a powerful advocate in this area, he knows only too well that the multi-fibre arrangement provides a skeletal structure, which allows us to safeguard our industries. Essentially, the defence must be mounted through the GATT by the European Commission. The Commission is minded to do that in the strongest possible manner.
    Mr. Haynes: By the way, happy birthday, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that I recognise the work that he put in during the last renegotiation of the multi-fibre arrangement? However, will he now get stuck into the Yanks and stop the American imports, in the interests of the British textile industry, especially in my constituency?
    Mr. Clark: The problem with protectionist measures is that they are directed against our exports. I appreciate the tribute paid to me by the hon. Gentleman, but if he has a particular problem with imports from the United States I will see what I can do if he draws it to my attention.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the latest figures for the productivity of manufacturing industry; and what comparable figures he has on the recent performance of the United Kingdom's major competitors.
    Mr. Butcher: In the year to the third quarter of 1987 productivity in manufacturing industry, as measured by output per man, increased by 6·9 per cent. In the year to the second quarter of 1987, the most recent period for which international comparisons are available, productivity in manufacturing industry increased by 6·5 per cent. in the

    253
    United Kingdom. This was the fastest increase achieved by any of the major seven industrialised countries and com-pares with an average increase for the major seven countries of 2·7percent.
    Mr. Cran: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that if he checks the record he will find that under the last Labour Government the United Kingdom was at the bottom of the productivity league of all the industrial countries? Does he agree that the future competitiveness of British industry and British manufacturing vitally depends upon individual British companies maintaining control of unit labour costs, which under the last Labour Government went through the roof?
    Mr. Butcher: The United Kingdom's average growth rate was only l½ per cent. between 1970 and 1980. In that period we were at the bottom of the productivity league of major industrialised nations. That contrasts with this decade in which the average growth rate has been over 5 per cent. and we have been at the top of the league. In regard to costs, of course we have to maintain our healthy obsession with unit wage costs and all unit costs. If we can keep that going until well into the 1990s, we shall have a very favourable outlook indeed.
    Ms. Armstrong: Will the Minister encourage industry to plough back the improvement in productivity into investment in manufacturing, which is still showing a decline in areas such as the north? Investment needs to be — [Interruption.]I am only going on last month's figures. Investment in manufacturing needs to be increased, so that areas such as the north can benefit from increased investment and increased growth, so that we may put the hundreds of thousands of people who are still out of work back to work.
    Mr. Butcher: As a northern Member, I hope that the hon. Lady will have drawn much comfort from the fact that the manufacturing sector is now spearheading our economic growth. It is growing faster than the general level of the economy.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Are not the encouraging figures that my hon. Friend has given to the House further evidence that the enterprise culture is well established in many parts of the United Kingdom? Will my hon. Friend make it his overriding objective——
    Mr. Cryer: Two million jobs have gone.
    Mr. Smith: Shut up.
    Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman does not like the truth.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions are to the Minister, not to the Bench below the Gangway.
    Mr. Smith: Will my hon. Friend make it his overriding policy objective to ensure that the enterprise culture is established throughout the United Kingdom? We have the conditions for further investment, further productivity growth and more jobs.
    Mr. Butcher: I can understand the antagonism of some Opposition Members towards the enterprise culture, because the arrival of the enterprise culture in some of their constituencies could well mean that they will lose their seats to the Conservative party. In regard to the sedentary question——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Please do not answer sedentary questions.
    Mr. James Lamond: Is the Minister aware that increased productivity and increased investment frequently lead to fewer jobs in industries such as the textile industry? If more jobs are to be created, which I assume we all desire, there has to be a buoyant market for the products, so that their improved competitiveness can result in increased sales. If the United States puts on an embargo on our goods, is it not true that goods intended to be imported into the United States from many other countries will be diverted to Britain? That will result in the market here being less buoyant. There will be fewer jobs and the investment in productivity will have been for nothing.
    Mr. Butcher: To take the last question first, it confirms that we are right to be concerned to see the continuation of the open trading market internationally. That is a prime objective of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On productivity and job loss, productivity gains are the friends and precursors of increased employment, as the Japanese experience demonstrates. I hope that we shall no longer be sidetracked by the myth that increasing productivity equals job losses. It means gains in income to United Kingdom plc and therefore gains in jobs.

    Fylde Coast Area
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will undertake a review of the impact on the Fylde coast area resulting from the removal of assisted area status.
    Mr. Atkins: No, Sir.
    Mr. Jack: Because of my hon. Friend's deep knowledge, care and concern for the affairs of Lancashire, I am sure he will realise that I and the other hon. Members serving the Fylde coast area are still deeply concerned about the level of unemployment. Does he agree that the key to reducing that is the starting of the second phase of the Peel industrial estate? The problems relating to English Industrial Estates in that venture mean that progress has been non-existent. Can his Department offer any hope of further options or ideas to enable industrial development to start in that area?
    Mr. Atkins: As my hon. Friend is fully aware, as a fellow Lancashire Member I understand the problems of that part of my hon. Friend's constituency. I have written to him making it clear that any involvement of English Industrial Estates must be dependent upon its being able to recover its costs. Since that letter I have been able to explore the possibility of further options and discuss them with my hon. Friend. If he cares to come to see me I am sure that we can find a way out of the problem.
    Sir Peter Blaker: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Fylde coast regularly has the highest unemployment in Lancashire? While I am grateful for what he has just said about the Peel industrial estate, will he consider, rather than diverting the land to retail industries — which would be contrary to the structure plan and contrary to policies of the Department of the Environment — whether it might be appropriate to encourage English Industrial Estates to divest itself of that part of the estate that has been partly developed so that it can be further developed by other companies?
    Mr. Atkins: My right hon. Friend, as ever, represents the interest of his constituents extremely well. His suggestion is one of the options that we shall consider.

    National Newspapers (Competition)
    Mr. Bruce: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received following the acquisition of a 14·7 per cent. stake in the Pearson group by News International; and if he will make a statement on competition policy for national newspapers.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Eight letters have been received by my Department, including one from the hon. Gentleman. Major newspaper mergers are regulated by special provisions in the Fair Trading Act 1973, and we shall rigorously examine all applications for consent which are put to us.
    Mr. Bruce: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there is real anxiety among people working in the Financial Times at the implications of the acquisition of a 14·7 per cent. stake in the parent corporation by Rupert Murdoch's company? Does he accept that the increasing concentration of ownership of the British national press has reached a level which cannot be in the best interests of the freedom of the press? Is it not time the Government came forward with a review of the right way to deal with competition and ensure that we have a free national press?
    Mr. Clarke: The matter would come to a head only if any attempt were made to acquire a controlling interest in the newspaper and in the group, which would trigger the provisions of the Fair Trading Act. That would involve the ability to own or control about 25 per cent. of the votes cast at a general meeting of the company. If that were to happen, the special newspaper provisions of the Fair Trading Act would come into play. My right hon. and noble Friend has already indicated that we are seeking to improve the workings of that part of the Act. We are asking the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to report back more quickly when references are made, and we are looking at ways in which this part of the Act can be made to work more effectively.
    Mr. Aitken: While recognising that Mr. Murdoch's description of himself as a friendly investor in the Financial Times gives a new and bloodcurdling meaning to that phrase, in all seriousness may I ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend accepts that there is an important public interest dimension to this which demands a firm assurance from the Government? Will my right hon. and learned Friend promise the House that in the event of Mr. Murdoch making a takeover bid for the Financial Times,the necessary Government consent under the Fair Trading Act will be debated in the House before a final ministerial decision is made, and not afterwards, as happened in such a shameful way in the cases of Today, The Sunday Times and The Times?We must have decisions taken here first.
    Mr. Clarke: I recognise that my hon. Friend is always a friendly questioner on the subject of this and similar acquisitions. I am being reasonably forthcoming on hypothetical questions which would arise only if Mr. Murdoch sought to exercise control over this newspaper. The Fair Trading Act 1973 covers that situation. I understand what the views of hon. Members on both sides
    256
    of the House will be if this occurs and I assure my hon: Friend that we shall apply the Act as it is intended to be applied.
    Mr. Buchan: Does the Minister recall the takeover of the Today newspaper earlier this year, which the Government meekly accepted, like lambs? This gave Mr. Murdoch 35 per cent. control over the popular press in this country. The triumvirate of Maxwell, Murdoch and Stevens controls over 80 per cent. of the popular press. Two hundred weeklies come under the control of Mr. Murdoch. Is this not a fearful control over ideas, opinions and attitudes? Should it not be prevented, and should the Government not operate a proper anti-monopoly policy?
    Mr. Clarke: The special provisions of the Act do not apply, and were never intended to apply, where there is financial urgency. In the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers there was an imminent threat of the newspaper closing. It had only a small circulation. I cannot answer hypothetical questions, but the hon. Gentleman must ask himself whether that situation could apply to any attempted acquisition of the Financial Times.It is on that basis that we shall decide whether the Fair Trading Act applies and whether reference should be made to the MMC. No application for consent has been made, so there is a limit to how forthcoming I can be.
    Mr. Dykes: Although I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), which received great support from both sides of the House, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that there is a big difference between a minority stake, which is equivalent to raising money or gaining financial support, or a rights issue, and seeking to intervene in the affairs of a newspaper? Will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake to ensure that the Financial Times,a masterpiece of objectivity and balance, remains truly independent?
    Mr. Clarke: I share my hon. Friend's admiration for the Financial Times,which is one of this country's strongest journals and has a great international reputation. We shall have a duty to address the Act if anyone attempts to acquire a controlling interest. My hon. Friend can rely on Ministers to take their duties seriously if such an event occurs.

    Leicester
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has for providing increased support for the traditional industries of Leicester.
    Mr. Atkins: My right hon. and noble Friend and I are looking at the whole range of the Departmenfs policies to ensure that they are effectively targeted on the areas and on the people that most need assistance.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister admitting that the traditional industries of Leicester and cities like it are in decline? Is he aware that the Government's policies of removing protection from workers and reducing the number of factory inspectors has led to intolerable sweatshop conditions, and that even the Government are investigating this? When will they provide the support that these industries need to bring back prosperity to a city which, when they came to power, was the second wealthiest in Europe and today is suffering greatly from unemployment and misery?
    Mr. Atkins: I recently opened an exhibition of the wool and knitting industries, of which there are many representatives in the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency. They spoke in glowing terms about the success of their traditional industries and felt that the serious problems facing them could be overcome with the continued support of the Government both at home and abroad.

    National Consumer Council
    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to meet the National Consumer Council.
    Mr. Maude: I shall be meeting the National Consumer Council on 1March 1988.
    Mr. Fatchett: Perhaps the Minister could bring that date forward and take the opportunity to discuss with the NCC its recent report on security risks and personal loans, which illustrates one of the worst characteristics of the so-called enterprise culture. Is the Minister aware that that report showed the use of deliberately deceitful advertising
    258
    on loans and high brokerage charges? It also showed that many people, often in extremely difficult financial circumstances, were putting their own homes at risk because of the nature of this loan business. Is it not about time that the Government acted against those sharks?
    Mr. Maude: We are already consulting on proposals to change advertisement regulations and will be issuing revised regulations soon after further consultations. Those regulations will require credit-granters to make it clear in the advertisements that if a secured loan is being offered the borrower's home is placed at risk. It is right that that. should be done. However, that does not remove the burden that must lie with anyone seeking credit to look carefully at the terms of the loan that he is seeking and to shop around to get the best possible deal.
    Mr. Gow: What injury would be done to the progress of mankind if the National Consumer Council were to be abolished?
    Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend has asked a fascinating hypothetical question to which I will not venture an answer at this stage.

Primary Health Care
3.30 pm
The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the Governments plans for improving the primary health care services. Those plans are set out in the White Paper entitled "Promoting Better Health", which has been published today. Copies are available from the Vote Office.
The primary care services — those provided outside hospitals by family doctors, dentists, pharmacists, opticians, community nurses and others — account for nine tenths of all patient contacts with the National Health Service. They cost over £5,000 million a year.
In 1986 the Government set out their proposals for improving primary care. They attracted over 2,000 written comments and were the subject of public consultation meetings chaired by Ministers in different parts of the country. We are grateful to all those who commented, and to the Social Services Committee of this House for its constructive report published earlier this year. The White Paper includes a detailed response to that report.
The consultations showed a wide measure of support for the Government proposals, in particular for placing the promotion of better health at the centre of the stage. The White Paper shows clearly the amount of preventable disease in this country, and it contains many proposals for tackling this problem. Those include the setting of targets for family doctors to achieve higher levels of vaccination, immunisation and cervical cytology screening; more health promotion sessions in general practice; a greater role in health education for pharmacists; regular health checks for particular groups, such as the under-fives and elderly people; a new contract for dentists which will encourage prevention; an extension of the primary care team to include chiropodists, physiotherapists and others and action to see that the skills of community nurses are better used, in connection with which we are issuing today a circular to English health authorities advising on the steps to be taken following the Cumberlege report on community nursing.
To achieve those aims we shall be making general practitioners' contracts more sensitive to actual performance and will look to family practitioner committees to monitor more vigorously the contracts they have with family doctors. The White Paper also emphasises the needs of the consumer of primary care services. In particular, it sets out ways of giving people much more information with which to choose their practitioner and of making it easier for people to change doctor. It also provides improvements in complaints procedures.
The various measures that the White Paper sets out — which include also compulsory retirement for the older doctors and dentists and more effective improvement of primary care premises — will affect all parts of the country. We expect them to bring particular benefits to inner cities and other deprived areas. In addition, the White Paper sets out the Governments intentions for improvements specific to such areas, for example by paying particular attention to their dental, pharmaceutical and community nursing services.
All primary care professionals have a part to play in the improvements we seek, and the White Paper describes our intentions for each part of the service. The Government
260
have already made provision for a large increase in expenditure on the family practitioner services, and are prepared to invest substantially more on top of that. In many cases, the actual amount will depend on the outcome of the negotiations that will now take place with each of the practitioner professions. The White Paper makes clear our intention to proceed quickly with the introduction of blood glucose testing strips for diabetics, which I believe will be widely welcomed in the House.
Expenditure on family practitioner services has already risen by £1·5 billion, or 43 per cent. in real terms, since 1978–79. That is reflected, for example, in the increase of nearly 4,000 to over 30,000 in the number of general practitioners, and a consequent fall from over 2,200 to fewer than 2,000 in the average number of patients on each doctor's list. To achieve the strategic development set out in the White Paper will mean giving still greater priority to these services as a whole, and we have therefore thought it right also to look carefully at priorities within them. We have concluded that it is reasonable to secure some additional resources for development by asking those who can afford it to pay for sight tests and to meet somewhat more of the overall cost of dental care, through a system of proportional charges extending also to examination costs, for which at present no charge is made. The proportional charge system will be simpler, and will relate patient charges more directly to the costs of the particular treatment. It will benefit regular attenders who look after their teeth, some of whom will have no increase or may even pay a little less. Current exemptions from dental charges will, of course, continue for children, adults on low income, expectant and nursing mothers and certain other groups. NHS sight tests will remain free for children, those on low income, the blind and partially sighted and other specified categories.
Existing plans already provide for additional expenditure by 1990–91 of some £570 million in real terms. That will be further increased by the substantial extra resources that the Government will make available to finance the improvements that I have described today. Towards the additional expenditure as a whole, the extra payments which people will make towards dental care and sight testing will contribute some £170 million by 1990–91.
The necessary legislative provisions, together with other health measures, are contained in a Bill which will also be published today. The proposals in the White Paper and the Bill will generally apply throughout the United Kingdom, but my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, will be considering the ways in which certain of our proposals will require to be adapted to the particular circumstances of those countries.
Our proposals will enable people to make more informed choices of practitioner, will give them access to higher quality services and, above all, will place the greatest emphasis on preventing illness and promoting positive good health. I believe that it is a strategy that will be widely welcomed and supported.
Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister praised the constructive report of the Select Committee. I would find his flattery more sincere if in the past half hour I had been able to find a single case in which he accepted a single recommendation from the Select Committee in which it differed from the consultative document.

261
Why, in particular, has the Minister rejected the unanimous recommendation that he re-examine the integration of the family practitioner committees that run the GPs with the district health authorities that supply the community nurses with whom they are supposed to work? What is the point of expressing pious hopes that health professionals will work together as a team, when he has decided to keep the administrators playing in two separate teams? If he seriously expects family practitioner committees to monitor "more vigorously" the quality of primary care, why is his Department choosing this year to cut their administrative budgets, and why have the committees been told to expect more staff cuts next year? Is the Minister aware that they are expected to shed 600 posts by next March, that Birmingham has suspended all planning functions, that East Sussex has stopped monitoring general practitioners' claims, and that Kingston has halted all inspections of GPs' surgeries? How does he expect us to believe that this small, shrinking band of administrators can make a reality of more vigorous monitoring?
The Minister will be aware that his proposals will be judged on how they remedy the most serious failings of primary care in the inner cities, where large numbers of the elderly, the unemployed and the homeless place special demands upon it. Will he acknowledge that those pressures are being increased month by month by the persistent closure of accident and emergency units, 15 of which have closed in London alone? How will those pressures be helped by payment by performance, which may draw more GPs away from the cities to areas such as Braintree, where it may well be easier for them to hit his targets?
How does the Minister imagine that it will help the chronic problem of crowded, crumbling surgeries in the inner cities to privatise the General Practice Finance Corporation, a proposal to which he did not refer but which is to be found in his White Paper? Is he not aware that that is a rare source of funds for new premises in unfashionable areas where banks will not lend? Why, given the deep public concern about them, does neither his statement nor the White Paper even mention the appalling quality of the deputising services?
Is the Minister further aware that studies suggest that the average consulting time per patient of only six minutes is lower in Britain than almost anywhere else in Europe? Why, then, is he proposing to increase the capitation element to encourage GPs to compete for even longer patient lists? Does he not appreciate that, if he wants to improve the quality of care, he should be encouraging GPs to have shorter lists, not even longer ones?
Finally, the Minister will have anticipated that we unreservedly condemn his proposal to charge for dental examinations and for eyesight tests. Does he recall that in the consultative document there was no reference to charges for eyesight tests and that professional bodies have been unable to comment on the proposal? Even solicitors will still give clients free advice —and will now come cheaper than these NHS service.
How does the Minister imagine that he is encouraging preventive care by discouraging patients from visiting their dentists? Has he forgotten that, when dental charges went up by 25 per cent., the number of fillings fell by 5 million? Is he aware that one in 20 people calling for an eyesight test are referred on for medical examination for conditions
262
such as glaucoma, which can be arrested if caught early enough? How many of them will be deterred by a tenner a test?
To the extent that today's proposals will oblige GPs to give priority not to their most needed services but to their most profitable ones, we wholly reject them. The Opposition will fight to preserve a Health Service that is publicly funded, publicly run and free to the public at the time they need it.
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I should take the last two points first and make it clear that in our view the proposed charges for dental examinations and the proportional system, which in some cases will have the effect of reducing treatment charges, are a sensible move towards generating the additional resources that we can then devote to exactly the purposes that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) outlined in his first questions. We wish to have more money to direct to the improvement of primary care in the inner cities. We wish also to develop the role of the family practitioner committees along exactly the same lines that the hon. Gentleman, too, would wish. In the remote likelihood of the hon. Gentleman ever being a Minister, he would have to face up to the need to find the resources to achieve those desirable objectives. We have tried to face up to that need.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the proposal that family practitioner committees and district health authorities should once again be merged. Whatever may be the merits of the arguments that were fought over in 1982 when the present set-up was introduced, I cannot believe that it is in the interests of any part of the Health Service to have yet another administrative upheaval on top of those that it has already been through. However these authorities were organised, it would be essential to have proper co-ordination. In my view, it is right to concentrate on achieving proper co-ordination, and that is what we are seeking to do by many of these proposals.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about capitation fees. I make the simple point that, with a given number of doctors and a given number of patients, it is impossible for lists to become longer on average. Higher capitation fees will give doctors the incentive, among many others that we are proposing, to provide good treatment to their patients so that they will attract patients against a background of wider choice. The core of our proposals on general practitioners is to change the remuneration system to give greater incentives to those who provide the things that I outlined at the beginning of my statement —more screening programmes, more health promotion sessions and systematic surveillance of the health needs of under-fives and the very elderly. We all wish to see those things brought about.
Dame Jill Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that the eye test is a screening procedure and that many serious illnesses such as diabetes, glaucoma and cancer can be detected at an early stage? Therefore, does he really think that it would be cost effective to deter people from seeking eye tests because they would have to pay £10? Any person in some difficulty with their sight might well be told, on going to see their doctor, to have their eyes tested and that it would cost £10 at an optician but nothing at a hospital. The hospital eye service is already under great strain. Therefore, does it make sense to direct more people to have their eyes tested at hospitals instead of at opticians?
Mr. Newton: I need hardly say that I respect my hon. Friend's views on those matters because of her direct knowledge of them and the views that she expressed when the voucher system was introduced some three or four years ago. The fears that were expressed about the introduction of the voucher system have proved unfounded. It has greatly extended competition, choice and consumer satisfaction. I believe that her fears about this further development will also prove unfounded.
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: We do not welcome the statement. It is probably one of the most deterrent things that we have heard. Prevention is what we need, but that is not what we are getting. Charging for eye testing and the inspection of teeth will not assist prevention, as it will not be possible to detect diseases such as cancer if eyes are not tested. It will bring about a medical upheaval. Will pressure from drug companies reflect the advice given by pharmacists to their patients?
Mr. Newton: I see no reason to suppose that that latter fear has anything to do with what we are proposing. We have been strongly pressed by pharmacists, who are an important part of the primary health care professions, to help them extend their role in advising people about health matters and, not least, health education. They constitute a large range of outlets, with many people going to them frequently, where such information can be made available. We think that it is a sensible use of resources to encourage pharmacists to use that asset in the interests of health education generally.
Sir David Price: My hon. Friend said that it was his intention that general practitioners' contracts should be more sensitive to performance. Will this enable such GPs to do more preventive medicine or more diagnostics? It is my view that a great deal more diagnosis should be done in general practice, thus relieving out-patient departments. Does he also recognise that this must mean smaller patient lists for such GPs?
Mr. Newton: It may well be that that will lead to reduced patient lists. I said in my statement that they have fallen substantially during the past seven or eight years. The details of the new arrangements will clearly have to be negotiated with the professions, but the basic answer to my hon. Friend's question is that we shall be aiming through the new remuneration system to encourage the sort of things to which he rightly attaches importance.
Mr. Barry Jones: Even at this stage, will the Minister think again about his decision to charge for eyesight tests and dental examinations? Does it not fly in the face of his policies on health education? Does he not see it as a colossal mistake?
Mr. Newton: No, I do not think that it does. The proposed charges contribute to our capacity to devote substantial additional resources to the promotion of good health and to the sort of measures outlined in the White Paper, which are directly related to improving the health of the nation. That is the basis on which the proposals have been put forward.
Mr. Roger Sims: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the document he has produced, which from what he says includes a large number of items to improve the health of the community. I thank him and our right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) for the enormous amount of time and trouble they
264
put into consulting all sorts of people on the contents of the Green Paper before the present proposals were brought out.
My hon. Friend will be aware that nurses are particularly anxious to play a larger role in community health care and I wonder whether my hon. Friend will enlarge a little on the remarks in his statement referring to nurses. Has there been any development on the suggestions in the Green Paper that pharmacists may play a larger role, particularly in visiting patients for whom they have prescribed preparations?
Mr. Newton: In relation to pharmacists and still more in relation to the optical services, we are looking at ways to pay practitioners to make domiciliary visits to the housebound, which is undoubtedly a gap in present facilities. That is illustrative of the sort of things we can do with the extra resources.
On the matter of nurses, my hon. Friend will be aware that the Cumberlege report recommended the development of so-called neighbourhood nursing services. We believe that that needs to be actively examined around the country. We do not believe that we can lay down a blueprint for all areas regardless of their differing conditions, but there are already some good examples in practice that we believe other authorities could build on. We are anxious to improve the quality of the work done by nurses in general practitioners' practices. We are proposing to reimburse general practitioners directly for the training of practice nurses, which I think will be widely welcomed.
Dr. Lewis Moonie: How will the proposals in the paper ensure an improvement in the promotion of good mental health?
Mr. Newton: In the same way as they will seek to promote other forms of health —physical health. For example, one of the things for which we shall be able directly to reimburse general practitioners but for which we cannot at the moment, is the employment, alongside chiropodists, physiotherapists and other supporting staff, of staff who can provide counselling services at general practices. That has been pressed for many times and is directly related to the problem raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement, particularly the points on more accountability for general practitioners. Does he think that it is about time that consultants were more accountable and that their contracts should be with district health authorities rather than regional health authorities?
Mr. Newton: I think that I have covered enough delicate issues in my statement without going into that one.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On behalf of my colleagues in Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party, may I say that we do not like the underpinning philosophy of the White Paper, since it seems that the low income groups, which are often the most vulnerable in health conditions, are less likely to take up opportunities for testing if they have to pay?
May I pursue the Minister on the issue of cervical cytology? It is not clear within the White Paper whether the call and recall service will be part of the main contract.

265
Since that is one illness that could be prevented by effective screening, can he give us an assurance that that will be the case?
Mr. Newton: I should make it clear that all existing exemptions from charges continue to apply under the system that I have proposed, so I do not think that low-income people will be affected. As to cervical cytology screening, around the country we have set targets for the introduction of call and recall programmes. One matter about which I feel particularly strongly, as does my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, is that we must ensure that the response of women to being called or recalled is raised, which is just as important as having the system in place. That is what we shall be encouraging general practitioners to help to bring about.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree with the increasing demand on the Health Service through demographic and technological factors, that it is high time that primary health care provision was properly scrutinised? The right way to provide primary health care is by being effective, efficient and responsive to the demand of consumers and, at last, by ensuring that general practitioners are more cost-conscious. There has been a phenomenal increase in spending in family practitioner services. Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be a wide welcome for the recognition that he is giving other members of the primary health team —chiropodists, physiotherapists and district nurses?
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the support that she has expressed.
Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Sam Galbraith.
An Hon. Member: A consultant.
Mr. Sam Galbraith: May I echo the call of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) for consultants to be made accountable? I welcome certain parts of the White Paper, particularly that with regard to a retirement age of 70, and I hope that it is a prelude to the introduction of retirement at 65. I welcome the part of the report concerning more information for patients. This is not advertising; more information will benefit patients. However, I am sorry that the Minister is going the wrong way on the capitation fee. What he is proposing will lead to larger practices, when even general practitioners are asking for smaller ones. The Minister should have taken the opportunity to reduce the capitation fee below £1,700. Will any items for service payments be cash-limited? Will they be cash-limited in general, or will each item of service within that be cash-limited? Will such things as cervical cytology smears or tests for blood examinations be cash-limited?
Mr. Newton: I express my gratitude for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's comments —[AN HON. MEMBER: "
About consultants?"] I shall leave consultants out of the matter for the moment, but I understand the direct interest of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) in these matters. The capitation fee issue should be considered alongside the introduction of specific incentives for the sort of particular purposes that I have outlined. There is no question of cash-limiting the tests that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. With regard to the sums that we shall make available for the further improvement of practice premises and for the additional employment of supporting staff of various kinds, we shall
266
make specific sums available to family practitioner committees; they can decide what projects to support, and develop what is called their more "pro-active role" to encourage good services in their area.
Dr. Alan Glyn: If my hon. Friend is to put a greater strain on general practitioners and increase their primary services, is he satisfied that they will be given sufficient equipment to carry that out?
Mr. Newton: Part of the purpose of the exercise is to achieve precisely that. I should make it clear that we are not seeking to increase the strain on general practitioners generally; we are seeking to increase the rewards of those who are already taking the strain and making a lot of effort, and to encourage those who are not doing that to do so.
Mr. Norman Hogg; Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will convey to his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the need for a detailed statement on the implications of the statement and the White Paper for the National Health Service in Scotland, with particular reference to general practitioner services in highland and remote areas, where doctors are having to work in difficult circumstances? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to comment on the ophthalmic and dental charges, which will have a detrimental effect on the socially disadvantaged in urban and rural Scotland?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is present—[Interruption.] I am sure that in an appropriate way my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will want to make available any further information about the application of these proposals to Scotland. We all seek to discuss with the professions how we may give better support to doctors who are virtually forced to practise on their own in isolated rural areas. Clearly, that will be of even greater importance in Scotland than in many parts of England.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Does my hon. Friend believe that the measures that he has announced today will encourage more people to seek examination of their sight, which also covers incipient glaucoma and conditions like it, and have their teeth examined, or does he believe that the measures will discourage them? Will my hon. Friend say why he believes that the obvious discouragement to both will be beneficial to health? Does he not realise that there are many people on what are, by any standards, very low incomes who are above the threshold for free access to these facilities?
Mr. Newton: I have already said to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) that similar fears expressed about earlier changes have proved unfounded. It will be open to opticians to offer free sight tests, as they may wish to do in connection with their general business of selling spectacles, even though they will not be able formally to tie patients to buy spectacles from the same place. The advantages and forces of competition will mean that these proposals will not have the effect that my hon. Friend fears.
Mr. Paul Flynn: In response to a moving letter from a constituent who lost her sight because of detectable glaucoma that was not detected in the early stages, I tabled a question to the Department asking for

267
an extension of eye tests to the plotting of visual fields, which would be a more sophisticated and more effective technique. Is the Minister aware that the International Glaucoma Association thinks that 150,000 people already suffer from glaucoma which has not been detected? Although the statement contains many items of value, the decision to withdraw free eye tests will be seen as an act of crass, wasteful, cruel stupidity.
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's views. I have already made it clear that I do not agree with him. I hope that I understood the first part of his question aright. I must point out that there is nothing in our proposals to restrict what is done in the course of an eye test.
Mr. John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend accept that, although many Conservative Members welcome any proposals to improve prevention, service and the range of choice, we must be sure that there will not be items of payment for services that encourage unnecessary activity, visits or referrals? The accent must be on a better deal and more choice for the patient.
Mr. Newton: Yes, and among other things we shall seek to ensure that general practitioners have better information about referral rates—for example, by other colleagues in the same area—and we hope that that will assist them in developing sensible practices.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does the Minister accept that the White Paper is clear evidence of the Government's intention to continue to undermine the National Health Service and to move away from the concepts upon which it was based? Is he aware that testing in that sense is part of preventive medicine? Luckily, I was diagnosed in an eye test as having glaucoma. I am one of probably many thousands of people who have been grateful for the fact that such a test disclosed that illness. Is it not an act of absolute stupidity to end free tests when, in view of public opinion, medicine is following the course of prevention rather than cure?
Mr. Newton: The essential emphasis of the White Paper, as I think I made clear throughout, is on extending the support that we give to preventive health promotion activity by general practitioners and by primary care services generally. The hon. Gentleman's initial remark is, frankly, absurd against the background of a 43 per cent. real increase already on primary care services, a further planned 11 per cent. real increase and the further increases entailed in my statement.
Mr. Andy Stewart: Is my hon. Friend aware that his statement may have opened up a rift between myself and my daughter, who is a dental surgeon, unless I can tell her this evening when she telephones me that the increased charges for inspection will be spent on dental care in general?
Mr. Newton: I hope that I have made it clear in my statement and answers that we have a number of proposals to improve the standards of dental care and to make some changes in the dentists' contract. We shall certainly seek to promote the standards of primary care generally. I am not in a position to give an undertaking that the money raised in one quarter will be spent only in that quarter and,
268
indeed, unless it were thought that the existing balance of primary care was perfect in all respects, it would be absurd for me to do so.
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: Does the Minister agree that, in the light of his emphasis on preventive and community medicine, it would be well worth considering even further the role of health visitors and considering increasing the ratio of health visitors to population from one to every 5,000 to one to every 3,000, so that health visitors can do their jobs much more effectively than they possibly can at present?
Mr. Newton: There has been a valuable increase in the number of health visitors. They are a singularly important part of the nursing profession and of the primary care services. Obviously, one of our objectives in encouraging health authorities to look at the proposals in the Cumberlege report and the circular which we have issued is to encourage the type of development which, in general terms, the hon. Lady wants.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I welcome the proposals to support doctors in rural areas. Will my hon. Friend say a word or two about dispensing by doctors in rural areas?
Mr. Newton: This is another delicate issue which is not greatly covered in the White Paper. We have no plans at present to change the balance of the arrangements for the rural dispensing committee and the new arrangements under the pharmacists' contract instituted last April which seek to arbitrate between the interests of dispensing doctors and those of pharmacists, not least in rural areas.
Mr. James Lamond: Is the Minister really saying that, in the face of all the Chancellor's income tax cuts and all the boasting about how borrowing has been reduced almost to nothing, the only way that he can finance these welcome changes to primary care and preventive medicine is by attacking the services that are the backbone of preventive medicine? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, despite all the high-faluting nonsense at the start of his statement, people in my constituency cannot get a simple flu vaccine, because supplies are not available, it seems, anywhere in the country, and they have to put down their names for the next year?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security—the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie)—yesterday gave a first-class answer on flu vacci ne, so I simply refer the hon. Gentleman to Hansard.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As a Member who served on the Select Committee which produced this report, may I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. It takes much more account of the Select Committee's views than the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said it does. If our general practitioner service, which is the finest in the world, requires more resources to carry out the important task that is set for it, and if the new charges on certain services will reduce the number of people coming forward for those services, will my hon. Friend increase resources for general practitioners and review the charges imposed on certain services?
Mr. Newton: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he sought in the first part of his question

269
about extra resources for general practitioners. Indeed, that is one of the main aims of the proposals. However, I would be hesitant about giving him any assurance on the second part of his question because I simply do not accept the fears that have been expressed.
Mr. Dave Nellist: What is there in the White Paper to deal with that most primary of health care—the treatment of chronically sick babies? I have no doubt that the Minister and the House will join me in welcoming the news of about an hour ago that this afternoon Philip and Diane Barber will see the operation performed on David, their six-week-old son. The Barbers are constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). What is in the White Paper for the 34 other babies waiting for heart operations around the country? What is in the White Paper to answer the words of Dr. Eric Silove, the consultant paediatric cardiologist at Birmingham children's hospital, who revealed this morning that in the past four days a baby has died because of a lack of operating theatre staff? If the Minister can increase charges for specs and teeth, why can he not do anything about intensive care staff and get these operations moving?
Mr. Newton: As with yesterday afternoon, I shall not seek to respond to the hon. Gentleman in the spirit of his question. I shall simply say that I, too, am delighted that Baby Barber is having his operation this afternoon. I understand that the operation started at 2.30 pm. I very much hope that it is successful and that the baby's parents will have their anxiety relieved.
Mr. Roger Gale: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his statement and on the White Paper. Those of my constituents who are employed in the pharmaceutical industry will welcome the statement that the Government are to encourage
"the maintenance and development of a strong and efficient pharmaceutical industry in the UK"
and that
"the Government have no plans at present to extend the selected list scheme into other therapeutic areas or to introduce compulsory generic prescribing."
[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Yes, from the White Paper.
Does the Minister intend to stimulate still further investment into research and development and manufacture—particularly research into cures for diseases such as AIDS.
Mr. Newton: The basis of the relatively new pharmaceutical price regulation scheme and of the other steps taken is precisely to encourage a strong research-based pharmaceutical industry in this country. I welcome my hon. Friend's comments and I hope that he in turn will encourage those with whom he is in touch to co-operate with us on other ways of ensuring economic and effective prescribing.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall endeavour to call those hon. Members who have been rising and who listened to the statement. However, I would ask for brief questions.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I have two questions of fact on sight testing. In answer to the informed and reasonable question of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), the Minister said that there was satisfaction in relation to consumer vouchers. What evidence does he have for that? Secondly, on paragraph 28
270
of the White Paper dealing with domiciliary sight testing, what extra monetary resources are likely to be available? Having received a cryogenic reception in the House on the sight testing proposals, should not the Minister go back to Alexander Fleming house and to his Cabinet colleagues and say, "The House of Commons is deeply unhappy about this. Think again."?
Mr. Newton: On resources, I have made it clear that we have to negotiate with the professions on many of these matters. Therefore, I cannot name specific sums that will go to any particular purpose. However, we shall want sufficient resources to be made available to provide an effective domiciliary sight testing scheme. On vouchers, when I have visited some of the new spectacle establishments that have grown up around the country, and talked to customers there, I have found them well satisfied with the arrangements.
Let me make it clear that we propose a number of improvements in the voucher scheme. Vouchers will be made available for contact lens purchase, which is not permitted at present. The position of the partially sighted will be given special consideration in relation to other voucher groups and the voucher scheme will also be extended to help adults whose spectacles are damaged owing to physical or mental disability. We are making a number of further improvements which I believe will be widely welcomed.
Mr. John Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that his announcement on proportional charges for dental treatment, for which the British Dental Association has been pressing, will be widely welcomed? Can he confirm to the House that the proportional charge that the Government have in mind will be lower because of the phasing-out of the free dental examination? That will encourage people to go to dental practitioners more regularly.
Mr. Newton: They will be lower than they would otherwise have been. I must make it clear that, because of the absurdities in the present system, the effect of proportional charges will vary greatly. Let me give an example. At the moment, for a precious metal bonded crown which costs £68, the patient pays £33, which represents just under half the cost. For a much less good jot)—a synthetic resin jacket—the patient also pays £33, which represents 94 per cent. of the cost. That is ridiculous and, above all, our proposal is more sensible.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Minister aware that his statement will do enormous damage to dental health and eye care? The evidence for that comes from the White Paper. Paragraph 2.13 says that the Government are to introduce charges for dental examination because of massive improvements in dental health in this country. Is the Minister so stupid that he does not understand that the reason why dental health has improved so massively is that we had free inspections? If we go back to the system of paying for examinations, we shall go back to bad dental health.
On the general practitioner service, the Minister should be aware that the massive difference between his Government and the Labour Government is that under Labour the services were always demand-led, and no other part of the Health Service had to pay for increased costs in the general practitioner service. The Minister's

271
statement, on the other hand, makes it clear that other parts of the Health Service will pay for the increase in costs in the general practitioner service.
Mr. Newton: On the point about dental charges, the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The principal reason for the great improvement in dental health is that the nation and parents have been taking much greater care of the dental health of children. Under the proposals, all dental treatment for children will be as free as it is now.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: The provisions of the White Paper are welcome—especially the proposal to set targets so that general practitioner pay is more closely related to performance. Will my hon. Friend say more about the setting of targets, especially for doctors in the deprived inner-city areas?
Mr. Newton: Again, I face the difficulty that we shall need to negotiate with the profession. Therefore, I cannot give my hon. Friend the detailed information that he seeks. I assure him that among the matters to be negotiated will be arrangements to give greater encouragement to general. practitioners to practise in inner-city areas and to give them better premises in which to practise. That is possibly the single most important need that we must consider when improving primary health care. The services are very poor in some of our inner cities.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is it the case, as is widely believed throughout the country, that junior Ministers in this benighted Government—particularly in the Department of Health and Social Security—are given special training in the presentation of policies and supportive arguments in which they themselves cannot possibly have any belief?
Mr. Newton: I hardly dare speculate about that. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman intended his remarks as a compliment. I believe that we should all be trained to face up to realities and to find resources to achieve good purposes.
Mr. Richard Holt: Will my hon. Friend accept from me, as a diabetic, that his announcement about diabetes will be widely welcomed? Will he also accept from me, as somebody who uses the National Health dental service, that I am not in the least enamoured of his proposals? What proportion of the charge will be retained by the dentist, what proportion will be passed on to the kitty, and will the dentists themselves be remunerated additionally for becoming tax collectors?
Mr. Newton: Dentists will be no more tax collectors than they are now, because there are already very substantial charges. I need hardly say that the remuneration of dentists will need to be negotiated, as ever, with the profession.
Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister is trying to put on a brave face. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) said, the Minister is finding it difficult to justify a self-financing package when he should be arguing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer for more funds for the Health Service. Will he ensure that, unlike the occasion of the announcement on Scottish homes, his right hon. and
272
learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland comes to the House and makes a statement on the implications for Scotland of the measures in the White Paper?
Mr. Newton: I note again what the hon. Gentleman said about Scotland, and no doubt my right hon. and learned Friend did so too. I see no need to apologise for a statement that provides an additional £600 million for primary care services by 1991, of which a relatively small part will be raised by the measures that I have proposed.
Mr. Chris Butler: I do not suppose that the medical profession will be surprised at losing its perquisite of retiring and then immediately being re-contracted. Can the Minister tell me a little more about the compulsory retirement arrangements? Is he aware that some young GPs are very up to date, but some elderly GPs are very wise old birds indeed?
Mr. Newton: I entirely accept that it is not possible to state that at any particular age a particular group of people is totally past it. I emphasise that there is nothing to prevent any doctor from continuing in private practice if he so wishes. However, we think that, as an act of general policy, it is sensible no longer to enter into NHS contracts with people aged over 70. The precise nature of the change will again be the subject of discussions with the profession, and there will be a transitional period. I believe this to be one of the changes that will gain widespread support both in the profession —that has already become evident —and among many outside it.
Mr. Max Madden: Why has the Minister set the compulsory retirement age at 70 rather than lower? What is his estimate of the proportion of pensioners who will have to pay for dental and eye checks? Does he accept that, as the proposals to introduce these charges were not contained in the consultation paper or the general election Tory manifesto, they represent a cowardly attack on health prevention?
Mr. Newton: The changes that I have outlined this afternoon for dental examinations and eye tests require legislation, and that is contained in the Health and Medicines Bill that will be published later today. There will be no shortage of opportunity for debate and discussion and for those outside to make their views known.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition attacks on the principle of charging are rather hollow because it was their Government who, in 1951, first introduced the principle? Does he further agree that, for those who are not exempt and have good incomes, a £10 charge towards helping to keep their health is very good value? Is that not especially true when compared with, for example, the expenditure of £500 on a holiday? Is that not the sort of value standard that we should be considering?
Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend. Although £10 is the payment that we make now to ophthalmic opticians for sight tests, the payment to other sight testers, such as ophthalmic medical practitioners, is substantially less. As I have already said, I expect that under the new system there will be considerable pressure to keep charges down.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May I draw the Minister's attention to the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight),

273
who pointed out that it is not just a sight test, but an eye test, as the eyes are also screened for diseases? Will not charging act as a deterrent to the very basic primary care the Minister claims he is trying to improve? Is not that same principle applicable to dental charges? Will they not also be a deterrent, and, therefore, will not the standard of dental care decline, with the consequent effect of greater costs in the community through loss of work and working hours and so on? Is it not true the people will face those charges at a time when the Government are pouring some £11 billion into nuclear deterrence? People should know that mass extermination has a higher priority than the dental and eye care of our people.
Mr. Newton: Given that, at current rates, the charge for a dental examination will be about £3 or less, and in the light of what I have said about sight testing charges, I refuse to believe that, in a country whose standard of living is growing as fast as ours, the effects of the proposals will be as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the Minister and the House pause and comprehend that if, in the Health Service, we start to identify particular patients to receive treatment in advance of others, it will do grave damage to the NHS and its patients? I am, of course, referring to Baby Barber. Does my hon. Friend understand that if we were to alter our system of funding drugs, and not have huge companies that, in America, do not accept such disciplines, Britain would have the enormous advantage of ordinary drugs, the Health Service would benefit greatly and we would not have to make these appalling decisions of choice?
Mr. Newton: It is certainly true that the various actions that the Government have taken to ensure that the drug bill is effective and economical contribute, as did the introduction of the selected list, to other things that we want to do in the Health Service. It is all about priorities, and much of my statement was about priorities. I think that they are the right priorities.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware that dentists in inner-city areas are already gravely concerned about the deterioration in the state of the teeth of those living in inner cities? Has that not come about because of charges, which are clearly a disincentive? Yet, under the White Paper, charges will rise, and charging for what is currently free dental inspection will add to the deterrent effect.
The Minister mentioned accident and emergency provision. Is he aware that in the London borough of
274
Newham that provision is now approaching breakdown point? I now understand why the Prime Minister does not want to televise the proceedings of the House —it is because the people of this country would see what an evil, rapacious and uncaring bunch the Tory Members have become.
Mr. Newton: I wish to make two points. First, if there is any sort of decline in the standard of teeth in inner-city areas, it is a result of the generally poor quality of primary health services in those areas—something that a large part of the thrust of the document is designed to tackle to bring about improvement. Secondly, one of the pressures on inner-city accident and emergency departments is, again, the inadequacy of the primary care services. not least the extent to which general practice is conducted from lock-up shops. That leads people to go to the local hospitals. Again, we come back to the essential need for the improvement of primary care services, and we are seeking to direct resources to that through this White Paper.
Mr. Robin Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is it concerned with the statement?
Mr. Cook: Yes, it is.
Mr. Speaker: Well, the hon. Gentleman has the right to ask another question. He does not need to raise a point of order.
Mr. Cook: I am very happy to make my point under whichever procedure you recommend, Mr. Speaker.
I understand that the Minister is addressing a press conference on the White Paper and the Bill at 4.30 pm. The House is in some difficulty because the Bill is not available to hon. Members until it is presented, which may be another 15 or 20 minutes. It would be a courtesy to the House if the Minister did not refer to the contents of the Bill until it is in the hands of hon. Members.
Mr. Newton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman said. It may be difficult for me to respond to some of the questions that I may be asked, but I shall try to stick to the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman reasonably asked.
Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No. The Front Bench has a right to a further Question. I will take points of order after the applications under Standing Order No. 20.

British Coal Houses (Nottinghamshire)
4.29 pm
Mr. Alan Meale: 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,
"British Coal's decision in Nottinghamshire to reject the financial bid by a consortium of housing associations for the remaining tenanted homes in Nottinghamshire which British Coal currently owns"
About 2,000 homes and 3,500 people, mainly retired mining employees, are involved in this. The matter is urgent because, as I said during points of order in the House on Friday, the Secretary of State for Energy should have instructed British Coal to accept the consortium's bid of £7 million in the interests of the people who live in those houses. Late yesterday, British Coal decided to reject that offer. It is the third time that British Coal has turned down offers for those homes, with bids from the housing associations ranging from £5 million to the present offer of more than £7 million.
It is important that we discuss the matter, because more than 90 per cent. of those who live in the houses are over 65 years of age. They have given their lives to the coal industry and now face the prospect of private landlords, whose record in connection with former British Coal housing stock is deplorable. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that these tenants are seriously worried. Recent reports from the Nottinghamshire Federation of Coal Tenants and Shelter tell a sorry tale of bad landlords, intimidation and lack of repairs to properties. Those people have the right to security in old age in their homes.
An Adjournment of the House to discuss the matter fully would stop the mass sale of those homes to private speculators, who have shown their lack of care for the tenants involved.
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 believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision of British Coal to turn down a bid of £7 million made by a consortium of housing associations to buy the remaining homes which it currently owns and rents in Nottinghamshire."
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that the matter which he has raised is not appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Educational Buildings (Aberdeen)
4.31 pm
Mr. Frank Doran: 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 implications of the recently discovered serious structural faults in educational establishments in Aberdeen."
There is a serious problem in my constituency. On Monday, Grampian regional council was forced to evacuate Aberdeen college of commerce. An engineer's report declared that serious structural faults in the building rendered it unsafe. There is no immediate danger of collapse, but I welcome the prudence of the regional council in erring on the side of safety. The regional council has been advised that the cost of repair will be such that the only economic course may be to demolish the building and rebuild it.
That is the third educational building in Aberdeen where serious faults have recently been discovered. Aberdeen technical college is undergoing repairs at an estimated cost of £500,000. Summerhill academy, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), requires repairs costing £750,000. I am advised that all three buildings were the work of one architect and that several other schools were built by him. Today, the director of education of Grampian regional council advised me that the council carries out annual inspections of all school buildings and that no serious defects have been found. However, to allay the fears of parents, pupils, staff and the public, immediate further inspections have been instructed. I welcome that response.
As a result of the emergency, the provision of education in my constituency and in the city of Aberdeen is in a crisis. First, there is the urgent task of relocating about 8,000 full-time, part-time and day release students from Aberdeen college of commerce. Secondly, we must urgently replace or repair the buildings that have already been identified as defective and others which may be so identified. We must also reassure parents, pupils, staff and public that there is no risk to anyone studying at educational establishments in Aberdeen.
In these days of severe financial restrictions placed on local authorities, the immense and unforeseen costs that now face Grampian regional council cannot be met from its present resources. In the event of your accepting the motion, Mr. Speaker, I shall call on the Secretary of State for Scotland to give a clear commitment to make available additional finance to the regional council.
I urge you to accept the motion, Mr. Speaker, and allow a discussion of this important matter.
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 believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the implications of the recently discovered structural faults in educational establishments in Aberdeen."
I regret that I must give the hon. Gentleman the same answer as I gave to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). This matter is not appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have other opportunities to raise it in the House.

points of Order
4.34 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful if you would help the House by encouraging Ministers, when they give statements, to provide copies of those statements in the Vote Office, if not in advance at least by the time the statement starts. We will not see the Minister for Health's statement until Hansard is published tomorrow. It is especially unfair to the House because, when the Minister started his speech, people could be seen going round the Press Gallery delivering copies of it to the press. We all defer to the press as the fourth estate, of course, but there is no reason why we should be handicapped by not having copies of statements which would improve our ability to ask more probing questions and therefore make the Government more accountable. Perhaps the Government are frightened of that. That is why I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to use your influence in obtaining copies of statements.
Mr. Speaker: Although I have sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said, I do not think that this is a matter for the Chair. The question should properly be put to the Leader of the House tomorrow. I understand the importance of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to spoil your birthday. You have already heard my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) talking about British Coal running all over those people in Nottinghamshire and other areas. I hope that you will use your influence to get the Secretary of State for Energy to help us with this problem, because we have reached the end of the road.
Mr. Speaker: I omitted to say to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) that I hoped that he would find other ways of bringing the matter before the House. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will do the same.

BILL PRESENTED

  HEALTH AND MEDICINES
  Mr. John Moore, supported by Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary Fowler, Mr. Secretary King, Mr. Secretary Ridley, Mr. Secretary Baker, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Tony Newton and Mrs. Edwina Currie presented a Bill to make a further provision in relation to the National Health Service, the testing of sight and instruction in matters relating to health and welfare and to amend the Medicines Act 1971: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 59.]
  4.37 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Scottish Parliament, elected by a system of proportional representation, to assume legislative authority on all matters of public policy relating to Scotland under reservation of matters; relating to defence, international and economic affairs which shall remain the preserve of the United Kingdom Parliament, to provide for changes in the constitution and functions of certain public bodies; and for connected purposes.
  The Bill complements the motion that was introduced on Monday by my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal party. I have no wish to weary the House with such matters, but the demand for a measure to devolve political power to the constituent parts of the United Kingdom is more than a passing fancy and will not go away. Nor is the issue wholly Scottish. The motion seeks to reach a wider audience of hon. Members than did the predominantly, and understandably, Scottish debate on Monday.
  It is essential for the long-term success of the policy of decentralisation that the Scottish measure is endorsed broadly by the whole House. In addition, the essential features of the decentralisation proposed for Scotland by the Bill should eventually be translated, suitably, to other nations and regions of the United Kingdom.
  In essence, the Bill seeks a devolved legislative body to be called a Scottish Parliament. It would be granted tax-raising powers; it would deal with all domestic matters; except defence, international affairs and United Kingdom economic policy. Reduced to those bare essentials, the Bill has considerable support across all parties, in the media and in the broad sweep of public opinion in Scotland, embodying as it does the proposition that such a proposal should be enshrined in law in the near future.
  I do not think it is a matter of any great contention that a measure such as this is urgent and necessary because of for example, the congestion of business in the House, the inexorable increase in pressure of time under which we all work, the defective quality of some of the legislation that is often produced on Scottish matters, the insidious infiltration of English notions into our civil and criminal law system and, perhaps most important of all, the lack of effective parliamentary scrutiny of the administrators in St. Andrew's house.
  It is a matter of slightly more contention that reform is also necessary because of the party political balance, which currently leaves the governance of Scotland in the hands of a party that has only minority support in terms of Scottish votes and seats. There is no guarantee that that unsatisfactory position will change in the near future There are therefore compelling and positive reasons for seeking a change by means of a carefully considered, democratic and thought-out measure of reform that is necessary and long overdue.
  Nothing should distract us from the urgent need for reform, even if there is less agreement on the necessary component parts of that package. The proposals that we put forward—we have made no secret of it—contain a number of checks and balances that we consider essential First, there is the need for a system of election that relates seats directly to votes. Secondly, we perceive the need to bring about a parallel and simultaneous reduction in the

  279
  tiered structure of Scottish local government. Thirdly, we face up squarely to the need to redress the balance of Scottish representation in this House en route to a United Kingdomwide system of devolution, with the consequences that that has for the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  We believe that parts of our proposals would meet the political needs of the present and command widespread support throughout the United Kingdom. Of course, we recognise that other political parties have different political components in their own schemes and that party political interests are obviously directly at stake. The ultimate test should be that the reform should command widespread public support in Scotland and beyond. All our party political interests should be subordinate and subservient to that aim.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland —at least as of Monday night —appears to believe that the measure should be enacted, but only if there is evidence of widespread public support for it. Regrettably, the Government's test of public support appears to amount to people having to take to the streets to demonstrate their interest. That, indeed, is what the Government may eventually face if they continue their prolonged inaction.
  I introduced a Bill in the last Parliament to establish a Scottish Parliament. I was voted down, having been opposed by Mr. Gerald Malone, the then hon. Member for Aberdeen, South—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd):Order. The hon. Gentleman needs to be heard.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Not for much longer, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall continue for as long as I have the privilege of serving in Parliament to raise the need for legislation of this sort —until the Government, or some future Government, see fit to give Scotland and the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom a meaningful measure of political decentralisation.
  Mr. Allan Stewart rose—
  4.44 pm
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) seeking to oppose?
  Mr. Stewart: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on a neat piece of parliamentary footwork because, by his introduction of the Bill today, he has effectively forced the Labour party to defer consideration of its Bill, which was originally planned for next Monday, until after next week. That little bit of manoeuvring shows the disunity of the devolution ranks—a disunity that was underlined by the backbiting and bickering that we saw among Opposition Members in Monday's debate. It is underlined again and again by what happens in Scotland, too. For example, recently the so-called festival of democracy was held in Glasgow. It was supposed to be a fun-filled day of united devolutionary fervour, but what happened? First, the Scottish National party pulled out; then the Social Democratic party pulled out; it was followed by the other part of the Social Democratic party; and, finally, the Liberals pulled out, too. That is an example of the fact that there is no unity whatever when one gets behind the slogans.
  280
  Monday's debate, and the hon. Gentleman's speech today, are remarkable for the absence of any real effort to point to tangible advantages for the people of Scotland of having a Scottish assembly. We know, however, what the costs and damage would be. The leaders of industry and commerce have made it absolutely clear that they do not believe that an assembly would be in the interests of the wealth-creating sector. The costs would not only consist of setting up an assembly, although the Scotland and Wales Bill of the last Labour Government estimated that 1,000 extra Scottish civil servants would be created by that measure alone. There would also be the costs of uncertainty, the wholesale and unnecessary reorganisation of local government and the costs of extra taxation. Let the House be in no doubt about the ambition of the Left in Scotland to use an assembly to increase taxation on the minority, or taxes on industry and commerce, to finance extravagance —just as it has done under the rating system in Scotland. There would also be constant conflict between an assembly and the House.
  It is breathtaking for the Liberal party to say that it recognises that its proposals involve a major constitutional problem, best known as the West Lothian question. The Leader of the Liberal party has told the House that there is no answer to the West Lothian question, but that he will go ahead with his proposals in any event. That question is an example of the conflict that would inevitably arise and which cannot be avoided.
  Take, for example, 1964, or 1974, when Labour Governments had a majority in the United Kingdom but not in England. It would not be tolerable for Scottish Members to vote on measures that the majority of English Members did not want, when neither Scottish nor English Members had any right to vote on similar measures that affected Scotland. The result would be constitutional chaos.
  I believe that there are genuine doubts among English Labour Members of Parliament about Scottish devolution. Many of them may recall the wise words of the present leader of the Labour party, who said in 1978:
  "The irony of devolution is that it will smash beyond healing the unity of Britain …These devolution proposals offer a maximum of risk with a minimum of gain to the Scots people."
  I urge English Labour Members to take this opportunity to abstain on the vote, to show their doubts about devolution. I urge my hon. Friends to oppose a measure that would result in no gains for the people of Scotland and would involve real costs and disadvantages for them. It would inevitably lead to a constitutional crisis for the United Kingdom and the House.
  Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19, (Motions for leave to bring in bills and nomination of select committees at commencement of public business):—
  The House divided:Ayes: 97,Noes: 263.

  Division No. 80]

  [4.50 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Alton, David

  Buchan, Norman

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Caborn, Richard

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Callaghan, Jim

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Barron, Kevin

  Cartwright, John

  Beith, A. J.

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Blair, Tony

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Clelland, David

  281

  Corbett, Robin

  McKelvey, William

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McLeish, Henry

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

  Maclennan, Robert

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dewar, Donald

  Martin, Michael (Springburn)

  Dobson, Frank

  Maxton, John

  Doran, Frank

  Meacher, Michael

  Douglas, Dick

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Dunnachie, James

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Eastham, Ken

  Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Fatchett, Derek

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Faulds, Andrew

  Pike, Peter

  Fearn, Ronald

  Reid, John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Robertson, George

  Foulkes, George

  Rooker, Jeff

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Salmond, Alex

  Gould, Bryan

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Graham, Thomas

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Short, Clare

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

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

  Home Robertson, John

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Howells, Geraint

  Strang, Gavin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Straw, Jack

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Lambie, David

  Worthington, Anthony

  Litherland, Robert

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Mr. James Wallace and Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

  McAllion, John

  McAvoy, Tom

  NOES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

  Allason, Rupert

  Cash, William

  Amess, David

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Arbuthnot, James

  Chapman, Sydney

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Chope, Christopher

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

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

  Ashby, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Atkins, Robert

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Colvin, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Benyon, W.

  Cope, John

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Couchman, James

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Cran, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bottomley, Peter

  Curry, David

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

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

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Day, Stephen

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Devlin, Tim

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Brazier, Julian

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bright, Graham

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Dover, Den

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

  Dunn, Bob

  Browne John (Winchester)

  Durant, Tony

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Evennett, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Fallon, Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Favell, Tony

  Burt, Alistair

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Butcher, John

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Butler, Chris

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Butterfill, John

  Forman, Nigel

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Forth, Eric

  Carrington, Matthew

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  282

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Franks, Cecil

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Freeman, Roger

  Major, Rt Hon John

  French, Douglas

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gale, Roger

  Mans, Keith

  Gardiner, George

  Maples, John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Marland, Paul

  Gill, Christopher

  Marlow, Tony

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mates, Michael

  Gorst, John

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gow, Ian

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Moate, Roger

  Grist, Ian

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Ground, Patrick

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Hannam, John

  Neale, Gerrard

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

  Neubert, Michael

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Harris, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hayward, Robert

  Page, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Paice, James

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Pawsey, James

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Holt, Richard

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Portillo, Michael

  Howard, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Price, Sir David

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Redwood, John

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Renton, Tim

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Riddick, Graham

  Irvine, Michael

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Irving, Charles

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jack, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Jackson, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Janman, Timothy

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Jessel, Toby

  Rost, Peter

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rowe, Andrew

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Ryder, Richard

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Knowles, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lang, Ian

  Shersby, Michael

  Latham, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lightbown, David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Lilley, Peter

  Speed, Keith

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Speller, Tony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Lord, Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Stern, Michael

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Stevens, Lewis

  McCrindle, Robert

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood,

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Maclean, David

  Sumberg, David

  283

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Warren, Kenneth

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wheeler, John

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wilshire, David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Tredinnick, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Trippier, David

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn and Mr. Bill Walker.

  Waller, Gary

  Ward, John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  5.2 pm
  Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House has just been invited to make a very important decision on a very important constitutional matter. It was apparent to hon. Members who have just voted in the Division that official Opposition Members moved in all directions. Some went to the Aye Lobby and some went to the No Lobby. Can we have some guidance as to their stance?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): That is not a point of order for the Chair. Hon. Members are entitled to go into whichever Division Lobby they choose.

Orders of the Day
  Urban Development Corporations (Financial Limits) Bill
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
Clause 1

  ALTERATION OF FINANCIAL LIMITS OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS
  5.3 pm
  Mr. Roland Boyes: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 14, after 'corporations', insert
  "(whether or not existing at the commencement of the Urban Development Corporations (Financial Limits) Act 1987)"
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 19, at end insert
  "(whether or not existing at the commencement of the Urban Development Corporations (Financial Limits) Act 1987)"
  Mr. Boyes: We gave the Bill an unopposed Second Reading, but expressed a number of reservations in principle about undemocratic, unelected bodies having strong powers, and I described those as planning, land assembly, disposal for private sector development, industrial and commercial development, promotion, environment improvement, housing and infrastructure. By any definition, urban development corporations will have tremendous powers.
  We also stressed on Second Reading that the urban development corporations can work outside the strategic and economic goals of the local authority. Urban development corporations can actually implement policies contrary to the wishes and policies of the local authority. To that extent we regret very much that the Government could not support our amendment in Committee calling for consultation with the appropriate local authority, or authorities, before investment decisions were made.
  It is interesting to note that the CBI, at its conference recently, also stressed the dangers of ignoring local authorities. Mr. Peter Hetherington, in an article in The Guardian, wrote:
  "The CBI yesterday warned the Government that its efforts to revive inner cities will fail if it bypassed councils with Whitehall-controlled agencies.
  The CBI director-general, Mr. John Banham, said the councils were efficient and effective in many respects."
  In the same article, Mr. David Goldstone, the managing director of Regalian properties, said:
  "government constraints on funds for local councils were often short-sighted."
  Despite our concerns, on Second Reading I said that we would work with the urban development corporations until the next general election, when we would review all development corporation activities.
  The basis of the amendment is our concern about mini urban development corporations. There are strong rumours that an announcement will be made shortly that a large number of mini corporations are to be created. I understand that the figure is in excess of 24·I have a series of questions for the Minister. How many mini corporations does he expect to announce in the short term?

  285
  Are there any long-term objectives and goals? As rumours are flying at the moment about the creation of new mini urban development corporations, when will he announce a date for them?
  As this matter is doubtless advanced, what consultation has taken place, or will take place, with the local authority or authorities concerned with these urban development corporations? This morning I spoke to the policy head of the directorate of Manchester city council. It is clear that a number of local authorities are already working closely with the private sector and developing urban regeneration initiatives in genuine joint venture partnerships. Might not the imposition of the solution of mini urban development corporations be unnecessary and even counter-productive in many of those areas? Will the Minister assure us that he will not impose the solution in areas where there is clear evidence of co-operation without consultation with local interests to see whether they believe that the introduction of such measures is necessary?
  What will happen if a local authority refuses to agree to have a mini urban development corporation in its area? I am also concerned about the way in which the mini urban development corporations will be placed in localities. I raise this point because, in a speech on Wednesday 3 June 1987 to the Loynell's Road Residents Association in Birmingham Northfield, the Secretary of State for the Environment said:
  "We hope local people will bring to our attention areas of dereliction which they think can benefit from this approach." He meant the mini UDC approach. When the Minister replies, will he define exactly what he means by "local people"? I see no mention of local authorities in the extract of the speech by the Secretary of State
  Will the Minister tell us whether each mini urban development corporation will have its own board? That will be of particular interest if there should be more than one mini urban development corporation in one local authority area. Will he also amplify the point he made in reply to my question on 4 November 1987 when I asked if he would consider funding urban development corporations by the same method as the new town corporations are funded?
  The Minister said:
  "The answer to the question why we cannot fund them as we did the new towns is straightforward: the new towns were financed from loans and were building on green field sites. The UDCs are building in areas where many millions of pounds must be spent before sites can be developed, and the only prudent way of financing such expenditure is by grant." —[Official Report 4 November 1987; Vol. 121, c. 1013.]
  The difference is that central Government have absolute control over the grants, whereas, if the urban development corporations were free to raise loans on the market, for example, that would give them less control over the spending powers of the mini urban development corporations and the urban development corporations than the Minister intended. I could not follow the difference between the green fields suggestion and the other phrase that was used about the inner cities.
  I understand that the aim is to attract private capital, with an initial investment of between £10 million and £15 million of public money. We made it absolutely clear on Second Reading that certain areas — for example, the north-east of England—have tremendous difficulties in raising private capital. At that time I quoted at length from a letter from Martin Laing, the chairman of John Lanig plc and chairman of the national contractors' group of the
  286
  Building Employers Confederation. I shall not quote from it now. That pointed out clearly the difficulties that areas such as mine would have in attracting private capital.
  In an editorial in The Times, of 13 November 1986, the writer stated:
  "the £128 million of grants to the Merseyside Board have yet to stimulate anything like the response from private developers seen in London's Dockland.
  The new boards will have to operate conditions much closer to Merseyside than to those of the London Docklands."
  Part of our opposition to the formation of mini UDCs is that we cannot see that £10 million to £15 million will attract the private capital that the government anticipate. We consider them to be a method of bypassing the local authorities. John Banham warned us of the dangers of putting money into areas without local authorities being given the opportunity to cary out their tasks and functions.
  It has been put to me that it would be eminently sensible and wise to monitor the results obtained by the existing five urban development corporations before we get a proliferation of urban development corporations, even if some of them are minis. Could it not create an atmosphere in which in some areas urban development corporations will compete among themselves for scarce resources, particularly in areas where local authorities and other agencies already find it extremely difficult to attract private capital?
  Mr. Anthony Steen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boyes: No; I have almost finished.
  We note, as part of our opposition to mini urban development corporations, Lord Young's comments in this morning's edition of The Independent He said:
  "Where we see our role is to help employment come back to the inner cities. Now there is no way in which any new outside employer would go into the inner cities. Vandalism is too high and the problems are too great".
  It seems that the Conservative party has already abandoned its plans for inner-city regeneration Lord Young clearly accepts that there will be difficulties in attracting capital into our inner-city areas. If Lord Young is correct, does that not emphasise my point that the idea of a proliferation of mini UDCs should be abandoned? Opposition Members believe that they should be scrapped, or at worst delayed, because of that pessimistic approach.
  Those of us interested in inner-city regeneration seek an optimistic approach. The Government's proposals today reveal a cynical approach. I hope that the Minister will make it absolutely clear that, until the five urban development corporations have existed for a reasonable time, and we have been able to measure their success. he will withhold any statement about the introduction of the 30 mini urban development corporations.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Steen: If I had been allowed to intervene, I should have asked the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) a number of questions based on the fact that he does not want urban development corporations. Is he saying that the same sums of money should go to local authorities? Is he saying that that is the solution to the inner-city problems? If one traces the history of the inner cities, one can see what has happened on the Opposition Benches.
  In 1968, the then Prime Minister woke up to the problems of the inner cities. The Government gave £20

  287
  million to solve the problems. The Labour Government then shifted the rate support grant from the rural areas to the inner-city areas, believing that a little extra money would sort out the difficulties. It did not. The following Conservative Administration then put a lot of money into research, there were inner-city studies, and studies of the neighbourhood quality of life. They believed that more research was needed.
  Then the Labour Government introduced a whole range of measures for rejigging local authority priorities. The most noticeable measure was the comprehensive community programme, which told local authorities to re-order their priorities in favour of the inner cities. Since 1979, the Conservative Administration have introduced an entirely new approach to the inner cities, based not on community development or social development, but on economic redevelopment. The watershed clearly occurred in 1979, when the research and other measures about social cohesion and community development were replaced by economic regeneration. We must give this Government the credit for that, and it should be stated that the single-minded approach on economic regeneration has had very important results.
  Not all Government measures have been as successful as one would have liked. The enterprise zone presents a mixed picture and the free ports have not got off the ground as fast as one would have liked. The urban development corporations in Merseyside and the London docklands, which are the oldest, have no doubt had an impact
  If we pump enormous sums of money into a very small locality, it is obvious that there will be some impact. The question is whether the impact is desirable, whether it is beneficial to the area, and whether there is a better way of spending those sums of public money.
  I am anxious to hear the Minister's reply to the amendment, because President Carter spent billions of dollars on a similar exercise to the urban development corporations. He called it the model city programme, and targeted substantial sums of public money into rundown industrial areas, mostly in the North American cities, with one or two in the south. He spent every conceivable amount of public money trying to revive dying neighbourhoods. That is exactly what the urban development corporations are trying to do.
  There is a slight distinction between them and the model city programme of President Carter, which erased the entire housing stock of an area, moved the people out, and then rebuilt the housing, redesigned the environment and put people back again. To the amazement of Congress, 10 years after the experiment it found unfortunately the same incidence of unemployment, drug addiction and drunkenness, the same problems with single-parent mums, the elderly and the retired, and the same number of young people on probation. So all that resulted was newer housing, but it soon became run down again as the same people moved back and could not maintain it.
  The urban development corporations are pouring larger sums of public money into inner cities than has ever been poured into them before. The Opposition should be ecstatic that the Government have poured so much money into inner cities. That should be the Opposition's starting point, because no Government since 1968 have put so
  288
  much money into inner-city areas. The question that the Opposition should ask—they have not asked it, so I am asking it for them—is, could not that money be better or as well spent if it did not necessarily go through the local authorities? Local authorities have problems with competing claims, and they do not have the mechanism to do the things that urban development corporations could do.
  The solution to inner-city problems has not been found by this Government or previous Governments because the money, which amounts to tens or hundreds of millions of pounds, is being spent solely on economic regeneration. Although economic regeneration is crucial to the redevelopment of inner cities, the only way inner cities will ever redevelop is by motivating and financing the people who live in the houses, street by street, to help themselves. In years to come, we will look back on urban development corporations as another watershed. They are another approach by which the Government try to rescue the inner cities.
  The Opposition's argument, which they have put as strongly as they can, is that the weakness of urban development corporations as a concept is that they are undemocratic and do not go through local authorities. My argument is not along those lines. I think that local authorities have failed, for good reasons, to regenerate areas in ways the urban development corporations have done in dockland and on Merseyside.
  My criticism is that the money could be better targeted if the urban development corporations were based on neighbourhoods and on people rather than on buildings. London is a special case and docklands has been a great success; no one would want to criticise the Government for putting money into London. On Merseyside they made a brave attempt, but I do not know how successful it has been. It was based on derelict docks; there were no people living there. I am concerned that the new development corporations or the mini development corporations may not be based on communities and neighbourhoods. The inner cities are bound to get worse unless the Government direct the public intervention, which is now on a larger scale than ever before, into neighbourhoods which exist; they should bolster the people living there and help them to help themselves.
  Planning controls should be relaxed so that people can work even in their back garden or in their back shed which planning regulations prevent them doing now. There should be much more homesteading and shopsteading so that people can take over derelict buildings and renovate, improve and live in them. That was done in London under the Conservative GLC. It has been done all over the States, but it is not being done in our inner cities today. Homesteading and shopsteading would start to change the face of these areas.
  Cheap money is critical so that people can borrow without the penalties suffered now because of the levels of interest. If public money is pumped into urban development corporations, something will happen. Places will look better, but if the model city programmes of the States have anything to teach us it is that just giving a facelift to decaying urban areas will not change the endemic problems of the people living there. We keep talking about being taught by what other people have done, but we seem never to learn; we go on making the same mistakes.

  289
  I think that the amendment is aiming to tease out the extent to which the Government will spend increasing sums of public money on inner cities through urban development corporations or mini urban development corporations but sidestepping local government. We may disagree about whether or not there is advantage in that. Although that expenditure may make areas look better, the endemic problems will still exist.
  I fear that the urban development corporation is just another of the long list of initiatives, welcome though they are. The House must be delighted that the Government are concentrating on inner-city problems, but it would be wrong of me to welcome unreservedly more urban development corporations because I believe that public money could be better targeted. It should be targeted on people rather than on buildings and it should be invested in getting the people in problem areas to help themselves. In the 1970s, the Labour Government injected social and community workers into inner-city areas; I know, because I was one of them. As a result of so many social workers going into some inner cities, rents of unfurnished and furnished dwellings went up because the social workers wanted accommodation in the areas which they were supposed to help.
  We want to support the Minister. He is brave and enthusiastic and he wants urban development corporations to succeed. Hundreds of millions of pounds are going into urban development corporations. It is too easy, in an empty Chamber on a Wednesday afternoon, to say, "It is fine, let us go ahead." That is the way the House operates. We pour enormous sums of public money into ailing urban areas, believing that that will solve the problems. Throwing money at any problem does not solve it unless the expenditure is targeted correctly. I think the House may have got the message. While I welcome the Government's interest in inner cities and while I welcome urban development corporations, certainly in docklands and possibly the brave attempt on Merseyside, I wonder if it is the salvation of inner-city problems to have more of them.
  In five years' time, if I am still here, I will probably be making another speech when the Government come up with another scheme. We should be much more reflective before we pour in all this money. I am not at all convinced that it is the solution. It proves to the country that the Government care, but we could do better if the expenditure was targeted in a slightly different way. The Minister should tell us that he will consider my idea of changing slightly the boundaries of urban development corporations to include neighbourhoods so that the power behind urban development corporations is not civil servants and task forces sent from London setting up new local offices, but the people living in the area who are inspired to help themselves. That must be the message of the Government. I am sure in his reply the Minister will want to say something helpful.
  Mr. Richard Holt: I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has ever been to Teesside. If he had been there recently, he would have seen the enormous strides which have already been made by Teesside development corporation. It has been in existence for only 10 weeks, but during that time it has announced three major projects, one covering Hartlepool marina involving an injection of £50 million, one covering the Stockton race track
  290
  development involving £8 million, and one covering the Smiths dock offshore projects, for which I have not got a figure.
  Matching that, and very important, is the fact that already £100 million of private money has been put into the urban development corporation, as I was informed this morning when I spoke to the chief executive. This is the type of new thinking and initiative that will come from the urban development corporations. We should not try to make them stillborn, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams seems to want to do. When the Prime Minister visited Teesside, she said that it was an area of initiative, talent and ability and those words have been taken as a slogan by the Teesside development corporation.
  5.30 pm
  Many enthusiastic people will help in this matter. In Stockton, for example, there will be a leisure development which will be the best of its kind in the country. That will attract people to the north-east. Far too often, Governments have given money to the region, just as the Government did earlier this year when they gave a regional grant of £330,000 to ICI. That money probably bought machinery from overseas and showed up as a book-keeping entry from one area to another carried out in London. None of that regional development money would have been spent in Teesside or have improved the region's economy. On the other hand, the UDC is spending the money in the region and priority will be given to local firms. Local firms have already benefited within the first 10 weeks of the UDC being set up
  On Second Reading, I made some fairly strong remarks about the calibre of Labour councillors in the north-east of England. I do not withdraw from that as a generalised statement, but I identified an individual and that was wrong. I regret that an individual was so identified. I shall keep to the thrust of my comments, but I would like to retract my comments about any individuals.
  Mr. Boyes: Although I welcome the latter comments of the hon. Gentleman, will he retract what he said about local authority officers who cannot defend themselves? Local councillors and Members of Parliament can defend themselves through a plethora of means, but civil servants and local government officers, who are often criticised, have no means of defending themselves.
  Mr. Holt: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I hope that he will accept that, as there are so many councillors who work for one authority but are councillors for another, I cannot withdraw my comments in that respect. However, I retract my generalised remark about officers per se.
  Miss Marjorie Mowlam (Redcar): I recognise that this is as near as the hon. Gentleman will come to an apology, and I welcome it. Would it be a good idea for him to apologise for his remarks in the press — to save him having to do so the next time we debate the Bill — alleging corruption in direct labour organisations in the district of Langbaurgh, when there is no substantial evidence to support those remarks?
  Mr. Holt: If the hon. Lady were to make that remark outside the House, I would sue her. She knows that I made no remarks about corruption and, if she uses such words outside the House, she will take the consequences.
  Miss Mowlam: If that is not the case, would the hon. Gentleman like to withdraw what was printed in the local press saying that he made those statements? Is this not an ideal chance for him to contradict those statements?
  Mr. Holt: This will not help the debate. I should be ruled out of order if I went outside the scope of the amendment.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I would like to point out the magnanimity of my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt). It is nice to see this gentlemanly act and the withdrawal of his remarks about an individual during our last debate on this matter. That was right, but both I and my hon. Friend stress the need for co-operation between UDCs and local authorities. That has been the hallmark of the success of the Teesside development corporation and I speak for both of us when I say that I would like to see that continued.
  Mr. Holt: I would like to see it continuing, but I am not sure that it will. Let me explain to my hon. Friend some of the problems that he is likely to have with the UDC. The chairman of the highways committee of Cleveland county council has said that he will not change his priorities to meet the requirements of the UDC. The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) said that there must be co-operation between Cleveland county council and the UDC. It is no good their saying that they will not help the UDC with the roads and services needed to develop the area, as the chairman of the highways committee said recently. That will not help progress. It is important for the two sides to work together. I hope that, in the same spirit of magnanimity, the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington will speak to senior Labour Members in Cleveland and prevail upon them to work with the new Teesside development corporation so that new jobs can be produced
  Miss Mowlam: I would like to echo the comments of the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) and say how keen we are to work with the new UDC. Money is available for Teesside and, as the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) said, we are keen to co-operate, whatever our doubts may be. If the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is seeking co-operation with the county and the districts, he is more likely to achieve it if he starts working through the normal channels of communication with local authority officers and elected members, rather than making outrageous statements in the press and in the House
  Mr. Holt: I do not think that my statements are any more outrageous than those of the chairman of the Cleveland highways committee. If the hon. Lady wants to talk to someone, she should talk to him, not me. Co-operation must come from the committee which made the statement.
  UDCs were established by the Government primarily to regenerate the inner cities and to create jobs. Teesside development corporation expects the creation of 3,000 jobs in the first three years. That is to be welcomed by everybody. It is cheap per job in comparison with what has been spent in regional aid that has gone to the head offices of companies in London, not to the area. Within the next fortnight, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will open the marina project at Hartlepool and, thereafter, other proposed schemes will go ahead.
  292
  I hope that the Minister will answer a question which he did not answer on Second Reading and tell us whether the Government are prepared to re-examine the boundaries of the Teesside development corporation. The boundaries in Langbaurgh have been drawn arbitrarily. They should be flexible and should not be drawn for all time. None of my constituency is included in the TDC area, but many of my constituents work in that area. These lines on the map should not be absolute
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This amendment deals with money, not boundaries. On Third Reading, the hon. Gentleman is at liberty to discuss boundaries, but not during debate on this group of amendments
  Mr. Holt: I take your point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that there will be sufficient money in the kitty to enable the review of boundaries to be undertaken on a permanent basis. If that comes about, my constituents will be grateful for that amount of money having been thoughtfully set aside by the Minister when he reconsidered the matter.
  On Second Reading, I said that the amount of money that had been made available will make the people happy. I do not know whether happiness can be bought with money, but something along the lines of the Teesside development corporation is necessary. What is encouraging is that, as a result of the sort of regeneration that the Government are bringing, we already have private investment outside the UDC area, which has brought 2,000 jobs and £25 million of investment. That was the result of an announcement on 23 October by a private company.
  There can be no doubt that the north-east of England has received and is receiving a great deal of attention from the Government and from the Minister—I know that he has taken a particular interest in the area. We welcome the initiative and we welcome the money. We look forward to that money being spent so that 3,000 jobs are created in two years at the absolute maximum.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: When the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) opened this debate he mentioned the dfficulties that will be experienced by the UDCs in raising private capital in the north-east of England. He referred specifically to a leading article on 26 October, which said that the £120 million available to Merseyside had not attracted anything near the sum of private money that had been attracted to London.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has told the House that £100 million has already been attracted for the Teesside development corporation from the private sector. That sum is a measure of the TDCs success. It may be that, because TDC is the largest development corporation—it is larger than several other development corporations put together, including London —it is therefore attracting a great deal of interest. It is also attracting interest because it has a deep-water port facing east on the east coast.
  The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington also mentioned that he was looking for greater co-operation between the local authorities and the development corporations. On Second Reading and in Committee we discussed, at great length, the need for such co-operation. The urgency with which we must address this matter tonight is due to the fact that the imagination that has been

  293
  injected by the TDC into the local economy has been sadly lacking in the local authorities in Cleveland, Stockton and elsewhere in the region. In years gone by, it has been all too evident that those local authorities have made political decisions more often than they have made marketing decisions. Indeed, the Labour party is used to regarding the north-east as safe territory where it can do exactly as it likes. It has done its best to extinguish the torch of enterprise in that region by driving out the private householder and, wherever possible, the private business man.
  The local Labour-controlled authorities are only now waking up to the fact that their policies have driven jobs away from the region, but the Conservatives have always been concerned to ensure that business and private enterprise thrives in the north as much as it does in the south
  Miss Mowlam rose——
  Mr. Devlin: I shall give way in a moment. That is why we are pumping extra resources into the UDCs and, in particular, into Teesside. I hope that the available money and the extra allocation announced by the Chancellor in the Autumn Statement will not be given in equal parts to the UDCs, but will take account of special needs and exciting projects. On that basis, Teesside will inevitably take the lion's share
  Opposition Members are chiefly concerned not that we are bypassing local authorities, but that we are throwing the policies of the Labour party in the north-east into reverse. I believe that that is the main reason behind the amendments that they have tabled to the Bill.
  Miss Mowlam: I agree with the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) about the jobs that have arrived on Teesside as a result of the money invested. Both sides of the House welcome such job creation. However, will he justify his statement that local Labour authorities have turned jobs away from the area? What industries and jobs have been specifically turned away?
  Mr. Devlin: Certainly it has been the case that Teesside local authorities — Stockton borough council, Middlesbrough borough council and Cleveland county council—are high-rating authorities. On more than one occasion—I will happily name names if the hon. Lady wishes—businesses have moved to north Yorkshire and other parts of the country to escape Cleveland's high rates.
  Miss Mowlam: Name them.
  Mr. Devlin: We could start with Marlborough Technical Management, but——
  5.45 pm
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not believe that there is any reason to name names. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) is leading the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) up the garden path.
  Mr. Devlin: Perhaps that is an exciting prospect — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]Quite.
  Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason why, historically, firms did not go to the north-east was the trade union grip on firms in the area?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now very wide of the amendment. I have tried to bring the hon. Member for Stockton, South back to the amendment and I appeal to him to deal with it.
  Mr. Devlin: My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) said that there are many things lacking in the UDCs and he feels that, in some ways, it would be better to scrap the entire Bill rather than to amend it in the ways sought by the Opposition.
  I suggest that what is lacking in the north-east is confidence. The TDC and the Tyneside development corporation will reinvoke the self-confidence that drove our region forward in the past century. I tried to invoke some of that spirit in my maiden speech to the House on Second Reading of the Bill.
  I have a sneaking suspicion—I believe it is shared by many northerners — that perhaps there is something wrong with the region and that is why we have such high unemployment. However, it is the TDCs task to show that there is nothing wrong with our region, that we have everything going for us, and to pick up all the elements of enterprise that are succeeding throughout Teesside and show them off. It is the TDCs task to show the region that the self-confidence that previously drove the region forward is still there and is flourishing. It is also necessary for the TDC to re-establish that spirit of self-confidence, either where it is no longer present or where it has been driven out by the policies of Labour-controlled local authorities.
  Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know I am not one who rises often on points of order. I must feel quite strongly before I do so.
  The amendment that has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and myself is fairly narrow. With respect to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), who is a new Member, he has ample opportunity in his maiden speech to make what he considered to be the important points. I believe that he is turning this debate into one about the nature of local authorities and UDCs and not about UDC funding——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have got the point. It is difficult and I have tried to bring the hon. Member for Stockton, South back to the amendment. He is a new Member and the Chair must be more tolerant of new Members. However, I appeal to hon. Members to speak to the amendment on the Order Paper and not to go wide of that amendment. It is fine to speak more widely on Third Reading, but not when dealing with amendments. I appeal to all hon. Members who wish to take part in this debate to speak to the amendments, because I have been as tolerant as I possibly could be.
  Mr. Devlin: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your tolerance and forbearance. I apologise if I have erred from the path of righteousness during the debate. I shall now keep rigidly to the amendment.
  I think that the most important point about the funding of development corporations is that it should not be distributed on an equal basis between all the corporations. In my disclosure of the many hidden talents of the north-east, I was attempting to show that Teesside has many things going for it—many strengths on which an urban development corporation can build very strongly. I look

  295
  forward to Teesside gaining a much greater share of the available resources when the Government come to consider the corporations on merit.
  Given its beautiful countryside, skilled work force and good communications, I believe that Teesside will take off in a way that other development corporations may not. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will examine what extra resources can be given to the exciting projects that have been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh.
  Mr. Steen: May I beg the indulgence of the House to make one or two points clear? First, comments have been made about my wishing to scrap the Bill. The amendment is about substituting the words "whether or not existing" after the word "all". The important point that I should like to make——
  Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has already spoken. Is it not the case that he cannot speak again without leave of the House?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He is quite right. The hon. Member for South Hams has spoken, and can do so again only by leave of the House?
  Mr. Steen: I am always grateful to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for helping the House in its directions. May I seek the leave of the House to make one or two comments which have come out of——
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. By leave of the House, the hon. Gentleman can do that. However, there has been an objection. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) objected to the hon. Gentleman speaking again.
  Mr. Steen: Is one objection enough?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes, one voice is enough.
  Miss Mowlam: May I quickly ask the Minister two questions directly related to finance? First, can he tell us whether any financial implications have emerged from his meeting in Brussels in relation to efforts to get local people working on schemes produced by the Teesside development corporation? Is there any initiative to link the money invested with local jobs?
  Secondly, I am concerned that money made available through the Teesside development corporation may be negated by the money that could potentially disappear from the area because of the unified business rate to be brought in with the poll tax. If the money is to be centrally redistributed per head of population—I ask the Minister to clarify that, because I am not sure about it—in some inner urban areas, where there is a low level of population, that could result in less money coming back from the unified business rate, which would negate the money going in via the urban development corporation.
  Will that not undermine the stated aim of the Government, which is to invest more money in inner areas?
  Mr. Holt: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Three Conservative Members spoke before the
  296
  hon. Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) rose. Is it not normal for hon. Members who wish to speak, and who are present in the Chamber, to rise continually and try to catch your eye, so that we have a balanced debate?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: It is possible that hon. Members who are not inspired to speak in the earlier part of the debate may later feel inclined to involve themselves for one reason or another. The hon. Lady is perfectly in order.
  he Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier)I welcome the largely positive approach adopted by Opposition Members, particularly those from the official Opposition, not only during the moving of amendments but on Second Reading —which was unopposed —and in Committee. I also welcome the description of me as brave by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). It is the first time that I have been called that for a very long time. The last time was in 1972, when I was fighting a by-election against the present hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). He not merely beat me; he metaphorically sat on me. That was a very painful experience, and the local paper described me as brave for taking him on. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Rochdale is not present to hear that, because he would have enjoyed it.
  I am anxious to try to answer as many of the questions raised in the debate as possible. Let me start by reiterating what I said about mini UDCs in Committee. I referred then to the Conservative party manifesto commitment, and I do not feel any need to rehearse that again. I spelt out clearly what criteria we would be looking for when declaring areas mini UDCs. However, I should perhaps draw the attention of the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) to the figure that he quoted in his opening remarks on the amendment. He referred to a figure of about two dozen. I can categorically deny that: the hon. Gentleman is very wide of the mark. I do not know whether that helps him. What I cannot help him with is an announcement about mini UDCs, but, as I tried to make clear in Committee, we hope to make an announcement by the end of the year.
  The hon. Gentleman asked what consultations had taken place with local authorities. I also tried to deal with that in Committee. It would be extremely difficult for us to enter into consultations with local authorities in an area where we intend to put a UDC. To some extent, expectations would be built up; and the extra money that would be available for the area would have a considerable bearing on developments. It could be extremely reckless for us to act in that way. There must and will be a period of consultation before a UDC is created, which may be of some comfort to the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Gentleman asked what would happen if local authorities refused to have UDCs. He can probably guess the answer. If the proposal is passed by a statute in the House, the law of the land will override all other considerations. He also asked what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meant when he referred in a recent speech to local people. The local people in question could have relevant knowledge of the development potential of a particular area. They might be local residents, business men or local authorities. Of course, the decision whether to designate a UDC is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, subject to Parliament's approval. Not

  297
  all areas identified or brought to many attention, formally or informally will be appropriate for UDC purposes. As for the question whether, each UDC will have its own board the answer is yes.
  The hon Gentleman asked why we cannot monitor existing UDCs more effectively before declaring more, although they may be smaller than their cousins. Again there is a straight forward answer. Having made a commitment in the manifesto, which was the major plank on which we were elected, we are determined to speed up the regeneration of many such areas If there is any difference between the Opposition and ourselves on what constitutes an area that is worthy of regeneration, that will apply not only to inner cities but to inner urban areas. We have had some experience with two UDCs which have been in operation for some time.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Minister has referred to UDCs already in operation. I think that he would agree that the London Docklands development corporation is a maxi corporation. Can the Minister define "mini"? According to my recollection, section 135 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 defines the possibility of a corporation without grading corporations in any way. Will the Minister tell us what he has in mind? Has he announced the number of UDCs that he expects the Government to establish?
  Mr. Trippier: I understand why the hon. Gentleman asks that question. However, although I do not wish to make a heavy point of it, he was not present earlier when his hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington was asking me questions. My definition of a mini urban development corporation is "small." It is small in area. Furthermore, it would receive a smaller sum of money than its cousin, the maxi urban development corporation. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has given another reason why the Government cannot effectively monitor mini urban development corporations. There are no mini urban development corporations at the moment. We shall have to build on the obvious success of the maxi urban development corporations
  6 pm
  The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington asked whether a local authority could apply. Yes, it could. Those to whom the Secretary of State referred in his recent speech could include local authorities. The hon. Gentleman referred also to a recent interview with my right hon. Friend Lord Young. There is no difference of opinion between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment. Inward investment in Washington has been extremely successful. For example, Nissan is now located there, but the point that I have made on several occasions is that one cannot regularly expect to achieve that degree of success.
  Wherever possible, we must encourage indigenous growth. Therefore, I welcome what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt): that the urban development corporation in his area is of great benefit to local firms. It is important to encourage start-ups, but it is also very important to encourage the development and the strengthening of existing firms—a point that will not be lost on the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington.
  I welcomed the bullish statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) concerning his
  298
  constituency and the north-east region as a whole. He made a similar statement in his maiden speech. I very much welcomed it then, and I am sure that the House enjoyed it.
  On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) said that in future I ought not to fly over Redcar; I ought to drop in. I do not know whether the hon. Lady meant that literally. If the hon. Lady would be kind enough to extend an invitation to me to visit Redcar, I should be only too pleased to do so.
  I shall reply in reverse order to the hon. Lady's two questions. I shall check what I am about to say when I return to the Department, but I believe that the proposed unified business rate will benefit the north-east, including the area that she represents. I shall happily write to the hon. Lady explaining in what way the area would benefit and what the percentage decrease would be. In general terms, it will benefit areas in the north as opposed to those in the south.
  Mr. Devlin: I think that my hon. Friend the Minister is looking for a reduction of about 23 per cent
  Mr. Trippier: If that is a fact rather than hypothesis, I am sure that the hon. Lady will be impressed.
  Miss Mowlam: The figure that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) has given is the average figure. I agree wholeheartedly that the average figure is 23 per cent. If, however, it were to be redistributed on a per head of population basis, the figure would be different. I am interested in what would happen if we went below the average level. It is that figure in which I am particularly interested.
  Mr. Trippier: The announcement will have to be made about the unified business rate. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South referred to the only available figures at the moment. If there is any further information that I can give to the hon. Lady, I shall write to her.
  The hon. Lady also referred to the employment of local people. A European Community directive clearly states that it is not mandatory that local people should be employed. I do not believe that there is any intention to alter that directive. On Second Reading the hon. Lady made it clear that she wanted the Government to do all that they could to encourage the employment of local people. I support that view, but we cannot make the employment of local people mandatory.
  The Government have achieved considerable success with the Merseyside development corporation. The vast majority of those who are employed on construction work and in manufacturing, both in new firms and in expanding firms, are local people. That gives me the confidence to say to the hon. Lady that I am sure that that can be replicated on Teesside. We want, wherever possible, to encourage the employment of local people, but it is nonsense to say that they will automatically be employed. They cannot be employed unless their skills are up to the standards required by the companies that have vacancies. The Manpower Services Commission must concentrate on dealing with this problem and overcome the mismatch of skills; otherwise, we shall be wasting our time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh referred yet again to boundaries. The boundaries of all the urban development corporations are subject to revision, but they can be revised only by statutory instrument. I have taken

  299
  on board my hon. Friend's point, and I shall be prepared to look from time to time at the revision of their boundaries.
  When the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington moved his amendment, he said that it was a probing amendment, by means of which he could ask a few questions. I am grateful to him for saying that. He knows that his amendments are unnecessary and that the provisions of the Bill apply to all urban development corporations. In the circumstances, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams referred to neighbourhood schemes. My hon. Friend may be making a mistake by drawing a comparison between urban development corporations and neighbourhood schemes. He believes that they are mutually exclusive, but they are not. A number of initiatives have been taken recently. A few years ago my hon. Friend wrote an excellent book on inner-city regeneration. He referred to the city action teams and to the task forces that have responsibility for neighbourhoods. Estate Action, with which I am familiar, because it operates in my constituency, deals with a clearly defined neighbourhood.
  Housing action trusts:— which have not yet been announced, but which have been discussed in the recent White Paper—and general improvement areas will not be nullified by the declaration of urban development corporations. It is important that I should write to my hon. Friend to tell him of certain recent initiatives that have been deployed by the London Docklands development corporation, particularly with regard to community support. He might then be encouraged. But if he wished to come back to me afterwards, he would be very welcome to do so.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington will now withdraw his amendment.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 2

  SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 4, at end insert—
  '(3) Section 1 of this Act shall expire three months after the day it was passed, unless continued in force by an order under this section.
  (4) The Secretary of State may by order provide that section 1 of this Act (whether or not in force by virtue of an order under this section) shall continue in force for a period not exceeding 12 months from the coming into operation of the order—

  (a) that section 1 of this Act shall cease to be in force; or

  (b) that if section 1 of this Act is not for the time being in force it shall come into force again and remain in force for a period not exceeding 12 months from the coming into operation of the order.

  (5) Where section 1 of this Act expires by virtue of subsection (3) above or ceases to have effect by virtue of an Order made under sub-section (4) above, the provisions which it replaces shall revive.'
  You, Mr. Speaker, and hon. Members will realise that this amendment is moved in a form that is not unusual in the House, in order to try to ensure that there is a regular opportunity to debate the provisions of the Bill. The wording is not mine. The Minister knows that the wording
  300
  of the amendment is to be found in other legislation. The most specific and obvious example is the wording that is to be found in the emergency provisions legislation relating to Northern Ireland. The Act continues in force only by order of the House
  I have sought to amend the Bill in this way because of the general issue that we debated to some extent on Second Reading and again in Committee: the change in the procedure whereby, instead of the grant-funding of urban development corporations being subject to specific approval by order of the House, it will be controlled by other methods, to which the Minister referred when he opened the Second Reading debate.
  One of the significant elements of the Government's inner-city policy is that they intend to use urban development corporations — I accept that they have a right to do that—as a major platform for regenerating inner cities. There are two original ones, four more recently established and there may be some others established. The mechanism in the past has been that, both in the original Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and in the New Towns and Urban Development Act 1985, there was an upper limit to the amount of grant, variable by order to a second limit, and that within the constraints of both Acts Ministers have been able to come to the House to seek approval to increase the amount. The Bill proposes that the grant funding process will go. The Minister has conceded that the House will exercise control in future, first, by the general voting of Supply in the general Estimates debates and votes, and, secondly, by any control mechanism that is able to be exercised through Select Committees, in particular the Select Committee on the Environment.
  As all hon. Members know, there is always a problem about considering in detail in general debates the votes of funds for specific projects. A debate about how much money should be given to the programmes of the Department of the Environment would not be able to concentrate in the same way as debates in the past about specific funding for the six or more urban development corporations.
  Mr. Spearing: It could be more than six.
  Mr. Hughes: I agree with the Minister that there is a control mechanism. However, there are all sorts of other matters that hon. Members may wish to raise in general debates, and the ability to focus on the specific issue of the funding of urban development corporations will not be there. As the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, there may well be more than six urban development corporations. The more there are, the less likely it is that concerns will be able to be explicitly voiced and answered by Ministers, and that is because of the time given to debate Supply.
  The Minister can probably anticipate my objection about debates before Select Committees being adequate. Of course, all hon. Members are not able to take part in debates in Select Committee as they are not members, unlike debates on orders in the House, which are open to all hon. Members. The more urban development corporations there are, the more hon. Members there will be with constituency interests who will want to intervene. However, they may not be members of either the Select Committee on the Environment or the Public Accounts Committee and it is inevitable that some hon. Members

  301
  will not be able to raise their concerns in Committee and that the debate that we have had in the past on the Floor of the House will be lost.
  The best way of voicing the concern that I expressed on Second Reading and that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick upon Tweed (Mr. Beith) expressed in Committee is to urge the House to give hon. Members an opportunity to renew the Act annually. That is how the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 applies. The Government bring before the House an order to renew, vary or reactivate the Act. The debate would take an hour or so and would be limited to those hon. Members who wanted to attend. The debate is about accountability.
  The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) said earlier that the Government are concentrating an enormous amount of public resources on urban development corporations. There is not only the general public concern about the sheer relative size of the public Exchequer contribution but the explicit local concern about the local regeneration of areas by Government agencies. Particularly when the Government agency meets in secret, there clearly is a risk that what it does is not open to proper debate and that the progress, success, failure or relative benefit or otherwise will not be able to be debated properly. It cannot be debated in the local authorities because they are not empowered to do that, so it has to be debated here.
  I ask the Minister to say that there is a proper concern for the accountability for the funding of development corporations, whatever their number, that the experience of the six years of their existence confirms that concern, and that therefore the Government will accept the amendment to have an annual debate and an annual vote on the continuance of the change in procedure that is proposed in the Bill.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Trippier: It is clear that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and I will not agree. I do not want to catalogue the various mechanisms that are available to hon. Members, as I touched on them on Second Reading and again in Committee. The bottom line of what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting is why the system has changed since 1980. The simple answer is that there were features that, with the benefit of experience in those seven years, could be improved. Since the UDC concept was introduced in 1980, there have been three pieces of primary legislation.
  As I have indicated, there are plenty of opportunities for hon. Members to raise the issue of urban development corporations. The hon. Gentleman has catalogued the two most important ones, but there is the investigation by the National Audit Office on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee, which very much involves the House and—I know that the hon. Gentleman will smile when I say this —there are Opposition days when hon. Members may choose to debate UDCs, and there are also opportunities during Adjournment and other debates.
  I urge the hon. Gentleman to reconsider his amendment. If he will not withdraw it, I urge my hon. Friends to vote against it.
  Mr. Hughes: I anticipated the Minister's resistance, and I have consulted my colleagues. We will exercise our opportunities to debate the matter on Adjournment debates and on whatever other occasions arise. Opposition
  302
  days are inevitably limited to the major Opposition party. The National Audit Office is conducting an investigation at the moment on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee and I understand that it is to report in January. However, our experience has been that those opportunities for debate have not been sufficient. I ask that the amendment be put to the House.
  Question put.That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided:Ayes 18, Noes 202.

  Division No. 81]

  [6.20 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Nellist, Dave

  Beith, A. J.

  Salmond, Alex

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Clay, Bob

  Wallace, James

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Howells, Geraint

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys MÔn)

  Mr. Simon Hughes and Mr. Matthew Taylor.

  Kirkwood, Archy

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Allason, Rupert

  Dunn, Bob

  Amess, David

  Durant, Tony

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dykes, Hugh

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Evennett, David

  Ashby, David

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Atkins, Robert

  Fallon, Michael

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Favell, Tony

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Benyon, W.

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Forman, Nigel

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Forth, Eric

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Boswell, Tim

  Franks, Cecil

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Freeman, Roger

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  French, Douglas

  Bowis, John

  Fry, Peter

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Brazier, Julian

  Gill, Christopher

  Bright, Graham

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

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

  Gorst, John

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Gow, Ian

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Burns, Simon

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Burt, Alistair

  Gregory, Conal

  Butcher, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Butler, Chris

  Ground, Patrick

  Butterfill, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hannam, John

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

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

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Harris, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Cope, John

  Hayward, Robert

  Cran, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Critchley, Julian

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Curry, David

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

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

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Holt, Richard

  Day, Stephen

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Devlin, Tim

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  303

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Portillo, Michael

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Irvine, Michael

  Raffan, Keith

  Jack, Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Jackson, Robert

  Redwood, John

  Janman, Timothy

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Knowles, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knox, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Lang, Ian

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Latham, Michael

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Lightbown, David

  Speed, Keith

  Lilley, Peter

  Speller, Tony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lord, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Stevens, Lewis

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Marland, Paul

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Trippier, David

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Moate, Roger

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Waller, Gary

  Neubert, Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Newton, Tony

  Wheeler, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  Wilshire, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Page, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Patnick, Irvine

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Pawsey, James

  Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and Mr. David Maclean.

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  6.28
  Mr. Trippier: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I am anxious to be brief. We had a long debate on Second Reading, we had a longish debate again today while considering some of the amendments that have been tabled. I have already mentioned the constructive contributions that have been made in the various debates by hon. Members.
  I am anxious to outline three main points. First, the primary legislation to amend paragraph 8 of schedule 31 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 is necessary if expenditure plans for UDCs are to be carried through. The Bill removes grant-in-aid received by UDCs from the cumulative total that is subject to the statutory limit. In the Government's view the combination of the public expenditure planning process and Parliament's various controls over voted money are fully adequate in
  304
  themselves. A further statutory limit of this nature is unneccessary and is an inappropriate means of controlling the grant paid to a collection of bodies.
  Secondly, the Bill defines the borrowing that is subject to this statutory limitation.
  Thirdly, given the role of borrowing in UDC financing, it sets a lower statutory limit on the total amount of outstanding borrowing by UDCs.
  This is a simple Bill, designed for all UDCs to carry on their vital task of regenerating urban areas. It rationalises the statutory financial limit while retaining a proper degree of parliamentary control.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. William O'Brien: I do not intend to detain the House long. Suffice to say that the business in Committee covered the important point that we wanted to raise—the involvement of local authorities in UDCs and the great need for local communities' interests to be taken into consideration on any development. The amendment that we tabled in Committee expounded our concerns about the financing of UDCs.
  Reference has been made to the introduction of mini UDCs, and we hoped that the Minister would give more information about their involvement and introduction. Sadly, that has not been forthcoming, but we are advised that we may receive some information shortly. Again, I plead with the Minister for more involvement with local authorities. A number of hon. Members who have spoken today and in Committee have served on local authorities. I hope that local authorities will be more involved in any further introduction of UDCs.
  Hon. Members have expressed doubt about whether there would be any impact on or advantage to local communities by introducing further UDCs. Reference has been made to the rate support grant orders that were administered under a former Labour Government. I should make it clear that rate support grant orders under the Labour Government were more substantial than they are under the present one. I hope that the Minister will consider allowing local authorities to have some input into the development of UDCs.
  As to local authorities and their partnership with UDCs, I must tell the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) that there is ample evidence that that partnership is developing in inner cities and urban areas. A splendid understanding has developed between local authorities and private developers, which has led to much co-operation between local authorities and the private sector. There is no reason why that co-operation should not be allowed to continue. A substantial number of Labour-controlled authorities have entered into agreements with private operators to develop town centres and urban areas. I make a plea that that co-operation should be allowed to continue.
  If local authorities were allowed sufficient resources, there could be continuing co-operation and a greater interest in community development on behalf of people in those communities. It is important to encourage development and urban regeneration in local authority areas.
  The Minister referred to the Tory party manifesto. One must take note of what was expressed in it. It said that the Tories want to set up UDCs where local authorities are failing to tackle the problems. Will the Minister say what local authorities are failing to tackle the problem, and

  305
  perhaps we could analyse why they are experiencing difficulties with urban regeneration in their areas? It is unfair and not good practice to commit local authorities to redevelopment in urban areas because of the Tory manifesto. Can we identify how local authorities have been failing in their responsibilities? Will the Minister explain why the Government believe that local authorities have not been carrying out urban redevelopment?
  If local authorities were given the same resources as UDCs, we would obtain better results for communities than is presently the case with regard to mini UDCs. I hope that the Minister will take note of what the Tory manifesto says.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) asked about the introduction of UDCs and what, if a local authority suggested that there was no need for a mini UDC in its area, the outcome would be. The Minister replied that there would be a mandatory introduction of UDCs if local authorities objected to such a development. However, will the Minister take into consideration the interests of the community? My hon. Friend referred to a letter from Martin Laing in The Times on 6 October. It said:
  "The success of London Docklands, which is a uniquely favoured area next to one of the world's major financial centres, should not lead the Government into believing or expecting that £1 of public expenditure will produce the same £4 to £6 of private investment in less favoured areas".
  He referred also to the deprived areas of the north.
  Against that background, I suggest that there should be greater consultation of and involvement with local authorities because everyone in them — particularly in the north, but throughout the United Kingdom — is concerned about what is taking place in communities. Martin Laing said that the Government should not model UDCs on the London Docklands development corporation because they will not work out the same. Those are the words not of Labour Members, but of the chairman of John Laing plc.
  I appeal to the Minister to consider the issues with regard to urban regeneration and communities. The people who have been elected in these areas want to bring about their redevelopment. The Minister has seen the results of what can happen if there is co-operation between local authorities and private operators. I hope that such co-operation will be allowed to continue. I hope that some of the resources given to mini urban development corporations and major urban development corporations will be directed towards local authorities and that they will be given a fair opportunity to develop their areas. It is important to allow local authorities to develop their communities. I hope that the Minister will consider the points that we have raised.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Irvine Patnick: Members of Sheffield city council are allowed four minutes to speak. As a member of that council, I know that if one's speech is not finished within four minutes the silence is deafening. I shall try to finish this speech within four minutes.
  Land and buildings in inner cities are a jigsaw of ownership and problems. Somehow, the road layout and services do not match what is needed now or in the future. A method of bringing them into common ownership for redevelopment is needed, and urban development corporations provide it. As my hon. Friend the Member
  306
  for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) stated in similar vein, although my area has not agreed to have a UDC, it would be grateful to have a UDC, whether it be mini, maxi, GT, GL, saloon or estate. We are prepared to accept one, whatever its form.
  Sheffield has been making noises about the form of an urban development authority. As one who lives in Sheffield and works in the east end of the city, from which the heart of its former industry has been torn, I appreciate the fact that there are derelict buildings and derelict land and the remains of the names of famous companies, which are either in the shadows or no longer exist. Rejuvenation is necessary. The only way in which I can envisage that happening in Sheffield, if what is happening there is symptomatic of the problems in other areas, is through urban development corporations. I hope that Sheffield will be considered for one.
  The Opposition's argument is that the pudding must be tested, examined and improved. That will not give the impetus needed in inner cities and inner urban areas to enable them to progress. The Government are prepared to prime the pump and businesses are prepared to set up in those areas. In the east end of Sheffield, developers are prepared to move in, with council approval, to create jobs in a £160 million scheme. Those jobs will spin off into the outer urban areas, to suppliers, manufacturers, contractors, utilities, transport—the list goes on. That does not differ from the UDC concept. I hope that the funds that are made available will be flexible. By "flexible" I do not mean that the money should be made to go a long way. I hope that money will be found for other areas.
  My hon. Friend the Minister, when he tours Sheffield on 7 December, will see that something is needed to bring the city back to its former glory. Sheffield is not on its own; other areas need the injection of an urban development corporation to return to their former prosperity. Sheffield is bidding to stage the World Student Games, and Government co-operation and funding are needed. Sheffield needs some form of cash through an urban development corporation. Other areas are in a similar position. Therefore, I urge hon. Members to support the Bill.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Spearing: The speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) illustrates the dilemma of hon. Members in dealing with the Bill. We all want to talk about urban development corporations. But the Bill is not about that; it is about how the Government will be enabled to finance them. The Bill does not contain a penny more for UDCs. The estimates deal with that. The Bill gives the Minister power to provide bigger globules of money without coming to the House. Despite my hon. Friends' aspirations, I fear that the Bill, in giving those greater globules of money, will be contrary to the interests of local government and against the interests of parliamentary scrutiny, despite what the Minister said.
  More money means more cash means more power to the Minister in bigger blobs. It means fewer statutory instruments to come before the House, less scrutiny and less "glasnost", to use the present jargon. But that is what the House is about in terms of democracy. Although I understand my hon. Friends' aspirations, in view of my experience of the London Docklands development corporation, I regard the Bill as a step backward in terms of parliamentary scrutiny and expenditure of taxes. Hon.

  307
  Members have lost sight of that fundamental point, but it is worth putting it on record on Third Reading, because that is what Third Reading is about.
  The Bill will give the Minister greater arbitrary powers. He will be able to scatter patronage around and to consult all sorts of people with ideas in local government, asking, "Would you think of this? Would you think of that?" If I were the Minister, I would scatter these mini UDCs around like sweeties from a tin. I asked the Minister whether he could tell us how many mini UDCs there were, but he did not give the answer. I wonder whether he would like to give it now.
  Mr. Trippier: The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) asked that question as well. I am certainly not in a position to give the number. I simply stick by what I said on Second Reading and in Committee: that we hope to make an announcement before the end of the year.
  Mr. Spearing: I am not surprised by that. It probably supports my thesis, which, I hasten to add, is based not on any leaks from Whitehall but on my knowledge of how these things happen.
  I raised these problems before and the Minister replied on 3 July 1987 in column 193 of Hansard.He said that £7·9 million was spent by the LDDC on consultancies. Imagine an area in London the size of Hyde park, Kensington gardens and Green park put together and being given planning permission for development without a public inquiry having been held. That is what we face in the royal docks in the area given over to planning for the LDDC. Some of the orders made under this legislation will not apply to that area, but that is the sort of animal that is rising statutorily from section 135 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.
  The Bill involves statutory slippage. Clearly, we are losing control over the way in which the hard-taxed taxpayers' money is spent. This legislation will act in a derogatory way towards local government. But it is not just this legislation. The housing action trusts may be given powers by Parliament and will probably act in much the same way as the UDCs. The White Paper said that they would, although it remains to be seen whether they will get such huge sums — up to £100 million — without being subject to parliamentary control. The money will not go far if there is a 15 per cent. tax on new build—just as there is 15 per cent. VAT on repairs. We may have to face that next week or in the new year if the European Court imposes that decision on the House.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. Steen: It is probably fitting that I am the last Conservative Back Bencher to speak in the debate. Unlike some Opposition Members, I do not ask that the Bill be scrapped. I support it. Under the previous legislation, expenditure in inner urban areas could not exceed £600 million or a greater sum not exceeding £800 million as specified by the Secretary of State, by order subject to approval by the House. We are talking about putting more public money into urban areas without reference to the House, and I have nothing against that.
  I have been a Member for over 12 years, and during that time the House has debated urban areas and inner cities ad nauseam. We have had the urban aid programme,
  308
  community development projects, the young volunteer force, neighbourhood studies, quality of life studies, inner-urban area studies, references to the cycle of their deprivation, comprehensive community programmes, partnerships — I do not know what has happened to them—a White Paper in 1977 on the inner cities, the Inner Urban Areas Act 1978, enterprise zones and freeports, and there are now urban development corporations.
  There has been a huge spectacle of Government-financed schemes. Some of them have been very good. However, the inner cities continue to decline. They look worse and the people who live in them are deprived. The urban development corporations, which I fully support, represent another means of pouring public money into the inner cities. I remain unconvinced that they will have better results than the other schemes on which tens of thousands of millions of pounds have been spent. I would support the Minister wherever he cares to take me. I would support him in any worthwhile scheme because he is a Minister with flair and imagination, as well as courage. However, I question whether the UDCs will lead to a greater revival of the inner cities than other schemes have achieved.
  One of the beauties of the urban development corporations, evident in the London Docklands development corporation area, is that they have attracted private funds. Their importance must lie in the way in which they have levered private money behind public money. No doubt the Minister would say that he is so enthusiastic about urban development corporations because of the leverage of private money behind public money. What interests me is whether the leverage could be in a different form and whether the funds could be used through the urban development corporations in better ways. For example, perhaps the Government could provide money to be used by the urban development corporations in the form of industrial revenue bonds or municipal bonds—a subject raised during Question Time this afternoon. In that way, private investment could be pumped into inner-city areas. Private individuals, companies and institutions could invest in the inner cities by purchasing tax-exempt bonds.
  I question — although not critically — whether £800 million or £1,000 million pumped into inner areas will really change them. Of course, if we pump £100 million into the environment it is bound to change, but that will not necessarily revive the inner cities. I believe that we shall not revive the inner cities by pouring public money into them. We shall revive them if that public money is poured in with private sector money coming in behind and if the people who live there are involved not only in decision-making but in helping themselves. The Conservative Governments philosophy is to help people to stand on their own feet and to help them to help themselves. I support the urban development corporations but there is a danger that the corporations will exclude the community and will simply go into areas and do their own thing. If that happens, areas may be tidied up or cleaned up and new buildings may be built, but we shall not achieve the revival that is so much needed in the run-down inner-city areas.
  My experience of the House is that when one is asked to speak for a long time, the Whips are very clear about what one should be doing, and that the same applies when one is asked to speak for a short time. I can see by the

  309
  expression on your face, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have perhaps said enough to make my point plain. The Minister is smiling, and it is quite clear that he agrees with some of my comments. I support the Bill, but I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that pouring more money into the inner cities will not solve problems.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Nobody can deny that the inner cities need regenerating, that part of that process requires money and that some of that money will have to come from the taxpayer, via the Government. It is quite clear that some of the money must come from the private sector, too. However, as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, the Bill does not concern any of those propositions. It deals with the regulation of the process by which public money goes into the UDCs. As the Minister knows, he and I take different views about the mechanism that he has chosen in the Bill.
  In 1980, when the original procedure was set up, and in 1985, when the procedure was amended by further legislation, we gave the Government the power to make £800 million available. My hon. Friends and I argued that the decision about the amount of taxpayers' money that should be made available via the Government to the urban development corporations as a means of regenerating the inner cities should be made by the House. That is why, on Report, I sought to amend the Bill to include a provision to give us that controlling mechanism. The amendment was defeated and the Bill remains unamended.
  My scepticism, doubts and dissatisfaction remain. The Bill does not provide for sufficient scrutiny. As the hon. Member for Newham, South said, it will place too much power in the hands of the Government and not enough in the hands of other agencies. The Minister will know that my view is taken on the basis not of remote observation but of practical day-to-day participation in the life of a constituency where a development corporation has been at work for six years. It is noticeable and interesting that the people who are most critical of development corporations are those who live in and represent the areas in which they operate. Those who observe from afar are less critical.
  I shall not congratulate the Minister as much as some of his Back Benchers have congratulated him, but I respect his commitment to his job and his enthusiasm. However, the Government's approach is sometimes in danger of being superficial. The time that they spend on the inner cities is sometimes encapsulated in timetables, such as the Minister's timetable for his visit to the London Docklands development corporation last week. His office was kind enough to send me a copy. It reads as follows:

  "10.30 You arrive at the Visitors Centre, Canary Wharf, Isle of Dogs to be met by Chairman and Chief Executive. Coffee. View. Audio visual.

  11.30 Depart for helicopter tour over Docklands at 11.40

  11.55 Ground tour of Docklands.

  1.00 Lunch aboard the Dutch sailing barge 'Leven'.

  2.30 Depart."

  I do not think that the Minister can have met hundreds — he certainly cannot have met thousands — of real docklands residents or workers. Like the Prime Minister at the beginning of the general election campaign, Ministers are in danger of falling into the trap of seeing those who manage developments without speaking to the recipients of the developments—the local residents.
  310
  On Second Reading I put to the Minister the figures that showed a net loss of jobs in London docklands since 1981.1 note that the Department of the Environment press release about the Minister's speech to the CBI last week, which must be true, says:
  "He drew the conference's attention to Urban Development Corporations which have brought new life to areas which have suffered serious decline. And he urged the conference to look at London's Docklands and the 10,000 jobs created there."
  That is perfectly true, but the Minister did not tell the CBI the net figure for jobs created because it would have been a negative number. As people in America have discovered, half the truth is often nowhere near the whole truth.
  It is interesting to compare unemployment in the docklands boroughs with unemployment in the area of the docklands boroughs covered by the LDDC since it was set up. In Tower Hamlets and Southwark, unemployment rose by 42·5 per cent. and 49 per cent. respectively. Those are large figures. In September 1987 the figure for Southwark was 19·1 per cent.—more than it was in 1983, once the docklands had got going, when it was 17·8 per cent. The same applies in Tower Hamlets and Newham. There has been no marked decline in unemployment.
  The most telling figure is that relating to the areas of the boroughs in the development corporation area. The number of unemployed people has increased in two of the three boroughs. In Southwark the figure has increased marginally from 1,506 to 1,519. In Newham, the figure has increased from 1,669 to 1,789. Overall, the number of unemployed in London docklands areas has risen from 6,997 in 1983 to 7,012 in 1987.
  Mr. Spearing: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is not at all surprising to us in docklands? People outside think that the development corporation s working for local people, but we know that the LDDCs plans are designed not to help local people but to enable developers to come in and get as much as they can. Therefore, we hope Ihat any mini UDCs elsewhere will have different purposes.
  Mr. Hughes: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is an indicator that, even though there are party political differences, there has never been a difference in understanding of or reaction to the LDDC between the four London docklands Members of Parliament. They have been equally critical, for the same reasons, because they have observed the same consequences. I wish to make a couple of points, which I hope the Minister will take on board as they reflect the concerns that we have expressed over many years.
  Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman has raised an additional point, but what he said was not true. The authority currently controlled by the alliance has, while being controlled by it, worked extremely closely with the LDDC. I am therefore surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not make that point on behalf of his party. Of course, in the past there was animosity, but we hope that that is gradually being blown away.
  If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make comparisons, he must compare like with like. My figures are that more than 10,000 jobs have been created since 1981, with only 3,500 lost. If he is taking 1981 as the base date, that is the comparison that he should make.
  Mr. Hughes: The Minister and I debated the figures on Second Reading. He knows that many of the new jobs are

  311
  transferred jobs—jobs that bring workers with them. The number of jobs created and available for the local work force has actually declined. I am happy to go through the figures with him, but the ones that I have seen —they are Government figures, not my figures—show that the number of new jobs has declined, not risen. That is a severe indictment of the past six years.
  The Minister's point about co-operation and collaboration is, rightly, very important. We must ensure that we maximise future benefits for the local communities—in labour, housing, environment and regeneration. That is why there was such a furious debate yesterday, during the Local Government Bill Committee, about the local labour clause in relation to local government powers. We wait with interest to hear what the officials said at the European Commission today when it debated that very subject.
  I and my colleagues have always argued—and it is why Tower Hamlets has practised it—that partnership is needed. There should be a three-way partnership in regenerating all inner cities and urban areas — central Government, local government and other agencies, be they the private sector, voluntary bodies or the like. It is because local authorities have no power to intervene in the docklands area decisions and in the development corporations that the concept of development corporations, as presently constructed, has met with objections.
  It is true that my colleagues in Tower Hamlets have co-operated and nominated someone to sit on the board. They have worked with the LDDC much more than the Labour administration in Southwark — an administration that I have criticised since the day I was elected to this House. However, there has been no real partnership and, because of that failure, I and my colleagues are unhappy about the Bill.
  I understand that an announcement about further UDCs is imminent. It may include a provision for the LDDC area to be extended. If that is true, it would be a significant announcement. Whatever areas the Government have in mind, I ask that, before making any final announcement, the Minister should put the proposals out to consultation — the areas, the budget and the corporate plan—so that there can be real partnership in the further extension of urban development.
  I am not against urban development, but I am against a change in the structure that takes away accountability. As I said, if the Minister is not prepared to concede that, the matter should be more accountable, for that reason specifically. I and my colleagues will divide the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided:Ayes 186, Noes 20.

  Division No. 82]

  [7.10 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Body, Sir Richard

  Allason, Rupert

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Amess, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Amos, Alan

  Bottomley, Peter

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bowis, John

  Ashby, David

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Brazier, Julian

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Bright, Graham

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

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

  Benyon, W.

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  312

  Burns, Simon

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Burt, Alistair

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Butcher, John

  Knapman, Roger

  Butler, Chris

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Butterfill, John

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Knowles, Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Knox, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Lang, Ian

  Chapman, Sydney

  Latham, Michael

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

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Lilley, Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Cope, John

  Lord, Michael

  Cran, James

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Critchley, Julian

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Curry, David

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

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

  Mans, Keith

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Maples, John

  Day, Stephen

  Marland, Paul

  Devlin, Tim

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Mates, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Dunn, Bob

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Durant, Tony

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Moate, Roger

  Evennett, David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Fallon, Michael

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Favell, Tony

  Nelson, Anthony

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Neubert, Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Forman, Nigel

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Forth, Eric

  Page, Richard

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Franks, Cecil

  Patnick, Irvine

  Freeman, Roger

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  French, Douglas

  Pawsey, James

  Fry, Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Portillo, Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Raffan, Keith

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Riddick, Graham

  Gregory, Conal

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Grist, Ian

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Ground, Patrick

  Ryder, Richard

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Hannam, John

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

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

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Harris, David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Speed, Keith

  Hayward, Robert

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Holt, Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

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

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Trippier, David

  Irvine, Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Jack, Michael

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Jackson, Robert

  Warren, Kenneth

  Janman, Timothy

  Wells, Bowen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Wheeler, John

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  313

  Yeo, Tim

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Mr. David Maclean and Mr. David Lightbown.

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Ashton, Joe

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Beith, A. J.

  Nellist, Dave

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Clay, Bob

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cohen, Harry

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Wallace, James

  Cryer, Bob

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

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

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Howells, Geraint

  Mr. Simon Hughes and Mr. Malcolm Bruce.

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Scottish Development Agency Bill
  Not amended, considered.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Lang]
  7.15 pm
  Mr. John Maxton: I assume that the Minister has moved the Third Reading formally because he wishes to respond to the points that hon. Members will make as the debate unfolds, although I do not think it will take too long. Indeed, had the Government Whips acted with any flexibility or sense of responsibility, the whole thing would have been over a long time ago. But they insisted on moving the closure on Second Reading, thus taking the debate into a second day and running it on much longer than was necessary. It was entirely the fault of the Government Whips and had nothing to do with the Opposition.
  This debate gives us an opportunity to repeat some important points about the Scottish Development Agency. There is still a question in the minds of many Scottish people and in the Scottish press about regional aid in Scotland and its relationship to the SDA. At the recent forum organised by the Scottish Council at Gleneagles, when all the great and the good were present—
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Where was the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Maxton: I was not present.
  Mr. Salmond: I was there.
  Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman may be included among the great and the good in Scotland, but I am not. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was there, and although 1 offered to replace him, he did not accept my offer.
  Following that conference, there was confusion between what the Department of Trade and Industry believes and what the Scottish Office believes is happening about regional aid in Scotland. Neither on Second Reading nor during the Committee stage of the Bill did Ministers clarify who is responsible for regional aid policy in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland insisted that he was in charge. Lord Young, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, rightly insists that he, and no one else, is in charge of regional aid in Scotland.
  Is a review of regional aid being undertaken? The Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of State say that there is no review, but Lord Young said clearly at Gleneagles:
  "I am examining from the ground up all our regional aid."
  He intends to examine everything that is done in his Department, so there must be a question mark over the future of regional aid in Scotland. There is also a question mark over the amount of money that is being spent by the SDA. The Minister must give us a commitment about the extra £24 million which the Secretary of State boasted he will spend on regional policy in Scotland. Some of us believe that that £24 million is merely roll-over from underspend in this financial year and has nothing to do with new money, but the Minister may wish to dispute that. We shall be interested to see how he intends to spend the money.
  Regional development grant is not the way in which to spend money now, because it is difficult to obtain it

  315
  quickly. The Minister should allocate that £24 million between the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board. That would allow a much better use of the £24 million than might otherwise be the case. I hope that the Minister will clear up that matter and, even at this late stage, make it clear that we should be spending more money on the Scottish Development Agency.
  Many hon. Members have commented during our various debates on the cuts in real terms that have been made in the money that is provided by the Government to the SDA. The Minister's reply has always been that the SDA has been receiving more money from its investments, so it is generating its own income and we should not interfere with it. It is marvellous that the SDA is generating its own finance, but that should allow it to do more, because the Government should allocate increasing amounts of money to keep pace with inflation; then the SDA will generate more money, which will allow more money to be invested in the Scottish economy to create jobs. That is what the SDA should be about.
  The Government seem to take a different line. They are schizophrenic about the SDA. They want it to generate some jobs so that they can boast about them but, at the same time, the SDA runs contrary to all their views on the free market economy. So they want to push it into the background and downgrade it as much as possible, while using its facilities to create what jobs they can.
  In conclusion, I want to quote from articles in The Scotsman and the Glasgow Herald that have appeared in the past two weeks. They concern the future of the Scottish Development Agency under its new director, Mr. Iain Robertson. According to Mr. Alf Young, who is a respected and unbiased economics journalist in Scotland, and who wrote a long article in the Glasgow Herald on Monday about the SDA, there is speculation in the SDA about which the Government should say something to the House. Staff in the SDA headquarters in Glasgow are worried about whether they will continue in their jobs. As an hon. Member representing a constituency in Glasgow, I am concerned about any loss of jobs from the area, although I accept that there may be a need for some devolution of SDA functions outwards to other parts of Scotland. I do not believe that anyone would object to such a devolution of power to other parts of Scotland to allow SDA decisions on investment to be taken at more local levels than they are now. However, if the other rumours are correct, we are right to express concern about them. One of the articles says:
  "But, coming as it does in the wake of the Treasury/ Scottish Office review into the work of the SDA, a root-and-branch restructuring will inevitably raise fears that the agency's role, in a Thatcherite economic climate, is again going to change. Those who claim to detect within the SDA a power struggle between old-style interventionists, loyal to the ethos which led to it being set up in 1975, and a market-orientated faction, committed to the Mathewson view that the SDA should work with the grain of market forces, will be watching closely for signs of which side emerges in the ascendancy.
  Others, who believe that battle was won some time back by the free-marketeers, will be looking for evidence of any hidden agenda that Robertson, a career civil servant before he came to Bothwell Street, might be hatching in collaboration with the Scottish Office to push the SDA further into the arms of the private sector."
  316
  It would concern us greatly if there were any movement to put the SDA yet further into the hands of the private sector. Later in the article, speaking of the investment department of the SDA, Alf Young writes:
  "Investment, even when its own portfolio of £26·2m invested in 127 companies is boosted by the £2m a year the agency puts into small businesses, may not have a long-term place in Robertson's scheme of things. It has, arguably, become much more risk averse since the days of the Stonefield Vehicles saga (although the SDA's exposure in the receivership of Livingston-based Integrated Power Semiconductors runs to £2m).
  The investment division's guidelines now hardly distinguish it from many private sector sources of finance, and there is open talk in Bothwell Street that it might be privatised, either as an operational unit or by progressively liquidating its portfolio."
  If the investment side should liquidate its portfolio, or hand it over in some way to the private sector, the money that that investment portfolio generates to allow the SDA to invest in our companies will no longer exist. There will therefore be a general cutback in the SDA's ability to carry out its functions. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to put our minds at rest about the article's implications, and make it clear that any restructuring of the SDA will be an internal one, perhaps to improve the managerial structure of the organisation. There is no doubt that parts of it have grown, like Topsy, all over the place, and it needs tightening up. but the Minister should not allow parts of it to be privatised, or allow it to liquidate its entire portfolio, and he should give us a commitment that the SDA will be able to use its money directly for investing in industry and developing jobs. Far from retaining it in its present form, we hope that the Minister might now see that the SDA has been a success since 1975 through its intervention in the economy, and it requires more money and greater expansion so that it can create yet more jobs in the Scottish economy—because under this Government they are badly needed.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: This is an opportunity to reiterate some of the points from our earlier proceedings on the Bill, which the Minister has still to answer effectively.
  My first point — it leads on from what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said—is that there is no real question of who is in charge of regional policy in Scotland. Undoubtedly, Whitehall is in charge of it, and not the Secretary of State for Scotland. The real point about regional aid policy over the past 10 years is not who is in charge, but the remarkable decline in the regional aid budget to less than half what it was 10 years ago. I accept that part of that decline occurred before the Government came to office in 1979. It has been paralleled by the decline in the SDA's own budget.
  Whatever is said about the SDA's overall budget, the Minister must acknowledge — it is in a parliamentary answer — that the SDA's contribution from the Government has declined in real terms from £104 million when the Government came to power to £89 million this year. That represents a real decline of 15 per cent. In Committee, the Minister described that as a sign of success. No doubt he also considers it a sign of success that, as the hon. Member for Cathcart said, the Government and Scottish Office have underspent by £20 million on regional development grant this year. Does the Minister want to square the circle and explain how an

  317
  underspend in regional development grant fits the picture that he paints of the Scottish economy moving forward with plenty of investment and investors wanting to take up regional development grant?
  As has rightly been said, the Secretary of State for Scotland has been claiming widely that he has gained another £24 million for next year's regional development grant budget. However, that is merely a roll-over from the underspend of last year. The Secretary of State for Scotland must be the first person ever to get into serious trouble through picking his own pocket!
  The vision of the Scottish economy that the Government seek to portray does not square with the facts. In terms of overall industrial production, the Scottish economy is still performing at a lower level than in 1980 and its unemployment level is the second highest on the British mainland. Even in the review of the Scottish Development Agency carried out by the Industry Department for Scotland and the Treasury, which strove desperately to say nice things about the Scottish economy under this Government—the best they could offer was that things were no better, they were much the same. Page 22 says:
  "In 1984 gross domestic product per head (in Scotland) was 96 per cent. of the United Kingdom average compared with 97 per cent. in 1975".
  when the SDA was established.
  The reality is that Scotland is last out of the recession in the United Kingdom, and instead of being increased to combat these problems, the SDA budget is declining in real terms, as are the regional development grants. The Government have completely missed the economic opportunity of which the Scottish Development Agency was established 10 years ago to take advantage.
  My second point is a recurring theme in the contributions to debates such as this by the Scottish National party. It is about the direction of SDA funding. Surely the saddest thing in the review of the SDA, about which I have spoken, was the revelation that over the past 10 years the net proportion of the SDA budget in equity risk investment in the Scottish economy has declined from 25 per cent. to a mere 2 per cent. I should like the Minister to explain how, with a net expenditure on investment of about £2 million, the SDA can seriously expect to regenerate the Scottish economy. There seems to be no real reason for decline, because the analysis of the effectiveness of SDA investment gave the agency more or less a clean bill of health.
  Even on the tiny investment budget that can be deployed by the Scottish Development Agency, the review calculated that, between 1981 and 1985, the agency successfully created about 10,000 net jobs at a cost per job of about £1,000. That is a remarkable bargain, and surely it is an argument for a vast expansion in the SDA budget so that it can take the opportunity offered by the sectors of growth in the Scottish economy that it has been doing so much work to identify.
  My third point deals with the direction of Government economic policy in Scotland. Despite what the Minister said on Second Reading about turning the emphasis to developing indigenous companies, the reality is that the only thrust of Government economic policy in Scotland is to attract mobile inward investment from overseas. In part that is welcome, and nobody would seriously deny that inward investment can bring great benefits to an economy. However, it is all a matter of proportion and many people
  318
  in Scotland know to their cost that an economy that is totally dependent on mobile inward investment is especially vulnerable when the winds of international recession blow.
  We would like to see from the Minister a real commitment to developing indigenous companies in Scotland. There are some signs that his words on Second Reading will not be carried through into practice. He may well remember that on Second Reading many hon. Members expressed concern about the PRIDE and DRAW schemes. These are important schemes in the rural areas of Scotland. They have small budgets, but have proved important for rural workshops and for giving grants to rural businesses. Elsewhere, the Minister said that the schemes were to be refinanced, and announced a budget of £5 million over three years. My understanding is that, far from being enhanced, the grant element in the schemes is to be drastically cut. I should like some assurance from the Minister that that will not be the case.
  If the hon. Member cannot give that assurance, at least he should give some hope to the many small businesses in Scotland which applied under the previous scheme. They were left in the lurch because of the exhaustion of resources and had the rug pulled from under them. The Minister has said that those businesses will get priority in the application of funds for the new scheme. Can he also give us an assurance that they will get treatment on no worse terms than they would have received under the previous grant element in the scheme?
  My final comment is about a wider matter than those that are dealt with in the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot refer to wider matters. On Third reading we must restrict ourselves to what is in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confine himself to what is in the Bill.
  Mr. Salmond: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall certainly do so. Sixty-two Scottish Members would like to see a substantial increase in the Scottish Development Agency budget. As a public sector body, the agency should have a prime role in leading Scotland out of the recession. To do that it needs an adequate budget, and that means a vast increase in its present budget. Despite the support of the vast majority of Scottish MPs, we cannot bring our views to bear upon the Government or the Minister.
  It may be that the Minister will have a remarkable conversion, such as he has had in the past on the Scottish Development Agency. He was converted to the inward investment role of the agency that he now trumpets although in 1980 he once was very much against it. Until Scottish MPs can provide the answer to the question of how we can bring our majority will to bear on the Government upon the subject of the Scottish Development Agency, or any other Scottish subject, we will not be successful in bringing about the revival of the Scottish economy that we so desperately want to see.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I should like to raise one matter that has possibly not been covered as it might have been. It is the matter of the boundaries on which grants are given. I shall give a concrete example concerning the huge and successful Uniroyal tyre factory at Newbridge in

  319
  the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingstone (Mr. Cook). The bulk of the work force in that factory comes from my constituency. The problem is whether grants should be given on the basis of geographical position or whether some leeway should be given in a case where the work force comes from an area where there is considerable unemployment—a scheduled area such as Linlithgow.
  There is a related problem, and perhaps the Scottish Office could look at it. It concerns discussions with the Department of Transport about the very serious Community directive on tyre tread depths. I put down a question on 24 November in which I asked the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has done on accident incidence relative to tyre tread depth.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I find it very difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the Third Reading of this Bill.
  Mr. Dalyell: They relate to the question of help for a factory such as that of Uniroyal. There is a way out of this problem and it is by asking the Department of Transport to reconsider its attitude to the European directive on tyre tread depth. The problem would be solved if the depth was brought up to the 2 mm that every Government Department asks of its own vehicles. No Minister's car has a tyre tread depth of less than 2 mm. If that was done it would be a great help to factories such as that of Uniroyal and to the tyre-making industry in Britain. Other matters — such as road safety — would be out of order in discussing this Bill.
  There is a problem here and the Department of Transport knows about it. I believe that the Scottish Office knows about it and it has arisen this week in acute form. I do not ask for a reply now, because that would be unreasonable, but perhaps the Scottish Office would consider the matter. It will receive a letter from me in the morning about this and I hope that it will reflect on it.
  7.39 pm
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang):
  This small technical Bill has now reached its final stages in the House and as envisaged in 1981 when the Government amended the original provisions in the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975, it has given hon. Members the opportunity to examine and discuss the activities of the agency in some detail.
  Over the years, the agency has shown its value as a flexible and responsive instrument for encouraging essential changes in the Scottish economy and significant improvements to the environment of Scotland. In the light of recent publicity in the Scottish press about the reports of possible changes to the organisation of the agency, it is not surprising that that should be raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is primarily a matter for the agency, as it is an administrative matter.
  I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Ministers generally welcome and endorse the principles behind the changes to the structure proposed by Mr. Robertson, the chief executive. The Scottish Office will be liaising with the agency on the implementation of the changes and subject to clarification on some points of detail, we see no reason
  320
  why the changes should not fulfil the desired aims of bringing the agency's structure more in line with its corporate strategy and so improve its delivery mechanism.
  I want to elaborate on one or two of the ways in which the changes will be made. The hon. Member for Cathcart supported what he saw as the devolution of some services in order to improve their delivery. That is a desirable development and it has been said that a number of regional offices will be set up in Scotland. The agency intends to create new directorates for enterprise development to pull together the agency's sectoral work on industry and on higher value added services. It also intends to set up a directorate for urban renewal. Those are useful and worthwhile initiatives.
  No staff redundancies are planned. There should be improved lines of responsibility, less bureaucracy and, I hope, more job fulfilment and a greater feeling that each individual employed by the agency is contributing personally and directly to its success. That is part of the purpose of the chief executive's plans which I understand he proposes to develop in more detail when he announces his proposals later this week.
  Far from implying change in the agency's role, the changes in administration respond to change in the agency's current work and the balance of its priorities and the allocation of its budget. There is no hidden agenda. There is a sharpening up of effectiveness which will bring it closer to its customers as it is a commercial customer-driven organisation.
  The hon. Member for Cathcart attempted to lead me into a discussion on regional aid. Bearing in mind your strictures about sticking strictly to the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I generously sought to respond to the hon. Gentleman's inquiries in Committee and on Second Reading, on this occasion I will let the issue of regional aid pass. For the same reason, sadly, I will not be able to comment on the queries raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), although his points will have been noted in Hansard.
  Mr. Maxton: Before the Minister leaves this point about the restructuring of the agency carried out by Mr. Iain Robertson, will he assure us that there will be no privatisation of the investment department either through direct privatisation by selling it off, or by running down its portfolio of investment?
  Mr. Lang: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have no such plans at present to do that. The administration and organisation of the agency is a matter for the agency itself.
  Mr. Maxton: I accept that selling the agency off through direct privatisation would not have anything to do with the agency, as it could not do that without legislation. However, presumably the agency could sell off its portfolio without direct Government involvement or legislation.
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is putting ideas into my head. Certainly the agency can dispose of its investments as it thinks fit in the light of prevailing market circumstances. That point brings me to the statistics about the budget and investment.
  The agency has been disposing of its investments in increasing numbers. This point may underline the difficulty expressed by the hon. Member for Cathcart over the agency's gross and net budget. At the risk of boring the

  321
  House, however briefly, I want to repeat the figures. In 1986–87 figures, the gross net budgets in 1978–79, the last years for which the Labour party was responsible for the administration of the agency, were £124·9 million and £102·9 million respectively. In 1986–87, the figures were £130·9 million and £89·2 million respectively. That represents an increase of 4–8 per cent.
  It is also significant to explain — this answers the point about the figures raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) — that the self-financing element of the agency's expenses, in other words the difference between the gross and net figures, has increased from 20 per cent. in 1978–79 to 40 per cent. this year. Not only has gross budget funding increased, but we are also getting very much better value for money in the use of the receipts and the recirculation of funds.
  Mr. Salmond: In the figures that he has just given, does the Minister accept that the Government's contribution to the SDA has declined by 15 per cent?
  Mr. Lang: I have not quoted the figure, but the net budget was £99·9 million in 1985–86 figures and those were the figures used by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. The figure is £86·6 million in 1986–87. Far from "admitting" that, I am proclaiming it. That underlines the growing success of the agency's use of resources which has led to that achievement.
  I want to provide one or two investment figures to help the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. The hon. Gentleman is worried about the fact that, as he alleges, the proportion of the agency's budget going to investment has decreased from 25 per cent. to 2 per cent. The plain fact is that the figures that he used for 1976 were the provision for investment. The actual outturn was very much less than that. In 1986–87, the outturn, taking account of the reinvestment, of receipts was very much higher. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got his figure of 2 per cent. from. It bears no relation to the actual investment figures.
  I want to describe the present trend of investment over the past three years. The amount invested over the past three years has been £6·3 million, £6·2 million and £7·96
  322
  million respectively and that has catalysed investment from the private sector of £30·9 million, £72·54 million and £106·7 million. Investment created or protected 4,483 jobs in 1984–85, 5,344 in 1985–86 and 5,619 in 1986–87. That is a remarkable and encouraging story. The agency now holds investments in 820 companies most of which is in the form of relatively small sums because they are investments placed by the agency's small business division.
  I believe that I had better not bore the House with more statistics as they have been well ventilated over the past few weeks. The value of agency expenditure can be seen anywhere in Scotland by looking at areas which were once derelict and have now been brought back into constructive use, by new factories occupied by profitable firms, by the existence of high technology industries attracted through the efforts of Locate in Scotland and by our steadily increasing small business sector which has benefited from the agency's advice and assistance.
  Over and above this, there is the change of attitude in Scotland which the agency, in accordance with the broad strategic guidance laid down by this Government, has helped to bring about. I refer to the increasing involvement of the private sector in areas which have previously been considered to be the preserve of the public sector; to the increasing realisation by the private sector that the agency is a partner rather than a leader, and to the improvement in Scotland's image abroad as a place which, because of its environment and the skills of its work force, merits major investment.
  In order to continue with these important tasks and to complement fully the effects of both the Governments nationwide economic policy and their regional policy it is, of course, necessary to provide the statutory basis for the continued funding of the agency. That is the purpose of the Bill. Although, as I have previously said, the Bill does not determine the annual budget of the agency, which is established separately and in the light of the Government's overall spending priorities, it is essential in order to provide a basis of funding from which those budgets can be met. I am happy to commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Food Protection
  7.50pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Selwyn Gummer): I beg to move,
  That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (England) Order 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1893), dated 5th November 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th November, be approved.
  The Order consolidates the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (England) (No. 2) Order 1987 and the seven subsequent amendment orders, none of which I will quote, into one order. It does not change their effect or introduce any new restrictions, but it might be helpful if I remind the House that these are the orders under which we were able to carry out the restrictions on movement of sheep as a result of the Chernobyl accident. The matter has been discussed on several previous occasions. The consequences of the terrible accident in Chernobyl have been considerable and people are rightly most concerned. If it is convenient to the House, I hope to speak about one aspect of the order, which has already been raised today, and leave any points which are raised and any other comments to the end of the debate.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: After the Chernobyl accident, the National Radiological Protection Board estimated that 40 persons—I use the statistical extrapolation — would die of cancer induced by the accident. In the light of the fact that the Government now wish to raise the bq/kg limit, and the fact that the NRPB has changed its assessment of what constitutes a permissible limit, do the Government now wish in any way to interfere in or change the assessment made by the NRPB of the lives lost as a result of the accident?
  Mr. Gummer: The Government do not change the recommendations of the NRPB. It is its job to make them. The figures that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is putting together do not connect with each other. The hon. Gentleman must try not to frighten people by making such comments. I shall pursue my argument, and I hope that he will follow it carefully.
  One of the problems of discussing this issue is that we must be absolutely straightforward with the public about exactly what happened in all occasions and at all times.
  We can only do that if we are absolutely clear that on no occasion must we seek to use the fears of the public for reasons of our own. Those two things must guide us.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I ask the specific question.
  Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have a lot to say when he makes his own speech.
  I have been closely concerned with this accident since it happened and my right hon. Friend and I have decided to publish the figures month by month so that everyone will know what they are, and that two things will guide us. First, there should be no question of Ministers not knowing every detail. Secondly, every detail should be published for the country.
  You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be able to understand my concern when, this morning, as I was on the radio, I was challenged because a telex had appeared. I was told:
  "David Clark"—
  if I may call him that, as it was in the broadcast—
  324
  "Shadow Agriculture Spokesman, will today tell the House of Commons that meat contaminated by radiation after Chernobyl did go on sale in Britain, thousands of tonnes of it. He says he can prove it."
  I was very much taken aback, because I did not have the telex in my notes. No one had mentioned that telex, which evidently came from the chief scientist of the radiochemical institute. It warned the Government. Therefore, it was a telex that I ought to have had in my documentation.
  So once I got off the radio, having explained clearly to the public how outrageous it was to talk about the telex on the radio without it having been mentioned beforehand, I went back, rang the deputy secretary concerned and asked, "Where is this telex from the chief scientist of the radiochemical institute?" I understand that he immediately got on to other people and asked, "Where is this telex?" By 3 o'clock this afternoon we had not got the telex. So I rang the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and he very kindly said that not only would he let me have the telex—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister is hysterical.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman should wait for the hysteria.
  The hon. Member for South Shields not only said that I could have the telex but kindly said that he would mention in the debate that I had not got a copy of the telex earlier.
  I have a copy of the telex now. It does not come from the chief scientist of the radiochemical institute. It does not come from the Government. It comes from a company called Large and Company. What is Large and Company? It is a consultant company. With whom does it consult? [Interruption.]No, not the Labour party directly. It consults with a number of people but particularly with local authorities opposed to nuclear power.
  To whom did the telex go? Not to the Ministry of Agriculture but, as I understand it, to the Department of the Environment. What did it say? Let me tell hon. Members first what it was suggested that it said. It was suggested that it said there were very high becquerel readings which would have meant that something should have been done immediately. The telex does not actually say that. In fact, it is difficult to see what it says. What it appears to say is to repeat what the Government had already stated publicly.
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Not all debates in the House are broadcast. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the true statement that he is now giving to the House appears in the later version of the programme to which he has made reference, in which he took part this morning?
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend will know that it is difficult for me to make sure of that. I am sure the hon. Member for South Shields will want to make the point when he next appears on the "Today" programme.
  The telex did not come from whom it was supposed to have come, nor did it go to whom it was said that it went. Nor was the content of it what was implied. It is a telex. That is certainly true. Otherwise none of the statements made is true. It is time that we looked at this carefully. It is said that the Government did some monitoring on 14 May, as if this had suddenly been discovered by the telex, as if the Government had done nothing about it, and as if it was known only now that these things had happened.

  325
  I will tell the House how we knew; we knew because the Government published it in a press notice on 13 May. We did the monitoring and we published the information.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend give us some idea why the Opposition needed to adopt these tactics and why they needed to invent telexes from the Ministry of Agriculture which were not from that Ministry? Can he make a copy of the telex available, because it sounds fascinating? Perhaps he will place a copy in the Library.
  Mr. Gummer: I shall be happy to place it in the Library. I do not think it is an invented telex. It is certainly a telex. The complaint is that the telex is not what it purported to be.
  Dr. David Clark: I will deal with the substantive point in a moment, but in response to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) may I say that the telex has been in the Library of the House since July 1986? The hon. Gentleman could have consulted it if he had taken an interest in it.
  Mr. Gummer: I still believe that there is a substantive problem. We are dealing with something which is very frightening. Therefore, we need to deal with it with the greatest respect for truth. If we intend to raise the matter, one of the things we might do is to get in touch beforehand with the person who was supposed to have sent the telex in case we have misunderstood a complex series of notes. The telex is not well written. It is difficult to understand to what it refers. I have asked some very senior scientists to look at it. There are problems as to what the telex meant originally. I would have thought that the hon. Member for South Shields might have felt that this was an occasion to ask the Minister beforehand, out of courtesy, perhaps to explain it, but that did not happen.
  The story went on. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government did nothing for seven full weeks after the monitoring. I think it would be interesting for the House to know why we did nothing and exactly what happened. We did not do anything, of course, and we said that we would not do anything. So everybody knew; there was no secret about it. Why did we do nothing? We did nothing because of what we were monitoring. First, we monitored the sheep. These are the sheep that are supposed to have entered the food chain.
  Mr. Campbeil-Savours: They did.
  Mr. Gummer: What an odd thing it would be if they entered the food chain because these were 10 kg lambs. I do not know how close the hon. Gentleman is to his farming community but 10 kg lambs are rarely found for sale. Lambs usually have to reach about 30 kg, so they have quite a long way to go. The one thing we knew was that these 10 kg lambs were not wandering off the hillside into a market.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: Is it possible that these lambs might have gone to Italy because they like smaller lambs there?
  Mr. Gummer: They might have gone to Italy except that they would have had to be about 20 kg. Of course, before they go to Italy or anywhere else they come down off the high hills and they are — we used to say fattened but now we say finished—finished a bit lower down. That is what happens to them. So we know, first, that they are not
  326
  going to be sold; secondly, they will be brought down to land which is totally non-contaminated or has low contamination; thirdly, they will grow bigger. So the level which is in them becomes a smaller proportion of their total weight. Therefore, if they are above the level originally, when they come to be sold they will be below the level.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose——
  Mr. Gummer: I want to finish this because it is complicated and I want to get it absolutely right.
  So they were above the level but we kept monitoring them carefully. Why? To make sure that when action was necessary we would take it because the 1,000 bq level is not what the hon. Member for South Shields said; it is not a safety level but an action level. It is the level at which it is decided what programme of action will be taken. We took the decision. We said that at the point at which any meat or anything else entered the food chain we would take the action necessary to make sure that nobody was damaged or endangered by it.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose——
  Mr. Gummer: No; I shall be happy to give way later, but I want to get the sequence of events right.
  The hon. Member for South Shields said that the lambs were innocently sent to market. Innocently? They were being barmily sent to market. Anyone who sent a 10 kg lamb to market would be a natural. What did the hon. Gentleman say? He said that there were thousands of tonnes of it. I happen to know that the hon. Gentleman went today to discover how many tonnes of lamb went through the markets that he quoted. I have got them here —Carlisle, Kendal, Ulverston and Penrith. Having said that thousands of tonnes of contaminated lamb went into the food chain he went today to find out how much had gone through. It is less than 1,000 tonnes of lamb altogether.
  So there could not have been thousands of tonnes of contaminated lamb. Why? Because there was very little lamb going through the market at that time and they were all a darned sight bigger than 10 kg. I do not know how many 10 kg lambs one needs to add up to thousands of tonnes, but there were not 1,000 tonnes. I do not want to overdo it; it would be about 600 tonnes. Indeed, I have overdone it because I have shown that the hon. Gentleman was frightening people for party political purposes. That is a scandal.
  This is the beginning of a campaign. I never had so many questions put down as about these things. The hon. Gentleman is obviously determined to try to frighten the public unnecessarily. Sometimes one has to warn the public. Sometimes one has to tell the public that things are dangerous and have to be handled extremely carefully. To frighten people when it is unnecessary is outrageous.
  We are then told that the Government did not take the necessary measures. The interviewer was so convinced that this was the suggestion—Mr. Redhead is a man of great discernment—that he said:
  "You say 7 full weeks—lets go back to when the first warning was issued."
  Then we had the bit about the chief scientist at the radiochemical institute. The letter was not sent from him, nor was it sent to him. He does not exist. There is no such person. We are told that we then ignored the situation. We ignored it so much that we monitored it in great detail and,

  327
  on 20 June, several months before the main market period, we introduced tough regulations, irrespective of the damage that they might do to farmers. We made sure that the people of this country were protected.
  At that time the Opposition were prepared to support us in this. They said, "It is our duty to make sure that farmers do not suffer from irresponsible stories. We have got to be very tough, but we will not make the farmers lose their markets. We will make sure that the farmers can honestly say that no contaminated meat which may harm people will reach the market." That is what the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, as shadow Minister, said. Is it possible that he was too responsible to continue in his job?
  Mr. Martin Redmond: The Minister said earlier that he had all the details at his fingertips. Will he tell us how many sheep have been tested in South Yorkshire? Some of my constituents get their drinking water from wells. Has any testing been done on those wells? The Pennines stood a chance of becoming contaminated and the water coming down into those wells might also have been contaminated.
  Mr. Gummer: The number of sheep tested was 2,020 and the number found to be contaminated was two. They were contaminated at 1,200 bq instead of 1,000 bq. The safety figure suggested in Sweden is 6,000 bq.
  I want to get the sequence of events right. We then did what we said we would do and protected the public. We were supported in that, and the hon. Gentleman's predecessor complimented the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the way in which it had co-ordinated the action. On the radio this morning, the hon. Gentleman said that there was complete confusion within Government ranks. I hope that he will admit that he has wrongly attacked many honourable and decent civil servants who carried out this remarkable act on which his predecessor complimented them. He then said that thousands of tonnes had entered the food chain when there were none. What did he then go on to say? He said that we have a lower safety level than any other European country. I thought I would have a look.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Many.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman may take me outside, but I shall tell him what the hon. Member for South Shields said. I checked the typescript of the broadcast. It said:
  "any of the other European countries."
  Only two other European countries have had problems with meat contamination. Neither of them is in the European Community. One is Norway and the other is Sweden. Both those countries have Socialist Governments. They are both safety conscious. Both of them are extremely careful, not least about the reindeer, which were mainly affected by the problem.
  Of course, in Britain we have a level of 1,000 bq. It is not a safety level. It is called an action level in all countries. Sweden's lowest action level was 1,500 bq; Norway's action level was 6,000 bq. Such are the figures. The House may wonder why I have taken such time to cover those details. The reason is all those people out there, listening to the "Today" programme, who have been told that we are not a safe country and that the food that our farmers
  328
  produce is not safe to eat. The hon. Member for South Shields has done the industry and the country a grave disservice this morning.
  The story does not end there. We are concerned to tell the truth, publicly, about these matters. They are true issues and they are issues that must be put forward properly. For that reason, I shall spend a short time discussing Yorkshire. The order would be concerned with Yorkshire if we had any worry about the safety of land in that region. However, Yorkshire has been mentioned and I shall briefly refer to it.
  The hon. Member for South Shields spoke of dangerous things in Yorkshire and said that we had only done something because he had told us to do so. The hon. Gentleman said that we knew nothing about the problem, that we had hardly monitored the area and that it was all extremely dangerous. Let me explain our monitoring system. Before the cloud from Chernobyl reached us we made sure that the Meteorological Office produced the best historical rainfall pattern that was possible to ascertain what areas were most likely to be contaminated.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Then they were kept secret.
  Mr. Gummer: Then we said, publicly, exactly what areas were most likely to have been affected. We commissioned a public report from the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology to look at all the lichen and vegetation to discover again where the contamination had been greatest. That was done on a nationwide basis.
  To check the information received we examined foodstuffs of almost every type, in every county, to compare them against each other. As a result of that and our constant monitoring we then monitored particularly closely those places where there had been greater contamination. Nothing of any kind suggested that the part of Yorkshire in question was one that we should monitor particularly carefully.
  As it turns out — [HON.MEMBERS: "Ah!"] — we had some evidence that suggested that three things, taken together, were surprising. First, there had been a local rainstorm. Secondly, there had been a patch of land, some 20 acres of moorland, which had been burnt off extremely heavily and the sheep had congregated on that spot. Thirdly, when we came to test those sheep, out of those 2,300 animals, two turned out to have a becquerel level of 1,200. For the rest of this year and the next I could eat animals that had a bequerel level of 1,200. If I ate nothing else but sheepmeat, day in and day out—I would ask the hon. Member for South Shields to do likewise—at the end of that period I would have absorbed as much radioactivity as I would from a routine chest X-ray. No one in this country could possibly eat enough lamb with such a becquerel level to get the equivalent of an average dose resulting from a chest X-ray. However, today the hon. Member for South Shields was frightening people by saying that if they ate lamb from Yorkshire they would become ill. I believe that the farmers have a right to sue him because he has suggested that their products are not fit to eat. Unfortunately, our civil servants cannot sue for the impression given that they have not done their job properly, that they are not protecting the people of this country and that they are not doing what they should do. That is wholly unacceptable and wrong.
  Ms. Joan Walley: In view of the assurances that the Minister has given us, can he

  329
  suggest why it was that, when local authorities and local councils throughout the country—which were concerned about the high rainfall after Chernobyl — made direct phone calls to the Department of the Environment and everywhere else, they were referred to answering machines and received no advice about how to measure radiation?
  Mr. Gummer: There was an incident room and I rang it regularly to ensure that it was answering calls and people were not passed on to an answering machine service. I was extremely interested to learn that the local authorities that complained were overwhelmingly those that had a particular view about nuclear power. If anyone suggested that there was some reason why we should do some special testing we did so in case there was any possible chance that we had overlooked something.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend kindly remind the House that, for at least a part of that dramatic weekend, there was a continual refusal from the Soviet Union to give any information to the world as to what had happened? It was only as a result of the viligance of the Swedish Government that any monitoring was done. The Soviet Union—I well remember, because it was in the midst of my by-election — refused to give any information.
  Mr. Gummer: I accept what my hon. Friend has said. If one does not have a free society, the habit of giving information does not come easily.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon rose——
  Mr. Frank Cook rose——
  Mr. Gummer: I will give way to the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and then I must finish my speech.
  Mr. Frank Cook: There are two matters that I wish to raise with the Minister and I should be grateful for his response.
  First, does he not agree that the Soviet authorities have been quite uncharacteristically open about the Chernobyl incident — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh yes?"] Hang on a minute. I ask that hon. Members listen to the point before they express any kind of opinion. Is it not true that the Soviet authorities have been uncharacteristically open regarding every specific technical detail about the things that led up to the incident, that happened during the incident and that followed?
  Secondly, I am interested in the detailed certainty that the Minister displays when telling us all the steps that were taken and all the security measures that were gathered. If that is the case, why is it that, when other hon. Members and myself were trying to gain information at that time, our parliamentary questions were being chased from one Ministry to another, day after day, week after week, because nobody had the answers and the information that we were seeking?
  Mr. Gummer: On the first question, of course it is true that the Soviets were extremely open once they were found out, but until then, they were as closed as they always are and will be. As far as the hon. Gentleman's second question, I know of no question that——
  Mr. Martin Flannery: The right hon. Gentleman has been found out.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) has not been here, but if he
  330
  had he would know that the only person who has been found out in this debate is his hon. Friend the Member for South Shields who, for the moment, occupies the Opposition Front Bench.
  The hon. Member for Stockton, North must accept that any questions put to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were properly answered and every detail announced. We did not miss a single opportunity to try to give the facts as they were at the very moment that we had the chance to do so.
  Mr. Frank Cook: That is not so.
  Mr. Gummer: I believe that the key issue is that we must take all the measures that are necessary, and more, to protect the British people from any fear that their food was contaminated in any way or would be contaminated in any way. The serious matter before the House is that, in an attempt to score party political points, the hon. Gentleman sold the farmers down the river, frightened people in a wholly unacceptable way, and has shown himself entirely unsuitable to pretend that he should sit on the Opposition Bench in his present capacity.
  8.19 pm
  Dr. David Clark: I found the Minister's remarks somewhat hysterical. The way in which he has behaved this evening does his office and his cause considerable harm. I intend, in a calm and calculated manner, to disprove many of the points that he has tried to make. I shall do that coldly and rationally, because that is how to get people to listen, and that is how to achieve results.
  I agree with one sentiment that the Minister expressed, which was to the effect that he believed that all necessary steps must be taken to ensure that the British people could feel happy about the public safety and health aspects of the accident. I agree 100 per cent. with that. However, if that is the Minister's belief, and in view of the criticism that has come not only from me, but from many bodies that naturally support him — such as the Country Landowners Association — would it not be better to bring the matter into the open with a full public inquiry which could examine it in detail?
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), who had the impertinence to intervene and then disappear, referred to the Soviet Union. The orders that we are discussing, under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985(a),are designed to protect the general public in the event of any future accident like that at Chernobyl. I believe, and I hope to prove this evening, that the Government were found wanting. I am not making a party point; I think that there are lessons to be learnt, which have not been learnt because of the hysterical response that we have just observed.
  As the Minister said, this is not an inconsequential order. I rather wish that he had mentioned the order, because it might have been helpful. It is a serious order, revoking eight previous orders relating to this important issue. Now, 17 months after the first of those orders, is an appropriate time to sit back coolly and establish whether there are lessons to be learnt, and whether the position could be improved if—God forbid — there were other emergencies like the one that we faced after Chernobyl.
  Let me start from a point of consensus. The Government are, of course, in no way to blame for what

  331
  happened at Chernobyl; obviously, that was the responsibility of another Government, and the duty of our Government was to protect their own people. I hope, however, to persuade the House that the present Government must accept the blame for the confusion that has emerged in Britain in the aftermath of the accident. We have heard tonight a defensive, almost reactionary, speech from the Minister, full of inconsistencies and inaccuracies. Many of the facts were wrong. Let me give one example. When my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) asked a question about South Yorkshire, the Minister gave the figures for North Yorkshire. I assure the Minister that they are two separate counties.
  Mr. Gummer: I clearly said "Yorkshire". That covers the whole of Yorkshire. That is what I said, and Hansard will show that I said it.
  Dr. Clark: The Minister will never get away with that. The question was about South Yorkshire, and his answer related to North Yorkshire. When he checks the figures with his advisers, he will find that I am correct. There are two cases in north Yorkshire. It was in that area that in 1986, the Government monitored 14 out of nearly 2 million sheep.
  Mr. Andy Stewart: That is plenty.
  Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman says that that is plenty, but I believe that 14 out of 2 million is a pretty low statistical reference on which to base an entire case.
  Perhaps I can remind the House of one or two facts —we have not heard many facts tonight. I do not think that even the Minister would disagree with one of them. I know Cumbria, probably slightly better than the Minister does. I was bred there, I started my working life on the land and I have many friends who farm there, and who tell me of the inconsistency and confusion that they have experienced. They have advised me enormously over the past few months, as I have tried to investigate as fully as possible the way in which the Government have operated the scheme.
  My thinking is also influenced by the fact that I was living in Cumbria when the greatest nuclear accident prior to Chernobyl occurred, at Windscale in 1957. I well remember the milk being poured down the drains, and the reassurances of the scientists that it was safe there. We now know that there are doubts—I put it as mildly as that— about that advice.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Under the cloak of secrecy.
  Dr. Clark: As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) reminds us, the Official Secrets Act imposed a cloak of secrecy.
  Let us examine the chronology. It is important to get that right, because it is the substance of my case. The Chernobyl explosion happened early on the morning of 26 April. As we have been reminded by one of the gentlemen of the rent-a-mob gang who have now disappeared, the Swedes were the first to experience the Chernobyl cloud on 28 April. The following day, the cloud was breaking up into various sections, and radioactivity reached western Europe. The Minister did not give the details, but I shall
  332
  do so. On 29 April, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food started to monitor fresh milk in southern Britain.
  On 2 May — the dates are very important — the radioactive plume reached the south-east of the United Kingdom. The Minister's Department requested regular updates from various public bodies — over a dozen of them—to try to work out where the danger could lie. Sampling was extended from milk to vegetation. On 3 May, the plume passed north and west over the United Kingdom. Heavy rain during the passage of the plume on the night of 2 May and part of the next day resulted in high rainfall in parts of the north-west, north Wales, southern Scotland and, as we now know, parts of Yorkshire.
  The Minister has reminded us that, on 4 May, his Department established an operations room. It is interesting that, while the Minister was able to get through, my hon. Friends could not. Nevertheless, that operations room was established, and arrangements were made to try to obtain samples for analysis as quickly as possible. Those arrangements included airlifting.
  On 5 May, the National Radiological Protection Board confirmed that published derived emergency reference levels, as the Minister calls them, should be established. I hope that the Minister and I agree on all of that, because it is fact.
  We now come to more contentious but equally factual issues, leading up to the original orders that were discussed in the House last year — and which, indeed, are consolidated in SI 1893, which is before us this evening.
  Following the arrival of the Chernobyl cloud over the United Kingdom, there was considerable public concern and press comment. Anyone who knew anything about radioactivity knew that, sooner or later, there would be a radioactive fallout throughout Europe to a greater or lesser extent. But few people knew the effect of that fallout.
  On 6 May, public concern was such that the then Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), came to the House and made a statement. Quite rightly, the right hon. Gentleman tried to reassure the public. He said:
  "the effects of the cloud have already been assessed and that none presents a risk to health in the United Kingdom."—[Official Report,6 May 1986; Vol. 97, c. 21.]
  The general public and the farming community—so well beloved by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and his friends — were, naturally, reassured by that. However, the Minister was perhaps a little too hasty in his words of reassurance. Although the Department of the Environment took that line, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was getting together the statistics and making arrangements to co-ordinate the results.
  On 5 May, the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology obtained radioactivity readings of caesium on grass of over 26,000 bq/kg in Ennerdale and of over 6,500 bq/kg near Seascale. Both places were later included in the restricted area of Cumbria. The warning bells should have been ringing in the Minister's ears when he saw those figures.
  It is also worth making a point about the emergency reference levels to which the Minister referred. The figure of 1,000 bq for radioactive caesium in sheepmeat is internationally accepted. In the past, the Minister has tried to confuse the House by suggesting that 4,000 to 5,000 bq/ kg is the appropriate level. His only source for that is the Article 31 Group of European Community advisers who

  333
  are in a very small minority. I remind the Minister, too, that he ought to look at the report that was published last week by the National Radiological Protection Board. It suggests that the safety levels that we have been operating in Great Britain are too low and that we need higher safety standards.
  If we want the truth about the emergency reference levels, we should turn again to Hansard.In answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food accurately and concisely how the levels were arrived at. The hon. Lady said:
  "Emergency reference levels for sheepmeat in the United Kingdom were agreed by the Government on the advice of the National Radiological Protection Board and were derived from recommendations published by the International Commission on Radiological Protection." — [Official Report,13 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 335.]
  That was a straightforward answer. The Minister should not try to confuse the general public by referring to an outrageously high level — a figure that even his Government were not prepared to support in the Council of Ministers discussions in Brussels earlier this week.
  Mr. Gummer: For the most vulnerable group—babies consuming milk that has possibly been contaminated by radiation—the World Health Organisation has referred to a level of 2,000 bq—a figure twice as high as ours. Sweden and Norway have chosen 1,506 bq. Is it not possible that the hon. Gentleman is slightly over-egging the pudding?
  Dr. Clark: It does not- become the Minister to belittle his hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Secretary, who answered honestly and openly the questions that were asked. Furthermore, the Minister should not doubt the wisdom of his professional advisers, the National Radiological Protection Board. It ill becomes the Minister to castigate another hon. Member for criticising him when he criticises his own advisers.
  On 14 May, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food carried out tests in Cumbria, when at least four sheep were found to be above the safety level of 1,000 bq/ kg. One of those sheep had a reading that was in excess of the World Health Organisation figure, to which the Minister has just referred. It had a reading in excess of 2,400 bq/kg. No action had been taken by the Government by 14 May. Even when they were armed with this disturbing evidence, Ministers, amazingly enough, refused to act. We had to wait until 20 June 1986 before the then Minister of Agriculture, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), announced to the House that restrictions on sheep movement were to be imposed in Cumbria.
  I emphasised the fact that it took the Government seven weeks to reach a decision. I shall repeat that point, because the Minister obviously does not understand the farming cycle in Cumbria. During those seven weeks a certain amount of sheepmeat, some of which undoubtedly contained high levels of radioactivity, entered the food chain. If he is prepared to listen, I shall explain to the Minister how that happened.
  On 20 June, the Minister's restrictions covered most of Cumbria on both the high and low land. His hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is more aware of that fact than most. Many of the lambs that had been born early in the season in the lowland areas were
  334
  offered for sale at a local market in that period. I have checked that fact with farmers in Cumbria. They sent early born lambs to market.
  I do not make these allegations without having checked the facts. I am not a fool; I realise that the Minister will challenge me if I make general allegations. Therefore, I contacted the Meat and Livestock Commission and took as examples four markets in Cumbria; Carlisle, Kendal, Penrith and Ulverston. Carlisle market takes a number of sheep from Scotland, and I remind the House that parts of Dumfriesshire and Nithsdale are also restricted areas. The Meat and Livestock Commission advised me that at least 24,900 sheep and lambs were offered under the sheep variable premium scheme at those four markets during those seven weeks. They were judged by local farmers to be fat lambs ready for slaughter. Fat lambs were also offered to other local markets.
  I have given the figure for those four markets, but I have underestimated the number. There have been other well-documented assertions. The New Scientist claims that over 40,000 sheep entered the food chain. I stand by the figures that were given to me today by the Meat and Livestock Commission.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman says that thousands of tonnes of contaminated meat went on sale in Britain, but he has been unable to prove that a single tonne of contaminated meat went on sale in Britain. The reason that he has been unable to do so is because it did not go on sale in Britain.
  Dr. Clark: The Minister is getting so worked up that he is not listening to the points that are being put to him. I have quoted the figure of 24,000 bq/kg. He told me that the figure is somewhat in excess of 1,000 bq/kg. I have grossly underestimated the position. The other figures— for example, those in the New Scientist—are in excess of my figure. If one adds together those figures, one comes to at least 2,000 tonnes.
  Does the Minister believe that the 1,000 farms in Northern Ireland that are now restricted and that were not restricted last year did not have contaminated lambs? Does he believe that the 39 farms in Scotland that are now restricted and that were not restricted last year did not have contaminated lambs? Does he think that those farmers did not send their lambs to market? Of course they did. They are in business to make a profit, and their business is the breeding of lambs.
  Mr. Gummer: The farmers did not send those lambs to market, because they were under the size at which they could be sent to market. The hon. Gentleman is taking the contamination levels in one part of the country and applying them to another, thus frightening people by suggesting that they have eaten contaminated lambs. The hon. Gentleman is a disgrace.
  Dr. Clark: I apologise if I have upset the Minister, but he does not listen. Those lambs were offered and accepted for sale under the sheep variable premium scheme. They met all the necessary requirements. The Minister keeps on about the size of lambs. His hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border could tell him that we have low land in Cumbria on which sheep can be born early. A number of farmers have told me that they sent lambs from areas that were later restricted. If those areas were restricted on 20 June, is the Minister saying that they were

  335
  not contaminated two weeks or two days before? Of course they were likely to be contaminated, and that is the point that I seek to make.
  Mr. Gummer: When lambs that have been contaminated on the high land are taken down to the low land, for some time they are still contaminated. Therefore, the restriction order was put on to ensure that those lambs were not taken to market. The take-up of caesium occurs over a period. We know how long that period is. Therefore, we monitored lamb for that period and the moment there was any possibility of contaminated lamb above 1,000 bq/kg either in size or place, we stopped it going to market. The hon. Gentleman is attempting to mislead the House and the public.
  Dr. Clark: I do not need a lessen in elementary sheep breeding in Cumbria. I started my working life on the farms of Cumbria and I know more about that than the Minister. He said that lambs born in the high areas are brought down to the low lands for further fattening. He is right, but they are not brought down in May and June. They are brought down at the back end of the year and later in summer. The lambs that were sent to market were lowland lambs, born in early 1986, that ate grass in an area that was restricted.
  The Minister is having great difficulty in appreciating logic, so I shall move on to another topic. It appears that there was considerable confusion between the various Government bodies and Departments. It is quite plain that the Department of the Environment was not sure what the Minister of Agriculture was doing. That is serious, because they were dealing with the Chernobyl accident. We are looking at how we reacted to that disaster so that we can learn from it. Is the Minister convinced that the arrangements that have been in place for the past 20 months are adequate? I appreciate that ear-tagging was later undertaken, but could that not have been done earlier? If we have another disaster, I ask that he should consider ear-tagging at an earlier stage. Twenty-five thousand blue-marked sheep in Cumbria were monitored.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Did the blue paint wash off those sheep? The Minister has not mentioned the Cockermouth market. A senior auctioneer in the county told me today that many fat lambs would have gone through that market. Can my hon. Friend elaborate on that?
  Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) not only comes from Cumbria but is a food scientist who worked for many in the food industry. He knows a thing or two about the food industry. If the Minister talked to sheep farmers in Cumbria or the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, I think he would find that that blue paint washed off very quickly.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) was told of those lamb movements by representatives of the NFU in the county. He was told precisely what I was told when I inquired of farmers what was happening. I raised that in the House and it was pooh-poohed by the Government. That is in Hansard.
  Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend the Member for Workington also comes from Cumbria and I think that he
  336
  knows more about Cumbria than the Minister. A number of farmers told me that the blue paint washed off. I did not raise this previously because I thought it was unfair, but when the blue paint washed off, that resulted in the secondary sale of sheep and in sheep being mixed up. If the Minister checks, he will find that there was slippage and leakage in the system. I will not be more explicit, as I think that the Minister will accept that.
  On the basis of the monitoring of 52,000 sheep, the Minister released for slaughter the remainder of the blue-marked sheep on 27 February. However, thousands of other blue-marked sheep were sold outside the designated area in Cumbria. As the Minister told us in his elementary agriculture lesson, there is a pattern of sheep movement. Hill sheep move down to the lusher pastures in the southern counties. Many blue-marked sheep went downstream, so to speak, for fattening.
  In southern Cumbria one of the traditional destinations is Staffordshire. Those sheep, after fattening, went to slaughter in 1987. Yet, in a parliamentary answer on 24 November, the Parliamentary Secretary advised that no monitoring of any sheep was undertaken in Staffordshire. As the sheep had come from an area of known risk, would it not have been sensible to have done at least some sample monitoring prior to the slaughtering? I suggest that that is another point that the Minister might like to note as worthy of consideration.
  Some of the Cumbrian sheep went to parts of north Yorkshire for fattening, at which time it was thought that the area was free from contamination. Yet we now know that parts of north Yorkshire were affected perhaps as badly as parts of Cumbria. Why was there so little liaison between his Ministry and the Meteorological Office before the Yorkshire Post and I drew the report to the Minister's attention?
  I hope that the Minister was joking earlier. Is he satisfied that only 14 sheep out of almost 2 million in North Yorkshire is a satisfactory sample to monitor? That is very serious. Is he satisfied that no sheep out of almost 100,000 in south Yorkshire were monitored? Those were high upland areas. The areas in south Yorkshire were peatland and areas of high rainfall where monitoring should have been done 20 months ago. The Minister made the point, rather jokingly, that in Yorkshire a couple of weeks ago only two lambs were found to be over the 1,000 bq/kg limit. If there were only two in November 1987— it was a small sample—I wonder how many we would have found if we had done detailed monitoring at the time of the rain cloud in May 1986. That is the sort of question that has to be answered.
  I have a question on the Order Paper asking whether the Minister will undertake spot checks for radioactivity on sheep flocks in the five northern counties of England. By a strange coincidence, the head of branch C of the Ministry's northern regional office in Leeds, which is responsible for civil emergencies, is quoted as saying that a scheme is under way to make random checks,
  "and the testing itself began last week."
  I understand that press inquiries at the Minister's office evoke only denials of such spot checks taking place.
  That is what I mean by confusion between and within Government Departments. Quite simply, the left hand of the Government was and is clearly still unaware of what the right hand is doing. There appears to have been a complete lack of co-ordination. Today the Minister was unaware of the facts that I and my hon. Friend the

  337
  Member for Carlisle put to him about the blue-painted sheep in Cumbria. I did not raise that point, for obvious reasons, but the Minister did not know, and I find that incredible.
  The key point to emerge from the order and perhaps the cardinal point that came out of the Minister's speech was that we have not learnt the lesson of the events following 26 April 1986. It is essential that if ever there were to be another nuclear accident we should not repeat the mistakes we have made in dealing with the emergency after Chernobyl. That is not only my opinion. Other Government bodies recognise that the operation was far from satisfactory. Dr. Smith of the Meteorological Office, in his famous report, said:
  "To some extent Government and the nuclear industry at large within the United Kingdom found themselves somewhat disorganised by the sheer scale of the Chernobyl incident as it affected the United Kingdom."
  That is the point that we are trying to make.
  I end where I began, by saying that the Minister does himself no good at all with his hysterical outbursts, by his failure to address his mind to the order before us and by the sheer crass ignorance that he shows about sheep farming in Cumbria.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. David Curry: I would like to address my remarks to the position in my constituency. As you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the most recent stories have concerned my constituency.
  I should like to thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his assurance to my constituents that there never was a danger, there is no danger now and that there will not be a danger in the future. Those who have whipped up the crisis should now tell my constituents that—…
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify the narrow terms in which the debate is taking place? Am I not correct in saying that it relates to the county of Cumbria?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has only just started his speech. I have not heard anything out of order yet.
  Mr. Curry: The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) spoke about sheep moving to North Yorkshire. Therefore, as the hon. Member representing the constituency of Skipton and Ripon, I am taking my cue from him and referring to the matters affecting my constituents.
  Will my right hon. Friend confirm in his reply that there never has been a crisis, that there will not be a crisis and that those who have lived off the so-called crisis for the past couple of weeks now have to lay it to rest? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the tests undertaken with great speed by the Ministry after this story appeared in the Yorkshire Post—a story to which the hon. Member for South Shields attached himself with great alacrity — showed that only two ewes out of more than 2,000 were found to be above the 1,000 bq/kg level, which is 0–001 per cent? Those two ewes were in a flock of 70. They were all shearlings concentrated on a small patch of moorland in one part of my constituency.
  The only even relatively high count found on the grass, heather, lichen, or bilberry that was tested was on heather that came from precisely the same part of the moor. With most sheep now coming off the high ground and beginning
  338
  to eat feed, it is clear that even those low counts will reduce. I must seriously question whether it is worth continuing with the tests at the same intensive level.
  Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend help Opposition Members who said that even one ewe is enough by explaining that no ewes would be sold into the food chain until they had reached the end of their reproductive years and that the two ewes involved were breeding ewes?
  Mr. Curry: The entire herd consisted of breeding ewes, and they will continue to be used for breeding. The two ewes found to be over the 1,000 bq/kg level have been slaughtered, so they are not in a position to do any more harm.
  There are one or two suggestions that could usefully be retained in case we ever face the same sort of problem again.
  Clearly the problem in my constituency arose because of a very localised storm. The Meteorological Office draws up its data from local detail and depends sometimes on amateur observations using rain gauges. I understand from my researches that it takes about seven months to compile local weather data based on this local input and information. The significance of that local storm was not noticed until about February, about nine months after Chernobyl.
  The Ministry got the big areas—Scotland, Cumbria and Wales — right, but clearly it would be helpful if some means could be found to lessen the time for the compilation of data of what is necessarily a scattered series of observations.
  It would be helpful if we could be certain that the bodies doing the monitoring were reporting to one central point, so that all of the observations are sent to their intended destination. Those are two small management points, but nonetheless they are valid, given the circumstances that prevailed in my constituency.
  It was right of the press to bring this matter to our attention. Having done so, and it having been clearly demonstrated that there is no crisis, it is the duty of the press to inform my constituents and their readers that the affair is closed and that there is no reason for concern. When I read the press reports, I went to my constituency. I expected to drive up the Al and see the southbound carriageway blocked by my constituents, their furniture on roof racks, fleeing the area. However, I found to my great satisfaction that their good sense had prevailed and that farmers were still more concerned about the variable premium than Chernobyl fallout. That is a tribute to the good sense that they and the rest of my constituents showed.
  9 pm
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I did not hear the radio broadcast, so I am a little surprised by the heat that has been generated. I speak as a Cumbrian Member who has sheep in his constituency, and it may surprise Cumbrian Members that they are grazing on Rickerby Park.
  Those sheep are not affected by the order, but many people in Cumbria are concerned at the way that the Government have tackled the monitoring and control of sheep since the Chernobyl incident in the Ukraine on 26 April 1986. At that time, I was employed as a manager in a large milk factory just outside of my constituency. I was relieved, as were many other people in food industries,

  339
  when in May the Secretary of State for the Environment said that radiation levels were nowhere near the levels at which there was a hazard to health. That was reassuring, but it turned out to be the first of many misguided statements that were given by Ministers. At best it was a wrong guess; at worst it was a deliberate misstatement to lull people into a false sense of security. It is a sad state of affairs that if, 18 months later, there were a similar accident, the Government would be no better prepared than they were in April 1986.
  I shall recap briefly the events after the accident on 26 April. On 2 and 3 May we had severe downpours in parts of northern England, especially the Cumbrian fells and parts of Yorkshire. That rain contained high levels of radiation, especially of caesium, which is a substance that everybody admits has a half-life of 30 years. It was not until 20 June that any sort of order was made stopping sales of sheep. As if that were not bad enough, it was not until 24 June that that order was put into effect in Scotland. I am sure that the Chernobyl fallout did not recognise Hadrian's wall and that some sheep went to market in Scotland after the ban had been imposed in Cumbria, which demonstrates the inconsistency of the Government.
  On 20 June, a statement was made by the right hon. Member for Westmoreland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), who was then the Minister of Agriculture, and a Cumbrian Member. It says:
  "These present a satisfactory picture overall and there is no reason for anyone to be concerned about the safety of food in the shops."—[Official Report,20 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 1333.]
  The implication of the press statement was that this was a short-term problem that would go away; that although radio-caesium had a half-life of 30 years in adult animals, half-life is estimated at between 30 and 100 days, but that in lamb it would be shorter—between 25 and 50 days.
  People reading that would be happy to assume that this was a small problem that would go away. It reminds me of the statements that were made by politicians and generals at the outbreak of the first world war—"It will all be over by Christmas." We all know that the first world war went on until 1918. Some 18 months later, I bet that no Minister is prepared to tell us when the ban will be lifted from Cumbria. I hope that the Minister of State mentions this point.
  Today, I asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether is was likely that the ban would be lifted within the next 12 months. He said no. It appears that the problems resulting from Chernobyl could last longer than those resulting from the first world war. There are still 75,000 sheep in Cumbria affected by the order. One might have thought that the number would decrease, but it will increase to 150,000 sheep on 150 farms next spring after the lambing season.
  Becquerel levels in the county are still high. As late as last July, 4,000 bq/kg were found in a sample. I understand that the failure rate on the affected earth is still 5 per cent. and that often the sheep that fail have 2,000 or 3,000 bq/ kg. If the statements about the time scale of the problem were wrong, one could easily believe that the statements about the safety of the food in shops were wrong. If the
  340
  Government can be wrong on one, I am sure that they can be wrong on another. Can we really believe that no affected animals were put on the market?
  If the Minister is so sure, why has he not been able to produce the figures? Why can he not say that the authorities tested the sheep that went through the Carlisle market and found them below the stated level? The right hon. Gentleman cannot say that, because the authorities failed in their duty to test those sheep. If that obvious step had been taken, we would not have had to have this debate. We would have known for certain that the authorities failed to protect the public. I believe that some of the lambs that passed through the market should not have done so. The delay between early May and 20 June was a disastrous decision, taken by an unprepared Government.
  I have come to the Chamber not to destroy the confidence of the people of Cumbria but to restore it. If confidence is not restored, the county will suffer. Our farmers must be well compensated for the loss not only of lambs but of land values. We must ensure that the restrictions are severe and that anyone who breaks the rules is caught. I am not sure whether there are people in place who can find out whether the rules are broken. I am not sure whether there have been any prosecutions, but I do not want to go into that. We must restore confidence at the international level.
  The effect on milk has been mentioned, I think twice. The position in Cumbria following the Chernobyl incident was difficult. Many organisations that exported goods lost major orders in the traditional markets of Asia, Africa and South America. The becquerel levels imposed by those countries were much lower than those imposed by Britain and the position was not helped by our friends in Australia and New Zealand who went around saying, "You do not want to buy any milk from northern Europe because it is full of radiation."
  Milk with high becquerel levels, although below the legal minimum, was transported from exporting factories to the home trade, to the doorstep, to ensure that milk with low becquerel levels went to the export market. That is not something that we should be pleased about, and we must be ready for that——
  Mr. Gummer: Is the hon. Gentleman alleging that milk with dangerous becquerel levels was sold on the British market?
  Mr. Martlew: The Minister was obviously not listening. I said that the milk fell within the legal limits; I am sure that when the Minister reads Hansard he will see that.
  Mr. Gummer: I am not trying to catch the hon. Gentleman out, but he must remember that everything that he says is listened to outside. I want him to confirm that no milk was sold in this country that would be dangerous to someone who drank it.
  Mr. Martlew: I was saying that milk containing safe becquerel levels — but which would not be accepted abroad because safety standards are different — was transferred from factories here and sent into the home trade, while milk with low becquerel levels was brought into the exporting factories to go abroad. I am not saying that at any time we sold milk containing becquerel levels above those laid down by the Government.
  My next point goes beyond this debate. We must restore people's confidence in the safety of our nuclear

  341
  industry. We have a nuclear industry and we must ensure that next time there is an accident it does not involve a British reactor. Confidence has been so badly dented by the Government's handling of the aftermath of Chernobyl —no one suggests that the Government are to blame for the accident—that the only way to restore confidence is by setting up a public inquiry. It would be simple for the Minister to say, "We should have a public inquiry to sort out what is true and what is rumour." That inquiry should not only examine the actions of agencies, Government Departments and environmental groups; it should provide a code of conduct setting out exactly what needs to be done if such an accident happens again. We need a plan for the future. The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) implied that there were lessons to be learned, and I am not sure that the Minister has learnt those lessons.
  There are very few sheep in my constituency. However, like many other hon. Members, I represent many people who make their living out of producing food products. We must ensure that the general public are confident that the food produced in our factories is safe to eat. That is why I again ask the Minister to set up a public inquiry.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Gary Waller: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), with whose remarks I should like to associate myself, I wish to refer to Yorkshire. I do so in the full confidence that the order refers to restrictions throughout the United Kingdom.
  The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) called for a public inquiry. The difficulty with any kind of inquiry is that it would reflect what has happened during the past week since the story appeared that, unbeknown to everyone, levels of caesium that could conceivably have been dangerous to human health had been discovered in Yorkshire. We are faced with a dilemma, because the more the Government and other agencies attempt to reassure people by providing information and carrying out inquiries and tests, the more people inevitably feel that there is a problem.
  The test levels in this country are very conservative. It has been said that, if someone ate sheepmeat containing the levels of caesium to be found in Cumbria—I agree that we should certainly take precautions and monitor the movements of those sheep — the level of radioactivity that he would ingest would be similar to what he would experience if he went for a chest X-ray. It is right that, when such tests are carried out, there should be trigger levels which show when a level is above normal. However, it does not automatically mean that, because there is an abnormal level of radiation, there is a real danger to health.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will reassure both the House and those outside that the levels in Cumbria are considerably higher than those in other parts of the country, such as West and North Yorkshire.
  Because the information is inevitably technical, there is a great deal of scope for misunderstanding. Indeed, constituents have sent me, through the post, potatoes and carrots that they have dug from their gardens which they think might be contaminated. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend reassured everyone by confirming that no restrictions have been put upon vegetables in Cumbria, and that such restrictions have never been necessary.
  342
  Indeed, the arguments for restrictions anywhere else in the country, including my constituency, are even less potent. I am glad to see my right hon. Friend nodding.
  It is clear that panic stories will always be more newsworthy than stories that might offer reassurance. My constituents, like those of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, have been level-headed about the whole affair. There are lessons to be learned, and I hope that we will learn them. There is no doubt that the Meteorological Office did not pick up the heavy rainfall in parts of Yorkshire. However, it should not be assumed that, therefore, there are dangers to health.
  I hope that this debate will show people that they do not need to worry, that the level-headed attitude of my constituents is justified, and that indeed, it would have been wrong for restrictions to be imposed in other parts of the country in the way that they have been imposed in Cumbria.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Geraint Howells: Last week we were privileged to debate the Scottish and Welsh orders. I was not surprised when hon. Members on both sides of the House united to support the Government and the orders. We are duty bound tonight —with respect to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)—to support the Government. It is a very serious problem.
  I am a small hill farmer and have lived in Wales all my life. I understand the problems that have faced Welsh farmers. There are similar problems in the north of England and in Scotland. We owe a great deal to the staff of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and to the scientists who were involved last year. We must realise that the problem — something that we had never previously experienced—came very suddenly. Everyone involved at the time did their very best.
  I am aware that a few mistakes were made, understandably, on both sides. Of course, we could be critical of everyone involved, but I believe that, these few months later, we should in fact be paying tribute to the many people involved after the Chernobyl disaster.
  I do not agree with what the hon. Member for South Shields said tonight. I am not interested in the telex or in what happened between the Minister and the hon. Gentleman. We have a serious problem on our hands. I have been asked many times by my constituents and others how long the restrictions will remain in force. Will it be 12 months, three years or five years? Some have suggested that it could be 100 years before the restrictions are lifted. Those are the questions in which the public are interested.
  We are also interested in compensation. The majority of farmers have accepted the compensation that was paid to them, but it is more than likely that, for the first few months after the disaster, farmers who suffered were not adequately compensated. I hope that, when he replies to the debate, the Minister will assure the House that he will consider giving them better compensation.
  Today and last week, I have listened to hon. Members talking about the lamb trade. I have been selling a few lambs lately, and this year the lamb trade is more buoyant than ever. It is improving every week. I have evidence of that from selling my own lambs.
  Now and again, many of us who wear political hats of different shades say things that upset that trade. All of us who have said things that we should not have said about

  343
  the Chernobyl disaster should think twice. The hon. Member for South Shields and other Labour Members may disagree with the Minister about trivial matters, but they should remember that there are more important things in life. We are duty bound to look after the sheep industry and the consumers. I beg Labour Members to reconsider what they plan to do later this evening. Let us support the Government on this occasion and ensure that the orders are carried through, to the benefit of everyone involved.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Tim Boswell: The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) spoke with great generosity. I am grateful to him, because at the time of the Chernobyl incident I was serving in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as the special adviser to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). The attack that has been launched by the Opposition is an attack on the competence or diligence of the scientists and officials who serve the Ministry, and I regret it. It is misconceived, and I am grateful for the opportunity to add my voice to resisting it.
  I was interested in the figures given by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). It is always difficult to appraise figures given during a debate, but the 24,000 lambs that he mentioned could not have represented more than a small fraction of 1 per cent. of the total United Kingdom throughput of lamb. Indeed, it would be highly implausible if they did. To put it more vividly, the hon. Gentleman spoke about thousands of tonnes of lamb being contaminated. Even if we took the charitable interpretation—that only 1,000 tonnes of lamb had been contaminated — spread over 24,000 lambs, it would mean an average carcase weight of 40 kg per lamb. Of course, if it was more than 10,000 tonnes, there would be an average carcase weight of 400 kg per lamb. In neither case could the lambs have qualified for certification under the sheep variable premium.
  The Opposition are engaged — we have seen earlier signs of it, but it has now come to a head—in pursuit of what I call a pastoral fantasy, or Marie Antoinette politics, in which there should be one dosimeter to every sheep in the country and one radiac meter stationed in every field, no living thing can have a single becquerel in it, and there must be a public inquiry every month. If Opposition Members found themselves in the Garden of Eden, they would immediately demand a recount. However, these are serious matters and I want briefly to leave some thoughts with my right hon. Friend for him to answer tonight or later.
  My first point concerns the ingestion of foliage by sheep and the eating of those sheep by humans at the end of the food chain, which means that radioactive material goes into the body and forms part of the digestive tract. That is different from an application of radiation from an external source such as an X-ray. I am satisfied that the effect is slight, but I want the Ministeris reassurance, as there have been recent recommendations of a reduction in exposure to radiation in general.
  Secondly, I want the Minister to say something about the current research into the expansion of the nationwide coverage of radiation monitoring by local district
  344
  authorities. What steps can be taken, and how far has knowledge been expanded on the issue, to eliminate caesium in the peat and foliage that is eaten by hill sheep, so that their exposure can be reduced?
  Will my right hon. Friend say something about the European situation? I well remember playing a part in the European draft orders, and I want to know that the Minister is still maintaining the British position on the basis of scientific and objective evidence rather than some politically driven alternative.
  Farmers have not featured much in the debate, but will my right hon. Friend say something about farmers who are still in this position? Although not from the same part of the country, I am a farmer and I can well imagine the distress and inconvenience that they have felt, which is not helped by the promulgation of scare stories. I want an assurance that there will be continuing support for farmers for as long as it takes to work out the problem.
  Any Government faced with an unprecedented problem such as this have two duties: to be vigilant, and not to be alarmist. The Government have discharged those reasonably. No country was better prepared to handle the problem, and no country in Europe handled it better.
  9.28 pm
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) set out to justify advice that he gave Ministers a year and a half ago. Our view is that the advice that he gave them at that time was wrong.
  Mr. Boswell: On a point of clarification, the hon. Gentleman knows that I am not a scientist and I certainly would not have presumed to give technical advice to Ministers; nor would it have been proper for me to refer in the Chamber to advice that I might have given Ministers on that or any other occasion.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman referred to himself as a special adviser to Ministers, from which I perhaps drew the wrong conclusions.
  I want to draw attention to two areas in which the Government have been negligent. The first arises from the time that elapsed following the incident that took place at 1.24 am on Saturday 26 April 1986, when the explosion took place at Chernobyl. On 28 April, the Swedes were carrying out routine environmental monitoring following the triggering of high levels of radiation. They at once advised many of their farmers to take immediate action. The information held by the Swedes was communicated to most of western Europe. There are Ministers on the Front Bench who know that that information was made available to the British Government that weekend.
  No farmer in Cumbria in the areas that were subsequently to be restricted was ever advised about action to remove his lambs from the fells. No action was taken in the United Kingdom on Monday or on Tuesday, although by that time the radioactive plume was being carried across Europe. I understand that on Tuesday evening the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food started the sampling of fresh milk in the southern counties of Britain. Farmers in Cumbria were still not being told to remove their lambs from the fells or not to take them to market.
  On Wednesday and Thursday there was still no advice to farmers in Cumbria. By Friday the radioactive plume

  345
  had reached the south-east of England and the Ministry requested regular updates from the Meteorological Office on the plume's trajectory and on rainfall data. By that time sampling had been extended to cover vegetation, but still no action was taken relative to sheep farmers in Cumbria. I presume that by that time experts would have known that there would be damage to the fells, to the higher parts of Wales, to the constituency of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) and to parts of England—certainly to the Lake District.
  On the Saturday afternoon I was in my garden. In effect it is on the side of a fell, because I live at the bottom of Laterigg in the Lake District. It was a warm day with fairly heavy rainfall. That can be checked. That was Chernobyl rain that was falling, but no one had been alerted and there were no warnings. That was a week after the Chernobyl disaster but farmers in the county had still not been warned, and it was only on the following day that it was suggested that there might well have been some rainfall in the county that had implications for farming on the fells. There was no action for a further month.
  Questions were asked in Parliament, and that brings me to the second point of negligence that I lay at the Government's door. Farmers became worried about whether they would be compensated. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North is a farmer. Does he remember farmers asking him at that time whether they would ever be compensated? Sheep farmers are the lowest paid farmers in the United Kingdom. Hill farmers in the Lake District are certainly badly paid.
  During that time, lamb was finding its way to the market. Nearly seven weeks later, on 20 June, a Minister announced to the Commons that the Government would be prepared to consider compensation. He did not say that the Government would pay compensation, but that they would consider it. That further aggravated the insecurity in farming communities, certainly in the county of Cumbria, about whether any compensation would be paid. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) shakes his head. Does he deny that during that month he was called to a meeting and asked about the principle of compensation? Does he deny that worries over compensation by farmers in my constituency were expressed to him? He could nod to the Minister and the Minister could come to the Dispatch Box and deny it for him.
  In the second half of July, I was asked to come to a meeting of fell farmers in my constituency. I think it was in a farm house in the Newlands valley in the fells. A number of fell farmers turned up, and the conversation that went on for about one and a half hours was only about whether they would be compensated and the form that that compensation might take. Indeed, the farmers repeatedly referred to bankruptcy and what would happen to their livelihoods. People at the meeting spoke about giving up farming because they had not received assurances that they would be compensated.
  I was given a document at that meeting and a week later had an appointment with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in his Whitehall office. I made representations about the case put to me during that meeting with the farmers. It was not until a few days later that a further statement was made which, to some extent, gave the farmers some satisfaction. Even so, the farmers expressed their concern throughout August.
  346
  I believe that in the first week after the Chernobyl incident, Cumbrian farmers should have been alerted and they should have been advised to remove their stock from the fells which were to become contaminated because other farmers were advised to take such action in other parts of western Europe. I also believe that the principle of compensation should have been established from day one.
  On 19 March I asked:
  "Will the Minister give an undertaking that no hill farm producer of lamb whose farm has been subject to contamination as a result of the Chernobyl incident will lose money?" — [Official Report, 19 March 1987; Vol. 112, c. 1025.]
  The Minister should not have equivocated and turned his reply into one of his cynical little jokes or a hysterical speech about the need for me to admit that farmers were getting a better deal in the United Kingdom. He should have given me an undertaking that farmers would be fully compensated for every loss, so that farmers' minds could have been put at ease.
  I raised those questions a week and a half after the incident took place. I have been asking those questions for a long time and that is why farmers are concerned in Cumbria and why, at the end of the day, lamb leaked on to the market in the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark).
  9.36 pm
  Mr. Ron Davies: This is the third debate that we have had in as many weeks dealing with the consequences of Chernobyl. I particularly want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) for his glowing testimony. It warmed the cockles of my heart. He described his reminiscences of the exact sequence of events.
  It is important for hon. Members to realise that we all bring individual points of view to bear on this subject. In many ways the debate has been overshadowed by a remarkable contribution from the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who opened the debate and who will reply. His contribution was remarkable and I hope that in retrospect he will appreciate that it was not a fitting contribution. He dwelt at great length, and with unusually colourful language, even for him, on details about the radio interview that he had this morning with my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). He also referred to a telex, the parentage of which I gather he disputes. More of the radio interview and the telex later; I want to make one or two points first.
  The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), as I understand it, said that he had been a special adviser to the Minister in his previous incarnation. He subsequently denied that when challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington.
  Mr. Boswell: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the normal understanding of the role of a special adviser, and the position that I filled, is one who advises on political, not scientific, matters? The substance of this was essentially a scientific judgment.
  Mr. Frank Cook: What does that mean?
  Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) wants to know what that means, and so do I. "The Times Guide to the House of Commons"

  347
  account, which is no doubt based on information provided by the hon. Gentleman, refers to him as a farmer and a special adviser to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food between 1984 and 1986.I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman wishes to challenge the accuracy of that, he should take it up with the editors of that book. He acknowledges that he was a special adviser. I respectfully suggest that he should now recognise that he is no longer a special adviser; he is merely a politician like the rest of us, and, as a politician, he has to make political judgments. It does no good for him to leap to the defence of his erstwhile colleagues by saying that we are being unkind to civil servants. We are not being unkind to civil servants; we are exercising a political choice and engaging in a political debate with the Minister of State because there are points of substance on which we differ.
  At the heart of our case lies the question of the competence of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food particularly the relationship which exists between that Ministry and other Government Departments. I understand the concern of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), because my hon. Friends and I do not want to do anything to destroy the confidence of consumers or producers. The hon. Gentleman will understand that we have been careful about the language that we have used in this debate and in previous debates as we do not wish to upset that confidence.
  The essence of the Minister's contribution was that he made assertions. He said on three occasions that there were no contaminated lambs offered to market. That statement was an assertion and was the basis of the Minister's case. How on earth can the Minister possibly make that assertion? How can he say that there were no contaminated lambs offered to market? If he can come to the Dispatch Box and say that he and his Department monitored every lamb that went to market, and every lamb was below the action levels, we would accept that his assertion was based on some evidence. However, it has no justification, and the Minister is merely making a bold assertion.
  I remind the Minister and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North that the scheme is a voluntary one. It is not compulsory. The success of the scheme depends on the willingness of sheep producers to ring the Ministry and ask it to conduct examinations and monitor the lambs which they propose to sell. If I were to say to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North that that offers the opportunity for abuse, he will know what I mean.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: No.
  Mr. Davies: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman reflects and has some discussion with his colleagues further north in the Principality, he will realise what I mean.
  Mr. Howells: No.
  Mr. Davies: The Minister will know from contact with his advisers that, to say the least, he was ill-advised in saying that no contaminated lambs have gone to market.
  We should acknowledge the central role that MAFF has played in the events of the past 18 months. The Minister would have us believe that it was of no
  348
  consequence because the number of lambs involved was so small and the action level of radioactivity was so slight that it did not really matter so long as one did not eat lamb every day for a year. He was so satisfied with the safeguards that he was encouraging his pregnant wife to eat lamb. That was unwise of the Minister, because the order sets out penalties for those who breach the regulations. I think that the Minister will be well advised to respond to some particular questions. If he wishes to engage in frolics with his hon. Friend, I suggest he does it at a later stage.
  The order that we are debating — against which Opposition Members will vote this evening—lays down the penalties — an unlimited fine or up to two years' imprisonment—for anyone who does not comply with the regulations. In the light of that, the Minister would be well advised to recognise the importance of the issue. I wish to put three points to him. The first I will refer to as the Yorkshire case. The essence of the Governments response to the recent discovery of a hot spot in Yorkshire was that they dismissed it as a matter of no consequence because they had it all under control anyway. Apparently a small patch of heather moorland had been burnt and therefore had more than usually acidic soils which released the radio-caesium into the cycle.
  The Minister must tell the House why it was that not until subsequent questioning of the Meteorological Office gave an indication of the exceptionally heavy rainfall that his Department took an interest in the events in Yorkshire and in the discovery of the hot spot. It is fair to ask the Minister what discussions he had with the Meteorological Office during the period of heavy rain following Chernobyl which brought the radioactive cloud to Britain and washed it down into the earth. I think that we are entitled to know the relationship between MAFF and the Meteorological Office or, more properly, its sponsoring Department, the Ministry of Defence.
  I have mentioned the Ministry of Defence. Can the Minister tell the House the role played by other Government Departments? As I understand it, the Department of the Environment has a responsibility. Certainly the Department of Trade and Industry has a responsibility. Certainly the Department of Health and Social Security has an involvement. So, too, does the Department of Energy. The Home Office has an involvement. In the case of Scotland and Wales, their Home Departments have a responsibility.
  Yet the Minister would have us believe that, despite all the resources, all the scientific advice and all the staff that these Departments of State had, it required my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, in an interview with the Yorkshire Post, to bring it to his attention. That is the worst example of reactive government—waiting until a problem is drawn to their attention. Then the Minister gave us an overreaction.
  As to the telex, I had a brief discussion with the Minister behind your Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He has now acknowledged the existence of the radiochemical inspectorate. I understand that he denied its existence in an earlier exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields.
  Mention has been made of the telex, and I think it is worth commenting on it. The telex is addressed to the chief scientist of the radio-chemical inspectorate. That inspectorate, established by legislation in 1960, is required

  349
  to table annual reports to Parliament. The chief scientist of the radio-chemical inspectorate received the telex on 5 May. It says:
  "We have reliable information indicating the following as of 5 May 1986."
  The telex refers to alpha emitters having been detected at not insignificant levels.
  So we note that as early as 5 May 1986 the Government were aware of that. That is being charitable to the Minister and assumes that all the other Departments of State, with all their resources, had not identified the problem. But we know that the Department of the Environment was informed on 5 May because concern was being expressed to the Government's chief scientist in the radio-chemical inspectorate. Yet seven weeks elapsed before the Government took action.
  There may be a dispute between the Minister and my hon. Friend about the size of lambs which went to market. There is no doubt that on the figures produced and submitted to the House by the Meat and Livestock Commission, about 25,000 fat lambs were taken to market for slaughter and were introduced into the food chain during that seven-week period, yet the public were denied the protection that they should have been given by the Minister.
  Whatever else the Minister does or does not answer, I hope that he will acknowledge the existence of the radio-chemical inspectorate and that he will refer to the fact that it is the responsibility of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Therein lies the heart of the Minister's problem. He has to have discussions with other Departments of State. The attitude of the Department of the Environment was summed up earlier this year, and in 1986, in statements by two of his hon. Friends following the Chernobyl incident. The first was on 9 May, when the Minister of State said:
  "The problems from radiation would diminish almost completely over the next few days."
  He asserted 18 months ago, that the problem would diminish in a few days.
  Four days later, the Secretary of State for the Environment went one better. On 13 May, he said:
  "As long as there are no further discharges from Chernobyl, the incident may be regarded as over for this country by the end of the week".—[Official Report, 13 May 1986; Vol. 97, c. 569.]
  Eighteen months ago, the Secretary of State for the Environment gave an assurance to the House that the matter would be over in a few weeks, in full knowledge of the fact that contaminated meat was getting into the food chain.
  The substance of the Minister's argument this evening has been that the 1,000 bq/kg level is an action level. He said that he would take action as soon as any food was contaminated above that level. That comes a bit odd from a Minister whose colleague, three weeks ago, was trying to persuade us that the 1,000 bq/kg level was much too low. He tried to persuade the House that we should have a 5,000 bq/kg level. We are entitled to some consistency from the Minister of State.
  Mr. Gummer: Come on.
  Mr. Davies: I understand the Minister's concern, but he took an extraordinary length of time to develop his argument. Let me draw his attention to an article which appeared in The Guardian on 19 November. It said:
  350
  "Workers exposed to radiation have been warned that new evidence shows that they are twice or three times as likely to develop fatal cancers than was previously thought."
  That warning came from the National Radiological Protection Board.
  Given the wealth of evidence about the increasing understanding of the problems of radioactivity and the increasing concern about the problems of contamination, I hope that the Minister will realise that the level of communication between his officials and other Government Departments is inadequate. He is asking the House to support the order. To get that support, the Minister has to prove his case. He has not done so, and we shall vote against the order.
  9.53 pm
  Mr. Gummer: With the leave of the House, I should like to try to reply to the debate. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has made the serious allegation that fat lambs which were seriously contaminated got into the food chain without the protection that the Government claimed to provide. In that sense, he is warning people that they may have been endangered by what happened. They were not endangered. Under this measure, the Government will continue to ensure that they are never endangered.
  At the beginning of the debate, I challenged the hon. Member for South Shields to deny that this morning he had clearly misled the nation by saying:
  "Certainly I think the general population was probably basically all right, but for the 'at risk' group it's very worrying —pregnant people, young children etc."
  He suggested on the radio that young people and pregnant women who ate lamb should be worried. That is wholly untrue and he knows it. It is an outrageous slur and the fact that he could not reply to it shows both his own bankruptcy and the outrageous way in which he behaved his morning.
  Dr. David Clark: The Minister made some serious allegations, but there is one simple way to prove or disprove the matter. As the Minister and the House know, every person who is in possession of a sheep has to keep a sheep movement book. Why does the Minister not call in every sheep movement book in existence? Conservative Members may frown, but it is on this basis that we get our subsidies. I challenge the Minister to investigate every sheep movement book and then we can look at them publicly and see exactly where all the sheep movements in Cumbria were. As has been said, that would prove it once and for all.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for South Shields said that thousands of tonnes of contaminated sheepmeat got into the food chain. He knows that that is untrue. He cannot prove it and he is now flapping about trying to find some answer for the — I use the words advisedly — disgraceful behaviour of his hon. Friends and himself in the House and this morning on radio.
  The hon. Member for South Shields is trying to make so much fuss because he knows he has let the farmers down, he has let his party down and he has denied what his predecessor, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), said the whole time. It is within the House's memory that the hon. Member for Pontypridd was most careful to follow the advice of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells).
  We all agreed that we would tell the truth directly and give the figures as quickly as we could, but on no occasion

  351
  would we seek to use the natural fears of the people for party political purposes. The hon. Member for Pontypridd held loyally and decently to that. The hon. Member for South Shields has let himself down on this occasion. The House knows it, and no amount of baa-ing from the Opposition Benches will cover up that fact.
  The hon. Member for South Shields said that he had a telex in his hand that came from the chief scientist of the radiochemical institute. It turned out that that telex was sent to the chief scientist of the radiochemical inspectorate. That is what happened. The hon. Gentleman said the opposite—I have the transcript before me—and the hon. Gentleman was wrong. That telex came from an organisation that advises those local authorities that are opposed to nuclear power. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]
  The hon. Member for South Shields said that we have the highest action level in Europe. However, he failed to mention that the only two other countries in Europe that have problems with meat are Sweden, which has an action level of 1,500 bq/kg—500 bq/kg higher than ours—and Norway, which has an action level of 6,000 bq/kg.
  The hon. Member for South Shields has sought to use false facts and a serious misstatement about the telex to try to lead people astray and to frighten them. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made that clear and he was right to do so.
  I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr.Waller) that his constituents are quite right not to be worried about any radiation that occurred in that area from the Chernobyl disaster. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) is correct to say that it is the duty of the press to report all that has been said
  in this debate——
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Get the books in.
  Mr. Gummer: The scare stories that have been spread by Opposition Members are totally false.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gummer: No, I have only two minutes to go.
  The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) cast a considerable slur on my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). At no time was he told by his farmers that they were trying to avoid the system. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman for Workington must accept that that is also a terrible slur on British farmers.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let the record show that I never said what the Minister has attributed to me.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Workington——
  Mr. Frank Cook rose——
  Mr. Gummer: No, I will not give way, as I only have a minute to go. The hon. Member for Workington showed the close attention that he pays to sheep rearing when he suggested——
  Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has informed the House that he has only one minute to go. Will you tell the House whether that is an accurate statement?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate can go on until 11.30 pm, but I get the distinct impression that both sides of the House want to come to a fairly quick conclusion.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) also suggested that the farmers of Cumbria should have been warned that they should take their sheep from the fells. I wonder what the hon. Gentleman thought that they would do with those thousands of sheep. Perhaps they could have put them in the garden where the hon. Gentleman was at the time. What point is there in warning farmers to do something that they could not possibly do, and which would do no good anyway?
  The hon. Member for Workington asked about compensation. I merely refer him to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North, who feels that the compensation arrangements were, in general, suitable and proper in the circumstances. However, we shall certainly look at any particular cases that the hon. Gentleman raises.
  The truth is that Opposition Members have to shout from a seated position, because they know perfectly well that they have been caught out in scaremongering, dangerous talk, attacking the farmers and the people of Britain. The hon. Member for South Shields has not had the courtesy to apologise to the House, the farmers and the nation.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 135.

  Division No. 83]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Butterfill, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Allason, Rupert

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Amess, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Amos, Alan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carttiss, Michael

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Ashby, David

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Colvin, Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Atkins, Robert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Couchman, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cran, James

  Beith, A. J.

  Critchley, Julian

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Curry, David

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

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

  Body, Sir Richard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Day, Stephen

  Boswell, Tim

  Devlin, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter

  Dover, Den

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Durant, Tony

  Bowis, John

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Evennett, David

  Bright, Graham

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

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

  Fallon, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Favell, Tony

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Burns, Simon

  Forman, Nigel

  Burt, Alistair

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Butcher, John

  Forth, Eric

  Butler, Chris

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  353

  Franks, Cecil

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Freeman, Roger

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  French, Douglas

  Mates, Michael

  Fry, Peter

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gill, Christopher

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Gow, Ian

  Moate, Roger

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Gregory, Conal

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Ground, Patrick

  Nelson, Anthony

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Neubert, Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Newton, Tony

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Nicholls, Patrick

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

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Harris, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Page, Richard

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hayes, Jerry

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hayward, Robert

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Portillo, Michael

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Raffan, Keith

  Hind, Kenneth

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Redwood, John

  Holt, Richard

  Renton, Tim

  Howard, Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

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

  Riddick, Graham

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Howells, Geraint

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Ryder, Richard

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Irvine, Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Jack, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Jackson, Robert

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Janman, Timothy

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Speed, Keith

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Speller, Tony

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Steen, Anthony

  Knapman, Roger

  Stevens, Lewis

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Knowles, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Knox, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Lang, Ian

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Latham, Michael

  Thorne, Neil

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Thurnham, Peter

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Trippier, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Lightbown, David

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Lilley, Peter

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Livsey, Richard

  Wallace, James

  Lord, Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Wells, Bowen

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Wheeler, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Wood, Timothy

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mans, Keith

  Mr. Stephen Dorrell and Mr. David Maclean.

  Maples, John

  Marland, Paul

  354

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Litherland, Robert

  Allen, Graham

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Anderson, Donald

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Loyden, Eddie

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  McAllion, John

  Ashton, Joe

  McAvoy, Tom

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  McCartney, Ian

  Battle, John

  McFall, John

  Beckett, Margaret

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  McKelvey, William

  Bidwell, Sydney

  McLeish, Henry

  Blair, Tony

  McWilliam, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Madden, Max

  Boyes, Roland

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Marek, Dr John

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Martin, Michael (Springburn)

  Buckley, George

  Martlew, Eric

  Caborn, Richard

  Maxton, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Meale, Alan

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Clay, Bob

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Cohen, Harry

  Morley, Elliott

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Mullin, Chris

  Cousins, Jim

  Murphy, Paul

  Crowther, Stan

  Nellist, Dave

  Cryer, Bob

  O'Brien, William

  Cummings, J.

  O'Neill, Martin

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Patchett, Terry

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Pendry, Tom

  Dalyell, Tam

  Pike, Peter

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

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

  Prescott, John

  Dewar, Donald

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Dixon, Don

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Douglas, Dick

  Redmond, Martin

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Dunnachie, James

  Reid, John

  Eadie, Alexander

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Eastham, Ken

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Robertson, George

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Rogers, Allan

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

  Rowlands, Ted

  Flannery, Martin

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Foster, Derek

  Short, Clare

  Galloway, George

  Skinner, Dennis

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Soley, Clive

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Steinberg, Gerald

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Stott, Roger

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Strang, Gavin

  Henderson, Douglas

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Home Robertson, John

  Wall, Pat

  Hood, James

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Hoyle, Doug

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Winnick, David

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Illsley, Eric

  Worthington, Anthony

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Wray, James

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Lamond, James

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Alun Michael.

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Lewis, Terry

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (England) Order 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1893), dated 5th November 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th November, be approved.

  Sleeper Services (East Coast)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
  10.12 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the proposed withdrawal of east coast sleeper services by British Rail. I understand the difficulty that the Government are in, because there are well-established rules governing relations between Government Departments and British Rail, as it is a commercial organisation. It is an important subject and, because it also affects Berwick-upon-Tweed, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has indicated that he would like to speak and the Minister has indicated that he is not averse to that.
  I recognise that the Government have little role to play in the day-to-day management of British Rail. It is the management of British Rail that should shoulder managerial responsibility for decisions that are made. I also recognise that steps have to be taken to minimise financial losses. Profitability is rightly a major concern. However, having said that, I do not believe that the Government should be totally disinterested in or detached from the policies of British Rail and, in particular, its proposal to withdraw passenger sleeper services from Berwick-upon-Tweed down the east coast to King's Cross in London.
  I and others, including my eminent constituent the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), feel that the Government have a residual responsibility to consider the coherence of the rail network as a whole. I am certainly persuaded that the proposed change affects the network as a whole and I therefore argue that the Government should take a direct and keen interest in the change in services planned to be introduced in May next year.
  The profit motive cannot be allowed to override all other considerations. The national rail network cannot be reduced only to those routes that make profits on a clinical cost-benefit analysis. I submit that a rail network is a sophisticated and complex organisation whose contribution to the social well-being of our community cannot be reduced merely to accountants' profit and loss statements. The Government have a duty to satisfy themselves that the structure of British Rail's organisation is sensible, that the responsibility between departments within British Rail is appropriate, and that the yardsticks adopted for assessing profitability and levels of service are compatible with the Department of Transport's strategic transport plans.
  The way in which the InterCity division of British Rail is calculating the returns from existing services is seriously flawed and can be said to be short-sighted. The proposed withdrawal is rightly and vigorously opposed by public opinion across a wide spectrum of views. If the Government were not aware of the extent of the opposition to the proposal, I hope that the debate will remedy that. I should tell the Minister that the problem does not just stop at Edinburgh. There is widespread apprehension forth of Edinburgh in a northerly direction that the east coast service to Aberdeen is called into some question by the consequences of the proposal that we are discussing.
  356
  I have received extensive and sustained adverse reaction across a wide spectrum of local public opinion: from representative bodies such as local authorities, community councils, the local National Farmers Union and other business organisations, as well as from travellers and individuals simply concerned about the proposed plans. In case the Minister does not know, I should tell him that there is an emotional and psychological aspect to the public opinion that I recognise and share. The closure of the Waverley route in the Borders region in Scotland caused immense traumatic damage locally. The effects of that withdrawal are still felt and the fear of any future rail withdrawals or closures resurrects the unhappy memories of the withdrawal of that route.
  The proposal is viewed locally as another potential blow to the perceived economic importance of the area. It will have a profoundly depressing effect on business and commerce in the whole area and, whether it recognises the fact or not, British Rail is downgrading the economic status of the locality by virtue of its proposal. That is a matter of real regret and concern.
  It is not that alternatives have not been put forward. British Rail and InterCity's analysis of the present situation has been questioned realistically, sensibly and seriously. The financial vability of the existing routes could be considerably improved by a combination of a better service and improved marketing. Does it make sense to electrify the east coast route and then close large parts of it down overnight for passenger services? Those are important questions that remain substantially unanswered.
  I hope that the Minister can tell the House that this matter will be kept under review by his Department. I hope that he can allay fears that I have heard expressed recently that British Rail may even adopt the "feeder train" argument, if I may put it that way, to justify future reductions in daytime passenger InterCity services. That would make all London-bound passengers travel from Berwick-upon-Tweed to Newcastle or Edinburgh before boarding a non-stop or limited stop express InterCity train to King's Cross. That would be the beginning of the end of Berwick-upon-Tweed as a viable railway station. Berwick-upon-Tweed is crucial to the needs of my constituents and to the economy of the north-east. If sleeper services are withdrawn, it will be another significant nail in the coffin of the economic prospects and future of the region.
  10.19 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and the Minister for allowing me to take part in the debate and I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the subject. The presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), many more of my hon. Friends, the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) and others demonstrates the strong feeling that is aroused in the House and along the east coast line about this outrageous proposal, which affects areas to the north of my constituency and many to the south, including Tyneside and Teesside, whose only access to a sleeper is via Newcastle.
  It is not only sleepers but the overnight service, including nightrider trains, which have been popular with

  357
  students, young people and service men, that are affected. It is an extraordinary example of bogus accounting. The alleged savings are from one sector at the expense of another. The track is still there; it still has to be maintained and traffic will travel over it, unless British Rail has decided to lose all freight traffic. Apparently, the parcels division is in the process of losing the newspaper contracts. Seriously misleading accounting is leading British Rail to claim that it can make savings by abandoning the service altogether. On the contrary, it will lose, as some of its representatives have admitted in dicussions with hon. Members, a substantial amount of traffic to the airlines and coaches and it will fail to meet the needs of many of its customers.
  What has characterised the service on the east coast line, particularly the sleeper service, has been the complete failure in marketing. I do not accept that the service cannot be run as a significant and valuable contributor to the effectiveness of InterCity, but it cannot be done without sensible marketing. That has been done in Edinburgh, where an attractive service is being provided. It is being expanded with the provision of lounge cars, but none of this has been done in Tyneside. I have seen no marketing of any description of the sleeper services from Berwick-upon-Tweed southwards.
  Marketing also extends to fares. Business men can obtain an executive ticket on a sleeper from Edinburgh for £108. The same journey from Newcastle or Alnmouth will cost £130 for a return journey that is 200 miles shorter. That demonstrates that not even the slightest attempt has been made to market the service. Customers have been driven away systematically.
  For two months after a timetable change two years ago, British Rail refused to take bookings for the sleeper service north of Newcastle because it did not believe that it was still running, so one had to book to Edinburgh to get on the train there. It is ironic that somebody who is described as a marketing manager in British Rail has been telling hon. Members that the service is running at a loss.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: I did not want to interrupt the Adjournment debate, but I shall be brief. Is it not ironic that the same taxpayers—our constituents —will be deprived of this lifeline at a time of the year when flying is difficult and driving dangerous? Those same constituents must subsidise British Rail investment in the south-east for yuppie commuter services of £300 million per year.
  Mr. Beith: That is why, when it is withdrawing services, British Rail cannot expect hon. Members from the north and Scotland to support what it is doing in the south-east. It has produced a succession of excuses. It has changed the arguments that it uses to defend this decision. At every meeting that I have attended it has produced a different set of arguments and it has refused to consider compromises and alternatives designed to meet its desire to shift traffic at night from the east coast route.
  Different proposals have been put forward. I know that a northern group of Labour Members of Parliament has suggested an Edinburgh-Newcastle service via Carlisle down to Euston. I have proposed that BR should run a service via Birmingham, enabling some passengers to alight there on the way to Euston. It has refused these compromise suggestions and operated with a closed mind.
  358
  It is clear from the debate and the interest of hon. Members that we are not prepared to tolerate that closed-mind attitude and will fight until a proper service is guaranteed for the future.
  10.24 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell):
  I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is a regular user of the sleeper services on the east coast main line, and I can understand his concern at British Rail's decision to withdraw them from May next year. Running the railways is the job of the railways board—as the hon. Gentleman recognised—not the Government, and the withdrawal of sleeper services is a commercial decision taken by the board on commercial grounds. British Rail did not consult me or my Department before reaching its decision; nor did it consult me before deciding to start four new sleeper services, also from next May. British Rail has been trying to identify where the market warrants sleeper services and to provide them. It is withdrawing this one and starting four others. There is no reason why British Rail should consult me. Ministers do not intervene in such decisions, and it would be wrong for me to ask British Rail to change this decision.
  The Government's main role is to set the rules and disciplines within which BR operates and then to leave it the freedom to get on and run the business without constant political interference. That is why we gave the chairman a clear and comprehensive set of objectives in 1983 and again last year. These objectives have been very successful in helping BR to manage the railway efficiently.
  The Government have also set a date for the implementation of the policy first established by the Labour Government in their transport policy White Paper of 1977, when they stated that long distance inter-urban travel should not be subsidised. This is because the customer is ultimately best served by free competition between modes. That is why InterCity will not be eligible for grant after the end of this financial year. InterCity will then be like any other business—eager to find methods of creating, improving and retaining markets, but unable to keep going those which cannot be made profitable. Again, like any other business it will be reluctant to lose customers, which is why I hope that it has considered all the options for improving the east coast sleepers before coming to its decision.
  There is no doubt that the Government have given InterCity a big challenge but, after all, as the director of that sector said only a couple of weeks ago, he likes a challenge. There is also no doubt that InterCity is critically examining its costs and revenues as never before — a salutory and extremely important task for a business which has to survive in the market place. But I must stress that it is BR's job to decide how best to meet the Government's objectives. It runs the railway and it must take the decisions—anything else would be a recipe for confusion and inefficiency.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that British Rail seems to have gone to considerable lengths to deter customers on this line by providing a service and timetable that are almost unusable, not only by those hon. Members who have spoken but by people on Tyneside and elsewhere?

  359
  The proposed alternative is just not good enough. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to talk further to British Rail about this matter?
  Mr. Mitchell: I think that the most helpful way in which I can proceed in connection with the hon. Gentleman's allegations, and I hope that it will help the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, is if I draw the attention of the British Rail management to the points that have been made. It is right that, although the decisions rest with the board rather than with me, the board should be aware of hon. Members' views.
  The Government's objectives are not the only reason why BR has been considering the future of the sleeper services on the east coast main line. At least as important, ironically, are the major improvements which electrification will bring to that line. The fastest service from Newcastle to London now takes three hours four minutes, and after the electrification that we authorised is completed it will take some 2 hours 40 minutes. The daytime services from stations such as Berwick will be fast and efficient. After the enormous investment on the line, I think that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire can rest assured that those services will be much more secure.
  There are precious few places in this country where sleeper services are run for journeys as short as two hours 40 minutes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Manchester."] I shall come to that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Liverpool."] One does not do the journey to Liverpool in two hours 40 minutes.
  Precious few places have sleeper services on journeys as short as that. Indeed on many journeys to a London terminus taking that length of time no sleeper service is provided.
  The result of improvements to daytime services is that demand for sleepers on the east coast line is falling. British Rail tells me that during the 40 weeks up to 9 August, an average of 14 people used the Newcastle to London sleeper services in each direction every night. From other stations on the line there were even fewer users—less than two a night between Berwick and London and only one every five nights between Alnmouth and London. That might even have been the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
  The whole point about the changes that British Rail proposes is that they will provide a better timetabled service for those who seek to travel on the route.
  Mr. David Steel: Will the Minister accept from me that about three months ago I had an altercation with a senior civil servant, whom I had better not name, who was not aware that the service from King's Cross to Edinburgh still existed?
  Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which gives me the opportunity to reaffirm that civil servants do not run the railways. I am not surprised that they do not know the details of the timetables. It is not their job to know them; it is British Rail's job.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said that it would profoundly depress the economic viability of the whole area if the Berwick-upon-Tweed service was discontinued. On average, there are two sleeper passengers a night. I do not believe that the economy of the locality
  360
  is so fragile and so centred on two passengers a night that British Rail should have to provide that service at a huge loss. Moreover, the fare that those people are paying probably does not even cover the cost of stopping the train at that station, let alone all the other costs inherent in the operation.
  Mr. Beith: The Minister really cannot suggest that a return fare of £136 does not justify stopping the train, or that the key business men and entrepreneurs whom we try to attract to areas such as ours are irrelevant to the future economy of those areas.
  Mr. Mitchell: Of course I do not suggest that. In a moment I shall give the hon. Gentleman some figures which I hope will give him cause to think whether it is a proper use of resources to provide sleeper services for as few as two passengers a night—even if one of them is the hon. Gentleman.
  I understand that because the average usage from these intermediate stations is low, British Rail makes a substantial loss on the sleepers on the east coast main line. It has calculated the difference between its costs in operating the service and the revenue that it receives. This amounts to an average of some £35 for each passenger using the sleepers on this line. That is nearly half the first class fare, including sleeper supplement, between King's Cross and Newcastle, and more than half of the second class fare plus sleeper supplement between King's Cross and Newcastle or Berwick. To put it another way, the passenger pays only about two-thirds of the cost of his journey.
  This subsidy of £35 for each person making a single sleeper journey is at present paid by the taxpayer through public service obligation grant. From April it could only be paid by cross-subsidy from other passengers. I am not in any position to judge whether withdrawing the service altogether is the right answer, but I am sure that the current arrangements cannot continue. I understand that British Rail has considered various alternatives——
  Mr. Beith: It has not.
  Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman says that it has not. I am advised that it has. British Rail advised me that routing a sleeper to Newcastle via Carlisle has been considered but that it has been concluded that that would require an extra locomotive, which would be too expensive. Locomotives cost about £1 million each now. To have a £1 million locomotive to provide a service for the hon. Gentleman is something that, I think, he would not contemplate.
  Mr. Beith: Can the Minister tell me how the train gets from Edinburgh to Carstairs without the use of a diesel locomotive?
  Mr. Mitchell: There will be an electrified east coast main line at some future date. Currently, British Rail is proposing to provide a service on the west coast main line, which is electrified.
  What is important is the level of service that will be available to people from Berwick and similar places, and the degree of inconvenience that they will suffer. As I said, there will be a considerable financial saving for British Rail by not providing the sleeper service on that line. However, passengers can use a new service. It is important to stress that, although British Rail has not found it possible to route trains direct to Newcastle, it has made provision in

  361
  next year's timetable for people who use the service now. Passengers can travel by sleeper from Euston to Edinburgh. They will have the benefit of better terminal facilities at Euston and more comfortable sleeping compartments. First class passengers can use the new lounge.
  Passengers who use the new service will obviously be inconvenienced by having to change trains, but there will also be advantages — [Interruption.] If hon. Members will allow me, I shall spell out those advantages. People travelling north can have breakfast on the connecting train and still get to Berwick at 7.40 am — which is not an unreasonable time to arrive—and to Newcastle at 8.35 am. That is in ample time for a normal day's business. On the southward journey, instead of having to get a train that leaves Berwick just after 9 pm, has no restaurant car and gets to London at the inconvenient time of 5.10 am, the hon. Gentleman's constituents can catch a train at 22.30, on which they can have a snack. They then change trains in Edinburgh and arrive in London at a far more convenient time of the morning than they would have done on the old service.
  Mr. Fallon: I have the job of translating all of this to my constituents. Is my hon. Friend really saying that those of my constituents who want to go home after a long day's business in London will have to go to Carlisle, then up to Edinburgh to have breakfast, catch another train and go all the way back to Darlington?
  Mr. Mitchell: I am not suggesting that. People who want to go to Darlington can catch a daytime service, which is so much quicker than it used to be.
  I am not in a position lo judge whether British Rail has chosen the right way to deal with the undoubted problems of the sleeper service on the east coast main line——
  Mr. Beith: Why not?
  Mr. Mitchell: I did not form a judgment. I have simply advised the House of the information provided by British Rail about the service. I have undertaken to draw the hon. Gentleman's comments, and those of other hon. Members who have participated in this short debate, to the attention of British Rail management. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that I am trying to be helpful. It would be wrong if I did not give to him all the information that British Rail has made available that relates to the points that he has raised.
  As I said, I am not in a position to judge whether British Rail chose the best way. Nevertheless, something had to be done: there can be no justification for a subsidy of —35 for each passenger using such a service.
  Mr. Beith: That is not true.
  Mr. Mitchell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make that point to British Rail. If he can demonstrate that it is untrue, perhaps he will write to me, too, and I will ensure that his letter is discussed with British Rail.
  British Rail should not bear the loss itself. It cannot forget for a moment the competition that it faces. Its product must be adjusted constantly to take account of new patterns of travel. British Rail is taking off one very underused service and putting on four new services in areas where it expects more demand.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Where?
  Mr. Mitchell: I should be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with details of services in other areas.
  Such commercial decisions can be hard on existing passengers, and the House and the travelling public deserve a good explanation of the decisions taken, the reasons for them and the measures being taken to help those affected. It is clear from this debate that British Rail's explanation to local people has not been good enough. I accept that. I understand that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire will take up these points with British Rail, and I have undertaken to supply British Rail with a copy of the report of the debate. That is the right thing for the hon. Gentleman to do, and I hope that British Rail can satisfy him. I hope that he will remember that his constituents will soon benefit from the biggest single railway investment undertaken since the nationalisation of the railways. The investment of £367 million on east coast main line electrification will ensure that the trains are so much faster——
  Mr. Beith: Because they will not stop anywhere.
  Mr. Mitchell: —that many people will not need sleeper services. They will be able to reach Newcastle and Darlington in time for business engagements in the morning.
  But having said all that, I accept that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to answers to the questions that he has asked, and I trust that British Rail will provide those answers. But as he probes the matter, I believe that he will find that it is not as he envisaged it when he began this Adjournment debate tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Small Claims
  Small Claims
  Common Hold
  Common Hold
  Nevada Buildings, Lancashire
  Nevada Buildings, Lancashire
TRANSPORT
  Air Traffic Controllers
  Air Traffic Controllers
  Bus Services (Bexley)
  Bus Services (Bexley)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Motorways (Safety)
  Motorways (Safety)
  M6 (Maintenance)
  M6 (Maintenance)
  King's Cross (Fire)
  King's Cross (Fire)
  Maritime Transport (Ttaly-Algeria)
  Maritime Transport (Ttaly-Algeria)
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty
PRIME MINISTER
  Grant-related Expenditure
  Grant-related Expenditure
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Governors' Association
  Prison Governors' Association
  False Police Identity Cards
  False Police Identity Cards
  Bowling Green Hostel, Carlisle
  Bowling Green Hostel, Carlisle
  Prisons (Security)
  Prisons (Security)
  Michael Ryan
  Michael Ryan
  Advertisements
  Advertisements
  Fire and Civil Defence Authorities
  Fire and Civil Defence Authorities
  Electronic Data Systems
  Electronic Data Systems
SCOTLAND
  Road Accident Statistics
  Road Accident Statistics
  Private Operations
  Private Operations
  Schools (Easterhouse)
  Schools (Easterhouse)
  Community Organisations (Easterhouse)
  Community Organisations (Easterhouse)
  Family Planning Association
  Family Planning Association
  Still Births
  Still Births
  Residential Accommodation
  Residential Accommodation
  Rural Areas (EC Assistance)
  Rural Areas (EC Assistance)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Science Graduates
  Science Graduates
  Scottish Universities
  Scottish Universities
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Primary and Secondary Schools
  Primary and Secondary Schools
  University of Wales
  University of Wales
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
ENERGY
  Electricity Industry
  Electricity Industry
  Nuclear Power
  Nuclear Power
  "Land for Energy Development"
  "Land for Energy Development"
WALES
  NHS Tendering
  NHS Tendering
  Felinfach Creamery, Ceredigion
  Felinfach Creamery, Ceredigion
  Road Improvement (Aberaeron-Aberarth)
  Road Improvement (Aberaeron-Aberarth)
  Public Rights of Way (Gwynedd)
  Public Rights of Way (Gwynedd)
  Housing Waiting Lists
  Housing Waiting Lists
  Community Nursing Services
  Community Nursing Services
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
EMPLOYMENT
  Youth Training Schemes
  Youth Training Schemes
  Hotel Staff
  Hotel Staff
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Calves (Export)
  Calves (Export)
  Pollution
  Pollution
DEFENCE
  Trident
  Trident
  Army Air Corps (Beavers Replacement)
  Army Air Corps (Beavers Replacement)
  Office Technology
  Office Technology
  Weather Ships
  Weather Ships
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Deregulation
  Deregulation
  Telephone Boxes
  Telephone Boxes
  Electricity Charges
  Electricity Charges
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Support for Marketing Scheme
  Support for Marketing Scheme
  Film Industry
  Film Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Trade Figures
  Trade Figures
  Overseas Trade Figures
  Overseas Trade Figures
  General Motors
  General Motors
  Design Promotion
  Design Promotion
  National Quality Campaign
  National Quality Campaign
  Financial Services Sector
  Financial Services Sector
  Japan
  Japan
  Clothing Exports
  Clothing Exports
  Motor Car Imports
  Motor Car Imports
  Pearson Group (Takeover)
  Pearson Group (Takeover)
  Inner City Task Forces
  Inner City Task Forces
  Design
  Design
  Telecommunications Services
  Telecommunications Services
  Northern Region (Funding)
  Northern Region (Funding)
  Furniture (Flammability)
  Furniture (Flammability)
  Airbus
  Airbus
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Output
  Manufacturing Output
  British Telecom
  British Telecom
  Government Task Forces
  Government Task Forces
  CBI
  CBI
  Exports
  Exports
  Civil Research and Development
  Civil Research and Development
  European Space Agency
  European Space Agency
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  Cornwall
  Cornwall
  Invisible Exports
  Invisible Exports
  Postal Services (Rural Areas)
  Postal Services (Rural Areas)
  Job Creation (Foreign Investment)
  Job Creation (Foreign Investment)
  Alvey Programme
  Alvey Programme
  Public Purchasing Initiative
  Public Purchasing Initiative
  Leicester (Task Force)
  Leicester (Task Force)
  North Peckham Task Force
  North Peckham Task Force
  Manufacturing Profitability
  Manufacturing Profitability
  Copley Marshall and Co. Ltd. (Import Licence)
  Copley Marshall and Co. Ltd. (Import Licence)
  Steel
  Steel
  Civil Research and Development
  Civil Research and Development
  Industrial Competitiveness
  Industrial Competitiveness
  Shipbuilding (Scotland)
  Shipbuilding (Scotland)
  Electrical Appliances
  Electrical Appliances
  Chemical Industry
  Chemical Industry
  Inner Cities
  Inner Cities
  Space Research
  Space Research
  Industrial Investment
  Industrial Investment
  Rover Group
  Rover Group
  Exporters (Assistance)
  Exporters (Assistance)
  Charnley Davies Group
  Charnley Davies Group
  Torvinstyle Properties Ltd.
  Torvinstyle Properties Ltd.
  Departmental Finance
  Departmental Finance
  Telephone Answering Machines
  Telephone Answering Machines
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Paraguay
  Paraguay
  Film Industry
  Film Industry
  Chile
  Chile
  Foreign Affairs Council
  Foreign Affairs Council
THE ARTS
  Nitrate Film Stock
  Nitrate Film Stock
  Librarians
  Librarians
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Overseas Assets
  Overseas Assets
  Charitable Donations
  Charitable Donations
  Adjustment Policies
  Adjustment Policies
  Personal Equity Plans
  Personal Equity Plans
  Sub-contractors (Payment)
  Sub-contractors (Payment)
  European Currency Unit
  European Currency Unit
  BP Share Issue
  BP Share Issue
  Derelict Urban Land
  Derelict Urban Land
  Tax Evasion (Prosecutions)
  Tax Evasion (Prosecutions)
  Government Data Network
  Government Data Network
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  House of Representatives
  House of Representatives
ENVIRONMENT
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  Inner Cities
  Inner Cities
  Civil Engineering
  Civil Engineering
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Council Housing
  Council Housing
  Garelochhead Bypass
  Garelochhead Bypass
  Howbury Park
  Howbury Park
  Ramsar Convention
  Ramsar Convention
  Grant-Related Expenditure
  Grant-Related Expenditure
  Land for Energy Development
  Land for Energy Development
  Ozone Layer
  Ozone Layer
  Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission
  Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission
  Residuary Bodies
  Residuary Bodies
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  London Docklands Development Corporation
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Education Statistics
  Education Statistics
  Divis Flats
  Divis Flats
  Local Government
  Local Government
  Northern Ireland Sports Council
  Northern Ireland Sports Council
  Information
  Information
  North Downs and Ards Area Plan
  North Downs and Ards Area Plan
  Residential Accommodation
  Residential Accommodation
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Social Security Reform
  Social Security Reform
  Supplementary Benefits
  Supplementary Benefits
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Nirex
  Nirex
SOCIAL SERVICES
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Low-paid Families
  Low-paid Families
  Salazopyrin
  Salazopyrin
  Social Fund
  Social Fund
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Benefits (Newcastle upon Tyne)
  Benefits (Newcastle upon Tyne)
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Diabetics
  Diabetics
  Family Practitioner Services
  Family Practitioner Services
  Social Workers
  Social Workers
  General Practice Finance Corporation
  General Practice Finance Corporation
  Poverty and Unemployment
  Poverty and Unemployment
  Health Education Authority
  Health Education Authority
  Heating Additions
  Heating Additions

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

The Lord Bishop of Chester
Michael Alfred, Lord Bishop of Chester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Rochester and the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.

Disabled Persons' Home Equipment: Report
2.43 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester:My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when the report of the investigation into the supply and use of home equipment issued to disabled people is to be made public and whether it will contain the views of the voluntary agencies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security. (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, voluntary agencies with an interest will have an opportunity of commenting on the report if and when it is published. Although it is concerned with the role of the statutory authorities, welcome advice was received from some voluntary agencies and is reflected in its findings. A decision on publication will be taken as soon as possible.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, although I am bound to say that it does not reflect much progress since I asked a Written Question eight months ago. As the Government have repeatedly expressed their commitment to statutory and voluntary agencies working together, does not the noble Lord feel that this would be a good opportunity for such collaboration to take place before any decisions are made?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is not normal practice to consult voluntary organisations generally on reports produced under the National Health Service scrutiny programme. In this case however—and the right reverend Prelate will appreciate that it is a special case—the appropriate voluntary providers and contractors were approached.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Lord be surprised that I am a little worried when he says "if and when it is published"? Is not this report in a sense long overdue? Are we not talking about a good deal
596
of quite valuable equipment that is of considerable concern to the families of disabled and elderly people? Could the noble Lord not give a guarantee that the report on which he says there has been consultation with voluntary organisations will be published in order that we all may know its contents?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am not in a position to give the guarantees that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked for; but I would expect that in some form this report will indeed be published. We need to consider what, if any, advice to give authorities alongside the report. Until we have had our proper consideration, it is not appropriate for me to give the guarantees for which the noble Lord asked.

Nuclear Materials: Alleged Black Market
2.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the Channel 4 programme "Dispatches", of Friday 30th October at 20.15, in which the alleged existence of a black market in weapons-grade plutonium and enriched uranium was illustrated by reference to their alleged possession by Israel, Iran and Iraq, and whether they propose to take action to combat these dangers.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we are aware of the programme, but we have no evidence to support allegations in it of a black market in weapons grade plutonium or enriched uranium. We have full confidence in the present system of controls on such material. There is a long history of hoaxes in this field.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that his confidence may be misplaced? The information contained in the programme was of a factual nature and it seems likely that there is a large quantity of plutonium and enriched uranium floating around the world today, some of which comes from Sellafield or Dounreay. Is the Minister not aware that once a quantity of this material falls into the hands of Iran, Iraq or Israel, as has been asserted already to have taken place, the situation could be serious because it is only one stage from that to the hands of terrorists?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we are by no means complacent. Great efforts in collaboration with others are made to control the export of sensitive nuclear materials, and we keep a close eye on any attempts to circumvent those controls.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Lord give an assurance that no plutonium or enriched uranium of British manufacture is missing?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I can give that assurance in so far as it is possible to account for anything other than the tiniest amounts of such material. British Nuclear Fuels Limited and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority produce an annual balance sheet of material which is unaccounted for. The 1985–86 figures were published in November 1986, and they show no adverse trends and gave rise to no concern over either the safety or the security of United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and British Nuclear Fuels Limited plant.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if the ownership of nuclear weapons goes much further, as it will if the programme was accurate, that will go a long way to invalidating the agreement which is about to be signed between Russia and America? Secondly, is the Minister aware that Admiral Turner—who has been a friend to this country and whom some remember as Commander of the Sixth Fleet and later Director of the CIA—said in the programme that during his time as director he was aware of the black market and that one of the inspectors of the atomic authority is also aware that what has been said by the authority is not correct? Will the noble Lord look into the matter more thoroughly?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the International Atomic Agency reported in July that in 1986, as in previous years. the secretariat did not detect any anomaly over safeguarded nuclear material that caused it concern. Naturally, this area requires continual refinement in order to ensure that things cannot go wrong, but I firmly believe that the safeguards at present in train are adequate.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, while the Minister's reply to my question was reassuring, can he say how much of such material of British manufacture is missing in total?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, included in the 1986–1987 figures there are two instances in which specific items of material could not be accounted for. At Sellafield one piece of a broken fuel pin was missing when its container was opened. A subsequent inquiry concluded that it had probably been included with active stainless steel waste. The inquiry could not believe that it was outside the shielded facility at the Sellafield site. In a shipment of high enriched uranium coupons (18 grammes per coupon) from Winfrith to Dounreay, it was found that one can contained 149 coupons instead of a listed 150. An inquiry concluded that the weight of the evidence indicated that the missing coupon had been loaded into another can and therefore no loss had occurred.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the amount of processing now going on and the amount of plutonium that is passing around the world as a result of reprocessing in this country and elsewhere means that the situation is sufficiently grave to merit very close examination? If these reports are true—and many of them seem to be very factual—the consequences will be very great, almost unbelievable.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, of course it is a serious matter. But, as I said, we believe that the safeguards that we have and at which we continually look are adequate.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, can the House have an assurance that there is no such black market in Putney?

Common Land: Legislation
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they propose to honour the Conservative Party manifesto promise to safeguard common land on the basis of the Common Land Forum.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government have already announced their acceptance of the case for legislation based broadly on the report of the Common Land Forum, as published by the Countryside Commission in September 1986, and we intend to introduce legislation at a suitable opportunity when parliamentary time permits.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Can he be a little more helpful about the possible timetable? In view of the fact that this proposal appeared in the Government's election manifesto, one would expect that a little more attention could be given to introducing it. After all, we have waited 22 years for such legislation. Can the noble Lord say whether there is opposition from any quarter; if so, how real that opposition is; and what steps the Government are taking to deal with it?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I assume that the noble Baroness is referring to the views of the Moorland Association. Departmental officials have had two meetings with representatives of that association and the Countryside Commission. I hope that it will prove to be possible to modify the forum's recommendations in a way that will satisfy its requirements. We are seeking to find some arrangement that will provide for the maximum degree of public access to heather moorland commons which is consistent with the need for proper management of grouse moors and the requirements of nature conservation.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, is the Minister aware that during the two and a half years of the Common Land Forum's deliberations five whole commons were deregistered and hundreds of acres of grazing land were lost? To put it mildly, is it not likely that during the 15 months that have elapsed since the forum reported, further losses and depredations have occurred? Does not that add great urgency and importance to reaching a decision and taking action on that report?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am aware of what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has just stated. I wonder

599
whether he is suggesting that maybe there should be separate earlier legislation with regard to deregistration. The difficulty is that we are committed to the introduction of a comprehensive Bill. I do not think that it would be desirable to single out one particular item to be dealt with separately. Limited legislation of that kind would be unlikely to receive widespread support.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, will my noble friend draw the attention of his colleagues in the Government to this Question which shows that the Front Bench opposite as well as those on these Benches expect the Government to implement their election manifesto as quickly as possible, whether it concerns the safeguarding of common land, privatisation or the extension of educational opportunities in this country?
Lord Hesketh: Yes, my Lords.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am sorry to come back on this matter but is the noble Lord aware that the views of the Moorland Association, or at least the views of moorland grouse shooting interests, were made clear to the forum and that the final result was brought forward in the light of those views? I understand that the Moorland Association has 120 members. In view of the very large number of members represented by the other bodies, could not more weight be given to their views?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the interests of the grouse are also the interests of birds of prey, for example, and it is a very real problem. The trouble is that the interests of human beings and hen harriers, for example, are often very different. The last time I saw a hen harrier, she was not at all pleased to see me.

Computer and Business Studies
2.55 p.m.
Lord Molloy: 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 can confirm that computer and business studies are being removed from (a) the state school syllabus; and (b) the syllabus for city technology colleges.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Government do not intend that computer or business studies should be excluded from the curriculum either in maintained schools in England and Wales or in city technology colleges. Both subjects may be taught partly through the relevant foundation subjects of the national curriculum and as non-foundation subjects.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer which, on the face of it, seems to be reasonably satisfactory. However, can she state categorically that it is not the intention of the Government to split up the teaching of these subjects and make it part of the responsibility of those who teach
600
mathematics to teach the programming, or of those who teach English to teach word processing? Will physics teachers be teaching electronics? In other words, does this mean that neither business studies nor computer studies will be a subject to be taught separately? I should like to have a quite definite answer to that question. Is it intended to split up those subjects and fragment them, or will they remain as two important subjects of study on their own as hitherto?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that those subjects will continue to be treated as cross-curricular themes and that initiatives such as the TVEI will continue to have scope to operate. What has happened so far is that of the two groups set up earlier this year, the science curriculum working group has been asked to cover the practical use and application of computers and information technology and the mathematics curriculum working group has been asked to have regard to this and the development of economic understanding. The remaining curriculum working groups when set up will be asked to take account of other relevant subjects and these cross-curricular themes.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House now whether that would in any way affect the future of those people who have devoted their lives to teaching computer studies alone? Are we to follow in the steps of the United States of America, which is top in computer studies? In the USA, computer studies constitute a subject taught by specialist computer teachers. Are we to continue along that line or not?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there will be sufficient flexibility in the plans for the national curriculum to allow for both.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords. does my noble friend agree that, increasingly, computers are a tool by which pupils learn many subjects which will feature in the core curriculum and that computer studies as a discrete subject are for those who want to specialise in that subject? Is that correct?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. The intention is that there will be a continuing use of computers to cover subjects throughout the curriculum but for those students and pupils who wish to make computer studies a specialist subject, there is also scope for that to happen both in normal schools and in the proposed city technology colleges.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the purpose of the Question was not to find out what computers would be teaching, but to discover whether young people are to be taught how to construct and programme computers, so that they can then, later on, teach many other things?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am sure that a subject called computer studies must include some instruction on the method of creating computers.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, did the noble Baroness say that economic understanding should be dealt with

601
by the committee on mathematics? I can well understand that, to an econometrician, this might conceivably be appropriate. But economic understanding could possibly be better developed by people who do not come out of the mathematics faculties.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, economic understanding is again a cross-curricular theme which will be dealt with by a number of working parties that have been set up. I referred to that as a specific one, where instructions have already been given on those lines.

Business
2.58 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, after the end of the short debate on privatisation and before the short debate on alcohol abuse, my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Primary Health Care White Paper.
With the leave of the House, I should like, as usual, to say a word about the two short debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. It is customary in short debates that the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes, and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debates. In the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 8 minutes and in that of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, to 12 minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length, it would be at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate.

Privatisation
2.59 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra rose to call attention to the financial and economic aspects of Her Majesty's Government's privatisation programme and to the case for introducing effective competition, and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I believe that in tackling the question of privatisation this afternoon we shall be discussing one of the major policies pursued by the Government, in the course of which a number of enterprises have already been privatised and a number more are due to be privatised. It therefore seems to me that this is the right time to be taking stock of the situation.
I am indebted to those noble Lords, all of whom have considerable knowledge of the subject, who wish to speak in this short debate. I particularly appreciate the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, will be replying. I am also very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, should have chosen this debate for his maiden speech, because he is a person whom I have known for many years and particularly knew, of course, when he was Minister of Power in the late '60s.
In order to cover this ground about privatisation I think it is necessary, albeit briefly, to have a look at the history. It all started in 1945 with the Attlee Government when the major measures of nationalisation were taken. It has become popular since to criticise the so-called Morrisonian principle. It was Herbert Morrison who devised the ways in which these nationalised industries should be run. I personally can see nothing wrong with the Morrisonian principle. It was the way in which that principle was applied that went wrong.
The Morrisonian principle was very simple. It was based on the thesis that the basic services and industries of the country should be run under public control but by independent boards and that those independent boards should be left free to run the enterprises so long as they had regard to the public interest in all respects and that they broke even in their operations. I cannot think of a better way of putting it.
The trouble is that right from the start the thing went wrong. I speak with certain knowledge, because I was involved in one of these nationalised enterprises from 1947 right through to 1982, so I ran the whole gamut of all the political changes that we had in Britain in that period. And I can say that the very Attlee Government who thought up this major principle in fact prevented it from being properly applied, because in the coal industry—if I may cite that as an example—prices had been held during the war by what was called the gentlemen's agreement with the private coal producers and that gentlemen's agreement was imposed on the nationalised enterprise. The result was that when the energy situation changed in the 1950s, the coal industry of Britain, instead of having built up substantial reserves, had none.
That was one illustration of how it went wrong. But all governments, I am afraid, used the nationalised industries in this period, which lasted from 1945 to 1979—because that was when the present Government came to power—as a means of applying their policies. This was totally inconsistent, in my opinion, with those enterprises achieving commercial success and performing their duties according to statute.
So I have no doubt that changes had to be made. Indeed during this period such was the concern with this matter that three White Papers were issued—in 1961, 1967 and 1978—to try to correct these anomalies, but they did not do so. Some of these White Papers even introduced further anomalies which further complicated the situation. So I have no doubt at all that a different solution had to be found. The question we have to ask is whether the privatisation solution is the right one, and that is what I should now like to address myself to.
I have tried to work out what I believe are the Government's objectives in privatisation. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, will be able to correct me if I have left anything out. But having carefully read what has been said on this subject by government Ministers, I have come to the conclusion that there are four objectives. The first is the diminution of the public sector, which I can see from the noble Lord, Lord Young, is a correct one.

603
The second is to bring about the impact of competition and market forces on these enterprises; that is two right out of four. The third is to provide additional financial resources for the Treasury, and the fourth is to widen share ownership. It appears that I have got three right out four according to the noble Lord, Lord Young.
A noble Lord: Four out of four.
Lord Ezra: The problem is that I have not been able to put those objectives in order of merit, because the Government have somewhat changed the emphasis as time has gone on, as I shall now try to show. If you take the privatisations which have so far occurred they fall into two categories. The first category is those enterprises which were in a competitive situation and remain in a competitive situation—such enterprises as Cable and Wireless, Amersham International, Britoil, Associated British Ports, Enterprise Oil, Jaguar, National Freight and National Bus.
These were all, it could be argued, in a reasonably competitive situation. Therefore it is not unreasonable that they should enter the private sector and compete freely without the intervention of government. Generally speaking, they have all done fairly well, but then most of them were doing pretty well anyway; otherwise they could not have been sold. They might have done just as well under public ownership. We do not know. But I think that there is a case in logic for saying, if they are in the competitive sector, let them be fully in it.
But it is the second category on which I should like to concentrate; that is, the category of virtual monopolies in the supply of public utility services. I believe that all of us in this House and elsewhere in the country are a bit concerned about this problem. We have had two public utilities so far privatised, telecommunications and gas, and we have two more which are likely to be privatised according to Government pronouncements, electricity and water. The problem that we have found in your Lordships' House during the course of the privatisation debates on telecommunications and gas is that we felt that the competition objective did not seem to have been met in the proposals which were put before us and finally passed through the processes of legislation, which is a matter of grave concern.
What we have been faced with is that, instead of having public monopolies, we have private monopolies. The Government have taken the view that a private monopoly is better than a public monopoly so long as it is effectively regulated. But I must say that on this side of the House we have grave concern about the proposals for regulation in the case of those two enterprises.
If we take the position in relation to competition, for example, so far as telecommunications is concerned the Director-General of Oftel had an objective to promote competition. When it came to gas, however, the Director-General of Ofgas merely had to enable competition and that clause was introduced into the Bill only as a result of an amendment. So I must say that I come to the conclusion that, of the four objectives which I
604
identified, the competition objective seems to have gone into last place.
We are all aware of the problems that have arisen over telecommunications. The feeling, which is fairly general among the public, justly or unjustly, is that service has suffered in the interest of achieving good financial results. A lot of work will have to be done to correct that impression. In the case of the gas industry, whereas there is a quite substantial degree of regulation as regards the domestic market, there is none for the industrial market. The Office of Fair Trading is at present looking into that issue.
At the moment therefore there is concern about the way in which these public utilities have been put into the private sector. I wish to consider the two big candidates for privatisation in the future. They are water and electricity. The first thing that can be said about these two is that they are services and products which effect everybody in the country. Everybody has to use water; everybody uses electricity. So dimensionally they are much more important even than telephones—although no doubt we all use those—but certainly more important than gas, because not everybody uses gas.
This issue has to be treated with particular care. We have noted in the case of water that, whereas the Government started off by praising the integrated river system that has been developed in this country and proposing that the system should be privatised in its integrity, they have now changed their minds. They have now decided that the statutory powers of the water authorities should be given to a new authority and that they should retain simply the more industrial aspects of the business; namely, the supply of water and the treatment of sewage.
That change has created a strong opposition view within nine of the 10 water authorities. In other words, the management is not in support of what has been proposed. It is saying that the emphasis should be given to maintaining the integrity of the water supply system. Indeed I get the impression that it is saying that it would rather remain in the public sector and continue to operate the integral system than be privatised on the basis the Government are now proposing.
But there is a third problem. Even on the basis which the Government are now proposing very little competition will be introduced. Apparently the Government have not thought out ways in which by franchising, by subcontracting and by management contracts some element of competition could be introduced into the system. We seem to be falling into the worst of both worlds. We seem to be on the verge of giving up what is generally admitted to be a very successful integral water supply system and going into a system which even if it is split will have no element of competition in it. I think that this requires much further consideration before decisions are reached.
In the case of electricity exactly the same kind of argument applies, because we now have an integrated electricity system in which the grid, the generation and the distribution elements are totally integrated. That has led to our having one of the most secure and technically efficient systems in the world. There is no doubt about that. But the Government have said that

605
they want to introduce competition on privatisation. I agree with that principle, but the way in which that will be done has raised many issues. Only in today's Financial Times Mr. John Baker of the CEGB wrote an article on the subject in which he pointed out, in effect, that if the Government were to go ahead with what apparently they intend the lights might go out. We have the problem of seeing how this will be worked out. How will these basic integrated utilities be privatised in such a way that competition can be introduced without jeopardising security of supply?
I conclude by saying that I think these issues are so important, so complex and have led to such differing views both within and outside the industries that before the Government proceed any further with either of them they should put together all the options in a consultative document and let us have a major national debate on the whole issue. I beg to move for Papers.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, all noble Lords, particularly those on this side of the House, will be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for introducing this debate on what is after all one of the most important aspects of this Government's policy. The noble Lord began on an historical note and so shall I. Edmund Burke in his Thoughts On Scarcity in November 1795 remarked that:
"The moment that government appears at market all the principles of market are subverted".
That remark was not made by my noble friend Lord Harris of High Cross or indeed any member of what might be called the libertarian wing of the Conservative Party. It was made by one who is looked on by many as the prophet of the paternalist wing of the Conservative Party. It is a remark therefore which suggests that this country's tradition, unlike the tradition of our Latin and German neighbours on the Continent, was in the past one of free enterprise. That good advice by Edmund Burke obtained until the late 19th century.
Here again I dispute with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, as to when the beginning of that history was. After all it was nearly 100 years ago that Sir William Harcourt speaking from the Liberal Benches in another place remarked:
"We are all Socialists now".
He was probably referring to one of those companies—telephones—which has only recently been denationalised.
All of us know how in the course of the late 19th and 20th centuries the idea of public ownership took hold of the imagination of many members of the political classes of this country. I do not refer only to members of the Labour Party but to the Liberal Party, high-minded civil servants and in some cases to members of the Conservative Party too. Looking back, given the apparent failure of capitalism in the 1920s and 1930s and the terrible shock which the First and Second World Wars gave to the civilised order throughout the civilised world, we perfectly understand how the experiment of nationalisation was introduced.
606
I think, however, that many of us on all sides of the House—it is clear that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is among them—would now feel that that experiment of nationalisation had not solved all the problems that it was supposed to solve by the end of the 1970s. It had not solved, for example, the problems of dealing with labour relations in a very large workplace. It had not solved the question of how to raise money for public enterprises. It had not really even solved how to do its own accounting. Do I dream or have I read recently that before nationalisation British Telecom had only one accountant in the entire enterprise?
Nationalisation has not shown itself particularly responsive to public interest. I remember that I once asked a question in your Lordships' House about whether post could not be restored on Sundays. I was rather sharply sat upon by my noble friend who answered me, and I was told that it was not the Government's business to answer on behalf of the Post Office. But if not the Government, who was responsible? Your Lordships may guess that I became involved in an extremely long and abortive correspondence on that subject.
While this apparent failure was being counted we also saw the revival, as it seemed, of capitalism. In the 1960s and 1970s the products which really made people happy, such as food, clothing, holidays abroad and consumer durables, all seemed to be produced from the free sector. Far from seeing the end of capitalism in the 1920s and 1930s, it was evident that that was not going to happen.
Therefore, it is understandable that a government such as the one who are now in power and who are concerned with the freedom of the individual and with trying to increase responsibility should also be embarking on a course of privatisation. They have done so, as have many other governments throughout the world who have perhaps not embarked so fully on that course as yet and who are not specifically conservative governments. Such governments include social democrat and one or two Communist governments who have begun to re-explore the definition of the line between the interests of the state and the interests of the economy.
What must be and will be surprising to historians is that this Government were relatively slow in suggesting that a programme of privatisation could be embarked upon. It was not until 1984 that such a programme really began. Can the fact that it was only in 1984 that my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham joined the Government be significant? Perhaps it is not entirely that.
In conclusion, I wish to ask my noble friend several questions. First, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, made, as all of your Lordships will probably agree, a very good point concerning the difficulty of dealing with a private monopoly. We all understand the background to the nationalisation of British Gas. However, now that that has been done the lesson of British Gas should be learnt and in future, even if it be conceded that there should be a monopoly, consideration should be given to the splitting-up of the company, perhaps into regional units. We are all aware that there is a great deal of latent competition in relations between the unions which is now too often diverted and wasted in sporting rivalry.

607
Secondly, how long does my noble friend think that the so-called "golden share" which the Government continue to hold in nationalised industries will last? How long will the 15 per cent. maximum on an individual shareholding in a number of companies last? How long does he anticipate that the ban on foreign ownership, which has been mentioned and which is included in the Bill privatising some companies, will last? Does that provision not clash with the expectations which we all have for a revived European economy after 1992, when my noble friend Lord Cockfield has completed his work in creating a tariff-free and non-tariff-free union in Europe?
Thirdly, should not one of the privatised companies which we shall be seeing in the future consider the suggestion which was imaginatively made some years ago by Mr. Sam Brittan, whereby each adult member of the community should be able, upon application, to receive a share? There is a certain irony in the idea of a government putting up for sale the shares of a company which they had previously supposed belonged to them.
Although I have other interesting questions which I should like to put to my noble friend, I see that I have now spoken for eight minutes and I must sit down.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I intervene in this debate to express my anxieties over privatisation and the pending privatisation measures for the electricity and coal industries. However, I must first say that I am very concerned at the dominant privatisation theme in the legislative programme of the Government. It has become a fetish and a mania; it is not all for the good of our people and the nation.
As your Lordships will surely know, it panders to one of the worst instincts of mankind—that of greed. It creates an atmosphere that is generating a get-rich-quick society. In the South and in the City we have a generation of quick-quid kids. In the provinces, privatisation is egging on those with a few pounds in the bank to invest, buy now and be rich tomorrow. Thousands of our people may be taken for a ride, urged on by every privatisation measure. Who knows how many old people are kidded on to invest their hard-earned savings by mass advertising? They have been sucked into that maelstrom of get-rich-quick activity and have recently seen their life savings threatened with the slump in share prices. It is not over yet.
I believe that those human matters are part of the financial and economic aspects of the Government's privatisation programme and should not be forgotten. I ask myself, "What of our young people? How are they being affected?". A survey recently carried out by McCann Erickson revealed that British teenagers:
"have short-term goals and many are practical and materialistic".
It went on to say:
"The overriding discovery was the feeling that money was the doorway to modern life".
608
A similar survey was carried out in Europe. It revealed:
"that teenagers valued friendship and love above money. They also placed greater value on the welfare state than did young Britons who see wealth as the route to happiness".
In other words, the motivating force in life for many of our young people is materialism. What a reflection upon our society! The mania for privatisation is much to blame. That is the moral aspect of privatisation.
Now we have the Government pressing ahead with the privatisation of electricity and the possibility of carving the CEGB up into rival generating companies. They are now preparing the sale and, I fear, rigging the market with a massive price increase ready for the get-rich-quick privateers. They are allowing the CEGB the freedom to import more electricity from France and probably from Iceland in due course. They are doing that irrespective of the long-term threat to the security of our supplies. But, even worse, there is the encouragement to import more coal, all under the guise of competition. What I really fear is that that may well be the forerunner of privatisation of the coal industry.
My industry is the coal industry. I went underground at 14 years of age. I worked there for 14 years in a seam which was 1 ft. 10 inches high. Even the mice were bow-legged where I worked! I have served as a mineworkers' sponsored Member of Parliament for nearly 35 years and, as the noble Lord. Lord Ezra, mentioned, as Minister of Power in 1968–69. I have lived in Barnsley—a coalmining town—all my life. I have never left those from whence I came.
I have witnessed at first hand the severity of the recent run-down of the coal industry. What is disturbing is the recent ruthless drive to cut costs, become competitive and break even in a given time-scale, irrespective of the social and heartrending consequences in the coalfield. That creates tension in the pits, bitterness between management and men and wholesale unemployment with no real planning by the Government to offset the huge job losses.
I fear that this Administration does not have enough feeling for the misery, the heartbreak, the uncertainty and the hopelessness to be found in mining communities. They have no feeling for the widespread dereliction following in the wake of a rapid rundown of a major traditional basic industry. British Coal Enterprise is a laudable trier but it is only pinpricking the problem. That is why, from Barnsley, echoing all the problems of the British coalfields, the Coalfields Communities Campaign began. That campaign includes 77 local authorities which have banded together, representing 14 million people and expressing to Parliament and to Government their concerns and the fears and worries of the people they democratically represent.
In the Barnsley area, unemployment is 17.4 per cent. Male unemployment is 21.7 per cent. Those are distressing figures. Even now two more pits, Redbrook and Woolley, are threatened with closure and with the likelihood of another 1,300 job losses. There are no falling unemployment figures in Barnsley.

609
There is no plan to combat or neutralise that frightening and demoralising trend. There are now 46 unemployed persons in the Barnsley area chasing every one vacancy. There is a constant uncertainty in the minds of miners and their families. They see no hope, no future, no planning for stability in their industries and in their communities. They cannot budget for the future. Morale is at a low ebb; and trade too is depressed.
Now we have hovering over us the threat of privatisation of the coal industry. To break it up, to sell it off to private speculators, is going back to the pre-vesting days of cut-throat competition with district against district, pit against pit and man against man. And that they all fear. What an atmosphere in which to live! For the satisfaction of privateers, our coal miners, our pit people and their families, will have to suffer yet again. I give notice that I shall fend off this threat; and I sincerely hope that I shall have some support from your Lordships' House having given due warning of the danger that I see before us.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, it is a very real honour and a very considerable pleasure to have the opportunity of following the noble Lord, and to congratulate him upon his speech which was as robust as we would all have expected it to be. I think it is possible that not every word and every view which he expressed was shared totally by everyone in the Chamber. I believe I can take the liberty of saying on behalf of all noble Lords present that should be at any time decide to campaign for the presidency of the National Union of Mineworkers he will receive enthusiastic, unqualified all-party support. We look forward to hearing from the noble Lord in times to come.
Like many other noble Lords present, I have been at one time or another involved with most of the major nationalised industries. Like many others, I became convinced by bitter personal experience that the nationalisation programmes of the 1940s, 1950s—and I was still convinced as a late developer in the mid-1960s—did not in fact work to the national advantage, to the workers' advantage and certainly not to the consumers' advantage.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, said, there has been a growing recognition of this throughout the world. Even governments in Eastern Europe and the Chinese Communist Party are considering and discussing the possibilities of private as against the state ownership of industrial and commercial activities. Today total Pavlovian opposition to privatisation in principle is confined to the Opposition Front Bench together with some of the older members of the Albanian Communist Party.
We need to adapt the views of the past to be more in keeping with the situation and the conditions of today. There is no doubt that the introduction of a more competitive environment is one—and only one—of the important benefits of privatisation.
In a world-wide society which is very much concerned with the interests of the consumer, it is a
610
dangerous mistake to believe that there are not areas where some forms of competition can be positively harmful to the interests of the consumer. Competition of itself can become as much of an ideology as nationalisation. There are areas where it can positively damage the interests of the consumer.
Twenty years ago—a common opening to many comments made in this Chamber—the government of which I was a member considered a proposal for a direct rail link from Victoria to Heathrow at a cost of £11 million. The problem was that at that time all the main airlines ran their own bus services. The rail link could not be viable as long as the company bus services ran in competition with it. There was an argument within the government between those of us who wanted the rail link because we said it was cheap and efficient and others who said that to interfere with the right of the private airlines to run buses on that route was against the interests of the consumer.
We took a decision and the project was abandoned. The opportunity for a cheap and efficient link with the country's biggest airport was lost and never again will we be able to afford something on that scale. The irony and the paradox was that once that policy had been accepted, in due course the bus services vanished as well and the consumer was left with the option of a £20 taxi fare and a rotten journey.
I give that as an example of a situation where one has to be careful about becoming too obsessed and too uncritical about competition for its own sake. I fear greatly that we could make a similar mistake with the privatisation of electricity.
I have no doubt that a better service can be provided if we inject a considerable degree of privatisation into the present electricity industry in this country. There are many areas where it cannot or will not provide a service comparable to that which can be obtained from high street shops or local craftsmen. There are many areas, some large and some smaller, where one can criticise the levels of efficiency which exist in that industry.
In the particular case which has already been raised of the CEGB, there are very real doubts. Those doubts arise not because of some campaign of the CEGB. I certainly have not spoken to anybody from that organisation. There is effective scope for competition within the CEGB; but when one reads in documents published by organisations like the Centre for Policy Studies (for whom I have a great respect) that the board should be fragmented into as many as 10 or even more different undertakings, I must confess that I am horrified by the suggestion.
Throughout the world the trend is towards more integrated systems precisely because of the complexity of the electricity industry. In this country the problems are even greater than they are in many others. In the United Kingdom we are faced within the next decade with the need to de-commission the eight old Magnox stations. We have the problem of coming to terms with the AGRs; we have the problem of developing a nuclear strategy. I am in favour of a nuclear strategy which follows the Chernobyl disaster.

611
These problems are massive and it really would be madness to seek to pass those issues over to a multitude of newly-formed companies. The financial needs are colossal to be able to cope adequately with these problems. The costs of insurance and the capital requirements are so massive that these are areas where only a centralised authority can cope.
There are plenty of areas within the CEGB where private enterprise can be introduced. As I said in my opening remarks, there are times when competition can be pursued to the point of absurdity. Given the implications of the financial cost, operating efficiency and the nuclear programme, I have no doubt that such a policy would result in one of those occasions where we would have in fact pursued the right policy to the level of absurdity within one area.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ezra, who with his usual acumen very wisely chose this subject, must be delighted that already his own speech and the three which have followed have justified this debate even if nothing further were said at all. I add my congratulations to those which have already been expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Mason, on his splendidly uncontroversial speech. Long may we have that type of "uncontroversy", which, if I may say so, is something of which your Lordships' House is particularly in need.
So far as I am concerned, there are only three reasons for introducing privatisation: less Government control—which has to some extent been achieved; a more direct involvement of the workers in their industries—which has been very little achieved; and competition for the benefit of the consumer. Here I follow what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that the essential person is the consumer and that is very often forgotten. To my mind, competition is his best defence but, alas, so far it would seem that the interests of the public sector borrowing requirement and, indeed, large profits for institutions and, in some cases, for boards, have been more important.
If competition is to be effective, it must be effective in the areas in which the ordinary consumer is interested. It is no good saying that there is much competition on the air routes between London and Japan. The people in the north of Scotland want competition in the north of Scotland. That is where competition may count and where it may be difficult to introduce. With regard to that, I am totally unconvinced by the view that bigger airlines are going to provide a better service to the consumer or user. Certainly, that has not happened in America and I do not believe it will happen here.
There are many areas in which we cannot have competition and many areas where we ought not to have it. There are certain services which should not be run for profit and certain services which should be run on behalf of the people as a whole and where competition may be quite inappropriate. If there are cases where we cannot have competition then in my view, which is an old-fashioned one, the best security for the the consumer is parliamentary control. I have no faith in regulatory bodies or consumer
612
associations. They often become tame running dogs of the industries which they are supposed to control. However, a Minister has to defend what he is doing and, on occasion, he may be thrown out of the Cabinet or defeated at the polls, which is effective and very often the best control outside competition.
I also accept the view that the troubles are not wholly due to lack of competition. For example, I understand that the steel industry in this country has become extremely efficient, though it is still nationalised. Ownership and competition are, of course, two different matters. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, who follows me, has suggested that part of the troubles of the private monopolies which we have created is not so much lack of competition as the attitude of those who run them. I agree with that.
I believe that, where competition can be exercised and is properly exercised, it is extremely important and has been much neglected, but there are areas, apart from the issue of whether it should or should not be exercised, where it cannot be exercised—for example, the railway and other networks, pipelines and so forth. Here I follow the suggestion of my noble friend—which I am not sure he made this afternoon but has certainly made before—that we might look at the proposition of retaining the network under public control and licensing out its use to various users who may be changed from time to time according to whether or not they give a good service. That would seem to be a very useful line of approach and one which has not been much explored.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, also pointed out that there is something to be said, if we privatise companies, for breaking up regional or national groups. I agree that there are certain operations which should not be broken up, but there is a good case for allowing Scotland, for example, to run some of its main services. It seems to be big enough, can attract the capital and might develop a very useful comparison with colleagues south of the Border. Comparative competition is certainly worth something. I urge the Government in their future privatisations to look at that question, first retaining any networks, as they are to some extent doing, in public control. Secondly, the Government must consider treating Scotland, Wales and possibly the regions of England as separate entities.
Another point which has already been raised and which I wish to support is the suggestion that, if we want to achieve one of the main purposes of privatisation—to widen real control—we should consider not only temporary shareholding or small shareholding but far greater control in the public. We should look at giving out the shares more widely to the population. It was suggested that when oil was discovered in the North Sea, a share should be given to every family in this country. In principle that seems an eminently sensible suggestion and I do not know why it was rejected. However, I ask the Government to look at that.
As I have said already, it is quite apparent that these matters have received totally inadequate consideration. There are all sorts of both main and side issues which have been neglected in favour of

613
looking at the short-term interests of the public sector borrowing requirement and the needs of the Treasury. This is a matter of far greater importance. I fully support my noble friend in asking the Government to look again at these matters and to look at them in the long term.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in warmly congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Mason. All of us who served with the noble Lord in another place were not surprised to hear such a splendid contribution to our debate this afternoon. It leads us to look forward with even keener anticipation to future occasions when he will be released to indulge in full controversy.
I should like to pick up the point the noble Lord made when he talked about the prospects of those who have been beguiled by the advertisements into buying shares in privatisation issues and who now face the loss of their life savings. The fact is that the shares, if the holders have hung on to them, are continuing to show—with the one exception of Britoil—an extremely handsome profit, notwithstanding the recent fall in the stock market. Therefore, I do not believe that they have too much to complain of, as yet at any rate.
I am sure that all noble Lords agree on congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for introducing this topical subject. I was fascinated by his opening remarks about the desirability of the original Morrisonian concept. Listening to his highly experienced and historical perspective of how it all worked out, I could not help feeling that he made the Morrisonian concept sound a bit like Red Biddy—nothing wrong with the product, just the uses to which it had been put. I cannot help feeling that perhaps one followed from the other.
However, the noble Lord identified four arguments for privatisation and was generally felt to have scored four out of four. He also suggested that perhaps with time the competition concept had slipped back in the order of priorities. I am bound to say that I have some slight sympathy with what he said in that respect. I want to quote very briefly to your Lordships some remarks of my right honourable friend, the Minister for privatisation. He said that,
"activities such as electricity generation, the production and marketing of gas, coal production and sale, telecommunications … bus transport, sewerage treatment and disposal are in no sense natural monopolies".
I feel that I have been cheating, because that was my right honourable friend the Minister for privatisation in the autumn of 1983. Since then, we have seen some industries go into the private sector—here I am thinking particularly of telecommunications and the production and marketing of gas—under rules which perhaps have not gone very far to emphasise the absence of a national monopoly.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and certainly other noble Lords have suggested that we have witnessed a tendency in some instances, notably gas and British Telecom, although not all—for example, the privatisation of the bus industry where genuine
614
competition was introduced and achieved—not to break up monopolies because by maintaining them it maximises the revenue to the Treasury and enhances the prospects of a generalised sale to small shareholders.
That may have been a factor, but I cannot help thinking that there was not at least one other which was perhaps even more important, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond; namely, the influence of those who manage and operate these industries. It is clear that the main reason why British Telecom was put into the private sector, with only a somewhat marginal competitor to keep it on its toes, was the fond and, I think, deluded belief that it would achieve the co-operation or acquiescence of the British Telecom unions. That was similarly the case for British Gas. The real reason, I am sure, British Gas was privatised as a monoply was, frankly, that Whitehall was scared by the formidable presence of Sir Denis Rooke. I am afraid that Sir Denis himself had far too much to do with drafting the Bill which carried him into the private sector. I hope that we do not have a repetition of that situation with the electricity industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, expressed considerable reservations about the desirability, in all circumstances, of the enhancement of competition for consumer choice. I believe that the onus of proof is on those who believe that the consumer will be more satisfied by the perpetuation of a monopoly. The example the noble Lord cited of competition on the route to Heathrow was, I thought, surprising. He said that we are now condemned to travelling by taxi. That might be his lifestyle, but I must say that it is not invariably mine. I sometimes travel by Tube. It costs only £1.50, although it is not a very good service. I am sure that more competition—for example, the freeing of the taxi system—would not be unhelpful in that context.
In the case of electricity—to which inevitably, noble Lords have referred extensively—the key, surely, is going to be the relationship between the future electricity generating system and British Coal. As Mr. John Baker of the CEGB, pointed out in an article in the Financial Times this morning—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—coal accounts for 50 per cent. of its costs. Of course, it must be true that unless the CEGB, or its successor bodies, is released from its incestuous relationship with the coal industry there will not be much prospect of genuine operation of consumer choice in that area.
I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said about the complexity of achieving liberalisation and consumer choice in this area, but I honestly submit to my noble friend that the essence of the privatisation scheme is, and ought to be (as my right honourable friend who was then the Minister responsible for privatisation pointed out five years ago) the achievement of wider consumer choice. That does predicate the establishment of genuine competition. We do not want further legislation put before us, such as that for gas, which has been too much moulded and organised by those who run the industry.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, in rising to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for introducing this debate I

615
confine my remarks to matters pertaining to the electricity supply industry, with which I have been associated and about which I believe I know something of its scope and importance.
I start from the conviction—indeed, the proposition, given what has occurred in those industries privatised to date—that the possible privatisation of the electricity supply industry does not necessarily mean that we shall end up with a better or a more efficient industry. A recent study by the International Energy Agency concludes that there is no evidence to support the claim that private ownership always equals efficiency. Therefore, it follows that if the Government are determined to privatise electricity they cannot afford to get it wrong. That is self-evident. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, electricity affects every man, woman and child in the country. It is therefore clearly essential to put the customer first and to provide reliable and reasonably priced supplies of electricity which are competitive with other forms of energy.
In that regard I am pleased to note that the Secretary of State for Energy intends, so he says, to give high priority to customer service in framing his privatisation legislation. That is one area of the legislation which will be very closely examined as and when it comes before your Lordships' House. For example, there is much to commend a system of rebates to customers who suffer poor service. I consider that that is one aspect to which the Government should give serious consideration. Indeed, I understand that such a system already exists as a private scheme in the East Midlands area.
In my view, therefore, the electricity supply industry, if ultimately privatised, should be motivated by customer needs rather than methods of generation and the pursuit of technical excellence. I know that that view is not shared by everyone but, on balance, it is a view I wish to sustain. I recognise, as does everyone else, that the electricity distribution system is a natural monopoly, but the privatised retailing company or companies which result from the Government's reorganisation of the industry must be strong enough to strike hard bargains with competing generating companies and to deal effectively with rivals such as British Gas. In my view it is abundantly plain that generation is the only area where competition can be introduced into the industry.
Splitting up the CEGB is fraught with problems and that part of the present CEGB set-up which is at present giving the Government most concern is the national electricity grid. That ought to be a separately-owned organisation designed to encourage competition between rival generating companies and to ensure that the end users of electricity receive the cheapest possible supplies. In saying that, I part company with certain other noble Lords.
Of course, if privatisation is to go ahead the Government must draw up plans for a regulatory system for electricity, as they did for gas. I realise that the gas regulatory system has its critics, but if one studies the American experience one must reach the conclusion that the simpler the regulatory system, the
616
fewer disadvantages are built into the system. I therefore believe that the regulatory system must be simple and that it must ensure that electricity and gas can compete on an equal footing.
In an industry which impinges on most aspects of our national life, planning for the future is a necessity. Interruptions for reorganisation of the industry for privatisation and subsequent acclimatisation to the new structure must not constrain the new plant construction programme of the industry as it seeks to ensure a continuous and reliable supply of electricity in the years which lie ahead.
Those are the general remarks that I wanted to make. However, in these closing moments I want to be rather more specific. For approximately four years I was chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board. I fully realise that the hydro board remit is under the purlieu of the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, he, as it were, is caught in the slipstream of privatisation anyway, so I put to the Minister and his colleagues one or two thoughts to which I think they must give very serious consideration.
The hydro board was set up by the legendary Tom Johnston. Included in its charter was a social clause, the implication of which was to help to revitalise and regenerate the Highland areas of Scotland. The hydro board was sustained in this by his initial enthusiasm and by the continued support of my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock and his successors.
The hydro board area covers approximately a quarter of Britain's land mass but, in terms of electricity supply, is responsible for about 2 per cent. of Britain's population. The hydro board today can claim that more than 99 per cent. of the people within its area of responsibility are supplied by electricity. In other words, the supply reaches the remote glens; the supply, in subterranean fashion, goes under the sea to some of the islands; the supply of diesel generation in some of these other islands is sustained. All of that is totally uneconomic. There can be no question of that. How therefore does it continue and how is the continued link-up sustained? It is sustained because in terms of unit cost, the general body of consumers in the hydro board area subsidise it. The area open for competition in such a situation seems to me at best to be doubtful, and I seriously suggest that the Government should give very careful consideration to that particular difficulty in the hydro board area.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Ezra made absolutely clear in his admirable opening speech, this is a matter of the utmost importance. However, I hope that my noble friend will not misunderstand me if I say that I think that sometimes we attach too much importance to the basic question underlying this issue: that is, the question of nationalisation or privatisation.
Politics seems to have been monopolised and preoccupied with the question of whether certain essential services should be within public or private hands. Not only from my work in your Lordships' House but in another place too, and indeed from being

617
responsible for the running of a very major citizens' advice enterprise, I believe that what really matters to the customers who depend on these organisations for goods and services, or to the employees who depend on organisations for their livelihoods, is not who owns the shop but what sort of a deal it actually gives them in terms of accountability, sensitivity to their needs, and so on.
Unhappily, it seems that we have reached a situation where organisations upon which we depend for goods or services of one kind or another have become bigger and bigger. I like to see smaller enterprises; I think they can be made much more accountable, and they can be much more easily scrutinised. Nevertheless I accept that certainly so far as concerns the science-based industries, there really is no substitute for size. There have to be some very big organisations. However, I believe that in politics in this country we have never yet devised a satisfactory system of administering large-scale enterprises so as to make them competitive, sensitive to the needs of those who depend on them for goods and services, responsive to the needs of their employees and perhaps also responsive to the broader general needs of society.
The profit motive is not enough. I have nothing against profits, particularly if I am fortunate enough to have a share in them. However, I believe that what can be profitable in the short-term can sometimes be very damaging indeed in the long-term. Let me give a hypothetical example. If we move to the situation where water conservation and water supplies are privatised, and when most water supplies are metered so that people are paying in accordance with the amount of water used, there will then be a clear incentive to those who are selling water to encourage customers to consume more and more. That cannot be to the national good, although it could be to the good of the profit of the organisation. I do not believe that we are wise to see economic salvation at this time by persuading people to consume more and more of things of which we have less and less, and that most certainly applies to the field of energy. So I do not believe that the profit motive can be the only motive upon which the success of these organisations can be judged. In my honest view the one criterion—if not the only one—on which success really should be judged is that of customer satisfaction.
How do we judge that? I personally regret the disappearance of parliamentary scrutiny in many of these areas. I was much struck on another occasion some time ago by a speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in which he appeared to suggest that when we have exchanged what has been a public monopoly for an essential service and transferred it into a private monopoly, somehow we should devise a means of retaining some kind of parliamentary scrutiny. That is the kind of matter to which my noble friend Lord Grimond referred to a few moments ago. So I should like to see that; but how we are going to do it I do not know.
I am not suggesting for a moment the kind of absurd suggestion which the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, appeared to impute to some of us: that the day-to-day management of British Rail should be
618
conducted by your Lordships' House. I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the retention of parliamentary scrutiny in a monopoly, whether it be in public or private ownership, is very important indeed. Of course I acknowledge that the satisfaction and morale of employees is very important.
The noble Lord who has made an admirable maiden speech will remember that we saw much of each other in another place. He will also remember that as Minister of Defence he visited one of Her Majesty's Royal Ordnance factories, of which I happened to be the medical officer at the time. He will know that that Royal Ordnance factory is not privatised. I have no idea whether it is more profitable or whether its output is better; but I do know that the morale among its employees is nothing like as high as when it was in national hands. Therefore the whole question of employee morale is also an important aspect. However, I believe that somehow customer satisfaction has to be the most important criterion.
I should like to make one practical suggestion, which I hope the noble Lord will consider. In due course I should like to see the appointment of an ombudsman charged with the supervision of non-governmental essential public services. I know that we have Oftel; I know that we have the Gas Consumer Council and the other bodies. However, I believe that an ombudsman with the powers to examine complaints in industry and to examine papers and discover why those complaints have not been dealt with, would be helpful. It would be helpful not only in monitoring consumer satisfaction (which I believe is the most important criterion) but it would also be a means of raising the standard of consumer satisfaction. So I hope that when he comes to reply the noble Lord the Secretary of State will consider that suggestion.
4.10 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I sat for a mining constituency, and I should like to join in the plaudits to the noble Lord, Lord Mason, on his maiden speech. When he spoke about working a longwall 18 inches thick, I remembered how, when going down the pits in my constituency, I felt like the ham in a sandwich which was being squeezed. The resonance of a mining voice is welcome. Another aspect of the noble Lord, Lord Mason, is his patriotism. We all saluted his work as Secretary of State for Defence. We know him not only as a miner but as a patriot. He is very welcome here.
I should like to join with others and thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for introducing this debate. I shall return to his conclusion, with which I greatly sympathise. I will focus on the electricity industry, but first I must throw a couple of bouquets to the Government, of course in the nicest possible way. I welcome my noble friend Lord Young who is to answer the debate. I remind him, because it may not yet have been brought to his attention, that this House has no Minister, let alone one of Cabinet rank, in the Department of Energy. That department's treatment of this House has at times been condescending, if not off-hand.

619
Before the Secretary of State announced the last increase in electricity prices he wrote to all Conservative Members of Parliament, but he never bothered about us. I put down a dozen Questions to the Department of Energy for Written Answer after our debate in July. Noble Lords will probably agree with me that the replies were at best opaque. However, there is more joy in Heaven over one sinner who repents. So I hand another bouquet to the Secretary of State. He has now admitted to what we said in the House three and a half years ago: lights will be going out if by the end of the century we do not have an additional 13 gw of generating capacity. The Government have now recognised that need. How they will go about achieving it is another matter.
The Government have also admitted, although not quite so frankly, that the eight years during which no new generating stations were commissioned was a period of Conservative Government. I speak as a Conservative, and it is a matter which worries me all the time. However, I say, "Well done. Better late than never".
Will Her Majesty's Government still be in time on this matter? There is a 10-year lead time for building power stations. We have been promised six PWRs and four coal-fired power stations by the end of the century. But how can they be in place by then? We have been assured that privatisation will not interfere. But how will private enterprise, which is only to be in place the day after tomorrow, as it were, raise funding now for imaginary projects promoted by enterprises which will not be born for at least another year? What about the planning delays? I do not know the answers. But I hope there are some. I hope they are better than the ones we have hitherto received from the department.
Next, are the Government quite sure that four new coal-fired power stations can be in place by the end of the century? And if they are will they be free to buy their coal from wherever they wish? How many will be beside the seaside? What is the future for colliery-tied stations? Will, as the noble Lord, Lord Mason, indirectly suggested, privatisation affect British Coal?
The electricity supply industry, as is patent to anyone who reads the newspapers, is in a perfect tizzy at present. The Electricity Council, the CEGB and the area boards are all at one another. It is in that context that the Secretary of State summarised his national energy policy in The House magazine on 6th November:
"Economies grow best where markets operate … We want customers to be able to choose the energy they want".
What a policy statement! It is rather as if our national defence policy was couched in terms such as: "We want each part of Britain freely to choose how to defend itself". One can picture Trident for Kent and Chatham; Star Wars for Yorkshire and Fylingdales and Nuclear-free zones for Glasgow and Liverpool. The Secretary of State's words do not take us far, even as the germ of a philosophy. How does his philosophy, as it is set out, assure the provision of adequate power supplies? Competition does not assure it. When will the customer-first principle mean that Norwegian gas imports are acceptable from the Troll field? They have already been banned from Sleipner.
620
Does his customer-first principle mean that there will be freedom to export gas? The Written Answer I had on that was not opaque; it was obscure. Is the spreading of share ownership the chief aim of privatisation? If so, I am in favour of it on that count alone. Or is it (this is much more important) designed to obtain the cheapest power for industry? If that is the case, will the Government stop kow-towing to the environmental lobby à la Layfield?
To get their Bill through this place, the Government will need a Minister here from the Department of Energy. They will need to produce answers much better than those we have had of late. So I take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that in view of all the muddle and confusion that exists in the electricity supply industry, we should have a consultative document soon. I would put it a little differently. Could we please have a little glasnost—just a little like the Russians have?
4.17 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I must first do something that I have not done before in your Lordships' House. I wish to apologise for the fact that unfortunately this is one occasion when I cannot stay for the reply. There is an important meeting that requires my presence.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for introducing this debate, which has concentrated mainly on the two subjects that will occupy a great deal of your Lordships' time in the not too distant future. I fully agree with the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. We should have a consultative document on the privatisation proposals so that we can look at them in depth to see what is best for the future of the industries that we are discussing. It is possible that we may arrive at an acceptable consensus by doing that.
I join other noble Lords in complimenting my noble friend and colleague from another place on his forceful maiden speech. I am of course talking about my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley. It was a speech of the high standard that we have come to expect from him. It was delivered with some fervour. One has to live in a mining community (I do not) to understand people's fears and what pit closures mean in terms of the run down of industry, the loss of jobs, and the destruction of the area's social fabric. My noble friend did a tremendous service for that area and for the industry in which he has spent most of his life by bringing those matters forcefully to your Lordships' attention. We look forward to hearing from him many times in the future.
I do not wish to say much about the proposals for electricity. I do not always agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, but I think that he made the case far more eloquently and thoroughly than I could. He outlined the possible dangers to the industry of the Government's proposals. I can almost see the destruction of our power station development programme with all that means—a lack of overseas orders, and so forth. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, on that point.
None of your Lordships have said much about water. It would not do us any harm to take a minute

621
or two to look at that industry. Some of your Lordships will know that before the Recess I questioned the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, about the handing back of the water industry to the private sector. I challenged the fact. It was not a correct statement. They never belonged to the private sector anyway. That theme ran through the general election in some of the Government's press briefings. It is totally erroneous to say that the water boards, as they are at present formed, were taken from private people. They were not. They were owned in the main by the local authorities. I happened to be the leader of the Manchester City Council at the time when our water holdings were taken from us—I have to say without one penny in compensation. I stand to be corrected on the figure because it is a long time ago, but the holdings then were valued at over £280 million. The same thing happened to Liverpool, Birmingham and cities in Yorkshire; they were all taken over. A special Bill was passed, and they did not receive any compensation.
I tried to obtain from the Minister, by way of Written Answer, a figure of the notional value today of the water holdings that were taken over in the 1972 Act. He said that the information is not forthcoming. However, I have it on good authority that the figure is approximately £30 billion. Much of that would not have existed except for the initiative of local authorities in the past.
We shall have more time to discuss this issue when the Bill begins to emerge. Perhaps the Government will consider whether local authorities, if they wish, could put in bids to buy back at some form of reasonable discount, the facilities and holdings that were taken off them without compensation. If a totalitarian government were to behave in this way we should expect it of them; but we are supposed to be a democratic society. I can tell noble Lords that that action under the then Minister, Mr. Peter Walker, left a nasty taste in the mouths of many people in local government.
I should like to raise some points regarding a very recent announcement on privatisation, and on how not to do it. I refer to the Statement yesterday on BREL. Noble Lords who were present yesterday when the Statement was made will know that I quoted the Minister in a debate in another place last week who said that BREL had a future under British Rail. The quote is in yesterday's Hansard of your Lordships' House. Within a week he is making an announcement that they are going to flog it off. The workforce of BREL have not been at the top of the league in wages. They have never been a high-wage sector. They perform well. In the same reply in the debate in another place the Minister said that they had been 70 per cent. successful in their tendering.
I suggest to noble Lords that any organisation that is 70 per cent. successful in all its tenders has not done badly and would certainly survive, if my information is correct. But, no, my Lords! The Government have taken a totally unnecessary political approach to that system. We may well end up by losing a very important part of our manufacturing base in this country. Since 1982 our balance of payments in manufacturing goods has a deficit of over £7 billion
622
and is getting worse, not better. This type of activity, in my opinion, subscribes to that situation.
I am almost at the end of my time limit. I put this plea to the noble Lord who is a caring Minister. How would he feel if he were in the workforce in the BREL workshops? They have persistently raised this question as to whether they were going to be sold off or fobbed off. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, was himself a former chairman of British Rail. I believe that he would not have dealt with the workforce in such a cavalier and uncaring way. These 7,000 men—all that is left of a workforce of over 30,000—have done everything that is asked of them. They have behaved in a most reasonable way. They are now literally being flogged off in the industrial workplace to the highest bidder. That is the worst kind of privatisation, and one that we do not wish to see. Once again perhaps I may thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for giving me the opportunity to put forward this issue.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Basnett: My Lords, the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is most timely because after almost a decade we can begin to see the effects of denationalisation. It is timely because the debate has begun with reference to the privatisation of electricity and water. The privatisation programme has been costly: a direct cost of £700 million; an estimated indirect cost of almost £3,000 million; and a loss of direct revenue. For these costs and losses we were given the prospect of cheaper products, better services and wider share ownership.
However, it has to be said that that has not been significantly realised in those industries providing a widespread and widely-needed public service—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. British Telecom has been the subject of widespread complaints—a 116 per cent. rise, for instance, in complaints about bills. British Gas has weakened its consumer councils, and there are rumbles from industry about its pricing policy. In all the privatised industries only 4½ per cent. of the shares are owned by the employees, whereas in the gas industry 18 per cent. are owned by the Japanese. Some would argue—and we have heard those arguments today—that this is due to the failure to introduce effective competition. Others would argue—and I count myself among them—that the introduction of competition in naturally integrated monopolies where the public interest requires public regulation will not lead to lower prices or to better services.
Nowhere is that more true than electricity and water, where the Government struggle to reconcile what is irreconcilable. In electricity the national grid is the key to an integrated power system, an integrated system that is the best guarantee that the lights will stay on. Such a system ensures the lowest cost available power supplies are used at any one time. It ensures that substantial system savings come from the ability to plan well in advance. It ensures with its size and control a lower margin of power station capacity over demand.
It is not surprising that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission— which investigated the grid

623
earlier in 1987—accepted without question the logic of the integrated system. The question must be raised: on this issue are the Government prepared to repudiate the professional advice of the CEGB, of the engineers in the national grid; and, by taking the national grid out of CEGB control, hazarding the reliability of supply of electricity to the British people? It would do more than that, however. With the loss of efficiency there would be a rise in prices. Prices are already set to rise and we know the reason for that. But there would be more to come. If we set up the grid as a separate generation, it is estimated that such a step could add several hundred million pounds annually in costs.
Yet another question needs to be asked. Have the Government entirely abandoned the principles they laid down in their own legislation in the Energy Act 1983, that private generation should not increase the cost of electricity to the consumer? But one fundamental question remains. Our energy supplies rely almost totally on fossil fuels, the supply of which is finite. With no foreseeable possibility of a significant increase in renewable energy sources, our concern for the future must lead us to conserve and balance the use of those supplies. Can competition do that?
A number of other questions arise. Are the Government seriously content to allow private generating companies following privatisation to buy as much coal as they like from international markets, irrespective of the consequences for the British coal industry? Why do the Government seem prepared to require private generators to construct and operate a minumum proportion of nuclear power stations while the Government are not prepared to require them to buy even a minimum proportion of British coal? Can the Government seriously believe that companies smaller than the size of the CEGB, given the high capital cost and long lead time, could provide us with the future nuclear component we need in our energy policy?
Competition will not supply us with an effective energy policy. I hope your Lordships will support the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that the Government should think again and introduce a wider debate on this subject.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on what I regard as his boldness in bringing this Motion before us. After all, the fact that his formidable talents, devoted over a lifetime to the National Coal Board, did not produce a more fruitful outcome is, in my view, the most plain indictment of the failure of the Morrisonian model of nationalisation.
In readiness for the rather gloomy reflections of the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, I go back to my earliest Questions for Written Answer which I put down when I first came here as an innocent and happier recruit to your Lordships' House. In October 1980 I asked politely the amounts of taxpayers' money sunk into the nationalised industries since 1945. From the detailed Answer of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield—those were the days—I can summarise the tally as
624
follows. In the 20 years 1960 to 1980 more than £25,000 million was lavished in grants and in write-offs of capital and revenue deficits, in which the Coal Board was second only to British Steel. We must bear in mind the change in prices since 1978–79 and ponder that we are talking about something like £50,000 million at today's values.
It was the objective of the earlier pioneers of nationalisation to overthrow capitalist production for profit. How well they have succeeded. Was it their intention to enthrone losses as a way of life for a large part of British industry? We might blame the failure on the exploitation of monopoly power by the unequal forces of aggressive trade unionism and appeasing management. The symptoms, we recall, were over-manning, industrial unrest, weak incentives to efficiency, misdirection of capital and recurrent deficits. But in fairness I believe that we should dig deeper.
We find that the underlying sources of most mischief stems from the truism that public ownership unavoidably means political control. So-called public ownership in the so-called public interest was in my view always a fraudulent prospectus. It was never the public but the politicians who ruled the roost and still rule the roost in coal, steel, railways and electricity. I was not surprised that the recent arbitrary and in my view unjustified hoist in electricity prices was denounced by Labour spokesmen as being politically motivated. They should know. For years in power they and in their turn Conservative Ministers regularly played the party game in the same way. For years the investment programmes and pricing policies of the commanding heights of the British economy were the periodical playthings of Chancellors pursuing short-term electoral calculations rather than long-term economic objectives.
Elementary economic theory—as I hope the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will agree—offers strong arguments why public utilities should be vested in the control of government. But in the light of mature practical politics, I believe that there are still stronger arguments why the control of production should be put beyond the reach of politicians. Nationalisation was another example of putting the cat in charge of the cream jug but it turns out not to have been in the best interests even of the cat.
The worst error of nationalisation was therefore that it united economic monopoly in the same hands as political power. Friedman has long taught that where monopoly is inevitable the choice is between three evils: you can have private monopoly, public monopoly or regulation. We have tried public monopoly and found it sadly wanting. Now in British Telecom and most culpably in British Gas, the Government have fallen for a private national monopoly moderated by a severe regime of regulation. In Professor Carsberg they have found a remarkable regulator, who sees his job as simulating the pressures of a competitive market. If it will not damage the professor to say so, I know him and like him well and I have the highest regard for his qualities of both intellect and courage, which he will need. However, I do not think he would mind my saying that I have an even higher respect for the impersonal

625
forces of a competitive market wherever it can be activated. The more competition we can mobilise, the more we can rely on general laws and the less on complex regulation which must test the power even of Professor Carsberg.
Thus I come from a different route to support the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in his call for more competition in future acts of denationalisation. In electricity and water where competition in local distribution is ruled out, we must still endeavour to break up the monopoly of supply. I was disappointed that the noble Lord did not give a lead in calling for the denationalisation of coal, which was left to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne. The National Coal Board, after all, was always the most contrived and artificial of all monopolies, where competition could and still can bring the largest gains to consumers, employees, taxpayers and overburdened politicians.
That case was powerfully argued in a CPS paper by Professor Colin Robinson and Allen Sykes, a formidable academic and a long-experienced practical businessman. They have both now produced an even more remarkable paper which is entitled Current Choices. In this paper they discuss six options of which only two would offer the benefits of genuine competition in both generation and regional distribution. Their conclusion, with which I fully agree, is that all the monopoly expedients would be worse than leaving things exactly as they are, because if we left them exactly as they are at least it would leave open the competitive option for the future.
What I should like to say with some impudence from the Cross-Benches is that I, and I believe some others, expect rather more from the present Secretary of State than from his predecessor. But he has been served notice by many speakers that if he thinks of any repetition of monopoly-mongering on the model of British Gas he will not only bring his party's nationalisation programme into difficulty; he will bring it into final disrepute.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I should like to join with others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, on his maiden speech. Perhaps I may also echo the earlier remarks that I really look forward to the day when he makes a controversial contribution to your Lordships' House. Following my old friend Lord Harris, perhaps I may also say that I am sorry to hear that he has lost his innocence. I always thought it was his most endearing characteristic, and indeed what enabled him to be so effective in propagating his views. I must also tell him that I at least still believe in the correctness of elementary economic theory.
I should like to say a few words about, as it were, the history of all of this and disperse some of the mythology. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Dean, made one of the key relevant points. It simply is not the case either here or abroad that what happened was that efficient, viable private enterprises were taken into public ownership by doctrinaire socialists. We should not forget how many enterprises were
626
taken into the public sector because of private sector failure. That is the true history. Sometimes that private sector failure placed our nation in peril, and that was why these enterprises were often thought of as more appropriately being in the public sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, mentioned the importance of municipal enterprise. The reason we had so much municipal enterprise was that the relevant job was simply not done by the private sector, or not done properly. We should not forget the history of all of this when considering what is happening now. Nonetheless, I do not want to harp entirely on the past although I must say, following Lord Ezra's "four words" of what it was all about, that I have three points instead. What most strikes me is how well senior management in the privatised enterprises seem to have done for themselves. Perhaps I am wrong and I should assume that that was a purely chance effect, but I wonder.
They also pay considerable attention to their shareholders, and it seems to me that the great worry here is that consumers come last. I have to say—which is why I make the point of believing in elementary and old-fashioned economics—that I believe that the sole rationale for enterprise in any form whatever and the sole way in which to judge it is whether it produces at least cost goods and services that consumers want. That is the relevant criterion. Customers should not come last; they should always come first.
Although certain aspects of the privatisation programme can be discussed on their merits others just seem to me to be overwhelmingly doctrinaire. In particular I am most concerned about the sale of the remaining shares in British Petroleum—not about the debacle with the stock market crash. However, I wonder whether I am the only Member of your Lordships' House who really is worried about the fact that a significant part of British Petroleum is now in foreign hands, and allegedly in the hands of financial interests from Kuwait. There is a national interest aspect to this, even to those of us who would regard ourselves generally as internationalists in this country, and I should like to hear the Secretary of State's view on that.
Perhaps I may say a few words about the possible privatisation of electricity. It seems to me that there are only two solutions. Either we can find a way which is competitive both with respect to production and distribution, or the industry should stay in public hands. The idea of a private monopoly suitably regulated is worst of all.
I must tell noble Lords opposite that I have racked my brains to try to find a decentralised, competitive solution, partly for academic interest. I would genuinely like to be able to think it through because I think it is quite an interesting practical question. I have to confess that I cannot find a way of doing it without destroying all the advantages of optimising the grid system on which the efficient operation of electricity depends, as other noble Lords have said. Therefore, I look forward to hearing whether the Government have discovered, as opposed to the rest of us, some way through this problem.

627
What I shall certainly say is two things. I do not believe that the electricity supply industry has failed the nation. It might be able to do better, but the notion that we are privatising it because it has demonstrably failed the nation is absurd. I think there is a real danger, however, that a doctrinaire, privatised and botched competitive alternative would fail the nation and, to use that curious expression, the lights would go out. That is a worrying matter.
I said I would not harp on the past but what happened with British Gas was disastrous, because one could have found ways to decentralise British Gas to some degree and it would have been an experiment worth pursuing. It is a great pity that we did not have that experiment in order to learn from it. I also have to say that the position of British Telecom seems to me to be pathetic at the present time. We ought to look more carefully at whether we can introduce some degree of competition into British Telecom in those kinds of services, albeit at this late date.
More generally on competition—and I certainly believe that where possible competition is the best form of protection for the consumer—the Secretary of State is in a difficult position. In particular he is in a difficult position because one of the bodies most of us hoped might be of help to him in competition policy, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, seems to have simply lost interest in competition. As an economist, perhaps I may say that their report on British Caledonian and British Airways was simply absurd.
I pity the poor Secretary of State—as I gather he has no choice in the matter, given their recommendations—having to go ahead with a report which has no foundation in economic theory and precious little empirical evidence to support it. I throw that in en passant because my main concern is the future of competition policy and whether the Secretary of State ought to be thinking—and perhaps he will when the Liesner Committee reports—of alternative structures for promoting competition in this country.
There is not much more I want to say. I am somewhat sympathetic to Lord Ezra's view that we ought to think again and explore the matter further and have a consultative paper. I suppose that if the consultative paper were to consist of an argued, thought-through policy document by the Government, I should welcome it, but if it is simply to say a lot of anodyne remarks such as "We are going ahead", then I certainly shall not.
I conclude by saying that I believe in this area, even though there seemed to be some immediate gains on the government side from what they were doing, that we are storing up problems for the future. I for one certainly expect to sit in this House one day and hear Ministers from that side explaining to us why, in order to save them, they are having to take certain enterprises back into public ownership.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, it was a great pleasure for me to listen to the excellent maiden speech from an old colleague, not least because he brings to this
628
House a complete integrity of character coupled with, I should have thought, a unique combined experience in the highest political offices of the land and, as he has pointed out, in the lowest strata of the mines in which he was confined.
My noble friend Lord Ezra dealt, as far as he was able to in the time available, with the question of competition. There are other planks in the Government's programme and I want to deal first with that of the spread of share ownership. We have heard a lot about these 9 million additional shareholders, and I want, with your Lordships' patience, to share with you an examination of what this really amounts to.
There has certainly been a large addition to the number of shareholders. In terms of shareholdings, the proportion of shares held by individuals—which was the purpose expressed in the Government's programme of widespread share ownership—has made no impact whatever. I should like to justify that statement. Last year the number of shares held by individuals in all companies was 24 per cent. The number of shares held in privatised companies was similar and falling, because the longer the shares had been held and the longer the period since privatisation, the more shares were being sold. Individual shareholders in British Gas, for example, account for 28 per cent. of the shares issued; in British Telecom it is 23 per cent.; in British Airways, 14 per cent. That is the extent of the greatly proclaimed credit sought by the Government for having spread share ownership widely among individuals. It does not exist.
The reason is simple to see. First, the shares were spread extremely thinly when they were issued. Your Lordships will remember that the British Airports Authority allotted 100 shares to each of over 2 million applicants. Secondly, the method used by the Government attracted speculators galore; people who wanted to come in and go out quickly. By September of this year, on average over half the original shareholders in all privatised companies had sold out. That is in spite of the great inducements to hold on by way of bonus shares, discounts and so on.
Naturally, the earlier the privatisation took place, the greater the number of shareholders who had sold out. Therefore, when one examines the share registers of Amersham, for example, which was privatised in 1982, 90 per cent. of the original shareholders have sold out. Where have the shares gone? As we all know, they have gone to the institutions as before.
The Government may say, "What about employee shareholdings? Were they not a great success as regards privatisation?". Noble Lords can judge for themselves. Employee shares were offered on extremely attractive terms and any employee would have been extremely foolish not to buy them. In fact, 1½ million shareholders did just that. The best response was in British Telecom where no less than 85 per cent. of the employees bought employee shares at the advantageous terms. What happened next? For the first time in its history there was a strike at British Telecom. That is hardly the best argument to demonstrate that issuing shares to employees improves industrial relations in the way that is pretended.

629
It has become increasingly evident that the Government have only one overriding purpose. It was mentioned by my noble friend, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, shrugged his shoulders. It is to continue the £5 billion a year flow of receipts from the sale of the nation's assets in order to reduce taxation. It is that which is propelling the Government forward, no matter how difficult the market or how impossible the achievement of competition—which they now claim to be their prime objective although they did not at the time of the privatisation of the gas industry.
I should like to make my position absolutely clear. There is nothing wrong with selling assets in order to invest in other assets or to pay off the nation's debts. However, this Government are determined to carry on with this once-and-for-all sale of assets—assets which they hold in trust for future generations—and to misappropriate the proceeds by reducing the burdens of present taxpayers. The Minister shook his head, but I should like to ask him what advice he would have given as a practising solicitor to any trustee who came along and said, "I am proposing to sell the capital for the benefit of the present life tenants because it would be convenient for them, they rather like it and they rather like me doing it". He would tell them that it was a plain misappropriation and was not on. This is on all fours with that situation.
I ask your Lordships to bear in mind what is happening across the Channel in France. At the moment they have a similar-sized privatisation programme. They have used the whole of the capital receipts for capital payments. They have repaid government debts with part of the receipts and the rest has been further invested in the remaining public sector. In France the final outcome is that the value of the nation's net assets has been wholly maintained. In the UK the nation's assets have been permanently reduced. We know that it is neither prudent nor proper to use capital receipts in this way. I am bound to ask this question: when will the consciences of government supporters in both Houses compel the Government to halt this rake's progress?
4.53 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley on his frank, sincere and forthright contribution to this debate. In modern times it is good that moral values are occasionally brought into the consideration of our affairs. I enjoyed his speech enormously.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that one of the main objectives of the Government in their privatisation programme has been to provide money out of capital from assets realised at a fraction of their real value. Had that been done by local councillors it would probably have attracted the attention of the district auditor and resulted in their suspension from office. On a national scale, the privatisation proposals have been a complete scandal and the noble Lord knows that.
The cash received has been applied not in relief of taxation generally but in relief of direct taxation,
630
which carries with it obvious connotations. However, the main reason for the privatisation programme is simple. Expressed in economic terms, it is the further massive transfer of economic power back into the hands of capital. That is quite clearly the motive for it.
In introducing their original privatisation programmes, the Government were careful enough to list a number of motives which they tried out with varying degrees of success. First of all they privatised because they wanted to free the industries concerned from government interference. They abandoned that excuse when it was pointed out to them that in order to achieve that end all they had to do was to stop interfering. They then said that the real motive was to achieve increased efficiency within those particular industries. They abandoned that argument also when it was pointed out—and the figures are available—that the remaining nationalised industries, with the exception of coal and British Rail, to which special considerations apply, were also operating quite profitably, thank you. Indeed, it is noteworthy, as my noble friend Lord Peston pointed out, that the Government have been careful to privatise only those industries which were already making a profit at the time.
The third motive that was put forward was that in general ideological terms it was desirable to have people's capitalism more efficiently established. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, dealt very effectively with that argument. Of course power has not returned to the people. According to the chairman of the Stock Exchange, from whom I received a letter this morning, the total number of shareholders now is roughly 9 million. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, also pointed out that fact. The great bulk of the capital shareholdings are not in the hands of individual shareholders. Indeed, as the Minister knows perfectly well, in respect of all the industries that have so far been privatised—excluding for the moment BP, to which special considerations apply and to which I shall not refer over-much, being merciful to the Minister, who would probably prefer to forget it—the total number of individual applications for shares was 9,532,281. According to the latest data available, there remain 5,531,097 today. Over 4 million of the original individuals who made application for shares in those new industries have disposed of them. As everybody knows, they made a quick buck out of selling at the premium at which the shares were subsequently quoted.
The argument about the people's capitalism certainly cannot apply. If further illustration is necessary one has only to refer to the recent TSB meeting, which 480 shareholders attended in order to express their views. Unfortunately, those views were ignored and the chairman produced 10 times as many proxy votes out of his pocket. So much for shareholder democracy at company meetings!
No, the real purpose of privatisation is to pass back and reinforce the power of capital in this country. Indeed that is quite logical, because of course capital is now the power in this country, with the Government acting purely as its agent. The more quickly conditions are established for the operation of market forces—which is the avowed object of the

631
Government—the better will capital like it, regardless of the consequences, regardless of the social effect of the operation of market forces and regardless of the complete absence of priorities in terms of national interest, the environment or anything else.
This afternoon I was a little surprised to observe that after the length of time that has elapsed since the privatisation of some industries, there has not been very much praise for their performance in regard to the customer, who was supposed to be the principal beneficiary. I should have thought that the House would have heard loud, gushing testimonials today about how well these now private monopolies and privatised companies have been serving the public interest. We have not heard a word about that. No doubt when the Minister rises to speak, from his sheaf of papers he will provide us with his customary optimistic estimate of consumer reaction as perceived by him.
It will not wash. Privatisation has served that one ideological purpose only and the time is not far distant—particularly in view of the events of 19th October on the London Stock Exchange—when the people will realise that they are already committed by the Government not only to a casino-like Stock Exchange and futures market but also that the fate of British industry is in the hands of forces that the Government themselves cannot and do not wish to control.
5.6 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, I also should like to join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and say how grateful I am to him for initiating this debate today. It is perhaps a great opportunity to put right some of the misconceptions that appear fairly prevalent in your Lordships' House this afternoon, first about the Government's policy; and, secondly, about the record in the nationalised industry sector over the past 30 or more years, and certainly about the aims of nationalisation.
All of us, whichever side of the House we sit on, look to find ways in which we can govern the country and help its economy in a way that will produce a fairer society which distributes its benefits to all its members. In order to do that we must have a more prosperous society; and surely, above all else, that should have been realised over the past three or four decades. Looking at the long history of the experiment of nationalisation, we realise that although it may have produced many things, it did not produce a good economic record in those industries, whatever may be said now.
I freely confess that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, receives three marks out of four for his account of the objectives of privatisation of the nationalised industries; but it did not produce money for the Treasury. A little later on in winding up this debate I hope to deal with that topic. However, there is one essential difference between those industries then and now which I should like to point out and which could perhaps serve as an answer to many of your Lordships' remarks this afternoon. The difference
632
between the old nationalised industry sector and the present private monopolies, albeit they are monopolies, is that today it is worthwhile complaining. Today people complain about British Telecom and have mounted a large campaign. I can assure all noble Lords that each and every director of British Telecom is fully aware that the service is not perfect. But who complained in 1980? No one. No one complained because there was no one to listen. Should we remember those good old days when we had a choice between two telephones—a Trimphone or nothing? Consider the choice that one has today. Look at the services available.
Let us remember the time when there were 4,000 privileged people in the country who could have a car telephone because the monopoly was held by BritishTelecom and no one else. Today there is over 90 per cent. coverage of the country and 220,000 people share the benefits of having cellular telephones from Racal or Cellnet. Some estimates say that there will be half a million by 1990. All that was denied to the people of the country because a nationalised industry held the monopoly.
One has to look not only at the conduct of the industries themselves but in the realm of what else came from privatisation. Incidentally, at least 5,000 new jobs have been created by that one small matter.
I should also like to say, speaking generally, that I have heard a great deal of criticism this afternoon about our plans for privatising the electricity industry. Those plans have yet to be formulated. Consultations have yet to take place. We have to consider what will be best for the economic future of our country and our citizens. It there is one constant it is surely resistant to change and if there is one truth, one that we should try to live with, it is that we should look with our eyes open at what is being proposed, when it is being proposed, and then to see if it will actually work and therefore be worth doing.
If I may make a minor prophecy, it is that when our plans do come forward they will come forward conscious of the need for us to ensure that we will have a supply of electricity available well into the 21st century and that we shall be conscious of the need for competition to ensure that this supply will be competitive for the whole of British industry and commerce.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that he should also look at this matter in some detail. I hope that the noble Lord will then take the opportunity of raising the matter at that time, as indeed when we come on to matters dealing with other industries.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Thomas of Swynnerton. Alas! he pays me too much credit because it was nothing to do with my arrival in the Government in 1984 that the privatisation programme did not date from there. However, I can take some credit for an earlier period. My first job, when I was special adviser to the then Secretary of State for Industry, was privatisation. Indeed, Cable and Wireless, British Aerospace and Amersham International are all companies which have flourished since they have gone into the private sector.

633
I think that not many of us in this House can recall that when Cable and Wireless were actually privatised the total market value of the company—a company whose market share was shrinking—was some £460 million. It was nearly 10 times that amount only a few weeks ago. It is now a company which is girdling the world with electronic highway, with an unrivalled international reputation that has been transformed during this decade, and that transformation, I believe, owes a great deal to the fact that it is now in the vigorous competitive world of the private sector. That can be said for every single company that has gone into the private sector. Surely, we should compare the past three to four decades of comparative failure in the public sector and our experience, so far, of almost uninterrupted success as soon as the companies have been privatised.
The noble Lord has set me some difficult questions which I am not sure I can answer regarding whether we would be better to have had a regional network for some of the companies that have previously been privatised. I can say this: I doubt if the accounting structures were there at that time which would have enabled that to have happened. The golden shares were clearly set out in the prospectus of the company; and as for changing the 15 per cent., or the percentage of that, that was also set out in the prospectus. I can see little reason at the present time—although I am always open to argument and reason—as to why it should be changed.
I should like to join with all in your Lordships' House in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley. He will bring great lustre to this House, and I look forward to debating with him on many future occasions. There is little I can say to him about his contribution today save to say this. Coal will continue to be a major contributor to the base-load supply of electricity for our foreseeable future. Nevertheless, it will be for industry to demonstrate that it can supply coal reliably and competitively.
Perhaps I may pay tribute to British Coal for its half-year results which show a steadily increasing productivity and efficiency. There has been an increase of 45 per cent. in productivity and a drop of 23 per cent. in colliery operating costs; I hope that it will continue.
As regards the main theme of the noble Lord, I should like to say only this. There was much that the noble Lord found bad where I found cause for hope for the future; and much in which he found good where I, alas, could not share his views. There will no doubt be other occasions on which we can debate these matters.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, who was not only a distinguished chairman of one of our nationalised industries, but was almost the first man to persuade me to think of entering the public sector some seven or eight years before I actually did. However, I should like to point out to the noble Lord—who I am sure needs no lessons from me in competition—that if the link between the airport and the railway station had been so worthwhile, but was not put there because there were buses, perhaps the
634
noble Lord should consider that if those buses finally vanished, it might well be because there was no actual demand for that particular service. If we had put the railway there, we would have found ourselves with yet another white elephant, which has so often come about because mere Ministers have made decisions which should have been left to other economic forces. I hope that this House can see that as time goes by, Ministers will be asked less and less often to make such decisions—and it is hoped that we shall then see that the market will actually work.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that of course part of our actual involvement, part of our espousal of the privatisation programme, is to establish better worker-involvement. We have tried many ways of getting better worker-involvement. Indeed, there was an experiment in the late 'seventies when trade unions, or workers, came on the boards; but that did not seem to work. Today we have a very large proportion of employees who are actually owners of shares in their company. Therefore, if that does not provide a sense of ownership—and all the evidence from speaking to those who do, is that it does—I do not see what will. If parliamentary control would be the best—and I am the last person to go against parliamentary control—control of a nationalised industry, then I suspect we should have seen a better economic record over those decades. But it was quite the contrary. What parliamentary control actually did was not to ensure better management of the nationalised industries, but to ensure time after time that what should have been basic commercial decisions were actually made for political motives.
I am grateful to my noble friend, Lord Bruce-Gardyne. His achievement of wider consumer choice is not of course the first priority in privatisation; but it is however a very important one. It is also one that I have no doubt he will remind me of when the particular plans come through for electricity and, as time goes by, there are other objectives. It is part of the general improvement of an economic well-being in the country.
That brings me to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. He said that—and he was quoting—private ownership does not always equal efficiency. I would of course agree with the noble Lord that it does not. But the corollary is not true, either. In fact I could say: does public ownership ever achieve efficiency? because, as yet, there is still no proof that anything in the public ownership is more efficient than it would have been outside it. From all the evidence we have had—and we have heard much this afternoon; and I should like to go on all the evidence—efficiency is not improved in the public ownership. That is for reasons which have already been put forward.
However, where I should like to join the noble Lord is on the subject of rebates to customers for poor services. This I believe is a very good idea. However, I would ask the noble Lord; what actually happens if rebates are given by nationalised industry? The state pays. On the other hand, when rebates are given by private companies then the shareholders have to pay and the pressure, once again, falls upon the directors. That is when you see

635
rebates of that sort beginning to have effect. One of the other great difficulties we had with the nationalised industry sector was to avoid being bankrupt again, in any sense at all; the balance between management and employees was not there. That was another example.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, who said that no one has devised a system to make large organisations responsive to the needs of customers. I hope very much that what is beginning to be exhibited in the case of British Telecom is pressure at long last being put upon those who are in the seats of power within those organisations that they should be responsive to the needs of customers. British Telecom is a mammoth organisation with nearly a quarter of a million people. I do not believe that this is in any way worse than an ombudsman. I am not sure what an ombudsman would actually achieve, although it is an interesting suggestion that I shall take away with me and think about. However we must I think apply pressure to those who run those companies that they must pay attention to the needs of shareholders.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lauderdale for his comments. He is of course absolutely right in pointing out that there has been a delay of eight years in the construction of new power stations. I sometimes ask myself why is it that to my knowledge we are the only Government in the entire world that has invested in one and the same person in that he should he the Minister for sport and the Minister for planning. Sometimes I ask myself: is it because the British middle-class fought for town planning inquiries? Is that how we spent our time? I must say that the reason we have a delay of eight years in the construction of new power stations is simply because of the vagaries of our planning system. If we could find a way through that, we might have a more efficient industry. But it is part of our democratic tradition and no one on this side of the House is insisting that we should do away with it. However we should realise that many of these decisions are made not by central government but by local government and through the planning system itself.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I am grateful for what my noble friend said. But how will he deal with these planning difficulties, if we are to get 13 new GW by the year 2000, six new PWRs, and four new coal-fired stations if they remain?
Lord Young of Graf ham: My Lords, through perseverance and hard work. Hopefully, the public will begin to realise that many of the problems which have been undertaken and looked at in respect of the first PWR inquiry will not have to be repeated every single time at every single inquiry. There is no other way and we have to do two things: first, provide planning permissions in order to get these built; and, secondly, make sure that finance is available. One of the reasons we are looking at the electricity supply industry going into the private sector is in order that more methods of finance should be available. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick—
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He is well within his time. Can he say whether prior, and a good time prior, to the formulation of plans for the electricity power industry to which he has referred, the Government will issue a discussion White Paper before the legislation itself is formulated, so that there can be a full discussion not only in this House but generally by the public about the nature and extent of the plans that the Government propose.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, a discussion paper is, of course, green and a White Paper is normally not that. Let us get the consultations with the electricity supply industry out of the way; then the Government will come forward with their plans. I have little doubt that they will be the subject of a debate or two in your Lordships' House, because this matter has certainly incurred a great deal of interest this afternoon and no doubt will continue to do so. I think I can do no more than say that we are, first, going through a period of consultation. I think we should get through that before we promise even more.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, whose figures on the cost of privatisation I found a little curious. They did not compare with the cost with which I am familiar. So many nationalised industries are contributing more in taxes on profits than they used to contribute before privatisation in dividends to the Treasury. That is because company after company that has come into the private sector is doing better than it used to.
I have also heard a great deal about British Telecom. I think that many of your Lordships, who are aware of the dissatisfaction of the public at large, at times forget that today British Telecom is still investing some £6 million each and every day of the year in new equipment and is bringing on stream two new exchanges a day. The basket of prices has dropped some 13 per cent. in real terms since privatisation. A waiting list of a quarter of a million people has disappeared. Of course we are not satisfied with the telephone system that we have today. But would we not have been better perhaps to have privatised British Telecom 15 years earlier? We might then all be very satisfied with the service.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, who drew attention to public ownership in the private interest being a faulty prospectus. That is a prospectus about which I would certainly agree with him. He happily used good words about what I thought was a very interesting paper from the Centre for Policy Studies on electricity privatisation. But I am very well aware that he will be watching closely what the Government do about their electricity privatisation and that he will be ensuring that we keep competition elements very much to the fore.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that he had a great belief in old-fashioned economics and then proceeded to confound that belief in almost everything he said afterwards. The noble Lord must be a patient man, because he may have to wait some time to hear us stand up and say that we are about to take back into ownership some of the industries that we have privatised. I suspect he will have to wait as

637
long for that as he will have to wait to see the lights go out, which is another emotive phrase that many of your Lordships have used this afternoon about the future prospects of the electricity industry in the private sector.
Again the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, gave some figures which I found difficult to follow. During the period when the noble Lord had some responsibility for the nation's affairs, the individual shareholder was rapidly following the path of the dodo. We were seeing the decline of shareholders until they became nothing but a fond memory. However many we have lost, let us see how many we have today—three times as many as we had a few years ago. The noble Lord said that people are getting out. He was quite right. In the case of British Telecom, 222,539 employees were holders of shares at the time of privatisation. More than a year later in the 1986 accounts, the number had gone to 221,906—nearly 600 down. That shows us something, does it not? There are over 220,000 people who continue to be shareholders. Of course the numbers have gone down.
May I just make one other point? which is very important indeed? The noble Lord said that we require the money and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, made the same point. If you see the PSBR that this Government have as a percentage of our GDP, it is not only declining with the proceeds of privatisation but, more importantly, it has declined each year excluding the privatisation proceeds. If we needed the privatisation proceeds for that, which is a pre-eminent aim, we would have acted accordingly.
The noble Lord compared us to France. A few days ago we announced that unemployment was 9.8 per cent. and going down. If you look at the unemployment in France, you draw another conclusion. Alas, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who gave us a marvellous vintage speech, the sort of speech that we heard to our cost in the '40s and '50s. He made one point with which I agree, that the customer is the one who will determine. The customer is the one who will be satisfied as a result of our programme.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should Like to thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I think they have shown remarkable skill in concentrating so much wisdom and experience in such a limited time. In particular, I feel that what was said about the prospective privatisation will be very carefully heeded by government. These are going to be very difficult issues and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, has made it clear that we shall have many further opportunities for debate on these subjects. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Primary Health Care
5.28 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement that has been made in another place by my honourable friend the
638
Minister for Health on primary health care services. The Statement was as follows:
"With permission, I will make a Statement about the Government's plans for improving the primary health care services. These plans are set out in the White Paper entitled Promoting Better Health which has been published today. Copies are available from the Vote Office.
"The primary care services—those provided outside hospitals by family doctors, dentists, pharmacists, opticians, community nurses and others—account for nine-tenths of all patient contacts with the National Health Service. They cost over £5,000 million a year.
"In 1986 the Government set out their proposals for improving primary care. These attracted over 2,000 written comments and were the subject of public consultation meetings chaired by Ministers in different parts of the country. We are grateful to all those who commented and to the Social Services Committee of this House for its constructive report published earlier this year. The White Paper includes a detailed response to that report.
"The consultations showed a wide measure of support for the government proposals, in particular for placing the promotion of better health at the centre of the stage. The White Paper shows clearly the amount of preventable disease in this country and it contains many proposals for tackling this problem. These include: the setting of targets for family doctors to achieve higher levels of vaccination, immunisation and cervical cytology screening; more health promotion sessions in general practice; a greater role in health education for pharmacists; regular health checks for particular groups, such as the under-fives and elderly people; a new contract for dentists which will encourage prevention; an extension of the primary care team to include chiropodists, physiotherapists and others; action to see that the skills of community nurses are better used, in connection with which we are issuing today a circular to English health authorities advising on the steps to be taken following the Cumberlege Report on Community Nursing. To achieve these aims we shall be making general practitioners' contracts more sensitive to actual performance and will look to family practitioner committees to monitor more vigorously the contracts they have with family doctors.
"The White Paper also emphasises the needs of the consumer of primary care services. In particular it sets out ways of giving people much more information with which to choose their practitioner and of making it easier for people to change doctor. It also provides improvements in complaints procedures.
"The various measures the White Paper sets out—which include also compulsory retirement for the older doctors and dentists and more effective improvement of primary care premises—will affect all parts of the country. We expect them to bring particular benefits to inner cities and other deprived areas. In addition, the White Paper sets out the Government's intentions for improvements

639
specific to such areas; for example, by paying particular attention to their dental, pharmaceutical and community nursing services.
"All primary care professionals have a part to play in the improvements we seek, and the White Paper describes our intentions for each part of the service. The Government have already made provision for a large increase in expenditure on the family practitioner services and are prepared to invest substantially more on top of this. In many cases the actual amount will depend on the outcome of the negotiations that will now take place with each of the practitioner professions. The White Paper makes clear our intention to proceed quickly with the introduction of blood glucose testing strips for diabetics.
"Expenditure on family practitioner services has already risen by £1.5 billion or 43 per cent. in real terms since 1978/79. This is reflected, for example, in the increase of nearly 4,000 to over 30,000 in the number of general practitioners and a consequent fall from over 2,200 to less than 2,000 in the average number of patients on each doctor's list. To achieve the strategic development set out in the White Paper will mean giving still greater priority to the services as a whole, and we have therefore thought it right also to look carefully at priorities within them.
"We have concluded that it is reasonable to secure some additional resources for development by asking those who can afford it to pay for sight tests and to meet somewhat more of the overall cost of dental care through a system of proportional charges extending also to examination costs, for which at present no charge is made. The proportional charge system will be simpler and will relate patient charges more directly to the costs of the particular treatment. It will benefit regular attenders who look after their teeth, some of whom will have no increase or may even pay a little less. Current exemptions from dental charges will of course continue for children, adults on low income, expectant and nursing mothers and certain other groups. National Health Service sight tests will remain free for children, those on low income, the blind and partially sighted and other specified categories.
"Existing plans already provide for additional expenditure by 1990–91 of some £570 million in real terms. This will be further increased by the substantial extra resources that the Government will make available to finance the improvements I have described today. Towards the additional expenditure as a whole, the extra payments which people will make towards dental care and sight testing will contribute some £170 million by 1990–91.
"The necessary legislative provisions, together with other measures in the health field, are contained in a Bill which will also be published today. The proposals in the White Paper and the Bill will generally apply throughout the United Kingdom, but my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be considering the ways in
640
which certain of our proposals will require to be adapted to the particular circumstances of these countries.
"Our proposals will enable people to make more informed choices of practitioner, will give them access to higher quality services and above all will place the greatest emphasis on preventing illness and promoting positive good health. I believe it is a strategy which will be widely welcomed and supported".
That concludes the Statement.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. Will he accept that it is not possible to divorce primary health care from the general state of the National Health Service? Will the Minister also accept that the underfunding of the service and the consequent intolerably long waiting lists and waiting times which are now at a record level greatly affect the burden imposed by waiting patients on general practitioners and other members of the health care team? Is the Minister also aware that the inadequacy of community care provisions for the elderly, the disabled, the mentally handicapped and the mentally sick also imposes burdens on the family practitioner teams which can be very costly indeed?
Before I come to a series of concerns and criticisms of the Statement and the White Paper I wish to say that there are some aspects which I welcome. I welcome the greater emphasis on disease prevention and health education by doctors. I welcome the decision to make blood glucose testing strips for diabetics available on prescription. That matter has been raised in your Lordships' House before. I welcome the provision for earlier retirement for some GPs who are still serving at a very great age.
I also welcome the greater role envisaged for pharmacists in health education as set out in the Nuffield Report. We shall certainly need to consider and then debate the important proposals in the White Paper but I say straightaway that I am totally opposed to the ending of free eye tests. They have been a feature of the service since its commencement. I am sure that all my noble friends feel the same way.
Last year almost 12 million people had their eyes tested. The 30 million people who wear glasses require regular eye tests. If people are to be deterred by what may well be a £10 charge, how many cases of glaucoma or cancer may not be discovered and dealt with? In such cases people would be referred to the hospital eye service, which is at present under very great pressure.
Will the Minister also accept that I am no less opposed to the ending of free dental tests? I deeply regret the proposed action to discourage patients from regular visits to both dentists and opticians. Why were these two proposals not mentioned in the consultative document? Who during the course of consultation proposed that that action should be taken? Was it the dentists or the opticians, for example?
The Statement refers to the important new monitoring tasks of family practitioner committees. In which case why in the past has the budget of family

641
practitioner committees been cut to the tune of 600 staff posts? How will they fulfil the new tasks now imposed upon them with their depleted staff?
The Statement refers to capitation fees for GPs. We shall want to examine that more closely, because one asks whether this measure, with increased opportunity for patients to change their doctors—I must say I welcome that—will lead to longer patient lists for some general practitioners? Is not this the time to bring together more formally the family practitioners and the district health authorities, as was recommended in the careful report by the Select Committee, instead of talk about further co-operation and so on? Is anything said in the White Paper as regards the deputising services for GPs, about which there is considerable concern? Finally, the White Paper seems to put forward a very unsatisfactory response to the Select Committee's recommendation on the implementation of Section 7 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.
From this side of the House we shall look forward to the opportunity of debating this very important White Paper.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the noble Lord for repeating this important Statement. Perhaps we may also say how very glad we are to see the White Paper at long last. I think we have been waiting for it longer than whoever it was waited for Godot.
I hope that the Minister will accept that the uncertainty of waiting for the White Paper has been very damaging. It has halted long-term planning and has perhaps had a paralysing effect on those who provide primary care service. We are aware that part of the delay was caused by the unfortunate illness of the Secretary of State. We hope that he is soon restored to full health, not only for his own sake but also so that he can assist in tying up some of the loose threads which are hanging from the White Paper.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, we subscribe entirely to the final paragraph of the Statement, which summarises the broad aims. We are entirely at one with the Government on those aims. However, we may have certain differences on the means whereby the aims are to be achieved. In particular, I echo what the noble Lord has said concerning the provision of blood sugar testing strips for diabetic patients. That is something for which noble Lords on these Benches have been asking for many years.
As regards charges, the Statement and the White Paper are quite specific about a charge for eye tests. They are a bit more ambiguous concerning dental examination charges. The words are,
"a system of proportional charges extending also to examination costs, for which at present no charge is made".
Does that mean that dental examinations will not be free? We know that eye tests will not be free. Therefore, presumably dental examinations will not be free.
We have never greatly relished the high charges for dental treatment or for spectacles. However, we have greatly supported a system enabling people to
642
discover without charge whether they require either. It is a retrograde step to go back on that provision. However, I notice the provision will only affect, in the words of the Statement, "those who can afford it". Who those people will be, I am not entirely sure.
It seems from much of the Statement that there is to be a move, so far as the remuneration of general practitioners is concerned, towards a system of item of service payments. Perhaps the noble Lord will remember that those first came into being many years ago when Kenneth Robinson was the Minister for Health under what was called the new contract.
There were certain advantages to item of service payments. I am bound to say that a special item of service payment to a general practitioner for doing something which every general practitioner ought to do in any case seems to me to be a bit different. However, in general we have no objection to that system.
Perhaps the noble Lord can tell me, if we are moving more to item of service payments, whether we are phasing out any others. I know, and agree, that elderly general practitioners are to be compulsorily retired. Some of them whom I know are 95 years of age and are still alleged to be working. How much work they actually do, I do not know; I know that they draw the pay for it. It is proper that they should retire. However, there is no mention in the Statement of any intention to phase out seniority payments. I benefited from seniority payments to general practitioners, but it does not seem wholly logical that a general practitioner should get extra pay merely by getting older. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us whether seniority payments will be phased out.
We await the Bill and we await the obvious opportunities to explore the many matters which are uncertain in further debate on other occasions.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Winstanley, for their reception of the Statement. The White Paper which it introduces is a long and complicated one which sets the Government's practical and comprehensive programme for primary health care for many years to come. In passing, let me say that the review process started by the Green Paper 18 months ago was the first such review of that type of care for 40 years.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is quite right in saying that we are looking at one specific part of our health service and that the parts cannot be divorced. Nonetheless, I think it is true to say that different parts of the service need different remedies in order to make each part perform effectively.
The White Paper does not set out hard and fast rules. It describes what the Government want to achieve over a period of time. Discussions will need to be conducted, particularly with doctors and dentists, on matters which are not likely to be swiftly resolved. However, some things are quicker to be resolved and, as the Statement says, they are the subject of a Bill which was introduced in another place today.

643
Not surprisingly, both noble Lords zeroed in on charges for dental inspection and the removal of free sight testing. The Government's aim of targeting resources where they will be most effective is well known. As I have said, children and those on low incomes will not be affected in any way. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, may be interested to know that 30 per cent. of sight tests will continue to be free under the system which we have in this country for children and those on low incomes.
There is no evidence that any lasting effect will occur in dental and optical health as a result. Dental charges already exist and it is fairly unusual for an adult to have a dental inspection without incurring such charges if he or she is liable. It is also reasonable for the more expensive treatments to attract the highest charges. At the moment they do not and that must be wrong. Those changes are all fully justified and will enable us significantly to increase the resources available for promoting good health, preventing disease, raising standards and making the primary care services more responsive to the consumer.
I think that noble Lords should not lose sight of the fact that £5 billion is spent every year on primary care services. Since 1979 expenditure has risen by 43 per cent. in real terms. Perhaps more importantly for the immediate future it is expected to rise by a further 11 per cent. in real terms over the next three years.
On top of that, the Government are prepared to invest substantial extra resources. Obviously a proportion of those resources will arise from the £170 million which the introduction of the two charges on which noble Lords have commented will raise. There is no reason to believe that patients will be deterred by having to pay a small charge. I think that those charges will probably be less than £10 in the case of sight tests given every three years and something of the order of £3 at today's prices for a dental inspection.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked why we were increasing capitation fees. Currently 47 per cent. of a doctor's income comes from capitation fees. We intend to increase that to 50 per cent. Increasing that proportion is one method of increasing competition among doctors and encouraging them to provide services which are more responsive to patient needs. Our intention is that the payment of capitation fees, for which a basic core of health provision is expected, will be complemented by incentive payments designed to encourage the provisions of services targeted at specific health care objectives. Those are all matters which will have to be settled in the discussions with doctors to which I have referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked whether family practitioner committees could cope with their new responsibilities and whether they would have the necessary resources. We now have a strong team of FPC chairman and members possessing the necessary qualities of leadership for that expanding role. We shall increase the funds made available to them to enable them to carry out these new functions efficiently and effectively.
On the question whether family practitioner committees should come under district health
644
authorities, as I have said, the role of the FPCs is to be strengthened under these new arrangements. The Government have no plans to bring them under other health authorities. I think it might be a mistake because we have already agreed that different sectors of health care in this country need different remedies. I also believe they need different overseeing agencies.
The noble Lord also asked about deputising services. We are keeping a close eye on their effectiveness and the amount of use that doctors make of them. I am particularly concerned in this and if the noble Lord or any other noble Lord has worries about any part of the country I shall be very glad to look into them.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, spoke about dental charges. I am advised that 45 per cent. of dental examinations will remain free. As I have said, we expect the rest to attract a small charge of about £3.
Lastly, the noble Lord asked about seniority payments. This is one of the matters we shall be discussing with representatives of the professions. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will advise us that there are some other allowances whose usefulness is questionable. Clearly, seniority payments are a candidate for review.
It was St. Paul, I think, who copied Confucius by saying:
"Give me a child until he is seven and he will be mine for life".
As regards dental and optical care this is a very valuable point to bear in mind, because the testing of children will remain free.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in the light of the indignation of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, about dental and optical charges, can the noble Lord remind your Lordships under what government and at what time charges under the health service were first introduced for teeth and spectacles?
Lord Ennals: Not for inspection at all, my Lords.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am afraid not. I think charges for teeth were introduced by the government of which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was a staunch supporter.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, but not for testing.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we obviously have a great deal to digest in this White Paper so this is not an appropriate moment to ask a lot of questions. However, there are a couple which I should like to put to the noble Lord and the first is this. Will the setting of targets for family doctors to achieve higher levels of vaccination, immunisation and cervical cytology screening lead the Government to look again at the no-fault compensation idea? Is this not particularly relevant in relation to vaccination and immunisation if there is an intention that a larger section of the populace should receive these services?

645
The second point is this. I was pleased to hear about the intention to expand the role of pharmacists in health education. I see in the White Paper that there are some additional allowances for them for certain activities. Would the noble Lord agree that perhaps one of the greatest ways in which the role of the pharmacy could be expanded would be if there were some allowance towards the improvement of the pharmacist's premises as well as the doctor's premises. There is a great deal of difficulty for the pharmacist in providing counselling and matters of a slightly sensitive nature in the present premises in which he operates. Will the Government look into that?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, on the second point, pharmacists are to a great extent self-employed and to a great extent also they own their own premises. Therefore, they are quite different from doctors in that respect.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, some doctors own their own premises and are also self-employed.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, but they are custom-built for a rather different kind of operation. They are not what you might call shop-bound as opposed to being people-bound like community health centres.
As regards no-fault compensation, I said in answer to an Unstarred Question in your Lordships' House the other day that the Government would continue to keep this matter under review, but they certainly would not consider it with any seriousness until after my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had completed the judicial review which he is conducting at the moment.
Lord Somers: My Lords, the Statement is very good so far as it goes but it does not deal with what I feel is one of the crying evils of the health service today: that is, the appalling time which so many people have to wait in order to get a bed in a hospital. Can the noble Lord tell me if there is any plan in the mind of the Government about either enlarging the present hospitals or possibly building new ones? I understand, too, that part of the difficulty is due to the lack of nurses. Have the Government any plans for possibly recruiting more nursing staff?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, regarding waiting lists, or more importantly waiting times, I most certainly agree with the noble Lord. We have had discussions in the House over recent weeks on the subject of the Government's waiting list fund, where special moneys have been given to health authorities which have shown that they can use funds wisely in order to reduce their waiting lists. In the Autumn Statement the other day my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the second year's money would be increased from £25 million to £30 million for the next financial year.
As regards the lack of nurses, I think this is rather wide of the Statement. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will take him aside at some convenient moment and explain the plans of the Government to him.
Lord Peston: My Lords, at a rough glance there is a lot of very good sense in the White Paper, but the remarks made about sight testing are absolutely outrageous. Indeed, seeing them placed in the context of raising resources, they are even more outrageous. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to remember that there is a perfectly good way of having the better-off provide more resources for the health service and it is called income tax. To introduce user charges here is not justified in any way whatsoever, and it seems to me to be a most doubtful thing.
I should like to ask the Minister whether expert opinion in this field supports his view that no damage to the nation's eyesight is likely to follow from the introduction of these measures. I look around your Lordships' House and it seems to me that the majority of people wear spectacles, and therefore I worry even more.
That was a rather controversial question for the Minister, but one which is less controversial is this. As regards the medicines Bill and the reforms in pharmacy and where those reforms require primary legislation, are the Government open to persuasion and will they be willing to accept amendment of the Bill, when it reaches us, in order to allow certain important developments to take place, notably in pharmacy?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am a member of a Government who do not actually believe that income tax ought to exist at all. It was of course a temporary tax put on I believe, by the Duke of Wellington.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it was Pitt first of all.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am advised by my noble friend that it was Prime Minister Pitt, so it is even longer ago. This temporary arrangement has gone on for far too long. I believe that if one wants to raise taxes one can do it by other means, such as value added tax. I do not think on this particular aspect of health care taxes that would be the appropriate way to do it. The Government have decided that people should pay for services where they are able to do so.
So far as pharmacies are concerned, we are not discussing the Bill this afternoon and it will come before your Lordships' House for full examination—whether dental or otherwise—in due course. Of course, if the noble Lord would like to put down an amendment to that Bill, I will consider it in the normal way.
The question does allow me to answer a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock—who I notice has gone. We propose to provide funds to improve the standard of services and premises in inner city areas so far as pharmacies are concerned.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, as a dental surgeon perhaps I may say that generally I welcome the Statement made this afternoon. However, I am disappointed to see that yet again the Government intend to look to the general ophthalmic and dental services to generate additional resources for the important developments in the primary care field.

647
Yet again, it is the dental services which are going to be nobbled in this way. In real terms charges have doubled since 1979 and it seems that dentistry will again be used to subsidise other aspects of the health service.
The present charging system is very difficult. We welcome a change in that system and the proportional charge which is talked about. However, there is no mention of a ceiling to the proposed charges. At present, there is a ceiling of £115 and we shall be very upset if that is increased in any way.
Finally, we shall also be very concerned if the proposed changes in the Health and Medicines Act remove the present statutory responsibility for the health authorities and change it to a discretionary power on their behalf. We shall be very concerned if that changes because we feel that that will be a retrograde step in the overall improvement in children's dental health.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful for the first half of my noble friend's remarks. I am not quite sure that I am as grateful for the second half. The provision of dental services has led to considerable improvements in dental health in recent years. For example, in 1983 more than half of all five year-olds had no dental decay at all, compared with under a third 10 years earlier. Improvements have been felt by all age groups, and the Government therefore believe it is right to shift the emphasis from treatment to health promotion. The Government welcome the health authorities' current flouridation initiatives and will continue to promote dental awareness and regular attendence at the dentist.
I do not believe it is fair to say "yet again". As I have already explained, the Government have already announced that they will make available over half a billion pounds extra in real terms over the next three years for the primary health care services. What we are talking about in this White Paper is money over and above that.

Alcohol Abuse
6.3 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland rose to call attention to increasing alcohol abuse of all kinds in British society, and to the case for a thorough examination of the national and cultural attitudes connected with it, and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I believe that we may claim credit in your Lordships' House for drawing and focusing attention on the abuse of drugs in this country, and in particular the harder type of drugs which are not considered socially acceptable. The efforts that have been made throughout society to prevent the manufacture, distribution and use of those drugs are extremely laudable and those efforts are preventing a good deal of misery, degradation and indeed, loss of human life.
However, we still have the best known and most available drug of all in our society, where the effects
648
mount daily. This is a very timely debate this afternoon because there have been several reports on this subject recently. I am glad that we shall have speaking in the debate this evening the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, whose report on young people and alcohol came out yesterday—and a very startling report that was too, and one which received very proper coverage in the press today. I think the noble Baroness will have some very interesting things to say to us later on.
The way the Motion is phrased may seem odd to some noble Lords, but I believe that the situation has become very grave as regards this drug. I repeat, it is a drug. A lot of people in the country do not realise that alcohol is a drug, a psychoactive drug which has very similar effects to many drugs which are not acceptable in our society. Very few people realise the actual dangers which follow the abuse of alcohol.
Not everybody abuses alcohol. It has a central cultural role in our society and many people use it sensibly. They give the right example to their children on how to use it. They use it in all the normal ways: they drink at their children's christenings, they drink at marriage ceremonies, some even drink at funerals or after them. We toast our monarch, we drink when colleagues leave their employment, we drink to relax, we drink to make ourselves feel more confident. From time to time we drink to make ourselves—those of us who are male, I stress—feel more masculine. That is something we shall return to later.
The danger of alcohol is that it is lawful and institutionalised in our society, which makes it difficult for many people to accept the full danger of the drug. As prosperity increases—which I hope will continue, though there may be signs of a check in that area—it is quite clear that, as people become more affluent and their disposable income increases, more alcohol is consumed. One fact which is irrefutable is that the greater the amount of alcohol consumed, the higher the level of alcohol abuse.
When I mention alcohol abuse, I mean not just the old rather narrow view of unfortunate people who develop an addiction and who are generally known as alcoholics, though that is a very difficult term to define. I mean of course those who abuse drink by becoming intoxicated. In fact, it is one of the more remarkable facts about our society as opposed to some of the others that maybe we are not as high as some of our neighbouring European countries in the league table, if I may put it that way, of addiction. We are somewhere down the list.
So far as intoxication and its immediate effects are concerned, and increasingly among the young, we are seeing a most incredible tally of damage, destruction, unlawful behaviour, misery to families and so on. It is upon this intoxication aspect that I suspect many noble Lords will touch tonight, because it receives a lot of publicity, for example, in relation to football violence and crime levels. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich, who had great experience of this, was telling me before I came into the Chamber that 50 per cent. of murders are alcohol related. Most crimes which involve assault and battery, particularly at certain times of day, are alcohol related. The list is endless.
Perhaps I may add a point which I think has been very curiously neglected in our press: the level of child abuse which people deplore, is, where proved, often connected with alcohol abuse of one form or another. Alcohol is a very strong factor in the abuse of children, whether it involves violence or sex, or a combination of both.
It is a curious thing which I have discovered in my researches into this whole matter that human beings seem universally attracted towards psychoactive and mood-changing drugs of some kind. There is hardly a group in human existence which does not, or has not at some time, found something which is used and becomes institutionalised, accepted and lawful; whereas other things become unlawful. For a period in the 17th century in Russia smoking was punishable by death. I believe that for a period in Turkey if a pipe smoker was discovered he had his nose pierced with a pipe and was paraded through the community on a donkey. Those punishments seem extremely drastic to us.
A friend told me recently that he was talking to some businessmen from the Yemen where, being Muslims, they do not drink alcohol. They have exactly the same reaction to a drug which they chew called khat. They react exactly the same to that drug as we do to alcohol. They say, "I really must give up khat at lunch-time because I fall asleep after lunch if I chew it." It does not matter what drug is concerned, it has the same effect on the brain and on the nervous system
In this country—and I hope other noble Lords will take up this point—it behoves us to face the situation head on. We do not want to fudge the issue—to use a current term. The fact is that alcohol is being consumed in greater and greater quantities. It is cheaper, in real terms, than it ever was. It is a curious fact that tax on alcohol has risen at nowhere near the rate of inflation. Effectively, someone buying a drink out of his disposable income today is much more able to afford it than he was 30 years ago.
We also have this worrying shift to the use of alcohol as a mood-changing drug for the young. Young people have much greater incomes at their disposal. They use their incomes in exactly the same way as previously in our society, but perhaps with less control and less example. Therefore, I urge your Lordships—and I urge the new inter-departmental Cabinet Committee which has been formed, the Wakeham Committee, which I welcome—to take on board all those aspects. I urge the committee, as I am sure it will in the course of its deliberations, to take evidence from all members of our society—from policemen, teachers, nurses and from anyone who can throw light on the problem. Psychiatrists should also be consulted. There is an excellent report, recently published, from the Institute of Psychiatrists. Evidence should be obtained from the armed forces and from anyone who can throw light on all aspects of alcohol consumption and abuse.
The harmful effects of alcohol abuse can be split into three categories. The social category is as long as one's arm. Marriage break-up is often associated with drink abuse. There is also child abuse. A recent
650
survey shows that in hospitals, for example, a high percentage of people admitted into casualty and accident wards are under the influence of drink. There are assaults on nurses. I regret that I did not ask one of the noble Baronesses who was a nurse, or has had nursing experience, to speak in the debate because the abuse and the attacks which nurses face in the course of their daily or nightly duties from people under the influence of drink are horrifying. The list is endless, but I need not go through it because I am sure other noble Lords will draw attention to the various examples.
The physical aspects of alcohol abuse are easy to observe. I do not suppose that there are many noble Lords who have not had contact, directly or indirectly, with someone who has suffered from the effects of alcohol abuse. The most obvious effect, of course, is damage to the liver. Everyone talks about the risk to the liver from alcohol abuse. That organ is immediately affected and I am glad that I asked a noble Lord who is a member of the medical profession to speak tonight. I shall be interested to hear his observations on that aspect.
There is, of course, risk to every organ and system in the human body. Women are particularly at risk. They are drinking increasingly as public houses become more attractive and because they have more time available to them. There again, I hope noble Lords will speak about that aspect. Because of their size, their body weight and the disposition of their organs they are vulnerable to concentrations of alcohol much more quickly than are men.
Heart disease can arise. The heart muscle is affected by alcohol, not to mention the brain, the memory, and so on. In addition, and very important to most people—I hope still to your Lordships—there is the question of sexual activity and virility in men. That is very much affected by alcohol abuse and, of course, further social problems follow. I shall not bore your Lordships with more examples from the list—it is endless. Everyone realises that the problem must be faced.
For those who are not moved by the examples I have given of the physical and social effects I put the matter in economic terms, which may appeal to others. The cost of alcohol abuse throughout the country is astonishing. On the latest count the bill for industry alone is £1·5 billion. That figure comes from the Centre of Health and Economics at the University of York—an institution from which the Government draw their statistics. That figure covers absenteeism, accidents at work, people who have to end their working life prematurely, and so on. The cost to the National Health Service must be nearly £100 million, and is probably more. The trouble is that many incidents are probably not reported, but I am sure that the figure is not less than that.
Traffic accidents are another scandal in our society and, again, I suggest that we have not faced that aspect head on. We complicate the problem with all kinds of arguments. We delay action and the tally becomes greater and greater. Christmas is approaching and I suggest to your Lordships that the accident rate will again be a horrifying figure. There is also the cost of criminal investigations into crimes related to alcohol.
Having given your Lordships this catalogue of misery I wind up my speech by saying that I believe that this is an urgent matter which must be dealt with properly. I was interviewed on a London radio station today. I was asked—and I was glad the question was put to me—whether I drank. I said that I did and that I drank normally. It is a significant that many people who now drink normally, who live normal lives and who do not abuse drink but drink in a way that is socially acceptable, are interested and concerned about alcohol abuse. We no longer want it to be the preserve of abolitionists, helpful though they are in their contribution to the state of alcohol abuse in the country. It is important that people who are normal drinkers should take up the cause and help to push forward a new approach, a new view and a new realism as regards alcohol, to children, the unwary, the uneducated and the vulnerable. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.19 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I applaud the decision to have a debate on this subject this evening. I am sure I speak for all who heard the noble Viscount in thanking him for having made this possible. He spoke cogently on the subject and I support his views entirely. My contribution will, I hope, be to add some comments to two or three of the elements of the subject in pursuing what the noble Viscount said in general. I propose to do this under two headings. The misuse of alcohol arises because of circumstances and requirements which are different for each. My first heading is drink and driving, and my second is drinking to excess and drunkenness.
Under the first, the situation surely calls for the solution that no alcohol should be drunk at all when one is likely to be driving a motor vehicle. I do accept that a single glass of wine, particularly if of the dimensions complained of from time to time by my noble friend Lord Chelwood, would not do harm and would of course be within the limit under present legislation. However, surely the best solution is to drink non-alcoholic potions when about to drive a car.
This brings me to random tests, which are in the news again. This has been a subject which has been discussed for almost as long as the breathaliser has been incorporated in legislation. I remember in particular when I was in the other place a Bill being before Parliament. This was the 1966 Transport Bill, which contained provisions for random tests. There was then a general election and the Bill was lost; but when the Bill returned those provisions had been removed. Of course not many people noticed that, and those who had been against it were not going to complain. Clearly there had been difficulties for the government of the day, and I am sure many of those difficulties still exist.
Perhaps the best illustration of the kind of question which arose then is this: what do I advise my wife and daughter if driving on her own, when one or two persons try to stop her car at night in an unfrequented area? They appear to look like police but not convincingly so. In almost every other situation one's advice would be, do not stop. That was the kind of
652
problem which arose and I think made it too difficult for the Government to continue with their proposals in 1966. However, for my part, I support the Government in further attempts to overcome such difficulties and to discourage drinking and driving.
My second heading is drinking to excess, drunkenness and alcoholism. These are damaging to health and the cause of social ills of various kinds of which the noble Viscount gave us some particulars.
I understand that a report has just been presented to the Home Office concerning young people under 18. Presumably it is as a result of investigation in England and Wales and not Scotland, as it is for the Home Office. That has happened in just the last day or so, and no doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will say more on this when she comes to speak, because I understand she chaired the committee. We shall no doubt hear the Government's proposals in due course, I hope soon, although there are important matters raised in the report.
In another place a licensing Bill has been introduced by the Government to extend licensing hours in England and Wales. There have been references to the reform carried out in Scotland 10 years ago. Because I was the Secretary of State for Scotland who initiated that reform in 1971, appointed Dr. Clayson and his committee and then received his report and started the action which led to the 1976 Bill, I might be able to help your Lordships with a few words on this subject.
I must say at the outset that there was a different situation in Scotland from England and Wales, and any close comparisons would not be valid. Nonetheless, I believe that the results of the changes in Scotland after 10 years' experience are worth looking at. Some misleading mythology may also be created unless the facts are recorded.
First, in 1971 my main concern when setting up the committee and then dealing with its recommendations was to avoid any increase in drunkenness. Before the reform, closing time in Scotland was early and there was an incentive to drink against the clock during the restricted hours. The Clayson Committee shared my view that relaxation of the hours would help to make drinking more civilised and relaxed and an accompaniment to social gatherings; in particular that men would take their womenfolk to pubs. In many parts of Scotland this had been unheard of—the pubs were drab drinking dens to which only men went.
We have the benefit of a survey by the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys, the OPCS, on the first eight years of the reform in Scotland. The main findings are, first, on consumption, that men are now drinking about the same amount as they did before. That women are drinking about 35 per cent. more but that they are still drinking over three times less than men. The effect in relation to women, the 35 per cent. increase, may be surprising to those meeting it for the first time. However, it was not surprising to me and to those others concerned with the Clayson Committee's recommendations. It was part of the new sociable drinking which we hoped would evolve that more women would be included and they would therefore be drinking more.

653
Consumption was of course spread over more time. I am glad therefore that the OPCS was able to report that drunkenness had decreased, and the records since 1976 confirm that. There was a change in prosecution procedures in Scotland in about 1980, so that it is not possible to make precise comparisons, but nonetheless the figures are very reassuring. Those of us whose homes are in Scotland have been able to observe during the 10 years that there has been an improvement. Three-quarters of those interviewed by the OPCS during its survey said that they considered that the new licensing hours were an improvement on the old ones.
There have been suggestions that health in Scotland has suffered. However, here a detailed study by the specialist alcohol unit at Edinburgh University concluded that the effect of the change in licensing law had been neutral. That was reported at the end of 1985 and a summary was published in the British Medical Journal in January 1986.
Should alcohol be sold or drunk at all? I have given my views on driving. At other times in daily life I believe this is a matter of choice and, like the noble Viscount, that it should be in sensible quantities. I do understand those who drink no alcohol on principle, although I do not share their attitude, in the same way that I understand vegetarians. However, there are other stimulants. When on a visit to Salt Lake City I was made very much aware that some, if not all, Mormons do not drink coffee or tea because they are stimulants too.
When I was in the other place and speaking on the exports and industrial health of the distilling industry I invariably reported the general advice which I have received from the medical profession that for a normal person whisky is an excellent beverage, taken of course in moderation. There were probably more distilleries in my constituency where my home is in Northern Scotland than in any other constituency. Paradoxically my own surgical and medical troubles of the last 42 years have meant that I cannot myself drink whisky.
I hope that the Government and everyone else in a position to exert influence will give very high priority to reducing and eliminating the misuse of alcohol.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the first debate I heard when I came to your Lordships' House three weeks ago was on the procedures of the House. One matter that soon became clear was that shorter speeches would not only be welcome but would add to the efficiency of your Lordships' House. For the past six years it has been my privilege to be chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party. During that period, one of my continuing tasks was to encourage shorter speeches at meetings of the Parliamentary Labour Party. Bearing in mind those experiences, I hope that the brevity, at least of my first contribution to your Lordships' deliberations, will be welcome.
I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on calling attention to what must surely be one of the most serious problems of our society today. In the short time that I intend to take, I shall deal with only
654
one aspect of alcohol abuse, that of drink driving. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, dealt with that matter because I feel that it cannot be referred to too often. There is no doubt that there is increasing public concern about the effects of drinking and driving and a feeling that the present law is inadequate. Of course, as soon as anyone suggests, as I intend to do, that there should be a change in or a tightening up of the law, there will be protests, understandably, about further restrictions to civil liberties and human freedom.
We cannot support the retention or the extension of freedom for some people in our society if the interests of others are damaged by it. I said "damaged". In the context of drink driving, we can use the word in its literal, physical sense. Last year, 1,100 people died as a result of drinking and driving. That rate has continued so far this year. We can say with some certainty that during our debates in your Lordships' House today, four more people will be killed as a result of drink driving. Last year there were 47,000 casualties, 50 per cent. of whom had not been drinking or driving. Again, in 1986, 61,000 drivers were given roadside breath tests after a personal injury accident and no fewer than 12,000 failed the test. Those figures are the official Department of Transport statistics.
In this country deaths arising from drinking and driving are three times greater than deaths from murder, drugs and acts of terrorism. I have mentioned drugs. I shall repeat something that the noble Viscount said. I find it difficult to understand why the Government should devote so much time, energy and resources to the drugs problem, policies with which I entirely agree and fully support, while at the same time paying less attention to the much more widespread problem of alcohol abuse. Alcohol kills 10 times as many teenagers as does heroin. A few moments ago I gave some horrifying statistics about deaths and injuries caused by drink driving. I could give more.
The real horror of those figures can only be appreciated in personal terms. We must think of our wives, our husbands, our sons, our daughters and our grandchildren being killed or perhaps confined to a wheelchair for the rest of their lives. Of course we all say to ourselves, "Yes, it is terrible, but it will not happen to us". I have not the slightest doubt that the relatives of those 1,100 people killed every year said exactly that before they lost their loved ones. I think too of those people when I hear that stupid but chilling phrase, "I drive better when I have had a drink or two".
One in three of the drivers killed on our roads had excess alcohol in their blood. In the face of the frightening and overwhelming evidence, some of which I have given, I find it deeply worrying that the Government are not doing more to combat the problem of drink driving. I know that Ministers point to their publicity campaigns. I do not object to that, but by themselves they have been largely ineffective. Within the past few days I have seen an estimate that next month the drinks industry will spend £20 million encouraging us to drink more over Christmas. The total budget of the Department of Transport on safer drinking for a full year is £2·5 million. Those figures

655
speak for themselves. Something much more fundamental must be done if the number of deaths and injuries is to be reduced. It should take the form of a change in the law. The scale of the slaughter—I have to use that word—is now so great that random breath-testing must be introduced.
The Minister will no doubt tell me that legislation to deal with this matter already exists. He will say that Section 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 authorises a constable in uniform to stop any vehicle, and that Sections 6 and 7 of that Act reinforce the position. Those sections deal with the testing of breath, blood and urine. That of course is the position. With the sheer scale of drink-related deaths and injuries on our roads, I fail to see how anyone can say that the present law is a sufficient deterrent. Random breath-testing can of course take various forms. I do not intend to go into them in detail, but I wish to emphasise one point. Drivers must be made aware that there is a considerable certainty of being tested. That will be the greatest possible deterrent against over-limit drinking.
The evidence in some countries is abundantly clear. It is that an easily seen and specialy marked police presence at the roadside will reduce drink driving. I emphasise that it is necessary for drivers to know that such units are there for random testing. That is the crucial aspect of the matter. As a matter of urgency the Government should look at what is happening in other countries which have random breath tests. They should study what is happening in Australia, Finland, New Zealand and the United States of America. Ministers could not fail to be impressed by what they see.
Ministers should listen to the British Medical Association, the Guild of Advanced Motorists, the Parliamentary Council on Road Safety, the Road Traffic Committee of the Magistrates' Association and many other organisations, which I could name, that have studied and support random testing.
I know that the Minister in another place who has special responsibility for this matter constantly says that the main aim must be to change the public attitude towards this evil. I greatly admire the efforts he is making on this issue. I do not for a moment deny the importance of changing public perception, but the evidence is that random testing will do more to bring about that change than any other measure.
Shakespeare, as always, had a comment. In Henry V one of his characters says:
"I would give all my fame for a pot of ale and safety".
I doubt whether the word "safety" meant road safety, but in the context of this debate it is true, and a statement which we would all do well to ponder.
6.40 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, I am sure that all Members of this House would wish me to begin with a word of congratulation to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, on the maiden speech we have just heard with such interest. His long experience of the processes of Parliament and passionate concern for society came through unmistakably and must be
656
the herald of good things to come. I venture to hope that he will not be too obsessed with brevity in future speeches.
I welcome the debate and thank the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for introducing it. It comes at an appropriate moment. There are signs that the nation in general and the churches in particular are becoming increasingly aware of the misunderstandings and dangers associated with this drug. I am sure that the churches warmly welcome the recent creation of the interdepartmental group of Ministers and civil servants.
The charity, Alcohol Concern, is currently calling for a 12-year campaign for safe drinking between now and the year 2,000, with achievable objectives such as a ten-fold increase in the expenditure on alcohol education, and a reduction in the permitted level of alcohol in the blood for drivers to at most 50 milligrams. Such objectives must surely have wide support.
The Roman Catholic Church and the Methodist Church have both published this year reports of their own working parties on the problem of alcohol abuse. The Church of England Board for Social Responsibility will produce a similar statement next month. There is undoubtedly a rising tide of concern and anxiety in many quarters, but near the heart of the problem are the largely unexpressed assumptions that we make about alcohol, both corporately and as individuals. They are assumptions which are often affected by misunderstanding.
For example, many believe that the problems connected with alcohol are confined to a small minority of heavy drinkers. That is not so. The fact is that a much larger number of what I suppose most of us would call moderate drinkers are seriously at risk themselves and may well be putting many others in the community at risk as well. We have to take account of the fact that the overall consumption of alcohol in our country doubled between 1950 and 1980. That cannot be ascribed to just a few people drinking to excess. The tide that is rising is not merely a tide of concern. It is alcohol itself which is gently pervading the common life of our society like a rising tide.
I believe that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York caught the reality of what is happening in some sentences he wrote in August of this year in a message to his own diocese. I beg leave to quote from the message. He wrote as follows:
"The vast majority of the population use mood-changing substances of one kind or another for a whole variety of purposes—to wake them up, to slow them down, to relieve anxiety, to act as a social lubricant, for kicks, pleasure, a means of escape or because the substance, whatever it is, has made escape impossible. Some substances like tea and coffee are virtually harmless in normal quantities … some drugs come with the sign of medical approval yet can create dependency every bit as damaging as the much more dreaded … illegal drug. But paradoxically the real killers are substances which still carry a high degree of public acceptability—tobacco and alcohol. Alcohol is as old as civilisation and its use has been hedged around by … many social conventions. In many contexts it can be used responsibly and enjoyably. But in contexts where social conventions are changing or breaking down, or where the inducements towards excess are strong, the results can be devastating.
We live in such a context today. Social habits have changed. A drinks cabinet in the living room, drinks before meals, drinks during meals, drinks after meals, a little stiffener between meals and an

657
evening out at the pub are widely familiar and accepted parts of our social scene. And yet those whose instinctive reaction in a crisis is to gulp down something strong are likely to be the first to react in horror if their children are caught taking 'drugs' … I am not saying that alcohol is worse than other drugs, or more dangerous, only that there is a lot more of it around. Its excessive use is one of the major factors in crime, domestic misery, accidents and premature death".
There is clearly a religious dimension. Christians believe that alcohol is a part of the natural creation and is not therefore in itself evil. The Bible itself is ambivalent. The prophets rail at drunkenness but the psalmist can praise the wine that maketh glad the heart of man. But as with so much else in God's creation, it is within the exercise of our freedom to use it either creatively or destructively, either to enhance that enjoyment of life which is God's will for his creatures or to debase ourselves and endanger others. It is a matter of freedom, and the freedom is ours. In the end surely the way forward must be through education and not through restrictive legislation, though that will certainly have a part to play.
Everyone ought to know the basic facts about alcohol. One unit is the amount the normal body will process in an hour. We ought to know how many units there are in our pints of bitter, our glass of wine or our double whisky. Would it not help if this information always appeared on bottles and cans sold in shops and supermarkets? When we offer drinks to others can we increasingly remember to offer an attractive alternative to alcohol as a rule of our domestic and family living? There are at present too few firms in business who supply non-alcoholic wines and other drinks. But if demand increases, no doubt the trade will increase with it. Might we not come to expect an alternative to be offered to us without having to ask for something non-alcoholic when we are guests, or on the menu when we go out for a meal?
I regret to say that the churches themselves are not always guiltless in this matter. It is sometimes possible after a confirmation service or before a flower festival to be offered wine and cheese and nothing else—and here is a Bishop who intends to put that right in his own diocese at least!
It is not impossible for social trends, even deeply entrenched ones, to be reversed. We have seen it with smoking. We are seeing it with our habits of eating. A more disciplined and responsible attitude to alcohol is within our reach. I hope that the net result of this debate will be to encourage and strengthen those good people in our society who are working towards that very end.
6.49 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, on his excellent maiden speech. Yesterday at the Standing Conference on Crime Prevention I introduced the report of the working group on young people, alcohol and crime. The debate of the noble Viscount today is most fortuitous as I can now recommend this report to your Lordships. I thank the noble Viscount for this opportunity.
Over the years I have witnessed at first hand some of the horrendous results of alcohol abuse. I married
658
into a family where one member was an alcoholic. She was intelligent and attractive and had both medical and experienced voluntary help by experts on the treatment of alcoholism. Nevertheless she died a tragic death due to her problem. Alcohol can be a greater problem to the female sex.
When I was working with a friend we became involved with a man whose personality and brain had been so damaged by alcohol abuse that he had no control over his actions. On one occasion he approached us with a carving knife. The sharp end of abuse can be very sharp indeed.
On another occasion a drunk man entered my car and it was only due to an eight-year old child in the back that I managed, with some difficulty, to get him out. This year I met a casualty of a brutal, heinous attack. Rob, a man in his thirties, was taking his dog for its evening walk in Worthing when he was set upon by two young men at closing time. They beat him up, breaking his neck. The two girls with the attackers were so horrified that they reported the men to the police. Rob remains paralysed today from the neck downwards. But for his fortitude and the wonderful treatment at Stoke Mandeville Hospital spinal unit he most likely would be dead. The two attackers have been sentenced to seven years and 15 years in prison.
Only a few weeks ago our son went to the help of a security guard in Piccadilly when four drunk Americans were beating him up. Our son, also doing security work, was thrown down some stairs, sustained a head wound, a suspected fractured skull and a wrenched shoulder. There is a growing number of such casualties flooding into our overpressed hospitals. I am sure that many Members of your Lordships' House could tell tragic tales due to the abuse of alcohol. As a country can we afford to sit back and do nothing about it? On the whole Britain is a law-abiding country, but now when alcohol takes over violence and disorder take control.
The committee on young people and alcohol recommends that the law needs tightening up. The aim of crime prevention is to deal with problems before they reach the stage of criminality. Throughout the country there is increasing concern about under-age drinking. The younger the children start drinking, the more dangerous it is to their health. By the time they reach the late teens and early twenties they are drinking at a serious level, which is shown by the peak reached at 18 by the rate of "guilty" findings or cautions for drunkenness per 100,000 population. This is shown in our report.
Earlier this year the Home Secretary asked me to chair the working group on young people and alcohol. Our group consisted of a brewer, a member of the retailers' association, a psychiatrist and a member of the Health Education Authority, a director of social services from Wales, a chief probation officer, a head teacher, a chaplain from youth custody, a youth adviser, a member of the Salvation Army, a chief-superintendent of police, a solicitor and clerk to the justices, a member representing ethnic groups, a paediatrician from Wales and our civil servants from the Home Office who were most helpful and diligent.

659
The group, representing so many interests, worked extremely well together and we soon discovered what an immense problem under-age drinking has become, how confusing the present law is and how difficult it is to implement. We found that, apart from some splendid initiatives such as Bentley's Night Club at Stockton-on-Tees and Sunderland, the Pop-Inn at Manchester, the Parrot and Palm Club at Worthing and West One at Welwyn Garden City—these are disco-type clubs for young people and they are alcohol-free—there are not enough attractive youth facilities to draw young people away from the alcohol/pub culture. Some pubs are now taking a responsible attitude by providing family rooms where non-alcoholic drinks are available. We were encouraged at the increase in non-alcoholic wines and beers and hope that these will become easier to obtain from the small retailer.
I have written to both Houses of Parliament suggesting that they provide a choice of nonalcoholic wine. They already have beer. Many young people visit your Lordships' House. Sainsburys has brought out a booklet on responsible drinking. If this attitude is spread around the country there is hope, but if society's attitude is to turn a blind eye to underage drinking, I am sure that the increase in various crimes will penetrate down the age groups, as shown by the revealing recent "Panorama" programme.
Young people watch television and go to the cinema a great deal. The other day my general practitioner went to the cinema and an advertisment was shown about the dangers of heroin. The very next advertisement was an alluring one promoting some type of alcohol. Many of the advertisements are group-watched and aimed at young people, even though there is a law stating that advertisements for alcohol should not show people under the age of 25. Because of the scale of the problem our group concluded that television and cinema advertising of all alcoholic drinks should be banned.
We were alarmed that the recently-published Government proposals for a national curriculum failed to acknowledge the central importance of health and social education programmes in schools. We urge the Government to ensure that health education is given proper prominence in the national curriculum. We recommend that the DHSS should give urgent consideration to the appointment of serving teachers from the primary and secondary sectors to the Health Education Authority. We hope that the Government will consider a health warning on alcoholic drinks such as that carried by cigarettes. Education is a long process. Attitudes will not change overnight.
Our report has 50 recommendations but time does not allow me to go through them all. Any of your Lordships who are interested can obtain a copy from the Printed Paper Office or the Home Office and I have had copies placed in the Library. To make the law readily understood and reasonably consistent we recommend that the purchase or consumption of alcoholic drinks in all parts of licensed premises, registered clubs, wine warehouses, hotels and restaurants by those under 18 be made illegal. We hope that the consumption of alcohol in public places
660
by people under 18 will also be made illegal. In the city of Coventry there has already been an application for bylaws to make this possible and the Home Secretary is looking into it.
We recommend that the sales of alcoholic liquor be made by or effectively supervised by people aged at least 18. Where alcohol is sold or supplied to or for under-aged persons the onus should be placed upon the licensee to prove to a court that all responsible steps had been taken to prevent the offence. We recommend various codes of practice and training for magistrates and that a standard code of licensing practice be established for the guidance of licensing justices and licensees. More training is a theme which runs through the report for all people in positions of responsibility involved with alcohol. The Home Secretary has told us that the report will now be considered by the committee of the right honourable John Wakeham in another place. I hope that many of the recommendations will be acted upon. We owe that to our young people and to their future. Alcohol has become a problem in all sections of society. There are tragedies within the homes of some ethnic groups who need counselling and support from people who understand the culture.
There are serious problems from public schools to inner-city housing estates. To tackle these problems we need concerted efforts by local communities, both statutory and voluntary groups working together. I hope that your Lordships will do something about encouraging responsible drinking so that we have a safer and more stable society to live in.
7 p.m.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, excessive drinking is a curse on the addict and his family and a grave burden on the whole of our society. There has been a great deal of debate on just how many deaths and injuries are caused by excessive drinking. The Scottish whisky distillers organisation has questioned the estimates of the general practitioners. The general practitioners consider that 40,000 of our people a year go to an early grave because of alcohol addiction. The distillers disagreed with this, but then they would, would they not?
My own feeling is that the doctors are likely to have the better of the argument. But whether that figure is exact or whether it is not certainly tens of thousands of our countrymen go to an early grave each year through road accidents, by suicide, by murder, by fire, by cirrhosis of the liver, all of which show a close correlation with the amount of drinking.
In addition it is generally recognised that there are 750,000 people in the country with a serious drink problem. It occurred to me that 750,000 drunks means 750,000 familes who suffer from a bad drinking problem, which means that 2 million-plus of our people are constantly living under the shadow of the bottle. When a man or woman is a constant drinker the family life is also ruined.
What about the economic cost? We spend a lot of time in this House and in another place considering how we may cut down the loss to industry from strikes, and rightly so. And yet alcohol causes five times the loss of industrial production as do all the

661
strikes put together. Yet where is our priority? How much priority do we give to discussing this in Parliament?
There is one special aspect which horrified me the other day when I learned of it to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention, and that is some work recently carried out by Professor Kaufman of Edinburgh University. We have had some dreadful examples given tonight of the effects of overindulgence in alcohol by adults and by young people, but Professor Kaufman has carried the work to an earlier stage.
He points out that it has been known for a long time that women who drink heavily during pregnancy are liable to cause foetal alcohol syndrome in newly-born children—low weight, and mental retardation. But Professor Kaufman has studied even earlier developments and found that the conceptus—the newly fertilised egg cell—and even the egg cell before fertilisation suffer serious damage from alcohol drunk by the pregnant woman or even the woman before she becomes pregnant. The damage is quite horrifying, because there is a distinct link between the amount of alcohol and damage to the cromosome numbers in the egg and in the conceptus. This, as your Lordships will be aware, leads to the most dreadful, crippling syndrome in the newly-born child. It is a dreadful burden on the child and on the family.
The lesson is clear. The conceptuses which are so damaged are in most cases automatically aborted; but quite a number come through to become crippled children. What can we do about it? There is no cure, only prevention. Women must realise that throughout their fertile years they must cut down on their drinking if they want to safeguard their families—and cut down even before they have conceived.
The media have a great part to play in the fight against excess drinking. The people of our country are bombarded with the most subtle advertisements. There is great pressure from the advertising industry, and there is great pressure on them from social quarters as well. It is expected in so many social circles that you should drink to show that you are a man; to show that you are sophisticated. We have to learn to counter that, and countering that attitude can only come by an attack from several points at once. The Government have their part to play; but simply passing a law against drinking is never likely to cure the problem. America showed us that during Prohibition. But the Government must nevertheless have a part to play. The media have in my opinion a crucial role which nobody else can replace.
I remember what must be 40 years ago seeing a film which has been in my mind ever since; "The Lost Weekend". It was a most dramatic film which hit the headlines in its time. It showed as it is the effect on a man and his family when he is in the grip of alcoholism. But where are the playwrights or the scriptwriters now? Where do we see on television the equivalent of "The Lost Weekend"?
Week after week "Coronation Street" shows the Rovers Return as a wonderful rendezvous for all the
662
family. Many pubs are like that, but do not let us overdo it. When will "Coronation Street" show another pub with its filthy toilets, its filthy glasses, and its drunken people brawling and vomiting all over the place? Such pubs exist, and the media have a duty to show the other side of the coin.
We all have our part to play. Every leader of society, whether it be an employer, trade union leader, officers in the Army, police officers or teachers must set an example to those whom they lead. Employers must make it clear that they do not give priority in promotions to people who turn up at office parties and knock back more than anybody else; that if somebody turns up and drinks soft drinks they are as good as anybody else. It takes the real man to say no to alcohol.
We all have our part to play, and I should like to wind up my remarks by paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Falkland. In raising this topic this afternoon he has greatly contributed to the campaign that we should all be waging. The Government cannot get off the hook. They have to form a legal framework within which other pressures may be applied.
The prices for alcohol have been allowed to drift downwards in real terms and inevitably consumption goes up. We have seen this not only in the United Kingdom but in all countries in the world. It is imperative that the Government realise their responsibility to maintain and increase the prices. They should also consider carefully the law on advertisements. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, spoke of the dangers of advertising to the young. Yet, what do we see in last month's Drinks Retailer? In one column there is reference to an advertising campaign by one of the biggest distillers in the country. It is a new and expensive advertising campaign specifically aimed at the young. The article states that it is hoping to attract more younger drinkers by spreading the word about its well-established reputation as a brand of quality.
In another part of the magazine there appears a quotation from one of the main brewers which states that it has pierced the youth market and has aimed single-mindedly at 18 to 24 year-olds. Advertisements such as those are carving away the lives of our youngsters. The Government have their part to play in suppressing that kind of advertising activity because no-one else can do it.
The law on drinking and driving has been mentioned several times. I wholeheartedly support the need to reduce the 80 mg. level to 50 mg., as a start, and to introduce random breath testing. That is the only way in which we shall get a grip on the drunken driver. Health warnings should be printed on every bottle of alcohol, as with cigarettes; it is every bit as dangerous. Children should be instructed in the dangers of alcohol and tobacco as part of the compulsory school curriculum. This framework of legislation is necessary if the other social pressures, of which we are all aware, are to be applied to the vulnerable young people who will otherwise be the future victims.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Falkland. This afternoon he has helped the House in pointing out the hell that lies behind the statistics.
7.12 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, and other noble Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on bringing the subject forward for discussion this afternoon.
All noble Lords who have spoken have mentioned the problem of alcohol abuse. It is a serious problem which needs studying. We know little about alcoholism. We need to know more about whether it is an illness, part psychological or part physical. Those subjects definitely require increased study.
In this debate most noble Lords have mentioned the different serious aspects of alcohol and its evils. I find that I shall be in a minority once again—as I frequently am in this House—by saying something about the benefits of alcohol and why it is perhaps not such an evil in many circumstances as has been made out. I believe that it is important to stress the other side of the coin.
I welcome this debate for another reason. Two weeks ago the Licensing Reform Bill had its Second Reading in another place. The Bill will come before this House in the New Year and it will have my wholehearted support. On Second Reading in another place the debate appeared to become confused by the subject of the misuse of alcohol and by the temperance bodies and other abolitionists. I think that our debate this evening will clear away some of the undergrowth and confusion and enable us to discuss the health aspect. Therefore, when we discuss reform after Christmas we can stick to the facts. I presume that it is for that reason that tonight we have a health Minister answering the debate and not a Home Office Minister, which will be the case after Christmas.
I should like to deal with alcohol in general. In this country 94 per cent. of men and 89 per cent. of women drink. It is part of the social fabric of our country, but I do not think that we are a drunken nation. My statistics and research reveal that according to the tables, the UK comes ninth in the consumption of beer, which is the most popular drink, it is 18th in the consumption of wine and it is 19th in the consumption of spirits. Within countries in a comparable economic position we stand near the bottom of the league in consumption. That is an important aspect.
In his interesting speech the right reverend Prelate took the increase in consumption from the base point in 1950. It is worth pointing out that the consumption figure for alcohol in the United Kingdom in 1950 was the lowest for 250 years. Therefore, if one takes that base point one will have some peculiar incremental statistics. Secondly, the right reverend Prelate quite rightly mentioned Christian philosophy. Noble Lords should be reminded that Christ's first miracle in Canaan of Galilee was to turn water into wine.
Turning to the medical aspect, there are deaths from alcohol-related disease, which is a terrible thing. I am informed that the incidence of cirrhosis of the liver is declining relative to the population. That has been so in Scotland since 1979 and I find it particularly interesting. I wonder whether there is any correlation between that and the reforms which
664
were introduced in Scotland by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. I believe that matter to be worthy of further study and thought.
There is good evidence, with which most medical practitioners will agree, that moderate alcohol intake is beneficial. It has much to do with preventing cardiac arrest; so there are benefits to be gained by moderate and sensible drinking, quite apart from the fact that it forms a vital part of our social fabric.
I do not believe that alcoholism is caused by public houses, hotels, restaurants and other leisure establishments. Nor do I believe that it is caused by the availability of alcohol in retail outlets where drink is available at more reasonable prices than in leisure establishments such as public houses. I am not sure that there is a direct correlation between availability and consumption. In many countries in Western Europe and elsewhere where regulations are far more strict, consumption is much higher and the problems are much greater. For example, in two countries of an advanced economy, Sweden and Finland, drink is more expensive, more highly taxed and less freely available and there is a greater incidence of drunkenness.
It is important to remove some of the myths in considering the problem. Several noble Lords mentioned the fact that when the United States of America indulged in total prohibition the results were catastrophic and the misery profound.
Another important myth which should be removed concerns advertising, which several noble Lords mentioned. I believe that, by and large, advertising by the drinks manufacturers is extremely responsible. Very strict standards of control are employed by the advertising industry. Advertising is not directed to increasing consumption; it is directed to increasing the brand share of a particular product. There is no evidence that any alcohol advertising is directed towards increasing basic consumption and that is also an important aspect which should be clarified.
I believe that controls on the supply of alcohol will not reduce consumption but will have quite the reverse effect. I also believe that people with alcohol-related diseases tend to be rather reclusive, do not go to public houses and are anti-social. Certainly from my experience, and from people in my family who I know to have had this problem, alcoholics and others who are considered to be alcoholics—if that is the right word to use and it is the word in common parlance—seem to be rather reclusive and anti-social. That is not to say that we do not need to know a great deal more about it.
Several noble Lords have mentioned the interesting fact that drugs, tobacco and problems associated with their use attract enormous budgets for research. Alcohol has always seemed to be something of an orphan. Problems have been ignored where they exist and there has been very little unbiased research into the causes of alcoholism. Like the noble Viscount, I should like to encourage the Government to provide more funds for research to be undertaken. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something more on that subject. However, we must not confuse necessary research into aspects of disease caused by alcohol and its abuse with the

665
questions of where, when and how alcohol should be made available to the great mass of the British public. Alcohol is part of our national life and it brings considerable benefits.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I, too, should also like to congratulate the noble Viscount, particularly on his remarkable sense of timing. The report of the noble Baroness's working party was published today and she has given us a very good, if brief, resume of its most important findings. Moreover the consensus statement of all the medical and surgical colleges of the United Kingdom was released on 8th November. That statement made 14 clear recommendations on reducing the damage caused by alcohol.
In the past two years important reports have been published by the Royal Colleges of Physicians, Psychiatrists and General Practitioners, together with reports from the British Psychological Society, the faculty of Community Medicine and the World Health Organisation. Anticipating the criticism of their new Bill to permit longer opening hours, the Government have set up the Wakeham Ministerial Group to look at the whole problem. I very much hope that that important group will take into account the views that have been put forward in this debate as well as the weighty evidence in the reports that I have mentioned.
From time to time royal colleges have a way of producing reports which urge governments to act. In 1726 the Royal College of Physicians submitted a petition to Parliament drawing attention to:
"the fatal effect of the frequent use of several sorts of distilled spirituous liquors upon great numbers of both sexes, rendering them diseased, not fit for business, poor, a burden to themselves and neighbours, and too often the cause of weak, feeble and distempered children".
I must say that that statement arose from the fact that at that time gin was being hawked around London at one penny a pint. The purpose of the petition from the Royal College was to try to persuade the Government to put a tax on gin and encourage people to drink beer, which was then less likely to be contaminated with sewage than was the water supply. Although the words were different in 1726 from the words of the royal colleges today, the message is the same: beware of strong drink and use it moderately.
I have to declare a fourfold personal interest in alcohol, one interest being positive and three negative. I admit to enjoying drinking alcohol and I think that I imbibe—I hope that is the right word—rather more than the allowed 21 units per week, which is equivalent to three bottles of wine. Sensible drinking is not only pleasurable in itself but enhances friendly communication between people.
A few years ago in the United States a study was undertaken on the effect of introducing beer, cheese and crackers on six afternoons a week at the Cushing Hospital for Old People in Boston. That study showed that the introduction of what was called "the cocktail hour" greatly reduced incontinence, greatly increased active mobility and completely abolished the need for sedation among the old people. It may have had those results because more staff joined the
666
patients for their beer and cheese and thus increased personal contact with them.
Alcohol can be a most useful social facilitator, or perhaps I should say lubricant. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord. Montgomery, that there is evidence of a beneficial effect of light to moderate consumption of alcohol on the prevalence of arterio sclerosis and coronary heart disease. However, if one drinks more than a certain amount above the permitted or suggested levels, one starts running into trouble.
My negative experiences of alcohol are very powerful. My family has suffered severely through excesses of alcohol—and I admit to them being my blood relatives and not relatives by marriage, as mentioned by the noble Baroness. One relative has died from cirrhosis of the liver, having previously made a suicide attempt by threatening to jump off Westminster Bridge. Another relative killed himself at the second attempt, after he had lost a prestigious and well-paid job as a result of excessive drinking and his consequent unreliability. The health of two other members of my family suffered severely from alcohol dependency, although they eventually died from other causes.
I belong to a profession that has a high incidence of mortality from cirrhosis of the liver caused through heavy drinking. The mortality rate for doctors is exceeded by that for only a few other trades; examples are those who are engaged in the drinks and catering trade, those who go to sea and journalists or people in the advertising trade. I do not mention the health of Members of Parliament because they are too few in number actually to be classified by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. The stress of looking after the severely sick or of witnessing death has often been held to be the cause of the heavy drinking habits of doctors, although the reasons are probably more complicated and may be due to the tradition of heavy drinking which starts in medical school. Nowadays the heavy drinking that exists among some junior hospital doctors can, I think, be laid at the door of the long hours which they work in inadequately staffed wards.
My main negative experience with alcohol comes in my daily practice. Every day I see the results of excessive drinking. Even so, a number of heavy drinkers are not aware that they are in danger and do not come to the doctor until they suffer a complication, when it may be difficult and sometimes impossible to reverse the damage. There is thus a real need for doctors to obtain a "drinking history" from every patient who comes to them for whatever reason. Today people are more ready to give that information and the techniques for obtaining it are described very well in the report of the Royal College of General Practitioners which I have mentioned and which is entitled Alcohol, A Balanced View.
However, many patients do come asking for help with their drinking problem and there is a great deal that GPs can do, especially in conjunction with counselling, rehabilitation services and detoxification facilities. All those services are in need of expansion and better funding and I must say that I think it would be money very well spent, because of the

667
enormous costs that excessive drinking of alcohol imposes on society.
I suggest that the importance of alcohol consumption as a health problem should be given much greater emphasis in both undergraduate and postgraduate medical training. The report from the Royal College of General Practitioners which I have mentioned gives great weight to promoting education of the profession and to health education more widely of the public in general. As many speakers have already pointed out, as a nation we are woefully ignorant about the damage that is done by alcohol to our physical health. If time permitted I could spell out an uncomfortable list of serious diseases caused by heavy drinking. However, I will spare your Lordships, and the highly skilled, hard working Hansard writers, whose Latin and Greek may well be a little rusty. The Office of Health Economics, as has already been mentioned, has estimated that 2 per cent. of the adult population—over 700,000 people—are problem drinkers who are already in deep psychological, social or physical trouble. Another 3 million—that is, 8 per cent., of the adult population—are drinking more than the recommended safe levels.
The social cost to industry, the National Health Service and the law and order services—if I may call them that—has been estimated at £1·6 billion in 1983 and now it is much more likely to be over £2 billion. This figure is considered to be an underestimate. Much of the damage to family life is almost impossible to assess in financial terms. There is a great need for more research—and here again I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery—into the extent and nature of the effects of alcohol.
One survey found that 25 per cent. of all male hospital in-patients had alcohol-related problems. This implies an enormous cost. Another 32 per cent. of casualty attenders had excessive levels of alcohol in their blood.
It must be said that our main health problems today are all connected with unhealthy lifestyles. Cigarette smoking tops the list as the greatest of the merchants of death, accounting as it does for around 100,000 deaths annually. Alcohol, while it causes fewer deaths directly—only about 4,000 mentioned on death certificates—does cause more social havoc and contributes to many other illnesses not directly or obviously due to alcoholism itself. These deaths, as has already been mentioned, have been estimated by one body of the medical profession as amounting to 40,000. In fact, there is so much leeway in the estimates that it backs up my other request for further research: we do need to know much more about the effects of this drug.
Individuals themselves need help to change their lifestyles. Here I would disagree with the right reverend Prelate. Education, alone, is not enough: incentives, both sticks and carrots, are needed as well. As regards alcohol, I feel that the best combined stick and carrot that the Government have at their disposal is the excise duty. In other countries—and here I must disagree with the noble Lord—putting up the price has caused a reduction in consumption. In this country there is a fluctuation which shows that there is an effect when prices are put up. This applies
668
to all levels of drinking: heavy drinkers and light drinkers.
I suggest that a price increase would be a carrot because money that is not spent on drink can well be spent elsewhere. It will be a stick if the price of alcoholic drinks rises more than the real rise in earnings. Such an increase would have to be several percentage points above the retail price index. As has been pointed out, the hours of work needed to earn the cost of a bottle of whisky now, are only about half what they were before the war. But if this is done I would emphasise that the price of cigarettes should also rise correspondingly, otherwise one evil will simply tend to supplant another.
I should have liked to say something about drinking and driving, but my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington, in his very cogent maiden speech, has argued the case so well that I need say nothing more except that I thoroughly agree with all his remarks.
I would commend to your Lordships this excellent consensus report from the royal colleges, and I am sure that the Minister has already seen it. The report makes 12 recommendations, of which the tax increase that I have mentioned is one. I hope that the Government will respond positively to this document and likewise to all the other suggestions of noble Lords this evening.
7.35 p.m.
The Marquess of Headfort: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for putting down the subject of alcohol abuse this afternoon. I also view with alarm the increasing amount of alcohol abuse that we see everywhere in the British Isles today and in particular with young people.
To my mind it is no wonder that many more young people are tending to drink heavily when their sight is bombarded by frequent advertisements on television, in magazines, in newspapers and on advertising hoardings. These advertisements all tend to tell the same story: that to enjoy life all that is necessary is to drink some spirit or other, wine or beer.
I would ask the noble Lords in this House what then can be done? Obviously better education in schools by showing films on the disease of alcoholism—because that is what it is—may help to inculcate some caution in those who have the opportunity to see such films. However, nearly all of us in this House know of a friend or associate, possibly even a member of our own family, who suffers from alcoholism to a greater or lesser degree. How can we help these unfortunate people? We know from the medical profession that the ultimate end of the chronic alcoholic is almost invariably either insanity or death.
However, there is one strong ray of hope for the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, who suffer from drink problems. This is the fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous. This fellowship was founded in the mid-1930s in the United States of America by two professional men, one of whom was a doctor. Both these men suffered severely from continuing

669
bouts of alcoholism. From those early days the fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous has grown immensely, spreading to nearly every country in the Western world.
All that it is necessary for the chronic alcoholic is to telephone the nearest Alcoholics Anonymous centre—the addresses of which are in the Yellow Pages, the telephone book or can be obtained through directory inquiries—and simply ask for help. AA members, who may only a few years or months previously have been in the same situation as the person in trouble, will come around to where the sufferer is and explain to him or her about the fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous. They will arrange for him or her to attend a meeting and subsequently other meetings where they can meet other members who have cured themselves from and got over their drink problems through the practice of what I suppose is really group therapy. However, it is not only group therapy; there is also a schedule of 12 steps contained in a book which you are supposed to read, understand, do and then ultimately discuss.
Eventually the desire to drink leaves them. It is definitely a policy of abstinence and it is not a question of teaching you to drink normally. Many people who go to Alcoholics Anonymous say, "I am beginning because I am going to be taught to drink properly, not get tight, and cause embarrassment". That is not the point; it is to teach you abstinence.
I have discussed this matter with many people in the medical profession and those who have experience of attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings—either because they needed it themselves or because they wanted to give a lecture and pass on their medical knowledge to the members—say that in their opinion it is the only thing which really works properly in regard to this problem.
The members of Alcoholics Anonymous will also take the new person and guide him or her if that should be necessary, to enter a hospital or nursing home in order to be dried out under medical supervision, because there are problems when somebody has been drinking very heavily if he is taken off it all at once.
I should like to conclude by adding my congratulations on his maiden speech to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I first congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on introducing this debate and linking it with the day on which the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, came out, so close to the time when a Bill is to be debated in another place. It was extremely well timed. I want also to express my very sincere thanks and congratulations to my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington, who gave an outstandingly good and very moving maiden speech. He always used to be fed up with my speaking in another place, but I shall look forward to his speaking here.
The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, mentioned in his opening remarks that he thought he would find himself in something of a minority. I think
670
that is true and I am rather happy that he is in a small minority in the circumstances, because concern has been expressed in all parts of the House about alcohol abuse. I emphasise that we are not talking about moderate, sensible drinking. Many of us have admitted that we are moderate, sensible drinkers; I am one. But we are talking about those whose drinking habits are not moderate and are often dangerous.
I want to sum up the facts as I see them. The facts are not as the Scotch Whisky Association—I was going to say Whisky Galore—sees them or as the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, does. I see them as follows. Roughly 3 million people, or about 8 per cent. of the population, are heavy drinkers. Even more, 25 per cent. of men and 8 per cent. of women, drink more than the recommended safe levels, thus increasing the incidence of heart disease, excessively high blood pressure, breathlessness and other medical conditions. The medical evidence is absolutely overwhelming. I am glad that reference has been made to the consensus statement signed, so far as I can see, by all the medical colleges, as well as by organisations like Action on Alcohol Abuse, Alcohol Concern, the Faculty of Community Medicine etc. It was a remarkable statement and I shall touch upon its recommendations later.
The Royal College of Physicians in a different report puts deaths due to excessive alcohol at about 35,000 a year. The Royal College of General Practitioners in its calculations suggested that in addition to 80 per cent. of deaths from chronic liver disease, alcohol accounts for 40 per cent. of deaths from injury and poisoning, 12 per cent. of deaths from digestive diseases, 11 per cent. from respiratory diseases and 12 per cent. from heart disease. These are very high figures, which no one can simply ignore.
If one looks at another field, police and Home Office evidence has established that alcohol is a factor in, they suggest, 45 per cent. of violent crimes, 50 per cent. of all murders and 20 per cent. of child abuse cases. The figures also show that 78 per cent. of assaults, 67 per cent. of incidents of domestic violence and even 44 per cent. of cases of theft are connected with alcohol. That is Home Office evidence.
The Department of Transport concludes that one-quarter of all road deaths are alcohol linked in some way or another, as are one-third of domestic accidents, 40 per cent. of fires, 20 per cent. of drowning fatalities and two-thirds of attempted suicides. All those are linked with excessive alcohol.
We also have massive work loss. This is not just a class factor. You can see it across the whole spectrum of people who extend their lunch break to more than an hour, drink as much as they can during that short period and in the afternoon are too sleepy to concentrate effectively. They cause more accidents, they are more inefficient in their work, they are slow and they are clumsy. That applies whether they are at management level or on the work floor.
I wondered what was meant by the Home Secretary when he was talking to the Licensed Victuallers Association in October last year. He said:
"The essence of it is that the dead afternoon makes no sense in British society in 1986".

671
He went on to explain why he was going to introduce a Bill. But we do not have a dead afternoon; we have a drinking afternoon, which leads to more deaths later and a great deal of tiredness and inefficiency. I do not understand why the Government have chosen this time to introduce the measure that they have.
The costs to the health service are well over the £100 million mark, which must be of great concern to the Minister at a time when the health service needs all the cash it can get, quite apart from the social costs in terms of cruelty in the home, broken marriages, damaged children, rape and child sexual abuse. The Centre for Health Economics at the University of York put the quantifiable cost of drink abuse at nearly £2,000 million last year. That is across the whole spectrum of transport, health and social affairs.
The Government know all this, because most of the facts come from government sources. They also agree that something must be done. In fact they have set up a committee of representatives of government departments to look at the problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and her committee have looked at what I think is the most serious problem of all, which is young people. Sixteen year-old boys are now at greater risk than middle-aged men. That is a new factor which we have to take into consideration.
A recent study by Exeter University found that 11 per cent. of 14 year-olds interviewed in a random survey had consumed the equivalent of 10 pints of beer the previous week. This is a very frightening thought when one is talking of children of 14. A recent survey on BBC "Panorama" showed that half the weekly income of youngsters aged 15 to 17 was spent on under-age drinking. I have not read the noble Baroness's report, as I have not had an opportunity to do so, but I am sure that those facts were available to her and that they led her to the conclusions that were reached.
Mr. Norman Fowler, when Secretary of State for Social Services in February 1978, said:
"A change in public opinion surrounding alcohol should be a high priority for us. Because it is so widely and pleasurably used, the general public is largely ignorant of the cost of alcohol misuse in our society and the levels of consumption which may cause harm. I believe that a change in attitudes to alcohol must be our first priority".
As the Minister knows, I do not normally go around praising Ministers to excess. I merely say that that former Secretary of State was talking real sense and I believe that there has to be a change in attitudes. This was strongly argued by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester.
So what are the Government doing in the face of all this frightening evidence? First, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his contribution by reducing the real cost of drink by failing even to increase the tax in line with inflation. I thought that that was a very extraordinary decision to take. Of course it was popular with a small number of people. I suppose it was popular with all drinkers, because it meant that they were actually drinking at lower cost than before. It is one way of gaining popularity, but I do not think it was a very sensible or a very socially minded decision to take.
In the past 30 years alcohol consumption in the United Kingdom has almost doubled and the relative
672
price has halved. Approximately £43 million is spent every day on alcohol, more than on personal clothing, on house repairs or on motor cars. The real price of whisky and wine has dropped dramatically over the years, though the price of beer—due more to the acquisitiveness of the brewers than to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—has stayed closer to the retail price index.
All right, the Chancellor has made some contribution to this problem but law enforcement is slipping. Prosecutions for under-age drinking have fallen dramatically in a most disturbing way, as if the law did not exist. In fact the under-18 rule is openly flouted without any action that one can see being taken. The Government must concentrate their attention on that.
Now apart from establishing an interdepartmental committee the Government propose to extend the licensing hours. That is quite contrary to the recommendations of the Masham Report and to the evidence available, which I have quoted. I find that almost unbelievable.
Let us look at the simplest recommendations from the consensus taken by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. One can see that it recommended, first, raising the price of alcohol, although it did not say by how much; secondly, the immediate introduction of random breath testing; thirdly, no further extension of licensing hours and proper enforcement of existing licensing laws; and, fourthly, closer surveillance of alcohol advertising. Each one of those proposals has been argued by noble Lords during the course of the debate. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister a very clear exposition of what the Government intend to do about what I think is a very serious problem. Alcohol Concern has called that problem a national disaster.
Let us consider this problem from the aspect of a Bill that is in another place. All the evidence shows that the longer the licensing hours the more alcohol is consumed. That is the evidence that has come from other countries. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has suggested, it seems to be the evidence from Scotland.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as I pointed out, the survey by the OPCS of the first eight years after the reform was carried out in Scotland indicated that there had not been increased consumption among men and that there had been a small increase in consumption among women. But on the whole there had been an improvement. I pointed out that the situation in Scotland was different, but I wish to make quite clear that what has happened in Scotland has been an improvement. That should not be challenged.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I do challenge that because the figures that have been suggested show an increase of 13 per cent. I accept that that includes women as well as men but it shows that there has been a 13 per cent. increase in alcohol consumption in Scotland. I know that the noble Lord said that he expected that women would drink more. I do not look forward to that prospect or consider it a great success. It may be that women are also smoking more and are doing more damage to themselves.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the noble Lord really should have listened to my speech. I said that that situation was to be expected in Scotland where women used not to be taken into pubs. The drinking that took place was thoroughly unsociable and in a number of places the men were there simply to try to get drunk before closing time. Therefore it was to be expected that more women should now be drinking. Of course I am not suggesting that there is a direct comparison with England and Wales, but the noble Lord should not try to change history as regards Scotland.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am not trying to change history. I am simply saying that the facts show that there was a 13 per cent. increase in drinking during the eight years that I mentioned. That figure was mentioned by the OPCS.
Is there public pressure for longer drinking hours? I do not think that there is. Poll findings suggest that that is not so. They have consistently shown that around 60 per cent. of the population want to keep pub opening hours as they are. The findings show that barely a third of the population support longer licensing hours. Those figures have been revealed to a slightly varying degree by Gallup and Marplan.
There are of course advocates of extending drinking hours. Alcoholics and heavy drinkers find it nicer to be able to continue drinking in the afternoon rather than be turned out of the pubs and have to sit around waiting before being able to go back again in the early evening. I do not know what was discovered by the noble Baroness, but school-age drinkers who are attracted by the prospect of a drink in a pub after school want to see the hours changed.
Lastly and most importantly, the brewers themselves quite obviously are the advocates of the case. I would not link the brewers with any contributions that they may make to party funds, but there are some who would do that. I think that the brewers should be told that it is not the Government's task to ease their job of selling more drink. That is what the brewers want to do and any argument that the purpose of advertising is not to sell more drink is one that I find absolutely spurious.
I want to know what the Government are going to do about that. I also want to know what they intend to do about the proposed sponsorship that I read about two days ago of the Football Association Cup by Courage. It is absolutely appalling that a major sporting event should be sponsored by a major drink producer. That is so blatant as to be disgusting. I hope that the Government will have a very substantial case to make for the policies that they wish to pursue. I hope that when the Bill comes to the House we shall be able to argue it line by line. Although the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, will support it, I can assure him that I shall not.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the House will be unusually grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for giving us the opportunity to debate a topic of concern on which there is quite rightly increasing public debate. From what we have heard
674
today it is quite clear that alcohol misuse is a complex subject of multiple dimensions. It is a subject about which many of your Lordships are clearly concerned and one on which many differing views are held about what action needs to be taken.
I was particularly struck by the maiden views, if I may put it that way, of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington. I hope that we shall hear from him both soon and often. Clearly the right reverend Prelate has rather softer views on the use of the law and I am sure that noble Lords will have drawn their own conclusions from that.
Many years ago the lecturer who gave me a grounding in economics used to tell me to define my terms. Alcohol misuse comes in various forms and results in harm ranging from personal, social and criminal damage at one end of the spectrum to cirrhosis of the liver and ultimately death at the other. The House will have noted that in relation to Europe this country has one of the lowest per capita incidence of death from liver cirrhosis. Indeed the noble Viscount himself noted that particular point.
It is also noticeable that in Sweden, despite tough methods designed to control alcohol consumption which have been operating for many years, the figure is three times as high as it is here. Experience from Sweden and elsewhere does not lead me to suppose that swingeing government measures in the form of tax, which have been called for by many noble Lords tonight, are the answer. Nevertheless I shall of course refer the comments of the House and particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I am afraid that I must disagree with my noble friend Lord Montgomery on the cirrhosis figures. In England and Wales they have in fact gone up, not down, from 1,944 in 1974 to 2,750 in 1986. However, just looking at how things are going from the incidence of cirrhosis of the liver is not what this debate has in the main been about. As we know, long before an individual has become physically dependent on alcohol the consequences of persistent overconsumption will have given rise to a variety of problems for the drinker himself, his family, his friends and, even worse, total strangers to say nothing of the effect on the general economy through loss of productive work. That point has been made by one noble Lord.
Let me take those consequences in order. The drinker, male or female, will start with a social drink. That may continue for several years. In that period, which may start in childhood with overindulgent or uncaring parents, there will be an occasional bout of recklessness resulting in at best a hangover from which the individual can hopefully learn how much his body can cope with. Childhood drinking is the particularly worrying aspect of the OPCS report which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. That study found that by the age of 13 most adolescents had had their first alcoholic drink. Weekly drinking rises steadily with age. At the age of 13, for example, 29 per cent. of boys and 11 per cent. of girls have taken alcohol at some stage in their lives. By the time they get to the age of 17, the figures are 61 per cent. and 54 per cent. respectively. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, may be interested to know

675
that Scottish adolescents drink much less frequently. I am not saying that those figures prove anything.
The majority of young drinkers drink moderately. Older adolescents and particularly boys drink more, which is not surprising. A quarter of all 14 year-olds and 40 per cent. of all 16 year-olds in England and Wales say that they drink in pubs. As a member of the Government and as an individual, I find that an absolutely scandalous statistic, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, does, together with every other Member of this House. What they are doing is breaking the law. That cannot be right. The problem—as with drink-driving, to which I shall turn in a moment—is to identify the law-breakers. That problem is something which we shall have to consider. However, there can be no excuse.
The reason for drinking, which I think was put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, is that alcohol is a legal drug and, taken in moderation, it does little harm. It may even do good in that it induces a mild euphoria and relieves stress. That is socially acceptable and the Government do not believe that it would be right to crack down on the sale or consumption of alcohol per se. However, we believe that social acceptability is the key to dealing with the problem. It must be made unacceptable for the stage of mild euphoria to be translated into a stage of total euphoria where imbibers are no longer responsible for their actions.
If we look, as several noble Lords have done, to tobacco as a parallel, education there has made smokers well aware of the bad social image of the habit. I believe that we should aim to make total euphoria or drunkenness as socially unacceptable as smoking has become. The macho image of downing as many pints in as little time as possible must go.
What I am saying in my longwinded way is that the Government's primary policy is education. The noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, is right in saying that. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, called it "changing attitudes" but what is in a word? Last year the Health Education Authority and the national voluntary body, Alcohol Concern, spent some £1 million of DHSS funds on alcohol education and services. Other government departments have been improving the teaching of sensible drinking in our schools and tackling drunken driving. I should like to record my support for the hard-hitting campaign of my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport which is aimed at keeping drunk drivers off our roads, for which I think he has been quite unreasonably criticised in some quarters.
Lord Ennals: Not by me!
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, indeed. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, and others spoke eloquently on the subject of random breath-testing. That has been a matter of considerable controversy for over 20 years. The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, does not inhibit me from saying that the police may use their general powers under Section 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 to stop vehicles at random in order to decide whether there are grounds for requiring a breath test under Section 7 of the Act where there are reasonable
676
grounds to suspect that the motorist has alcohol in his body, that he has committed a moving traffic offence or that he has been involved in an accident. The law as enacted permits random stopping but not random testing. The Association of Chief Police Officers has stated that it sees no need for wider powers.
The House may be interested to know that in 1986 the police carried out more than 300,000 breath tests of which 28 per cent. were positive. It may also have escaped your Lordships' notice that last week leave was given in another place for the introduction of a Bill to bring in random breath-testing under the Ten Minutes Rule. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, will know more than I do about the likely prognosis for the Bill. I understand that it is rare but not impossible for such Bills to get on the statute book. I can only say that when and if it arrives in this House we shall subject it to our customary scrutiny.
At present the Government have no plans either to amend the present blood alcohol level for drunk driving or to increase the recommended period of banning which is imposed on convicted drink-drivers. I do not know whether we are going to have our annual transport Bill this year; I rather suspect that we shall. If noble Lords feel sufficiently strongly, no doubt we can debate that matter in the context of the Bill.
Home Office studies on how alcohol underlies crime have included that of the excellent working party chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, to which the Government are most grateful. Our debate has been much enlightened by the noble Baroness's contribution today. However, she will not expect me to respond blow by blow to her working party report at this moment. That will clearly involve a certain amount of consideration.
Perhaps I may make one comment concerning the speech of the noble Baroness. In my view, it was most unfortunate that she coupled her plea for non-alcoholic wine in the House with the visits which young people make to the House. Non-alcoholic wine for youngsters can easily start them on the slippery slope that we all know so well. That is a matter upon which I for one feel extremely strongly.
All the Government action to which I have referred now has a single focus in the new ministerial group on alcohol misuse. Since advertising is a factor which might influence groups which are at risk, such as young people, I imagine that it may well be considered by the ministerial group on alcohol misuse. In particular, the noble Baroness will have noticed that my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal has taken children as his first priority.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that young people like to follow adults? We are not going to stop adults drinking wine. Would it not be advisable to let children understand that non-alcoholic wine is safe and quite likeable when they learn to drink it?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, likeability is a matter of personal taste. I shall not get into that argument at this moment. Perhaps I may mention

677
that I am a notorious chocolate eater. However, I have been able to educate my children not to touch it. Bits of Easter eggs are still littered around the larder at my home on Christmas Day. That says a lot for the state of my children's teeth. However, I do not want to go into that at the moment either.
Targets and messages are important and they can be co-ordinated and action directed more positively through the ministerial group. I believe that all those measures will reassure those who have expressed worries about the effects of the Government's proposals to relax opening hours in England and Wales. Far from being a source of harm, that removal of unnecessary restrictions seems to me to be a positive step to encourage more leisurely drinking and to do away with the "last orders" rush. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy mentioned the experience of Scotland. That is evidenced again in the OPCS survey. I totally agree with my noble friend's conclusions.
Apart from government many others have been playing their part in tackling misuse. I was particularly grateful for the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Headfort, on the rationale and the way of dealing with the problems of alcoholics which Alcoholics Anonymous has developed over a considerable period of time. The Government, the Houses of Parliament generally and much more importantly the alcoholics themselves are and will be eternally grateful.
The drinks industry has put a lot of time and money into research and education. I particularly welcome its latest national campaign to reduce under-age drinking and drunken driving. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester reminded us that the Church has given care and support for many years to those whose lives have been damaged by alcohol. Employers and trades unions have shown how important is the work place in tackling alcohol problems.
Last but by no means least the medical profession in this country has made sure that we have expert advice on how we can safely use alcohol. During the last year the medical royal colleges have revised their safe drinking limit to lower levels, which is a significant change and of which all of us should take careful note. When noble Lords ask for more research, I find it difficult to understand what research they are talking about. It seems to me that this subject is already very well covered.
The report of the royal colleges is part of the health education which we were talking about earlier in the debate on the Statement on primary health care. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that the subject of alcohol should figure more strongly in medical training outside and not inside the medical student. I actually blame rugger for the latter, but let that pass.
All these efforts to educate are starting to bring about signs of change in the habits of at least some people. One of the more encouraging things in this respect was for me to go out to lunch recently with a multi-million pound company making, among other things, medical equipment. I am currently responsible for the procurement and export of such products. Although I was offered alcoholic beverages
678
before the meal, there was a vast array of soft drinks on offer. The point of this story is that no wine, either alcoholic or non-alcoholic, was offered with the lunch itself. Only water was served and even more importantly no comment was made. Your Lordships may well have similar tales to recount, but this is far from always being the case. We need to create a social climate where non-alcoholic beverages are always set out side-by-side with alcoholic drinks. In passing I congratulate our refreshment committee on stocking non-alcoholic beer in two—why only two?—of our three main refreshment points.
The strategy to educate has raised public concern about two particular areas, the wine drinking habits of our young people and the unacceptable loss of life and injury on our roads caused by the drunken driver. I am sure that the House will welcome the decision of the ministerial group on alcohol misuse to consider as a first priority the question of young people and alcohol.
I have been asked various questions especially by the noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, who I think was the only noble Lord to ask me direct questions. I will answer them. The noble Lord spoke about a suggestion for having alcoholic-strength labelling and health warnings on bottles of alcohol. The European Community has decided that all pre-packaged alcoholic drinks should be required to show on their labels the alcoholic strength quoted as alcoholic percentage by volume. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has decided to extend this requirement to cover dispensed drinks provided through outlets such as hotels, restaurants and public houses. These are expected to come into force in 1989.
As regards health warnings generally, the noble Lord suggested that they should appear on all containers of alcoholic drinks in line with warnings on cigarette packets. The Government are not convinced by this on the grounds that it is the misuse of alcohol which does the harm. However, I shall take on board the suggestion that warnings could be phrased in such a way that it is the misuse to which attention is drawn.
Several noble Lords have talked about alcohol and the advertising thereof in the media. I do not know how many know of a recent Department of Health and Social Security conference on the prevention of alcohol misuse. It took place on 20th February. One of the six main topics under discussion was the role which the media could play in influencing public opinion. The conference was attended by representatives of the voluntary sector, professional bodies, government departments, industry and both the advertising sector as an industry and the media itself.
I am happy to advise the House that the media representatives reached a concensus that they had a very important role to play in educating the public on the subject of alcohol. I do not know how many noble Lords occasionally watch the soap opera "East Enders". It is extremely good in the educational respect in that non-alcoholic beverages are frequently seen to be drunk on the screen by the actors.
Furthermore, during that conference it was agreed that journalists and broadcasters needed to change their attitude to drinking before they could influence

679
others. The effective aim of the media should be to make inebriation as unacceptable as smoking has become.
As regards advertising, in the non-spoken media this is regulated by the alcohol chapter of the Advertising Standards Authority's code of practice. This chapter, which is voluntary, is drawn up by the drinks industry itself and is administered by the authority. Any complaints which noble Lords or any members of the public might have should be directed to it.
The department which I have the honour to serve was consulted when the code was reviewed and it naturally welcomes the revised procedures which came into operation at the beginning of 1980 as a significant improvement over previous procedures. I have not noticed myself a slipping of standards but after the comments made in the debate this evening I shall certainly look very much more closely at the matter and try to get an historical base from which to judge.
The drinks industry in this country has demonstrated a responsible attitude towards alcohol misuse and it has supported research and prevention initiatives. We are particularly pleased to see its latest national initiatives aimed at preventing under-age drinking and drink-driving, which are the two areas where the law has a part to play.
Finally, it is far from easy to tackle the abuse of a substance which is legal and which is solidly entrenched in our national and cultural attitudes. Alcohol is not a substance like heroin or cocaine where a clear message can be given about the harm in using it. No such message is appropriate to the use of alcohol, only to its misuse, which is a point I have already made.
This is a complex issue which it is difficult to address in a clear and unequivocal manner. Yet we must address it, fostering and informing debate at all levels of our society to bring about sensible and balanced opinions. I am sure that our debate here today has provided a valuable contribution to the overall national discussion and a constructive input to public awareness. On behalf of the Government, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we have had a useful, interesting and productive debate and it only remains for me to thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I should like to congratulate in particular the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington. I think we are extremely lucky to have had in this debate today such an eloquent and experienced speaker making, well within the bounds of convention, so forceful a point. I hope the Government will take on board the need to tighten up the law as regards drinking and driving. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester made reference to the need for education, and I believe that that is something with which we all agree. Many noble Lords were kind enough to say that my timing was extremely good. My noble friend Lady Stedman, sitting at my side when one of those remarks was made, muttered to me: "Everybody has to get lucky at some time". I think that was probably the right attitude.
680
As an arbiter in the disagreements about the Scottish figures, I think we can interpret the Scottish figures in several ways. It does seem that abuse in terms of intoxication and its disastrous effects in law-breaking and so on at a time which one associates with end-of-session drinking has definitely subsided in Scotland. However, the figures for cirrhosis of the liver in Scotland have increased more than in England, and drinking among women has also increased. Some of the figures may appear a little untrustworthy because certain offences which were formerly the subject of prosecutions by the police are no longer brought in that form. Therefore, some police statistics are perhaps not entirely reliable.
I end on that note of peacemaking and thank all noble Lords for their excellent contributions to this debate. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Land Registration Bill [H.L.]
8.22 p.m.
Lord Templeman: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. Nine hundred years ago land in England was registered in the Domesday Book. At that time there was no coyness about the ownership of land. For the next few hundred years there was no secrecy about the ownership of land. When a purchaser bought a piece of land, he was taken on to the land in the presence of witnesses and the vendor handed him a twig by way of a symbol and said to him, rather charmingly: "Enter this land and God give you joy". Copyhold land was conveyed by surrender and admittance carried out in open court before the Lord of the Manor or his steward.
Then, I am sorry to say, the lawyers got to work and invented secret written conveyances. The object of that was not to hide the ownership of land from one's neighbours, but to hide it from the king, who thereby was disabled of recovering the feudal dues and taxes which otherwise he could have recovered under the old-fashioned method of conveyancing.
Once land became transferable by secret documents, then we had to build up the whole of the paraphernalia of proving title. It is not possible to assume that because man is living in a house he is therefore the owner. When one wants to buy from him, under unregistered conveyancing, he will produce a whole mass of documents, some of them 50 years old, to prove his title. Title was traced through each document, each death, each will until finally—staggering at the end—a skilful solicitor could advise the purchaser that there was a good title.
That was expensive and cumbersome and in 1862 the Land Registry Act was passed. The object of the Act, as expressed in the preamble, was:
"To give certainty to the title to real estate and to facilitate the proof thereof and also to render dealings with land more simple and economic".
The system is simply that the Land Registry has a register on which is entered the owner of a particular piece of land. On it is also registered any mortgage which is executed and any restrictive covenants which

681
affect the land. If one wants to know whether the vendor really owns the land, one simply goes along to the register and looks. All the old conveyancing documents can he thrown away or sent off to the archives.
In 1862 the registration of land in its simplified form was voluntary, and, as by that time unregistered land was conveyed secretly, in order to encourage volunteers to come along and register their land, Section 15 of the Act provided that the register should only be opened to inspection by the registered owner or under an order of the court.
Land registration became compulsory in 1925 under the Land Registration Act, but the work of registering the titles was immense and was interrupted by the war. Even now the registration of titles has only reached about 70 or 80 per cent. though I am glad to say that it is planned that complete registration will be finished by about the end of the century. The Land Registry is the government department which keeps all these records. When it has a record it issues a certificate of title which describes the land, indicates its boundaries and gives the names and addresses of the owners.
As registration of title has become the rule rather than the exception, secrecy, whose justification lay in the fact that unregistered conveyancing was necessarily secret, has become out of date. The secrecy which was imposed by Section 112 of the Land Registration Act 1925 has led to a number of serious difficulties. The worst example of that is the absent landlord who manages his property through agents and conceals his identity. The tenant may wish to serve a notice on his landlord to carry out repairs and the local authority may wish to serve a notice on the landlord to fulfil his statutory obligations. Under the Land Registration Act 1925, no tenant or local authority is entitled to inspect the register to find out who owns the land. There have been statutory inroads into this, but it is the worst example of secrecy, as is usual, becoming a cloak for fraud and malpractice.
There are other difficulties. I heard only today of counsel advising an owner of land who is having a dispute with his neighbour about boundaries. There was a great deal of correspondence and argument and the neighbour flatly refused to disclose his title deeds. The result is that the argument will continue until someone issues a writ and the matter is then clarified. However, if there was no secrecy, one could go along to the Land Registry and see the boundaries of title and the name of the owner.
There are other difficulties. For example, one owner has a party wall and finds that it harbours dry rot. He cannot do much about it without the knowledge of his neighbour. The neighbouring owner has let the property and the tenant is awkward. There is then real difficulty in discovering the exact position with regard to the property next door. The tenant of a flat may wish to know, not only who owns his property, because that may have come about as a result of leases and sub-leases, but who owns the block of flats and who is responsible for, for example, repairs to the roof.
682
There are other people who are interested in ownership. People may wish to know if there is a right of way and who is the owner responsible for it. The problem has been apparent for a number of years. The Law Commission was asked to investigate the matter, which it did with its usual thoroughness. It sent out 50,000 copies of a pamphlet asking, "What do you think about opening the register?" I am bound to say that the majority of people never bothered to reply—they could not care whether or not the register was opened. However, the great preponderance of opinion among those who did reply was in favour of the register being opened.
The Law Commission also made inquiries abroad. It found, and I quote from its report, that:
"in almost every other country in the world registers of title or of land are fully open to public inspection. Lawyers in these countries find it hard to understand why we retain a private register in this country since the advantages of an open one are to them so obvious".
In this country it is possible to go to Somerset House and collect a copy of the will of any deceased testator and find out that he has left his second best bed to his wife and cut off his eldest son with a shilling; it is possible to inspect the register of the ownership of shares in public companies; but it is not possible to inspect the register of titles to land. For my part, I fail to understand how anyone can be ashamed of the knowledge that he owns a piece of land, large or small.
In its Report No. 148, dated 27th February 1985, the Law Commission, having made all these thorough investigations, recommended that the Land Registry should be open to public inspection and annexed to its report the draft Bill which, subject to slight modifications, is the Bill now before the House.
A suggestion has been made—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, is to repeat it—that it might he possible partially to open the register; that is, to open it to certain classes of people. That raises practical objections; first, there is the difficulty of defining who should be allowed to inspect the register and who should not, and, secondly, there is difficulty for the registrar and his officials. When someone asks politely to inspect the title to find out who owns, say, 156 Acacia Avenue, the Land Registry official would have to say, "You must prove to us that you fall into one of the categories of person entitled to inspect." The Law Commission came to the conclusion that there was no reason why the registry should not be generally opened so that the registrar would have no difficulties.
The Bill has been welcomed by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, by my noble and learned friend on the Appellate Committee, and particularly by my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman, who has experience in conveyancing and trusts of over 50 years. The House will await with interest the views of the Lord Chancellor, but I remind him and the House that in Scotland a deeds register has been open to public inspection since the 17th century. As usual, it appears that Scottish law is about 250 years ahead of English law and, again as usual, we are now making strenuous efforts to catch up.

683
The opposition to the opening of the register is largely based on the view that to open it would be an invasion of privacy. That, in itself, may be due to some misapprehension. Although, as I have said, the register gives details of conveyancing, ownership and mortgage, it does not show the price paid for a property or the amount raised on mortgage. It would be embarrassing for a vendor who purchased at £50,000 to have a potential purchaser jibbing at a price of £70,000 because he found that the property had been bought cheaply. One can understand that no owner of property wishes it to be known that he has mortgaged it to the hilt. However, there is no great stigma in having it known that one has mortgaged a property. It is perfectly simple to do and everybody does it, partly to get the benefit of the generous tax allowance and partly because very few people can put up £150,000 in pound notes for a three-bedroomed house. Therefore, to reveal the fact that a house has been mortgaged is not, to my mind, an invasion of the privacy of an owner.
The ownership of land can no longer be confidential. Ownership of land brings obligations as well as rights. Many people apart from the owner are interested in land. The state is interested. The Forestry Commission is interested. Everyone concerned with town planning is interested. Neighbours are interested. Tenants are interested. Even a trespasser might be interested. One cannot isolate a piece of land in the middle of England and, for no good reason, simply cloak its ownership and say that no one should be entitled to know the name of the man who owns it.
With that introduction, I now deal briefly with the Bill. Clause 1 abolishes the restrictions on inspection of the register and enables any person to inspect and make copies of entries on the register. Your Lordships will observe that the right is made conditional on payment of a fee. That fee will be fixed by the Land Registry. That has two consequences. First, payment of a fee will prevent any frivolous inspection. In practice, if a person has to pay in order to search for each title only those people who have a genuine interest in ascertaining the name of the owner will, bother to search the register. Secondly, the imposition of a fee—and I am sure this will appeal to Her Majesty's Government—will mean that no additional cost will fall on the taxpayer. The registrar will naturally assess a fee which will cover the cost of opening and showing the register and giving copies to inquirers.
Subsection (2) and Clause 3 are consequential and get rid of some minor amendments to Section 112 of the Land Registration Act which already exist.
I should mention that Clause 3(2) as at present drafted provides that the Bill,
"shall come into force at the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is passed."
With 40 years' experience of conveyancing I know how much work there is in the Land Registry. I am full of admiration for the registrar, who has dragged conveyancing from the 19th into the 20th century. The registry is now, with great foresight, embarked on a programme of computerisation which will take conveyancing into the 21st century. With
684
computerisation, it will eventually be possible for any solicitor, with, of course, the consent of the Land Registry and payment of a fee, to ascertain the details of ownership and any restrictive covenants on a property merely by asking the right questions of the computer.
At the moment, as I understand it, the registrar fears that if the Bill comes into force immediately there will be extra cost and difficulty for his department. If the Bill finds acceptance among your Lordships, I suggest that the proper way to deal with that problem is to provide for the Act to come into force on a day to be fixed by the Lord Chancellor, or whoever is the most appropriate Minister. I hope that the Act will be brought into force within the next year or two, when the registrar has managed to solve his administrative difficulties and is satisfied that he can operate its provisions without undue difficulty. Subject to that change, which I shall ask leave to introduce in Committee, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Templeman.)
8.38 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am pleased to give a very firm welcome to the Bill and to the concept of an open register making information regarding land ownership available to those who want it.
When I first read the Law Commission's report I had no firm feelings one way or the other about this matter except, perhaps, a feeling that here was yet another incursion into our privacy. However, if I had not been persuaded by the arguments of the report I would certainly have been persuaded by the presentation of the argument by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman.
As the noble and learned Lord said, I have one issue to raise. Should the opening of the register enable everyone to inspect everything to be found there? Should the opening of the register be total or only partial? In its report the Law Commission firmly recommends total and unrestricted opening. The reason given by the Law Commission—and this will be my principal concern this evening—is that the Treasury would not permit the additional expense required if the opening of the register were to be partial. This is said to be the case even though the Land Registry is well able from its fee income to fund partial opening over and over again. I have myself again no very fixed or firm opinion on this question of partial opening. Nevertheless, I am far from convinced by the reasons given by the Law Commission and I think it is a pity that they have to assume the immutability of government public expenditure policy and that they did not express any clear opinion as to whether partial opening might be desirable in principle.
The arguments which justify the ending of secrecy about the ownership of land do not as clearly justify public access to other information which may be kept on the register. For example, in the report the National Consumer Council are quoted in paragraph 17 as being against the closed register. They stridently comment.
"The denial of public access to the Land Registry is a symptom of the obsession with unnecessary secrecy which pervades British society".

685
Nevertheless, what the National Consumer Council appear to be concerned with is simply secrecy about the ownership of land as a general principle. They recognise that,
"the citizen has a strong interest in being able to conduct his family life in private".
They continue:
"This does not extend to secrecy over the ownership of land".
I think that that testimony leaves wide open the question whether there has to be total or only partial opening of the register
As an example of the sort of information that might be excluded from a general right of access, the Law Commission instance the charge over the matrimonial home which, in England and Wales at least, is given by statute to a spouse who otherwise has no formal estate or interest in the matrimonial home. The charge may be protected by registration on the charges register of the other spouse's registered title to the land. This is provided for by Sections 1 and 2 of the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983.
This matrimonial charge will normally be registered when the spouse without the legal estate starts to feel anxious about the marriage. That spouse, for good reason or bad, may not tell the other spouse about the registration. The Land Registry does not do so. The Land Registry's reason for not notifying the other spouse is in case by so doing they exacerbate a painful situation. By the same token, the difficulty seen by those who oppose a totally open register is that the spouses may still be living together and the first the other spouse may learn about the charge is when that spouse opens the morning papers or reads a letter from a candid friend.
What the Law Commission have to say about partial opening is in paragraph 17 of their report. It is that partial opening,
"would appear impracticable, as involving unacceptable administration and resource implications for HM Land Registry".
The responses which were given to the Government Conveyancing Committee (the Farrand Committee) by the Chief Land Registrar, when questioned as to the disadvantages of an open register are clear. In paragraph 4.47 of the Farrand Committee's second report in 1985 on the general question whether an open Land Registry would be feasible the chief Land Registrar responded in terms which suggested that it would. He nevertheless had this important caveat to add:
"Additional fees for searches would be of no particular help to the Registry in the event of the work proving to be higher than envisaged. It cannot be emphasised too strongly either in this context or generally that the Registry's difficulties at the present time do not centre on the question of the level of finance available but on the fact that its manpower resources are strictly limited by the Government's policy to restrict civil service numbers".
In paragraph 4.48 the Chief Land Registrar's response made it clear that this aspect of the Government's policy would definitely inhibit any partial opening of the register.
I believe that the position may have changed for the worse in this respect since 1985 and that today the Government's policy might inhibit even a total opening of the register. I understand that any change
686
at all in the right of access to information held by the Land Registry would have resource implications considerably greater than were contemplated by the Chief Land Registrar when he responded to the Farrand Committee.
A timely report from the National Audit Office entitled "Review of the Operations of HM Land Registry" and presented under the National Audit Act in July this year throws some light on the way the dead hand of the Treasury lies on the Land Registry. If I may quote from the overall conclusions of the report:
"The Land Registry exists to provide a service to users, and since it is, in effect, a statutory monopoly it is important that its activities should be conducted in an efficient manner at minimum cost to the public. As the report shows, the Registry has been successful in achieving target standards of service in terms of quality of work, and containing error rates, and has made successful efforts up to 1982–83 to raise efficiency, but largely because of the massive growth in its commitments and the limitations on staff numbers there have been areas of its activities where its efforts have since been frustrated, and where further efficiency improvements have been harder to secure, although some have been achieved in 1986–87. The productivity has been constrained by the increasing servicing of the accumulated backlog of casework and this too gives ground for concern, particularly if the position continues to deteriorate. At the same time as it faces these operational difficulties the Registry gathers substantial financial surpluses. If it was allowed to recruit additional staff and/or to reduce fees this would contribute substantially to the efficiency of land registration".
I can say something as to the deterioration in the position. According to the Chief Land Registrar's annual reports, the time taken for completion of the first registration of a new title was 48 working days as at 1st April 1985, 73 working days as at 1st April 1986, 110 working days as at 1st April 1987. My information is that this situation is continuing to deteriorate into this year.
I can say something also about the surplus which the Land Registry has had unwillingly to accumulate. According to the National Audit Office Report, the approved surplus amounted to £84 million in March 1986. In the following year ending 31st March 1987 on a turnover of £124 million the registration of title department of the Land Registry had a surplus of £25 million. These are all fees paid by people who want to buy and sell land, and are generally considered to be part of the cost of conveyancing.
This milking of the public (for that is what we are considering) is not less than a public scandal, coming as it does in conjunction with the deteriorating service provided by the Land Registry.
The National Audit Office Report (in paragraph 2.10) had this to say about the financial arrangements affecting the Land Registry:
"Treasury recognises that demand led self-financing bodies such as Land Registry may be more sensibly funded and resourced outside the present system of financial controls. The Registry for its part considers that a change in funding arrangements which will ensure an effective registration service is a matter of priority. This is currently being examined by the Treasury and the Registry."
I took the discussions referred to there as a hopeful sign that the Land Registry might be hived off, either as a public corporation or into the hands of private agencies, so that this rapidly growing service industry, now employing over 7,000, could play its part as an effective component of the market zeconomy.

687
My expectations must, however, be looked at in the cold light of the written reply given in yesterday's Hansard by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to a Question which I had put down for Written Answer.
I had asked whether the Land Registry was inhibited by government financial controls and whether proposals were under consideration which would enable market forces to determine the services provided to the public. My noble and learned friend's reply fell into two parts. First,
"The Treasury has recently approved a significant increase in the expenditure and manpower to be made available to enable HM Land Registry to meet its growing commitments".
Secondly,
"Furthermore, discussions are being held with a view to ensuring that manpower resources can be adjusted more readily to reflect the level of activity prevailing from time to time in the conveyancing and mortgage markets".—[Official Report, 23/11/87; col. 530.]
I should be grateful for both replies. Unfortunately, I take the view that the processes described amount to little more than tinkering with a bad system to enable the Land Registry to get and keep its head above water by the provision of a tightly controlled minimal service.
The services of the Land Registry are generally described as demand-led. That is a happy and perhaps soporific phrase promoting a sense of euphoria and well-being. But I do not think that "demand-led" in this context is a phrase full of good meaning. It does not mean that the Land Registry will be any more likely tomorrow than today to be able to provide its users with what they want. All it means is that the need for the present services provided by the Land Registry fluctuates with the activity of the conveyancing and mortgage markets. The most one can say is that the Government at last recognise that the Land Registry must be allowed to use the resources it already has to carry out its statutory functions. That is no big deal.
My noble and learned friend's Answer does not go nearly far enough. It does not lead me to think that the radical discussions referred to by the National Audit Office are getting on very well or are likely to reach fruition.
A new deal is needed. We need a Land Registry liberated from the Treasury and responsive to its users' needs. It is the users who should have the last word as to how Land Registry surpluses are to be applied, whether in further windfalls to the Consolidated Fund, in the provision or more and better services or in the reduction of fees. Any consideration of the Bill has, because of its resource implications, to take in the present and future financing of the Land Registry.
I apologise to the noble and learned Lord and to the House for taking up time to press this one point. I hope that when my noble and learned friend responds to the debate he will find it possible to explain how feasible the provision of an open register is, having regard to Treasury control of the Land Registry and to the other extraneous financial considerations.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: My Lords, as long ago as 1857 it was reported that repeated but unsuccessful efforts had been made to establish public registration, something which had been constantly recommended by the ablest lawyers and statesmen. However, five years later the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, Lord Westbury, expressed the view that the objective had been defeated by the pedantic and narrow-minded interpretation of the judges. Those were his less severe criticisms of contemporary lawyers.
The clearly expressed intention of the legislature to restore publicity to land dealing was thus frustrated to the benefit of those who profited from secrecy. That frustration has continued to this very day, despite the greater liberality of judicial views. The adjectives used by Lord Westbury are, I hope, less justified today.
The consequence is that England and Wales are out of accord not only with almost every other country but even with Scotland and Ireland. The result is that only the proprietor and those authorised by him can inspect the documents contained in the register except where the court orders otherwise for a specific purpose or where some other narrowly defined exception exists.
The only serious objection in principle to the opening of the register is that it involves some invasion of privacy. Important as is the public interest in favour of the legitimate protection of privacy, it is not an overriding consideration. There has been a growing tendency towards openness in analogous areas such as planning applications, wills, births, deaths and marriages, fair rents, company shareholdings and many others. In other countries privacy related to landholding has not been regarded as a paramount consideration and that has not had disastrous consequences.
There is a good case for widespread openness in regard to land holding. It is strong where a person has an interest in the land, such as a tenant, or in nearby land, but it is more general than that. The ownership of land carries important social responsibilities. It is a matter of legitimate public concern, not least to ensure desirable development and to prevent the undesirable.
In practice, the existence of an open register would simplify house transfer and so reduce its cost. The Bill does not enable an inquirer to find out the amount of a mortgage or the amount paid since 1977 to purchase land. Those restrictions are understandable, but it is perhaps open to question whether it is necessary for the price paid to remain secret after some specified time, such as 15 years. The noble and learned Lord and the registry might care to give some thought to that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, in the course of careful argument, referred to two matters. The first related to fees and the financial standing of the register. I have always understood—when I held the office of Attorney-General I followed this rule—that where fees are charged to the public for a service, they should not be used as a form of taxation. I always advised in that sense. If the facts given to us by the noble Lord are accurate, it would seem that the rule

689
has not been followed in this case. There may of course be statutory provisions which justify that course. We shall want to know more about it. To the extent that the saving of money from fees for services given has contributed to the worsening of those services, that is something about which we should know more. I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to the point.
On the possibility of partial disclosure, that no doubt is a matter that we shall examine closely in Committee. My question is, why? What is the justification in modern times for partial disclosure as distinct from complete disclosure? It seems to me that there must be an overriding rule to cut out of the disclosure some part of what is contained—as no doubt there is in the case on the price of recent purchases and matters of that kind—to justify the provision in the legislation in that form. We shall be able to examine that matter in due course. I do not think it in any way impinges upon the concept of the Bill as a whole.
For the reasons I have given, we fully support the Bill. We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, for accepting the burden of promoting it, as indeed we are to the Law Commission for its very well argued report.
9 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating my noble and learned friend Lord Templeman on his initiative in bringing this Bill before the House and on his usual very persuasive advocacy in commending it to your Lordships. I should also like to express gratitude to the Law Commission for the valuable report which has given birth to this Bill. It carefully marshalled the arguments for and against an open register and firmly concluded that the balance of advantage lay with openness.
I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin of Dulwich, for his support for the Bill and to my noble friend Lord Coleraine for his support, at least to the extent of supporting partial opening of the register. I hope that he will see that partial support might with advantage be turned into complete support for the principal provisions of the Bill. For my part, as a Scot, I am gratified that my noble and learned friend Lord Templeman should indicate so plainly that the course of history in Scotland is now being followed in England and Wales.
The Law Commission concluded that there would be significant advantages in an open register from the point of conveyancing simplification. Since the main purpose of registration of title is to make the transfer of land easier and less hazardous, that must be a very weighty consideration in favour of openness. The Law Commission also drew attention to the assistance which an open register would afford in identifying the ownership of land for other purposes such as preservation and development. At a time when we are so much concerned with our environment and the problems of homelessness and inner city decay this too must be a weighty
690
consideration. I am in no doubt that the Law Commission reached the right conclusions and that the principle of openness should prevail.
It may help if I attempt to set the Bill in a slightly wider context. It is a regrettable fact that the Land Registry is currently labouring under very great difficulties and that there are unacceptable delays in registration. These are a matter of great concern not only to the chief land registrar but also to myself. In the last financial year there was an extraordinary and quite unpredictable increase in activity in the conveyancing and mortgage market producing a rise of some 25 per cent. in the register's intake. A further increase of some 9 per cent. has occurred during the first half of the present financial year.
It should be emphasised that the present delays do not result from inefficiency, there having been a 3 per cent. improvement in the productivity of the land registrar's department last year. Great efforts are being made to remedy this situation. Substantial increases in staff numbers have been authorised, over 900 for the present financial year. These additional staff are being recruited and trained. New offices are being opened so that work can be moved from overburdened offices. Moreover, new practices and procedures are being introduced, including the implementation last autumn of a fully computerised system at the Plymouth District Land Registry. My noble and learned friend Lord Templeman has referred to this. The system is being introduced at Gloucester over the next few months and later in 1988 at Swansea. It is proposed to introduce it successively into the remaining offices over the next five or six years.
Unfortunately none of these steps will produce immediate or dramatic reductions in the delays that are being experienced. Meanwhile the registry is doing what it can to minimise the adverse effect on solicitors and their clients by concentrating their resources on time-sensitive applications relating to the provision of office copies and certificates of official search, the speedy processing of which is of the highest importance if conveyancing transactions are to proceed smoothly.
At the same time the programme for extending the areas of compulsory registration to cover the whole of England and Wales has continued, and additional staff has been made available specifically for this purpose. It has been a very long haul, as my noble and learned friend said, but I think we are now at last within sight of the goal. At present some 87 per cent. of the population of England and Wales live in areas of compulsory registration. Over the next few months the figure will rise to almost 90 per cent. and plans are well advanced to increase it to nearly 94 per cent. in the coming financial year. All being well the programme will be completed by 1990.
There is further cause for optimism. The Law Commission is now engaged in the final stages of its work on land registration. Its first report on land registration was published in 1983 and led to the Land Registration Act of 1986. The second report published in 1985 has given rise to the present Bill. The third report dealing with overriding interests, rectification, indemnity and minor interests was published earlier this year but without a draft Bill. This was because the commission was already

691
engaged on a complete overhaul and consolidation of the Land Registration Acts 1925 to 1986 which will incorporate the changes proposed in the latest report and also pick up the open register proposals. The land registration legislation passed in 1925 has after this lapse of time merited a thorough re-examination and the final results of the Law Commission's work are eagerly awaited.
I hope that I have given your Lordships sufficient indication that in spite of the present difficulties the next few years will be important in the history of land registration in England and Wales. I am convinced that an open register has an important part to play in all this. It would be a significant step towards the full realisation of the computerisation programme, it would link in with the completion of the extension programme and it would harmonise with a new, modern legislative framework for land registration.
I was grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Templeman for indicating his intention to put down an amendment providing for commencement on an appointed day, because the question of timing is indeed important. The opening of the register will certainly make considerable demands on the Land Registry's resources, in particular in the early stages. It is vital that the registry should be fully prepared. If the effect of opening the register were to make the current delays in registration still worse, it would be counterproductive. Moreover implementation of the Law Commission's proposals would require the making of new rules and this is bound to take some time.
The Government have been considering all these aspects in the period since the publication of the Law Commission's report. Although the principle of an open register presents many attractions, particularly in respect of simplifying conveyancing and improving land use, it was felt that this was a decision which should not be rushed. By bringing forward this Bill my noble and learned friend has provided the opportunity for a full discussion of the issues, for which I am grateful.
I now turn briefly to the speech of my noble friend Lord Coleraine. He suggested that the arguments in favour of a partial opening of the register have been precluded by resource considerations. It would be fairer to say that a partial opening, which would involve great administrative inconvenience, might hardly be worth the trouble and expense, no matter what the registry's funding arrangements were.
It is sometimes suggested, for example, that the charges register should be excluded from public access. But the Law Commission pointed out that this would exclude not only references to mortgages but also to vital information relating to leases, restrictive covenants and to other deeds of that kind. It should perhaps be remembered that with unregistered land the land charges register is open to inspection. It should also be remembered that the charges register, although it contains particulars of mortgages, does not record the amount, nor does it follow from the Law Commission's report that copy leases and charges held at the registry should automatically be made available for inspection.
As he mentioned, my noble friend Lord Coleraine has recently asked me a Question for Written Answer
692
on the subject of the registry's funding arrangements. The answer which I gave on Monday was:
"The Treasury has recently approved a significant increase in the expenditure and manpower…discussions [are continuing] with a view to ensuring that manpower resources can be adjusted more readily to reflect the level of activity prevailing from time to time in the conveyancing and mortgage markets".—[Official Report, 23/11/87; col. 530.]
I hope that this provides my noble friend with some encouragement.
Perhaps I should also take this opportunity of saying—since the matter was alluded to by my noble friend in his Question and has been the subject of some ill-informed speculation—that the Government have no plans for privatising the Land Registry. I believe that the present arrangements, with the flexibility that has been introduced, give the Land Registry an appropriate financial framework in which to provide a proper service to the public.
To return to my main theme, I entirely applaud the Bill proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Templeman. I trust that, as he mentioned the considerations of timing, which weigh with me, the Bill as considered by your Lordships eventually in Committee will have a safe passage. I agree with my noble and learned friend in commending the Bill to the House.
9.12 p.m.
Lord Templeman: My Lords, I am grateful for the weighty and unanimous support accorded to the Bill. I know that the Law Commission will be gratified that its very long and careful investigations and report have found favour so far with your Lordships. I am particularly grateful for the support of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, speaking for the Administration, and my noble and learned friend Lord Silkin of Dulwich, speaking for the Labour Party. I hope that the weight of that support will speed the Bill not only through this House but also through another place.
The debate has given an opportunity for questions to be asked and for the searchlight to illuminate the work of the Land Registry and its relationship with the Treasury. I am sure that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will not mind the questions being asked, for it is right and proper that we should consider all aspects of the Land Registry and its relationship with the Treasury. Although that debate came in rather on a side-wind I make no complaint and I am sure that noble Lords will have been edified by the discussion that has taken place.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Overseas Students: Policy
9.13 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington Lord Hunter of Newington rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the publication by the Overseas Students Trust of The Next Steps—Overseas Student Policy into the 90s.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I express my thanks to the Government for finding time to make

693
it possible for me to put the Question standing on the Order Paper. In 1979 the Department of Education and Science, searching for ways to meet its share of public expenditure, took steps to save £100 million by requiring students from outside Europe to pay full costs. The money was DES money and part of the education budget. Was the Foreign and Commonwealth Office consulted? Did the Cabinet approve of this? Or was the decision an entirely departmental one?
Quite suddenly, as a consequence, the whole issue became of major importance. By 1983 the campaign against the cuts attracted the interest and support of the noble Lord, Lord Pym, when he was Foreign Secretary. He proposed what came to be called the "Pym package". It was additional expenditure of £46 million over three years, but I suspect that the new interdepartmental liaison committees which came about were even more important for the future.
The committee that prepared this report has been considering the situation and it is in the educational aspects that the most significant reappraisal has taken place. The events of 1979 led to a dramatic drop in students from overseas which coincided with a general reduction in university funding. This paradoxically increased the importance of sources other than UGC grants, including student fees.
Though the numbers and income have improved the concern remains that a new group of students is coming—those who can pay. There was a sharp difference between the attitudes of the Department of Trade and Industry to the matter and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The latter co-operated, the DTI did not, even with students directly concerned with industry in their own programmes.
We must give some consideration to the financial aspects of this matter. It is pure fantasy, as some academics argue, that institutes of higher education have a prerogative to admit an unlimited number of students and then impose on government the duty to pay for the number so admitted without differentiation between home and overseas students. It is true that institutions would like to treat all students in the same way as far as fees are concerned, but their power to do so is circumscribed by financial dependence on governments which in practice allocate grants on the basis that the universities will charge differential fees.
This is the practice in the Commonwealth, but the United Kingdom is the only country in the Commonwealth which charges full-cost fees to overseas students and then ameliorates the effect by making awards to special categories of them. Australia has not gone quite so far. They have quotas for overseas students by institution and by course and they impose charges, which fall short of the full costs, upon those within the quota.
There are two main objections to a policy of full-cost fees as a means of limiting educational exchange. First, it discriminates against private students who, although academically good, cannot pay the full costs and fail to get an award. The system in fact does not produce the best mix for educational purposes. The second objection is based on the erroneous
694
assumption that students are nothing more than consumers of an educational product.
There is another area where Britain has gone further than any other Commonwealth country. By 1982 Britain completed the withdrawal from universities of that part of the grant previously attributed to overseas students. To make things more difficult the grant for home students is now being steadily cut. A deplorable inconsistency in the United Kingdom's policy is the rejection of quotas as a means of regulating the flow of overseas students, but using quotas for controlling the number of home students.
The attitude of sending countries both within and outwith the Commonwealth is important. They naturally critically examine the relevance of some courses for overseas students and the predominantly one-way movement of students to the major receiving countries. Most accept as inevitable some measure of differentiation in fees and charges between home and overseas students. Indeed many practise differentiation themselves. But they are strongly opposed to full-cost fees which they regard as exploiting the students and damaging to their own development plans and prospects.
Without question they regard education as the key to their development, and to that end they are spending a huge proportion of their budgets on all phases of education. Many of them have now reached the point where the expansion of primary and secondary schools is producing candidates for tertiary education at a rate which is beyond their ability to accommodate in the shortterm, even though they are also devoting a large proportion of their resources to the expansion of the tertiary sector.
Therefore, their need for places in overseas universities is both urgent and extensive, and they regard the introduction of full-cost fees by Britain, and the rapid increase of fees in other Commonwealth countries, as untimely and ill-judged. They consider it unfair that preference is given to European Community students, and in the circumstances overseas countries within and without the Commonwealth feel that they have no option but to seek value for money elsewhere. They are finding that in India, the United States, the Soviet bloc countries and substantially in Japan. That is not to mention Belgium, France and West Germany, which are members of the European Community.
What is the current government policy on these matters? Basically, it is that, first, Britain welcomes overseas students for a variety of reasons. Secondly, in general their education should not be subsidised by the British taxpayer. Thirdly, carefully targeted support should be made available to selected students in accordance with national priorities.
The main conclusions of this report on overseas students suggests that there have been two major developments since the "Pym package" in 1983. The first is the appreciation that overseas students are a £1 billion industry. They state that there is a strong case for the DTI to fund related schemes to help British exports. This is the major proposal of the committee. There is also, they argue, a good case for the Department of Employment helping to fund the

695
British Council. Other noble Lords will discuss that matter in more detail.
The second major development has taken place in British institutions of higher education. The cash benefit which the payers of full-cost fees provide is of great importance to impecunious institutions. But they also recognise the academic and research contributions to their institutions that good-quality overseas visitors make.
The authors of this report hold the view that the main weakness of Britain's present position on overseas students is that she abandoned general subsidy with very little re-analysis or re-development of existing targeted schemes. The result is a lop-sided system, heavily weighted towards programmes that neglect all trade and educational targets. The proposals in this import report are designed to correct these deficiencies. For example, one important proposal is to expand the British Council Education Counselling Service. That would cost £2 million.
In the last decade the reception and treatment of overseas students has improved but there is still room for further improvement. Success in this field means so much for the future; their future and ours.
In fact, the departmental system had begun to fail, and a new flexible government response was required involving several departments which had its beginnings in the inter-departmental liaison committees. As the Manpower Services Commission has shown in the industrial field, education and research is no longer the province of one government department.
9.24 p.m.
Lord Elibank: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for introducing a debate on what I conceive to be a very important subject. I believe that its importance is not widely recognised by the British public, who probably see it as a rather marginal issue and not nearly as exciting as the discussion on theories and policies on education which fill the media today.
As this excellent report makes clear, the support of overseas students has wide ramifications for our policies, not only in education but in culture, diplomacy and economics. It is of the greatest importance that we give the right measure of support to them. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, has made clear, in the modern debate the starting point is 1979 when there was a dramatic change in government policy resulting in a drop in students from approximately 88,000 in 1979 to 56,000 in 1984; a drop of 36 per cent.
That also coincided of course with a change in policy and an attempt by the Government, which I fully support, to target their support for selected students in line with what are conceived to be our national objectives. In most third world countries that is not insuperably difficult, because for the most part there exists in those countries an elite (if that is the right word), certainly a select group of young people who, by reason of parentage, wealth or access to secondary education are destined to be their
696
natural leaders. It is to them that we look for an appreciation of our educational system and our national objectives and to them that we target such support as we can offer.
I find it helpful to consider the impact of that change of policy on countries, for the most part in Latin America, with which I am familiar, having lived and worked there. One of those countries is Venezuela, and it has two outstanding characteristics. First of all it has a large supply of indigenous crude oil and is one of the wealthiest states per capita in South America. Secondly—and this is unparalleled in recent times—it has a record of democratic stability in that government and opposition have changed at the right constitutional time with the minimum of turbulence for nearly the past 40 years. I should have thought that Venezuela was just the kind of country in which it would be wise to invest government funds in the selection of suitable students to attend our educational establishments.
In fact when one looks at the figures produced by the trust one sees that the number of students from Venezuela dropped from 775 in 1979 to a mere 109 in 1984. Looking at the Argentine, which is another country with which I am familiar, one sees that we have a long tradition of trade and of cultural exchange with that country which has arisen partly because there is a large Anglo-Argentine population in the Argentine to whom English is, if not the first language, the equal first language and who have long looked to Britain for cultural and trade links. There has also been the unhappy experience of the Falklands war. One might have hoped that one of the ways of ameliorating the difficult relations between Britain and the Argentine would have been an ample introduction of overseas students from that country to the United Kingdom. In fact the numbers have fallen from 99 in 1979 to 18 in 1984.
Lastly, there is Brazil, which I suppose for us is beyond all question the most important and most powerful country in Latin America; again the numbers drop from 540 in 1979 to 370 in 1984. It appears from the text of this study that only 1.5 per cent. of overseas students come from Latin America compared with nearly 50 per cent. from Asia. I respectfully submit that that is an unhappy balance between the respective continents.
When considering policies of this kind I think it is helpful to note what our commercial and political rivals are doing, which is a point touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter. Appendix D of the report contains a table which sets out the figures for other countries, figures which I think were assembled by UNESCO. Those figures show that in 1984 the United States had approximately 342,000 students, France had 133,000, West Germany had 72,000 and the United Kingdom had 48,000. There are differences in wealth and prosperity between Britain and some of the countries that I have cited, but it seems to me to be some measure of criticism of us that the French think it worth while to take in nearly three times as many and the West Germans nearly twice as many students as we do.
The last point that I should like to make, and again this was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter,

697
and it also appears in Appendix C of this report, concerns the net foreign exchange earnings which we receive by way of students coming to this country.
The report assesses the gains from those in the public and private sector together with their expenses necessary for living accommodation, and also auxiliary expenses which they spend on pleasure, or indeed on their families. With a generous measure of rounding up this comes to a figure of £1 billion. This is a very notable figure by almost any standards. One is led to the conclusion that the modest investment by the Government, or the taxpayer, will be repaid ten-fold by the moneys that these students, and their families, will bring into this country. Therefore, if
698
viewed in that light—if for no other reason—it is plain good business.
I suggest to your Lordships that if you consider the national objectives—cultural, political and educational, which are again set out in this report—a pound of the taxpayers' money spent on overseas students can hardly be bettered under any other heading of governmental expenditure. Indeed, it is the best possible investment of our money, viewed long term and viewed against broad national objectives. If this is so, I suggest that the very modest and cautious proposals contained in this report of an increase in government spending of £25 million is quite inadequate.
9.32 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly, concentrating on one or two educational and economic aspects in the report. First, I should like to say that I think it was right of the Government originally to question the support we gave to overseas students. Indeed, I see this as part of a general view of scrutiny of public expenditure. My view is that those of us who tend to favour public expenditure have a greater obligation to scrutinise its use, as opposed to those who think that it is money thrown away. Therefore, I do not object to the Government looking at this matter, as they did, and asking questions about it.
I think that what one does object to is what the Government then did, in particular the extreme way in which they acted at that time. If I may quote the relevant paragraph in this excellent report:
"Britain is not the only country to have revised her policy, nor is she alone in moving from general subsidy towards more targeted support which may serve the receiving country's interests more directly and at less expense. Where Britain is unique is in the precipitate, brusque way in which the full-cost fees decision was taken".
It goes on to say that the result has been damaging to British interests. That seems to me to be entirely right. Indeed, perhaps I may say that one of the matters that worried me at the time was the wrong signal we were sending to the rest of the world. In a sense what we were saying was that we were such a failure as a country that we could not afford to welcome the foreign students at less than full cost fees; I hope that is not a signal that we shall continue to send.
As I have already said, the objection is not to the scrutiny or to asking questions; it is to what has been done. However, I think that bygones ought to be bygones. The basis of the report is to ask to where we can move forward and in what ways. I have to support the noble Lords, Lord Hunter and Lord Elibank, in emphasising, first, the enormous educational advantages we receive from overseas students. I see these in two ways. First of all, those of us in teaching universities or who have been students at universities have simply gained in terms of educational experience from the presence of students from other lands.
Speaking personally, when I went as a young man to the London School of Economics I am pretty sure that I had never met a foreign person in my life—or at least not many. I certainly had the typical young Left-winger's view of America—namely, I was very strongly anti-American. At the LSE I then for the first time in my life actually met some Americans. There were quite a lot of them and it turned out that they were genuine human beings, which had never occurred to me before. I was not to know then that I would end up in your Lordships' House.
But I cannot believe that the transformation of my view of Americans was altogether a bad thing. I then—which is true of any of us—became an overseas student and did my graduate work in the United States. I am quite certain that, even though my views may differ from those of the present American
700
Administration, they would think that not only I and many others of us who went to the States gained but they had gained as well.
Let me add in connection with that that one must not mistake the nature of the game. The argument which I remember at the time was that people were saying that all these foreign students come to us but they go away and do not love us. They do not say thank you. But that is not the whole point. The point is that they may understand us better. In other words, we might at least hate each other on a more informed basis. Therefore I certainly hope that, in so far as there is a foreign policy aspect to this matter—and I dare not trespass into that area—it is not based on "Do they love us? If not, we do not want them".
The other question that one is always asked about this subject is: why are we so right in connection with our attitude to foreign students when everyone else has a different view? If having overseas students is such a bad thing, why does the Soviet bloc try to coax as many as it can get? Why do the Americans try to get as many as they can get? Do we not feel that Britain has a contribution both to the world and to herself by welcoming such people in?
I turn briefly to the economic side, but let me add that although the silver report produces a very powerful economic argument, I would not base policy on the economic side. In other words, even if it is demonstrable that we gain economically, I would still want to argue overwhelmingly that having overseas students benefits this country in the broader educational and cultural sense. But it seems to me that there are obvious economic gains which have already been made. It must be immensely to our advantage if more people in the world use English and regard English as a usable language. That must help exports. Indeed, more generally, I find it hard to believe that the long-run export potential of this country is not increased by having overseas students, who will, we hope, assuming that our education system is as good as we believe it is, rise to positions of power and importance.
In connection with that let me read a second extract from a most excellent letter in today's copy of The Times from the president of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. He wrote—and I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I give the full quotation—
"A recent visit to five countries in Asia in order to promote postgraduate exchange in medicine caused me despair and embarrassment at being British. Time and again I was asked: why is Britain turning away from those for whom it has provided educational opportunities for so long? My particular concern is the punitive fees which the University Grants Committee (on Government instruction) has recommended for postgraduate courses in medicine for the last six years: for 1987–88 it is 'not less than £8,960'.
Many may not realise that Britain used to be the key country for postgraduate training in medicine, not only because of its traditionally high standards in medicine but also because we offered—and continue to—crucially important training in clinical skills as distinct from technology: in other words, how to be a good doctor".
The point I would make is partly that we have an obligation to carry on with that work; but, secondly, that the likely demand for medical equipment and similar things which we produce in this country must be beneficial.

701
I turn lastly to one practical suggestion in particular in the report that I hope we would all support. The report mentions ORSAS and recommends that there should be what it calls a "son of ORSAS". It refers to a scheme which would take the form of:
"DES block grants to individual institutions channelled via the UGC and the NAB".
The Overseas Students Trust was not to know that within the next few weeks the UGC and the NAB will be abolished but other institutions will take their place. The report states:
"These block grants would be used by the institution to make awards of variable amounts (the minimum they judged necessary to attract the desired student) to students of all types, other than research postgraduates".
That seems to me to be an extremely good idea. The decentralising of that kind of system to the level of the institution seems to me to be admirable. My only additional comment to that, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, also mentioned, is that it seems to be somewhat too parsimonious. We should like to see a rather larger sum.
I say more generally that we need overseas students in any case because we need their money. A large number of our departments, including to some extent my own, are financed from the income that we earn from overseas students. However, I object to the limitations on what we can do. In a sense the other objection to full cost fees is that they are almost certainly not optimum. We shall probably end up with fewer students and less money than if we were free to choose the fees on a more finely tuned basis.
In sum I hope that on the basis of this report the Government will announce that they are at least willing to rethink their policies on these matters, to move to a more positive stance and to show much more subtlety in their approach to overseas students.
9.42 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for introducing this debate tonight. It is a highly necessary debate although it seems to me rather sad that we should have to have it. One of the troubles with this debate is that all the arguments in favour of behaving more generously towards overseas students seem to be self-evident. Therefore to repeat them seems to be redundant. These arguments are admirably set forth in the excellent report by the Overseas Students Trust. We should thank that trust. It deserves our unqualified congratulations.
I, like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will rest my argument to some extent on what academics call in a somewhat patronising fashion anecdotal evidence. By that they mean evidence gained from one's own experience. That seems to me to be on the whole rather good evidence. I was an undergraduate at Balliol and a Harkness Fellow at the University of Chicago. For some years I was a governor of the LSE. Therefore I have some personal anecdotal experience of how much overseas students bring to academic institutions by their very presence. I also realise how profoundly influential it is at a relatively
702
young age to spend some time working in a foreign university where the conventions are different, where the expectations are different and where one is a total stranger.
I was at the University of Chicago in 1947 at a time when the United States was finally trying to make up its mind as to what its role would be in the post-war world. To live in Chicago in that time, which then had the largest Polish population of any city in the world and which was still pretty isolationist, was to learn how remote Europe was from the United States of America. The United Kingdom was a far-away country of which they knew very little. Indeed, when one told them—after they discovered that one was English and not from Massachusetts or Florida—that one was going back, they looked at one with astonishment and some alarm that one was to return to that extraordinary place from which one had so luckily escaped. To travel over that huge country and experience both its variety and uniformity, as well as the whole educational experience, could only leave an imprint on one's mind, attitude and understanding of the world which can hardly be assessed in value.
The number of overseas undergraduates at Balliol—Seretse Khama was one at that time—and at the LSE were an essential component not only of the academic but of the social life of those admirable institutes of higher education. That personal experience was and is reinforced by considering the impact which Rhodes Scholars have had on the life of the United States, and not least on its political life. I rang up Rhodes House and oddly enough they have done no elementary research or follow-up on that subject.
However, the impact has obviously been considerable. For example, in 1947 when the whole posture of the United States in the world was being considered, one of the leading advocates of an interventionist role was, or was soon to be, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That was Senator Fulbright, after whom, appropriately enough, the Fulbright Scholarships are named. Dean Rusk was subsequently Secretary of State. Carl Albert, who was subsequently the Speaker of the House of Representatives, was also a Rhodes Scholar. There are today in the Senate five former Rhodes Scholars. General Rogers, until recently the head of NATO, was also a Rhodes Scholar. I suspect that if we looked at the German Rhodes Scholars we would find that their records in the last war were interesting. Von Trott, for example, was a Rhodes Scholar.
The impact of those Rhodes Scholars on American political life is something which we should not neglect. I admire the high-minded way in which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, says that he does not think that political influence should matter. However, I think it matters a bit. The debate which we are having tonight is closely related to a debate which we have not had but which I hope we shall have shortly on cultural diplomacy. Student diplomacy and cultural diplomacy are very much alike. In fact, they are part of the same thing. They are a powerful way of increasing international understanding and

703
extending British influence. It is therefore not surprising to me that the noble Lord, Lord Pym, when he was in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, produced the "Pym package".
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, indicated, it is extraordinary that the Department of Trade and Industry should have taken such a myopic and insular view of the importance of overseas students. I very much hope that the Minister will pass on to the department the adverse comments of the House on its past behaviour and encourage it to do better in the future.
If overseas students contribute to our universities and to our influence, as has been said, they also bring immediate short-term economic benefits, and in the long run I cannot believe that trade does not follow education. Certainly in my experience—which has been to some extent in the world of books, and particularly educational books which are in themselves influential—they reinforce trade links which can be established.
It strikes me that in 1979 the Government, in their rather doctrinaire way, instinctively shied away from encouraging overseas students in the same way that they shied away from assisting the arts and in the same way as they did not much like the idea of cultural diplomacy. Their reaction was to leave it to the market. We know that the market does not work in these areas. If there is an overseas students policy based entirely on market considerations there will be hardly any students from the developing world yet that is the area where it is most important that we should contribute.
I take some comfort from the fact that the recent announcement on the funding of the arts was such that we may believe that the Government are learning from experience. I can only hope that they will. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, if they do not learn from our experience, they may perhaps learn from the example of our co-member countries in the European Community; namely, France and Germany. Japan also plans to have 100,000 students by the end of this century.
Finally, I should like to revert to the developing world. The number of students from the developing world has dropped by 30,000 since 1979 and from the Commonwealth by 18,000. It seems to me, as I have already said, that education is almost the most effective form of aid which we can offer those countries. How can they pull themselves up from where they are without educational skills which the developed world alone can provide? It seems to me a mean-spirited and short-sighted policy to cut down on this investment. It is also, I may add, one of the strongest bonds which cements the Commonwealth.
I share the sentiments expressed by the three noble Lords who have already spoken. I hope that the Government will look once more at their policy towards overseas students. If they cannot revert to something like the previous position, which is roughly speaking the position which the French and Germans now hold, then at least they can build on
704
the Pym package and on the constructive and very modest lines recommended in this admirable report.
9.53 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I think that this is a very appropriate day on which to ask the Government the questions we are asking tonight. The report has not been out very long and I have read it with great interest. I believe that it is a very valuable document indeed. I was very relieved when I reached the last page to find that the financial requests and suggestions it makes are very modest. It is not an extravagant recommendation at all.
I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that in 1979 it was time to review our policy for overseas students and what we were spending. The way in which it was done was disastrous. It caused an enormous amount of ill-feeling, which still exists and which I think was a very great tragedy.
I have reason to know about this because in 1979 I was chairman of London House for overseas students. For those who do not know what that is I shall briefly explain. It is a college-type residential establishment for overseas postgraduate students. It was originally started in the 1930s for Commonwealth students. It has rather changed its character over the years, as it had to. As far as possible it has tried to have a balance of various races. Its original charter included America as well as the Commonwealth. Since then we have included a certain number of people from the Common Market and we always have about 20 per cent. of British students. I think the mix is extremely good and extremely important. It has quite an amazing effect on the postgraduates who pass through it. All the countries that I have visited have formed their own associations of old boys and girls of London House who return regularly—many as very important people, professors and so on—if they want to brush up on a particular subject in their discipline.
In 1979 after the cut, the change in patterns at London House was quite dramatic. First, it was perfectly clear that the quality of people dropped considerably. To begin with it was only the rich who seemed to come, and most of the high-tech people from medicine and engineering, which is one of the strengths of that place, disappeared. They all seemed to flood to America. As to some places where we kept up the proportion, for example, Malaysia, it was not the Malaysians who came but the rich Chinese traders. The whole pattern seemed to change. We are never short of people because our waiting list at London House is enormous but there is no doubt that there was a change in the quality and type of people, which from my point of view was very sad.
Since that time things have improved. We are now receiving a few people from places like Malaysia, Hong King and India, who faded out for a time. However, we are still receiving many more applications from the richer countries, in particular, America, but not, unfortunately, from New Zealand or Australia, whose people used to come. The effect of losing those high-technology people does not need

705
any underlining. That has already been stressed by other speakers, who referred in particular to the subject of the long-term financial advantages which this country will receive.
There is some good news. There are more students coming and returning to Britain. However, there is still some way to go before we reach the sort of numbers that we had before. Whether or not that is important, I am not sure. There has been an increase of about 13 per cent. in the last year or two compared with the 38 per cent. drop which took place in the year or two after 1979.
An important new development is the system of marketing overseas which is being carried out mainly through the British Council. This seems to be a very good development indeed. The British Council's effort is called the British Counselling Service Overseas. That provides a very positive image to other countries of education in Britain, and this service should be greatly expanded. It started in only three countries and now extends to six, which include Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia; there are plans to go to Brunei, Japan and Korea. This scheme is presently funded mainly by the universities and the polytechnics to the extent of about £500,000 per year. I hope that the Government will top this up when necessary because I believe that it should be spread into far more countries than the six that I have mentioned. Many other countries are competing with us very strongly in this sphere and most of the money comes from their governments.
The other side of the coin, which I think is extremely important, is that when these better students leave, they return home with a correct and favourable impression of Great Britain and its education system.
There is quite a lot being done in Great Britain, in particular by such bodies as the Overseas Trust, the Victoria League, London House and other voluntary bodies. However, I was extremely interested to see that recently there was a launch on, I believe, 17th of this month by the Hospitality for Overseas Students, HOST, which has been primed with about £50,000 a year for three years by the British Government, £10,000 a year from the Victoria League and £10,000 a year from the British Council. This is to provide hospitality, presumably to start over the coming season, for overseas students. I understand that already applications for about 2,500 students have been received and a great "number already placed. This is a very exciting development from the point of view of improving the opinion that these people will obtain of the United Kingdom. I am quite certain that, until now, far too many fell through the net.
The Victoria League started this scheme and it is encouraging that Sir Anthony Kershaw is to chair it. Mrs. Barnet who was the organiser of the Victoria League has agreed to take over the organisation of this co-ordinating body. It is a matter of interest that both the past chairman and present chairman of the Victoria League are in the Chamber tonight. That is the important point that I make—the way in which we treat students when they are here and the trouble
706
we must take to see that they receive the right impression of this country and go back with the feeling that it is not such a bad place after all.
My final comment is that it might be a good idea, now that this hosting is going to be so important, to have a TV programme. I am sure that people will be very interested and that the response will be enormous. That is all I need say.
10.1 p.m.
The Earl of Limerick: My Lords, it is good that the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, has given us the opportunity already this evening to hear five extremely well constructed speeches on this important topic. I greatly enjoyed listening to them and cannot disagree with a single word said.
Inevitably I shall be making some of the same points but I shall try to introduce a new slant. For this evening's purpose I assume that history started in 1979 with the full cost fees announcement. The shock waves went round the world, not on the principle but on the suddenness and the magnitude of the adjustment made. Of all decisions made at that time, somewhat in haste, I suppose that is the one that my noble friends now most regret: witness, first, the moderation of the subsequent increases and, secondly, the Pym package of 1983.
However, damage had certainly been done. On my subsequent visits to India, Thailand, Malaysia and Hong Kong the message was the same. It was one of sadness and, "How could you do this to us? How could you hazard the business and cultural links which we have both enjoyed?". I draw again on anecdotes, in regard to which I am much in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. In the course of a seminar in Bombay in 1981 I was approached by a delightful Indian, who introduced himself as the president of the India-Cambridge Association. He was a man' who clearly wore a Union Jack next to his skin. He said that he had very few members joining his association just at a time when our political and business relations and the sentimental climate was more favourable than it had been since 1947 for getting closer.
The point he made was that his younger colleagues, presidents of the India-Harvard Association and the India-Yale Association, had plenty of members joining them. He found that sad. It was summarised in the words of the conclusion in the silver book:
"One approach"—
that is, the national approach—
"[general subsidy] was abandoned before the alternative [selective, targeted support] had been analysed, prepared and put in place".
Overseas students may or may not be a good thing per se. I would argue strongly, as others have done, that they are. They broaden our culture; they bring us to an understanding of problems faced overseas which are often much greater than our own; they encourage our own young people to travel. I too was an overseas student in the United States, in my case at secondary school level. I consider the cultural advantage that I now enjoy in being able to explain to my children what is happening on Channel 4 when they are playing this strange game of American

707
football, to say nothing of basketball, baseball and ice hockey, to be real, if intangible.
It is however easy to recite instances from direct experience where the existence of a caucus of British-trained students is of direct benefit to the economy. For this, I believe we have to thank not only the educational establishments, the professors and the friends of those students, but also the landladies in Manchester and Cardiff, the pier attendants at Brighton, and others who go to make up the whole image of our country.
Again anecdotally, the best and incidentally the cleanest brotherhood—I almost said mafia—that I know is that of the Old Centralians, the engineers trained at Imperial College, London University. Whenever one Old Centralian wants something done he always knows another Old Centralian who is available to do it for him. This is a very natural way in which friends turn to friends, and they would not go outside that brotherhood unless they could not find what they wanted inside it.
I think that it is easy to miss two points in this regard. One is that the overseas students often come to us from countries where trained people are few, and their familiarity with our language, our standards and so on is therefore going to be unusually important. Secondly, they come from countries where responsibility is achieved at an early age. To put that in commercial terms, you are liable to get a quicker payoff for your educational investment.
The thrust of all the speeches has been that overseas education is in the motherhood category. It is a Good Thing. However, there is still a case for support, direct or indirect, from public funds. Here, one has to get rather commerical and to establish that to a significant degree trade does indeed follow the mortar board. Last night I was at the Middle Temple watching fascinated from the gallery as my son was one of 120 people being called to the Bar. Those boys and girls, many girls, came from almost any country you could think of. Their influence when they return home is going to be considerable.
It has been established in the silver book, and indeed in other studies, that we really are talking about a £1 billion industry. It does not need much addition to be confident of that figure. It generates a very measurable contribution to the balance of payments through direct spending and employment.
It has already been stated that in 1985 there were 56,000 overseas students in the publicly-financed sector of British further education. The point that has not been made is that this is about 10 per cent. of the total student population. Three-fifths of those were in universities, the remainder in polytechnics and colleges of further education. It is interesting to note what they were studying. Forty two per cent. were studying science and engineering and many of the remainder were following business and management courses. Those are subjects which clearly are directly relevant to our commerical relations. Apart from those 56,000 in the publicly-financed sector there were at the same date of counting in 1985 284,000 in private colleges. The great majority of those—more
708
than 90 per cent.—were enrolled in one of the several hundred English language colleges. That again is a way to take advantage of one of our great national assets.
I shall turn to a somewhat different aspect—the commerical value to specific institutions. I should declare an interest as chairman of the governing body of the City of London Polytechnic. We, in common with most other advanced tertiary educational establishments, face some horrendous budgetary problems as we try to keep our courses going. We look at the prospects of attracting more overseas or specified students (those who do not come from the EC). For the current academic year, the standard fee for a full-time specified student is just over £4,000. Where is the downside? If we have more students, will that drive out our home students? At the margin possibly because of the way our institutions are funded.
Given that we are all struggling, there is some arithmetic which says, "Suppose that you are £2 million short of your budget, all you need to do is to attract 500 full-fee paying students at £4,000 a nod". That is beguiling, but it is deceptive. First, we must have regard to the institutes' educational policy and the priority that they must give to scarce resources. Secondly, such a policy will normally build up over the three-year currency of the courses. Thirdly, there must be an ability to offer attractive courses, and, fourthly and often the most critical point, especially with inner city institutions, there is great difficulty in providing suitable student accommodation.
There are then the marketing costs of the exercise. Marketing is done partly by direct promotion, partly by collective promotion (the good work of the educational counselling service of the British Council has been mentioned) and partly by a £75,000 grant from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the British Council to enhance its general information service.
Our market share is not impressive and it has been falling. About 1 million students study outside their own countries. Of them, we now have about 5.5 per cent. The numbers fell by 36 per cent. post-1979. What does that add up to? First, there is a need for a policy which must embrace the interests of the departments involved, notably the DTI, the DES, the Department of the Environment, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and, one almost forgets but never should, the Treasury. Secondly, there is a need for funds to back the emergent strategy. Against the background of the £1 billion of direct benefit, and the unquantified but undoubtedly large stimulus to British exports, Martin Kenyon and his colleagues from the Overseas Students Trust begin to look like Warren Hastings—astonished at their own moderation. Their proposals in the silver book are costed at £25 million, of which the idea of a DTI trade-related scheme, which is of interest to me (awards to overseas students to help British exports), would cost a mere £10 million. In commercial terms, that might be seen as a cost-effective investment.
Britain's reputation in education stands high. We should be able to take the pick of the overseas students. Imagine in 10 years' time there might be a dozen or so economic Ministers, more than a handful

709
of very successful entrepreneurs, and in 20 years' time perhaps a couple of well-disposed prime ministers or presidents, who had been students here.
The third point is this. Let us not always run to a government. We need more self-help organised by the educational institutions themselves. The education counselling service has had some success. Surely there is room for extending that to other countries. I was delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, that this is already in train. The British Council, with its experience and existing overseas network, is well equipped for this. However, given its funding problems it seems certain that some pump-priming will be needed as indeed is recommended in the OST report.
Competition in this trade is fierce. We are not the only English-speaking country, although we invented the subject, and we are certainly not the only one whose education system is internationally well regarded. While our student numbers were falling, numbers in other countries were growing rather rapidly. Many of those countries remain more active than we do in attracting overseas students. Their motives may vary but their policy is in good part predicated on the prospect of substantial foreign exchange earnings for their countries.
Finally, let us reflect on what other countries are doing. Australia has set up a number of trade missions in South-East Asia to explore the potential for marketing higher education as an export. Japan has decided to increase its overseas student population tenfold. Even then it would be only 100,000 by the end of the century. The United States has much the largest number of overseas students—340,000, over a third of the total. It is therefore by far the largest host country. The United States has 360 government-funded centres abroad to counsel prospective students, compared with the three (perhaps it is now more) education counselling service offices which are run by the British Council.
There is therefore much to do. There is much benefit to be gained by the country in following the well thought out recommendations of the OST. These are ridiculously cheap in relation to the medium-term benefits. Other countries perceive these advantages more clearly it seems than we do. Let us waste no more time in pursuing and overtaking them.
10.18 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, this is a good moment to discuss this subject. It is a time of opportunity. We can now look back with the perspective of eight years. We have a pretty good idea of the situation now. The accent of the debate this evening, like the accent of this very constructive document before us, is positive. I therefore do not think that it is a time for wringing of hands. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, looked at the position in the South American territories, with which he is familiar, I have looked with interest and a measure of concern at the trend in the countries of which I have had direct experience.
I served for three or more years in each of six Commonweath countries. In the case of one of them the number of students went down by half between
710
1979 and 1984; in the case of New Zealand it fell by a third; in the case of Nigeria by two-fifths; in the cases of India and Canada by 14 per cent. In the case of Australia, which I do not know so well, it fell by half, and in the case of the last territory that I had the honour to govern it went down by one-third. These are disquieting figures. I assure your Lordships that they represent a reality of lost opportunities for the future.
However tonight let us be positive. In being positive we have this splendid set of recommendations. I should like to endorse what the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, said about the debt that we owe to the Overseas Students Trust. It is a quite extraordinary testimony to the effectiveness of a non-governmental organisation set up by private funds, and, in effect, doing a great deal of the work of the Government for them. In 25 years of total commitment the trust has amassed a tremendous experience. Its recommendations, as the press has said, are short on sensation but long on common sense. That report is moderate. It is a balanced report, nothing extreme, thoroughly researched after exhaustive discussion with all interested parties.
I for my part warmly endorse all the trust's recommendations. I should like to pinpoint three of them. The first, not a very colourful subject, is the question of statistics. It is rather a scandal that in this discussion we cannot command statistics that bring us nearer to the present than 1984. That is not good enough. The Department of Education and Science has a strong statistical department. Can the department take this statistical function under its wing and devote resources and expertise to seeing that we have an up-to-date statement of the figures within, let us say, a year?
My second point also is not a very glamorous one. It concerns the machinery in Whitehall for helping Ministers to evolve a coherent policy, synoptic and capable of dealing with change. I rather doubt whether the interdepartmental group set up some years ago and the very useful round table meetings that take place with non-governmental organisations are up to what is required to help Ministers to identify the initiatives that have to be taken as distinct from reactions to current events.
The third point that I want to mention is the central one that the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, spoke about and which concerns the biggest chunk of resources that are asked for—that is to say, the issue of trade-related targets. Like most of your Lordships I have in the past been disappointed by what has been described as the stone-deaf posture of the Department of Trade and Industry in relation to the whole subject of possible payoff from investment in education. I am sure it is short-sighted, and here is an opportunity for the department to reconsider its attitude.
From my own experience I know that when those who have become familiar with this country in various educational ways mature into positions of prominence in their own countries they constitute an enormous potential asset for ourselves, and I know that I am speaking to the converted in addressing the noble Lord who will answer for the Government.

711
It is impossible to quantify the results, but they are mainly indirect and intangible. Contacts are a necessary and indispensable part of international relations, and this is one of the means by which we can form the contacts that we require. I hope that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will take a personal interest in the recommendations of the Overseas Students Trust in relation to his own Vote.
Perhaps I may illustrate the value of contacts by a pregnant figure. Of the heads of state in the world in 1984 more than a third had studied in countries other than their own, and more had done so in this country rather than any other. Twenty-four countries had leaders educated in the United Kingdom. There is certainly no more valuable way of securing contracts or resisting unfair or corrupt competition than by being able to deal with a head of state. In conclusion, I should like to repeat my general support for the recommendations of the Overseas Students Trust, which are calculated to promote the interests of this country.
10.29 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not putting my name on the list. This was due solely to the fact that I did not know until today that I would be available this evening. However, I believe that a brief intervention from my personal experience may be of value to this debate.
The first overseas student whom I knew in this country was Jomo Kenyatta when he was at the University of London. The second was Seretse Khama, who has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. Then followed during the 1950s Julius Nyerere, who used to come to a seminar of mine at Edinburgh University, and Tom Mboya, who was brought to this country by the voluntary efforts of Arthur Creech Jones of the Workers' Travel Association. They were followed by Lee Kuan Yew and by Mwai Kibaki, now the Vice-President of Kenya. This was a tremendous contribution from the educational establishments of this country to the leadership of the world.
However, it was more than that. As my noble friend Lord Peston has pointed out, it brought to this country a great wealth of diverse cultures that were of immense value to us and to the professors and lecturers. In my academic experience, there has never been as exciting a time as in the first five or six years after the war, when so many ex-servicemen and women from the colonies were in our universities. In this House today we have an example of the value of overseas students to our culture and society in my noble friend Lord Pitt.
I should like to extract from my list two particular examples. Under the present scheme, Julius Nyerere, who did not go to school before the age of 11, would not have been able to come to a university in this country, and neither would Tom Mboya, because neither could have afforded to do so. I had sad experiences five years ago when I held a chair at the University of Zambia when, time after time, I recommended valuable students to universities in this country only to find that they went elsewhere simply
712
because of the cost. They were offered better opportunities and it would not cost them so much to go to universities in other parts of the world.
I welcome the report but I believe that it is too modest. The investment that it suggests could be greatly increased and would be extremely cost-effective.
I should like to put two points to the Minister. The first relates to the reference in the report—though not extensive enough—to the importance of the character of the courses offered to overseas students. I should like to see a great deal more emphasis on matters such as development and opportunities for overseas students to come to this country to learn all the phases of development. I should put the greatest emphasis on agricultural development.
Secondly, it is of immense importance that this country should recognise that, in a situation such as that of South Africa, one thing we can do is to train those who will be in a position to give leadership and administration, and who will take part in the development of that society when it becomes a black majority society.
Ten years ago I was asked to review the Centre of Southern African Studies at the University of York. I proposed to them then, in the middle of the Rhodesian war, that one of the things they ought to be doing was to take students from Rhodesia—whether in exile or in Rhodesia—and train them for the jobs they would have to do when majority rule came into operation. That is still the position as regards South Africa.
I should like to remind the Minister that some months ago the Leader of the House assured me that at the last-but-one Commonwealth Conference Britain had pledged herself to make available funds for special training for South African students. I asked him later on if that would apply to the kind of work that is being done in York, Cambridge, Oxford and other universities and he assured me that it would. I hope that tonight the Minister will be able to say that, in addition to what is covered in this report, there will be government money, as was promised at the Commonwealth conference, for greater training for those who will have to bear the brunt of building the new South African society of the future.
10.35 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I think that every speaker this evening has been somewhat anecdotal and has drawn on personal experience. I fear that I shall be no exception. In each of the 30 years that I taught at the London School of Economics I had in my group overseas students who undoubtedly made a very great contribution and who also had a very great effect on me. I can say that from all the aspects that we have discussed tonight—economic, political, social and educational—there is a tremendous value in having overseas students in this country.
In the short term, a number of them spend a great deal of money in this country—the sum of £1 billion has been mentioned. I once had a Kuwaiti student who brought with him his wife, two children, a nanny, a cook, a chauffeur and a car. What he

713
disbursed in this country must have paid my salary for at least three years, if not more. There were others of the kind. I doubt whether Kuwait could run to many students like that at the moment, but it did happen and could happen again.
When the London School of Economics had to raise the money to build its magnificent new library, the late Lord Robbins—Lionel Robbins—went round the world twice visiting innumerable groups of old LSE alumni, who poured out money in order that the library could be erected. It would have been extremely difficult to get that library built but for that support, which came completely voluntarily and freely with no quid pro quo. Many other examples could be given, but the economic argument has been covered thoroughly in the debate this evening.
On the political side, I find myself almost entirely in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, which is not perhaps my most usual experience. Surely there is nothing more useful that we can do at the moment than to further the education and training of people in South Africa. The time will come when black South Africans will have to play a far greater part in the political and economic government of that country and it is vital that they should receive now the education which will enable them to do it.
After all, it is to the great credit of this country that before we withdrew from our colonies we did our utmost to see that people there were trained to take over adequately. It has not been as adequate in some cases as we would have wished, but the effort was made and opportunities still exist.
We shall never fully resolve the argument about sanctions, but surely we can be absolutely in agreement—and this point has been made several times and been generally agreed—that more money spent on education and the opportunity to offer education in this country to South Africans are most effective ways politically to contribute.
When it comes to the other developing countries, again there is a very considerable job to be done. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has pointed out, a great many of their students will not be able to come here if they have to pay fees of the kind that are being asked at the present time.
Perhaps I may mention one group of students from the developing countries who have not been referred to this evening; namely, women. It is extremely dangerous to educate the men of a country and not educate the women. Innumerable problems flow from doing that, as anybody who has been to any of those countries will know. If the men are educated well ahead and in quite a different way—and I am not making a feminist point; it is on a far broader basis—you educate your men away from the standards of culture and understanding of their women. Yet, with the sort of fees that we are charging, what chance is there that families, of the kind that we are talking about in countries as impoverished as the developing countries, could begin to think of paying this kind of money for the education of their daughters?
In this admirable report I cannot find—although I may have overlooked it—any reference to the number of women among the students coming from
714
overseas countries. This is an extremely important point. It is a figure which, if it could be obtained, we would all like to have because there is an issue here of the highest importance. There is, also, as other speakers have said—but it comes home very strongly indeed if you teach students of mixed racial groups—the tremendous value not only to our own students but to other people in this country.
We know that we still have a big problem of race relations in this country, but this is partly because so many people have never had personal face-to-face relationships with people of a different culture or colour. It is when you get to know people on a personal basis, as students get to know one another—taking them to their own homes; beginning to know and like them as people and picking up friendships—that you break down these ridiculous stereotypes. However, perhaps these stereotypes are not quite so ridiculous, because if you have never had the opportunity to know people of a different culture you naturally develop in that direction and that stays with you until the opportunity of personal experience presents itself.
As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, he even came to like Americans, despite his built-in prejudices, when he had the opportunity—or was forced against his will—to meet them face to face. Surely, it can have nothing but a good effect on our own race relations problems if our students meet students from other countries and students of other colours and cultures and get to like them, as inevitably and invariably happens when we have a mixed group of students. I shall not say any more about that simply because so much has already been said.
This is a most excellent report, but there are just one or two points I should like to put to the Government, which I do not think are highlighted in it. First, although we recognise that it is improbable that the Government will return to the pre-1979 position, I wonder whether they would consider specially and separately the possibility of doing more for people who are coming for postgraduate courses of one kind or another, whether they be short courses or much longer, and more demanding, higher postgraduate courses. I ask this because I believe that there is a particular value in concentrating on postgraduate courses in a number of cases.
As many developing countries have reached the stage when they can have their own universities, there is a case for suggesting that in many instances it is a good thing for people to do their undergraduate work in the colleges and universities in their own countries but that subsequently they should go overseas to do their postgraduate work. They are therefore not separated from their own country at the undergraduate stage. Furthermore, it is unlikely that those countries will be able to develop the degree of specialisation that is required for really good postgraduate work. If we cannot go the whole way and offer wider opportunities at both the undergraduate and the graduate levels, could not the Government look again at the costs, or charges, to people who are doing postgraduate work?—which, by definition, means that they are getting a selective group of students who are ultimately the most likely to take leadership positions in their own countries.

715
On a rather different note, but one which I think is of considerable importance, I should like to ask the Government to look again at what seems to me to be an extraordinary economy that I understand they are making. I am told that when the Government are calculating the amount of money that a university is to have for furnishings, equipment and perhaps most important of all for libraries, the allocation is based on the number of students. But the Government, in estimating the number of students, exclude overseas students. If it is true—and I have it on good authority—that they exclude from this calculation (I hope that the Minister is listening) overseas students, who are paying something like £4,000 to £8,000 a year, it seems to me meanness beyond belief. It could not cost much to do the calculation based on accurate figures.
Only last night I met a woman overseas postgraduate student who has all the costs of being in London to do postgraduate studies. She said that when she goes to her head of department to ask for some additional equipment or additional information that she needs, she is told, "Sorry, but we have used up our money for this year. We cannot get it for you until next year". This is a cheeseparing and miserable way of doing things. She was quite good-tempered about it. I must say that I would not have been. She added that she might have to stay on for an additional year in order to finish her Ph.D., because, although she had paid considerable fees to do this study, she could not get what was required as the budget was exhausted when she asked for it. I hope that the noble Lord will look into those points.
10.46 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I think the fact that so many people wished to speak in this debate, and also that nobody withdrew, shows how very much appreciated it is by the House. As many noble Lords have said, the intention of the report of the Overseas Students Trust is to bring more coherence to Britain's policy on overseas students, and I think the report has been praised by all those who have spoken so far.
What is good, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said—which has been proved by other speakers—is that we all start from the same premise; namely, that overseas students are a good thing and that to have a comprehensive policy concerning them is of the greatest importance. But it is clear from the recommendations in the report that the trust does not feel that present government policy entirely reflects that priority, and it suggests some financial implications which would amount to £25 million, as well as the sources for raising that funding. All noble Lords have pointed to the modesty of those financial suggestions and I hope that the Minister will take note of that.
Many speakers have stressed the harm done not so much by the change in the policy of fee-paying in 1979 but by the brusque manner in which it was carried out. My noble friend Lord Hatch made a very cogent point when he suggested that students should receive training in perhaps agricultural development
716
or desertification, and I quite agree with him, as I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who drew attention to the fact that women in developing countries, who play a vital role in those countries, seem to be deprived of the opportunity of education in this country.
My noble friend Lord Peston emphasised the enormous educational advantge which we and our students gain from overseas students. This was borne out by the Director General of the British Council when he said:
"It is obvious that the academic health of institutions and departments depends on international scholarly interchange … There is … value, both academic and social, to British students from the presence among them of Commonwealth and foreign students. They help to impart that international dimension that all higher education should always have".
He added:
"There is no more distressing sight than a clever but insular person. And the British score quite well at the game of international stereotypes. Only personal contact can provide some immunisation against this disease".
I think that what he said had a certain value.
I wish very briefly to comment on three aspects of overseas student policies. I shall start with government funding policies. It is indeed these policies which significantly influence the pattern of access of overseas students to United Kingdom higher education. But it is here that it would appear that the Government have departed from their original intention, for in 1985 the Foreign Office Minister then in charge of overseas students said:
"We have a moral obligation to help the Third World countries and much of the debate over overseas students policy over the past fifteen or so years, both inside and outside of Government, has centred on how best to meet the demand for education and training from the developing countries without at the same time allowing a flood of students from the richer part of the world".
Yet unfortunately government action on funding does not appear to have matched the stated policy on access, for between 1979 and 1984 there was as much as a 25 per cent. cut in the number of students coming from the poorest 50 countries of the world and a cut of 40 per cent. from all of the developing countries. On the other hand the proportion of total overseas students in the UK who came from all the OECD member countries has increased from 18.4 per cent. to 24.9 per cent. It would therefore seem that a part of the savings from the implementation of full cost fees should perhaps be put back to try to ameliorate some of the damage which has been done. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, made that point very clearly.
I wish also to say something about recruitment. Prospective students want and need four things. They need appropriate courses, adequate support systems, adequate funding and appropriate accommodation. After all, they are consumers and they see what they are coming for as a package which has value for money.
But if institutions are going to attract suitably qualified overseas students they must not only meet those needs but tell prospective students about them. It is thought that UK institutions in general are not good at either. They live largely in ignorance of increasing international competition. Again this point has been made by previous speakers.

717
Indeed the chairman of the executive committee of UKCOSA made the following remark:
"Marketing skills for the recruitment of overseas students have developed swiftly since institutions became the victims of central government's cuts, but there has not been much rethinking of the responsibilities consequent upon a successful recruitment drive".
He said that the priority was more to get the students in than to look after them, which came rather a long way afterwards. I think that universities and colleges must upgrade recruitment and support services if they are to succeed in maintaining and perhaps expanding their share of the world market in overseas students.
I wanted also to mention support services for overseas students. Here we do have a very distinct worry. The Overseas Students Trust concluded in its report that:
"the presence of overseas students at British institutions will only be mutually profitable in an educational sense if the students themselves are reasonably happy and well integrated into the total life and work of the institution".
The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, has given some important examples of work that is going on, notably that of HOST. I was very glad to hear of that, but what are the other most obvious pastoral needs of students? What should be done to avoid students getting into financial difficulties? That seems to be a very important point. One must accept that some overseas students will always need access to emergency funds. Perhaps a national fund administered by the DHSS or a non-governmental organisation is a possibility. On the other hand, it is always preferable to prevent financial difficulties arising in the first place. One way of doing that would be to provide guaranteed levels for the duration of each course rather than setting fee levels on an annual basis. That would remove one reason for financial difficulty.
My last point is a matter which has been left out of the report by the Overseas Students Trust. It is the problem of accommodation. It is as if the writers of the report did not recognise that there is a real problem for many students, particularly in such areas as the South-East, Oxford, Cambridge and Aberdeen. However, although the report does not include any research on accommodation, fortunately some research has been done by the London Conference on Overseas Students—of which I am now the chairman and which was previously chaired by my noble friend Lord Murray—which set up a working party last year on accommodation problems faced by overseas students in London. That revealed that provision of accommodation for students with families—who were often research students—was the most pressing current problem. Along with that, there were high rents and shortage of accommodation for single students in the large cities of the South-East.
European Community students fare best because they qualify for housing benefit in the same way our students do. But I understand that sometimes they do not receive it for about nine months and it may be too late for them to benefit from it. When one looks at the price of accommodation in London and other cities, it is quite horrifying. Prices range from—40 for a
718
single room to £;80 for a one-bedroom flat and £120 for a two-bedroom flat. All the people to whom I have spoken who are concerned with accommodation for students have said exactly the same thing. I have spoken to King's College student services and to the National Union of Students and they point out that this is a very real problem.
The report last year by the London Conference on Overseas Students made some valuable suggestions. I shall not list them now because it is rather late. However, if consideration is given to further research on the matter, the report could be used as a basis for that work.
The last question that I wish to put to the Minister is one of which I have given him notice and which is again outside the report of the Overseas Students Trust. It concerns the policy towards the liability of overseas students for the poll tax. I understand from a letter from the Department of the Environment which was sent to me that overseas students will be required to pay 20 per cent. of whatever the full community charge in their area will be. I should like to know if that is correct and also what the policy will be concerning the dependants of such students. Will student wives be required to pay the poll tax? That will have an important effect on overseas students who come here, in that they will not only be paying for their fees and a high price for their accommodation but they will also be paying the poll tax. That may affect their feelings on the matter.
Finally, as regards English language establishments in Britain, it is estimated that as many as 400,000 foreigners come to Britain each year to learn English or to continue English studies undertaken in their home countries. The level of services provided by the English language teaching establishments is very different. The British Council currently recognises and inspects some 200 English language schools, of which 185 are members of the Association for Recognised English Language Teaching Establishments in Britain.
As I say, that imposes some control. Outside of that there are about 200 English language schools which are not members of that organisation. Although many of them do an excellent job, it is sad that a large number do not. It would be very good to think that there might be a system of inspection which would be run by the British Council and which would cover all the English language schools. It has been said already that our greatest national resource is our language.
We are most grateful for this report and for the opportunity of debating it. Let me just quote two lines from one of its conclusions:
"there is still much to be done if overseas students are to get adequate value from their time here and return home with a friendly and understanding attitude towards this country. If we fail in this then indeed much of the money will have been wasted".
I think that is a very important point to make.
11.1 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, has touched on a subject of great importance. I am glad to be able to give a general description of the Government's stance. I must stress at the outset, as the noble

719
Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, would wish me to do, that of course we welcome overseas students to this country. We do so for several reasons. First, we are making friends and influencing people for the future. Secondly, we wish students to return home with an informed and clearer understanding of Britain and British aims and attitudes as the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, suggested. Thirdly, the experience that students gain here can help them to contribute more to their own countries on their return as well as benefiting them individually. They can also contribute new ideas, attitudes and experience to the academic and social contacts they make here.
There are other more tangible advantages such as those to which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and my noble friend Lord Limerick referred. Large sums of money have been mentioned; some people have estimated that the figure is as high as £1 billion a year. That may be a slight exaggeration, but certainly the amount of money which is generated is considerable. Institutions are helped through fees.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, made a point about statistics. Statistics are available up to 1986–87. Provisional figures are available in the spring of each year for the previous academic year. The final figures are available by December. Apparently we have to wait for the universities to send in the returns, and that is the reason for the delay.
A number of figures have been referred to this evening. There were in 1986 over 56,500 overseas students in public higher education institutions in this country. They came from 157 countries, including Eastern Europe, the developing world, the Commonwealth and our Western European friends and allies. Eighteen thousand received some kind of financial assistance from the Government during the course of the year. That is hardly a bad record by any standards. In 1980, we decided that an indiscriminate fee subsidy for all foreign students costing over £100 million a year was not a burden we could reasonably place on the British taxpayer. Instead, we now have a number of targeted scholarship schemes, costing about £90 million a year, under which the overseas students are selected for education and training in the United Kingdom. We are convinced that this is a more efficient and cost-effective system, benefiting both the taxpayer and the student. Of course plenty more students come who do not need a subsidy from us. It is certainly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, and my noble friend Lord Elibank suggested, that there was an initial dip in overseas student figures following the 1980 increase in fees. However, the numbers are more or less back at the original level and indeed are still rising.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to a letter in The Times about clinical university fees being too high. I understand the concern which lies behind that, but I remind him that universities are free to set their own fees but usually observe guidelines set annually by the University Grants Committee. Similarly, polytechnics and colleges are guided by the Council of Local Education Authorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, also referred to the question of postgraduate students in a rather different way. The vast majority of students under the
720
aid programmes are postgraduate or at least are on post-experience in the provisional training courses. Those are the majority of government funded students—5,500 new awards each year. All students on the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan are postgraduates; that is 900 awards each year.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, suggested that the United Kingdom charges full cost fees and then ameliorates that. That is so, but it is entirely what targeting aims to do. The aim is to support those who are politically and commercially valuable to Britain and those potentially able to play an important role in the social and academic development of their own country. British policy is to help developing Commonwealth countries develop their own universities, to which £20 million was devoted last year under the aid programme, and to focus on the most economically useful students for selective help here.
As for the noble Lord's criticism of bias towards European Community students, suggesting that in some way they get a better deal, I think it is a fact that that is part of the United Kingdom's commitment as a member of the European Community. It is also on the basis of a reciprocal benefit; for example, UK students can study at no charge or pay a subsidy fee only in other European countries. The answer in a nutshell is that it is all wrapped up with EC policy, which affects us all.
My noble friend Lord Elibank made comparisons between ourselves, the French and Germans. It may well be that countries such as France allow access to foreign students on the basis of a blanket subsidy. We must look at the quality of the education offered. It is open to question whether foreign students in France benefit from the kind of focused support through tutorial help, special language coaching, hospitality and other support services which is available in Britain. In any case, our policy is to help those students who will, as I have said, play a key part in the future of their countries. I suggest it is more important to focus what is required rather than to scatter it about more widely.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, seemed to suggest that we do nothing for American students, or at least that we should do more. I remind him that we provide £750,000 per year for Marshall scholars and £26,000 a year for the Fulbright scholarship, which comes from the Department of Education and Science, and there is more.
As to the point that my noble friend Lord Limerick made about Australia, Japan and the United States marketing harder than the United Kingdom for overseas students, as far as Australia is concerned that is so, but there are quotas and full cost fees are charged, concentrating recruitment on Far Eastern students, as I understand it. So far as Japan is concerned, its figures have increased ten-fold but the base figure was very small. So far as the United States is concerned, that is an infinitely larger country with far more colleges and universities than we have and therefore many more places. The proportion of overseas students to home students in the United States is in fact lower than ours, though I understand that the numerical totals are higher.

721
We have heard tonight some eloquent words in support of the OST's report and recommendation for a total increase in funding by the Government of £25 million on behalf of overseas students. As my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary said in another place on 19th February this year, this OST report, to which we gave a general welcome, has to be considered by the interdepartmental group of officials on overseas student matters and by the round table meeting on overseas student affairs. Your Lordships will not be surprised to learn, therefore, that I cannot anticipate these deliberations and our response.
The IDG has studied the report in detail but the round table meeting was unfortunately postponed because of the general election and will not now be held until 16th December. My honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education will chair the meeting and our formal response will be issued in the light of discussions at that meeting. I should emphasise that many of the report's recommendations were already in the process of being carried out when the report was published. Others had been made and rejected earlier and others are under consideration. Despite any encouragement I might have been given this evening, I hope your Lordships will understand that it would not be right for me to go further than that today.
A number of noble Lords were concerned that the DTI should do more in the way of trade-related schemes. The Department of Trade and Industry fully recognises the financial and commercial value of overseas students being trained in the United Kingdom. With that in mind, all companies winning contracts for which offers of aid and trade provision have been made are invited to fund a certain number of postgraduate places for overseas students. The DTI is also planning, through regional seminars, for greater interaction between companies and overseas students. Furthermore, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's scholarships and awards scheme has several scholarships running which are jointly funded on a tripartite basis with industry and academic institutions. This year some 60 to 70 students will be here under such arrangemend is with 10 British companies and organisations and another nine are due to come into operation in the academic year 1988–89 for a further 30 to 40 students. More are under discussion. I can say that British industry is showing an admirable interest and we are more than ready to cope with further arrangements of that kind.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, can the Minister say how much money the DTI, not industry, is paying out from its budget?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord that figure but I shall endeavour to ascertain what it is and advise him accordingly.
My noble friend Lord Elibank and the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, referred to the promotion of British education abroad through the British Council and to its educational counselling service, which is now operating in three countries, advising intending students on courses and institutions. It is planning to
722
expand into other countries. Virtually all British universities and polytechnics subscribe to this service. It is expected to be self-financing by 1989. We also have the educational promotion service, started last month, to perform the same function for colleges. We hope that it will expand successfully. Again, it is to be self-financing after three years.
The remit of the British Council is to promote cultural education and technical co-operation between Britain and other countries. Therefore, it is a legitimate call on council resources, which it recognises. The Government have provided pump-priming contributions. However, the British Council repeatedly assures us that services of the educational counselling service are intended to be self-funding.
My noble friend Lord Elibank suggested that we need to put more funds into Venezuela and the Argentine to help students from those countries. That may be the sort of contribution that companies such as Shell and others—perhaps it is better not to mention names—are able to help with on a jointly-funded basis with the FCO scholarship money. That may be a practical way to help. In fact, the fall in the numbers of students from South America cannot simply be attributed to the Government's policy on fees or on overseas students generally. There are other important factors, largely in the area of economic performance of some of the countries concerned, wrapped up with oil prices, and so on. Perhaps that is something which my noble friend could consider.
As to welfare, which I accept is an important point, it is clearly in the interests of all overseas students that they enjoy and benefit from their time in this country. Various independent research reports have made it clear that while finance is not a great concern to the students, welfare most certainly is. To that extent, I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, my noble friend Lord Limerick, and the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm.
The reports have shown that some overseas students complain of loneliness, isolation and even racism. It would be pointless and counter-productive to encourage them to come here and allow them to leave with less than happy memories. So I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, for his comments about HOST. HOST will co-ordinate the attempts of independent bodies throughout Britain to arrange outings, home stays, Christmas celebrations, etc., for students, particularly during the holidays. They have received over 2,000 requests from all over the country for family accommodation hospitality this Christmas and are finding families with whom to match these. Many of the students are post-graduates and are not young, many are married and have left their families at home while they have come here to learn.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, cited examples of past leaders who were educated here. Who knows, there may well be many future great leaders being educated here at the moment. However, by carefully selecting promising people and fully funding them, We are very likely to hit the target. The Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan is such an elite scheme for the most distinguished of

723
scholars. Britain still provides half the awards offered globally; that is over 900 awards currently at a cost of over £9 million.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to the importance of training South Africans. In addition to the Nassau Fellowships and the fellowships offered for a number of years under the technical co-operation programme of the Overseas Development Administration, Britain has this year given 80 scholarships to bright young South Africans to come and study here as undergraduates. A further 80 are now being selected by the Educational Opportunities Committee in South Africa to arrive here in April 1988, and more groups will come in subsequent years. These groups are given special courses and special arrangements that take account of their difficult background. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to the question of women. I, too, noticed that the OST report appeared to ignore the question of women entirely. The Government are very conscious of the need to attract more women to study here. This is a priority under the aid programme. At the Commonwealth Education Ministers' Conference in Nairobi held in July this year my noble friend Lady Hooper, who represented Great Britain, was responsible for inserting a passage in the communique referring to the need for member-countries to nominate more women as Commonwealth scholars.
The noble Baroness asked me a particular point about library funds being based on the number of students, but excluding overseas students. I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Baroness an answer to that tonight; but I shall certainly find out and write to her.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred to the community charge. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made it clear that full-time students in England and Wales will be liable to pay only 20 per cent. of the community charge. That follows the decision taken during the passage of the Abolition of Domestic Rates, etc. (Scotland) Bill—a Bill somewhat engraved upon my heart—that full-time students in Scotland will only be liable for payment of a similar percentage. I think that the noble Baroness might have to wait and see the fine print of the Bill when it finally emerges. I am afraid I cannot give her more information than that this evening. A number of other suggestions have been made which I shall study, and about which I shall, if necessary, correspond with your Lordships.
Few of us would dispute the fact that British education remains among the best in the world. Moreover, a British education is comparatively inexpensive when seen in the context of its quality. It is, however, concentrated, and this means that courses are not normally designed to allow students to earn during term time. The shorter vocational and training courses we offer are of similarly high reputation and similar intensity. If they are to benefit fully, students must concentrate on their studies. This goes as much for overseas students, of course, as for their home-grown counterparts. I have described the ways in which we are trying to make their lifestyle as
724
congenial as possible. But, it is also up to colleges, polytechnics and universities to play their part in sustaining the welfare of overseas students.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, seemed to imply that the number of overseas students should rise in the interests of the institutions which receive their fees. It is up to the institutions to decide what percentage of their student body they want to be from overseas. There is a point beyond which too much strain might be put on the educational and social facilities provided. Institutions must have a responsible recruitment policy and must provide suitable welfare and other facilities. Only in that way shall we ensure that the large investment we have made in bringing overseas students to this country and allowing them to enjoy the benefits of our educational system is fully realised.

Corn Exchange Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Associated British Ports Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Income and Corporation Taxes Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past eleven o'clock.

  IRANIAN OIL PLATFORMS: US ACTION
  IRANIAN OIL PLATFORMS: US ACTION
  VIETNAMESE REFUGEES IN HONG KONG CLOSED CAMPS
  VIETNAMESE REFUGEES IN HONG KONG CLOSED CAMPS
  CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
  CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
  US SERVICEMEN AND UK LAW
  US SERVICEMEN AND UK LAW
  GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
  GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS