Sitting of 14 December 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
DEATH OF A MEMBER
Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Brynmor Thomas John, esquire, Member for Pontypridd, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    District Authority Committees
    Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any representations on day-time meetings of district authority committees.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): No, Sir.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that district councils which choose to hold their committee meetings during the day preclude many good people, from all political parties, from standing as local council candidates? Will she consider including in the forthcoming legislation on the conduct of local authority business a provision that such meetings should be held after normal working hours whenever practicable?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Before answering my hon. Friend, I wish to inform the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is undertaking an official visit to China to demonstrate the Government's support for China's efforts in tackling pollution problems and other matters. He cannot, therefore, be here today.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) made an important point. However, it is for local councils to decide when to hold council meetings. The desire to encourage all people possible to serve on local councils is clearly vital to the future of local government. There are often special factors in rural areas, such as people having to travel long distances. We do not propose to legislate to cover that matter, but we hope that councils will have regard not only for serving councillors but for those who might otherwise be excluded.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. Marlow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to inform people of the effects on the community charge of profligate local authorities.
    The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I shall take every opportunity to inform voters that profligate spending by local authorities will lead to high community charges.
    Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend is a considerate man; he is also a very intelligent man. He understands about gearing—in other words, that for every £1 that a local authority increases its expenditure the community charge payer will have to cough up an extra £4. If we look around the country at Labour local authorities and assume that they spend a little over 10 per cent. more than Conservative local authorities, which is highly likely, that will increase the community charge by just over 40 per cent. or almost £100. We know that my right hon. Friend would not want to indulge in low politics as he is a fair man and a Christian, but will he make everyone in this country aware that, although we agree that everybody who is entitled to vote should vote, the cost of voting Labour at next year's local authority elections could be £100 per vote?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is kind in his remarks, but the facts are clear. If there were a community charge this year, the average in Conservative-controlled authorities would be £196·40 per year and in Labour-controlled authorities £294·40, so there is almost £100 difference.
    Mr. Mullin: Has the Minister seen recent reports that the poll tax will result in the transfer of about £800 million from the north to the south? Can he, as a Christian, tell us how it is possible to justify the poorer parts of the country having to transfer wealth to the richer parts?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the reports. The revaluation of the business rate will have the effect of transferring almost £900 million from the south to the north.
    Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that any expenditure on protecting egg farmers is not counted as profligacy?
    Mr. Gummer: Sometimes when one is moved from one Department to another one has much for which to thank the Almighty.
    Mr. Blunkett: Will the Minister be good enough today to answer the question that he declined to answer on Monday and say how much money he intends to spend on profligate propaganda publicising the Government's case on the poll tax, including the leaflet published yesterday? How much does he intend to spend on telling the voters of Westminster what was said in the Audit Commission's report, published on 6 December, about the way in which the scandalous sale of cemeteries for 15p has resulted in the electorate of Westminster being faced with a £5·5 million bill to repurchase them?
    Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take action against Lady Porter in the same way that he took action against Labour councils during recent years? If so, will he couple that with surcharging his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health for the £500,000 that she has cost the country by opening her mouth once too often?
    Mr. Gummer: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new job on the Opposition Front Bench. I assure him that the Government will spend no money on propaganda.
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to what a typical ward sister would pay in (a) rates, (b) community charge and (c) a system of capital value rates plus local income tax paid in the proportions of 80:20, respectively, if she lived in a typical one-bedroomed flat in the London borough of Camden.
    Mr. Gummer: A ward sister earning £15,000, living in a flat in Camden worth £70,000 with a rateable value of £300, would pay a rates bill of £635, a community charge of £639, disregarding the transitional safety net, and £2,030 under a system of capital value rates plus local income tax.
    Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Can I assume that my right hon. Friend will take every opportunity to produce, for the benefit of those citizens unlucky enough to live in boroughs such as Camden, factual information about the effects of the policies of the Labour party if it were ever given the chance to put them into effect?
    Mr. Gummer: Yes, the double tax that Labour proposes would cost a ward sister more than £2,000 per year, but it is particularly bad in Camden because Camden's overspending is £637 per adult. If it brought its overspending down to what it needs to spend, it could have a reasonable community charge. The effect on the community charge is serious in a borough which does not seem to be able to bring its spending under control.
    Dr. Cunningham: How does the Minister expect us to believe that rigged question and fiddled answer when he has completely disregarded the loss to Camden ratepayers of £151 million as a result of the Government's national business tax—a cost to each person in Camden of £824? As he is concentrating on nurses in Camden, perhaps he will tell the House how a nurse earning £15,000 or £20,000 per year can possibly afford the average one-bedroomed flat in Camden which costs more than £100,000. Is he not aware that at the royal free hospital Portakabins are being installed in the car parks because nurses cannot afford to rent or buy homes in the borough as a result of the Government's policies? After their treatment at the hands of the Government and this farrago of fiddled figures and dishonest replies nurses in Camden will treat the Government's answer with nothing but contempt.
    Mr. Gummer rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that "dishonest" in the context of replies made by a Minister is not a parliamentary expression. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that?
    Dr. Cunningham: I will certainly withdraw the word "dishonest", and use the phrase "grossly inaccurate" instead.
    Mr. Gummer: I am extremely pleased that the hon. Gentleman has now confirmed that the Labour scheme would produce a figure of £2,000 because he has failed to reply to my letter asking for the information, as has the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). It is barefaced cheek for him to come to the House and complain about a reply when he has refused to give the public the facts. He knows perfectly well that any loss that may be thought to come from the business rate will be made up in the needs grant. Perhaps the hon.
    894
    Gentleman does not understand the principle, but the fact is true that the hon. Gentleman has produced a plan in place of rates and community charge which he knows would not work and if put into operation it would saddle every nurse with a bill of £2,000.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party has shown, by its questions today and its plans for local income tax and the double tax, that it has entirely abandoned the south of England and wants to spread the disastrous policies of Camden to the rest of London and devastate people's lives there, too?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend will have noticed that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) tried to deflect the question because he knows that in every case, when the figures come out, the scheme proposed by the Labour party would be demonstrably devastating to Labour-controlled areas because overspending makes them impossible for people to live in.

    Housing Act 1988
    Mr. Flannery: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give (a) the number of bids for transfer of local authority property to another landlord registered under parts IV and V of the Housing Act 1988 and (b) the names and locations of the prospective landlords.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): Part IV of the Housing Act 1988 is not yet in force. Powers for the Housing Corporation to approve landlords will be commenced in the new year. Voluntary transfers by local authorities take place under powers in the Housing Act 1985, not part V of the 1988 Act. There are a considerable number of such transfers each year, some of which take place under general consents and are therefore not notified to the Department.
    Mr. Flannery: Do we understand that the Conservative party not merely openly and publicly advocates vote rigging but will continue to enshrine it in law? What would the Minister say if other organisations even dreamed of such a thing, as they never would, or if the trade unions carried on in the way the Conservative party does? Why does an abstention mean a yes vote?
    Mr. Trippier: If a campaign has been waged and different approaches and different appeals made by housing associations and private landlords put to the tenants as opposed to the local authority, people can vote yes for the move to the housing association, for example. If they say no, they will vote under the tenants' choice to stay with the local authority. That is enshrined in the Act. If by the time campaigning has gone ahead they cannot make up their minds, it would be wrong for those people to destroy the chances of tenants who desperately want and seek that change. The hon. Gentleman's point is an extension of the Labour party's campaign of misinformation, which is similar to the campaign that it ran against the right to buy. It failed then and it will fail again.
    Mr. Wilshire: Does my hon. Friend agree that if certain councils spent less time churning out propaganda aimed at undermining the Government's housing policies and

    895
    legislation, and more time dealing with the empty houses that they own, repairing houses and collecting rent, local people would get a far better deal and far better houses?
    Mr. Trippier: I agree with all that. If local authorities spent more time turning round the number of empty properties that they have, there would be a net increase of 20,000 houses brought on to the market. It is not only local authorities but certain trade unions, certain members of the Socialist Workers party and certain members of Militant who are peddling this misinformation.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister has correctly told the House that the present transfers are not going ahead under the 1988 Act. He then said that, nevertheless, tenants who vote against transfers will be able to stay with a local authority. That is not the case with transfers that are happening now, and certainly not the case in Torbay, where well over 20 per cent. tenants voted against but if the Minister allows the transfer to go ahead all those tenants, irrespective of how they voted, will be involved in the scheme. How do the Government intend to protect those people's democratic rights?
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to prejudge the decisions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. All that I can say today is that we shall shortly be in touch with Torbay council about the matter.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: While Labour Members talk about the rights of council tenants, the Government have given council tenants new incentives and opportunities. Can my hon. Friend confirm that we shall continue to do that?
    Mr. Trippier: That is the whole point. The Opposition parties—I use the plural advisedly—spend a great deal of time talking about extending benefits to tenants but do nothing, whereas the Government have extended the freedom of choice to those tenants. It has been exercised through the right to buy, which the Opposition do not like to mention because it has been enormously successful. That same freedom will be extended to more and more tenants as the 1988 Act becomes effective.
    Mr. Soley: The Minister's propaganda might be more convincing if he could tell the House that he is prepared to extend that right to the tenants of non-resident private landlords, because we shall do that.
    I give the Minister this opportunity to do what he undertook in the House to do—to correct the misleading information that he published by joining me at a joint press conference after the National Consumer Council, which is chaired by a former Conservative Member, and the Institute of Housing have analysed the leaflet that he distributed. and which I have described as grossly misleading propaganda. If that is done, we shall then know who is telling the truth—and it will be our side that wins, not the Minister's.
    Mr. Trippier: I welcome a debate on those issues at a place and time of the hon. Gentleman's choosing. There has already been one major debate on the subject, when we debated the Lords amendment. The hon. Gentleman will recall that I extracted from him confirmation that he would publicly denounce leaflets or information classified as misleading or misinformation. He will be pleased to learn that I shall be writing to him this week giving examples of leaflets sent to tenants which are clearly
    896
    misleading. I hope to extract from the hon. Gentleman the public denouncement of them that he promised just a few weeks ago.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend draw the attention of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) to the highly misleading and downright dishonest document on the Housing Act 1988 published by Ealing council and the meetings at which tenants were told that if they voted to join a housing association their rents would be doubled and they would have no rights? The BBC did not correct that misinformation in its "Panorama" programme and has not made it clear that any secure tenant wishing to remain with the council can always do so. Will my hon. Friend make that clear?
    Mr. Trippier: I confess that I have not incorporated in the package that I am sending to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) this week the Ealing propaganda to which my hon. Friend refers. Perhaps I will save that for next week. We could keep up the campaign on a weekly basis.

    EEC (Regional Problems Index)
    Mr. Morley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment where the south-east region is placed in the synthetic index of regional problems in the EEC.
    Mr. Trippier: The synthetic index of regional problems in the European Community, attached to the Commission's third periodic report, ranks areas of England on a county basis. Counties within the south-east region of England lie between 66th and 127th position on the index.
    Mr. Morley: It may come as no surprise that because the Government have engineered a north-south divide our northern regions do not favourably compare with others in the index. Will the Minister explain why the so-called prosperous south of England also does not favourably compare in the synthetic index of regional problems? For example, 16 German regions are ahead of the English south-east region, and the highest placed in the index is the Greater London region. Will the Minister explain why that is so? Is our country's economic recovery less good than the Government would have us believe?
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman will welcome, as I do, the fact that his own county ranks high in the order of priorities and will be covered. At the Department, we have strenuously supported the case for that. The index to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his substantive question will not be used after 1 January 1989. It appears that the European Commission accepts that the statistical basis is flawed. No doubt the hon. Gentleman and I can continue this discussion in correspondence or he can visit the Department. However, we maintain that the basis of the index is flawed, and we have pointed that out to the Commission.

    North Sea Pollution
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of pollution into the North sea from rivers and estuaries comes from Great Britain.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: In the order of 20 per cent., according to the quality status report prepared for the second North sea conference held in November last year.
    Mr. Paice: The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for that figure. Does not her answer disprove once and for all the allegation that Britain is the dirty man of Europe? Is it not true that German rivers contribute 50 per cent. of known pollution? Will my hon. Friend tell the House what further plans there are to reduce Great Britain's proportion even below 20 per cent.?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the clear contrast. I agree that 50 per cent. of the riverborne contaminants found in the North sea are borne from rivers at the eastern end of the North sea. Nevertheless, following on from the North sea conference in London least year, which was hosted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, we are bringing forward a clear plan of action for continuing to improve the North sea. We have produced a "red list" of the 26 substances most damaging to our waterways and in addition to our participation in the scientific task force we are moving towards ending incineration and dumping at sea.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Minister has made some valuable contributions in terms of the Government's concern, but will she acknowledge that 20 per cent. is no cause for complacency and that the reason why the Germans, in particular, have such a high rate of pollution is that they have a river which taps the whole continent rather than just these islands? The Government's record on the North sea will be worth defending only when specific regulations are brought before the House to ban the substances that the Minister has in mind and action is taken on them.
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman makes some reasonable points. At last week's meeting of the North sea scientific task force Britain was the only country in the North sea to bring forward specific programmes for monitoring, regulating and providing models of the North sea. Similarly, with the "red list", Britain is the first country to have published a list of substances that we hope to see reduced by 50 per cent. by 1995.
    Mr. Bowis:: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Thames estuary is the cleanest metropolitan estuary in the world? Will she also confirm that she will not rest on those laurels but will continue to pursue the polluters of the Thames and other rivers, particularly through the courts?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The Thames is probably the cleanest metropolitan waterway in the world. About £300 million has been spent on cleaning it up and more than 100 different species are to be found there. However, there is no room for complacency and it is essential that we continue with our programmes to clean up waterways and to protect the North sea. That is why we are committed to a precautionary approach and to a rigorous approach to the implementation of these policies.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Once again, the Minister and Conservative Members have proved that they are wholly complacent about the pollution that this country puts into the North sea. Of course, river discharges into the North sea from Britain are only 20 per cent. But the river Mersey, which is the most polluted river basin in Western Europe, goes into the Irish sea, which they have not mentioned.
    898
    Three hundred million gallons of sewage are discharged every day into Britain's coastal waters. Twenty per cent. of the flow from sewage pipelines is composed of contamined industrial effluent. We dump 200,000 tonnes of liquid industrial contaminated—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The North sea, please.
    Mr. Roberts: It is the North sea. Two hundred thousand tonnes go into the North sea. Will the Minister confirm that Britain is the only country dumping massive amounts of sewage sludge into the North sea? Thirty per cent. of Britain's contaminated, poisonous sewage sludge is dumped into the North sea. When will the Government stop that? The Minister will go down in history as one of Britain's great poisoners.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I fear that that was an example of air pollution. As a party, we believe in action not words and we believe in action based on sound, scientific evidence. The hon. Gentleman mentioned sewage sludge. It is important to point out that sewage sludge is what remains after the treatment of sewage. One has to find the best practical environmental option. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would prefer to have the sewage sludge spread over the land around his constituency. Our view, is that, where it is the best practical environmental option, it is permissible to dump it, so long as it is strictly licensed and strictly monitored.
    Mr. Cran: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's commitment to cleaning up the five great estuaries in the North sea is evidenced by the fact that by 1990 £600 million will have been committed in capital works by various water authorities? Does she further agree that in the river Humber oxygen concentration has increased in the past few years from under 45 per cent. to more than 65 per cent.? Does she also agree that the situation will improve because £70 million has been committed by the water authority there to further improvements? Is that not progress and, if not, what is?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I most appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend is so well informed on this matter and about the very good progress that we have made, which means that 90 per cent. of our rivers and waterways are of good or fair quality, as compared with a European average of 75 per cent. We have further to go and we are committed to do all that we can to ensure that we maintain the standards of our rivers and waterways.

    Thames Water Authority
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of the Thames water authority; and what matters were discussed.
    The Minister for Water and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): I met the chairman of Thames and other water authority chairmen on Monday 5 December. We discussed the excellent progress that the water authorities are making towards privatisation.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister arrange to meet the chairman of the Thames water authority again to discuss with him the authority's considerable land holdings? Will he ask the chairman to investigate why a number of completions of land sales that were imminent were withdrawn by the authority and the land subsequently sold

    899
    to Wimpey and other developers? Will he also consider whether it is right for a public undertaking such as Thames water authority to be involved in exclusive private discussions with individual developers to whom it then decides to sell a particular piece of land? Does not the Minister think that we need a public statement on all the land holdings of the Thames water authority, their valuation and the method of their disposal?
    Mr. Howard: In common with all other public bodies, the water authorities are required to obtain the best market price for any land holdings of which they dispose. If the hon. Gentleman has any information to suggest that the best market price has not been obtained, I should be grateful if he would draw it to my attention. All assets, including land holdings, will be fully valued in the prospectuses of the companies when they are offered for sale.
    Mr. Hayes: When my hon. and learned Friend met the chairman of Thames water authority, did he congratulate him on improving customer services and reducing debt and operating costs?
    Mr. Howard: Not, I confess, on 5 December, but I have done so on previous occasions.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister acknowledge, as his advisers Professor Littlechild and Mr. Kinnersley have acknowledged, that it will be developers who will be most interested in buying into the privatised water industry and that, because they will control the water and sewerage infrastructure, the planning process is bound to be weakened?
    Mr. Howard: I do not accept that for one moment. The planning process will continue to apply in its full rigour to land disposed of by the authorities.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Rather than waste too much time discussing all this rubbish with the Thames water authority, will my hon. and learned Friend find a little time to discuss with the Anglian water authority, where he will find the greatest possible enthusiasm—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that it is true of lots of authorities, but the question is about Thames water authority.
    Mr. Howard: I shall certainly do that, and I am sure that my hon. Friend's assessment is absolutely accurate.

    Housing and Local Government Bill
    Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the Housing and Local Government Bill.
    Mr. Gummer: Early in the new year.
    Ms. Primarolo: In drafting the new Bill, will the Minister take the opportunity to ensure that the voting procedure for the transfer of council houses in the Housing Act 1988 is amended to ensure that the dead do not count in the vote? In the vote in Torbay a woman who had been dead for two years but whose name was still on the electoral register was counted as being in favour of the transfer of the council property. Will the Minister also take
    900
    the opportunity today to inform us that, because of such irregularities, the transfer of the Torbay housing stock will not be allowed to go ahead?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State referred to the decision on the transfer, and that decision will he made known. As regards the hon. Lady's second request, I shall make no such proposals.
    Mr. McLoughlin: In considering the conduct of local authorities, which we expect to be included in the Housing and Local Government Bill, will my right hon. Friend seek to ensure that in appointing people to statutory planning boards, such as the national park boards, district or county councils should pick people who live in the area? Is my right hon. Friend aware that people who are subject to the planning controls of the Peak national park are fed up with the appointment of people from the city of Derby, who have no contact whatever with the national parks? Might not one way round that be to include a clause providing that at least 50 per cent. of those appointed to a planning board must live in the area?
    Mr. Gummer: I know that that problem arises. I have not yet considered the matter, but now that the hon. Gentleman has brought it to my attention I shall certainly do so in view of the Bill.
    Mr. O'Brien: Before the Government publish the Housing and Local Government Bill, will the Minister ensure that information about the proposed housing subsidies will be published so that local authorities can make their calculations? Without the details it is difficult for them to assess how the arrangements will work, particularly in relation to rent levels.
    Will the Minister also tell us what is the future of urban development, which appears to have fallen off the Government's agenda? Will we have information on that as well before the Bill is published?
    Mr. Gummer: I think that in the second part of his question the hon. Gentleman was referring to the economic development powers, as they are what is discussed in the Bill. It will certainly be on the agenda, and I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman is able to obtain all the necessary information when the Bill is published.
    I very much hope that we shall have as much information as possible about housing subsidies, but the purpose of the Bill is for us to discuss a number of important principles—which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, too, will be able to discuss—and to apply to them particular figures at different times. I do not think the hon. Gentleman need worry about not having the information that he needs when we discuss this important Bill, which will come before us very soon.

    Statutory Local Plans
    Mr. Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress by local planning authorities in drawing up, entering into public consultation and implementing statutory local plans (a) generally and (b) in the outer London boroughs.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): In terms of

    901
    population, about 65 per cent. of London and about 20 per cent of the rest of England are covered by adopted local plans, with a further 10 to 15 per cent covered by draft plans. Thirteen of the 19 outer London boroughs have complete coverage of adopted or deposited local plans. I hope that the planning policy guidance note published on 30 November will accelerate the preparation and adoption of local plans elsewhere.
    Mr. Chapman: I thank my hon. Friend for his detailed reply. I accept that the borough of Barnet has published its draft local plan and is now conducting the statutory six months of public consultation, but can my hon. Friend give an assurance that local planning authorities can turn down planning applications that they deem out of scale and character with neighbouring buildings?
    More important, can my hon. Friend assure us that if there are appeals on such planning applications, while the Secretary of State must, of course, look at each appeal individually, there will be some recognition that he will uphold planning authorities that turn down applications because they are out of scale and character?
    Mr. Chope: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurances that he seeks. Those matters are set out in detail in paragraph 22 of the planning policy guidance note.
    Mr. Cousins: Will the Minister take up urgently with his colleagues at the Department of Transport key issues such as the motorway proposals now overshadowing much of outer west London? Adequate performance of the fine-grain detail of planning in statutory local plans is being completely overshadowed by major proposals for capital infrastructure investment affecting the lives of entire communities.
    Mr. Chope: Obviously some matters—the hon. Gentleman has referred to them—must be dealt with by means of a national or regional strategy, but many others must be dealt with locally. There is considerable demand from local residents that their own local councils resolve such matters.
    Mr. Jessel: On local plans for outer London, will my hon. Friend take careful note that it is against the wishes of the public that their leafy roads in outer London should gradually be turned into blocks of six, eight and 12 flats? Will such public feeling be reflected in decisions on planning appeals?
    Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. It is one of the reasons why the new planning policy guidance note contains express reference to allowing local authorities to include in their local plans references to policies on densities for new housing.

    Leicester (Housing Waiting List)
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to visit Leicester to discuss with the local council the housing waiting list.
    Mr. Trippier: My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit Leicester. However, I was there on 6 December and I discussed a number of housing topics with the council.
    Mr. Vaz: As the Minister was in Leicester so recently, he will know that there are currently 10,500 people on the housing waiting list in Leicester and that last year the city
    902
    council did not build a single new council house. That contrasts with the position 10 years ago when it used to build an average of 1,000 new houses a year. Does the Minister realise that the appalling statistics are a direct result of the Government's miserable housing policies? When will the Minister return to the people of Leicester the £15,274,000·18 stolen by the Government from the council's housing allocation grant? Will the Minister confirm that if the money was given to the city council—it is its rightful property—it would considerably ease the housing crisis in Leicester?
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman's point was not specifically touched on by the Labour councillors I met on my official visit. Perhaps I told them rather too quickly that the amount of money they had received in capital receipts had ensured that there was a gradual increase in the total spend in the public sector housing market. Perhaps that is why the matter was not raised. I am glad to have the opportunity to remind the hon. Gentleman of that fact. I also made the point that, wherever possible, the Department had given additional resources over and above the council's allocation at the beginning of the year. That is especially appropriate for estate action. I was asking the council to spend a darn sight more money from its resources, together with ours, to deliver new building through housing assocations, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, form the thrust of the Government's new housing policy.
    Mr. Ashby: Does my hon. Friend agree that waiting lists are often fiction, based on expectations rather than need? Does he agree that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) would do better trying to persuade Leicester council to use its resources more efficiently rather than indulge in political posturing?
    Mr. Trippier: I agree with my hon. Friend. The local authority in Leicester could do more in turning round its empty properties on various estates. It acknowledged that it has taken far too long in the past, and that process has speeded up. I am glad to see that, but there is still considerable room for improvement.

    Unleaded Petrol
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further measures he is proposing to ensure that unleaded petrol is made more widely available.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The number of petrol stations selling unleaded petrol is increasing rapidly. By the end of the year, it is expected that one in four refuellings will take place at a petrol station at which unleaded petrol is available. Further measures to promote the availability and use of unleaded petrol are co-ordinated by the unleaded petrol group, which I chair.
    Mr. Gill: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. May I exhort her not to spare any effort to encourage petroleum companies to make unleaded petrol available as widely as possible? That holds out the greatest scope for individual citizens to make worthwhile and valuable contributions to solving the problem of pollution. Does she agree that the role and responsibility of individual citizens in the battle against pollution cannot be underestimated?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I agree with my hon. Friend. In his area, taking Shropshire, Hereford and Worcester together, the number of petrol stations selling unleaded petrol has risen from four to 43 in the past year. What matters is that individual citizens should realise that lack of availability and financial disadvantage are no longer excuses. Two thirds of cars can use unleaded petrol, possibly with a small alteration, and it is up to citizens to take steps to help the environment and their wallet.
    Mr. Eastham: Is it not a fact that a Government Department has been monitoring lead pollution near motorways and busy roads in built-up areas? Is it not also a fact that there is great concern about damage to children? When will the Department publish figures showing the level of lead pollution, which would heighten awareness and encourage people to buy unleaded petrol?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The amount of lead in the air has dropped by half since the maximum amount of lead in petrol was reduced by two thirds in 1985. Although the amount has been reduced, we need to tackle the remaining 80 per cent. of lead in the air that comes from petrol. It is essential for people to realise the damage that lead can cause to children. We are making every effort to spell that out. The information is readily available and the amount of lead in the air is monitored by a number of sources.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: I congratulate the Minister on her splendid efforts to encourage companies as well as individuals to alter cars and company vehicles to run on unleaded petrol. I am delighted that this week my hon. Friend has written to all the major companies encouraging them to make that alteration. Will she confirm that the tax differential between leaded and unleaded petrol is among the highest in the European Community?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind remarks. I have written to the top 100 companies asking what steps they can take to change their fleets. Our differential is the second highest in the European Community. However, it is important for people to realise that there is already a 6p advantage over four-star petrol. Together with the Department of Trade and Industry we intend to alter the Petrol Marking Order so that the motorist is made immediately aware—because it will be highlighted at the roadside—of the saving he can make if he buys unleaded petrol and of the help that that will provide for the environment.
    Ms. Walley: The use of unleaded fuel is most important if we are to have a healthy environment. It is much too important to leave to market forces. If the Government's boasted uptake of 15 per cent. in all petrol stations is to be achieved by the end of the year, it will still compare unfavourably with the uptake in most other European countries. In West Germany it is 75 per cent. When do the Government intend to make as much money available to deal with this problem as they have made available, through the Department of Health, to overcome the problems that have arisen in the egg market? The Government ought to provide funds immediately for a Government-sponsored national information programme so that citizens are encouraged to buy unleaded petrol.
    Mrs. Bottomley: The uptake of unleaded petrol has increased tenfold in the last year. If we can achieve the same tenfold increase next year, we shall have made good
    904
    progress. It is essential to work with the petrol industry, the motor manufacturers, the consumers and the motoring organisations and encourage them to spell out in detail the advantages of changing to unleaded petrol. There is already a substantial financial advantage, but it is important that each person should realise what the advantages are. That is why, through the Campaign for Lead Free Air, with which we have worked for many years and have helped to fund, we are determined to ensure that every step is taken to promote the important action that each individual can take.
    Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that, far from increasing the differential, the best way forward is to encourage more car manufacturers to tune cars to run on unleaded petrol, particularly car manufacturers in countries such as Italy and France that refuse to do so because their attitude towards unleaded fuel is way behind ours?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the important contribution he has made to this subject and the steps that I know he has taken to encourage motor manufacturers to take action in this important area. By 1990, all cars will have to be able to take unleaded petrol; we shall all be using it. I have also discussed with manufacturers whether they have been able clearly to identify those cars that are able to take unleaded fuel. Four out of five new cars are able to take unleaded fuel, and 2 million people are driving cars that could run on unleaded fuel. We want to encourage them to take that step.

    Smith Houses
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement concerning the availability of further funds for the repurchase of Smith houses by Leicester city council.
    Mr. Trippier: Leicester city council received additional housing investment programme allocations of £584,000 in 1987–88 and £235,000 in 1988–89, specifically to help it meet its housing defects obligations. For 1989–90 we have set aside £15 million nationally for housing defects, for which individual authorities will be able to make bids. These will, of course, be considered on their merits.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that these amounts are totally inadequate? Leicester city council is fulfilling its obligations to protect people who bought their council houses in accordance with Government policy, but the Government are doing precious little to help them. Those who live in the remaining Smith houses in my constituency will share a wretched Christmas along with the thousands of families who cannot get council houses because the Government have taken money away from Leicester city council, which means that it cannot do its job in other respects.
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. and learned Gentleman is being uncharacteristically unfair, and I think that he may have prepared his supplementary question before hearing my answer to his substantive question. Only last month the Department of the Environment gave Leicester city council additional funds to meet the problem of housing defects that the hon. and learned Gentleman has outlined.
    Mr. Janner: It is not enough.
    Mr. Trippier: It never is for the hon. and learned Gentleman. He will continue to say that it is not enough. All I can say is that there was a redistribution of resources in his region and we responded positively to the case put to us by Leicester city council. The additional HIP allocation, with the council's normal resources, means that the council will be able to help owners who are still awaiting assistance.

    Dorset (Planning)
    Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to visit Dorset to discuss public opinion on planning matters.
    Mr. Chope: Neither I nor my right hon. Friend have any plans to do so.
    Mr. Adley: That is a pity. Will my hon. Friend please accept from me that overdevelopment in Dorset is now the overriding concern of many of my constituents and those of my neighbours? Is he aware that there is widespread disillusionment and even a feeling of helplessness at what seems to be an alliance between certain developers, land owners and even certain county councils who favour the seemingly inexorable creep of development? Will he accept, on behalf of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, my constituents' thanks for the decision to throw out the Carroll group proposals? Will he reconfirm the answer given to me by his fellow Under-Secretary of State on 20 July that it is definitely not the Government's policy to encourage the development of new towns on existing green belt land?
    Mr. Chope: I am very happy to confirm the last point and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments about the Carroll decision. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State upheld green belt policy by overturning a recommendation from the inspector. He was challenged in the High Court but won the case.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will my hon. Friend do everything that he can to protect the green belt in Dorset and elsewhere in the south of England? When any changes are made to structure plans, will my hon. Friend ensure that control of local planning authorities over planning matters is in no way diminished?
    Mr. Chope: Yes, certainly. Indeed, we want to go further than that. We want to encourage more local planning authorities to draw up their local plans and thereby to have greater control over their own environment.

    Clay Pigeon Shooting
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to issue a consultation paper on the permitted days for clay pigeon shooting under the General Development Order 1988.
    Mr. Howard: Before Christmas.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, if the order goes through, hundreds of small clay pigeon clubs will go out of business? If he further aware that they were not consulted and are outraged? Surely this is no way in which to treat a responsible and law-abiding sector of the community. The Government are trying to
    906
    encourage alternative land uses, so surely it makes no sense to push this policy through in contradiction of that aim.
    Mr. Howard: I am fully aware of the points that my hon. Friend makes and they will be given full weight in the consultation process to which his original question referred.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that, if consultations are to go through quickly, he must try to bring in an amending order by, say, 1 March? If he does not, clay pigeon shooting clubs cannot plan their season and many individuals will not be able to use clay pigeon traps to practise in fields. Is he aware that there is a voluntary code of practice, which is approved by his Department, to reduce noise and any form of local inconvenience? He must act very speedily indeed.
    Mr. Howard: I am aware of the code of practice to which my hon. Friend refers. We shall do what we can to reach a speedy conclusion of this matter.

    Bathing Water
    Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to ensure that all beaches meet the standards set by the European Community bathing water directive.
    Mr. Howard: Some 60 per cent. of our bathing waters now meet the mandatory EC standards. Spending programmes for improving the remaining waters are running at £70 million a year, and we are considering the implication of accelerating these programmes to achieve general compliance by 1995.
    Mr. Fearn: As one third of bathing waters still do not comply with the EEC directive, what action is the Minister taking about raw sewage which is being pumped into seas and which affects tourism, fishing and local people?
    Mr. Howard: I thought that I had answered that question. We are considering ways of accelerating the programme to achieve general compliance with European Community standards by 1995.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Is it not true that all the pollution has occurred while the water authorities have been in the public sector? Will not any price rises in water after privatisation be largely because of the need to clean up that pollution?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is quite right. The Select Committee reported that the problems which we now face are largely due to the cuts in investment by water authorities between the mid-1970s and the early-1980s when the Labour party was in power.

    Nirex
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet the chairman of United Kingdom Nirex; and what matter will be discussed.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to meet the chairman of Nirex.
    Mrs. Ewing: In the light of that reply, will the Under-Secretary tell us when she expects Nirex to announce the sites that have been selected and the exact method of disposal of the waste? What is her Department doing to ensure that there will be a full debate in the House to enable all hon. Members to express their views on the selected sites and the proposals by Nirex?
    Mrs. Bottomley: We understand that Nirex hopes to bring forward its proposals based on the results of its consultation exercise and technical and geological studies early next year. The Government will then make a final decision after a full public debate.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should accelerate the Nirex programme? She will be well aware that for decades we have been storing the waste that Nirex wishes to over-engineer in its disposal and storage, in nuclear power stations throughout the country. We have to get across to the general public the message that there are many places—
    Ms. Short: Does the hon. Gentleman want it in his constituency?
    Mr. Bruce: I have it in my constituency. There are many places where it can be safely stored. Unless we bite the bullet we shall never keep nuclear energy progressing as it ought to be for the good of the environment.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point of view. He is absolutely right, but uncertainty can cause greater difficulty and problems. The Government are satisfied that safe disposal facilities can be developed, but any facility would have to meet the stringent safety requirements of the authorising and regulatory bodies. I know that my hon. Friend would not want to accelerate those procedures.
    Dr. Cunningham: In addition to the commitment to a necessary debate in the House, will the Minister confirm that if there are any proposals for new methods of monitored storage of nuclear waste, there will be a wide-ranging public inquiry before any decisions are taken?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My right hon. Friend has given a commitment that when Nirex comes forward with its proposals there will be a public inquiry and widespread public debate. It has been agreed by the Environment Select Committee and the House of Lords European Communities Select Committee that on-site storage is unacceptable because of the higher risk, that disposal is the right approach and it is time that the Government proceeded to deal with the problem.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of Nirex, will he bring to his attention the fact that the Scottish National party in Scotland has been distributing leaflets which give completely misleading information or lies about the proposals that may or may not be made, and that has been causing much unnecessary concern?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Nirex has made efforts to consult very widely and put forward responsible and reasonable information. I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's point to my right hon. Friend's attention.

    Association of District Councils (Report)
    Mr. Archer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the report of the Association of District Councils called, "Social Rented Housing: Supply and Need", issued in September, a copy of which has been sent to him.
    Mr. Trippier: This is an interesting report which we have read carefully.
    Mr. Archer: In view of the revelation that there are now 1·3 million families on council waiting lists, is the Minister at last persuaded of the need for increased provision in the public sector, as urged in the report, or will he emulate the Prime Minister's reaction and dismiss the Association of District Councils as one more institution which has become infected by Socialism?
    Mr. Trippier: I am convinced of the need to provide houses at affordable rents, and the Housing Act 1988 is designed to meet that need. This will happen through extension and expansion of the housing association movement. That is precisely why we have been fortunate in securing substantial resources from the Treasury to expand that policy and give a great increase to the Housing Corporation, which eventually will find its way to the housing associations.

    Environmental Protection
    Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the major areas of opportunity for protection of the national environment which he expects his Department to pursue over the next 12 months.
    Mrs. Bottomley: We will be taking action both nationally and internationally to protect all aspects of the environment. We are moving forward our policies to revise and refine our waste disposal legislation, to establish an integrated pollution control system, to tacke air pollution by cleaning up power station emissions and promoting lead-free petrol, to invest in research into greenhouse gases and to take a lead on protecting the ozone layer.
    Mr. Stern: On my hon. Friend's final point, would she care to comment on the efforts being made by the major companies in the chemical industry to assist the Government in that endeavour.
    Mrs. Bottomley: The major chemical companies have been investing heavily in research into alternatives to damaging CFCs and halons. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that he is to host a conference here in March to encourage other countries to sign the Montreal protocol and to raise the limits so that we can look for a reduction of 85 per cent.

Patrick Ryan
3.31 pm
Mr. John Fraser(by private notice): To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the decision of the Irish Attorney-General in relation to the extradition of Patrick Ryan.
The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): In my answer to a private notice question on 1 December, I told the House that the Irish Attorney-General was still considering the warrants that the Metropolitan police had sent to Dublin—first, by facsimile on 25 November and then by hand on 26 November—and the additional documentation which I had sent to him on 25 November. I had at that time not heard from Mr. Murray about them other than the telephone conversation on Monday 28 November, the content of which I reported to the House.
At about 5.30 on the evening of 1 December, Mr. Murray transmitted to me a total of 20 questions relating to the statements of law and fact that I had sent to him on 25 November. The information requested was supplied the following day. Yesterday, 13 December, Mr. Murray announced that he had on the previous day advised the Commissioner of Garda Siochana not to endorse the warrants for execution. He also announced that, in respect of the charges in two of the warrants, he had formed the opinion that there was, on the part of the relevant prosecuting authority, a clear intention to prosecute and that such intention was founded on the existence of sufficient evidence. These are the requirements specified in the Irish Extradition (Amendment) Act 1987.
In relation to the charges in the other two warrants, Mr. Murray had not found it necessary to reach any final conclusion, because he had concluded that, were Patrick Ryan to be extradited to Britain, it would not be possible for a jury to approach the issue of his guilt or innocence free from bias. This was by reason of what he described as the extreme nature and extent of the prejudicial material published. Additionally, he said:
"the charges which have been brought against Patrick Ryan are of a most serious kind and they should be investigated by a court. The Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act 1976 provides a means whereby certain serious offences committed outside this jurisdiction may be tried here. Such a trial may, under Irish law, take place before a court of three judges without a jury. Heavy penalties are prescribed by Irish law for those offences."
Mr. Murray had informed me personally of his decision a few hours earlier.
For my part, I find this outcome extremely disappointing and the reason given for it regrettably offensive. The reason is also singularly surprising, as speculation about the fairness of any resulting trial by a jury in England is not one of the functions which the Irish Attorney-General is directed by this very recent Act to undertake. I readily acknowledge that the question is one for Irish and not English law, but I also note the doubts in this regard expressed today in leading articles in The Irish Times and Irish Independent.
At all events, yesterday morning, I informed Mr. Murray that I rejected his thesis that Patrick Ryan would be denied a fair trial. Juries in England are invariably instructed that they must decide the case only on the evidence that they have heard and seen in the trial. In every appropriate case—that is to say, cases of any notoriety—they are directed to disregard whatever they may have
910
heard or seen elsewhere. In my experience, juries heed those directions scrupulously, with the fairness that one expects in the ordinary men and women of our country. Whatever may have been published anywhere—and before yesterday, Mr. Murray had at no time raised with me any anxiety about any publication—I am entirely confident that, if and when Patrick Ryan were to come to trial in England, there would be no significant risk that such publicity would affect a jury's ability or will to try him fairly.
As to the possible trial of Patrick Ryan in the Republic of Ireland, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, we do not absolutely exclude that, but only two of the four charges seem to be covered by the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act. Additionally, there would be grave anxieties over the security of witnesses whom we could not compel to go to the Republic and, if the case accordingly failed for insufficiency of evidence, we could not subsequently try Patrick Ryan in our own jurisdiction.
These are major disadvantages inherent in an option that we had every right not to prefer to that of extradition.
Mr. Fraser: It is a pity that some of the words used by the Attorney-General were not fortunate and have not helped the matter any further. Is it not one of the lessons of the affair that we could do without public, intemperate and hectoring manners, particularly those of the Prime Minister? Is it not much better for pre-trial processes not to be conducted under arc lights but dealt with as they would be in this country, quitely and without publicity?
Does the Attorney-General agree that matters have not been helped by the unexpected passing of the issue to the Irish Government by the Belgian Government? Does he further agree that the affair has not been helped either by trial by newspaper which has been fed by outbursts by the Prime Minister and by a grave error of language by the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), who used words which were adopted by the Prime Minister—I understand that he withdrew those words the following day, but the damage had been done by then—or by a press briefing by the Crown Prosecution Service? All this raises the problem of prejudice to a jury. Will the Attorney-General confirm that he has been advised by the Irish Attorney-General of his concern about the problem of prejudice to a jury as a result of these matters being canvassed in public and in rather strong language before any action has been taken?
Opposition Members certainly want to see a proper judicial investigation of alleged terrorist offences, and that depends on the co-operation and good sense of the Government. Will the Attorney-General now calmly and, if necessary, privately confer with Mr. Murray with a view to a trial in Ireland of the issues, as the Irish Attorney-General has decided that two prima facie cases should be investigated by the Irish courts?In other recent notorious cases, the Government have not been afraid to use thejurisdiction of overseas courts. Surely the right thing to do now is to adopt the jurisdiction of the Irish courts and to have the matter brought to trial as speedily as possible.
The Attorney-General: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) finds anything intemperate or otherwise unsatisfactory in the language that I used to respond to his question, but I do not think that he can apply that sobriquet to the word "offensive" in

911
the context in which I applied it. The reason why I suggest that is the reason that led the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) to make his intervention yesterday.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that pre-trial issues are not helped when they are dealt with under arc lights. That is the principal reason why the British Government objected to the Irish Extradition (Amendment) Act 1987, which confers that jurisdiction upon the Irish Attorney-General and obliges him to come to conclusions on matters of English law. Inevitably, controversy is inherent in that procedure. I agree with what the hon. Member for Norwood said about the Belgian Government's contribution to the affair. I think that the British Government's opinion about that has already been made clear.
I reject the assertion of the hon. Member for Norwood that anything that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said would cause any prejudice to proceedings. She was entirely entitled to say what she did, no doubt expressing it with feelings that are widely shared throughout the country.
The hon. Member for Norwood referred rightly to the generous as well as immediate retraction that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) made the next day. He made clear the context in which he used the words which he retracted. We all have an obligation to be careful in the House, and I believe that it is met.
It is plain from what the Attorney-General for Ireland said in his statement, and in a letter that he was good enough to send to me just beforehand, that he believes that prejudice has been incurred by matters that have been published. I have made it clear in what I have said in answer to the hon. Member for Norwood that I am confident that, if and when Patrick Ryan were to come to trial in this country, there would be no significant risk at all that any publication of any material would have any detrimental effect upon the ability or the will of a jury to give him a fair trial. That is required in this country and it is received. I agree that good sense is needed to try to get sensible extradition arrangements established, as they were under the reciprocal legislation of 1965 between our two countries.
The hon. Member for Norwood asked about the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act 1976. I repeat that I have no objection to using that Act in a proper case. A fortnight or three weeks ago, I asked the Irish Attorney-General to prosecute under that Act in a case called Sloane. As I hope I made clear, there are serious difficulties in this case. I shall come to a conclusion upon them as soon as consultations with the Metropolitan police and others are completed.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: When our anger has died down at the insult to the British system and at the absurdity of the suggestion that British juries, among which are often many Irish citizens, are incapable of coming to a fair decision when reaching a verdict, will we not be left with two questions: first, how determined are the Southern Irish Government to root out terrorism; secondly, how will this absurd gesture improve the prospects for the Anglo-Irish Agreement?
The Attorney-General: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that we wish the Anglo-Irish
912
Agreement to continue, and that it will continue. I note and share the opinions which my hon. and learned Friend has expressed about the reflections upon British juries in this case which are contained in the Irish Attorney-General's statement. It is right to say that, apart from English citizens, Irish citizens who are resident in this country frequently serve upon our juries.
I prefer to take at their face value the expressions of intent by the Irish Government, including the Irish Attorney-General, that it is their desire to take effective steps against terrorism. I must observe, however, that yesterday's decision is an obstacle rather than anything that facilitates a firm attack upon the terrorism that concerns us all.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is it not the case that, as a result of a tragedy of errors on both sides of the Irish sea, reinforcing their attitudes about our justice and ours about the Irish system which have continued for about 500 years, a man against whom there are serious charges, as agreed by the Irish Attorney-General, is allowed to go free? Would it not be better now to stop posturing on both sides and use the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act, which I piloted through the House with the agreement of both sides and which is now on the statute book, to give the Irish the chance to bring the man to trial? The Attorney-General should discuss the problem of witnesses and their safety in Dublin and give them a chance to bring the man to trial. We may get hot under the collar, but there are those on both sides of the border, and especially in the North, who have suffered from violence over 20 years. They are not amused by our attitude. They want something done about men of violence, and the appropriate legislation is there to use.
The Attorney-General: I have yet to find anyone who finds anything in this connection amusing. It is certainly very exercising and it causes great anxiety. I agree that it would be a tragedy if anyone who was sought to be charged with, in the words of the Irish Attorney-General, very serious offences were not brought to trial. However, it is not quite as simple as that. Obviously I must consider the security of witnesses. That is very important. I have made it clear that I see great advantage in using the Extradition (Amendment) Act 1987 in a proper case. Those matters must be considered carefully.
One consideration which might occur to all hon. Members is what might be said and how we would feel if, however tragically, a witness who was sent down there suffered serious injury or death in circumstances where we were left only with that option instead of extradition which we considered ourselves entitled to ask for. Those matters must be considered in a sensible and unbiased way, and that is the approach that I intend to adopt.
Mr. James Kilfedder: Will the Attorney-General refuse to accept the lesser option of a trial in the Irish Republic in this case because in the circumstances it would be regarded as acceptance of what the Attorney-General described as the offensive allegation that Patrick Ryan would not receive a fair trial in this country? Would it not be much better therefore to wait until he should come here for his perhaps terrorist activities and then he could be arrested and charged?
The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is aware that we are referring to someone who is suspected of those

913
activities and whom it is sought to charge. I understand what lies behind the hon. Gentleman's question, but I do not think that it would be right to say that, simply because we have been denied extradition, we will give up any attempt to prosecute this man—having him prosecuted in Ireland. I do not think that that would meet the criterion of good sense that has been urged upon me. However, other matters must be considered and I hope that I have made them clear. For example, if at a trial in Dublin through any insufficiency of evidence this man was acquitted where otherwise he would have been convicted, we should be prevented from trying him here if ever he appeared in this jurisdiction.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Attorney-General recognise that many of the people who will not accept the Irish Attorney-General's view that a fair trial is not possible in this country none the less regard the participation by Members of Parliament and the Prime Minister in a hue and cry while the Attorney-General was considering these matters as, to put it no higher, extremely unhelpful? They also recognise that, if he were making judgments of this kind in a similar situation, he would resent political utterances about a judicial matter. Will he therefore treat this matter in the way in which the Irish Attorney-General said it ought to be regarded—as unique and not something which is to be the foundation of our relations on extradition matters in future?
The Attorney-General: I very much hope that this case will be unique in certain important respects. Plainly it will not be allowed to affect relations between our two countries. That would be absurd. I reject any assertion that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took part in or led a hue and cry. Faced with some of the barracking to which she is so frequently exposed, perhaps she has to raise her voice and doubtless she expressed her views with feeling. However, in that regard I do not believe that she is to be criticised.
Mr. Alistair Burt: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, whether or not Patrick Ryan is guilty of any offence, his reported statements make it clear that he cares little for this country or its well-being? Is it not essential that we prevent what would be his greatest victory—to drive such a wedge between London and Dublin that effective dialogue would stop? Without proper dialogue, there would be no opportunity to repair the misunderstanding and, above all, no opportunity for future extraditions.
The Attorney-General: The whole House shares my hon. Friend's constructive approach to this matter.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Does the Attorney-General agree that, by publishing the full statement by the Irish Attorney-General, The Daily Telegraph did a great service to the people of this country who had an opportunity to study the statement, which I believe to be both moderate and interesting?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman further agree that we must not assume that someone is guilty until he has been found guilty? Already today in the House the gentleman in question has been called a terrorist, yet the matter has not yet been brought before a court. On that
914
basis, is not the Irish Attorney-General correct to ask how anyone of Irish origin can expect a fair trial in this country without first having the opportunity to come here and not be accused by the press and hon. Members of being a terrorist when there is no proof of that?
The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is fundamental to our system of law that everybody is presumed to be innocent until he is found guilty. Every jury is instructed in that fundamental principle. The sad aspect of the Irish Attorney-General's statement is his supposition that a jury in the case of Patrick Ryan would not abide by that fundamental principle. That is why I found the statement offensive. It is a matter of extreme importance, and it is not in the faintest degree justifiable to say that no Irish person can come to this country and receive a fair trial.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Does my right hon. and learned Friend derive any wry satisfaction from knowing that in at least two cases the warrants were found to be impeccable, contrary to what was alleged by Opposition Members at the time? Does he think that the Irish Attorney-General acted properly within his own law in deciding the matter on grounds other than those laid down in the relevant law of the Republic?
The Attorney-General: I must correct my hon. Friend on one small matter: not two but all four of the warrants were without criticism. On the separate ground of whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution, the Irish Attorney-General found that there was. He found it unnecessary to reach a conclusion on the other two cases because, in his view, on no charge could Patrick Ryan expect a fair trial. I have forgotten my hon. Friend's second point, so perhaps he would repeat it.
Mr. Stanbrook: I asked about the grounds on which the Irish Attorney-General refused our application.
The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend I have already said that I found it surprising that the Irish Attorney-General had denied the application on the ground of fair trial. Although the Extradition (Amendment) Act 1987 is a recent piece of legislation, it does not set out a ground that the Irish Attorney-General should be satisfied that there is a likelihood of a fair trial, but it does tell him the various matters to which he should put his mind.
That point was brought out in today's two leading articles to which I referred. The Irish Independent states:
"For, in coming to his conclusion, the Attorney General has claimed as a basis something which is not in fact part of any of our laws on extradition—that extradition should not be carried out if a fair trial is in doubt. To that extent he has made an interpretation of our laws—a function which is, rightly, reserved to our courts.
It should have been a more proper procedure to have endorsed at least one of the warrants, allowed the case to go to court and provide an opportunity for an Irish judge to decide if, in fact there was justification for refusing to extradite on the grounds of prejudice in Britain."
Mr. Peter Archer: Whether he agrees or disagrees with what Mr. Murray has said, will the Attorney-General confirm that Mr. Murray was not casting doubt on the fairness of United Kingdom courts but was saying that, after the extensive coverage and comment based on official sources in London and the

915
Prime Minister, no jury, however fair, could approach this matter with an open mind? Are there not lessons to be learnt from that?
The Attorney-General: I am happy to confirm that the Irish Attorney expressly made it clear that he was not casting doubts on the system but was giving his mind to the likely outcome of this case. He did not refer to the Prime Minister. I am not aware of the publication of any matter that is complained of as coming from official sources. Plainly there are lessons to be learnt, but the principal lesson is that there is a strong case for reviewing the Extradition (Amendment) Act 1987 and the procedures which it sets out. We have already made representations on that and we should renew them.
Mr. Ian Gow: Since my right hon. and learned Friend has confirmed that the ground on which the Irish Attorney-General refused the request for extradition is not one of the grounds contained in the Extradition (Amendment) Act 1987, has he considered the possibility of taking action in the Irish courts for a judicial review of the decision of the Irish Attorney-General? Is he aware that the review for which he called is one which is most unlikely to take place by the Irish Government? Despite that, can he assure the House that at the meeting of the intergovernmental conference today such a request will have been made by our Secretary of State attending it? Finally—
Mr. Speaker: No.
The Attorney-General: I cannot give the assurance for which my hon. Friend just managed to ask before he was silenced. In my reply, I said that this was a matter for Irish, not English, law. I do not have any comment on my hon. Friend's initial suggestion.
Mr. Norman Buchan: Is it not nonsense to believe that it is possible for any jury to be wholly insulated either from factual or apparently factual material circulated or from an atmosphere? In that situation, is it not proper that the person named should be tried under Irish legislation? Would it not be helpful for all of us if the Prime Minister would remember that she is a Prime Minister and would speak as a Prime Minister with restraint and propriety, not as some young skinhead representative of the young Tories?
The Attorney-General: I am not aware of anything improper that the Prime Minister has said in this regard. A reason why she has been Prime Minister for nearly 10 years is that she reflects so accurately the feelings of so many British people. I have noted the suggestion that there should be some intra-European court for deciding these matters, but I reject the premise that juries cannot be expected to be impartial and unbiased whenever there happens to be some political connotation in a criminal trial. The purpose of juries is to try crime, not politics, and that is what they succeed in doing.
Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this is not merely a question of English or, indeed, Irish law but to some extent may be a question of canon law? Although he may not be versed in matters of canon law, does he agree that those of us who are Catholic would personally like to see Mr. Ryan removed from his present residence and released to the appropriate authorities?
The Attorney-General: I am not sure which appropriate authority my hon. Friend has in mind, or quite how immediate that release is intended to be. As I have quite enough to contend with on my own patch, I shall leave these matters to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Stuart Bell: The Attorney-General has yet to direct his attention to the statement made by the Irish Attorney-General yesterday, in which the Irish Attorney-General said that he had called the right hon. and learned Gentleman on a previous occasion in relation to a previous warrant and had expressed his concern at the prejudicial effect of press statements. If that message were given by the Irish Attorney-General, was it taken to heart by the British Attorney-General, and did he so advise the Government before the Prime Minister came to the House with her inflammatory and prejudicial statements?
The Attorney-General: I do not propose to add to what I have already said about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's intervention. In the case of McVeigh in May this year, Mr. Murray telephoned me to express his anxiety about the activities of the media and in particular of a television crew outside Portlaoise gaol after McVeigh had been released in a case in which Mr. Murray had authorised the backing of the warrants. That was in marked contrast to this case. On no occasion over the 13, or however many, days that passed did Mr. Murray alert me to any anxiety that he had about any publication of any kind.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), does not the Taoiseach's claim that this matter should be decided purely on legal grounds look pretty hollow because it is obvious that the Irish Attorney-General's decision was political? If the EEC is serious about combating terrorism, is not what we need a new harmonised extradition system covering the whole of the EEC?
The Attorney-General: I believe that I have sufficiently expressed my response to the decision of the Irish Attorney-General. I do not claim that it was a political decision. It is sufficient to say that it was, in my respectful belief, a wrong decision, for the reasons that I have given. I am not persuaded, although this is not a matter for me, that there is any advantage to be had in a centralised European system, because, after all, we are looking at some individual systems of law, and we need to keep it as simple as we can.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Important though this matter is, we are due to have a very important debate on British Shipbuilders, in which there is considerable pressure to take part.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and for the protection of the House. It was within your hearing that the Attorney-General, in answer to a question, gave as a reason for the Prime Minister—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a continuation of questions. I am sorry that I was not able to call the hon. Gentleman. He will have to try on another occasion.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not hearing it. I have already said that an important debate, on British Shipbuilders, is to follow.

British Shipbuilders
4.2 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That this House notes with approval the progress which has been made towards returning to the private sector the shipbuilding yards and other facilities owned by British Shipbuilders; notes also that, despite every effort, it has not proved possible to establish a viable basis for continued shipbuilding at North East Shipbuilders Ltd.; and warmly welcomes the measures proposed by Her Majesty's Government to encourage new enterprise and employment opportunities on Wearside.
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Newton: I think that it will be most helpful to the House if I open the debate by concentrating on the major issues at not too great a length, in view of the numbers wishing to speak, and then, with the leave of the House, respond at the end to the specific points that hon. Members will no doubt want to raise.
It is important first to say something about the wider background, which is, of course, the difficult condition of the world shipbuilding market over a long period. In particular, in the early 1970s, the worldwide effects of the huge increases in oil prices produced a sharp reduction in shipbuilding demand, at just about the same time as earlier massive investment in Japan and the developing programme of investment in South Korea were bringing about a huge increase in shipbuilding capacity.
The extent of the problem can perhaps best be illustrated by the simple fact that in 1987, even after very considerable reduction of capacity had taken place, less than 10 million compensated gross tonnes of new ships were delivered by an industry whose worldwide building capacity is something like 18 million tonnes. In other words, the industry worldwide had facilities that could build nearly twice as much shipping as anyone was willing to buy. The effects of that have, inevitably and inescapably, been felt throughout the world.
The debate will understandably focus especially on the position in Britain, where employment in merchant shipbuilding fell from 45,200 in 1977 to 11,300 in 1987, a loss of nearly 34,000 jobs. But the context in which that figure has to be viewed is one in which, in the same period, France lost 21,000 jobs out of 30,000, Germany lost more than 26,000 jobs out of 39,000, the Dutch more than 17,000 jobs out of fewer than 21,000, the Swedes more than 15,000 jobs out of fewer than 17,000, and the Norwegians nearly 14,000 jobs out of fewer than 18,000. The Japanese industry lost more than 100,000 jobs from the 1977 base of 164,000.
In the past two years, Sweden has abandoned the production of larger merchant ships, and its two major yards have been converted for other industrial uses. France has carried out a major restructuring, cutting from five significant yards down to one, with more than 5,000 job losses. Germans yards have shed some 6,000 jobs in that period. Japan has completed a major restructuring of its merchant shipbuilding industry, which involves substantial capacity cuts—since 1985, direct and sub-contract employment in Japanese yards has fallen by almost 50,000 people.

919
Even the Koreans are not immune from the problems presented by low demand for new ships and continuing huge over-capacity. Their single largest yard is currently employing only half the people that it was designed for.
There is no reason to suppose that the problem of overcapacity in shipbuilding is suddenly about to disappear, as had earlier been hoped. I can best illustrate that by referring to the forecasts of the Association of West European Shipbuilders, of which British Shipbuilders is, of course, a member. In 1984, in its last report on this matter until recently, it suggested an average annual building requirement of 12·7 million compensated gross tonnes between 1984 and 1990, and 18·5 million CGT between 1990 and 1995. As the House will realise from the figure I gave earlier about total world capacity in 1987, that would have meant a demand in the first half of the next decade roughly equal to the industry's capacity in 1987.
The latest AWES forecast, in a report published only three months ago, now puts average annual demand between 1990 and 1995 at only 12·5 million compensated gross tonnes, and suggests that even in the second half of the next decade, demand will not recover to the extent previously predicted for the first. Moreover, the Japanese assessment of the likely course of demand is in line with those forecasts. Whatever may be said—we have said it before and will say it again—about the uncertainties of forecasting, I think that the House will agree that there is no basis here for the view that the problem of excess capacity is about to go away, and that all that is needed is to find a way to tide things over until the good times return.
These, then, are the problems with which successive British Governments, like other Governments throughout the world. have been wrestling. The previous Labour Government nationalised the industry in 1977, in the hope and belief that this would provide a good framework within which to conduct the necessary restructuring and create a viable shipbuilding industry. It would be hard for anyone to argue that those hopes have been fulfilled, or show any real signs of being fulfilled. Since vesting day in July 1977, some £2 billion of public money has been put into British Shipbuilders in one form or another, without achieving what we would all wish to see. Indeed, that figure includes losses of £650 million just on building ships, of which only £250 million represents permitted subsidy under the agreed rules of the European Community.
The recent position of NESL itself perhaps illustrates the position most starkly. In the past five years, it has completed no contract to cost, and the total subsidy on shipbuilding contracts has averaged 50 per cent. of the building costs incurred. In the past three years, it lost £100 million through operating losses over and above intervention fund subsidy of a roughly similar amount; and in the last full year for which we have figures, it lost £56 million on a turnover of £69 million.
The present Government—I simply state this as a fact, of which the House is already aware—take the view that the better course, in the light of this experience, is to seek to return the industry to the private sector, subject, where appropriate, to the availability of subsidy within the rules agreed in the Community—the so-called sixth directive.
Mr. A. J. Beith: As the Minister has criticised so strongly the management of British Shipbuilders for the chain of losses that he has just
920
described, why has he relied so heavily on that management's advice about the viability of the bids now being considered for the Sunderland yards?
Mr. Newton: British Shipbuilders management, as the people who have been running the industry on the Government's behalf, are an appropriate source of advice for us to seek, without our necessarily always and unalterably accepting that advice. The very experience that British Shipbuilders management has had in the difficulties that it has experienced in recent years puts it in a position to judge the difficulties that others are likely to have when they are confronted by what are, frankly, optimistic bids.
Mr. Bob Clay: May one drew the conclusion from the answer given by the Minister to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that because, according to the Government, British Shipbuilders could not make a success of the industry, it may have been induced into the position where it finds it difficult to recommend that anyone else can do so? Is not that the logical contradiction and the true position?
Mr. Newton: It is neither a contradiction nor a logical position to adopt. As I said to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), British Shipbuilders experience of accepting, on what has turned out to be, at times, a dramatically over-optimistic basis, contracts that have incurred substantial losses or have collapsed disastrously—as happened with the Danish ferry contract—puts it in a good position to make judgments when others come forward with what are, in my view, overoptimistic bids. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) will make a number of points to which I shall have to respond, should he be fortunate enough, as I hope he will be, to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
The naval shipbuilding yards were sold between 1984 and 1986. The process of selling those yards primarily concerned with merchant shipbuilding—or rather, those that were part of British Shipbuilders, since there were already a number of smaller privately owned yards—has been in train since earlier this year, following my predecessor's statement to the House on 18 April. It is that process of selling the merchant shipbuilding yards belonging to British Shipbuilders that has led to today's debate.
Taken as a whole, that process is being carried through with considerable success. As I told the House in my statements of 14 November and 7 December, at the outset British Shipbuilders owned shipyards at Govan, Sunderland, Appledore and Port Glasgow, together with the Clark Kincaid marine engine builders at Greenock and a services subsidiary, Marine Design Consultants, at Dundee and Sunderland.
The Govan yard has been successfully sold to the Norwegian company, K vaerner Industries. It is making Govan the centre for its gas-carrying ship technology, with a programme of work taking the yard well into the 1990s. Negotiations for the sale of the Appledore yard in Devon are at an advanced stage. It is set to become part of the Langham Industries group—I hope, around the turn of the year. Clark Kincaid at Greenock should similarly be sold shortly to the management buy-out team. I am particularly pleased, that Clark Kincaid will build the engines for the first two gas-carrying ships that K vaerner is building at Govan.

921
Negotiations with Ailsa Perth for the sale of Ferguson have got off to a good start. There is a reasonable chance that the sale will be completed by early February. The terms of all those disposals are now under consideration by the European Commission.
Finally, as the House will recall from my statement on 7 December, I have accepted British Shipbuilders recommendation that the preferred bidder for Marine Design Consultants should be the team led by its managing director. I hope that that sale will he completed early next year.
Five of the six main undertakings owned by BS have either been successfully returned to the private sector or are well on the way to being so. Those five undertakings account for nearly two of every three of the 6,500 people employed by British Shipbuilders when my predecessor made his statement on 18 April.
The exception, which will no doubt be the main focus of attention in this debate for that very reason, is North East Shipbuilders Limited at Sunderland. The House may feel that it is not surprising that it should have proved far and away the most difficult—and in the event, in our view, impossible—to secure its future, given the facts that I have already recounted about its record in recent years, together with the collapse of the Danish ferry order which was originally seen as its life line. That does not alter the fact that it is a major disappointment, and I do not pretend otherwise to the House. However, it was not for want of effort by Ministers, by officials, or by British Shipbuilders itself—whose chairman travelled many thousands of miles following up any possibility offering even a glimmer of a more successful outcome.
Our determination to find a way forward for NESL, if we could, is clear from our willingness to allow successive extensions of time for possibilities to be explored. Interested parties were originally asked whether they could bid by the middle of August. When the response indicated that there was little prospect of satisfactory bids being received on that time scale, a deadline was set for the receipt of bids by the end of September. At a late stage in the evaluation of those bids, when one of the bidders sought to modify his bid, further time was allowed to take account of that. When none of those bids proved to stand up, but nevertheless there was reason to believe that other possibilities might still produce a solution, further time was allowed, until the end of November, to establish whether any of those possibilities could produce proposals that would give a firm basis for detailed negotiation, leading to our overriding requirement of a viable future for the yards.
In the course, of that process there were discussions with more than 15 bidders or possible bidders, including a number of other overseas interests. Unhappily, none of those appearing to offer the best prospects, and in particular the necessary financial backing to overcome the difficulties I described, produced bids or proposals offering a prospect of successful negotiation. Those that produced bids or proposals did not, in the Government's judgment in the light of the advice of BS and of their financial advisers, offer the basis of a viable future for merchant shipbuilding in the Sunderland yards. As I told the House last Wednesday, in our view, none of the latest proposals provided evidence of sufficient financial resources, given
922
the major uncertainties of the shipbuilding market. None gave evidence of sufficient work for the future. All would have involved levels of subsidy which, in one case in particular, could have faced difficulties under the sixth directive.
In reaching that judgment, we took full account of the widely canvassed possibility of a substantial order for general cargo ships for Cuba. On that, two main points must be made. First, as is all too clear from the figures I gave earlier, there is no guarantee that such an order can be secured in the face of the international competition that exists in a situation of considerable over-capacity. Secondly, it is, in our judgment—and I accept that it is a matter of judgment—highly unlikely that those ships can be built at a price that the Cubans will be willing to pay without Sunderland's incurring further losses, even after allowing for the maximum subsidy under the European rules.
Given those doubts, to have accepted a proposal that effectively depended on such an order, especially from a bidder whose financial solidity was itself unacceptable, would have been no service to the people of Sunderland or to anyone else. That is why, reluctantly but firmly, we came to the conclusion that I announced to the House last week. We believe the right course now is to concentrate on building a new industrial future for Sunderland.
I announced last week a package of measures designed to assist those who will be made redundant in the coming weeks from NESL and to promote alternative employment in the town. One of the main elements in the package is the proposed enterprise zone, offering rate relief for 10 years for new developments, a simplified planning regime and 100 per cent. capital allowances on new industrial and commercial development. That enterprise zone will provide a major new incentive to companies to move into the area, as has been the experience with zones in other areas.
The Northern Development Company is already on record as having said that an enterprise zone will significantly improve Sunderland's chances of attracting inward investment. I also announced that English Estates would be providing 220,000 sq ft of high-quality factory space, at a cost of more than £7 million. I should make it clear that I expect English Estates to have provided a substantial amount of factory space by this time next year.
The third main element in the package of measures for Sunderland, which I mentioned last week, is £10 million for the encouragement of new enterprise and employment opportunities. Half of that sum will be devoted to counselling and retraining assistance for the Sunderland work force. It is our intention that no one will have to leave NESL without having had access to the expert advice on new job opportunities that will be provided by the services offered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. That advice will be offered in one-to-one interviews, with the aim of ensuring that an individual's existing skills are fully assessed in relation to available jobs.
Mr. Roland Boyes: The Minister will recall that, during last week's statement, I asked two basic questions. First, I asked how many jobs had been created to replace jobs lost in the mining industry. Secondly, I asked the Minister to investigate the magnitude of youth unemployment in the borough. I have obtained the most up-to-date figures, which may be of

923
interest to the Minister. There are 6,035 youngsters who are either unemployed or on a job scheme that has a finite time limit. I asked what vacancies had been notifed to the careers office by employers. The Minister may be interested to know that in Sunderland there are five vacancies, in Houghton there are none and in Washington there are six vacancies. In other words, there are 11 job vacancies for more than 6,000 youngsters without proper jobs.
Mr. Newton: I intended to say something in a moment about the number of jobs being created in Sunderland, and I shall. 1 shall study further the figures that the hon. Gentleman has just brought into the debate. However, I must make the point that it is well known that the job vacancies notified to jobcentres—I assume that the hon. Gentleman meant jobcentres—represent a substantial understatement of the jobs available in an area. A considerable amount of evidence is available to that effect.
The other half of the £10 million will be used to help new businesses to start up or existing businesses to expand. Obviously, we shall be prepared to look at any type of business that can make a real contribution to the welfare of Sunderland. These measures, which are substantial in themselves—as I said last week, they have a total value over a period of about £45 million—are, of course additional. That point does not seem to have been fully appreciated by Sunderland borough council in some of the comments that it made last week. They are additional to the help that is already available to Sunderland and will build on what is already being achieved there. They are over and above the support—estimated to be something more than £120 million—that the Government are spending this year in Tyne and Wear in general, including Sunderland in particular.
Unemployment has fallen in the area by more than 7,000 in the past two years, and some 1,000 new jobs have been created in Sunderland in the past year, thanks to the combined work of the city action team, the Tyne and Wear development corporation, the Northern Development Company and the local authorities. Sunderland continues to be helped directly by regional assistance made available to the north-east by the Department of Trade and Industry, which has created or safeguarded 135,000 jobs in the past decade.
What is particularly striking and encouraging for the future is the success of Sunderland and the north-east generally in attracting investment. It is expected that more than 3,500 new jobs will be created there in the next two to three years by Nissan, Ikeda Bussan, which makes components for Nissan, NEK Cables of Norway and Goldstar Electronics of South Korea. That is a measure of what has already been achieved in the north-east and, not least, in Sunderland, and on which we believe that the measures that were announced last week will build still further.
I said last week that the House would share my regret that it had not proved possible to find a way forward for NESL and that, at least, was clear. The House will also share my view that there is a way forward for Sunderland, which will give it the new opportunities that all of us want to see. It is those new opportunities that we are now determined to achieve.
4.27 pm
Mr. Bryan Gould: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"That this House condemns the decision to close North East Shipbuilders Ltd. and the loss of jobs and damage to the Sunderland economy which the closure will mean; deplores the obsession with dogma which puts privatisation above the securing of orders; and regrets the unnecessary and untimely demise of British merchant shipbuilding."
I propose to waste little time on the Government motion or on the Minister's speech. I hope that the Minister will not take it amiss that he will not find it embarrassing if I say that I felt that his heart was not in it. I believe that he came to his new responsibilities and discovered that he was the prisoner of a policy bequeathed him by his predecessor and which was then foisted on him by the Secretary of State. He has tried hard to escape the trap in which he found himself, but it is unfortunate for all concerned that, in the end, he has not been able to spring that trap.
The right hon. Gentleman has approached his task today—and his task last week as well—with an appropriately heavy heart because he understands that what he has to announce means the destruction of jobs, the destruction of a major British industry and the destruction of hopes for the future of our industrial economy. It is a wanton act of destruction and an outrageous act of industrial vandalism. Like all acts of vandalism, it is all the more sickening because it is so unnecessary.
The parrot cry for so long in respect of the British shipbuilding industry has been that there are no orders to sustain it. The Minister was very fair in acknowledging that that is precisely the problem that the whole of the world shipbuilding industry has faced over a long period. There is not a shipbuilding industry in the world that has survived without subsidy, and substantial subsidy at that. I can simply counsel the Minister and regret that he and his predecessor have so often grossly and unfairly overstated the degree of subsidy on which our own shipbuilding industry has relied. The absence of orders is not the central point today.
There can be no ground for closing down what remains of British merchant shipbuilding with the excuse that there are no orders. The reason for the closure lies in the Government's obsession with dogma and their insistence on putting privatisation before commercial sense and industrial logic. I use the words "obsession with dogma" advisedly because it takes an obsessive and doctrinaire Government to be ready to kill an industry rather than
allow it to survive and prosper in the public sector. It is almost as though the shipbuilding industry is being judged on its past, rather than on its present or its future. It is almost as though this industry is being punished for the subsidy that it has received in the past, rather than being rewarded for its efforts and encouraged to take the opportunities that now open up for it.
It is true that the collapse of the Danish ferry order created an immediate and difficult problem, but even there, there is a mystery and a sense that the crisis was not wholly unwelcome to a Government who had already decided to wield the executioner's axe. The contract with Johansen subsists. Every effort to negotiate further possible buyers for those Danish ferries has met with the objection from Johansen that he still has a contract to buy them. No real effort has been made either to keep Johansen to his

925
contract or to declare him to be in default. Consequently, he and the Government, through their paralysis, have allowed the situation to frustrate genuine expressions of interest from about 80 potential buyers. They may not all be serious or to be taken seriously, but there are real expressions of interest in buying the ferries and none of them have been pursued.
We therefore cannot avoid the conclusion that it was convenient for the Government to discover that the collapse, or apparent collapse, of the Danish ferries order had come about at about the time when they had decided to close those yards.
An equally great—perhaps even greater—mystery surrounds the Cuban order. The Minister will accept that the Cuban order for 10 general purpose merchant ships is worth about £110 million. The seriousness of the Cuban interest can hardly be denied, but the Minister's predecessor denied it when my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and I went to see him earlier this year and when he gave evidence to the Select Committee. The Cubans are serious, and have been serious all along, and the Minister cannot say that the order could not have been secured at a reasonable price, as no negotiations ever took place. The Cubans have merely suggested an opening target price. They have never been permitted to get to the negotiating table to start to negotiate specifications and price.
Even now, at this late stage, the Cubans continue to signal the seriousness of their interest. The No. 2 man at ASIMEX is to visit London in the next few days, and I understand that he is prepared to negotiate a deal under which he would lease one of the yards and take on short-term contract labour for the duration of the build. That would save 900 jobs, and it would keep the yard alive until we could decide whether there was an upturn in world shipping demand. If the offer is to be taken up, however, quick action is required.
I am glad to hear that the Minister is to wind up the debate; perhaps he may even wish to intervene in my speech to answer this question. The Cubans are prepared to defer placing the order elsewhere for at least another month. Is the Minister prepared to enter proper negotiations with the Cubans, and to put up a proper negotiating partner? So far, the Cubans have been unable to negotiate with British Shipbuilders, and a successor has not been put in place with which to take up negotiations.
The matter is urgent because, if the closure of the yards is finally and irreversibly notified to the EEC Commission, intervention fund assistance will be lost for ever. Has that notification yet been made, is it irreversible and is it in any sense a condition of EEC approval of the other disposals of which the Minister spoke? What we need to know—the information that is desperately needed on Wearside—is whether the door has finally been closed, or whether even now it remains open. If it has finally been closed, this debate is a charade: it has come too late and it is a debate that the Government have offered when they have already cut the throat of British merchant shipbuilding.
It appears that the Minister does not propose to intervene, but I hope that he will comment in winding up.
Mr. Newton indicated assent.
Mr. Gould: The Minister made some play of the fact that in his view optimistic assessments had been made of the upturn in world shipping. Let me draw attention to some surveys and forecasts that suggest otherwise. A recent survey of world shipping is much more optimistic. It talks of demand rising to 30 million tonnes in the mid-1990s. There are unmistakable signs in the world shipping market—in the price of second-hand ships, in freight and charter charges and in other market indicators—that clearly show that the world upturn has at last arrived. That is why the Cubans are trying to get in early with substantial orders: they know that there will soon be pressure on capacity. That is why it is so ludicrous that the Sunderland yards are to be closed at this moment of all moments.
All independent observers would accept that, on the basis of substantial investment, the Sunderland yards have become the best equipped yards in Europe and the European yards best placed to take advantage of the coming upturn. Huge efforts have been made by the work force, to which I am sure the Minister would wish to pay tribute. The taxpayer has put in huge investment and, as a consequence, the yards are at the leading edge of new technology. Even the Japanese have visited Sunderland to see how it is done. No one can walk away from those yards without a heavy heart at the thought that that impressive capacity is to be lost to our industrial economy. To turn our back on orders and close down the yards is a vote of no confidence in all that has been achieved so far—and, paradoxically, in the very management whom the Government recently installed.
No sensible business man would walk away from a market when it was just about to turn up, or write off huge investment made or skills developed just when all those efforts were on the point of paying off. No sensible Government would abandon their indigenous merchant shipbuilding capacity just when it is becoming clear that the prizes will go to the Governments who have had the courage, commitment and foresight to stick with their shipbuilding industries. What has been the point of making the effort and of keeping faith with the industry if the Government lose their nerve or prefer political to industrial objectives just when it is all likely to pay off at last and when better times are coming? The truth is that we do not have a serious business man or a sensible Government in charge. We have in charge a salesman who sees no value in anything that cannot be sold and who would close down a vital industry rather than have it remain in public ownership.
There is a value in what is being lost. It is a value that is very great to the people whose jobs and communities are affected and to the economy of Britain. Lord Young may not have obtained the price that he wanted, but there is a price to be paid.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my hon. Friend surprised at the way in which the Secretary of State is acting, given that he is only a jumped-up property developer who is not interested in the backbone of British industry? The Government do not care tuppence about subsidies; they operate a double standard. Farmers, for example, are subsidised out of the taxpayers' pocket to the tune of £13 a week for every family in Britain to ensure that their industry ticks over. The same Government wrote off £4 billion of Rover's debt so that they could hand the

927
company over to British Aerospace—the company to whose chairman the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbitt) acts as an adviser.
Mr. Gould:: My hon. Friend is on a strong point. He confirms my contention that the values of the asset stripper underlie this sorry story. If no one can be found to offer the required price for the assets, they are simply thrown away. The price that Lord Young had put on the assets could not be obtained, but there is a price to be paid. It will be paid by 2,000 people whose jobs will be lost as a direct result and by a further 3,000 whose jobs will be lost as an indirect consequence. It will be paid by the Sunderland economy.
The package that the Minister has announced is no more than a pathetic sop and a salve for a guilty conscience. The price will be paid in the destruction of a 600-year-old tradition and of the pride and identity of the shipbuilding community. It will be paid in the loss of a future for an industry that will matter greatly to our economy and our industrial base. In the end, this country will no longer be a maritime nation. It cannot now build for its own merchant fleet or to preserve, protect and develop its own trade and strategic requirements.
We are a smaller and weaker economy and country as a consequence, blind to our past and, apparently, to the future and its needs. We are the victim of a Government who see no value in our industrial economy, who care nothing and know nothing about our industrial base, who —as they say—know the price of everything but the value of nothing. The consequence is that the British merchant shipbuilding industry is the last and, in many ways, the most lamented in the long list of this Government's victims.
4.40 pm
Mr. Neville Trotter: This sad day has been long in coming, but it has been envisaged in our debates for some time.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has given a lucid explanation of the international scene and background. Last night I read the Booze Allen report, one of the earliest documents on shipbuilding that I have seen. It came out in 1972, and what it had to say was prophetic. Let me briefly quote its conclusions:
"Despite the growing world demand for shipbuilding the UK will be faced with rapidly increasing competition in the next ten years, as world-wide over-capacity becomes more severe … Government support alone cannot ensure a long term market for the industry, nor is technology likely to offer any particular advantage in the UK."
That is exactly what has come to pass. It is little comfort to us that the same has happened in all other western European countries, as my right hon. Friend pointed out.
In 1975 I visited the Swedish shipbuilding industry, which was a new creation. Modern yards had been built from scratch in green field sites. Every one of them has now closed. At that time the Swedes were second only to the Japanese in shipbuilding. I was surprised that a small country like Sweden could have achieved such a position, but it had. The whole industry came and went within about 10 years. The reason has basically been competition from the Far East—cheap labour competition, especially from Korea—which came about at the same time as a tremendous fall in world demand for ships. In 1974 over 200 million tonnes were on order; now the figure is down
928
to 33 million tonnes. Last year, only 16 million tonnes were built. That in itself is almost a halving of the amount built the year before.
My right hon. Friend referred to the vast sum of public money that has gone into the industry in this country. I compute it as about £1 million for every working day that British Shipbuilders has been in existence. If I have a criticism, it relates to whether that taxpayers' money has been spent to best advantage. It does not seem to me to have achieved much. I understand the arguments that supported it at the time, but I cannot help wondering whether we might have obtained better value by using it in different ways.
One way in which we might have used it would have been to help our Merchant Navy more. If we had put more funds into supporting our shipowners, we might now have had a more assured order book for the future. I think that Govan comes best out of the recent dramatic events. It has an assured future by having a shipowner as its owner, which makes a good deal of sense. I had lunch today with a foreign shipowner who owns a yard in his country. He believes, as I do, that that is probably the key to success for western shipbuilding—that there should be a natural market from the yard owner's own fleet. Of course, he can also sell ships to others if circumstances permit.
Mr. Ted Garrett: There is a slight contradiction in the hon. Gentleman's argument. Only this afternoon I heard that more redundancies are to be announced tomorrow at Swan Hunter, whose work force in Tyneside is shared between his constituency and mine. That contradicts the argument that private owners know best what is best for their business.
Mr. Trotter: Swan Hunter lost out on the last frigate order because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it was considerably undercut by the other frigate builder. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that, when I last talked to Swan Hunter's management, they said that they now thought that they had got their sums wrong and believed that they could have put in a lower bid in the light of what they know now. I am hopeful that, in the next round of frigate orders, Swan Hunter will be successful. Everyone agrees that it is a very technically competent yard. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) thinks so as well, and hopes, as I do, to see more frigate orders going there in future—which, of course, would lead to more employment in the yard.
When will there be an upturn in the merchant shipbuilding scene? I do not expect one until the second half of the 1990s. The Drewry shipping consultants, in a recent in-depth study, forecast a further decline in western Europe as the industry concentrates in the far east. Sadly, I also believe that that will happen. I do not think that the House fully appreciates the scale of competition from the Far East with which we are faced. The Japanese export some 16 ships every month; we are not able to export 16 in a year, and nor are the other western European countries. The Japanese and Koreans together have over 300 ships on order, a total of 22 million tonnes. My right hon. Friend read out figures for the fall in the labour force in the main traditional shipbuilding countries, but I think that he will find that the Koreans have added some 100,000 men to their labour force at a time when the rest of the world has seen labour forces contract.

929
The various hourly wage rates are quoted in dollars, because that is the currency of international shipping. In the United Kingdom the rate is approximately $9 an hour. In Korea it is approximately $3 an hour. The Koreans also work about twice as many hours a week as western Europeans are expected to work, and of course they do not have the overheads of modern western industral society. In general, Korean yards have the advantage of paying only about a fifth of the labour costs paid by our yards in Sunderland or other Western European countries.
Recent figures show that the cost of building a bulk carrier in a typical European yard would be $21 million, and that the far east price was $12 million. In other words, the prices being fixed by our low-cost competitors in the far east are being fixed at a figure a great deal lower than the cost of building the ship in this country—in some cases, lower than the cost of the parts that go into building it. The 28 per cent. intervention fund has proved wholly inadequate to meet the competition, and the result has been losses that, in Sunderland, have been running at a rate of £1 million a week. That is due to the world price being fixed by yards in the far east whose workers are paid a fifth of the wages that we pay. These are the facts of life for this country and for Holland, Germany, France, Sweden and the other former shipbuilding countries of Europe. Korea has trebled its capacity while the western European industries have been declining. Now Korea and Japan produce four times as many ships as the whole of Europe put together.
We have been forced in desperation to take dubious contracts, with inevitably huge subsidies and heavy losses on top of that. We have been faced with customers who have no money and want 15 years to pay, or go bust like ITM in Sunderland or renege on the contract as the Danes did.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Trade and Industry shares my deep concern over the decision that has had to be taken for Sunderland. I congratulate him on the package that he has put together to seek to create new jobs for the future in Sunderland. The total sum has been decried and derided as inadequate, but it works out at £20,000 for every man working in the yard. In addition, a significant sum of redundancy pay is being paid into the community. If it is anything like that paid out in previous cutbacks in the shipbuilding industry, it will be about £10,000 to £11,000 per man. In total there is a massive sum going into the community in Sunderland.
We must all seek to put that money to the best possible use to ensure jobs for future generations in the town. It is no good looking back to the past with pride—however much we are entitled to do so. We must look up the river to Nissan and the industries of the future.
As my right hon. Friend said, there has been a significant fall in the number of unemployed in Sunderland. Unemployment is a desperate problem in that town; nobody could say otherwise. However, there has been an encouraging fall of 7,000 in the past two years and 4,000 in the past year. The number of jobs in shipbuilding in Sunderland has already fallen from 7,500 a few years ago, to 2,200 today. That fall of about 5,000 jobs has been dealt with by the creation of new jobs at Nissan and elsewhere. That is what we must continue to do in the three
930
or four years ahead, by means of the various schemes introduced by my right hon. Friend. It is wrong to decry the nature of those schemes or their magnitude.
Yesterday, the Northern Development Company said that the mood was favourable for new jobs and businesses in the north-east. It saw the new enterprise zone in Sunderland as an attractive feature to new businesses coming to set up in the north-east from abroad or from other regions of Britain. We have not yet heard any details about the enterprise agency proposed by my right hon. Friend. I await those details with great interest because that agency will have a very important part to play for future generations in terms of jobs and the creation of a new spirit in the town.
Tyne and Wear chamber of commerce is particularly strong and will be prepared to accept the challenge. One of the features of the past few months has been the tremendous co-operation between all sides in Sunderland in seeking to save the yards. In the years immediately ahead, we must show the same co-operation in seeking to replace them with future employment in modern industries. The proposed schemes will work towards that end. There is a great deal of Government money going into them and there must be co-ordination of the efforts of all those in the region, whether it be the urban development corporation which concentrates on redeveloping the river banks, the Northern Development Company which attracts industry to the region, or English Industrial Estates which is the Government's industrial promotional agency for property and is creating new factories in Sunderland. All those must work together to provide a future for Sunderland based on secure jobs for the long-term future and not what have come to be give-away ships, for there cannot be a sound future for Sunderland based on continuing to build give-away ships.
4.54 pm
Mr. Bob Clay: The decision announced last Wednesday has been widely described as industrial vandalism. Those words are not rhetoric; they are accurate and specific. Vandalism is about wanton destruction, and there is no doubt that this destruction is planned, calculated and deliberate. Vandalism is also about unnecessary destruction and I hope to prove that this destruction, if it goes ahead, is wholly unnecessary.
I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster wanted to find a solution. That is shown by the number of postponements of the closure decision. I thank him for that. However, as I have said before, tragically he inherited a course of events set by his predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). In order to avert that course of events, he had to reverse some aspects of Government policy or overcome difficulties within his Department and British Shipbuilders. However, if he really wishes to retain a viable shipbuilding industry on Wearside, there is a chance for him to do so.
On Monday I attended the launch of the last ferry from Southwick. It was a moving occasion; many people felt empty and unable to comprehend the fact that that beautiful ship, built in that magnificent facility, would probably be the last. In Sunderland, the reality that hundreds of years of tradition are coming to an end is still sinking in.

931
If the workers in the yards and the people of the town felt that we were facing a lack of orders, they could learn to live with the bitterness. If they felt that they had been working in an out-of-date facility which needed massive investment in plant and machinery that could not be provided and that it could not keep up with other yards in the world, it would be easier to bear. If they felt that they were operating in a declining market and that there was no future for the industry, it would have been bitter and difficult to take, but they might have been able to swallow it. However, the opposite is true; that is why people are so angry.
I pay tribute to the managing director of North East Shipbuilders, together with the rest of its management, work force and shop stewards, who have had to live through months of torture. I pay tribute to all the parties on the council, who were all opposed to what the Government were doing. I pay tribute to the people of the town who have been united in their wish to save the yards.
It is worth referring to the compliment that the Prime Minister paid to the quality of the work and the management and work force in the yards less than three years ago when she named the Stena Seawell. She paid a glowing tribute at that time and said:
"We have the skills, the enterprise, the inspiration to do it — I hope we'll be able to do a repeat performance by virtue of the tremendous advertisement we can blazon across the world".
She referred to it being a modern ship and mentioned the latest technology. All that has been put on record many times.
It is interesting to refer to a speech made in the House at the time by the right hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison), who was then the Minister of State:
"Building ships more efficiently is the key to delivering them on time and to the owners' satisfaction. I have already referred to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister named the Stena Seawell last Friday. The delivery of that highly complex vessel on time and in perfect condition speaks volumes for the dedication and effectiveness of the Sunderland management and work force. It is the best kind of advertisement that the industry could have, and it is worth more than any amount of Government support. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will join in applauding that success."—[Official Report, 28 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 683]
It is remarkable that Ministers were praising the yards at that time and that they are now announcing closures.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham said, it is all happening because the Government put the dogma of privatisation before commercial necessity. The tragedy is that, unlike any other privatisation, whatever the ideological merits of the argument, the privatisation was stumbled into almost by accident. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe intended that the yard should close because it had no orders. Then an extremely embarrassing thing happened. There was a possible order from Cuba and that is where the trouble started.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman pretended that he had never had an intervention fund application, even though, as he told the Select Committee, the chairman of British Shipbuilders had written a letter in the normal manner setting out the deal and asking for intervention funds. However, the Minister's predecessor persisted in effectively misleading the House by saying that he had never received such an application. Eventually it became
932
clear that a form should have been filled in but that he had told the chairman not to fill it in, but to write a letter instead.
By then it was clear that there was this order, so the intervention fund application was made. The line then changed. The intervention fund could not he used unless the yard was privatised. The point that was made at the time, and that is still made, is how on earth can we expect to find a buyer for the yard when the yard's forthcoming order book has not been finalised? If the Government had been serious about privatising NESL instead of closing it, they would have encouraged British Shipbuilders by helping it to obtain the Cuban order. Then the Government would have talked about privatisation. By doing it the other way round, the Government sounded NESL's death knell.
The Danish ferries have already been mentioned. I believe that the DTI did not want to solve that problem. It is a peculiar coincidence that this week, within days of the announcement of the closure of the yeard, Mr. Johansen, who originally defaulted on the 24 ferries contract, is about to sign a contract for six ferries from British Shipbuilders, in addition to the two ferries that he has already ordered.
If Mr. Johansen is buying six ferries from British Shipbuilders to settle the deal and get it out of the way, why did he not buy six ferries from British Shipbuilders six months ago? I am becoming increasingly suspicious about it. I remember that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe announced almost gleefully in this place that there were problems about the Danish ferries contract. Then I found out that in March, six weeks before any public announcement, the Prime Minister had told a Conservative councillor in Sunderland that there was a problem about the contract. Why on earth had the Prime Minister been briefed about that long before anyone in Sunderland knew about it, other than this Conservative councillor? I think that it smells.
As for subsequent events, I hope that the Minister will not deny that the Export Credits Guarantee Department, not British Shipbuilders, could have stopped that contract with Mr. Johansen. He defaulted to the ECGD and the Department could have cross-defaulted the whole contract. If it had done that, either Mr. Johansen would have had to pay up and Sunderland would have continued to build the ferries for him, or he would have been out of it and somebody else could have come in.
We know that some of the inquiries have not been serious, but I understand that there have been sufficient serious inquiries about the ferries since British Shipbuilders cancelled the contract with Mr. Johansen. Nevertheless, every time somebody seriously proposes to buy any ferries, British Shipbuilders is scared off because Mr. Johansen threatens litigation again. The ECGD and the Department of Trade and Industry should have dealt with that. Sunderland would probably still be building ferries instead of facing the problems that it faces now. The Minister's predecessor was quite happy to allow the persecution of British Shipbuilders by that evil man from Denmark to continue so that it would provide an excuse for closing the yard.
Despite the default on the ferries, there was the Cuban order. That was not an obscure order from a small island on the other side of the world with a different political system. In shipping terms, Cuba is a massive nation. It has one of the world's biggest fleets. Its fleet is expanding, and

933
23 ships of the existing fleet were built on the north-east coast of England. Why was Cuba so keen to place the order in Sunderland? It has a greater respect for the technical qualities and abilities of that yard than our Government. The Cubans made it clear throughout that they liked the ships and that they wanted more of them. They have bent over backwards to place the order in the north-east.
It must be unprecedented for another country that is trying to place such a large export order in the United Kingdom to be so abused, to have so much misinformation and misrepresentation put around about their intentions and effectively to be spat upon by our Government. There was misinformation about the price that Cuba was prepared to pay. It said that it wanted to negotiate the price. Cuba sent a letter of intent, which it said would be transferred to other bidders. In that letter Cuba said it would negotiate at about £10·9 million per ship. I have heard civil servants and those in high positions in British Shipbuilders say that they would not pay even £2 million less per ship.
When I organised the bids for those yards, I recall informing the chairman of British Shipbuilders that the Cubans were prepared to make a stage payment of 20 per cent. when the contract had been signed. It would have been one of the most generous stage payments ever made. It would have provided the yard with a huge cash flow advantage, with 20 per cent. of the contract up front. I was told, "I just don't believe that. They would not do it. Why should they?" However, on the same day as I was told that, the Cubans' financial adviser at Lloyds bank informed a senior civil servant in the DTI that that was what his customers were prepared to do.
It is quite scandalous that the Minister should say that these bids and the Cuban order have been seriously assessed when so much misinformation went unchallenged. Cuba wanted 10 ships and 10,000 containers. That is £15 million to £20 million-worth of work on top of the ships. Cuba was interested in training Cuban shipyard workers so that they could then return to Cuba and work in the industry in Havana. Cuba thought that it might be possible to send an occasional repair job for Cuba to the River Wear. It offered to set up a joint marketing company with the yard to sell the yard's products in Africa, the far east, Latin America and other places where they have influence. It also offered a five-year co-operation deal with the yard on marketing and other projects, but we are told that all that is not serious.
I return to the point that was made earlier. Having described the loss of British Shipbuilders and the state that the industry was in, the Minister said:
"Against that background, it was clear to my predecessor tand to me that a solid future for the yards depended on finding new owners who could run them in a viable way." —[Official Report, 7 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 318.]
If that is their view of how British Shipbuilders has run the industry, it is a little odd that it has been left entirely to British Shipbuilders to judge who would be an appropriate buyer.
As for the bids that were made, in the case of each of the four early bidders there were complaints about their treatment. Regardless of the merits of their bids, all the bidders said that the goalposts were moved, that new conditions were laid down after they had been told what
934
the conditions would be, and that when those conditions were met even more conditions were found about which they had not been told in the first place.
Now that we have run out of time, I must ask the Minister a crucial question. Why was there a relaxed seven-week delay in the summer during the bid process? The bidders were asked to bid by 15 August, but they were then told that their bids need not be placed until 30 September. I have heard it said that the bidders wanted more time, but the four who eventually submitted bids have all told me that they were prepared to bid by 15 August. I know that two of them complained in writing about the deadline having been put back.
Somebody has been guilty of the most appalling incompetence. The entire privatisation process that the Government wanted to pursue was held up for seven weeks. We could have been seven weeks further on. We should then have been seven weeks less away from the end of the year and there would still have been a chance to produce a satisfactory result.
Included among the early bidders was the owner of the West German shipping company, the Egon Oldendorff line. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) referred to the importance of shipowners being involved in the ownership of yards. He was prepared to bring to the consortium an order for six 33,000 tonne bulk carriers. He was on the point of placing that order in Korea. The contract was within days of being signed. He sent a letter, of which I know the DTI is aware, in which he said that he would withdraw that order from the Inchon yard in Korea and place it in Sunderland at a higher price. Perhaps the price was still not good enough, but when big German shipowners make offers such as that it is criminal that bids should be rejected out of hand and that a yard should have to close.
It is interesting that that shipowner said to me later that, if he were to become involved in any other consortium or in any other form of ownership bidding for NESL, he would do so on condition that if his name were mentioned, even in confidence, to either the DTI or British Shipbuilders he would pull out of it. The House will have to make its own judgment about why shipowners and others appear to be so paranoid about their names being mentioned to the DTI and British Shipbuilders. That, though, is how they feel. That is what I have been told. Privatisation is made rather difficult when the people who can be involved and provide takeover backing are nervous about how their names are used. I shall later relate my own experience of that.
When the Chancellor told the House that he would allow a little more time for bids to be put in, I decided, but not out of any commercial interest, to try to put something together. I thought, "No one else is doing it," I knew that the Cubans were interested, but I decided to put in a bid myself. I sent a letter to the chairman of British Shipbuilders which was copied to Lazards and the DTI. In it was the name of Mr. John Hall as a potential substantial investor. The letter clearly said, "In Confidence" but within 24 hours the public relations consultant of British Shipbuilders had leaked his name to at least six journalists to my knowledge. That has been one of the common problems experienced during the privatisation process.
When I asked for some financial information from an NESL director, he understandably said that I had to sign a letter of confidentiality and that I would have to get such a letter from British Shipbuilders' headquarters. I

935
telephoned BS headquarters and was told, "No, no, no. You get it from Lazards." I telephoned Lazards and was told, "No, no, no. You should get it from British Shipbuilders, but we will send you one anyway to save time." That demonstrates that nobody knew what they were doing or what the rules were right from the start.
On 28 November, I received two letters. One was from Mr. Reg Arnell, board member for finance of British Shipbuilders, refusing for the second time to tell me what the alternative use valuation of NESL was and that he did not see any good reason why a bidder should want to have that information. The other was from David Coates, head of the shipbuilding division of the DTI, saying, among other things, that I ought to understand that BS's recent alternative use valuation for NESL was £9 million to £10 million and that, if I did not bid near that price, the Commission might regard the difference as an operating subsidy and count it against intervention fund on future contracts. Therefore, while BS told me, "We will not tell you—you do not need to know," the DTI was telling me, "You had better know because you will be in trouble if you do not." Brilliant!
When I complained to the chairman of British Shipbuilders about being treated in that way, I was told that he had told me the information personally six months previously, so why was I complaining? I thought it extraordinary that information apparently given in confidence to me as a Member of Parliament might be used later for commercial purposes. As a result of being abused in that way, I do not feel particularly bound by any confidences made subsequently.
On the Friday after the bid was submitted, I received a letter, again from Mr. David Coates, head of the shipbuilding division in the DTI, saying that a key part of my proposal was not acceptable to the European Commission. He had written to me on 21 November saying that it was acceptable. I am quite sure that he said that in good faith. He got it wrong, which is fair enough. However, when I was told two days after I had put in a submission that a key piece of information, which came from the DTI, was wrong, it might have given me a bit more time to sort it out. I was told that a key part of the proposal was not acceptable at 4 pm on Friday afternoon. The following Wednesday, the Minister was in the House announcing a closure.
On the same Friday, I was told by Mr. Lister, the chairman of British Shipbuilders, that the proposal was good, but not good enough. He told me that Lazards had already done an assessment of the financial side of the bid. It was clear to me from what he said that some things had been added up twice. Repeated requests for meetings were made by the consortium but, as was not the case with previous bidders, those requests were refused. Even meetings with the consortium's accountants, financial advisers or solicitors were refused.
The consortium's accountants telephoned Lazards and asked whether it had done the assessment. Lazards said yes. The accountants said, "We would like to talk to you, as we think that there may be some misunderstandings," but Lazards replied, "It is too late. We have already told British Shipbuilders what our conclusions are." That is an absolutely incredible way in which to conduct matters. I do not know how the Minister can say that the issue received serious consideration. We asked for meetings in our original proposal and in our revised proposal, and telephone calls asking for meetings were made.
936
Finally, on the Tuesday before the Minister came to the House to announce the closure, I spent the morning accompanied by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin). When we talked to Mr. Coates from the DTI about certain aspects of the proposal, he said, "Do you really want to meet British Shipbuilders?" "Of course I do," I said. He arranged it. He told me to be at Knightsbridge at 3.30 pm that afternoon. We finally got a meeting. A careful assessment of the proposal was supposed to have been made. The meeting was at three hours' notice, so it was impossible to bring in any advisers or other members of the consortium. And the Minister says that this has been a serious process.
We were hounded at the meeting about the consortium not having enough financial backing. We were told when the meeting started that Tom Burlison, the regional secretary of the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, had telephoned Mr. Lister before the meeting. Mr. Lister's account of the conversation was that Tom Burlison had telephoned and said that GM BATU might stump up a bit more money. Mr. Lister said that his response was, "Can you write out a cheque for £10 million here and now?"—a pretty facetious question. The response was apparently no.
John Edmonds, the general secretary of the union, was present when Mr. Burlison made the telephone call and confirmed his account of it, which is that Mr. Burlison said, "Give me three weeks and I shall raise the money." We were hounded for three hours about financial backing, when Mr. Lister had just been told that somebody was prepared to raise £10 million in three weeks.
Is the yard really to close because of those three weeks? There was another extraordinary incident at that fatal meeting on Tuesday afternoon. When we were being pressed on equity, it was pointed out that the potential investment by managers at the yard had not been counted. I found it extraordinary that that was the first time that they knew that any managers wanted equity in the yard. In the proposal which we submitted was a letter from Brian Tennant, the production director of NESL, saying quite clearly that managers were being asked to contribute equity. If Mr. Lister and Lazards were unaware of that, they could not even have read the proposal. That is how serious the consideration was.
The meeting got even funnier. When I said, "You know it now. Here is the letter which was in the proposal. The management will offer some equity"—some senior managers support the consortium; it is effectively a management buy-out as well as a work force buy-out—I was told, "That does not make any difference because managers are not allowed to use any of their redundancy money in British Shipbuilders disposals. That is a British Shipbuilders rule." I do not know whether it is a good rule or a bad one, but it is a pity that bidders were not told that in the first place. It is a bit odd that something that goes on in all other management buy-outs turned out not to be allowed here the day before it was announced that the yard is to close.
The whole thing has been an absolute scandal. It is a scandal in the wider sense that 2,000 jobs have been murdered and British merchant shipbuilding has effectively come to an end. It is also a scandal that the process should have been dealt with in such a way. The Minister must say more about the role of the European Commission. We have heard that, if BS makes the work

937
force redundant and a new owner re-employs some workers, the redundancies—or some of them—will count as operating aid and against contract aid.
The yard has no work at the moment. That is the Government's responsibility because they delayed the Cuban order. People are being laid off as a result. We are told, however, that lay-off pay counts as operating aid and will be counted against intervention fund and in future. The steel and equipment for the nine ferries have no more than scrap value, but we are told that, if BS allowed a purchaser to take that material and equipment, its full original cost would count against intervention fund. We are told that British Shipbuilders' losses count against a future owner. I suspect that behind the Minister's words, "Haven't I done well? We have done five successfully; it is a pity about NESL," is a reason for British Shipbuilders to wash its face for the other five—Clark Kincaid, Ferguson, Troon, Appledore and MDC. They are closing NESL so that they can have an easy time with the Commission on the other disposals. Whatever the Minister says, I shall never believe anything different.
At the end of the day, whether or not all the rulings or advice from the Commission are true, no formal proposal was ever put to the Commission before the proposal to close the yard. We are entitled to know the cause of death. Doctors have to put reasons on death certificates; they cannot say, "It might have been a bit of cancer, but he did have bronchitis and he broke his leg two years ago".
Was it the European Commission? Did the rules of the sixth directive make it impossible for a new owner to take over? Was it the fact that the yard had no orders? That has been clearly shown to be untrue. Was it the privatisation process itself? Was it Mr. Johansen? Was it all those reasons, or did the Government welcome all those excuses to propose closure because ideologically they no longer wanted to support shipbuilding?
The final tragedy is this. I shall not spend much time on it, but when I look at the £45 million rescue package I ask myself the following question. If a big industry had just closed on the River Wear and an intelligent consultant was brought in to suggest what could be done to restore jobs in the area, he would say, "It is a riverside site. Let us find something appropriate for it. Let us find something which can produce exports because we have a big balance of payments problem. Let us find a growing market, albeit a weak market in recent years, but one that is on the upturn." When they considered all those points, they would probably say, "Let us start shipbuilding on the River Wear. There is a market, it is a riverside site, and there is an order available to start it."
If it were an empty site, the capital investment in machinery and equipment would be too much. It would certainly be too much for the Government. But that is not the case; the stuff is already there. The Government plan to pull it down. People might say that it might take time to get a skilled work force together to specialise in such activities. The work force exists, but it is being sacked. If shipbuilding were not there already, there would be a unique opportunity to start it, but the Government will not do that. Instead, they will close it down, and that is why people feel so outraged. If we had to swallow
938
privatisation, at least it could have been done fairly, not with the idiocy, incompetence and corruption of the way in which it was carried out.
Hoping to end on a more positive note, may I say that, even at this stage, the Cubans, who apparently were not serious and who suffered so much abuse and misrepresentation, are so anxious for their ships to be built in those yards that they have said that they will not place the order anywhere else for another month. They are still hoping that a solution can be found.
The proposal is that at least we could save Southwick, a yard built specifically for volume production of the ships that the Cubans want. At least we could give it two or three years' breathing space. The Cubans could lease the yard from BS, a residuary body, the DTI, the Urban Development Corporation or whomever ended up owning it. Let the Cubans lease the facilities. Let them take whatever intervention fund is available next year after various bits and pieces have been knocked off by the redundancies, British Shipbuilders' operating losses and so on. Let them take whatever intervention fund is available. Let them have the credit terms which were always available and which other member states allow.
The only contribution that the Government have to make is to give decent credit terms to people who the Government have acknowledged always pay on the nail and never default. Let them take the yard and find a shipbuilder—a distinguished shipbuilder is available elsewhere—to manage the contract for them, and let them employ local workers in Sunderland to build that contract. Let them do it at their own risk, so that, if they get only nine ships instead of 10 ships for their money, that is their risk. There is no financial risk to the British Government.
The Government need only say yes and agree credit. It would provide a breathing space and allow us not to have to finalise the debate about whether there are further orders and whether there is an upturn in the market. In the two or three years that the contract is being built, we shall find out. It would keep a foot in the door.
What possible reason can the Government have for refusing that proposition if the Cubans are prepared to agree to it? It suits everyone. There is no problem about transfer of ownership; the Cubans would lease it. There is no question of losses for the Government; it would be done at the Cubans' own risk. If the Minister says, "Yes, we shall give it a try," and immediately withdraws the notification of the closure of Southwick to the Commission—there is to be a meeting in seven days' time and the Commission will need a change of notification well before that meeting—I shall believe that he genuinely wanted to save something and finally had the opportunity to do so.
That proposition meets every objection that the Government have raised to every previous proposal. It meets all the objectives, it retains shipbuilding at no loss to the Government, it saves at least a few hundred jobs for people who wish to remain working in shipbuilding, and it gives us a breathing space to decide what to do in the long term. If the Minister says no to that, he will confirm the notion that, whatever his own feelings, the Government started something several months ago that they would not allow anyone to change—even one of their Cabinet Ministers.
5.26 pm
Miss Emma Nicholson: I speak as a Member with shipbuilding responsibilities—Appledore is in my constituency—and family and political links in the north-east. My father was a Member of Parliament for Morpeth and I fought Blyth, as it was then, before the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) took his seat. Further, I was a management consultant with 10 years' hands-on experience in heavy and light industry.
I was intrigued by the lengthy speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) pinning his case to the two words, "economic vandalism". He used those words with intensity; he said he meant them and that they were the purpose of his speech. If he really meant them, perhaps he will allow me to examine those two words.
If the phrase means anything at all and is not just two words plucked out of the Oxford dictionary, it must mean the wanton destruction of something that is financially healthy. As a former management consultant, I must say that that means to me a company with full order books, an expanding work force and a bright future, with buyers clamouring for appointments and with the managing director and chairman with their sleeves rolled up, working exceptionally hard and being desperate for time, with the telephone constantly ringing. Alas, the truth is very different from the way in which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North described recent months for NESL. It would appear that it has been dependent on Members of Parliament to make its business appointments. That cannot he right.
In chasing the Cuban rainbow, the hon. Gentleman overlooked the fact that Cuba is a Communist republic where key workers send their children to fee-paying private schools. That is bad news in his terms.
Mr. Clay: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Miss Nicholson: When hon. Members want another to give way, they normally rise to their feet. Therefore, I shall continue.
If the mythical consultant to whom the hon. Gentleman referred went to look at NESL after closure, would he honestly propose such things as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North suggested? Would he honestly say that in a declining shipping market the one thing that we should do for Sunderland is to bring in more shipbuilding? He would not. He would suggest small businesses. He would suggest that the outposts of large and flourishing businesses should be tempted to go there by such things as the Minister has announced—for example, enterprise zones.
Sadly, NESL, which is a fine facility, is not in a niche market. It is in open competition. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) said, it competes with shipbuilding yards in countries such as Korea, which pay wages that we would not tolerate. NESL is exposed to open competition in the world market. It has not built the niche that would enable it, in a difficult world market, to pursue its business in such a way as to make it financially viable.
The small Appledore shipyard in my constituency, which will soon be known as Appledore Shipbuilders, provides a good opposite to NESL. It has been able to carve out a niche market in dredgers. I am delighted that,
940
following ministerial help, John Langham of Langham Industries fully expects to complete all the negotiations next week and effectively to take over the yard at the end of the month. He envisages no problems. Everything is geared up—the management is in place and already there is a firm letter of intent relating to a large aggregate dredger, which will provide work for the yard until July 1990.
Because John Langham has been actively marketing and promoting the yard, he has discussed contracts for two further dredgers to be built following completion of the large dredger, or slotting in with its construction. With orders coming in, it is possible to juggle and to get more work. Mr. Langham aims to re-enter the market for small corvettes, or gunboats, which would provide coastal protection for foreign navies in the far east. The yard built minesweepers for the Royal Navy after the war, but the market faded. Private enterprise will probably bring the yard back into that market. Langham Industries is quietly confident that it can turn the company around. Like NESL—indeed, like all British shipbuilding yards—Appledore has been a loss-maker. The proper objective is to make it fully profitable. Langham Industries aims to break even within the next 18 months.
What is the difference between a company that is nationalised and run by the Government—perhaps I should say "run down by successive Governments", because Governments are demonstrably bad at running industry—and one that is private? The difference is motivation. The Opposition talk scathingly about "profit making". What is wrong with profit making? Making a profit means that one can look after not only one's family but a large and expanding work force. It means bringing money into areas and making things happen. It means doing what we all want to do—raising the economic level and increasing people's happiness. The key is to get our shipbuilding companies into the hard commercial world in which we must all live. We cannot seek Cuban rainbows or live in Alice Through the Looking Glass worlds.
Shipbuilding is still bumping along with the barnacles scraping the bottom. There has been only a marginal improvement. No one knows whether the improvement is sustainable. It is folly to pretend that a marvellous world is around the corner. That chimera has floated further and further away over the many months of the continuing debate on the privatisation of British shipbuilding. There is a long way to go in the shipbuilding market. We must learn to live off what is available.
How does the sale of Appledore, a small but crucial yard, compare with NESL's failure? Private industry saw NESL as unviable, even at a rock-bottom price. It was given subsidies of many millions of pounds a year. The yard lost more than £100 million over three years, with £66 million lost last year alone to keep 2,000 jobs going. Can that be logical and proper?
The loss of those 2,000 jobs is a minor run down compared with the massive run-down under the last Labour Government. Between 1974 and 1979, about 10,000 jobs were lost. Is that not the death sentence—pronounced then and not today—to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North referred? The hon. Gentleman has now disappeared from the Chamber. Those 2,000 jobs lost are little enough compared with the haemorrhage earlier.
It was a shame that the Labour Government closed the last ship repair yard on the Wear, Greenwell. I understand

941
that the area may return to ship repair work, rather than shipbuilding. I am glad that Sunderland's economic base, as in so many depressed areas, is now much sounder than it was under Labour, when large losses were suffered. Perhaps due to the general upturn in the economy under the Conservative Government, it will now be easier to find jobs for those 2,000 people.
Ms. Joyce Quin: Surely the hon. Lady accepts that, under the Conservative Government, the losses in shipyards in Tyne and Wear have been far greater than in any other period. The losses under Labour about which she talks simply do not compare with the huge haemorrhage and losses experienced since 1979.
Miss Nicholson: Because of the better economic conditions under the Conservative Government, it will be much easier to find work for those people who are now losing their jobs. The yards suffered much more under Labour, just as pit after pit was closed in Durham under Labour. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister helped a tremendous amount in trying to find orders for the yards.
The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) described the closure of NESL as a destruction of jobs, major industry and hopes for the future. He was totally wrong. It marks the creation of jobs which will last in industries which are for the future. It marks the creation of small and large industries which will give young people a viable future. It marks the creation of hope, which will help the area much more than continued propping up of an industry which, alas, is past its best. It is not a matter of dogma on privatisation or, as the hon. Member for Dagenham said, putting privatisation dogma before commercial sense and profitability. On the contrary, we are putting commercial sense and profitability before the dogma of nationalisation.
5.37 pm
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: During the past three decades, there has been bloodletting in the shipbuilding industry that cannot be matched in by any other industry in the land. During the 1950s, our shipbuilding industry was the largest in the world. In 1985, we were promised, in a statement by the Minister for Trade, that our 1·25 per cent. share of the world market would be increased. But there has been a dramatic decline in the industry. We do not hear such words today. The labour force has decreased from 85,000 to between 45,000 and 40,000.
The Government have been tricky again. The Opposition demanded a debate on the Sunderland closure, but the motion is about British shipbuilding and the successes of privatisation. It says that some parts of the industry are not viable, and that is the end of that. The motion does not deal specifically with the subject about which we talked last week. I challenge the Minister about the calculation behind the Government's statement. I have made it clear that it was convenient that the Prime Minister had returned from Gdansk in Poland, where there is a shipbuilding yard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) has given us a remarkable account of the to-ings and fro-ings and the misinterpretations, confusions, contradictions and political nepotism. However, if the Prime Minister had intended to keep the Sunderland
942
yard open, she would have gone to Poland and said to our Polish friends, "In Britain, we have done what you want here in Gdansk," but the decision was already made. She must have known then that she did not intend to save the Sunderland yard.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has a remarkable reputation for understanding the issues with which he deals, but he is not master in his own house. It is sometimes embarrassing to be a parrot for the man in the other place, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Chancellor has had an unpleasant task which he did not deserve and I absolve him from responsibility for the decision that has been made.
On the other hand, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is a good Member of the House, he might have felt a little upset. He might have said, "I don't like what's going on here. I'll resign." Last week's statement contained no feeling at all for the kind of Christmas card that has been sent to the Sunderland workers.
The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) talks glibly, as I have known him talk for many years. He said that he had a chat with the chairman of the Northern Development Company, who apparently said that things were looking buoyant and that jobs were coming up. However, if we start off from a low level of economic activity and there is an upward trend, it is easy to feel buoyant.
I come from a part of the world not far from that of the hon. Member for Tynemouth, but I am an expert on closures. If a shipyard worker, instead of the hon. Gentleman, had gone to see the chairman of the Northern Development Company to ask him about the economy in the northern region and the chairman had replied that things were buoyant, what would the shipyard worker do when he and 2,000 or more of his colleagues lost their jobs?
We have not yet mentioned the multiplier effect. The service and supply industries will also be affected so, in all, about 5,000 jobs will be lost, although, if I am conservative, perhaps I should say 4,500 jobs will be lost in all. It would not please that shipyard worker for the chairman to talk about buoyancy if his skills, pride, hopes and aspirations for his family are suddenly shattered. In any case, the poor guy can live, even when he is in work, only by obtaining a little credit to help him over Christmas.
In 1962, my constituency lost a shipyard. I am an expert in industrial closures in a town of 90,000 people, where only about 30,000 have jobs. In 1962, we lost 5,000 jobs and, in the following 15 years, we lost almost 20,000. I know what it means and I am heartily sick and tired, after 25 years in this place, of listening to the same glib chat with Conservative Members saying, "We'll mend it. We'll put it right. Let's have a task force." What will we do with a task force? We simply bring in civil servants, give them a job and call it a task force.
We are good at cosmetics in this country. What has happened in Sunderland reminds me vividly of what happened all those years ago. It takes a long time to put matters in order when the economy is breached in this way. We have had a post mortem here today. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North said that there would be a month's breathing space and a kind offer. I thought that, although we had had a post mortem, there would be no need for a requiem mass, but we might as well have a requiem mass. Nothing has come out of the House today apart from a factual account of the position and some

943
palliatives from a few Conservative Members who feel good because the Secretary of State has offered £45 million to create new job opportunities. The hon. Member for Tynemouth should know better.
We have been shifting regional policies year after year, until many of our people are immune to those palliatives. It is time that politicians did something to find out how people really feel, instead of talking to the chairmen of development corporations, good as they are, and feeling satisfied because the economic indicators are looking a little better. We should put ourselves in the position of a shipyard worker listening to the director of a development company saying that the economy is becoming buoyant. That is not true in this case.
This might have been a useful debate, but, unfortunately, it will achieve nothing. However, I hope that there will be sufficient press coverage to show that the Government have once again done a spot of professional cheating.
5.47 pm
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Almost everyone must have a great deal of sympathy for the people of Sunderland because of the number of jobs that they will lose. [Interruption.]It is all very well for Opposition Members to sneer at that, but no Conservative Members takes any comfort or pleasure from the fact that jobs will be lost, although we are not so blinkered as to claim that those jobs have been lost as a result of Government actions or policies.
Opposition Members have accused us of murdering Sunderland and the yard. In truth, the yard was murdered many years ago. It is worth looking briefly at the history of shipbuilding to put the matter in perspective and to learn some lessons for the future. We began shipbuilding in Britain with many natural advantages—abundant rivers and estuaries, demand from the largest merchant marine in the world, resources of iron and steel and, many years ago, the finest engineering industry in the world.
However, as long ago as the late 19th century, virtually no new shipbuilding capacity was laid in, and by the turn of the century our shipyards had already become unsuitable for the larger steel ships that were being built. By the beginning of the first world war, our yards were already far less modern than those of the United States and Germany. In addition, they were riddled with labour problems. In 1914, at the outbreak of the first world war, there were no fewer than 90 demarcated skills in British yards. In writing about the time, one historian stated:
"The engineers quarrelled with the boilermakers, shipwrights and joiners, brassworkers and tinplate workers; the boilermakers with the shipwrights, smiths, chippers and drillers; the shipwrights with the caulkers, boat and barge builders, mast and blockmakers, and joiners and the joiners with the mill-sawyers, patternmakers, cabinet makers, upholsterers and French polishers. On the Tyne there was an average of one major strike per month over questions of demarcation".
That was the position at the turn of the century.
Apart from labour problems, we were falling behind in education and skills. In 1907, Britain had one full-time student of naval architecture per 16,000 tonnes of ship produced. In Germany, there was one per 100 tonnes. It is no surprise that our share of world tonnage shrunk from 60 per cent. in 1913 to just over 30 per cent. by the
944
outbreak of world war two. The labour situation had not improved one jot by the outbreak of the second world war. Even Ernest Bevin noted in a letter in 1942
"how difficult and backward the shipbuilding industry has been from a labour point of view … Everything that has been done has almost had to be forced upon them."
Even under the threat of Hitler, the Amalgamated Engineering Union and the Boilermakers Society refused to allow men of the National Union of Railway men—the electricians trade union similarly prevented non-union electricians—to work in yards to remedy skill shortages. There were numerous inter-union demarcation strikes during the second world war, but union attitudes alone were not to be blamed. There was a legacy of bitterness, poor management and poor education, and these factors were also partly to blame.
Attitudes that were ingrained over many years made investment in the yards harder to secure, and the shipbuilding industry has suffered ever since from a lack of investment. It is one of the many factors that allowed far eastern competition to overtake us in the 1950s. Even during the second world war, the Germans were using 20-tonne cranes, whereas in our yards the norm was a 3 to 5 tonner. When one-man pneumatic riveting was introduced in the early 1940s, the unions insisted on a riveter's mate being put by every riveter. The mate just stood and watched the job being done.
Since the breathing space after the war, when every other country's shipbuilding industry was flat on its back, there has been further, continual and sorry decline. By 1954, German ship exports had passed the United Kingdom total. A year later, the Japanese had overtaken us. In the 1980s, conditions are harder than ever before. Even the Japanese, with all their efficiency, management, fine education and natural advantages, are now beginning to lay men off and to close yards. The huge Mitsubishi yards at Nagasaki are now only partially operational. Even the South Koreans, with their advantages of cheap labour and discipline, have severe problems in the shipbuilding industry.
The answer to the problem is not to keep pouring money into an industry which, sadly, was overtaken many decades ago. We cannot make a living on past glory. The more money that we put into declining and unprofitable industries, the more jobs we cause to be lost elsewhere in our economy. There is no future in that.
It is nonsense for Opposition spokesmen to talk of the Government's lack of concern about the nation's indutrial base. It is worth reminding them that, when the Labour Government were in office, shipyards were closed and many jobs were lost in the shipyards and ship repair yards. Indeed, during that period our manufacturing output shrunk, whereas under the present Government manufacturing output has risen. It has done so extremely rapidly since the trough of world recession in 1981.
If we are to have an industrial policy, we must examine what the Japanese have done, so that we understand why they have succeeded. Over the past 50 years, the Japanese have had a consistent policy of allowing old and relatively low-tech, labour-intensive, low added-value industries to decline. They have not attempted to subsidise them. Instead they have invested in productive capacity in newer and higher added-value industries. They have left the older and more labour-intensive industries to countries that are best able to cope with them, such as South Korea and China.

945
That is what we must do. We must not keep old and dying industries alive, however painful it might be to do otherwise. We must concentrate our investment on newer, less labour-intensive and higher value-added industries. That is what we must do to help the people of Sunderland. It may have been the short-term political option to keep the yards open. It may have appeared kind, and it would have been the easier decision to make. I believe, however, that it would have been a disastrous decision in the long term for the region and for the national economy.
5.56 pm
Mr. Chris Mullin: I share the widespread view that the decision to close the yards was made some months ago, and that since then nothing has been allowed to get in its way. I believe that it was taken before the Minister took office. I recall an article that appeared in The Guardian during March—I think that it was the front page lead—that quoted apparently well-informed sources as saying categorically that the Government proposed to wind up British Shipbuilders.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) in paying tribute to those who have participated in the campaign over the past eight months to keep the yards open, especially the people of Sunderland. They have been supported by the Sunderland borough council, people of all political opinions and the work force. The shop stewards and others have led a magnificent campaign. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North, who has been outstanding. His speech reflected his inspirational leadership on this issue.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will respond seriously to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North that at least one part of North East Shipbuilders Ltd. should be saved. I understand that the Cubans are returning next week and one must admire the persistence and generosity of their approach. After all the rebuffs, they are still interested in placing orders with NESL, or what remains of it. I hope that the Minister will assure us that any proposals that the Cubans have to make will be taken much more seriously than the ones that have so far been put before the Government.
It has been said that Cuba is a Communist country. I do not know what that has to do with the matter. I should like to know the terms of the order from the Chinese that was received at Govan for the COSCO ships, such as the length of credit and the interest rates. It would be interesting to match the terms of that order with what may be offered in reponse to a Cuban order.
The upturn in shipping has been referred to with various degrees of scepticism by Ministers over a long period. We need look no further than today's Lloyd's List,a newspaper which must be taken to know something about the shipbuilding industry. The first sentence of the leading article reads:
"With new building prices hardening and secondhand prices for most types of ship escalating appreciably, there is real confidence that the ship, at long last, is set to acquire something of a scarcity value which it has not enjoyed for 15 years."
Those at Lloyd's List probably know a great deal more than those at the Department of Trade and Industry about the future of the industry.
946
I would not like the House, including Ministers, to be under the illusion that indignation at what has been done to Sunderland is confined merely to the Government's political opponents. Last week, after the ministerial announcement that NESL would be closed, the leader of the Conservative group on Sunderland borough council said:
"They have done at a stroke what the Germans for six years tried to do. It is industrial sabotage."
He added:
"I think the decision was taken nine months ago by Lord Young."
I should also like to quote from the Sunderland Echo, the owners of which gave £2,500 to the Conservative party last year and, therefore, must be considered to be reasonably impartial on this issue. The Sunderland Echo described the Minister's statement last week as
"misguided, short-sighted and cruel … A self-inflicted and disabling wound to a maritime country which has deliberately enfeebled a strategic industry."
I do not know whether the owners of the Sunderland Echo will make a donation to the Conservative party next year, but I pay tribute to their support for the campaign to save the shipyard.
I want the Minister also to understand the reason for the great anger that the decision has generated. The anger is not irrational, contrived or founded solely on the basis of emotion. The shipyard workers of Sunderland are not daft. They know as well as anyone that if there is no work, yards will have to close. However, as has already been made clear, there was and there is work. Reference has been made repeatedly to the Cuban order, which is worth around £110 million. I acknowledge again the extraordinary patience of the Cubans, who must be, as I am, bewildered by the fact that, in a world where shipyards are crying out for orders, they cannot find anyone to take their very large order seriously. That order is one of the largest on offer anywhere in the world.
The past eight months have been wasted looking for an owner for North East Shipbuilders. That time should have been spent looking for orders. Orders are available, and other western European yards have obtained them. Last April, a large order for a passenger ship worth $150 million was placed at a West German yard. In July and August, orders for tankers and chemical carriers were placed with Spanish yards and, recently, a large order was placed for Soviet cargo ships. I checked with the Department of Education and Science this afternoon and I understand that the Department has invited tenders for an Antarctic survey ship. Why could not that ship be built in Sunderland? That order is within the gift of the Government.
Hon. Members have already compared this privatisation with others. It has become normal for the victim of privatisation to be fattened up through various price increases, as we have seen with electricity, water and other major privatisations. At no stage in their programme of privatisation did the Government choose a moment to put an industry on the market when its fortunes were at the absolute lowest point. However, that happened with North-East Shipbuilders.
Lloyd's List remarked on an alternative only last week:
"The United Kingdom Government could at least have admitted that the shipbuilding industry was looking rather better in the medium term and financed the Cuban order to tide the yard over until rather more commercial orders came along.

947
It could have given the yard another couple of years in the public sector, with the knowledge that the security this would provide could have encouraged work, for assuredly no owner"—
this is surely the key point—
"is going to place an order in a yard which is under threat of immediate closure."
The background against which this disaster has been inflicted on Sunderland is that our merchant fleet is being allowed to disappear in the face of repeated warnings from every responsible source, including the Select Committees on Defence and on Transport, within the past year. The United Kingdom fleet in 1980 contained 1,275 ships or 42·3 million tonnes and, by 1986, the latest year for which I have seen figures, the fleet was down to 545 ships or 11·2 million tonnes. The percentage of world tonnage under the British flag in 1980 was 6·4 per cent. It is now down to 1·8 per cent. Half the fleet that sailed to the Falklands now sails under foreign flags. The Select Committee on Transport stated that our ships are older and more in need of replacement than those of our chief rivals.
The problem is wider than just the future of British shipbuilders or North East Shipbuilders. The problem is that the Government have no maritime policy. We are an island nation, dependent for our survival on trade, but we cannot own or build our own ships. Surely it is not beyond the wit of Government to devise a policy, even at this late stage, to salvage what remains of our capacity.
I want to quote, not from an Opposition Member, but from a former Conservative Member, Sir Edward du Cann. Two years ago, in a debate on the future of the shipbuilding industry he said—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): We have heard it before.
Mr. Mullin: Yes, I know that the Minister has heard it before, but it is rather apposite. Sir Edward du Cann was right. He said:
"During my time in the House I have watched the decline of many manufacturing industries and the extinction of others—motorcycles, television, radio, optical instruments, motor cars and so on. Too many have declined and too many have gone. We choose fancy words to describe the process—and rationalisation is one. To me, it has been a history of industrial disaster … Future generations will never forgive us if we do not say that this process of attrition in British manufacturing industry has gone far enough. It is time to cry halt."—[Official Report, 21 May 1986; Vol. 898, c. 422.]
That is what Sir Edward du Cann said about shipbuilding two years ago. How right he was.
In his aid package announced last week for Sunderland, the Minister offered £45 million over 10 years or so. That money would have been better spent subsidising a new order. That would have cost less and preserved, or created, more jobs. I also invite the Minister to compare the £45 million on offer with the £155 million that has been taken away from Sunderland over the past decade in lost rate support grant. That is equivalent to virtually the total budget of Sunderland for one year. That is not a source of amusement, although the Minister may find it so.
This is a disaster for Sunderland, because it takes place in a town that already has some of the highest unemployment in the country. In Sunderland, there are whole streets where virtually no one is working and where a generation of children are growing up who may never work. Some of those made redundant last week have been made redundant three or four times, working their way down the river as each enterprise folds beneath them.
948
The Minister has before him the last of many positive proposals from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North. What will the Minister do about it? Will he take that proposal a lot more seriously than the others that we have heard about tonight? I hope that the Minister will rise to the occasion.
6.8 pm
Mr. James Cran: Today's debate has art air of inevitability about it. I was the Confederation of British Industry's northern director in 1979. I was based in Newcastle upon Tyne, and I knew Sunderland extremely well. I was also familiar with the shipyards that we have been discussing this afternoon. I remember members of the work force, the management, people living in Sunderland and in Newcastle and Jarrow asking me, in view of the level of public funds going to shipbuilding support, how long their companies and jobs could survive. There was a level of understanding at the time of the problems facing shipbuilding. It is therefore by no manner or means a new phenomen and no hon. Member could say that the Government had not, with a vengeance, supported the industry. Indeed, some of us believe that the Government have persisted for too long in supporting the industry.
The chairman of British Shipbuilders appeared before the Trade and Industry Select Committee—of which I am a member—in June 1988, and more or less said that, just because the Koreans had lost £2·3 billion in building ships and grabbed a 17 per cent. share of the world market, perforce this country and every other country should follow suit. I thought that an extraordinary argument at the time, and the more that I have thought about it, the more ludicrous it has become. For each country to outdo other countries in providing even larger subsidies and making even larger losses is a bankrupt policy. It is a fool's paradise to suggest that losses within an industrial company or organisation guarantee jobs at the end of the day. They do not. That was understood by the people of the north-east in 1979, and I suspect that it is understood there today.
When the chairman of British Shipbuilders appeared before the Select Committee, I was intrigued by the question whether British Shipbuilders could ever become profitable. One would have thought that the answer would be that it could do so. Other hon. Members have already said that seaborne trade is at a 10-year high and that, the second-hand ship market has virtually disappeared, which indubitably gives opportunities to British Shipbuilders. However, the chairman's answer was:
"I believe five or six years down the line we could almost get to break-even or break-even itself subject to the market improving."
In effect, he was saying that we would have to wait until 1994 for the organisation to break even.
I remind the House that this would coincide with demand being at its highest, since demand is rising. Therefore, if the organisation can break even only when demand is at its highest, the fact that it is a cyclical industry makes it difficult to imagine what will happen after 1994 if demand turned down. It is absurd to ask the taxpayer to continue to bear that sort of burden—£2 billion since 1979. I strongly believe that that £2 billion could have been infinitely more wisely spent, not only for the benefit of the people of Sunderland, but for people in other areas.

949
My constituency is home to a shipbuilding firm, Dunstons of Hessle, which has never received a penny piece of public funds. Yet it is supposed to operate in world markets, it is supposed to win orders, it is supposed to pay weekly salaries to its work force. I can say with some pride that that is exactly what it is doing, and British Shipbuilders should have done the same.
Mr. John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that on many occasions during the past 12 years the shipbuilding industry has forecast an improvement in demand and a reduction in losses, but that often those forecasts have not come true? Should we give any more credence to the current forecast of those two events happening?
Mr. Cran: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, because that is exactly what has happened in that cyclical industry. Indeed, when upturns did occur, the then management of British Shipbuilders could not take advantage of them because its overheads were far higher than those of most of its competitors. I concede that the current chairman is attempting to deal with that position but, alas, it may be too late. I see that you are looking at me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I wonder whether you want—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I am listening to what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
Mr. Cran: I am delighted to hear that, Madam Deputy Speaker. British shipbuilding, in contradistinction to British Shipbuilders, certainly has a future. The United Kingdom should take a certain amount of pride—I certainly do—in the fact that we are in the lead in the restructuring of shipbuilding—[Laughter.] Opposition Members may laugh, but the chairman of British Shipbuilders told the Select Committee:
"The Koreans have recognised they bought a 17 per cent. world market share by selling below cost and they have now turned their attention to other industries … they are not interested in subsidising shipbuilding to the extent they have in the past."
The penny has at long last dropped in Korea, just as it has dropped in this country. The resources that we pour into British Shipbuilders could be far better spent in rejuvenating the economies of the regions. I am not prepared to take any lessons from Opposition Members about the need for vibrant regional economies in the United Kingdom. I have operated in the regions all my life and there was not one that I did not wish to leave in better condition than I found it. I am sure that that would be true of every hon. Member. It is instructive to study the figures for economic growth in the regions, because almost every index shows that the northern regions are doing rather better than the southern regions. There is no reason why that should not continue in the north-east, just as it is in Yorkshire and Humberside.
I realise that Opposition Members do not want to hear literate and economic truths, so they will not welcome my next remarks. The Government are taking three steps that will help the economy of the northern region. First, the Chancellor of the Duchy announced a £43 million package
950
last week, and I pay tribute to him for that. I have taken the trouble to speak to my contacts in the north-east because I did not think it right to speak from hearsay.
In contradistinction to what has been said by some Opposition Members, that package is very much welcomed in the north-east. It recognises the fact that the Government were not prepared to pull the rug from under the north-east and not offer some hope of future economic growth. The Government should be applauded for that. [Interruption.] I have been here throughout the debate, and Opposition Members must listen to what I have to say.
Secondly, I did not hear any Opposition Member mention the Northern Development Company, the body that encourages inward investment. It now receives greater resources than almost any other such body in the English regions. It certainly receives more Government money than my region of Yorkshire and Humberside. I make no complaint about that, because it merits that support in present circumstances. That company is respected by all the other inward investment bodies for its level of success.
The third matter that the Opposition clearly do no want to hear, but will, relates to the Tyne and Wear development corporation. I do not hear much from them on that subject. I wonder how many other hon. Members took the trouble to consult a document that it has produced called, "Forward to 1991". Clearly, not many.
That document is extremely bullish about the future of the north-east, particularly Sunderland. I have three encouraging quotations to give the House. The first states:
"We discovered that the area already has a sound economic base"—
the corporation says that, not me or the Government—
"with a skilled and adaptable workforce."
Those are exactly the ingredients that will produce the sort of economic success that the north-east and Sunderland in particular need.
Secondly, the document states:
"it became clear to us that people do have confidence in the area."
It appears that inward investors have confidence in that region, but Opposition Members have shown precious little confidence and they should be thoroughly ashamed. If I were to speak about my region I would speak with pride and confidence.
I realise that Opposition Members are growing impatient, but the third quote states:
"The result of our appraisal is a far more positive picture than we'd expected. And while clearly there are problem areas these are on a limited scale."
There is an inevitability about the debate, but no inevitability that Sunderland need decline in any way, shape or form. If in 10 years' time the figures for any index of economic development in Sunderland are not better than in the past 10 years, I shall regard that as a failure. I do not expect it to happen.
6.21 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: We have had some offensive and patronising comments from Conservative Members. They are patronising towards the north-east, local authorities, trade unions and those who have been involved in the creation of the Northern Development Company. They are patronising to the shipbuilding industry, which has had to face all the turmoil of change and was busily re-equipping itself when this blow hit it, to those in all parties and sections of the

951
community who have campaigned for Sunderland and its shipyard, and to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) who made such an effective case. I had hoped to see him become a capitalist entrepreneur. That would have had a nice political irony to it. I genuinely wished him success in his bid. The fact that he was prepared to undertake that venture showed that everybody on all sides of the political spectrum set aside their general political views to see what could be done for Sunderland shipyards—everybody, that is, except the Government, who could have set aside some of their political preconceptions.
My great anxiety is that the whole affair has been bungled. It is a sign of Government bungling that there could still be the prospect of realistic progress with the Cuban order, given the possibility of substantial container work alongside shipbuilding work, which would have made use of the Pallion yard in Sunderland as well as shipbuilding yards. When Conservative Members talk about the sums that would have been involved—I presume they are thinking of the intervention fund help for that order—they seem to forget the Government's readiness to offer a substantially larger amount to Mr. Tikkoo for an order to go to the Harland and Wolff yard in Belfast, and in the end that did not work out. We did not hear the same complaints from them then.
We are entitled to ask what is happening on the ferries order. How is it that ferries could be sold to Mr. Johansen, as we believe they have, when that deal could not be completed in preceding months and when no Government action could deal with Mr. Johansen's default? Why do the Government not, at least for the next two years, secure a future for the sites? Given the strategic importance of shipbuilding, it seems absurd for these sites to fall into complete disrepair just when it is recognised that there could be a significant upturn in shipbuilding. Yesterday I listened to Conservative Members explaining that there were strategic reasons for intervening in the market. They were talking about nuclear power. But all of a sudden those arguments are of no consequence because we are talking about merchant shipping and shipbuilding. Today, strategic reasons cannot be allowed to interfere with the operation of the market, according to them.
What has the Minister said to the European Community about the Sunderland yard? Has he taken action to ensure that we do not permanently lose the right to build ships and have intervention funding in Sunderland? As he well knows, that could be the effect. We are entitled to know what he has said to the European Community.
The Minister talks about the success of privatising the rest of British Shipbuilders, but there will not be unbridled enthusiasm in all parts of Sunderland or Dundee at the acceptance of the managing director's bid for Marine Design Consultants. One can only hope that that bid will be successful, but it is viewed with apprehension by many who work for the enterprise in Sunderland and by those engaged in Dundee.
The recovery package which the Government have offered will not be enough, even when set beside the splendid self-help efforts in which the Sunderland people are engaged, including the Wearside opportunity initiative. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have warmly welcomed Nissan to the Sunderland area and believe that it has been a beneficial enterprise for British industry in general because of the example that it can set British industry. But it would take three Nissans and a
952
great deal of public funding to make up the shortfall in Sunderland's employment problems. It would take three whole Nissans to solve the problems to which the closure of this shipyard has added so hugely.
Sunderland is a handsome, lively town which has united with great spirit in the fight for the shipyards. That spirit has not been recognised by the Government. They owe Sunderland a tremendous debt. The first way to discharge that debt is to seek, even now, a continued future for some shipbuilding in Sunderland; the second is to offer far more to Sunderland's future than they have done so far.
6.27 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: I am sorry to have missed the hulk of this debate, but I was engaged elsewhere. Many of those present came to the successful parliamentary maritime group session with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and I should like to return to many of the points that I know have been raised. I firmly believe that the Government have made the right decision on Sunderland but that nevertheless they must look carefully at their future policy on shipyards and shipping.
I used to work for a company which had more than 50 shipyards worldwide in its client base. I visited several of them, and one where I worked was Swan Hunter shipbuilders in the north-east. The reasons why the shipyards' customers, the shipping companies, have turned down so much do not relate to anything temporary that will disappear overnight or in the next few years, although there may seem to be a glimmer of light on the horizon. In a world of oil pipelines, fewer oil tankers are needed. In a world of containerisation, there are not vast numbers of ships tied up loading and unloading for long periods. The sad fact is that, around the world, there are mothballed and semi-mothballed yards, which will come straight back on stream as soon as the first sign of an upturn is seen, and I admit that there are signs of a temporary upturn. Many of those yards enjoy considerable subsidy, which will ensure that prices remain low.
The Government are right to take the view that it is absurd to say on purely regional grounds that we should keep the shipyard going in those market conditions. They have adopted a sensible attitude towards Sunderland shipbuilders. The substantial sum of £45 million that they have put forward will go a long way towards filling the gap that must be filled with modern competitive industries of the sort on which my hon. Friends have touched so well.
There are, however strategic and military reasons for believing that we must keep a minimum base of shipbuilding, just as we need to keep a minimum strategic base in shipping. We know of the number of ships that we needed in the Falklands crisis, and that other crises may require more ships over a longer period, as well as substantial ship repair, ship conversion and other facilities. For this reason, it is essential that, just as the Government have defined a strategic core for shipping, they define a strategic core for shipbuilding and ship repairs. Inevitably, because of subsidies paid to shipbuilding industries in other countries, such a strategic definition will involve subsidies-although not, I hope, on the scale that we have had. If there is no subsidy, what happened in Sweden, where what were arguably the most efficient shipbuilding companies in Europe disappeared, will happen to the remainder of our shipyards.

953
The way to apply this core principle may be to look particularly hard at the dual capability naval shipyards, of which Swan Hunter is an example. If the intervention funding available to the small residual core outside the naval sector were to be available to these yards as well, with the baseload of work for the Royal Navy and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, they would be well placed to survive almost any storm in the market.
In a nutshell, we must strike a balance. There is no point in trying to keep yards going for regional reasons where there is no hope for the future. However, we must keep a small basic core of shipbuilding, just as we must keep a core of shipping. This will mean defining that core and being willing to continue to subsidise it.
6.31 pm
Ms. Joyce Quin: When the closure of North East Shipbuilders Ltd. was announced to the House last week, the reactions were emotional and the atmosphere was highly charged. Two emotions predominated—anger and sadness. I share both. There were many reasons for the anger expressed last week, particularly since the statement had been widely leaked in advance, which undermined many of the arguments that we wished to make. There was also anger at the outrageous decision to close a modern yard that had not just the possibility but the probability of a multi-million pound order. We were also angry that the closure seemed to stem simply from the Government's political dogma, and that the Government had been determined to force through change in ownership at the worst possible time, when the negotiations for the Cuban order were taking place. That decision merely added greatly to the delays and uncertainties of the situation.
There was also anger because the Government did not seem to have explored every possibility, and because the EEC made no formal presentation of a rescue bid. Like others, I have been closely linked to the shipyards in Sunderland, in my case because, since 1979, I have represented the area in the European Parliament. When I was first elected, there were some 27,000 shipyard workers in Tyne and Wear. Seven years later there were fewer than 7,000 and today there are fewer than half that number.
Throughout the period of decline, we were told that restructuring was necessary and that we needed a restructured industry that would be slimmed down and capable of competing. In the process, workers, particularly in the Sunderland yards, undertook many sacrifices. There were dramatic changes in working patterns, such as the development of flexible methods of working, and a great deal of modernisation of the yards. Now, we see that all that sacrifice was to no avail. That explains some of the anger and the reactions on Wearside.
Throughout my nine years as a European Member of Parliament, I was keenly aware of the lack of action by the Government and the EEC when they were confronted with the determined and cut-throat competition from the far east. It has not helped that we have had so many different Ministers with responsibility for shipping over this time, or that even in this crucial period, we have had another change of Minister. It has also not helped that in the EEC there has been little in the way of a shipbuilding policy worthy of the name. The only policy has been one of
954
limiting state aid by the EEC countries to their respective shipyards. That policy has been inadequate to ensure that Britain and Europe survive the years of shipbuilding slump and will be in a position to pick up orders.
The EEC has adopted a negative approach, which has been aided and abetted by our Government. Over the past nine years, there have been few negotiations on shipbuilding between the EEC and Japan and Korea. Although great concern has been expressed about the unfavourable trade balance between the EEC and the trading countries of the far east, shipbuilding has been a low priority in all those discussions. The latest issue of the publication European Report says that, once again,
"negotiations led by the European Commission with Japan and South Korea to re-organise the world shipbuilding market have come to a standstill."
That standstill is nothing new, because it has existed for the past nine years, and even more so recently, when such discussion was vital for the future of British shipbuilding industry.
The redundancies and restructuring sacrifices made by those in the EEC shipbuilding industry have been unequally shared out. Recently, the Minister admitted to me in a letter that we had lost more shipbuilding jobs than any other EEC country. Capacity in certain European countries has been reduced much more dramatically than in others, despite the existence of supposedly fair EEC rules. The shipbuilding world is not a chivalrous business. It is dependent on political will and decisions by politicians, just as much as on the efforts of business men. For that reason, we feel that the British Government and the EEC have let us down by not defending the industry and ensuring its future.
Furthermore, the demise of shipbuilding takes place at a time when we have a record balance of payments deficit and when that deficit is dramatic in manufactured goods. What is the Government's response? Simply to close down a superb manufacturing facility in Sunderland and run the shipbuilding industry into the ground. This is a disgraceful record.
Throughout the debate, the Government have suggested various palliatives, or bandages, for the wounds of the shipbuilding industry. I know, from experience in the EEC, of the money that is available there to help the shipbuilding areas, and that would have been available for Wearside and the whole of the north-east simply because of the redundancies that have already taken place. The closure of North East Shipbuilders Ltd. is irrelevant to that. We would have earned a large slice of money to help that area, irrespective of the closure.
Other hon. Members have mentioned the different points of view held in the Government's ranks. There is a clear division between various members and supporters of the Conservative party who are interested in maritime policy and shipbuilding and those who, unfortunately, have been particularly powerful in the Cabinet and who have taken the opposite view. It is a great tragedy that the wrong side has won the argument.
Two or three months ago, I accompanied my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) for discussions with the Minister's predecessor. On that occasion, we presented him with a book entitled "Sunderland—the Town where Ships are Born". Unfortunately, we did not realise that we were making that presentation to the man who would be responsible for Sunderland becoming

955
known as the town where shipbuilding died. The Government's decision is disgraceful, and it is one for which they will be blamed for a long time to come—not only in Sunderland and in the north east but throughout the country.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Minister referred to my constituency on a number of occasions during his opening speech, I wish to know why I have not been called to speak—particularly in view of the fact that
one hon. Member who was called honestly admitted he was not present in the Chamber for most of the debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I regret that a number of hon. Members wishing to speak have not been called, and that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is among them. I suggest that he might seek to intervene during one of the wind-up speeches.
6.41 pm
Mr. John Garrett: We have been discussing an industrial tragedy—a tragedy not only for Sunderland but for every region of the country. It has been a deeply serious debate, with my hon. Friends making their analysis of the causes of North East Shipbuilders' closure and its consequences for their constituencies. In an outstanding speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) asked many important questions of the Minister, particularly in respect of the Cubans' latest proposition, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will answer.
There is no doubt that the Government contributed to the closure by concentrating on seeking private owners for the yards in pursuit of their privatisation ideology rather than on helping the yard to obtain orders and assuring its production continuity. One of our concerns is the lack of any Government strategy or policy for merchant shipbuilding, other than to get it out of the public sector by any means, as quickly as possible.
In a memorandum submitted on 14 June to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, British Shipbuilders observed:
"We are concerned that there is apparently no policy concerning the merchant shipbuilding industry or indeed the whole maritime infrastructure of the United Kingdom. This is in no way concerned with the question of either public or private ownership."
British Shipbuilders also made the point that shipping policy should be an integral part of national maritime capacity, and clearly it was right to say so. British Shipbuilders' opinion was that merchant shipbuilding worldwide was on the brink of an upturn for the 1990s, as has been said many times during the debate.
In his evidence to the Select Committee, the chairman of British Shipbuilders said that his view of the upturn was based on the fact that seaborne trade was at a 10-year high and on the increase in freight rates. He remarked that a new generation of efficient modern ships is needed to replace much of the present world fleet. The re-equipment of the Sunderland yard placed it in an excellent position to take advantage of an upturn.
On 28 June, the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told the Select Committee:
"I think there is plainly some improvement in the market, yes … I think I do accept there is a change."
956
He referred to the scope for replacing aging vessels throughout the world. But now it suits the Government to play down the upturn. When all the signs are right, only then do the Government decide to end merchant shipbuilding in a modern, competitive yard.
Ministers talk of £1·8 billion being sunk into British Shipbuilders, but they know that the cost of merchant shipbuilding was about one third of that total. They maintain that all such subsidies are unacceptable. It is a pity that they do not apply the same economic logic to the farm subsidies that they so generously support.
The Government's decision itself incurs enormous costs. Two thousand jobs will be lost in the yards, and for every job lost there, three will go in sub-contracting and service industries. There is also the indirect multiplier effect of the loss of spending power in the local community. At least one job in retailing banking and services is lost for every two redundancies in manufacturing. Therefore, in an area of 20 per cent. unemployment, one is confronting job losses totalling about 10,000.
I turn to the Government's programmes for creating employment in Sunderland—what the Financial Times called a "palliative package". We know something about enterprise zones because last year the DTI published an evaluation report on them. We know that, in the 23 enterprise zones, most of the jobs created were transfers from their local economies—and that most were transfers from areas of high unemployment. Only 12 per cent. of enterprise zone firms were in high-tech industries, 40 per cent. of the new jobs were unskilled, and the cost was £30,000 per job. More than one quarter of the jobs were in retailing and distribution, and the retailing jobs were created at the expense of local city centres. All that is revealed in the Government's own report.
The last thing that Sunderland's redundant skilled workers need is the building of yet another shopping experience or more low-paid, unprotected jobs in retailing or warehousing. The zone cannot, anyway, be established before next April, and it will be long after that before any new jobs appear. Whatever economic development takes place, it will not use shipyard workers' skills or the equipment that is in the yards.
Over the next three years, about £5 million will be made available to encourage new enterprise in Sunderland. That is a paltry sum. With a balance of payments crisis, and record—and still rising—interest rates, there has hardly ever been such an unpropitious time to start new enterprise. We all know that new firms are acutely sensitive to interest rates. Another £5 million will be made available over three years to assist NESL's present staff to retain and to find new jobs. Retrain for what? From where are the new jobs to come? Will the Government assist local organisations to produce an inventory of available skills and help to find a substantial employer willing to use them? Or will the Government trust to market forces to produce sufficient small firms and new starts to provide employment?
One of the most interesting exchanges in the Select Committee concerned national industrial policy. British Shipbuilders' chairman made the modest proposal that there should be a maritime policy for Britain, encouraging British shipbuilders to have ships built in British yards, and that there be a forum in which maritime interests could discuss such issues with the Government. He said that no such regular forum existed. There is no such forum, there is no such policy, and there is no strategy.

957
We have instead a series of financial expedients, which The Guardian of 9 December described as "Young's dream come true":
"Lord Young, the Trade and Industry Secretary, yesterday saw come true his dream of ending his department's role as sponsor to what he sees as British industry's 'lame ducks' and creating a Department of Enterprise … Closure of the NESL shipbuilders was the last big obstacle to establishing his new-look department."
Other Governments defend their shipbuilding interests, but ours sells them out. The Minister in the other place had no intention of saving the yards. The decision was delayed simply because the Prime Minister was giving support to Polish shipyard workers. The closure was a forgone conclusion, and the Secretary of State was determined to kill off NESL so that he could create his new-look Department of Enterprise—or is it Department of Advertising? I am never sure.
The Government have betrayed thousands of shipyard workers and the national interest in an act of gross incompetence and folly.
6.48 pm
Mr. Newton: In view of the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) I must flatly deny that there is any truth in his suggestion that the decision I reluctantly and regretfully announced last week was a forgone conclusion, or that the Prime Minister's visit to Gdansk played the part suggested by the hon. Gentleman and by one of his hon. Friends earlier.
We have been seeking a way forward for the yards within the terms that we set out. In my opening speech, I went to some lengths to describe the various processes through which we went and the various points at which time extensions were allowed to explore further possibilities. I make that absolutely clear. I shall not speak further on that point, because if I do, it will prevent me from replying to points on which hon. Members seek replies.
Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for showing his characteristic courtesy by giving way to me.
May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to his remarks about Clark Kincaid and Ferguson, that the negotiations concerning the buyers at Clark Kincaid are proceeding apace. However, I must say to him, in all seriousness, that the negotiations concerning Ferguson at Port Glasgow are deeply worrying. I have been informed that the shop stewards have been denied a meeting with representatives of the preferred bidders, Ailsa Perth of Troon. If such an impediment has been placed in their way, will the Minister do what he can to bring the two parties together?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has put his point fairly. I hope that he will accept from me that this is the first that I have heard about a difficulty of that kind. There have been a number of occasions when, in advance of the naming of a preferred bidder, there has been some controversy about whether it would be appropriate for representatives of the work force to talk to the various possible bidders, but the general understanding has been that any preferred bidder would wish to talk to the work force in whatever way seemed most appropriate. I have certainly not sought to discourage that. I shall not
958
comment further in my immediate response, but I shall look at the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised on behalf of his constituents and be as helpful as I can—in the spirit in which he raised the question.
The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) asked me a number of questions, which interrelated to a significant extent with points that were made subsequently by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay). He asked me whether the closure proposals for NESL had been notified to the European Commission. The answer is yes. To allow an orderly rundown in activity and to make redundancy payments, we have already notified our intention to pay closure aid at NESL, by way of redundancy payments to the work force and assistance with retraining and job creation.
The hon. Member for Dagenham asked me whether the notification was reversible. I am not sure whether "reversible" is the right word, but it would be possible to renotify to the Commission. Several Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, made that point. There is one problem on which those hon. Members may care to reflect. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North made a proposal, and I once again pay tribute to the ingenuity with which he has acted on these matters in recent weeks and the tremendous effort he has put in. However, it is not clear to me how far it is a proposal from him which the Cubans are considering, or how far it is a proposal from the Cubans, which is, properly, for British Shipbuilders or the Government to consider. I am advised that no such proposal has been received—which is not to say that the Government would not look at it were it received. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands what I am saying.
The point I want to make is that the proposal made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North would itself involve the entire existing work force being made redundant; that is a difficulty on which I want him to reflect. The hon. Member proposed that, after renotification, the work force would be re-employed—he hopes—on some completely new basis to start up the yard again with only one third of the current work force at Sunderland, and that is the best hope that he would hold out.
Manifestly, any process of renotification that called into question the capacity of British Shipbuilders to pay redundancy payments within the terms of the overall notification to the European Community would present considerable difficulties, as the work force at Sunderland would not want to have any question marks raised over the payments that they were expecting in those circumstances. I do not make that point to shoot down the hon. Gentleman's proposal.
The hon. Member for Dagenham asked me to say whether we would negotiate in terms of a proposal on those lines. I should prefer to say that we shall consider any proposition put to us, in the way that I outlined in my statement last week. I said that we had hopes of finding a buyer for Sunderland Forge Services, which employs a significant part of the work force at Sunderland, and that I would ask British Shipbuilders to explore possibilities that appeared to exist in respect of Pallion, rather than Southwick, for a possible use that had connections with shipping—that is, conversions and repair, rather than building. In that same spirit, I will not seek to rule out anything. That would not be in the spirit in which I have been carrying out my responsibilities.

959
However, I must say that I would not be prepared to run risks with the other disposals that have been notified to the Commission as part of an overall package. I must point out to the hon. Member for Dagenham that they have been notified together simply because it is obviously sensible for the Commission to look at our position in respect of British Shipbuilders as a whole. That does not—I repeat not—in any sense mean that any individual proposal is dependent on any other individual proposal that has been put to the Commission at the same time. I am not prepared to do anything that might jeopardise other disposals, on which we have made such good progress, or the package of measures for Sunderland.
Following any proposition put forward by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, there would be a large number of redundancies at Sunderland and it would be necessary to take action to ensure new jobs and new enterprise in the town. I should not want to risk that. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North, gave some indication of his proposition in a message to my office yesterday, but in the circumstances in which he has put it forward, I am not in a position to give any undertakings about the future availability of intervention fund aid for several reasons—some of which I have touched on in the past few minutes.
I can say to the hon. Members for Sunderland, North and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that I can and shall do everything possible to ensure that no options are prematurely blocked off—by, for example, the immediate disposal of equipment in the yards—although I cannot give precise undertakings about the length of time. The Tyne and Wear development corporation, for example, is commissioning a study of possible future uses for the yard, for marine or non-marine purposes, and that must be taken into account. I shall certainly ensure—I deliberately choose general terms—that no precipitate action is taken that blocks off a possibility for using the yards in a productive way as part of the general aim of promoting employment in Sunderland. I hope that that general observation will be welcomed.
Mr. Clay: Will the Minister give at least one commitment? Will he say that he has not entirely ruled out renotifying the Commission that there may be a continuation of shipbuilding at Southwick whatever reduction in the intervention fund next year is consequent on that? Will he at least not rule that out entirely?
Mr. Newton: I have used the phrase "rule out" in some of what I have said, but not in the specific terms that the hon. Gentleman has described. I shall not be as specific as the hon. Gentleman has pressed me to be, simply because I am not prepared to run risks with the package, which we are determined to press ahead with for Sunderland as a whole. Nor am I prepared to jeopardise the successful sale of other yards around the country with the good prospects that exist in those places for the future of the work force. It would be irresponsible for me to run such risks in response to the question that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North has asked me.
It has, inescapably, been impossible for me to comment on all the points that have been raised, including many of the detailed complaints made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North.
Finally. I must say to the hon. Member for Dagenham and other hon. Members that it is quite ludicrous to
960
suggest that this means the end of merchant shipbuilding—let alone shipbuilding—in this country. There will still be more than 30,000 people employed in shipbuilding. British Shipbuilders accounts for a very small part of shipbuilding employment as a whole. There will remain not only important civil yards, such as Govan, but military yards with substantial merchant shipbuilding capacity. Should demand arise for ships that can be sold at satisfactory prices, we could and would turn towards it. No one—not even the hon. Member for Sunderland, North—has suggested that the whole of shipbuilding employment in Sunderland can be retained. In those circumstances, we shall need new enterprise and new jobs in Sunderland, and that is what we are determined to bring about.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 227, Noes 290.

Division No. 16]

[7 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Dixon, Don

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Dobson, Frank

Allen, Graham

Doran, Frank

Alton, David

Douglas, Dick

Anderson, Donald

Duffy, A. E. P.

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Armstrong, Hilary

Eadie, Alexander

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Eastham, Ken

Ashton, Joe

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Fatchett, Derek

Beckett, Margaret

Faulds, Andrew

Beggs, Roy

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Beith, A. J.

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

Bell, Stuart

Fisher, Mark

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

Flannery, Martin

Bermingham, Gerald

Flynn, Paul

Bidwell, Sydney

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Blair, Tony

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Blunkett, David

Foster, Derek

Boyes, Roland

Foulkes, George

Bradley, Keith

Fraser, John

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Fyfe, Maria

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Galbraith, Sam

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Galloway, George

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Buchan, Norman

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Buckley, George J.

George, Bruce

Caborn, Richard

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Callaghan, Jim

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Gordon, Mildred

Canavan, Dennis

Gould, Bryan

Cartwright, John

Graham, Thomas

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clay, Bob

Grocott, Bruce

Clelland, David

Hardy, Peter

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Cohen, Harry

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Heffer, Eric S.

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Henderson, Doug

Corbett, Robin

Hinchliffe, David

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Cousins, Jim

Holland, Stuart

Cox, Tom

Home Robertson, John

Crowther, Stan

Hood, Jimmy

Cryer, Bob

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cummings, John

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Cunningham, Dr John

Howells, Geraint

Dalyell, Tam

Hoyle, Doug

Darling, Alistair

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

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

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Dewar, Donald

Hume, John

961

Illsley, Eric

Pendry, Tom

Ingram, Adam

Pike, Peter L.

Janner, Greville

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Prescott, John

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Primarolo, Dawn

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Quin, Ms Joyce

Kennedy, Charles

Radice, Giles

Kilfedder, James

Randall, Stuart

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Redmond, Martin

Lambie, David

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Lamond, James

Reid, Dr John

Leadbitter, Ted

Richardson, Jo

Leighton, Ron

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Robertson, George

Lewis, Terry

Robinson, Geoffrey

Litherland, Robert

Rooker, Jeff

Livingstone, Ken

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Livsey, Richard

Rowlands, Ted

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Ruddock, Joan

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Salmond, Alex

Loyden, Eddie

Sedgemore, Brian

McAllion, John

Sheerman, Barry

McAvoy, Thomas

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Macdonald, Calum A.

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

McFall, John

Short, Clare

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Skinner, Dennis

McKelvey, William

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

McLeish, Henry

Snape, Peter

McNamara, Kevin

Soley, Clive

McTaggart, Bob

Spearing, Nigel

McWilliam, John

Steinberg, Gerry

Madden, Max

Stott, Roger

Maginnis, Ken

Strang, Gavin

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Straw, Jack

Marek, Dr John

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Turner, Dennis

Martlew, Eric

Vaz, Keith

Maxton, John

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Meale, Alan

Wall, Pat

Michael, Alun

Wallace, James

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Walley, Joan

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Wareing, Robert N.

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Wigley, Dafydd

Morgan, Rhodri

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Morley, Elliott

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Wilson, Brian

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Winnick, David

Mowlam, Marjorie

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Mullin, Chris

Worthington, Tony

Murphy, Paul

Wray, Jimmy

Nellist, Dave

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

O'Brien, William

Tellers for the Ayes:

O'Neill, Martin

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Mrs. Llin Golding.

Patchett, Terry

NOES

Adley, Robert

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Aitken, Jonathan

Bellingham, Henry

Alexander, Richard

Bendall, Vivian

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Allason, Rupert

Benyon, W.

Amess, David

Bevan, David Gilroy

Amos, Alan

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Arbuthnot, James

Body, Sir Richard

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Arnold, Tom (Hazal Grove)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Ashby, David

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Aspinwall, Jack

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Atkins, Robert

Bowis, John

Atkinson, David

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Baldry, Tony

Brazier, Julian

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Bright, Graham

Batiste, Spencer

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

962

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Hanley, Jeremy

Buck, Sir Antony

Hannam, John

Budgen, Nicholas

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

Burt, Alistair

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Butcher, John

Harris, David

Butler, Chris

Haselhurst, Alan

Butterfill, John

Hawkins, Christopher

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Hayes, Jerry

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Carrington, Matthew

Hayward, Robert

Carttiss, Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Cash, William

Heddle, John

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Chapman, Sydney

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Chope, Christopher

Hill, James

Churchill, Mr

Hind, Kenneth

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

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Holt, Richard

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hordern, Sir Peter

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

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

Colvin, Michael

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Conway, Derek

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Cormack, Patrick

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Couchman, James

Hunter, Andrew

Cran, James

Irvine, Michael

Critchley, Julian

Irving, Charles

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

Jack, Michael

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Jackson, Robert

Day, Stephen

Janman, Tim

Devlin, Tim

Jessel, Toby

Dickens, Geoffrey

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Dicks, Terry

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dorrell, Stephen

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dover, Den

Key, Robert

Durant, Tony

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Dykes, Hugh

Kirkhope, Timothy

Emery, Sir Peter

Knapman, Roger

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Evennett, David

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Fallon, Michael

Knowles, Michael

Favell, Tony

Knox, David

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lang, Ian

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Latham, Michael

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Lawrence, Ivan

Fishburn, John Dudley

Lee, John (Pendle)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Forman, Nigel

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lightbown, David

Forth, Eric

Lilley, Peter

Fox, Sir Marcus

Lord, Michael

Freeman, Roger

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

French, Douglas

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Fry, Peter

McCrindle, Robert

Gardiner, George

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Garel-Jones, Tristan

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Gill, Christopher

Maclean, David

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

McLoughlin, Patrick

Glyn, Dr Alan

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Goodhart, Sir Philip

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Goodlad, Alastair

Madel, David

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Major, Rt Hon John

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Malins, Humfrey

Gow, Ian

Mans, Keith

Gower, Sir Raymond

Maples, John

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Marland, Paul

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Marlow, Tony

Gregory, Conal

Marshall, Micheal (Arundel)

Griffiths Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Mates, Michael

Grist, Ian

Maude, Hon Francis

Grylls, Michael

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Hampson, Dr Keith

Miller, Sir Hal

963

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Moate, Roger

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Monro, Sir Hector

Shersby, Michael

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Sims, Roger

Moore, Rt Hon John

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Morrison, Sir Charles

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Speller, Tony

Moss, Malcolm

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Mudd, David

Squire, Robin

Neale, Gerrard

Stanbrook, Ivor

Nelson, Anthony

Steen, Anthony

Neubert, Michael

Stern, Michael

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Stevens, Lewis

Nicholls, Patrick

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Stokes, Sir John

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Oppenheim, Phillip

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Page, Richard

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Paice, James

Temple-Morris, Peter

Patnick, Irvine

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Thorne, Neil

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Thurnham, Peter

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Porter, David(Waveney)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Portillo, Michael

Trotter, Neville

Powell, William (Corby)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Price, Sir David

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Raffan, Keith

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Rathbone Tim

Waller, Gary

Redwood, John

Walters, Sir Dennis

Renton, Tim

Ward, John

Rhodes James, Robert

Warren, Kenneth

Riddick, Graham

Watts, John

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Wells, Bowen

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Wheeler, John

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Widdecombe, Ann

Roe, Mrs Marion

Wiggin, Jerry

Rost, Peter

Wilkinson, John

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Wood, Timothy

Sayeed, Jonathan

Woodcock, Mike

Scott, Nicholas

Yeo, Tim

Shaw, David (Dover)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Tellers for the Noes:

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Mr. John M. Taylor and

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Mr. Tom Sackville.

Question accordingly negatived.
It being after Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the main Question, pursuant to order [9 December]:
The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 223.

Division No. 17]

[7.14 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Benyon, W.

Aitken, Jonathan

Bevan, David Gilroy

Alexander. Richard

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Allason, Rupert

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Amess, David

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Amos, Alan

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Arbuthnot, James

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Brazier, Julian

Ashby, David

Bright, Graham

Aspinwall, Jack

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

Atkins, Robert

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Atkinson, David

Buck, Sir Antony

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Budgen, Nicholas

Baldry, Tony

Burt, Alistair

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Butcher, John

Batiste, Spencer

Butler, Chris

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Butterfill, John

Bellingham, Henry

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Bendall, Vivian

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Carrington, Matthew

964

Carttiss, Michael

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Cash, William

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Hill, James

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hind, Kenneth

Chapman, Sydney

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Chope, Christopher

Holt, Richard

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

Hordern, Sir Peter

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Colvin, Michael

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Conway, Derek

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Hunter, Andrew

Cormack, Patrick

Irvine, Michael

Couchman, James

Irving, Charles

Cran, James

Jack, Michael

Critchley, Julian

Jackson, Robert

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

Janman, Tim

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Jessel, Toby

Day, Stephen

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Devlin, Tim

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Dicks, Terry

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Key, Robert

Dover, Den

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Durant, Tony

Kirkhope, Timothy

Dykes, Hugh

Knapman, Roger

Emery, Sir Peter

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Evennett, David

Knowles, Michael

Fallon, Michael

Knox, David

Favell, Tony

Lang, Ian

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Latham, Michael

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lawrence, Ivan

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Lee, John (Pendle)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Forman, Nigel

Lightbown, David

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lilley, Peter

Forth, Eric

Lloyd, Michael

Fox, Sir Marcus

Lord, Michael

Freeman, Roger

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

French, Douglas

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Fry, Peter

MaCrindle, Robert

Gardiner, George

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Mackey, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Gill, Christopher

McLoughlin, Patrick

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Glyn, Dr Alan

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Madel, David

Goodlad, Alastair

Major, Rt Hon John

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Malins, Humfrey

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Mans, Keith

Gow, Ian

Maples, John

Gower, Sir Raymond

Marland, Paul

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Marlow, Tony

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Gregory, Conal

Mates, Michael

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Maude, Hon Francis

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Grist, Ian

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Miller, Sir Hal

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hanley, Jeremy

Moate, Roger

Hannam, John

Monro, Sir Hector

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

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Moore, Rt Hon John

Harris, David

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Haselhurst, Alan

Morrison, Sir Charles

Hawkins, Christopher

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Hayes, Jerry

Moss, Malcolm

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Hayward, Robert

Mudd, David

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Neale, Gerrard

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Nelson, Anthony

965

Neubert, Michael

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Nicholls, Patrick

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Speller, Tony

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Squire, Robin

Page, Richard

Stanbrook, Ivor

Paice, James

Stern, Michael

Patnick, Irvine

Stevens, Lewis

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Stokes, Sir John

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Porter, David (Waveney)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Portillo, Michael

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Powell, William (Corby)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Price, Sir David

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Raffan, Keith

Thorne, Neil

Rathbone, Tim

Thurnham, Peter

Redwood, John

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Renton, Tim

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Rhodes James, Robert

Trotter, Neville

Riddick, Graham

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Waller, Gary

Roe, Mrs Marion

Walters, Sir Dennis

Rost, Peter

Warren, Kenneth

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Wells, Bowen

Sackville, Hon Tom

Wheeler, John

Sayeed, Jonathan

Widdecombe, Ann

Scott, Nicholas

Wiggin, Jerry

Shaw, David (Dover)

Wood, Timothy

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Woodcock, Mike

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Yeo, Tim

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Mr. Stephen Dorrell and

Shersby, Michael

Mr. David Maclean.

Sims, Roger

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clelland, David

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Allen, Graham

Cohen, Harry

Alton, David

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Anderson, Donald

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Corbett, Robin

Armstrong, Hilary

Corbyn, Jeremy

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Cousins, Jim

Ashton, Joe

Crowther, Stan

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cryer, Bob

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Cummings, John

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Cunningham, Dr John

Beckett, Margaret

Dalyell, Tam

Beggs, Roy

Darling, Alistair

Beith, A. J.

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Bell, Stuart

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

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

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

Bermingham, Gerald

Dewar, Donald

Bidwell, Sydney

Dixon, Don

Blair, Tony

Dobson, Frank

Blunkett, David

Doran, Frank

Boyes, Roland

Douglas, Dick

Bradley, Keith

Duffy, A. E. P.

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Eadie, Alexander

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Eastham, Ken

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Buchan, Norman

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Buckley, George J.

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Caborn, Richard

Fatchett, Derek

Callaghan, Jim

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

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Fisher, Mark

Canavan, Dennis

Flannery, Martin

Cartwright, John

Flynn, Paul

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Clay, Bob

Foster, Derek

966

Foulkes, George

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Fraser, John

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Fyfe, Maria

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Galbraith, Sam

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Galloway, George

Morgan, Rhodri

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Morley, Elliott

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

George, Bruce

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Mowlam, Marjorie

Gordon, Mildred

Mullin, Chris

Gould, Bryan

Murphy, Paul

Graham, Thomas

Nellist, Dave

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

O'Brien, William

Grocott, Bruce

O'Neill, Martin

Hardy, Peter

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Patchett, Terry

Heffer, Eric S.

Pendry, Tom

Henderson, Doug

Pike, Peter L.

Hinchliffe, David

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Prescott, John

Holland, Stuart

Primarolo, Dawn

Home Robertson, John

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hood, Jimmy

Radice, Giles

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Randall, Stuart

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Redmond, Martin

Howells, Geraint

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Hoyle, Doug

Reid, Dr John

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Richardson, Jo

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Robertson, George

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Rooker, Jeff

Illsley, Eric

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Ingram, Adam

Rowlands, Ted

Janner, Greville

Ruddock, Joan

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Salmond, Alex

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Sedgemore, Brian

Kennedy, Charles

Sheerman, Barry

Kilfedder, James

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Lambie, David

Short, Clare

Lamond, James

Skinner, Dennis

Leadbitter, Ted

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

Leighton, Ron

Snape, Peter

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Soley, Clive

Lewis, Terry

Spearing, Nigel

Litherland, Robert

Steinberg, Gerry

Livingstone, Ken

Stott, Roger

Livsey, Richard

Strang, Gavin

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Straw, Jack

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Loyden, Eddie

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

McAllion, John

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

McAvoy, Thomas

Turner, Dennis

Macdonald, Calum A.

Vaz, Keith

McFall, John

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Wall, Pat

McKelvey, William

Wallace, James

McLeish, Henry

Walley, Joan

McNamara, Kevin

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

McTaggart, Bob

Wareing, Robert N.

McWilliam, John

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Madden, Max

Wigley, Dafydd

Maginnis, Ken

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Marek, Dr John

Winnick, David

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Worthington, Tony

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Wray, Jimmy

Martlew, Eric

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Maxton, John

Meacher, Michael

Tellers for the Noes:

Meale, Alan

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Michael, Alun

Mrs. Llin Golding.

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,

967
That this House notes with approval the progress which has been made towards returning to the private sector the shipbuilding yards and other facilities owned by British Shipbuilders; notes also that, despite every effort, it has not proved possible to establish a viable basis for continued shipbuilding at North East Shipbuilders Ltd.; and warmly welcomes the measures proposed by Her Majesty's Government to encourage new enterprise and employment opportunities on Wearside.

Orders of the Day

  Transport (Scotland) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.26 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The purpose of the Bill is to privatise the Scottish Bus Group, to make provision for the future of Caledonian MacBrayne and to dissolve the Scottish Transport Group. It will lead to a major change in the organisation of Scotland's public transport system and it marks an important further stage in the Government's policy of returning nationalised industries to the private sector.
  The objectives of the Government's privatisation policy are, first, to increase real competition and as a result to increase efficiency and responsiveness to the consumer; secondly, to widen share ownership; thirdly, to release enterprise by removing Government controls from industry; and fourthly, to create new locally based Scottish companies which will strengthen the private sector in Scotland.
  The Scottish Transport Group is a significant employer in Scotland. It employs about 10,000 people, providing bus and ferry services. The main subsidiary of the group is the Scottish Bus Group, which employs about 9,000 people. With its 3,000 buses, it is a dominant force in the Scottish bus market. Through its various geographical subsidiaries, it provides over half the local bus services in Scotland. Some of these companies had their origins in the great period of bus expansion. The bus industry was then responding to a growing demand for popular travel. Although it is still a lively and innovative industry, bus operators now face a different situation. The growth of car ownership is mirrored by a long-term decline in the number of people travelling on buses.
  However, it is far from being a dying industry. When an economy is growing, the demand for travel grows as well. Public transport has to respond to this and also to new types of transport demand. For instance, increased car ownership can lead to congestion in cities and to the need for public transport to provide a better way of moving large numbers of people on limited road space. New types of vehicle, such as minibuses, can offer cheaper and more flexible ways of meeting demand which cannot be met by larger buses on major routes.
  In order to let the bus market respond to the changing demands of the public transport market, it was necessary, first, to free it of the restrictions of regulation which had governed its operations for 50 years. We did that in 1986, when bus services throughout Scotland were deregulated on 26 October of that year. From that date, subject to safety requirements and avoidance of congestion, a bus operator was free to run a service wherever he saw a commercial opportunity. The system was designed to encourage the bus operator to find out what the public wanted and provide it.
  There were many prophets of doom who said that deregulation would not work and that rural bus services would disappear. That has not happened. Local authorities have used their subsidy powers wisely. The

  969
  network of rural services remains intact. What is more, local authorities have been able to get their subsidised bus services at significantly less cost. Far from leading to a decline in bus services generally, deregulation actually led to an increase in the number of vehicle miles operated. Critics have said that these extra miles are on existing routes. Some of them are, and the result is that the busy routes, which were once the preserve of a single operator, now have competition. This means more buses and downward pressure on fares. In some cases there have been significant fare reductions.
  Deregulation has also allowed new operators to emerge. In Scotland, 40 new firms have, since deregulation, provided local services. The number of vehicle miles provided by independent operators has increased by a third. Deregulation has encouraged innovation. There are more minibuses providing new services in housing estates. There are hail-and-ride services.
  Having deregulated bus services in Scotland, the next step in making the industry more responsive to its customers is privatisation. The privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group will create 11 new locally based companies where previously there was only a single, dominant, nationalised industry.
  Mr. James Wallace: I hear what the Secretary of State says, but would he be concerned if the result of privatisation were that the 11 separate companies were all bought up by a single company? Does he believe that that would promote competition, and will he seek powers to try to prevent that from happening?
  Mr. Rifkind: I would be intensely disappointed if that were to happen, but I do not believe that it will. I shall deal later with the Government's approach to the flotation of the individual companies, which will be relevant to the hon. Gentleman's point.
  We have three important aims in our privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group. I want to explain in greater detail how each will be achieved.
  The first aim is viaible and sustained competition. As I announced to the House on 30 November, the Scottish Bus Group, with its 3,000 buses, will be split into 11 units. These will vary in size, depending on local competition. Seven of the units will be existing subsidiaries of the Scottish Bus Group. The number of buses will range from 122 buses to 340 buses. All broadly correspond to the boundaries of a regional council, although since deregulation there are no longer exclusive territories. Two further companies will be created by combining Western and Clydeside and by combining Central and Kelvin. That will create two companies of around 700 buses and provide balanced competition with Strathclyde Buses, which is of similar size. In addition, Scottish CityLink, the coach firm, and SGB Engineering will be separately privatised to make the total of 11 units.
  We believe that the Scottish travelling public will benefit from the creation of a number of new independent companies that can sustain vigorous competition.
  Mr. David Marshall: The Transport Act 1985 led to the privatisation of the National Bus Company in England and Wales. The Government saw fit not to privatise the Scottish Bus Group at that time.
  970
  What has happened since then to bring about that change of policy? What is the benefit of privatising the Scottish Bus Group now when there was apparently no benefit from doing so three years ago?
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will recall that we did not then rule out the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group. Two aspects led to no measure being introduced at that time. First, we wished to give priority to deregulation. We believed that it was such an important change that it had to be allowed usefully and comprehensively to come into effect. Secondly, we thought that it would be viable to look at what happened after the National Bus Company was privatised. The privatisation has been successful and it has led us to conclude that the time is ripe to introduce these proposals.
  We considered whether we should divide the Scottish Bus Group into an even larger number of units in order to create more widespread competition. We were much impressed by the enthusiasm of the work force of the Bannockburn depot to set up their own company. We took their proposals very seriously. However, we decided that a smaller number of larger companies would also ensure vigorous competition and would at the same time provide greater stability of services.
  Mr. Harry Ewing: I notice that in the Secretary of State's recent statement and in his speech this evening he has deliberately referred to the workers at the Bannockburn depot. Is he aware that they wrote to me personally and, I suspect, to a number of my hon. Friends and complained about the fact that their Member of Parliament had refused to provide them with the information that they needed on which to base their inquiries about buying the depot?
  Mr. Rifkind: That is untrue.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: Not at all.
  Mr. Rifkind: I am sorry; I repeat that that is quite untrue. I do not know what they have said to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), but the allegation that he has reported to the House is untrue. After the meeting between my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and his constituents from the Bannockburn depot, he discussed their request with me and we took measures to ensure that the information that they had requested was made available to them. I personally ensured that the Scottish Bus Group would ensure, for its part, that the information would be made available to the people concerned.
  If the hon. Gentleman has received such a letter, I should be grateful if he will pass it to me so that we may consider what points have been made. I am entirely confident that, quite apart from his enthusiasm for the proposals, my hon. Friend has complied 100 per cent. with the responsibilities that he would properly have undertaken as a local Member of Parliament.
  Obviously the pattern of sales depends on the bids that are made, but it is clear that bus competition will be maximised if the new companies that we are to create form a net addition to the number of bus companies that are already operating.
  Our second aim is local control and responsiveness to local needs. The existing organisation of the Scottish Bus Group obviously makes provision for decisions to be devolved to local management. However, we want to

  971
  increase this local responsiveness by setting up independent companies that are locally based and that are in close touch with the communities they serve.
  The new companies will be free both from the central control of being part of a large group and free from Government controls over their investment. We took that into account in our decisions on the pattern of privatisation. I know, for instance, that the Borders was keen to retain its own locally based bus company, Lowland Scottish, which it has had since 1986. This local company was able to be more responsive to local needs. I was glad to be able to announce that Lowland Scottish would be privatised as an individual company. Elsewhere, the scale of the companies should allow them to be in close touch with their communities.
  Our third aim is to widen share ownership and increase employee involvement in the firms in which they work. I was delighted to see the widespread interest shown by management and employees in buying their own companies which followed on my statement on 30 November. For instance, a substantial number of the work force at Strathtay Buses are already contributing to a savings scheme to buy shares in their own company. In Northern Scottish, which serves Grampian, staff have also started a savings scheme and are keen to take part in a buy-out. Highland Scottish staff have started a savings scheme. In Midland and Fife the management are keen to mount bids involving the staff. In fact, I would expect that in every bus company a management-employee buy-out proposal will be developed.
  Mr. Alistair Darling: May I ask the Secretary of State a question that I asked him yesterday on electricity privatisation but which he failed to answer? Even if there is a management buy-out, what will he do if the shareholders in the new company sell to a third party? That happened in England. There were management buy-outs, after which there were sales to Gibraltar and other places. How will the Secretary of State ensure that control over the Scottish bus industry remains in Scotland: or is he concerned only about the location of its head office—never mind who owns and controls the undertaking?
  Mr. Rifkind: We are seeking to encourage bids not just from management but from management and employees, combined. There is a crucial difference between the two. Apart from the obvious difference, there is also the factor that if management and employees combine in a successful bid to acquire a company, the proportion of the shares that are acquired to control the company could not lead to a change of control unless the staff as well as the management wished such a change to take place. The hon. Gentleman has referred to management alone being involved in a buy-out. That is one of the reasons why, if one had to choose between the two options, I should prefer a management-employee buy-out to succeed rather than one that involved the management alone.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The Secretary of State says that he is keen on employees becoming involved in the ownership of companies. Will he arrange for the Bill to provide for a minimum number of employee shareholders, and will he also provide for the right of veto by employees to prevent sale to a third party?
  Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman waits for a moment, he will find that I am about to refer to the provisions in the Bill that represent Government policy on that matter. It will answer at least part of the question that he has put to me. Staff and management in virtually all the companies in Scotland have expressed their support for the possibility of a buy-out, and I am delighted to read of the support for buy-outs which is forthcoming from the trade unions. It was reported in the press that the Transport and General Workers Union will encourage its members to participate in buy-out schemes. The Unity Trust, which is financed by the trade union movement, has already helped to provide the funds for a buy-out in England. I understand from the press that there are to be discussions about its involvement in the Scottish Bus Group privatisation.
  We in the Government will play our part. In my recent statement to the House, I said that I was keen that this privatisation should increase employee participation and that financial assistance would be provided to management-employee teams who are considering making a bid. Hon. Members on both sides of the House welcomed this undertaking. The financial assistance will be designed to enable management-employee teams to obtain the professional, financial and other advice necessary to enable them to put forward credible proposals for purchasing their companies. It will be available to one management-employee team per company.
  The aim is to ensure that, when developing proposals, management-employee teams are not disadvantaged as compared with existing companies in the private sector who already have their own sources of professional advice and may be contemplating making bids. The assistance will be available in the form of an underwriting, by the Scottish Transport Group, of a proportion of the fees which teams will incur. In the event of a bid being successful, the assistance will require to be repaid. If, however, the bid fails, the greater part of the fees will be met.
  I am pleased to announce that the level of assistance in such cases will be 75 per cent. of the costs of approved fees for the preparation of a detailed bid, in each case not exceeding £65,000—that is, maximum assistance of £48,750. In addition, the Scottish Transport Group will run seminars for managers and make a video on buy-outs which will be shown at depots. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I am delighted at this enthusiastic welcome for initiatives which the Government have in mind. We have not yet decided who will feature in the videos, but I am open to constructive suggestions from Opposition Members.
  I was also asked what other form of preference would be given to management-employee teams—in particular whether they would be given financial assistance towards the bid itself. I am bound to say that it would be somewhat circular for the Government to give money to a potential purchaser to buy an asset from the Government. An element of financial preference was given to management buy-outs in the National Bus Company privatisation.
  I have already said that we want a rather different pattern of bids in Scotland, with much greater involvement by employees. This is already evident with the widespread reports of management-employee interest. We would clearly wish to give some preference to management-employee proposals, but I have already made it clear that

  973
  we cannot give a guarantee that any one type of potential purchaser will always succeed, irrespective of the price offered.
  As hon. Members will see from clause 2, price is not the only consideration which I shall take into account when deciding on which bids to accept. The main test will always be the promotion of sustained and fair competition. Subject to that, the other considerations I will have to take into account are employee participation and price. New Scottish-based companies with significant employee participation will clearly satisfy some of the competition and participation objectives, but it is essential that the price is also relevant to the value of the assets.
  Hon. Members will wish to note that we have given greater emphasis to employee participation in the Bill than was the case with the National Bus Company disposals in the Transport Act 1985. In particular, clause 2 provides that emloyee participation should be taken into account —with the question of sale proceeds, and subject to the main objective of promoting competition—in framing the disposal programme. In the 1985 Act, employee participation was not taken into account when the programme was being prepared and it was taken into account only so far as practicable when it was carried out. This difference in emphasis reflects our keenness to have management-employee buy-outs, provided, of course, that a proper price is paid for public assets.
  I welcome the proposal put forward by the management and employees of Grampian Regional Transport to buy their company from its owners, Grampian regional council. I particularly welcome the fact that the buy-out has the support of all policital parties on Grampian regional council. The proposal provides for substantial employee participation in the company through an employee share ownership plan. Discussions between the regional council and the Scottish Development Department are now at a very advanced stage and I expect, subject to studying information sent to me yesterday by the council, to be able to give formal approval to the proposal soon.
  I very much hope that the three other public transport companies—in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee—will follow the same course as Grampian and provide their employees with the same opportunity to participate in the ownership of their companies.
  Mr. John McAllion: When the Secretary of State last made a statement on this matter, he said that there was evidence of support among employees of the Tayside public transport company for privatisation. I asked him to give us the evidence, but he did not provide any. Will he take this opportunity to give us the evidence which led him to claim that there is support among employees of the Tayside public transport company for privatisation and a buy-out?
  Mr. Rifkind: I notice that the hon. Gentleman mentions employees and does not dispute the claim about management. It appears that there is common ground between us that the management in Dundee are keen on a buy-out.
  Mr. McAllion indicated dissent.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head at that, too. All I can say is that that is the information that I was given. If the management and the employees show that they are uninterested in having the same opportunities as the management and employees in Grampian, that will be interesting. In Strathtay, which operates in a comparable part of Scotland, we have found that that is not the view of employees.
  The other component of the Scottish Transport Group is Caledonian MacBrayne. It provides essential ferry services on the west coast of Scotland. It has 28 vessels of varying types and sizes, depending on the different requirements of its 26 routes and employs about 800 people. When we came to office we increased the support for Caledonian MacBrayne significantly in real terms. During the past three years, we have been able to reduce subsidy while keeping the general level of fare increases in line with inflation. The reduced subsidy reflects a reduced need for subsidy to provide the same level of service—it is not a reduction in our commitment to ferry services. It is the result of reduced oil prices, increased carryings and increased efficiency. We are anxious that this trend should continue, and that the company should further reduce subsidy while maintaining the standard of service.
  Since 1979, there has been substantial investment in CalMac. We have approved £22 million in new vessels and £6 million on new piers. In 1984 the new Isle of Arran came into service, and in 1985 the new Hebridean Isles came into service. In 1987, the new Isle of Mull was launched at Port Glasgow and early next year a new vessel to serve Barra and Lochboisdale will be launched, also at Port Glasgow. Linkspans have been added to the piers at Uig, Tarbert, Lochmaddy and Colonsay. A linkspan is at present being built at Barra. These are greatly improving the time for unloading and the quality of the service.
  For the most part, however, these services do not make a profit, and a subsidy of about £6 million a year is required. I have always been clear that Caledonian MacBrayne is not a straightforward case for privatisation. The first priority in any arrangements is to guarantee the lifeline services which they provide. It is for this reason that, having studied the issues carefully, I have decided that, on the dissolution of the Scottish Transport Group, the ownership of Caledonian MacBrayne should be transferred to the Secretary of State. The Bill makes provision for this.
  I intend to appoint a new board for the company, which will contain persons with commercial expertise, including some with first-hand knowledge of the islands served and their needs. That is vital to ensure the responsiveness of the company to its customers. As a matter of priority, I would look to the new board to examine the possibilities of relocating the headquarters nearer the centre of the area which it serves. Oban seems likely to prove a suitable place for this purpose. I shall also ask the new board to explore the possibility of transferring to the private sector the Gourock-Dunoon and Wemyss bay-Rothesay routes. It is anomalous that Caledonian MacBrayne operates a substantial service on a route similar to one operated by an unsubsidised private operation. In the longer term, I will expect the board to examine carefully all existing practices in the company's operation with a view to providing more efficient and cost-effective ways of providing at least the present standard of service.
  No options for the longer term will be excluded, subject to the overriding proviso that they must ensure at least the

  975
  present quality of service to the islands. I consider that, with its own board and independence, CalMac will be well placed to continue to provide an improving and cost-effective service to the islands.
  The Government attach great importance to improved communications for the remoter parts of Scotland and, in particular, for the islands. As I have mentioned we have provided substantial resources for Caledonian MacBrayne. We also believe that the smaller islands should not be neglected. In Orkney, a substantial improvement is being carried out in the internal ferry services supported by Government grant. Last week we announced that we would be paying grant on two new roll-on/roll-off vessels for the outer North Isles of Orkney. We accept that, in per head terms, the cost of providing adequate communications for small remote islands may appear large. However, we believe that, within limits, everyone should enjoy benefits of improved communications.
  A good example of the problems of improving communications in remote areas is Vatersay in the Outer Hebrides. In 1985 my predecessor announced that he was prepared to pay grant on a causeway linking Vatersay with Barra. Since then, the islands council has taken forward the necessary preparatory work promoting a parliamentary order and carrying out a hydrographic survey. The main obstacle to further progress was accommodating such a project within its normal capital allocation. I am happy to announce today that I shall be making a special addition to the islands council's capital allocation for 1989–90 and for the following year to accommodate the building of the Vatersay causeway.
  I understand that Vatersay has seen an alarming drop in population in recent years and also that it is the firm view of the islands council that this trend can be reversed with improved communications. I therefore look to see a return of population to Vatersay with the improved communications which this causeway will bring.
  In addition to the bus group and CalMac there are also a number of minor interests of the Scottish Transport Group to be disposed of, including the SMT Insurance Company and Sanderson Travel, before the Scottish Transport Group can he dissolved. The future of those subsidiaries is being considered at present, with the help of my financial advisers, Quayle Munro. I may decide that some such disposals should take place prior to the passage of the Bill under the Scottish Transport Group's existing powers to dispose of activities not required for the on-going purposes of their business. Any disposals made in advance of legislation will, however, be limited to these minor interests and will not include any of the operating subsidiaries of the Scottish Bus Group.
  I should like to turn briefly to the detailed provisions of the Bill. The first part deals with the bus group. It gives me the power to draw up, after consultation with the Scottish Transport Group, a programme for the disposal to the private sector of the Scottish Bus Group's subsidiaries and the minor subsidiaries of the Scottish Transport Group. It provides that, in preparing that programme, my main objective will be to promote sustained and fair competition. I am further required to have regard to the desirability of encouraging employee participation, a matter to which I have already referred, and to the effect of implementing the disposal programme on the net proceeds to he expected from all disposals.
  976
  The Scottish Transport Group will be required to implement the disposal programme within a time scale which will be specified in the programme and will be given the necessary power to make any necessary preparations— for example, by forming subsidiaries or transferring property rights or liabilities between them. In implementing the programme, the group will be required to have regard to my main objective of promoting sustained and fair competition, and to the other considerations relating to employee participation and disposal proceeds relevant to the drawing up of the programme. Each disposal will require my consent. The group is furthermore required, in conducting its business in the period before privatisation, to have regard to the estimated effect of its activities on the likely net proceeds of sale.
  Part II of the Bill relates to the group's shipping operations and simply provides for the transfer of ownership of Caledonian MacBrayne to me on a date to be appointed, after suitable preparations have been made. It also provides that the annual accounts of CalMac should be laid before Parliament while the company is in my ownership. There is also provision for the Secretary of State to give any necessary directions and to guarantee borrowing by the company. Part III of the Bill contains a number of general provisions including powers to enable transitional arrangements to be made, should they be needed, with regard to group services and pensions, financial provisions and powers to dissolve the Scottish Transport Group once the disposal programme has been completed and the ownership of Caledonian MacBrayne transferred to the Secretary of State.
  The Bill has important implications for the future of Scottish public transport. It will create new locally based Scottish bus companies designed to provide competitive bus services. That will benefit the traveller who stands to gain from the competition among a number of companies. It will give a boost to Scottish enterprise. It will provide Caledonian MacBrayne with its own independent board and the stimulus to increased cost-effectiveness and responsive to its island communities.
  The reaction of the employees and management of the various companies that make up the Scottish Bus Group demonstrates that they are enthusiastic about the opportunities that are now available to them. In Grampian there is all-party support for similar proposals for the passenger transport company in that area. If the Labour party, the Democrats, the Nationalists and the Conservatives in Grampian believe it is right to give employees and management an opportunity to own the bus company in which they work, I hope, although I cannot anticipate, that the same parties in the House will not wish to deny management and employees elsewhere in Scotland similar opportunities. If they wish to deny them, it will certainly be appropriate and opportune for an explanation to be given as to the differences between their approach to Grampian and to the rest of Scotland.
  The Bill offers exciting opportunities in the bus industry which will benefit the consumer as well as the employees and management. Accordingly, I commend the Bill to the House.
  7.55 pm
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I begin on a note of total harmony, by welcoming very warmly the Secretary of State's announcement about the causeway to

  977
  Vatersay. That is a matter close to my heart and the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald). I have not the slightest doubt that, without that announcement, the island of Vatersay would have gone the way of other Hebridean islands and within a relatively short time would have been left devoid of population. That would be particularly inappropriate as Vatersay is populated largely by people whose forebears came from the island of Mingulay, when it became depopulated due to the lack of a reasonable harbour. I welcome the announcement very warmly and advise my hon. Friends that, if they want £3 million on Wednesday, they should get an Adjournment debate on Thursday.
  At that point, the harmony ends. We have heard from the Secretary of State the familiar fable about thrusting competition, undisturbed rural services, eager shareholders, and delighted consumers—a veritable Brigadoon. It is all the more remarkable that the party that the right hon. and learned Gentleman stands for measures its support at 19 per cent., even in Brigadoon. He spoke of real competition and new locally based Scottish companies, but all those delights are speculation. None of it is in the legislation. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing in the English experience that leads us to believe that the picture that the Secretary of State has painted is likely to become reality.
  We are against the privatisation of the Scottish Transport Group and of the Scottish Bus Group in particular. We consider it an unnecessary measure, and we believe that we should leave well alone. We believe that there is no demand from consumers or employees of the Scottish Bus Group for its privatisation. Now, through yet another unwelcome piece of Conservative legislation for which no mandate exists in Scotland, we are engaged in a damage limitation exercise.
  Mr. Rifkind: So that we can be clear about the hon. Gentleman's position and that of his party, is he saying explicitly that, even if he could be satisfied that every company that is to be privatised would be sold to a management-employee buy-out, nevertheless he would advise his hon. Friends to vote against the Bill because of his opposition to privatisation?
  Mr. Wilson: I shall come to that in good time. For the moment, it is important to note that that is not what is in the Bill. In spite of the Secretary of State's impressive sleight of hand in attempting to suggest otherwise, that is not what is on offer, so he asks me a hypothetical question.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What is the hypothetical answer?
  Mr. Wilson: The real answer will come in a short time, if the hon. Gentleman can contain his red-tied eagerness.
  Scotland needs a comprehensive, integrated bus service. That service can be run only with due regard for the social interest. In this, as in so many other matters, that is the philosophy which the Government have deserted.
  The Secretary of State spoke about the need to respond to changing times and the increase in private car ownership—all of it true—but the implication that, because more people own private cars, we need less social remit in the public transport service which remains, stands truth on its head. The fact that proportionately more
  978
  economically disadvantaged people and people living in rural areas depend on public transport is the justification for leaving the service in public hands and having a social remit rather than a justification for the priority of private profit.
  No transport debate can be complete without reference to safety considerations. There is much talk about bus competition. The Secretary of State referred repeatedly to "real competition", as though it were universally accepted that that was a condition to which to aspire. As we watch the deregulated competitive buses hurtling down the A9 or the unimproved A74 or the unextended M8, some of us question whether competition on the roads is such a wonderful idea. We sometimes have the uneasy feeling that here is yet another disaster waiting to happen.
  We do not believe that the product of the exercise will be a series of worker and management-owned and controlled bus companies throughout Scotland. We would conditionally welcome that. We see the Bill as an opportunity on the cheap for the expansion of large and powerful operators whose loyalty is not to communities, levels of service or working conditions. The loyalty will be to profit. How that profit is gained will be a matter with which the Government will not concern themselves too much.
  I want to take up the points that the Secretary of State made about Grampian. The right hon. and learned Gentelman trumpeted Grampian loudly, both when he announced the legislation and again tonight. We are told that Grampian is to be held up as the model of political unity on the joys of privatisation. That is rubbish and a travesty of the truth.
  In June, when the Secretary of State initially intimated his intention to privatise the Scottish Bus Group, naturally the municipal bus authorities and those who run them listened to his words and started to draw some uncomfortable conclusions. Bus Business of 15 June 1988 stated:
  "Scotland's four municipally-owned bus operators have been thrown into doubt about their future by the suggestion from Scottish Secretary Malcolm Rifkind that his announcement about the break up and privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group drew attention to their 'somewhat anomalous position'".
  The Secretary of State went on to say tactfully that the Scottish Bus Group decision must have "implications for them". The municipal bus authorities saw a thinly veiled threat that they were next to go down the road taken by the Scottish Bus Group. Not surprisingly, they looked again for ways to pre-empt, and engage in damage limitation. To say that the people who controlled and operated these municipal services in Grampian and elsewhere were advocates or supporters of privatisation is not true.
  Mr. Rifkind: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with considerable fascination. If he suggests that Grampian regional council has no choice and that the employees, management and the council are simply indulging in what he calls "damage limitation", can we hear whether he would advise Strathclyde, Lothian and Tayside to indulge in damage limitation and to privatise their companies for the same reason? Will the hon. Gentleman make that clear? If the hon. Gentleman would not so advise them, why are those councils somehow judged by different criteria to those applying to Grampian?
  Mr. Wilson: I am surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's normal facility for words has deserted him. He seemed to be under the impression that my comment that Grampian made a pre-emptive strike was synonymous with what he suggested I said, which was that it had no choice. I should have thought that those were two different concepts. On a good night, the Secretary of State would have no difficulty in distinguishing between them.
  What about Strathclyde? I am not here to advise local authorities on how to react. I have no doubt that, on exactly the same basis, they will have to make exactly the same calculations as Grampian has done. The emphasis is again on damage limitation and pre-emptive strike—not,as the Secretary of State suggests, on the wishes of employees local authorities, Opposition parties and, least of all, consumers. That is the distinction.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Having had extensive discussions with employees in the Grampian bus companies, I assure my hon. Friend that he is right. The approach to privatisation is one not of enthusiasm but of resignation and desperation. The employees were terrified that their fate would lie in the hands of the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right and reinforces my point.
  The next point of distinction involves the way that "privatisation"—if the Secretary of State demands the use of that word—was carried out. Bus Business of 28 September 1988 stated:
  "A council spokesman said that the company was 'not on the open market' and that the management and staff of the bus company were the only present bidders. But it was not clear this week if Rifkind would allow the deal to go through, or if he would rule that the company should be offered for sale to all-comers."
  The Secretary of State seems anxious to draw parallels. He told us that tomorrow he will approve this great privatisation exercise. Is he drawing the same parallel with the Scottish Bus Group? If, on the same terms, those involved in the employee-management buy-out seek to take over without the companies going "on the open market" but they are offered directly to them as "the only present bidders", will the right hon. and learned Gentleman maintain the parallel that he has sought to draw and accede to those demands? Apparently, the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish to intervene at this time.
  That deals easily with the Grampian issue of which the Secretary of State made such a meal. The Grampian structure provides for two councillor directors and two worker directors. If that is the kind of arrangement that the Secretary of State wants, he should withdraw the legislation, go back to the drawing board and do exactly as Grampian has done, and we shall give close consideration to supporting that as a decent compromise in the public interest.
  But that is not what the right hon. and learned Gentleman expects to see or has any interest in seeing. He does not want anything similar to what Grampian has done. In his heart, he knows that this is a cowboy's charter and an invitation to asset strippers. He knows that the majority of those who work in the Scottish bus industry will pay the price of this legislation in jobs and conditions rather than end up as proud co-owners of the industry in which they work. The folksy image of conductors controlling their destinies as well as their ticket machines
  980
  is largely a myth. We need not look in a crystal ball, because we can read the book—the one that tells the story of what has happened in England.
  We listened in vain to the Secretary of State, hoping for new information. He moved around the subject. He said that he was delighted to hear about widespread interest in
  management-employee buy-outs. He said that he was keen —the one thing that no one would accuse the right hon. and learned Gentleman of not being is keen—and enthusiastic about management-employee buy-outs. We listened in vain for new information about how these are to be encouraged, or, indeed, made possible. The Minister's fig leaf of enthusiasm for employee buy-outs has not expanded. Nothing turns that aspiration from pious hope even to a reasonable prospect of reality. Even if some management-employee buy-outs succeed, the Bill contains no safeguards against predatory takeover, probably within months, rather than years. We shall fight in Committee for those safeguards, and the Government's good will in the whole question of management-employee buy-outs will be judged by their responses.
  Why have we heard so much in Scotland about these management-employee buy-outs when we know that the legislation does nothing to promote them? It is lip service to the political climate in Scotland. The reasoning is that the Government might get away with it if they say often enough that they are trying to promote management-employee buy-outs. That might then have some credibility in Scottish public opinion and make the idea seem a little less naked and foolish than it would otherwise. As usual, the Conservative party in Scotland underestimates the intelligence of the people to whom they are appealing. People can easily see through the Government's plan. They will not listen to tonight's fine words, but will look at the legislation and the reality that eventually emerges.
  Unless the means of promoting management-employee buy-outs are written into the Bill, the Minister's avowal of sympathy for them will be seen as hollow and hypocritical. No one can serve two masters. If the Government are legislating in the interests of Stagecoach and its ilk, no number of honeyed words will disguise that fact.
  Clause 2(2) of the Bill states:
  "The Secretary of State shall have regard … to the desirability of promoting the acquisition by persons employed in any undertaking or part of an undertaking which is to be the subject of a disposal under the programme."
  Those words are meaningless unless the Government choose to make them meaningful. There will be no shortage of support in Scotland for such a course.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Stagecoach is based in my constituency. Is he suggesting that it is not a good employer and that it has not done considerable good by the travelling public in my constituency? If he is, he does not know the people well or the benefits that have been received.
  Mr. Wilson: I shall deal with Stagecoach later. However, I read in a transport magazine that, when there was discussion about whether a Hungarian company might buy out the Scottish Bus Group, a manager—the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that it was a manager who made this disrespectful remark—suggested that he would rather work for Gorbachev than Souter.
  I am sure that, as an upholder of law and order, the hon. Gentleman will wish to balance his remarks by giving

  981
  us a list of the offences of which that epic private enterprise company has been convicted since it has been operating on the highways and byways of Scotland.
  The Scottish Consumer Council told me:
  "We have no doubt that management-employee buy-outs run by people with a commitment to the communities that they serve will be the most effective means of protecting rural and off-peak services."
  As the Secretary of State has rightly said, the trade unions have voiced some support for the proposal because they see it as the best and probably the only way of defending the jobs and the conditions of their members.
  Mr. Hamish Morrison of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) is quoted as saying last year:
  "Simply to offer assistance with drawing up a bid with no guarantee that management and employees will not be outbid by competitors with deeper pockets is wishful thinking. What is needed is a solid assurance from Mr. Rifkind."
  We have not had that solid assurance tonight and, without it, the Secretary of State's presentation is worthless.
  I wish to talk briefly about the English experience. Let us remember that, when the National Bus Company was privatised, there was a 5 per cent. discount offer to management-employee buy-outs. There is still no word of that in Scotland and it is perhaps a tribute to the Secretary of State's skill with words that he almost managed to make this sound like a bonus to the Scottish employees of the bus companies.
  In England, the early sales of companies in the National Bus Company went mainly to management buy-outs with very little mention, incidentally, of employees. That was the early trend of the first 30 sales. Only a handful went to the existing private sector. Then the big guys realised that there was money in this and that these companies were being sold off at bargain basement prices. To help them on their way, the Government obligingly changed their rules under which the companies were to be sold.
  A different picture then emerged. The Stagecoaches from north and south of the border started taking over the companies, so that, by October 1987, Bus Business again reported:
  "Now it is unusual, not the norm, for managements to secure a buyout. And the true employee ownership approach, implicit if not explicit in the government's plans, has been seen in only three or four sales. The carefully controlled policy of promoting competition through privatisation has been faithfully espoused by the government in word but not in deed … The industry grapevine is groaning with endless talk of companies that are secretly allied and of mergers deals and shadowy connections between others."
  That is the reality of England and Wales at present. There is not the slightest reason to suppose that it will not become the reality in Scotland.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: As the hon. Gentleman is quoting examples in England and Wales, will he explain why the president of the Bus and Coach Council, at its Eastbourne conference this year, was reported in Buses last month as saying that the industry is enjoying its new environment and its new role as an entrepreneur and was a "born-again commercial industry." He said that the industry was delighted that it was privatised and deregulated.
  Mr. Wilson: I should like to help the hon. Gentleman, but, before I could do so, I should have to know who the
  982
  chairman of the Bus and Coach Council is. For all I know, it might be like the hon. Gentleman quoting in innocence the chairman of a Scottish health board.
  Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman will want to know that the chairman is Mr. Irwin Dalton, formerly of the National Bus Company.
  Mr. Wilson: I never fail to be astonished by what amuses Conservative Members.
  It is already abundantly clear that the private sector will not sit back in Scotland and allow management-employee buy-outs to occur in the public interest. I am sure that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) would be appalled if that were the case.
  Mrs. Anne Gloag—I do not know whether she is any relation of the Famous Grouse, but she is the managing director of Stagecoach—immediately announced:
  "We certainly intend to consider submitting bids for all of the separate units when further details become available in the New Year."
  That is the point at which the proud announcement by the Secretary of State that employee buy-outs would be entitled to the vast sum of £48,750 for a sort of bus-world legal aid is put into perspective. That sum is washers in the back pocket to such outfits as Stagecoach and others that these buy-outs will be up against. If that sum, plus a video, is all that the Minister has to offer, there will be precious few management-employee buy-outs.
  I do not make a great issue of the origins of the companies that are doing the buying out. That is not the problem. I have mentioned Stagecoach, which is active down south. It is a transborder operation. It is a firm of couthie Scottish capitalists of the many-a-mickle-mak's-a-muckle school of exploitation. When Scottish bus employees are asked by whom they do not wish to be taken over, they respond unanimously, "Souter." So the question—[Interruption.]
  Conservative Members, whose wits are dim—"dimwits" is probably an unparliamentary expression—think it tremendously funny that I should be saying that workers in Scotland fear a Scottish capitalist as least as much as an English or outside capitalist. Anyone who knows anything about class politics as opposed to tartan trivia, and anyone who knows the history of Scottish industry and enterprise, will understand that there is nothing funny or unusual about that attitude. It does not matter primarily whether we are talking of an English company or a Scottish company. The important considerations are the motives and nature of the company, the services it provides and the conditions that it provides for its workers.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has made an important statement which is at variance with the questions that were put to me by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). It seems that he does not mind whether it is a Scottish company or an English company. He thinks that the consequences will be exactly the same, and he draws no distinction between the two. Will he confirm that?
  Mr. Wilson: I think that the record will show that I said that I do not think that that is the first priority. The priority is the nature of the company and where the management is. With Stagecoach the money comes from Canada—
  Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wilson: No, I shall not give way further.
  There is an interesting example of how Stagecoach has operated in the south by jumping on the privatisation gravy train. The hon. Member for Tayside, North greatly approves of Stagecoach. The company bought Hampshire Bus, and one cannot go much further south than that company. I am sure that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) approves of that move as a piece of buccaneering Scottish capitalism. It bought the Hampshire company for £2·1 million. Two weeks later, it sold the bus station at Southampton for £4 million. Is that what the Secretary of State describes as the enterprise culture? Presumably the buying price for the Hampshire company was recommended by Government officials as being in line with Government policy.
  Mr. David Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is disgraceful that the Secretary of State for Transport has refused to divulge any of the details of sales of individual bus companies in England and Wales? He said that at some future date we may get the global sum when all the sales have been completed. It is a common belief—I must confess that I am not sure whether it is a fact—that one company sold assets worth £6 million, which was much more than the sum paid for the entire company. That is an example of what is taking place all the time. Unless the practice is checked, it will take place in Scotland as well.
  Mr. Wilson: Of course it will take place in Scotland. It is all part of the game. That is what it is all about. It is not about encouraging management-worker participation. Instead, it is about flogging off public assets.
  The asset-stripping potential in the sale of the Scottish Bus Group is considerable, and especially in the sale of Eastern Scottish Buses, which will be watched extremely closely. That is because along with the bus group goes some valuable real estate. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) will wish to expand on that.
  Many of my hon. Friends will refer to the concerns that exist in the areas that they represent and the implications of this petty piece of privatisation. They will tell the House that managements and employees generally prefer to maintain the status quo and are not interested in buy-outs, except as a pre-emptive strike. Our interest lies in protecting employees and consumers and maintaining standards of safety, service and efficiency. We believe that these standards are best protected by the status quo, which the Government choose to despise. We have no doubt that they will he least protected by the market force mentality of bus entrepreneurs.
  There is already an example of entrepreneurship in Scottish transport. In 1985, the Government sold a company called MacBrayne Haulage to the private sector. By any standards, it was a seedy privatisation. It demanded many answers and it attracted only a few. MacBrayne Haulage was a branch of the Scottish Transport Group and it had a social remit and a special responsibility to serve the isles. It had a modern fleet of vehicles. It had a depot in Blochaira road, Glasgow, which had a substantial value. It was estimated that the company's assets were worth £1·5 million. It was a tasty morsel for one of the entrepreneurs whom the Government are so anxious to encourage. As a result, the Government privatised the company.
  984
  The privatisation took place before I became a Member of the House, but sitting on the Government Front Bench during the relevant period was Mr. John MacKay, sadly now departed to other places. Mr. John MacKay advanced much the same case as the Secretary of State adduced tonight. He talked about greater efficiency and competition and sweeping out the cobwebs of public ownership and introducing thrusting, dynamic private enterprise.
  MacBrayne Haulage was put up for sale and it did not attract much interest. It is not clear to this day whether there was one offer or two. The Scottish Office said that there were two, but the second was never identified. There was certainly one offer, however, and it came from a Mr. Bill Walker of Kildonan Transport. He is another couthie entrepreneur. Alas, he is not a constituent of the hon. Member for Tayside, North. Such entrepreneurs must exist elsewhere as well.
  Mr. Walker put in his bid for MacBrayne Haulage, only to find that it was refused. By a strange circumstance, Mr. Walker shared the same firm of financial advisers as the Scottish Transport Group, which had been ordered to sell off the company. Doubtless it was all completely above board. Kildonan Transport and the Scottish Transport Group went into a huddle. Lo and behold, this time round a deal was struck. The £1·5 million assets of MacBrayne Haulage were transferred to Kildonan Transport for a figure reported at the time—it has never been denied subsequently, although it might be on the high side£of £450,000.
  Mr. Walker was asked whether he thought that he had secured a bargain, to which he replied, memorably:
  "It would be a stupid man who did not think that."
  He added that he had been looking for a device that would enable him to stop paying tax. He had assumed that MacBrayne Haulage was a loss-making concern. Instead, when he examined the books he found that it was a profitable business with tremendous potential. As a result, he bought it for £450,000. It was calculated immediately that within two years he would be able to recover his outlay and have in excess of £1 million of assets, after taking depreciation into account. It was asked, "How could this happen?" It was private enterprise at its best. This week, slightly on the long side of two years, Mr. Walker is negotiating with a company in Bradford. I expect the sale of Kildonan Transport to be finalised within the next few days for a sum in excess of £1 million.
  That is what privatisation is about. It is the ripping off of public assets by a combination of greed and incompetence. If such things were to happen in the private sector, it would be defined as corruption. If a trustees or solicitors handled a person's assets in the same way as the assets of MacBrayne Haulage were handled by the Government, there would be an outcry and an investigation. The Public Accounts Committee should set up an investigation into the circumstances under which MacBrayne Haulage was privatised.
  I must refer to Caledonian MacBrayne. To some extent we must welcome what is before us. We must welcome the fact that at least in that case the petty doctrinaires have had to retreat because of political pressure and, more important, because of community pressure. When faced with the prospective loss of lifeline services or the handing over of lifeline services to a seaborne Mr. Billy Walker or Stagecoach, islands people of every political persuasion

  985
  said that they did not want that under any circumstances. At that point, the Secretary of State, unusually, had to listen.
  The Government went along to their tame Tory consultants and asked for a way to privatise the ferries. They asked for a solution that could be put as credibly, if that is how we can describe the Secretary of State's comments tonight, as the selling off of the buses.
  My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles has established that the cost of the Pieda report was £20,597. Frankly, the Government might just as well have thrown that little dose of public money in the Minch. The Pieda report provided the Government with a few options, but even by their standards, the Government realised that they could not get away with the recommendations. Of course the Government had to cover up their embarrassment over the report and the climbdown on privatisation of ferries.
  A continuing threat hangs over two of the services, Gourock to Dunoon and Wemyss bay to Rothesay. The arguments about that should perhaps be left to another evening because those routes will not be affected in the near future and we hope that they will not be affected at all. However, it is nonsense to continue to talk about privatising two of the more economically viable routes within the CalMac network. The only ground for privatising them is that they are reasonably economically viable. However, the inevitable corollary of privatising viable routes is that the less viable routes would require more subsidy because they would have lost the balancing factor of the Clyde services. Alternatively, the level of service would diminish.
  If the Clyde services are taken out of the public sector and the integrated Caledonian MacBrayne company, the result will be a diminution of service through the rest of the network or an increase in subsidy from the public purse. Why should the Secretary of State wish to go down that road? If the Government try that, they will receive the same response that they received in the early 1980s when they tried to privatise the Gourock-Dunoon route. Hell hath no fury like Tory ladies on the Clyde when they are threatened with the prospect of standing on a pier waiting for a ferry that does not come on a wet Tuesday in February. I believe that it was the former Member, Mr. Michael Ancram, who went to Dunoon on that occasion.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: The Secretary of State was in charge.
  Mr. Wilson: It was the Secretary of State. Well, whichever Minister it was, he retreated in some disarray and I do not fancy the chances of the present Under-Secretary of State for Scotland against the Tory ladies on the Clyde coast.
  Arising from the proposal to privatise the routes in future is the proposition that the headquarters of CalMac should be moved away from Gourock. We should not prejudge that idea in advance of reasoned debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) will deal with that matter. The headquarters have been built up over 20 years and 110 people are employed there. Why on earth should they be uprooted? If one is sitting in Barra or Stornoway, the headquarters of CalMac are at the end of a telephone. It does not greatly matter where the headquarters are
  986
  located. If on the other hand one is sitting at the end of a phone in Arran, Rothesay or Dunoon, it is no greater convenience to have the headquarters moved to Oban. That must be considered and unless there is a very good reason for change, which I have not yet heard, matters should be well left alone.
  This Bill is petty. It will not rock the firmament of society. It is an irritant and it will provoke insecurity. It improves nothing. We will try to improve it in Committee, but we weep for the fact that valuable, legislative time on Scottish affairs, which could have been used to better the living standards of the Scottish people, will be frittered away on this ideological nonsense which is unasked for and unwelcome.
  8.35 pm
  Sir Hector Monro: If the past 40 minutes are an indication of the new furious forty-niners, for goodness, sake bring back the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). We have heard a tirade about nothing, and if ever someone was trying to stir up the reason for a three-line Whip on a Bill that is patently required by the Scottish public, the last 40 minutes of sheer boredom show just how far from reality the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has strayed. As the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, he must bear in mind his responsibility for parliamentary privilege and not make comments about companies and individuals unless he is absolutely sure of his facts. Hon. Members have always been very careful not to breach parliamentary privilege when they are on the Front Bench.
  I welcome the Bill, and I believe that the majority of the people in Scotland will also welcome it. We all know that rural and urban public transport is extremely important in Scotland. To most, of course, it means rail and bus transport. Many, as the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North admitted, have private motor cars. We welcome that and it shows the improvement in the quality of life throughout Scotland. To many, that transport means ships or ferries. It also means transport by air where that is appropriate.
  The Government's actions about CalMac were right. They are also right to demand better services with more acceptable timetables than at present. We want more convenient timetables. Heaven knows, it is difficult with the island services to provide that. However, if we are to develop tourism and industry in the inner and outer islands, we must have more convenient services than at present.
  Tourists may want to visit an island for a day. They may want to visit Rhum, Eigg or Canna. It is particularly difficult to visit such islands, do something and come back the same day.
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: Rubbish.
  Sir Hector Monro: I have been and tried. I know that it is not rubbish.
  It is right that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland should set as his target much higher standards and better services and facilities than we have at the moment—[Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) would stick to his own Front-Bench responsibilities, about which he seems to know very little.

  987
  I note and welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend has said about the amount of investment in CalMac since 1979—£422 million. His announcement about Vatersay tonight shows his determination to help all communities of whatever size. I am sure that he will help that island and particularly the movement of stock, which has been so difficult in the past.
  My right hon. and learned Friend was right to proceed in the way that he did in relation to CalMac because that is a socially necessary service and difficult to run at a profit. He must move with caution until the situation is right to take further steps forward.
  The Bill does not cover air transport, although in a broad sense that is Scottish transport as well. The privatisation of air services in Scotland has been valuable, and we have a better and more competitive timetable as a result.
  Rail and bus services are most important to those wanting public transport. British Rail has been subjected to a great deal of criticism. An all-party group of hon. Members and representatives of trade unions in south-west Scotland and Ayrshire had satisfactory discussions with British Rail and local authorities, and the rail service is now very much better than was anticipated a year ago. With the new sprinters and other improvements, British Rail has shown its determination to provide the British commuting public with a better service. We should not constantly slam it when it is trying to improve its service and, indeed, is meeting with some success.
  The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North had only miserable criticism to offer the House. Had he listened to my right hon. Friend's statement on investment in roads during recent years, he would appreciate that it is very substantial. It includes preparations for the completion of the M74—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I know that we have a wide debate on Second Reading, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing in the Bill about British Rail or about roads.
  Sir Hector Monro: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, buses cannot run without roads.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to start a debate on middle eastern oil supplies.
  Sir Hector Monro: That is 15-all.
  The Bill is an important step forward in an integrated transport system. There will be greater competition and a greater variety of routes and buses, from minibuses to double deckers. The school system will have a greater choice of buses with various carrying capacities.
  There has been a great increase in mileage since deregulation. Services have been improved, yet they are being provided at a lower cost. That is the best of both worlds. My right hon. Friend is right to transfer ownership of the Scottish Transport Group to a selected group of companies. He has decided how the groupings should operate. I note with interest that Dumfries and Galloway —currently run by Western—are to be linked with Clydeside. That will give us 750 buses and about 2,000 employees. It should be a thoroughly valuable operation and well worth the great interest in both areas being shown in a management-employee buy-out.
  988
  I note from the local newspapers that the area manager in Dumfries, Mr. Bill McGowan, is "happy with the proposals." Mr. George Watson, the general manager in Clydeside, said:
  "We could be bigger than ever."
  The 210 employees in Dumfries have been putting aside part of their wages towards a management-employee buy-out. They, together with those employed in Clydeside, hope that the headquarters will be at Kilmarnock, which was the centre for Western for many years. The management and the employees have a positive wish to be involved in future operations and are keen to be involved in a buy-out.
  I have written to Western offering to help in any way that I can. I shall pass on information from my right hon. Friend about his preparations to ensure that the employees have the necessary information on how to proceed towards a management-employee buy-out. Such local enterprise will be warmly welcomed in Scotland.
  It was wrong of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North to hint that privately operated buses might be less safe than the current Scottish Transport Group buses. He knows that the Scottish traffic commissioners and the police would be extremely concerned if any of the regulations were breached by any bus company, of whatever ownership.
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that my remarks were about a possible threat to safety, and I stand by what I said about competitiveness on the roads. Anyone who has driven on a Scottish trunk road knows that buses shoot past each other at very high speeds. My concern has nothing to do with party politics; it is simply concern about road safety because of the way in which those buses are driven.
  Sir Hector Monro: Is the hon. Gentleman implying that buses owned by the Scottish Transport Group are being driven at slower speeds than those of individual operators? He certainly gave the impression that the safety record of Stagecoach was not as good as that of other companies. I dispute that. I have no interest in or knowledge of Stagecoach, other than that it is a jolly good Scottish company that is doing very well. Indeed, it runs a company in Cumbria, and I understand that that is working satisfactorily. Opposition Members are opposing a thoroughly good Bill. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) likes throwing stones in glasshouses when he is here and the other 71 Scottish Members are not. He is not here tonight to debate an important Scottish Bill. He should be careful about his comments, because they do him no good.
  My right hon. Friend made it clear that the pensions of all those involved would be guaranteed. I hope that in Committee we can discuss why bus complaints are dealt with by the Scottish Consumer Council rather than the Transport Users Consultative Committee. It would be better if complaints about buses were handled by the consultative committee. The bus aspect should not be hived off. It would be better to have all the transport complaints under one umbrella which would benefit the passengers.
  I give my right hon. Friend 100 per cent. for introducing the Bill. I wish it a speedy passage through Committee. I should be surprised if the Opposition did not realise their mistake in opposing the Bill on a three-line Whip. The Scottish people are looking forward to its success.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) showed no little irritation about a three-line Whip for this Bill. I can guess the reason for that, and it is not because of the nature of the Bill. Like me, the hon. Gentleman is an office bearer of the all-party Scotch whisky group. The Scotch Whisky Association is holding an event this evening in Half Moon street and we have been invited to partake of Scotch whisky. The hon. Gentleman and I would have liked to take advantage of that invitation, and I am sure that that is the reason for his irritation.
  The Bill deserves to be debated fully and should be opposed because, ultimately, it can only damage the comprehensive nature of the public network in Scotland. I will certainly argue that the Bill should not be given a passage through the House but should be opposed.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to explain that the reason why only seven Scottish Labour Members are present is that they are all at a Scotch whisky reception?
  Mr. McAllion: Only two other Scottish Members received an invitation to the reception. Scottish Members will be elsewhere doing their work, as they always are if they are not in the Chamber.
  This is not a major Bill in terms of size. It has only nine pages and 18 clauses, and no schedules. But it is major in terms of its impact on a neglected area of Government policy, and that is the important area of public transport. It is neglected because whereas the Department of Transport has no fewer than 1,200 people employed on its road building programmes—the hon. Member for Dumfries referred briefly to that when he boasted of the Government's extensive road programmes—only 120 people look after the Department's strategic responsibilities for public transport. That ratio of 1,200:120 of civil servants responsible for roads and private vehicle users to those responsible for public transport works out at exactly 100:1, which reflects the importance that the Government attach to public transport and explains why they can introduce a Bill which can only damage public transport in future.
  Few people would argue with the notion that the Government seek to create a society which is more dependent on private road transport than any other in Europe. To be honest, the Government have already succeeded in doing precisely that. Whereas the people in Germany make almost one third more journeys on public transport than 20 years ago, in the United Kingdom the reverse is the case. We are making 20 per cent. fewer demands on public transport than 20 years ago.
  I understand that one Minister even referred to the public transport industry as a sunset industry. I do not know exactly what he meant by that, but I assume that he means the same as Ministers who refer to shipbuilding, car manufacturing and heavy engineering in the same terms and that decent public transport will become a thing of the past if the Government have their way. It will decline into a skeleton service designed only for the unfortunates who cannot afford the convenience of a private motor car. It is certainly true that recent Government action has brought us perceptibly closer to that sorry scenario.
  Perhaps this is not the time or place to talk about the merits of bus deregulation since 1986, but far from
  990
  reversing or even halting the long-term decline in public transport, the number of bus passengers, as distinct from vehicle mileage or bus operators about which the Secretary of State boasted, has continued to fall in the first year after deregulation, as the Scottish Consumer Council has pointed out.
  The immediate impact of deregulation on the Scottish Transport Group was to force the company to cut its bus fleet, to close its engineering and depot facilities and to issue redundancy notices to hundreds of staff. Those are hardly the measures that can be associated with reviving an ailing industry or improving the quality and frequency of bus services. They are the undeniable consequences of opening the bus industry to the operation of free market forces.
  That is the central question that divides us on the Bill. The Government insist that the answer to reversing the long-term decline in public transport and to improving the quality and frequency of services is privatisation and letting the market rip. We in the Opposition have the certain knowledge that these measures must damage the quality and frequency of services and will ultimately threaten the survival of a national public transport network.
  I should like to set out some of the arguments which have persuaded me that it is important to oppose the Bill. There is the question of improving services to customers. In my area the bus market is dominated by three major companies. I live in Dundee in Tayside region and the three major operators are Stagecoach, the Perth-based company much beloved by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), the regional council's public transport company and Strathtay, which is a local subsidiary of the Scottish Bus Group. Together they account for more than 80 per cent. of bus services in Tayside. Some 30 smaller companies operate the remaining services. It is difficult to conceive of any of those 30 minnows mounting a serious challenge to the three major companies. Only Stagecoach is in the private sector, which explains why it is the one so beloved of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that I was reacting to attacks on a company which provides a good service in his constituency and mine. I feel just as strongly about Strathtay, which is also a good company.
  Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman has warm remarks for Strathtay, which he expects to be privatised in the near future, but he makes no reference to Tayside public transport which used to employ him as a bus driver. That is regrettable and I hope that he is equally enthusiastic about the public service. I will happily give way now and allow him to praise Tayside public transport for its service to the people of Dundee.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are still people working in the Tayside transport company whom I knew as a young man. I have no hesitation in saying that they and those who run it have done a good job. No one has ever heard me criticise them.
  Mr. McAllion: For once, the hon. Gentleman is talking sense.
  There is no realistic prospect of the 30 small companies mounting any serious challenge to the three major

  991
  companies. Since each of the major companies concentrates largely on its own particular area of domination, it is difficult to conceive of even these three seriously competing with one another directly for any of the 80 per cent. of the services which they already control. For example, most of the local registered bus routes in the city of Dundee and in the province of the regional council's transport company are not seriously competed for by either Stagecoach or Strathtay.
  I cannot see the case for arguing that privatisation of Strathtay will significantly add to the competition between bus companies in Tayside or that it will lead directly to the improvement of local bus services. Strathtay already stands in a competitive relationship with Stagecoach and the public transport company. The privatisation of Strathtay will do nothing to alter that relationship. The only difference is that while Strathtay remains in the public sector it cannot be subject to any takeover by another private sector company, whereas post-privatisation it will be subject to such a takeover.
  That is the only major difference arising from this privatisation measure, and it is an important one. The locally led bus company, which was much praised by the Secretary of State, will now be vulnerable to takeover bids either from Stagecoach in Perth—that would lead to a near-monopoly in Tayside and would, I hope, be unacceptable to hon. Members on both sides of the House —or from outsider companies such as the cash-rich predators from the south, about which we have heard so much. They are looking for rich pickings and quick profits in the Tayside area.
  I can see no gains in improved services as a result of the Bill. The reverse is more likely. I quote from a document issued by the local management and employees of Strathtay. It says:
  "We fear that where ownership could pass into other hands, then there would be a significant likelihood that profit maximisation would become the overriding objective, to the detriment of bus services on Tayside, and to the detriment of bus users on Tayside."
  Those people are correct to fear that happening in the aftermath of privatisation.
  Where a commercial bus service is being run, a continuing and careful balancing act between the available resources of the company and customer demand for the service has to be performed. After the deregulation measures in 1985, no one is immune from such pressure, even the regional public transport company. As a result of these commercial pressures and the withdrawal of cross-subsidisation by the Government, one of the bus services in my constituency has had to be re-routed. That led to an outcry from the residents in the affected area, who saw a serious deterioration in their bus service as a result of the introduction of free market principles to the running of bus services.
  While the bus companies are locally owned and managed by people with a real commitment to the local bus industry and its users, incidents of this kind will be kept to a minimum. What will happen if the bus company is owned from outside, and there is no real commitment to the needs of the local people? What will happen if local bus operations are viewed solely as a means of maximising profits, or as assets that are ripe for stripping when the profits no longer flow? What will happen when investment is seen not as a guarantee of securing a future for expanding bus services but as something to be kept to a
  992
  minimum because it interferes with profits? What will happen when staff reductions and significant fare increases are seen not as defeats but as victories for the free flow of market commercialism? There will be a gradual decline in the frequency and quality of public bus services in areas such as Tayside.
  If the Minister is sincere in saying that this should not happen, he must take the necessary steps to prevent the realisation of the one potential major development for which the Bill provides—the takeover of a locally based indigenous Scottish Bus Group by cash-rich predators from outside the area where the group is located. That such a threat exists is certain.
  Bus Business has already been referred to several times. It is a management fortnightly publication for those in the bus and coach market. In an article last August, it gave detailed information of a new group with the acronym SEBIL, which stands for the South East Bus Investments Ltd. This consists of five former National Bus Company subsidiaries that have been privatised under management buy-outs and taken over by outsiders. They freely admit that they have come together to combine the resources of the member companies and to take advantage of future bus industry privatisations, including that of the Scottish Bus Group. Their clear aim is to make acquisitions as opportunities arise and if the Bill becomes enacted in this form, those opportunities will arise in areas like Tayside. If the hon. Member for Tayside, North wishes to see indigenous Scottish companies remain as they are, he should take that on board and be wary of it.
  In the same edition of Bus Business, it was revealed that Mr. Robert Beattie, who happens to be the chairman of a group known as Frontsource, and who has already purchased several National Bus Company operations, is now preparing to bid for parts of the Scottish Bus Group. These examples show that southern England-based conglomerates are forming with a view to cashing in on the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group. Many of them have already acquired, via management buy-outs, not employee buy-outs, National Bus Company subsidiaries at 50 or 60 per cent. of asset value.
  It was strange to hear the Secretary of State insist that, if there were to be successful management-employee buy-outs, their bid must be commensurate with the asset value of the companies for which they were bidding. In the National Bus Company in England, the management groups, which had no employee participation, were given the assets at half their face value—give-away prices, knock-down prices—but that is not to be the case in Scotland. That speaks volumes for the different treatment handed out to the Scottish management-employee buy-outs.
  These predators now have large cash reserves and borrowing powers and those pose a real threat to the continuing independence of the Scottish bus service. If the Secretary of State was serious in saying that the Bill provides a basis for creating a vigorous new Scottish companies, he has to address himself to the threat posed to those companies by the home counties-based predators.
  It is not enough to promise financial assistance to management employee teams. It seems strange that, in the event of a management-employee team retaining professional advice and spending up to £75,000 on it, and in the event of its bid failing because, for example, a member of South East Bus Investments Ltd. is successful, the Secretary of State will return to the failed bidders

  993
  £48,000 of their own money. That hardly compensates for losing control of their own company and being prey to whatever comes into the minds of the predators from the south who have taken it over. The Secretary of State has not in any sense provided the kind of guarantees we sought.
  It is not enough for the Secretary of State to say either that he wants to give preference to bids from management-employee teams. Wanting to give them preference is very different from actually giving them preference. The Secretary of State said nothing to suggest that he will do that. He must guarantee that, if management-employee teams can put together a financial package commensurate with the value of the public assets involved, he will not sell those teams and their companies down the river and allow the companies to be sold to a higher bidder elsewhere.
  The other evening, I was reminiscing with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) about the days before the Scottish Bus Group was formed, and even before the old Alexander buses were brought into public ownership. He reminded me how hard were those times for the employees, who worked long hours for low pay and were constantly under threat of dismissal for offences as trivial as leaving a top shirt button undone.
  When the companies came into the public sector, there was created the strength that comes from the joining together of workers from all over Scotland employed in the newly nationalised industry, which put an end to that particular brand of management bullying. Everything improved—wages, working conditions and the way in which employees were treated by management. The hon. Member for Tayside, North acknowledged the truth of that. He worked for the Dundee corporation bus group in the public sector and was given fair treatment as well. Those improvements were secured by combining with other bus workers throughout Scotland, usually through the Transport and General Workers Union.
  The Bill worries me because it will divide the workers. Employees of other individual companies may no longer be seen as allies but as a threat to one's own job because they are competing for whatever services are provided locally. What is euphemistically called the right of management to manage, really means the right of management to impose upon workers conditions that they do not want. Rather than be fought against by workers collectively, such impositions may be slowly but surely conceded by workers in individual companies in competition with one another. I hope that I am wrong, and that the unions will be able to hold the line and to resist any deterioration in wages and conditions of service. Experience suggests that whenever there is privatisation there quickly follow cuts in wages and poorer working conditions for those workers involved.
  Our votes will not be sufficient to prevent the Bill receiving its Second Reading tonight or to stop privatisation. However, I hope that the Minister has listened, and that he will respond to the need to protect the local character of the newly formed private companies and the Scottish character of those companies. I hope also that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the companies must remain indigenous, Scottish-based
  994
  companies and that the only way of achieving that is by guaranteeing genuine preference to management-employee group bids such as in Strathtay and Tayside.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) made it clear that the Bill pays lip service to that concept, in the hope that the Government will be able to clothe what it is that they are really about with a measure of credibility. However, in a free market environment, without providing genuine safeguards against predators from elsewhere, the Bill can have no credibility. It represents a sell-out of the interests of the Scottish people and of the Scottish bus industry, and it should be opposed by every right hon. and hon. Member who is against such a sell-out being enforced against their wishes.
  9.8 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on a thoughtful speech that clearly conveyed to me his genuine concern about what may happen. I accept that he is genuinely concerned, and it may surprise him to learn that in some respects, his views and mine are not very far apart. I contrast the quality of his speech with the appalling contribution by his hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson).
  At this point, I must declare an interest. I have been talking to the Strathtay people. Neil Renilson, the director and general manager, happens to be a constituent of mine. I have conducted meetings with him and the employees and we have gone, fairly extensively, through their concerns. I have been interested in the genuine feeling among employees of wishing to become at least part-owners of the new company in future. That is very encouraging because I, like the hon. Member for Dundee, East believe that if there is to be competition on Tayside, we should not be served well if Strathtay were taken over by Stagecoach.
  Incidentally, I have also been involved in meetings with Brian Soutar and Anne Gloag. The comments made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North were way off the mark and he was using parliamentary privilege from the Opposition Front Bench, unlike his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who is very careful about what he does on the Front Bench. He is never slow to criticise properly what he does not agree with and he is never slow in putting forward his views, but he does not use parliamentary privilege to name people in matters on which the depth of his knowledge is obviously so scarce and superficial that it can be very damaging. All that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North had to say was a quote by a manager who did not work for Stagecoach, and that is appalling.
  Stagecoach is a Scottish company and a big employer, which also employs many people in England. More importantly, it has operations based in my constituency, where the two directors live and work. I found it interesting that the hon. Gentleman brought up the old horny myth of Canadian money. If he had bothered to do any research, he would have discovered that the so-called Canadian money came in an initial loan from an uncle. There is nothing odd about that and the loan has long since been repaid.
  That is an important point and I find it disturbing that the hon. Gentleman's comments suggested that

  995
  Stagecoach was somehow unfit to be a good employer. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, at this very moment, negotiations are at an advanced stage and an employee shareholding scheme for all Stagecoach employees will be announced any day? Such schemes are carried out in enlightened companies and we should encourage them, not criticise them.
  I may have views on the difference between the public and private sectors. However, if the hon. Gentleman is an honest man, he must accept that some parts of the public sector are not run as well as he or I might wish. I have been very critical of some aspects of the private sector. You will realise, Mr. Speaker, that I was not slow to say what I felt because I felt strongly about it. That led to prosecutions being brought. If the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about a matter and has hard evidence, he should use that evidence, but he should not use parliamentary privilege as he did.
  Mr. Wilson: If the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is to continue in this bumptious vein, giving a patronising lecture on parliamentary privilege, will he point out one comment I made that comes within the category he is trying hard to define?
  Mr. Walker: When he reads Hansard, the hon. Gentleman will realise that he made such comments. I am also concerned that there are some differences in attitude on the Opposition Front Bench about their basic policy. They tell us on one hand that it is important where a company's headquarters are located, yet the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North then tells us that it does not matter where the headquarters of a particular group are because, after all, that group is at the end of a phone. They cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. David Marshall: It is unlike the hon. Gentleman not to respond fully to the questions put to him, and I do not think that he responded fully to the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). Can he specify exactly what my hon. Friend said about Stagecoach that involved parliamentary privilege? I thought that my hon. Friend merely spoke the truth, and I do not think that anything in his remarks would need to be covered by parliamentary privilege.
  Mr. Walker: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will read Hansard tomorrow. I shall invite the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North to repeat outside the Chamber exactly what he said today. I think that that is all I need to say. [HON. MEMBERS: "What did he say?"] Hon. Members can read Hansard tomorrow.
  Mr. Hood: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to an implication by my hon. Friend that Stagecoach had been prosecuted? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the company has been prosecuted on at least three occasions?
  Mr. Walker: I did not specify that the company had been prosecuted; the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North did. He named the directors of Stagecoach and then gave his views and comments. He cited as his source and authority a manager who was not working for Stagecoach. I am merely saying that one should be very careful, and that Front Bench spokesmen have special responsibilities. I was watching the expression on the face of the hon.
  996
  Member for Garscadden while the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North was speaking. But we can deal with these matters when we read Hansard tomorrow.
  It is interesting that the hon. Member for Dundee, East and I should share such concerns. It would not be right for Strathtay, for instance, to be purchased by Stagecoach. That would not be good for competition in the hon. Gentleman's constituency or in mine. We should certainly be united in our views on that. If we are to have competition, we must have real competition, and he and I know that we now have competition, with the three large companies. All three companies have served Tayside well and I hope that they will continue to do so.
  Too often, the Opposiion have overlooked the fact that this is a unique opportunity for employees to become shareholders in the company in which they work. There is a big difference between being an employee of a locally run, local authority-owned concern or of a nationally run concern owned by the public purse, and being an employee of a private company in which one can improve one's position by constantly improving one's shareholding. Companies operating such schemes find that they aid motivation and the smooth running of the concern.
  More important, such a system gives employees a say at the annual general meeting, which someone working for a concern run by the local authority, by the Government or by a quasi-governmental body never has. There is a big difference, and that is why I welcome the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that we shall be encouraging employee-management buy-outs and placing emphasis on the employee. I hope that the employee-management buy-outs succeed everywhere, but if they do not, I hope that consideration will be given first to Scottish-based companies and secondly to companies that have an employee shareholding scheme. We shall thus increase employee participation and shareholding, which all hon. Members would want us to do.
  I am sure that the people of Scotland will welcome this Bill, just as they have welcomed many other Bills on which the Opposition have voiced doctrinaire objections. More important, the employees in the industry will welcome the benefits that will accrue to them which did not exist under the previous arrangements.
  9.19 pm
  Mrs. Ray Michie: If we must have bus privatisation in Scotland, I support the management-employee buy-out option. I believe that it is the only way to ensure commitment and a standard of service. I welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that the Government will assist staff contemplating a bid to obtain professional and financial advice, provided that that is timely. It is crucial that a realistic preference be given to management-employee bidders rather than to the highest bidder. I hope for something similar to the sale of the National Freight Corporation, which was sold to the employees at a discount.
  The Minister referred to consideration for preferences, and mentioned one or two. I urge him to give consideration to a company that is prepared to say that it has a "public service" or "social" commitment to, for example, a less-populated area.
  The entire exercise would, I feel, become null and void unless the Secretary of State took residual powers to stop a large predator company from buying up all 11 newly

  997
  privatised companies. Whether the company was Stagecoach, Icarus or any of the others, that would make nonsense of the whole enterprise. Despite what was said by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), I consider it important that a Scottish company should be involved, rather than one south of the border.
  Alternatively, perhaps the Secretary of State could set up a commission to which any takeover must first be referred. But unless he is able to provide real reassurance the exercise makes no sense. If the aim of privatisation is, as the Bill claims,
  "to promote sustained and fair competition",
  he must take note of the experience of England and Wales, which has led not to sustained competition but to natural monopolies, with the larger operators buying out the smaller ones and often driving them out of business.
  Recent press reports suggest that competition is being affected by price-fixing deals and agreements to end competition. Sir Gordon Borrie, Director-General of Fair Trading, has found 115 cases of firms that are believed to be colluding to restrict competition in the wake of deregulation. Some are said to have arranged timetables to avoid competition, and others have fixed common fares. How will the Secretary of State stop that happening in Scotland?
  Can the Minister also give an assurance about bus stations? If the Government's aim to promote competition is genuine, they must ensure that bus stations are not sold to one company. If there is not a station for all to use, the reliability of services is affected. Competing operators must surely be able to use a central base.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose—
  Mrs. Michie: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall not give way. I have been accused before of giving way too often and then speaking for too long. [Interruption.] No, I will plough on.
  There is a great fear about the future of rural services. I know that very well from my part of the country. Many people do not have cars and may find themselves isolated —as, indeed, they often do now. They are on the unprofitable routes. What does the Minister advise? If privatisation of the bus company will not improve the service to those people, what is the point? How can the Minister visualise an integrated transport system with bus meeting train, ferry or plane and through-ticketing systems covering the different forms of transport that have to be used on one journey? That will be difficult to achieve with all-round privatisation.
  Will the Minister give an assurance that there is no hidden threat to rural railway lines in the north and west of Scotland? It was reported recently in the press that British Rail had produced a document that was supposed to show how routes could become more cost-effective. I am suspicious of that document. It contains a list A and a list B. List B refers to the rural routes of Ayr to Stranraer, Helensburgh to Oban, Helensburgh to Fort William, Aberdeen to Inverness and Inverness to Thurso. Is there some secret strategy to replace those lines with buses and is it all in preparation for the eventual privatisation of the railways?
  Obviously, I must say something about Caledonian MacBrayne. I have said before and I say again, quite
  998
  unashamedly, that I welcome any move of the headquarters to Oban. I appreciate that my Scottish Democrat councillor colleagues are concerned about unemployment if the HQ moves, but I hope that the Government would do what they could to alleviate any adverse consequences.
  I welcome the causeway to Vatersay. That is excellent news for the many bachelors on the island, where there are very few women left. It was becoming a serious problem because more and more people were leaving that island.
  The Secretary of State referred to Uig, a terminal in Skye. The correct pronunciation is "Ooig", not "Yuig". I hope that everyone will note that, because it sounds extremely ugly when it is mispronounced.
  The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) referred to the fact that Caledonian MacBrayne did not have proper timetables and that it was difficult to get to the Isle of Rhum. One reason for that is because there are no people left on the island, except employees of the Nature Conservancy Council, which now owns the island. It is of considerable regret and sadness to me that this island, which used to be populated with Gaelic speakers, can now attract only tourists who come to see our white-tailed sea eagle, which has been brought back to the area, or deer or whatever else, but not the people. The tourists are interested only in the animals and flora. No effort has been made to bring back the people who were cleared out years ago. That is cause for concern.
  Caledonian MacBrayne's new board ought to be properly balanced. It should not consist solely of business men, accountants and a token islander. The majority of board members should come from as many islands as possible. They should include those with expertise in running a shipping line or a ferry service. It is essential that the board should genuinely represent the areas that it serves. It should not be peopled by characters who never set foot on a ferry unless they are going to the islands for their summer holiday.
  It is wrong to limit the share of the surpluses that can be retained, with the balance having to be repaid to the Secretary of State. If the company does well, it should be allowed to reinvest the surplus, without a consequent loss of subsidy.
  The Bill singularly omits to provide any assurance that islanders will be protected from having to bear the full cost of running the service, through increased fare and freight charges. I ask the Minister to think again about the road equivalent tariff—the RET. It works well in Norway, where fares are cheaper than in Scotland. The road equivalent tariff is flexible. Contrary to what the Secretary of State said in his statement a few days ago, a flexible RET system would include a distance element, whereby the longer distance ferry routes would not be penalised. The people in the north and west of Scotland want a flexible RET system.
  Mr. William McKelvey: I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady, and what she has said is absolutely correct. Those were the findings of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. The reason why these matters are totally overlooked by Conservative Members is because that Committee no longer exists.
  Mrs. Michie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. I should also mention that it had been this Government's intention to introduce the road equivalent tariff, but they walked away from it and discarded it.
  It is essential that high standards of safety should be maintained. When a boat comes to the end of its working life, it must be replaced by a new one. We do not want to be fobbed off with second-hand vessels. We have been fobbed off with old rolling stock on the railways. Time and again we were fobbed off with old rolling stock from the midlands. It is absolute rubbish; it breaks down, day in and day out. We do not want the new Caledonian MacBrayne board to introduce such a policy. As for the buses, without firm guarantees about employee buy-outs, fair competition and opposition to a large private monopoly, the competition exercise will be a complete nonsense.
  9.32 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am delighted to take part in this debate on the Bill, especially as I am the joint secretary of the Conservative party's Back-Bench transport committee. I have taken an interest in the bus industry for nearly 30 years. I am a subscriber to the main magazine that is issued for the bus industry, and I am a member of a transport study group. I have taken a great interest in the deregulation and privatisation of bus services in England and Wales and in what has happened in Scotland as a result of deregulation.
  I had a feeling of déjà vu as I listened to the speeches of Opposition Members, especially having read the reports of debates on previous transport Bills. It is worth referring to what Opposition Members have said about these transport Bills that were introduced by this Government. There was a debate in 1979 on what became the Transport Act 1980. In that debate, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) said:
  "In five years' time nothing will remain of the existing public transport system. There will be a substantial loss of jobs in the transport industry."—[Official Report, 27 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 1218.]
  I welcome back to the Chamber the hon. Member for Shettleston. He is in time to hear one of his own quotes. Five years on, far from the industry collapsing, there had been a 40 per cent. increase in patronage of express coaches, fares had fallen sharply and the number of express services had increased. That was the result of the Transport Act 1980.
  When he spoke in the debate on what became the Transport Act 1985, the hon. Member for Shettleston had the good grace to admit that he had been mistaken in 1980, but he continued on the basis of a gambler trying double or quits when he said:
  "Privatisation will be a disaster for the bus industry."—[Official Report, 12 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 237.]
  We now know what has happened as a result of deregulation. The number of bus miles has increased by 13 per cent. and the number of routes has increased. There are 400 more bus operators and operating costs have been reduced. The Transport and Road Research Laboratory report on the first year said that deregulation of bus services had been an immense success.
  When I tried to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), I did not want to be unhelpful. I wanted to make a point about bus stations. After deregulation, when a bus company tried to bar other operators from using a bus station—I believe
  1000
  that it was in Southampton—the Monopolies and Mergers Commission did not allow the ban because our legislation was strong enough to oppose such monopoly. The hon. Lady can rest assured that any bus operator who wishes to use a bus station is entitled as a result of that ruling to use it.
  The hon. Lady also mentioned a report in The Guardian of 8 December which said that 36 rail lines face the axe. I also read it and felt some anxiety as it mentioned the Swansea-Milford Haven line. I have tabled a question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to establish the status of those plans and to see what we can do about them.
  When I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), I mentioned the Bus and Coach Council conference at Eastbourne this year. The theme of the conference was, "Succeeding in the New World" and the magazine Buses for November 1988 reported:
  "it was interesting to observe how bus-industry attitudes have changed in that time. Some years ago there was much evidence of concern about the future of a deregulated and privatised industry, but now it was evident that most of the assembled delegates were enjoying the new environment and their new role of entrepreneur. This was reflected particularly in the warm reception given to the new Minister of Transport"—
  my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo). It is clear that the bus industry has welcomed what has happened as a result of deregulation. It has recognised the exciting new ventures which it has been able to operate because of commercialisation of the market.
  Mr. David Marshall: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and flattered that he should take the trouble to read what I said—he must be the only one.
  The hon. Gentleman has produced all manner of figures to back up his argument about deregulation, but figures can be used to demonstrate all manner of things. Does he ever go out into the real world and talk to passengers or would-be passengers? My experience is that people do not know when they will get a bus in many areas and where it will take them. In my opinion—it is only that—the situation now is much worse than it was before deregulation. Deregulation has not been an advantage either to the travelling public or to employees in the industry.
  Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman cites anecdotal evidence. We can all do that. I also am a bus user. I went recently to Glasgow to study the effects of deregulation.
  Mr. Marshall: On a bus?
  Mr. Bennett: I went on many buses. Many of them were bought from London Transport and are being operated with conductors. Competition is such in Glasgow that operators now ensure that they have conductors because that is what the public want. They realise that, as a result of deregulation, they now have to compete for the public market and purse.
  Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman is trying to make the case that deregulation has been an unmitigated success in terms of increased vehicle mileage, and so on. Does he not realise that in Scotland, in the first year after deregulation, the number of bus passengers fell? The customers were turning from the bus industry in its

  1001
  deregulated form. That is the one statistic to which the hon. Gentleman has not referred in trying to defend deregulation.
  Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman referred to bus passengers, and, as he knows, bus passenger usage has been falling for many years. However, using the Scottish example specifically, under deregulation there are far more services and far more operators and the passengers' choice has improved.
  Let us consider the Scottish example. An article called, "Deregulated ramblings" by Alistair Douglas, published in December 1986, just as deregulation was being introduced, stated:
  "I am convinced that deregulation will be beneficial to both passengers and operators in the end, but many lessons will have to be learned or relearned on the way … But deregulation provides a challenge which will stretch the ingenuity of operators and there are rewards to be won".
  That was a fair warning in December 1986.
  What has happened in Scotland? If one goes through the pages of the bus industry's largest selling magazine Buses, and looks at the Scottish column, one sees that in May 1987
  "the Scottish Traffic Commissioner rejected Strathclyde Regional Council's plea to order a one-third reduction in the number of buses operating in Glasgow city centre. The Region's request had been opposed by the seven subsidiaries of the Scottish Bus Group".
  They did not want a reduction in the number of buses. The Scottish Bus Group, a nationalised group, wanted that competition and wanted a fair crack of the whip, against the views of the Strathclyde regional council.
  Mr. David Marshall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Strathclyde regional council was forced to appeal to the traffic commissioner simply because Glasgow city centre had been brought to a standstill by hundreds of buses containing no passengers blocking all the through routes of the city? Some order had to be brought into the chaos that had resulted from deregulation.
  Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but what did the commissioner say?
  "The commissioner's decision was based on the view that the increase in buses operating in the city since last August had not been the cause of severe traffic congestion or additional danger to other road users."
  The hon. Gentleman says one thing, but the commissoner says the exact opposite.
  Mr. Hood: What about the rural areas?
  Mr. Bennett: I shall come to the rural areas in a moment.
  In July 1987, the Scottish column in Buses magazine stated:
  "Strathclyde Region have witnessed interesting developments in the provision of bus services, completely unconnected with the tussle between the Scottish bus Group and Strathclyde Buses Ltd, which deregulation has intensified."
  It refers to Oban and the introduction of minibuses by Midland Scottish, and continues:
  "Further south, the Gourock, Greenock and Port Glasgow area is now the scene of fairly fierce rivalry between a number of operators which has developed since last year."
  Turning to more recent editions of Buses. issued this year, the Scottish column states:
  1002
  "In the past few months increased competition has been experienced by Central Scottish in the Lanark sub-region of Strathclyde".
  Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will be aware that my constituency covers 2,000 square miles of rural Scotland. Is he also aware that since deregulation something unique has happened? Not only has the service improved, but, more importantly, operators have been prepared to deviate from their routes to serve small hamlets that previously had never had buses.
  Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One of the great advantages of deregulation has been the tremendous increase in the use of minibuses throughout England, Wales and Scotland to serve small communities, visiting council estates that had not had a bus service before. Not only the heavily populated areas of Scotland have experienced increased competition. Inverness has recently witnessed the full effect of deregulation.
  The Orkneys are among the most depopulated and under-bussed areas in the United Kingdom. The September 1988 edition of Buses says:
  "In Orkney, competition which developed on a tendered route in 1986 has continued for almost two years".
  Labour Members said in 1985 that that competition would not last long but would collapse as one company took over the others. The article continued:
  "a new bus war has just started with three operators having now registered commercial services on one of the main routes."
  In Orkney—where there cannot be said to be rich pickings —there are three operators.
  Mr. Hood rose—
  Mr. Bob McTaggart rose—
  Mr. Bennett: There is an embarrassment of riches before me. I shall take the point to be raised by the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood).
  Mr. Hood: My problem differs from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart). He has too many buses, whereas I have none. My constituency of Clydesdale, covers more than 1,000 square miles. There are rural areas where people are lucky if a bus comes every two or four hours. In parts of my constituency there is a better chance of seeing a Wells Fargo stagecoach than of seeing a Stagecoach bus.
  Mr. Bennett: I cannot speak in detail about the hon. Gentleman's constituency. There has been an increase in the number of buses in my rural constituency. During the past few months, in Tenby and Saundersfoot—two of the smaller towns in my constituency—minibuses have been operating in new estates which previously had never seen a bus. Wherever we look, whether in Scotland or in England and Wales, deregulations has produced new ideas, new buses and minibuses.
  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: Glasgow, Pollock had a fair bus service until deregulation. A tour which used to take half an hour to reach Paisley now takes an hour. Buses used to travel at 10-minute intervals to each part of my area. How can the hon. Gentleman defend what has happened, when people have lost their previous service and now have a lesser one?
  Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentlemansays that the buses now visit all sorts of areas. That sounds as though they

  1003
  visit streets that were never previously served by buses. The hon. Gentleman knows that I believe in the market. If there is a market for bus services, a commercial, privatised bus service will provide them. Companies are kept in being by attracting customers.
  Mr. Dunnachie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman says that the bus companies do not have to provide a service to people in the area—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order, although it may be a point of disagreement.
  Mr. Bennett: Another interesting statistic has resulted from deregulation and privatisation in England and Wales. The number of vehicles built has increased. In recent years, there have been serious problems with the construction of new vehicles. I am glad to say that, because of privatisation, the number of minibuses built has increased. I pay tribute to the new companies which have come on to the market, especially Optare, which seems to run minibuses all over London as well. According to the latest edition of the bus industry's journal, there has been a large increase in the number of large vehicles built for use by bus services. We are seeing the regeneration of the bus industry throughout the United Kingdom and should welcome that as one way of providing new jobs and new services for the public.
  The privatisation of bus companies in England and Wales over the past two or three years—
  Mr. Dunnachie: Disaster.
  Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman shouts, "Disaster." Of the 46 national bus companies in England and Wales which have been privatised, 26 were sold through management buy-outs.
  Let me quote the example of one of those companies, Badgerline, which is a management-employee buy-out. The managing director, Mr. Trevor Smallwood, who is this year's president of the Omnibus Society, said that the Transport Act 1985 had produced competition, efficiency and opportunity. His company has been in the forefront of providing new services and going into towns which previously had a monopoly provision from another operator.
  The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, who has sadly left us, made a speech of—[HON. MEMBERS: "Excellence".] Opposition Members say "excellence". It was excellent from the point of view of those of us who wish to be able to quote in future from the speeches of Front-Bench Opposition Members and provide reasons why people should not vote Labour. The hon. Gentleman spoke about class war. If a Conservative Member spoke about class or race war, he would rightly be hounded out of public life, but, apparently, to wage war against people of a different class is respectable and should be carried on. We shall remember those remarks and ensure that they are quoted in future. The idea that there is something morally correct about waging war on people who happen to be of a different social class is a disgrace and I am surprised that any Labour Member still trots out that 1930s Communist claptrap.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Labour party was against competition. We are glad to hear that directly from a Labour Member; they are usually more circumspect. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) would not have said anything quite as rash as
  1004
  that. We are in favour of competition because the moral arguments are in favour of it. Competition and popular capitalism respond to the market. People want that market, those buses and that service.
  That service and competition provide for the customer what the state has not been able to provide in the past few years. When 1992 comes, it is likely that European bus operators will have as much right to operate services in the United Kingdom as our operators will have to operate in European markets. We shall then see how well our privatised companies which serve the public are able to take on foreign competition from European operators.
  I wish to quote some remarks from members of the Scottish Bus Group. It is interesting to see what Mr, Ian Irwin, chairman of the Scottish Transport Group. says. In The Scotsman of 1 December, he said:
  "The interest already shown by the overwhelming majority of staff clearly indicates that they will he very serious contenders for the ownership of these Scottish-based private sector companies."
  The general manager of Lowland said:
  "We are absolutely delighted that Mr. Rifkind has accepted our strong argument that Lowland Scottish should be allowed to stand alone. Now we must convince him that a management-employee buy-out would work."
  The general manager of Northern said about privatisation:
  "I am confident that Northern can go from strength to strength."
  The general manager of Western and Clydeside said:
  "We could be bigger than ever."
  The general manager of CityLink said:
  "We think we have got a good company and we want it to stay in the current hands."
  Even the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said:
  "I am confident workers' buy-out could succeed, for if each member of staff was prepared to commit hard cash to the venture, then that, coupled with the assets like depots and vehicles, would give them a good start in trying to raise the necessary capital."
  I end with a quote from a letter of 7 December from the director and general manager of Strathtay to myself. He said:
  "The majority of the workforce at Strathtay are very keen to participate in share ownership through the privatisation process. A Savings Scheme ws set up following Mr. Rifkind's announcement in May that Scottish Bus Group was to be privatised, and 60 per cent. of employees are contributing sums ranging from £2—£20 weekly into the fund, which will be used to buy shares if a management-employee buy-out bid is successful."
  Mr. Dunnachie: That was to protect jobs.
  The letter continues:
  "We believe that the objectives of broadening share ownership and developing the enterprise culture will be most effectively served by privatising Scottish Bus Groups Subsidiaries to management/employee buyouts rather than sale to third parties."
  Mr. McKelvey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bennett: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can ask me to give way when I am quoting from a letter.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: Give way.
  Mr. Bennett: The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) shouts from a sedentary position. As he has not been in his place for most of the debate, I shall not take his advice.
  I shall finish quoting what Mr. Renilson wrote:

  1005
  "I believe that the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group presents the Government with an excellent opportunity to genuinely broaden share ownership and change the attitudes of many bus company employees towards private enterprise. It would be a great shame if this opportunity were not exploited to its maximum benefit. In short the important objective is that privatisation allows for employees to become shareholders in the firm for which they directly work. That way the realities of living in a free market world and working for private enterprise business will be realised."
  There can be no stronger support for the Bill than from the workers of the Scottish Bus Group, who wish to be privatised, to work for themselves and to provide a better service.
  9.57 pm
  Mr. Thomas Graham: I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in the debate. Whenever a Minister visits my constituency in his ministerial capacity, I find that a week or so afterwards further job losses are announced. There were the job losses at the royal ordnance factory and now we are faced with losses at Caledonian MacBrayne. The deregulation of the bus services in my area has brought a tremendous problem for the rural community that I represent. Bishopton people have written to the Secretary of State for Scotland to ask for an improvement to be made in their bus services. The present services are lamentable. If deregulation is a sign of success, I can assure the House that the folk of Bishopton do not like the service that they are receiving.
  I find it incredible that folk can welcome the statement that has been made on Caledonian MacBrayne. I represent the area in which its headquarters is located, and I do not welcome it. I recognise that the Secretary of State can introduce privatisation, but it is abysmal that it is suggested that the headquarters should be moved from Gourock to Oban. I note that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) is laughing smugly. It seems that she welcomes with open arms, with glee, the proposal to move from Gourock to Oban. She is delighted to see jobs being removed from an area which has some of the highest rates of unemployment in Scotland. It is unfortunate that some hon. Members are welcoming the removal of jobs from an area which is already denuded of employment and lying at the bottom of the pole, as it were.
  I can assure the House that there were no discussions with the office workers and head workers of Caledonian MacBrayne. I made an effort to speak to them, however, and I can assure the House that none of them wants to move to Oban. The managing director does not wish to make the move. He believes that the move would be bad commercially and make an unbelievable nonsense of the organisation that Caledonian MacBrayne operates. He says:
  "Oban has no staff base. There are communication difficulties and housing shortages in the area."
  He thinks that 20 per cent. of the present staff would not agree to move to Oban. I know that none of the staff wants to make the move.
  Mr. Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way for that to make any sense would be if the Gourock to Dunoon and Wemyss bay to Rothesay routes were excised from the CalMac network? If that is so, does he agree that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs.
  1006
  Michie) should take the future of those routes and the interests of her constituents into account instead of simply putting her money on Oban?
  Mr. Graham: I agree with my hon. Friend. The folk in Gourock and Inverclyde do not want to see CalMac split up. They want to see it in its entirety serving the islands of Arran, Rothesay and Dunoon. We do not want to see it split up. We believe that Caledonian MacBrayne is a good viable option.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Transport (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Graham: My constituents do not welcome the Minister's involvement in the constituency. That means job loss after job loss. We also believe that the Caledonian MacBrayne work force has been loyal and has worked very hard to reduce the subsidy and ensure that it serves the islands. The work force gives its wholehearted commitment and dedication to ensuring that the islands receive a proper decent service.
  I also remind the Minister that the headquarters contains one of the finest computer services in the country. That installation is one of the largest in the west of Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is correct. It is very easy to pick up the phone and contact the headquarters of Caledonian MacBrayne.
  Caledonian MacBrayne and Gourock offer service which has been there since 1969. CalMac has provided 20 years' service to the people of the islands and there have been no complaints. There are more than 19,000 sq ft of offices and more than 19,000 sq ft of work shops, bakeries, engineering space, catering facilities and other stores, and roughly 75 per cent. of the work force live in my constituency.
  The company uses local suppliers wherever possible for engineering, office and catering supplies and nearly all the overhaul work on the 31 ships is undertaken on the Clyde and involves local jobs. We are not talking about transferring 100 jobs from my constituency. The Government are threatening far more than 100 jobs.
  Caledonian MacBrayne is an integral part of the Gourock area. The area needs the jobs and is desperate for them. We do not need bargaining and we do not need other hon. Members of Parliament jumping on to the weaknesses and backs of unfortunate workers. We are in Scotland to fight for jobs, not to see it denuded of them.
  When the new board is set up, I believe that it will be the Government's puppet in the same way that the health boards have been. If the board does not have an opportunity to consider the commercial viability of removing from Gourock to Oban. The Gourock office offers much for the success of the Caledonian MacBrayne operation. If the headquarters are moved, the Government will do that to ensure that Caledonian MacBrayne does not operate successfully. If it does not operate successfully, the Government will sell it off to their friends in the private sector, who will strip the assets and do the business. We have had enough of asset stripping with the royal ordnance factories and we shall fight for the jobs. I hope that the Secretary of State will listen to common sense.
  10.5 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I do not intend to speak with as much vehemence as the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), but I wish to raise several points of concern about the Bill.
  The Secretary of State laid great emphasis on his belief in viable and sustainable competition and said that 11 units would be established throughout Scotland. He appeared to assume that because there would initially be 11 units providing a great deal of variety, there would be permanent competition based on those units. We fear that the establishment of 11 units will not be a safeguard.
  The Scottish Bus Group has drawn attention to the English and Welsh examples and we do not hold out much hope that the units will operate in the way that the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested. The Scottish Bus Group said:
  "The National Bus Company was split into 70 operating units which were sold off individually. But in a short time a process of acquisition and expansion led to the emergence of five largish groups … The danger is that a similar pattern would emerge in Scotland leading to increasingly competitive bus wars between such groups which would create even stronger commercial logic for the companies not to service the remoter areas."
  Our deep concern is that in both the medium and long term, predators will attempt to take over the 11 units so that rather than their providing real competition we will be deprived of any competition. The history of takeovers in Scottish industry is not happy. Many companies were taken over without reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and without concern for the future of the employees. We are concerned that the competitive element should be safeguarded, but there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that that happens.
  If there is over-fierce competition and one group wishes to take over another, there will be a concentration on the profitable routes—which are not those in the rural communities. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde spoke about the difficulties of the people of Bishopton with bus transport since deregulation. I represent villages as remote as Tomintoul and Dufftown, and the problems in my constituency are even more severe. Just as Caledonian MacBrayne is seen as a lifeline to the islands, my constituents and those of other hon. Members representing remote areas see the public service bus as their lifeline. They do not understand why they should suffer because of the Government's ideological stance.
  It is important that the elderly and the poor in our rural communities should not be cut off from the basic amenities and facilities that everyone else takes for granted on their doorsteps. They have to travel vast distances to gain access to hospitals and other services. I want to ensure that my constituents are not deprived because of over-concentration on profitable routes within the city communities.
  It is all very well for hon. Members to talk about the eventual arrival of minibus services, post bus services and so on, but that is little consolation for those who face major problems and the possibility of further cuts in rail services. It may be that the leaked documents, denied by British Rail, do not show a severe cut in services, but when British Rail begins to talk about cost effectiveness we must question the future for such routes as the Aberdeen to
  1008
  Inverness line, which runs through my constituency. There is genuine concern about the Bill's implications for rural communities.
  The Secretary of State had a great deal of fun talking about the position in Grampian. It is another example of intellectual somersaults in the Scottish Office, where one incident is somehow translated into being ideological support for the Government's activities. For example, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) this week took an opinion poll supporting parental involvement to mean support for school boards. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. There are a number of conversations going on in the House which show great discourtesy to the hon. Lady.
  Mrs. Ewing: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for drawing the attention of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway who have just arrived for the debate to the irritation of the noise during this important debate on Scottish legislation.
  It involves an intellectual somersault to take what happened in Grampian region as proving that there is ideological support in that region for privatisation of the bus group. A conscious decision was taken by the regional councillors to safeguard the jobs of 600 employees in the area in the face of the likelihood of yet more legislation with which Scotland disagrees being railroaded through the House by hon. Members who do not represent Scottish constituents. The genuine and responsible approach taken by Grampian regional council is done a great disservice by attempts to turn it into praise for the Scottish Office and this legislation.
  We are worried about the jobs of people employed in the bus industry, our rural communities and safeguarding the proposed elements of competition. We do not believe that there are enough guarantees in the Bill. We shall certainly be interested to see what happens in Committee, but, because of our basic opposition to the privatisation of the Scottish bus service, we shall vote against the Second Reading.
  10.11 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Wray: To look at the Bill, I would think that the great train robbers wrote it. All it does is pass power to one person—the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State power to go in and take over. Clause 2 gives him power to dispose of all the assets. Clause 3 allows him to direct the Scottish Transport Group what to do. Clauses 4 and 5 enable him to transfer the assets wherever he sees fit. The shipping transfer, and even the accounts, are also his responsibility. Clause 10 gives him the opportunity to guarantee Treasury borrowing.
  We are not talking about any chickenfeed. We all know that the Government are sitting like vultures, raping the land and public assets. They are ready to take anything that makes a profit. We are not talking about chicken feed when in 1986 the Scottish Transport Group had a turnover of £180 million. We are talking about a profit of £4·5 million in 1986. Then the Government introduced deregulation. They do not understand the harm that it has done. If they look at the figures hard enough the evidence is clear. The Scottish Transport Group has even stated that, since deregulation in 1987, the £4·5 million profit of

  1009
  1986 has been reduced to a loss of £400,000. All the pirates and operators ganged up on it and put a stranglehold on it.
  The Secretary of State has been taking advice from no one. How hypocritical his statement was when he said that he was placing an emphasis on the employees. He did not go for advice to the employees. He did not consult them. Who did he go to? Did he go to the Scottish Transport Group which did not want him to break it up? No, he sought the advice of Quayle Munro the merchant bankers, who told him that the only way to make a quick buck was by dividing the group. He was talking in February of this year about splitting it into 10 units, but he has now decided to split it into 11.
  In 1984, the Government brought out a White Paper on buses, and deregulation took place in 1986. All the London buses—the scrap buses—came to Glasgow and people were falling off them in Sauchiehall street. It was impossible to get parts for them. We know of the great private company Kelvin transport, which ended up in the dust bucket with debts of £3 million.
  Last week, the Evening Times let us know clearly what the private operators feel about the consumers and commuters; they refused to come out over the festive season. The Evening Times had an editorial about this, but it did not tell us anything that we did not know. These people thought that they would become millionaires overnight, but when the future of the buses was being discussed, nobody gave any consideration to the poor people from areas such as mine, where there are families with 10 children who see the town only once a month. The mother takes the children on a rota basis because she can afford to take only one or two of them at a time. That is what deregulation brought to the people of Scotland and the people of Glasgow.
  We know how bad the situation is. We know that, when the Scottish Transport Users Consultative Committee gave advice to the Government, they did not heed it. The council said that deregulation, and the privatisation of bus groups in Scotland or anywhere else, would not help to improve services. Hundreds of services in Strathclyde have disappeared. All sort of strange tenders came in, and the Strathclyde bus group got its fair share of them. It then had to rescue some of the private operators who could not manage the services that they had won on tender. That is the kind of rubbish results we have had from privatisation, which never brought any good to anybody except the vultures looking for profits. The Scottish Consumer Council advised the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Transport that services were disappearing, with the result that fewer people were using the buses.
  Clauses 4 and 5 set out share schemes for employees, but the Secretary of State for Scotland did not make it clear what percentage of shares employees will get. He did not appear to understand that rural transport suffered badly as a result of deregulation. Will he make any changes when he privatises CalMac? What will happen to the 10,000 employees? Where will they go? What will happen as a result of clause 147? Who will get the big pay-offs and the golden handshakes, and what will be the cost that the taxpayers will have to meet? I hope that, after tonight, the
  1010
  Secretary of State will have a rethink, and will bring to a standstill the privatisation of the Scottish people's public assets.
  10.19 pm
  Mr. Alistair Darling: The Scottish Transport Group has its headquarters in my constituency and at the time of deregulation I was chairman of the Lothian region transport committee, so I think that I know something about the subject—more, I suspect, than the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), who is no longer in the Chamber, having done his duty to the Conservative Whips and made his contribution. Most of his knowledge seems to be gleaned from reading a magazine. It is difficult to find out what it is like waiting for a bus at 11 o'clock at night in Scotland by reading a magazine that is written several hundred miles away.
  Deregulation is where all this nonsense started, for it was the essential prerequisite of privatisation. The Government said that it was not, and the more they said that, the more obvious it became to the rest of us, and to the general public, that that was what deregulation was all about. Deregulation enabled bus companies—I use that term to describe former municipal undertakings, as well as Scottish Transport Group undertakings— to get rid of unprofitable services. There was a mechanism allowing local authorities to subsidise unprofitable routes, and I shall say more about that later.
  Under deregulation, the Government deliberately allowed companies to unload unprofitable routes so that on privatisation, they would not be burdened with providing those services. The one ingredient that has been missing at times in the debate, most importantly from Conservative Members, is a definition of what exactly a bus service ought to be. Is it something that provides a social service and transport for people living in the country or is it a business and purely a means of making a profit and looking after shareholders? Therein lies the fundamental difference between the Government and ourselves.
  We believe that a bus service should be just that—a service. One of the few points upon which I and the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), agree—or at least, he agrees about this in private—is that bus services are a service. In my maiden speech, I made the point that, when I was chairman of the transport committee, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West was a regular caller at my door, asking whether I could do something about this or that bus service, because it had been withdrawn from his constituency. He would say to his constituents, "Isn't this awful? Isn't this terrible?" I believe that he forgot to tell them—I am sure that it was an oversight—that he voted for the very measures that brought about that state of affairs. As the hon. Member knows, deregulation proved a disaster, and had Lothian regional council not been prepared to spend substantial sums keeping unprofitable services on the road, many areas—including several that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West represents—would have been without bus services.
  The Secretary of State said that many local authorities are better off. I can tell him that Lothian regional council was spending about £2 million a year more operating the new deregulated system than it spent when it ran the bus services itself. The reason is obvious. Under the old

  1011
  system, the surpluses made from the profitable routes were used to keep socially necessary services on the road. Under the new regime, that is not possible and will cause a great deal of difficulty. It is nonsense and hypocritical to say that, just as local authorities are willing to subsidise, and must subsidise, the STG and the former municipal undertakings, they will now be invited to subsidise private operators—who, in some cases, are no better than cowboys—to keep services on the road. The public purse will be raided yet again to keep certain services operating, which is wholly objectionable.
  When deregulation was introduced, there was a great deal of talk about competition, just as there has been tonight. There was not really much sign of competition, and I shall give the House an example. In Midlothian on one occasion, Eastern Scottish, a Scottish Transport Group subsidiary company, announced that it proposed withdrawing 12 routes. The local authority was left with no option but to put those routes out to tender, because they were all socially necessary and served villages having no other method of transportation, because car ownership was minimal and train services did not exist in most areas.
  What happened when the services were put out to tender? Only one company tendered for the services, and that was Eastern Scottish, which had withdrawn the service only two weeks before. In other words, Eastern Scottish asked to be paid by the local authority to provide services that it had not been willing to provide. It had the local authority over a barrel, because no other company was willing to operate those routes. That is what will happen in the event of privatisation. Private companies because local authorities know that they cannot leave their people isolated and cut off.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: As the Member for the area concerned, may I confirm that everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) has said is quite right.
  Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  Lothian and Strathclyde regional councils have had to pay substantial sums to keep unprofitable services on the road. There is not the slightest doubt that, as local authority expenditure is pressed and as the effect of the poll tax is felt, local authorities will come under substantial pressure to cut expenditure. One item of expenditure that could he cut—although I hope that this will not happen—is the subsidising of unprofitable bus routes.
  It will be interesting to see whether the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West goes to Lothian regional council and asks for his bus routes to be kept on the road at night and yet says, at the same time, that he wants the councils to reduce their poll tax. That is the double-talk that we have come to expect. I hope that the Minister will deal with that later and will tell us what he expects local authorities to do to keep services on the road within his constituency.
  The bus service is a service, and is valued by the elderly, by people who want to go out at night, by people who need to see relatives in hospital and by people who do not want to drink and drive. One would have thought that the Government would want to encourage that.
  Deregulation has not been the success that the Government talked about. The Secretary of State said that it was a success because millions more miles were run. The answer is perfectly obvious. At peak times, on profitable routes, there are more buses chasing each other. I do not
  1012
  dispute that, if one wants to go on a bus on one of the main routes, there is a greater choice and more buses. However, the evening service in the area that I and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West represent is far worse than it was before deregulation. If the hon. Member and the Secretary of State ever went on buses, they would know that evening services are poor and not half the services that they were before deregulation.
  Ownership is crucial. It is a point on which the Secretary of State has had some difficulty, as he had when we debated the privatisation of electricity yesterday. I want to refer to management buy-outs, because the Secretary of State paid lip service to them and said that he hoped that there would be management buy-outs and, better still, that there would be management and employee buy-outs. However, the history of management buy-outs is not especially successful.
  In the English bus companies, managements bought out services and were quick to realise the assets. In one case, the management was quick to sell out to a Gibraltarian company. Once ownership and control pass outside the jurisdiction of Parliament, there is little chance for us to influence the way in which companies operate and conduct business. That is why we object to ownership passing abroad. That was the issue with Scottish and Newcastle Breweries and Scottish electricity.
  I do not object to employees having a great say and substantial control of the industry in which they work. That is a thoroughly good thing. However, the Secretary of State did not promise to give employees a major stake or guarantee that they should have, for example, 51 per cent. of the industry in which they work. If he had said that, our attitude might be different. Of course, he will not say that, because he is in the business of looking after people who want to invest in the bus companies to make a return for themselves and other shareholders.
  Incidentally, it is no wonder that we hear so much from people who are likely to be in the driving seat—managing directors, and those who represent Scottish Bus Group —and who say that they have no objection to privatisation. Of course they do not; some of them see a good opportunity to make a fast buck. Eastern Scottish, for instance, happens to own a rather large piece of real estate in central Edinburgh, which could easily be sold off and the assets then switched to shareholders in Scotland, England or abroad.
  The same thing as happened in England will happen again. Assets were stripped. Many of those who want into the industry will come in not because they want to operate buses but because they want to get their hands on the assets the companies will own. That is the real attraction for many of these investors. They have no interest in whether the No. 23 bus runs after 10 pm, but they have a great interest in what they will own and what they will be able to do with a large site in the centre of Edinburgh. The position is the same in other parts of the country.
  Another important point about ownership and the location of offices is their responsiveness. I do not think for a minute that someone in London who had bought Eastern Scottish would care if there was much public outcry about the sale of valuable land, or about services not running. If the Secretary of State is determined to press ahead with privatisation, as I am sure he is, why does he not do something that would be revolutionary and extraordinary, and give the employees at least 51 per cent.

  1013
  of the company? He will not, because he does not believe in employees' rights, any more than anyone else in the Government.
  The Government are opening the nation's tills and allowing their supporters and allies to run away with the nation's assets. It is no coincidence that companies such as Stagecoach are warm backers of the Government and friendly towards the Government's policies. Of course, they want a slice of the action; they are looking after their own pockets, not the bus services. There will be cowboys and people who are unfit to run a bus service. Some will drive their coaches down roads and motorways at 90 mph. There will be companies such as Stagecoach, which has been prosecuted for breaches of the road traffic regulations. That is the story of privatisation, because these companies' greatest priority is to make a return on their capital. The last time I looked at Stagecoach's timetable, I saw that the company runs a bus service from Edinburgh to Perth, calling at Dunfermline, within an hour. How is that possible within the speed limit?
  The Secretary of State was also at pains to say that he wanted to return the bus service to the private sector. It is worth looking at why it was taken into the public sector in the first place. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman examines the minutes of the body that was the predecessor of the corporation of his home town of Edinburgh, he will see that, at the beginning of the century, Edinburgh's private bus operators were taken into municipal ownership because they were failing to provide a service. I suspect that that was done by people who were more in turn politically with the Secretary of State than with me.
  If privatisation goes ahead, any hope of an integrated public transport policy will go out of the window. One of Edinburgh's difficulties is the city centre congestion caused by the large number of cars seeking to enter the centre. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State and his junior Minister, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), shout, "The western relief road." That would have done nothing but add to the congestion. It should be obvious to most people that if we had a public transport system that carried a large number of people quickly and cheaply in and out of the city centre, the problems of car parking and congestion would not exist.
  Other European cities recognise that fact. Amsterdam recognises that its centre should be protected and has a cheap and efficient tram and bus service that allows the speedy transit of many people into and out of the city. London is a superb example of public transport breaking down and of people leaving home at 4 am to get to work in their cars. It is happening in Edinburgh, Glasgow and throughout the country—public services are falling apart at the seams because of the lack of public investment and the Government's doctrinaire attitude to public transport. For all those who rely on public bus services, privatisation presents the greatest threat that they have ever known.
  The details of the Bill raise issues of principle. Part I deals with the disposal of the Scottish Bus Group. Its five clauses basically come to this: the whole lot is to be transferred to the Secretary of State and he will decide what to do about it. In other words, after the Bill leaves this place, no opportunity will arise for Members of Parliament to discuss on what terms the bus companies are to be sold off, or when. I suspect that—just as in the sale
  1014
  of MacBrayne Haulage to Kildonan—many of the companies will be sold at knockdown prices because the Government will be anxious to sell them off quickly.
  After the Bill becomes law, I am sure that we shall see a procession of people coming down from the golf clubs and Conservative clubs, knocking on the door of St. Andrew's house and saying, "How about a slice of the action? We backed you; now you back us by handing over these bus companies nice and cheap." The Bill gives no protection to the public purse or to the travelling public. Instead, we see the vacuous statement that the Secretary of State must consider "sustained and fair competition."
  I will tell the Secretary of State what happens in competition. When deregulation was being discussed, we were told that the Scottish Transport Group would not allow its subsidiaries to act as a monopoly. I know—and everyone who understands what was going on also knows —that that is precisely what happened. Lowland Scottish and Eastern Scottish never competed against each other in the tendering; the whole thing was run centrally. The more I was confronted with denials by individual directors, the more obvious it became what was happening.
  When the companies are sold, they will slowly but surely amalgamate. Ultimately we shall have a monopoly —or perhaps, as in the case of the electricity industry, a duopoly—with the Scottish travelling public held to ransom in a stranglehold by the private sector, with any unprofitable but socially necessary routes subsidised from the public purse.
  Part II of the Bill deals with Caledonian MacBrayne. Although my constituency cannot exactly be described as maritime, as someone who from the age of nought has been travelling on MacBrayne's boats—especially to the outer Hebrides—I know something about them. It is interesting to note that the reason the Government are not privatising all routes other than the Clyde routes is that no private sector operator would touch them, because a profit cannot be made from them.
  The Secretary of State talks about investment in new piers, ferries and roll-on/roll-off facilities. No private sector investor would touch that. In many cases, the number of passengers and vehicles carried in the winter months would not provide a commercial return. It would indeed by monstrous if, after public money had been spent on building new vessels for Caledonian MacBrayne, they were handed over at a knockdown price to some private operator.
  Incidentally, as I use the vessel comparatively regularly, let me support my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) in his campaign for a new vessel to cross from Ullapool to Stornoway. The present one is little better than a cattle ship. If we are to build causeways from Vatersay—which I thoroughly support—the replacement of the Suilven must be a priority. I hope that the Secretary of State will deal with that, and not then hand it over to some private operator.
  The Clyde crossing is also an important issue. It illustrates exactly where public service and private enterprise mix—or do not mix, as the case may be. Let me take the Secretary of State back to what happened when privatisation of the Gourock-Dunoon route was considered. An inquiry was set up because the then Secretary of State was under considerable pressure to help those who operated Western Ferries. It is nonsense to have made Caledonian MacBrayne cut its crossings from Gourock

  1015
  and Dunoon from two to one an hour, with the result that one expensive ferry is tied up for substantial parts of the day to make it more profitable for the private operator.
  That private operator is operating three or four ancient vessels, purchased from a company that used to cross to the Isle of Wight. Caledonian MacBrayne was made to restrict its services simply to give the private sector operator a chance. That is not fair competition. It was rigged from the start to help the private operator. There was a negative public subsidy to keep a public asset tied up at a pier rather than providing the necessary service. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said, it would be nonsense to take away that part of Caledonian MacBrayne because the result would be to
  1016
  step up subsidies for the outer-isle services. No doubt the Secretary of State would then say that it costs more because it is in the public sector.
  The Bill is obnoxious and is flawed simply because it does not recognise the fact that transport is a public service. Many people rely on buses and ferries as part of their way of life and without them they will be marooned and substantially worse off. It is nonsense to suggest that the Bill will improve matters, except for one or two money-grubbing cowboys who will seek to profit out of it. Those are the people the Government seek to protect. The Secretary of State knows that, as does the Under-Secretary. We will oppose the Bill because it undermines a public service which most people in Scotland want to see remain intact. It is one of the reasons why the Conservative party is currently placed so low in the polls.
  10.41 Pm
  Mr. David Marshall: The Secretary of State and his fellow Tories have made much of employee-management buy-outs in the Scottish Bus Group and in the public transport sector in our cities. The Secretary of State also referred to the Transport and General Workers Union's support for such buy-outs. I declare an interest as a TGWU-sponsored Member of Parliament and I can tell the Secretary of State that the union and its members—the bus workers in the Scottish bus industry—did not decide to opt for such a buy-out by choice. Given freedom of choice, their decision would have been to remain as they are now. However, the Government do not believe in freedom of choice, except for the rich. Therefore, the bus workers have opted for what they see as the next best option. They have opted that way largely out of fear for what will happen to them as a result of the Bill. They are afraid of what will happen to their wages and conditions of work and to their jobs. If they fall into the hands of some of the asset-stripping predators waiting in the wings, who knows what will happen to them? They have every right to be afraid.
  I shall look at the much-mentioned and much-maligned Stagecoach company. In Scotland, Stagecoach is a non-union company—if I am wrong I am happy to be corrected and I will apologise—but in England it allows trade union membership. However, it pays lower wages and offers poorer conditions than those in the Scottish Bus Group, but the fares are basically the same. Therefore, Stagecoach is not passing on the benefit of its saving in operational costs to the fare-paying passenger by offering lower fares and better services. It is more concerned with making higher profits and exploiting its employees.
  I seek positive clarification from the Minister on several issues which are important to employees in the industry. Is the Minister prepared to include within the articles of sale of the companies the proviso that the successful purchaser must continue with membership of the present pension scheme, which is known as TOPS—the transport operators pension scheme? Will there be any difference in the treatment of pension rights for existing and new employees, or will there simply be no legal requirement to provide a pension scheme? Will workers who have left the industry after years of loyal service—many of them on health grounds—and who have earned entitlement to a pension, have that pension safeguarded? Those are important points. I am sure that the Minister will deal with that when he replies to the debate.
  On the question of financial assistance to employee-management buy-outs, the Secretary of State boasts that up to 75 per cent. of professional fees, subject to a maximum payment of £48,750, can be provided. If, however, the bid is successful, that assistance has to be repaid. The Secretary of State gives it with one hand and claws it back with the other. The only beneficiary of that type of assistance will be the ever-increasing number of consultancies that are springing up all over the place. In the main, consultants are the friends of this Government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) referred to the 5 per cent. discount on the highest bid that was made available for employee-management buy-outs when the National Bus Company was sold. The Secretary of State has not said whether that
  1018
  discount will apply to Scotland. Even if it will, it is totally insufficient to deter a determined asset stripper who is willing to bid over the odds and more than recoup the extra cost by selling off the assets, which are often on prime sites in our towns and cities.
  Bearing in mind the fact that, of the 72 national bus companies, only two were the subject of successful management-employee buy-outs at the time of the original sale, if the Secretary of State will not agree to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) to give 51 per cent. of the shares to the employees of the Scottish Bus Group, I appeal to him —if he genuinely supports employee-management buy-outs—to consider that one of the best ways to achieve it is to offer to them at least a 10 per cent. discount on the highest bid.
  Furthermore, how many companies will any bidder be allowed to buy? When the 72 NBC companies were sold, no bidder was allowed to buy more than a maximum of three companies. Only 11 companies are to be sold in Scotland; only one company should therefore be sold to any one bidder. What safeguards does the Secretary of State intend to provide to prevent the regrouping of the Scottish Bus Group under single ownership after privatisation? What will happen if some of the companies fail to find a bidder, especially those companies that operate in rural, remotely populated areas? Will they be kept in public ownership, or will they be given away—perhaps by means of a "buy one, or buy two, and get one free" offer?
  Another aspect of the Bill that concerns me greatly is its effect on the bus and coach building industry in Scotland. Traditionally, Walter Alexander and Company of Falkirk has been the main supplier to the Scottish Bus Group and other Scottish bus companies, but already, as a result of deregulation, it is suffering declining orders. Imported buses and minibuses are coming on to the streets in even greater numbers. A privatised Scottish Bus Group will no doubt go down the same road. It will buy even more foreign vehicles. No longer will there be the traditional loyalty and connection between the Scottish Bus Group and Walter Alexander. The Bill will result in the loss of many jobs in the industry.
  The Scottish Bus Group was not privatised at the same time as the National Bus Company, because the Government thought then that the result of deregulation would be that the Scottish Bus Group would swallow up most of the other independent and public operators in Scotland and thereby become a much more attractive and saleable commodity at a substantially increased price. However, that did not happen. The Scottish Bus Group lost several million pounds in the Greater Glasgow area as a result of getting it wrong, following deregulation.
  The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) referred to Glasgow. I am glad that he has returned to the Chamber after a considerable absence. We know what happened in Glasgow after deregulation. Hundreds of buses crowded into the city centre, chasing even fewer passengers. They brought the city centre to a standstill. The newspapers were full of pictures. National television showed what was happening. The only person who was unaware of it was the hon. Member for Pembroke.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman says that I was the only person who was unaware of it, but when he intervened during my speech I told him that the traffic commissioner turned down that complaint.
  Mr. Marshall: Yes. When I intervened I also put the record straight as to why Strathclyde regional council felt that it was necessary to approach the traffic commissioner. I think that he made the wrong decision, but that is a matter of opinion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) is correct. His constituents, together with those of many other hon. Members, lost out. Buses were withdrawn from rural areas so that they could be used on what were believed to be the most lucrative routes in the Glasgow area. It was the economics of the madhouse, and they ended the problem. I am sorry to say that the fact that such behaviour was not profitable, rather than the actions of the traffic commissioners, ended it all. Indeed, the Scottish Bus Group lost millions of pounds.
  The hon. Member for Pembroke seemed to welcome the purchase of London buses and the reappearance of conductresses, or clippies. The purchase of 30-year-old, and even older, open-ended ex-London Routemasters was not welcomed in Scotland by those of us who are anxious about safety and reliability in public transport. Glasgow got rid of such buses in the 1960s, largely because too many passengers got injured boarding and alighting at stops and elsewhere, causing a hazard to traffic.
  The clapped-out ex-London buses kept breaking down in many parts of Glasgow. That was another problem which the traffic commissioners examined. The buses should have been in a scrapyard, not on the streets of a major city. I agree with the hon. Member for Pembroke that the conductresses were popular, but competition has meant that they have almost disappeared. As many of us thought at the time, the move was simply a temporary publicity gimmick.
  The main emphasis of the Bill is on profitability, not the provision of services. At the moment, local authorities can and do subsidise unprofitable but socially desirable routes. As there is a widespread population outwith the heavily populated central belt of Scotland, it is not unreasonable to forecast that the majority of rural routes will be deemed unprofitable by private operators or left to depend on the mercy of local authorities which the Government continually deprive of the resources necessary to provide proper services for their electors.
  The Bill has little to do with transport or providing services —it is all to do with selling off publicly owned assets at knockdown prices and transferring 10,000 workers from the public to the private sector, and it is yet another attack on trade union organisation and the wages and conditions of workers.
  From 1960 to 1969, I was a transport worker. I spent two years as a tramcar conductor—I think that I am the only ex-"cour" conductor in the House—and seven years as a bus conductor, all with Glasgow corporation transport. Bus workers everywhere do an excellent job on behalf of the nation. They work all manner of shifts, every day of the week and every week of the year, sometimes in the most atrocious weather conditions and in the most difficult social conditions. What is their reward for all this loyal service? A kick in the teeth by the Bill. They deserve much better.
  1020
  The Bill will do nothing to benefit the economy of Scotland or to create jobs there. Indeed, it will cause jobs to be lost. For all those reasons, the Bill is bad and deserves our opposition.
  10.53 pm
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I am quite convinced that what we heard from the hon Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) was nothing less than a grovelling performance in an attempt to get some sort of job in the Government. I wish him every failure in that.
  The performance of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) at the prospect of jobs being gained in her constituency at the expense of another was quite disgraceful.
  Many people will recall the moment of truth for the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) when, as Prime Minister, he faced the reality of privatising Rolls-Royce. If he had not nationalised it, the company would have been finished or, more likely, snapped up by foreign buyers. The Government that the right hon. Gentleman formed started off on similar lines to the present one. Public ownership was considered a bad thing but, to his credit, the right hon. Gentleman did what he had to do for the sake of the country when he was confronted by the Rolls-Royce crisis. The right hon. Gentleman recognised that the country could not be run with a dogmatic approach to managing the economy and providing public services.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland is now facing the reality that the dogma of privatisation is not a talisman for economic prosperity. No doubt his continued advocacy of it has more to do with personal ambition. He knows that the Tory Back Benches are full of people with arrested mental development who jump up and get excited at the mention of privatisation.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland is beginning to recognise reality. That is demonstrated by his comments on 30 November when he said:
  "I made it clear that the Government had no preconception as to whether the privatisation of Caledonian MacBrayne would be a realistic option."
  We are told continually that privatisaton is the answer to everything, and that there is no alternative, yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman is on record as questioning whether privatisation would be a realistic option. Let us not hear any more of the Tory claim that they have a superior method of running the modern economy. His attitude to CalMac demonstrates that the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken a small but significant step on the road to Damascus. Let us have no more hypocrisy.
  The Scottish Transport Group, which employs 10,000 people and has a turnover of £180 million, is obviously an important factor in the Scottish economy in addition to its crucial social role in Scottish life. The objectives of the Bill have been well summed up by the Secretary of State, as follows:
  "To manage its bus operations as it would do in the interests of private shareholders seeking in particular to retain customer goodwill".
  That demonstrates the Government's priorities, not only in the Bill but in their general approach to the economy. The second objective is to provide services "subject to Objective I." It is quite clear that the provision of services is subject to the interests of private shareholders.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland takes the view that the travelling public will benefit from the greater sensitivity

  1021
  to the market that a private company necessarily has. The intellectual poverty of such a banal statement does not square with the intellect of the Secretary of State. It seems that, in spite of his intellect, he is grovelling to the extremists on his own Back Benches. He is just another Tory politician on the make, prepared to sacrifice his credibility for his career.
  Let us consider the service provided since deregulation. The Secretary of State for Scotland said:
  "As he knows, Strathclyde regional council is perfectly able to provide public funds to support the continuation of routes that individual companies do not want to provide. The regional council is the appropriate authority to decide whether there is a social need for a bus service on a particular route."—[Official Report, 30 November 1988, Vol. 142, c. 709-21.]
  If ever I was tempted to judge the Secretary of State as a politician who was fair and above board, that temptation left me when I heard that statement.
  As a former Strathclyde councillor, I remember the agonies that I suffered in the preparation of the council's budget. Against the background of successive cuts in rate support grant, we had to rob Peter to pay Paul in trying to maintain Strathclyde's public services.
  Strathclyde regional council is one of the best run councils in Scotland. Even the Secretary of State has paid tribute to its record. To claim that Strathclyde is perfectly able to provide public funds for the continuation of routes does not stand up to scrutiny, and the Secretary of State knows it.
  I disagree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) about Strathclyde region. Strathclyde's Labour administration is doing a first-class job, in spite of the Government, and all Opposition Members should be giving it our support.
  Deregulation is not working. The Scottish Consumer Council says:
  "It is still too early to give a final verdict on the effects of deregulation. The situation is unstable and the forthcoming privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group throws everything in the air."
  The Secretary of State has made great play of his enthusiasm for employee-management buy-outs. As has been said before, buy-outs have been preferred to control of the workers' future going to people who do not care. There is nothing wrong with employees buying out these companies—this is a means of common ownership which the Opposition welcome—but the motivation for employee buy-outs should not be employees' desperation to retain control over their future. They should be motivated by a thought-out, principled approach, encompassing economic and social factors.
  The Secretary of State said that the Unity Trust bank was supported by the trade union movement. He should note the role of the Co-operative bank in this venture. The background to Unity Trust shows the support that came from the trade union and co-operative movements. It is a bit late for the Tories to claim the credit for that development. The Secretary of State should take steps to ensure that the pattern of employee buy-outs in Scotland differs from that in England. These buy-outs, if motivated by a commitment to the community of which they are part, would be crucial in maintaining jobs, standards and services.
  1022
  The Bill will do nothing for the travelling public and employees unless control is gained by employee buy-outs. The Secretary of State has done little to encourage them. Many of us remain suspicious that he will be content to allow the Tories' friends in commerce and industry to acquire these companies, with all the dangers for employees and the public associated with the Tory dogma of privatisation. For all those reasons, we shall oppose the Bill.
  11.1 pm
  Mr. John McFall: It is getting late, but my constituents would not forgive me if I did not raise the points which they have made to me in the past few months about the Bill. They will be affected by the geographical subsidiaries, Central and Kelvin, which will be amalgamated and privatised. The service will become even worse in my constituency.
  When I go around my constituency, I am asked, "Are the Government interested in public transport, or is it a thing of the past?" Sadly, it appears from some comments that it is a thing of the past. We have had two doses of the Government's attempts at transport in Scotland. We had deregulation. My experience, and that of my constituents, was dismal. As one elderly constituent said to me, "Since 1979, the Prime Minister has wanted to put us back on our feet. She has—because there are no buses left in the area." That was the result of deregulation in my area. Because of their stoicism, my constituents have told me that they have more chance of catching the flu than of catching a bus.
  What do we have to add to deregulation? Bearing in mind that deregulation involved bidding for contracts, we now have privatisation as well. That is not deregulation which just invites tenders for routes; it involves opening up to the market everything to do with buses, with the attendant issues of bus networks, costs, frequency of service and safety. Where is the social dimension?
  On 30 November, the Secretary of State talked about the social dimensions:
  "Strathclyde regional council is perfectly able to provide public funds to support the continuation of routes that individual companies do not want to provide. The regional council is the appropriate authority to decide whether there is a social need for a bus service on a particular route."— [Official Report, 30 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 721.]
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman was telling us that social need was not met through privatisation. To meet it, we have to go to the local authority, which has been deprived of money year after year. Where is the social concern in the Bill? There are implications for local authorities in respect of assistance for the elderly, the handicapped and school transport and integration with fare-paying passengers.
  What chance is there of a social dimension with the Scottish Bus Group working to a profit target? What faith should be put in the Secretary of State's statement about employee participation? Despite several opportunities, the Secretary of State has still given no commitment about employee participation. He said:
  "It will be encouraged by the provision of financial assistance to management-employee teams wanting to bid for their companies and offering the prospect of locally based management with real employee participation."
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) said, the Secretary of State gave no figures to support that. The Secretary of State's statement contains no commitment.

  1023
  The Secretary of State went on to say that the Government cannot guarantee that employee management
  "will be the end result, because that will depend on the proposals eventually put before us."—[Official Report, 30 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 708-21.]
  There is no commitment in that respect, just as there is no commitment to the social dimension.
  We should remember that when we consider what happened to the 72 component companies of the National Bus Group in England when only two went to employee participation buy-out. That again shows why we do not have any faith in the Secretary of State's statement.
  Safety is an important aspect, but it has not been mentioned tonight. We should remember the Clapham Junction rail accident this week and the King's Cross and Herald of Free Enterprise accidents. Surely safety should have been an issue to be considered in Scotland's transport policy.
  The environmental aspect has not been mentioned either in this debate. We have been told that the Prime Minister is interested in the green vote, but what about the greenhouse effect, lead-free petrol, overcrowded roads and an integrated transport policy? No reference has been made to that because the Government have a quick-buck mentality. This is a quick sell-off and the Government have no concern for anything that is left behind.
  Finally, I shall deal with the rural dimension of the Bill and its effects on my constituency. I visited ScotRail last week and it informed me that tourism is the mainstay of Scottish rural routes. However, according to The Guardian last week, British Rail is now considering whether a bus service would be a better use of Government subsidy. Two routes in my constituency—the Helensburgh to Fort William route and the Helensburgh to Oban route—could disappear as a result of that. If that happens, those areas and communities dependent on tourism will decline. The life of the community is therefore in peril.
  There are no Labour district councillors in Helensburgh; they are all Conservative district councillors and there is an independent regional councillor. If I stand in Helensburgh town centre with a petition, I shall find 100 per cent. support because the Helensburgh public want to retain their communities, as they have repeatedly told me. They know that the bus service would not work. They need a rail service to retain the rural dimension. In effect, they are saying that they need an integrated transport policy.
  What attention have the Government paid to such a policy? When was the last time that the Secretary of State met the chairman of ScotRail or the chairmen of the bus companies to discuss an integrated transport policy? The Bill makes no mention of an integrated transport policy. There is no commitment to such a policy, to communities or ordinary people. People's interests have been set aside in this sale in the pursuit of ideological goals and cuts in public expenditure. The Government are saying that they do not want to spend any more or to give any commitment to a public sector service in Scotland, whether rural or urban. In other words, they are casting aside people's social concerns.
  The Bill shows a total lack of concern for social, environmental and transport issues. It will do nothing for the ordinary person, the community or the country, and that is why it deserves to be rejected tonight.
  11.10 pm
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), I have an interest to declare. I, too, am a Member sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union.
  I have another interest to declare, which is shared by only one other person in the Chamber at this moment, and that is you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My second interest is that I am a female. That being so, I want to talk about safety, a topic which has not yet been mentioned. The male Conservative Members present do not have sufficient imagination to understand what it is like to travel alone, late at night, in a lonely area. They do not know what it is like to sit alone in a bus station late at night. They do not know what it is like to be afraid and to be wondering constantly how long it will be before the bus arrives. A woman on her own may be confronted by drunks fighting or by one man making a pest of himself. It is sad that women live with these fears daily. They often do not have cars of their own, so they must rely on public transport.
  Some hon. Members might wonder what my remarks have to do with privatisation. The answer is simple. In the drive for profits, services are cut and the staffing of stations is reduced. Travellers are less safe when there are fewer staff at stations, and that will be the result of the quest for profits. Everyone in Scotland knows that. The Conservative parliamentary women's committee has been formed presumably so that it can deal with issues that concern women, and it is sad that no Conservative Member on the committee is present to protect the interests of women travellers.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Lady accept my assurance that in my constituency, where there has been deregulation, we have seen many new operators with minibuses? Women say how safe they feel when they are close to the drivers, who have a supervisory role. The instances of attacks on women and muggings of young men have decreased greatly since deregulation.
  Mrs. Fyfe: I do not think that that intervention answers the problem.
  Mr. Hood: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Yorkshire Ripper was a driver?
  Mrs. Fyfe: I shall not give way again because time is short.
  The fact is that women feel a lack of security and are afraid to travel alone at night in lonely areas. Only a few months ago a woman was murdered on a train—[Interruption.] I do not know why Conservative Members find that funny. It is not funny to travel alone and to be frightened. The response of Conservative Members shows their insensitivity.
  The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) talked about the Bill and linked it with popular capitalism. He has failed to notice that privatisation is not the least bit popular in Scotland, especially in the form contained in the Bill. The great majority of the Scottish population do not want it.
  When a family is able to run a private car, it is usually used by the husband for his journeys to and from work. His wife will get around by using public transport, along with her children, whatever the inconvenience may be. In the search for profits, companies will cut services, alter

  1025
  routes and remove buses from routes. Women with children to look after, or elderly parents, will suffer all the inconvenience, while others seek to make a fast buck.
  When the public are dissatisfied because of a lack of service, who will be accountable? Conservative Members have failed to answer that question. The type of complaints about private sector bus services in my constituency is almost unbelievable. A bus was removed from service on a route that served a hospital. Passengers have had to wait three hours in some instances when travelling from one place to another. It is impossible to travel by bus to some local hospitals.
  In my constituency a young boy travels from his home to his secondary school and he has been refused access to a particular company's buses because one driver claimed that his behaviour was unacceptable. Oddly enough, the boy's behaviour is acceptable on every other bus he travels on. When his father protested, the bus company did not have the courtesy to answer—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I would appreciate it if those hon. Members who wish to carry on conversations would do so on the other side of the swing doors.
  Mrs. Fyfe: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Your having to intervene demonstrates the incredible lack of interest on the Conservative Benches. [Interruption.]
  To finish my point, that boy's father has written to the bus company three times, but it did not have the courtesy to answer. He came to me and asked me to take up his case. All I could do was write to the company and hope that it would respond to me.
  Mr. David Tredinnick: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman has just come into the Chamber, so I will not give way.
  When the Secretary of State for Scotland announced the privatisation, he referred to the consultation with Quayle Munro, the accountants. I asked him whether he had ever discussed safety and convenience for women and children passengers. He said that he had not done so, because he did not believe that that had any relevance. He had better wait and see, because the complaints will be legion and I will deliver to him every complaint from the women of Scotland as I receive them.
  11.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) on his strong support for our decision on Vatersay, which will be very important for the Western Isles. However, I take issue with him on one of his earlier points. He said that safety had suffered as a result of deregulation. The evidence does not bear that out and, despite the increase in vehicle miles run by buses since deregulation, there has been a fall in the number of casualties in accidents involving public service vehicles between 1985–86 and 1986–87. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that vehicle quality has deteriorated.
  The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North said that bus services should be provided in the social interest. Of course the subsidy arrangements provided in the
  1026
  Transport Act 1985, following deregulation, allow regional and islands councils, quite rightly, to subsidise any bus services that they consider to be socially necessary. Councillors have the necessary powers to maintain the rural bus network and fill the gaps in the commercial network where they consider that there is a social need.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) also raised the question of socially necessary services. I assure him that the need for regional councils to subsidise bus services is taken into account in the rate support grant calculation, both in reaching decisions on expenditure provision and in grant distribution. That will certainly continue in future. He omitted to say that, when I made representations to him after the withdrawal of bus services from my constituency, he acceded to a large part of my representations.
  Mr. Darling: Of course I did, because I believe in providing a public bus service as a service. I was happy to accede to the hon. Gentleman. I was also happy to tell his constituents why it had all come about. Will the Under-Secretary of State tell me why the leader of the Conservative group on the Lothian regional council, Mr. Brian Meek, believes that one of the elements of high spending in Lothian regional council is the amount of money it spends subsidising the bus service? Is he saying that Brian Meek is wrong?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman should be clear about the fact that there are socially necessary services. He and I both recognise that, and I have no regret about approaching him.
  The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) raised the question of rural bus services. Research on the effects of bus deregulation shows that rural bus networks have been largely maintained both in extent and in frequency.
  I wish to answer many of the points raised, but first I shall briefly explain the Government's objectives. First, we want to complete the dismantling of control over the Scottish bus industry so that it is free to respond to the needs and demands of consumers. Deregulation was the first step in that process and, two years on, the bus network remains and the number of vehicle miles provided has increased. Where bus operators have seen opportunities to provide more services, they have been free to do so and there has been a net increase in the number of vehicle miles. Where services have been lost, it is because local authorities felt that it would not be justifiable to provide, at public expense, the continuation of such services. Where services were considered to be socially necessary, they have been retained at a reduced cost overall. New services have been provided.
  In a freer bus market it is anomalous for the dominant position to be held by a publicly owned bus company with more than half the total market. It is also anomalous for such a company to be centrally controlled in a market designed to encourage local responsiveness, because the whole purpose of our policy is to do just that. The Bill provides powers for a freer amd more responsive market. The Scottish Bus Group will be divided into 11 units, with nine local operating units. Our aim is to create new, locally based companies that will not only be for the benefit of the bus traveller, but will boost enterprise in Scotland. The enthusiasm of management and workers to take part in that process shows that there is a spirit of enterprise.

  1027
  Our second objective is to make suitable arrangements for the continuation of the important lifeline ferry services on the west coast of Scotland provided by Caledonian MacBrayne. Every Scottish Member will be aware of the verse:
  "The earth is the Lord's and all it contains
  Except for the Islands, and they are MacBrayne's."
  It is unthinkable that we should be other than totally committed to the continuation of at least the present quality of service. Our careful examination of CalMac's operations show that, for the most part, its routes are and will continue to be loss-making. For that reason, it is not a straightforward case for privatisation and it will be transferred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Wilson: While the Minister is in the mood to quote Hebridean folklore, perhaps he would say whether he is aware that the word "Tory" in Gaelic means "thief".
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has his facts right—it certainly does not spring from what I am saying. CalMac is providing a lifeline service to the islands, which will most certainly continue.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will set up a new board for CalMac and give it a clear directive to examine how its operations can be provided in a more cost-effective way while maintaining at least the present standard of service. During recent years there has been substantial investment in CalMac and future arrangements will ensure that our commitment to improve support for ferry services will continue to be honoured.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) raised the question of pensions, about which there has been some concern. It is a complex issue and discussions have already started. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish Transport Group has appointed an expert pensions adviser who is already holding discussions with the unions. Suitable arrangements will be made to safeguard pension rights and to provide for their continuation. It will be for the privatised companies to establish new pension arrangements for their employees.
  When making bids, prospective purchasers will be asked to state their proposals for pensions. The terms of new pension arrangements may be different from those of the Scottish Transport Group. The group will provide transitional arrangements to ensure continuity of pension provision until new schemes are provided in the privatised companies. Arrangements will be made to secure in full the rights of existing pensioners and accrued rights under deferred pensions. That means that all existing pensioners will continue to receive the same pension as they would have had if the Scottish Transport Group had continued.
  For existing employees all accrued entitlements up to an employee's date of leaving the STG pension scheme will be fully protected in accordance with existing provisions with regard to future pensions increases. Employees will have a choice either to opt for a transfer value to be paid into their new scheme or to have deferred pension rights under their existing accrued entitlements.
  New pension arrangements will require to be established also for those employees of Caledonian MacBrayne who are currently within STG pension arrangements.
  Mr. David Marshall: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer on employees who have already earned a pension entitlement and left the industry. Is he saying that existing employees, after their transfer to a new company and after a transitional period, could well have their pension scheme changed to a scheme inferior to the one they enjoy or to no scheme?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I said that employees will have a choice between opting for a transfer value to be paid into the new scheme or to have deferred pension rights under existing accrued entitlements, depending on which is more favourable to the employee concerned. It is important that an expert pensions adviser is now in touch with the trade unions on that point and is following it up.
  A further important issue which has been raised is management-employee buy-outs. My hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) provided strong support for that, as there has been throughout Scotland. We wish to encourage such buy-outs and preference will be given to bids incorporating a real degree of employee participation. The Secretary of State has already announced the financial assistance that will be available. That is a maximum assistance of £48,750. Seminars will be held with managers on the general principles of these buy-outs as well as video presentations—
  Mr. McKelvey: It disturbs me that the Minister says that consultations will be held with managers on manager-employee buy-outs. I should have thought that, in a democracy, we should talk to the workers.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is right. Seminars will be held with managers on the general principles and a video presentation will be given to the work force at all depots.
  I shall show the House how strong is the feeling in favour of management-worker buy-outs. The general manager of Strathtay is reported in The Scotsman as saying:
  "We consulted with the staff throughout the company, held meetings at all the garages and the view came back loud and clear that they wanted to attempt to mount a bid."
  Lowland's general manager said:
  "We are absolutely delighted that Mr. Rifkind has accepted our strong argument that Lowland Scottish should be allowed to stand alone. Now we must convince him that a management-employee buy-out would work."
  The general manager of Northern Scottish Omnibuses said that the intended to lead a management-employee buy-out. Mr. James Moffat, general manager of Highland Scottish Omnibuses, said that staff had started a savings scheme with a view to taking part in a buy-out. For Eastern, Mr. Gall said that the company was encouraging its people to support a buy-out bid because it is the best deal for everybody and a sound proposition. The Scotsman reported:
  "Mr. Shoat, the Scottish TGWU secretary, said that he hoped that Unity Trust, the trade union bank, might provide help for employees trying to put together buyout packages."
  Mr. Wilson: The Minister is quoting from The Scotsman, and I am sure that he will not wish to be selective. He will also wish to quote from Mr. Hamish Morrison, the chief executive of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), who said:
  "Simply to offer assistance with drawing up a bid, with no guarantee that management and employees will not be outbid by competitors with deeper pockets, is wishful thinking."

  1029
  Would the Minister care to address that concern?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman leads me directly to the question of preference. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said today that the price would not be the only factor in deciding what bids to accept. He would have to take into account as the main test the promotion of sustained and fair competition, the extent of employee participation and price. Management-employee buy-outs, by their nature, create a large number of companies, which add to competition, and that will be borne in mind.
  My right hon. and learned Friend made it clear that Scottish-based companies with a significant measure of employee participation will satisfy some of the competition and participation objectives, but it is essential that the price is relevant to the value of the assets. The House will be aware of the strong interest that we have in seeing the spread of employee ownership and participation in management-employee buy-outs, but not regardless of cost.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister give an undertaking that the bids for each and every one of the 11 companies will be made public so that we can judge the effectiveness of the Minister's decision making?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall look at that point.
  Many hon. Members have expressed concern about ownership safeguards. One of the main objectives of privatisation is to boost enterprise in Scotland through the creation of locally based companies. One of the best ways to do this is through management-employee buy-outs, which we are keen to encourage. However, no guarantees can be given about the eventual outcome of the bidding process, nor about what happens to companies after privatisation. One Scottish company bought four English companies at the NBC privatisation, and we cannot deny English companies the same right to bid in Scotland.
  The best defence against takeover is for a company to be well run and successful, and we had this very much in mind in deciding on the units for sale and their size. Legislation already exists to control anti-competition practices. Therefore, any proposed mergers of companies after privatisation will be subject to competition legislation.
  The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North asked about asset stripping, and other hon. Members expressed concern about this. Specialist advice on property matters will be sought. Arrangements will be made in each case to ensure that either the future development value of bus companies is reflected in sales proceeds or that the conditions of sale ensure that an appropriate share of future development value is recouped if a property is sold within a specified time. We shall be careful to ensure that there is no scope for asset stripping.
  This is an obvious point, but we are committed to an upgrading of the ferry services. Expenditure has been more than £22 million on capital works, including pier works and ships, and since 1979 we have spent some £78·7 million in direct support of ferry travel, which is a substantial amount.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) asked about consumers making their views known. They
  1030
  can do so through the Shipping Services Advisory Committee, and the Scottish Transport Users Consultative Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries raised this point as well. From recent discussions with the islands' community representatives, I am aware of how strongly they feel about the value of these bodies in making representations, and I see no reason to change the consultation arrangements when CalMac is taken into the ownership of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. It is vital that the views of consumers are taken into account. It is our intention to appoint members of the new CalMac board with first-hand knowledge of the islands and their needs. I emphasise the importance that the Government place on the responsiveness of the company to the community that it serves.
  The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) made a sincere and passionate speech on behalf of his constituents at Gourock. The points that he mentioned will be looked at, but there are sound reasons for moving the headquarters to Oban.
  Mr. Graham: Why?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: They will be nearer the centre of operations, and many people recognise that advantage. Nevertheless, that decision will require careful consideration, and the Government will look to the new board to deal positively with that issue, taking into account all relevant considerations in relation to the Clyde.
  The privatisation of the upper Clyde will inevitably lead to a shift in the company's sphere of influence. I appreciate the hon. Member's fears that there will be a reduction in the number of jobs in his constituency, but two important factors must be taken into account. First, there are the commercial aspects of CalMac's operations to be considered and the greater emphasis on Western Isles services in the future. Secondly, the jobs in question will not be lost to Scotland. The leader in the Glasgow Herald commented:
  "The proposal to shift the centre of administrative operations to Oban makes sense. In a unitary state, the furthest flung areas have as strong a claim to efficient public services as anywhere else."
  Mr. Graham rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have given way frequently, and I shall make this the last occasion.
  Mr. GrahamI feel sure that I am not hearing the Minister right. I believe he said that a board will be established having decision-making powers. But now he is saying that the board must move from Gourock to Oban —so there will be nothing but hard-line guidance.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: When the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, he will see what I said. His points will be carefully considered, but it is very much our hope that the headquarters will move closer to the centre of operations.
  As to the Gourock-Dunoon and Weymss bay-Rothesay services, there is no doubt that the situation in respect of the Gourock-Dunoon crossing is anomalous. It is an unsubsidised private sector crossing competing with a subsidised public sector crossing on a similar route. The vessels Jupiter, Juno and Saturn making that crossing are shared with the Weymss bay-Rothesay crossing and are interchangeable. There seems a good case for the private

  1031
  sector to take on those crossings, and we shall ask the board to investigate with the private sector the possibility of transferring those routes.
  The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) asked about RET. It has been thoroughly considered in the past, and the Secretary of State announced the reasons for his position on 21 February 1984. A flexible RET system is something of a contradiction in terms, as fares are meant to reflect the cost of travelling the same distance by road, and remove charges from controversy.
  The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute asked also about rural railway lines. The Bill's scope does not include them. The hon. Lady said that rural lines are under threat, but I reassure her that British Rail has no plans to close railway lines in Scotland. She was referring to something that was purely press speculation.
  The Bill is important for Scotland's public transport. We believe that it will make Scottish bus services more competitive and responsive to their customers. We believe that it will provide a boost to enterprise in Scotland, giving working men and women the opportunity to have a stake in their industry.
  Mr. McKelvey: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I notice that the Strangers' Gallery has been cleared. Is there a reason for that?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: There is, to my knowledge, no reason for it. I can still see people in the Strangers' Gallery, but if right hon. and hon. Members are concerned, I shall call for a report immediately.
  Later—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand that members of the public were being moved to another gallery to give them a better view.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Hon. Members can be reassured that nothing they said caused them to be moved.
  Caledonian MacBrayne, with a new independent board, will continue to provide the important lifeline services to the islands to which we are committed, but it will do so with ever-increasing responsiveness.
  This Bill is yet another example of the Government's determination to give the Scottish people control of their destiny.
  11.40 pm
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that this debate can continue indefinitely, despite the fact that the Minister has sat down?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is quite correct. I was under the impression that all hon. Members knew the Standing Orders of the House.
  Mr. Canavan: I had no intention of participating in the debate until I heard the ludicrous and unsatisfactory speech made by the Minister. In previous encounters with him I have described him as the most incompetent Minister in the Scottish Office, which is saying something.
  I shall encourage many of my hon. Friends to speak in this debate, which can go on indefinitely. At Scottish Question Time, English infiltrators come in to disrupt our proceedings, but at least tonight we can inconvenience them by keeping them out of their beds.
  1032
  I must declare a constituency interest. I travel on buses occasionally: I take the bus from my house in Bannockburn to the station, to get to London. I know that, once upon a time, the Minister's ancestors came to Bannockburn for adventurist militaristic purposes, and that he has benefited greatly from that. His ancestors came on horses; after this Bill, even he might have to do so—[Interuption.] —or, as some of my hon. Friends have suggested, he might come by stagecoach.
  The Scottish Midland bus group and Scottish Bus Group are in my constituency. The latter until recently serviced buses throughout Scotland—
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I know that the hon. Gentleman will want to reinforce that point before the English Members who have crowded into the Chamber to hear his speech leave again because they think he will go on for some time. I know, too, that the hon. Gentleman will want to make a point about the mental health of the Minister responsible for health in Scotland, who claims massive minorities for legislation like this.
  Is the degree of public support for this Bill equivalent to the 19 per cent. who support the poll tax, the 23 per cent. who support student loans and the 33 per cent. who support opting out? Or is it more equivalent to the 61 per cent. who are dissatisfied with the Secretary of State for Scotland, the 71 per cent. who are dissatisfied with the Prime Minister or, in my opinion, the 99 per cent. who are dissatisfied with the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)?
  Mr. Canavan: I am one of the constituents of the hon. Member for Stirling. I remember him coming out in support of the Transport and General Workers Union at Bannockburn bus garage and saying that he would be in favour of a trade union workers' co-operative taking it over.
  I should be interested to know whether the Minister —the hon. Member for Stirling—still supports the TGWU at that garage, of whether he is now intent, like the Duke of Hamilton's brother and the Secretary of State for Scotland and all the rest, on selling off the Scottish Bus Group to the richest buyer who comes along. I am waiting for the hon. Member for Stirling to come in on this, but he will be a wee bit embarrassed, because he would not be the hon. Member for Stirling if it were not for the Tory influence through the establishment and the old boy network whereby Sheriff Principal Taylor put a gerrymandering exercise into effect and made Stirling a winnable seat for the hon. Gentleman, and brought him here not just as a Member of Parliament but as Minister for this, that and the other. That is the way in which the Tory party is operating in Scotland at present, not just gerrymandering but mishandling many important public services—health, education and the public transport services that we are discussing tonight.
  Mr. Jim Sillars: Did the hon. Gentleman hear the Minister say in his winding-up speech —I was fascinated and hung on every word—that the Bill was part of the Tory party's plan to give the Scottish people their rightful destiny? Would he care to comment on exactly how the Tories interpret their right to give the Scottish people their rightful destiny, in relation to their mandate?
  Mr. Canavan: I do not understand how on earth the present Government claim to have a mandate for anything from the people of Scotland. If they are delivering anything at all to the people of Scotland, it is poverty, deprivation and increasing injustice—and, in this instance, a rundown in our public transport services which, although not perfect, have served the people of Scotland very well over many years.
  A straw poll, or even an accurate opinion poll—or a local or general election—on public transport alone would, I think, reveal that the vast majority of people in Scotland were in favour of public ownership. That would be not for doctrinaire reasons, but for the simple reason that in their experience it has served them, their families and the work force. It has served many shoppers and commuters who cannot afford the chauffeur-driven cars that Ministers have, and thus rely on reasonable standards of public transport with reasonable fares. If that involves subsidy or cross-subsidy, I am very much in favour of it.
  Mr. David Marshall: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Canavan: Yes, I shall give way to my hon. Friend, who has much more knowledge of public transport than I have, having been brought up with it.
  Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend referred to the problems that the Bill would pose for companies in his constituency. Earlier I mentioned the firm of Walter Alexander, coach and bus builders, which is in his constituency. Clearly he is more familiar with the firm's problems than I am. Would he care to elaborate on the problems that the Bill will cause for it?
  Mr. Canavan: I understand that my hon. Friend began his working life as a bus conductor.
  Mr. Marshall: A tram conductor.
  Mr. Canavan: A tram conductor. My hon. Friend was also educated in my constituency, at Larbert high school and other illustrious educational establishments in the area. I know that as a result he can speak with great eloquence and expertise about public transport in Scotland. I have the Scottish Midland bus group in my constituency and the Walter Alexander coachbuilding company. The Bill will obviously have a knock-on, or should I say knock-off, effect on the coach building industry.
  A year ago I led a delegation from Scottish Bus Group Engineering Ltd, one of the subsidiaries of the Scottish Transport Group. The Minister will remember that because I went along with local authority and trade union representatives on behalf of the work force at the Scottish Bus Group which is located in Glasgow road, Falkirk. We feared that the Scottish Bus Group was planning to close down the operation in Glasgow road, Falkirk because privatisation was, as I described it at the meeting with the Minister, "just around the corner".
  The Secretary of State is conversing and perhaps conspiring with the Government Whip. He probably wonders what time the debate will finish. The cards are in our hands for a change, and I will carry on regardless. If the Secretary of State wants to get his troops home early to their beds tonight, we deserve a better reply to the debate than that we received from the Duke of Hamilton's wee brother. He has probably never been on a bus in his
  1034
  life. I have certainly never seen him on a bus in Bannockburn. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister will correct me later if I am wrong.
  Mr. Sillars: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am trying to listen to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) who is making a valuable contribution to the debate. May I remind you that earlier this evening you asked several Conservative Members who continued to talk through speeches to remove themselves from the Chamber and talk elsewhere?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I need no reminding. Three times this evening I have asked hon. Members who wish to carry on conversations to do so on the other side of the swing doors.
  Mr. Canavan: I was talking about the Government's lack of mandate in Scotland for their transport policies particularly the Bill. As you probably know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been rather outspoken about the abuse of patronage powers by the Government and the increasing abuse of those powers since they were rejected by 76 per cent. of Scottish people at the general election. I have referred to the Secretary of State using his patronage powers as a job creation scheme for failed Tory Members of Parliament, whether it is Michael Ancram, John MacKay—
  Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like you, I have been trying to relate the hon. Gentleman's speech to the contents of the Bill. I can see nothing in the Bill about the jobs that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that Second Reading debates are fairly wide-ranging. I am therefore very tolerant.
  Mr. Canavan: For once, the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has made a fair point. I do not intend to elaborate on the use of the patronage powers with regard to Alex Fletcher, Anna McCurley and Peter Fraser. Last week, I met John Corrie who was kicked out by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). John Corrie told me that he had been appointed a member of the Transport Users Consultative Committee for Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Chairman."] Yes, chairman. I could not believe it. I asked him, "When were you last on a bus?" but he ran away from me on his horse. [Interruption.] I was on a bus last week. I frequently travel by bus. I have little option.
  We ought to investigate in Committee how people like John Corrie are appointed to such positions. I do not criticise the man personally; all of us have our attributes, but for his constituents, he certainly kept his light hidden under a bushel. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North is now sitting on the Opposition Front Bench.
  The Government are using their powers of patronage in a very despotic manner in an attempt to disestablish public transport and to appoint people who have no experience of public transport matters to such positions.
  Mr. Salmond: I suspect that John Corrie's interest in public transport is similar to Michael Ancram's sudden interest in public housing. Does the hon. Member believe that the support for this measure in Scotland is greater or

  1035
  less than the 19 per cent. that was accorded to the Conservative party in the most recent Scottish opinion poll?
  Mr. Canavan: I think that support in Scotland for this measure is even less than the abysmal 19 per cent. support for the Tory party in the most recent opinion poll. Support for the Tory party in Scotland will, I suggest, become even weaker as the weeks and months go by.
  Earlier, before I was so rudely interrupted by some Conservative Members, I was reminding the Minister about a delegation that visited him at St. Andrew's house about a year ago. It consisted of representatives from the Central regional council and members of the Transport and General Workers Union and other trade unions at Scottish Bus Group Engineering Ltd. in Falkirk. I think I told the Minister after that meeting that never before—I have been a Member of Parliament for 14 years and I have led delegations to Ministers in Governments of both political complexions—had any Minister's performance been so incompetent. He sat there, as he did tonight, and just read the brief that had been prepared for him by civil servants.
  My local government friends were there, as were my friends and comrades from the trade union movement. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not at you."] People's livelihoods were at stake. I went along to the Minister, but all I got was a lot of guff. It was all prepared. We were told, "Oh, you must understand this, that and the next thing. All this has been written down by the Scottish Office." It was utterly incredible. I do not know whether it is possible for the Minister to reply later with the leave of the House, but his previous reply was as unsatisfactory as what he said at St. Andrew's house.
  Mr. David Lambie: Before my hon. Friend finishes his speech, would he care to comment on the Government's decision to transfer CalMac's headquarters to Oban? Like my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), I think that it is a bad decision. When the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs investigated road passenger transport and ferries, it visited Tromso in Norway. Tromso is inside the Arctic circle, and the Norwegian Government built a new university there, which resulted in it becoming a centre of economic activity.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is very interesting but it is an intervention, not a speech.
  Mr. Lambie: I am not making a speech. I am drawing my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that, when the Norwegian Government made Tromso the centre for a university, they made it a centre of economic activity in northern Norway, which draws people to the area. If the Government are to transfer the CalMac headquarters, why do they not transfer them from Gourock to Stornoway, and make Stornoway a centre of economic activity? That would revitalise the whole of the Western Isles. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that point, which I think legitimate?
  Mr. Canavan: I do not want to digress at this time of the morning, and I shall come a little nearer home. I remember when we had a Labour Prime Minister who took the Gourock-Dunoon ferry to the Labour party conference at Dunoon. He did not manage to sink that boat. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend Lord Callaghan is not here.
  1036
  The Government are shifting the CalMac headquarters from Gourock to Oban because the old Tory Member for the area has been displaced by the new hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). They are playing the old patronage game again. The Tories are desperate to win the seat back again, so they are shifting everything to Oban so that they can get MacKay back here. He would be an even bigger disaster than the Minister.
  I have seen a lot of incompetent Ministers of various political complexions in my time, and I have just told the Minister what I think of him, but at least he is a nice man. He always has a nice smile when we go to see him. He gives nothing, though. MacKay is a horrible creature. He does not even smile and gives nothing. If fact he kicks us in the teeth. He has certainly kicked working-class people in Scotland in the teeth for many years.
  Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) has had to put up with a great deal of provocation during the debate, but is it really in order for the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) who has just left the Chamber, to sit through the debate waving his socks at the hon. Member for Falkirk, West?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I thought that I had extremely good eyesight, but I never saw that.
  Mr. Canavan: I am not worried about socks; I am more worried about the tackety boots that will be on my poor head tomorrow morning.
  Before all the interventions, rude, helpful or otherwise, I was telling the House about a delegation which I led to the Prime Minister. After the delegation to St. Andrew's house, which had a most unsatisfactory outcome, I decided to take on the Prime Minister herself. The Prime Minister was on record as saying that any hon. Member who was faced with a closure in his or her constituency was entitled to an audience with her. Because of the proposed closure of Scottish Bus Group Engineering Ltd. in my patch, I decided to take the matter up with the Prime Minister. I asked whether the delegation could include representatives from the trade union and from the local authority.
  In view of her public commitment, the Prime Minister had to accede to my request and meet me, but my constituents and I were bitterly disappointed when she refused to meet representatives of the trade union representing the work force and representatives from the central regional council and from Falkirk district council who were experienced in such situations and wanted to provide support in the form of increased public investment at local authority level to keep the plant going.
  Imagine my surprise a year ago, when the Prime Minister's private office wrote to me saying, "Dear Mr. Canavan, I am sorry but the trade unionists and those horrible local authority people cannot come along." However, I was invited to meet the Prime Minister, and who did I see in the waiting room but the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who was acting as the Prime Minister's lap dog. I went in and I was surprised when the Prime Minister offered me a cup of tea. She even offered me milk to put in it, which was incredible considering what she did about the bairns' milk in schools many years ago. I do not take milk in my tea.

  1037
  I sat down with the Prime Minister. I thought that I would get some support for the Scottish bus industry from the Minister. I thought that he was there with his mandate on behalf of the people of Scotland. I thought that his main remit, his main criterion, and his top priority would have been to present the case of the people of Scotland, including my constituents, as the Scottish Bus Group Engineering Ltd. workplace in my constituency was not just a parochial interest, but had repercussions throughout the Scottish economy in that the service offered by my constituents was of great advantage to consumers throughout the rest of Scotland.
  I could not believe it—the Minister sat there and supped his tea, with milk and sugar. He smiled at the Prime Minister and reiterated the Government's case. He did nothing to fight for Scottish jobs in my constituency or elsewhere. I had had great respect for the hon. Gentleman. I know that he came from a great fighting clan which turned up on horseback before the buses came to Bannockburn. Some of the Douglases and Hamiltons changed their jerseys at half-time to ensure that they were on the winning side. Robert the Bruce gave out land throughout Scotland. Some of the Douglases—not the working-class Douglases, but the Hamiltonian Douglases —have benefited ever since. They have never needed the buses, or their horses, except to hunt the poor wee foxes at weekends.
  It is incumbent on the Minister to tell us in more detail why we should support this nasty legislation, which, like the poll tax, is an attack on most of the lower income groups in Scotland. Has he looked into the effect on the Scottish bus building industry? I say "bus building" rather than "coach building" because I am proud to represent the constituency of Falkirk, West, which has the best bus builders in the world. If the people of Scotland and England do not recognise that, many people throughout the world certainly do. Walter Alexander of Glasgow road, Camelon, is winning export orders in places such as Singapore and Hong Kong and helping to lower the trade deficit.
  The Secretary of State does not realise the Bill's international repercussions. He is drafting in all the English Tory Members. They are coming out of the woodwork. Normally, they are pleased to come into the Chamber at Scottish Question Time for a 45-minute stint of "Ha, ha, jolly, jolly, hockey sticks" and ex-public schoolboy behaviour. But I shall keep them from their beds tonight. I hope that some of my hon. Friends will speak after me to punish those Tory Members and ensure that they do not get back to their dormitory and matron. It is about time the matrons and the other English Tories realised the Bill's knock-on effects on Scottish, British and international industry.
  My constituents are building double-decker buses. Even in London, public transport leaves much to be desired. We must wait for the findings after the catastrophic accident this week before we make pronouncements about the reasons. People in the south of England could learn a lesson from some aspects of public transport in Scotland.
  Mr. Salmond: I discovered recently from a Grampian Television programme that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was an international bus consultant.
  1038
  Does the hon. Gentleman suspect, as I do, that the hon. Member for Tayside, North might be the guiding hand behind this legislation?
  Mr. Canavan: The main contribution of the hon. Member for Tayside, North to transport was crash-landing his glider many years ago. I am sorry about the physical hurt that that caused him. 1 am also sorry about the physical harm that was caused to Lord Hailsham recently and about the accident involving the former Member for Glasgow, Central, the late Tom McMillan.
  In the south of England, the standards of public transport are unacceptable and abominable compared with what I would tolerate in my constituency. I would go as far as to say that Tom McMillan would not have died if the standards of public transport in London had been the same as those in Scotland, where, in many areas, those open back-door buses are not acceptable. Getting rid of those buses would improve safety standards and improve job prospects for the workers at Walter Alexander in my constituency.
  Insufficient tribute is paid to the worldwide reputation of the Scottish bus-building industry. Many people take double-decker buses for granted and we tend to look on double-decker buses as the norm. A great deal of scientific expertise goes into the building of a double-decker bus and into establishing the exact centre of gravity to minimise the possibility of tilting. It is also necessary to measure the height of the bridges on the routes along which such buses pass.
  The cowboy operators who will take advantage of the Bill will not necessarily give the same priority to public safety and the satisfactory construction of buses. My constituents are very concerned about reducing the number of accidents from both the consumer and producer point of view.
  Several hon. Members have referred to the effect of the legislation on fares. Will the Minister tell us what is his estimate of the effect on public transport fares? It is all right for the Minister, who has a chauffeur-driven car at his disposal. I must say in the Minister's defence, however, that very occasionally—[Interruption.] He is one of the best of a rotten bunch. I say in the Minister's favour—I have a good word to say about everyone—
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Waddington)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 191.

  Division No. 18]

  [12.20 am

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Batiste, Spencer

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Alexander, Richard

  Bellingham, Henry

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bendall, Vivian

  Allason, Rupert

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Amess, David

  Benyon, W.

  Amos, Alan

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Arbuthnot, James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Ashby, David

  Bottomley, Peter

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Atkins, Robert

  Bowis, John

  Atkinson, David

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Baldry, Tony

  Brazier, Julian

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Bright, Graham

  1039

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

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hayward, Robert

  Burt, Alistair

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Butcher, John

  Heddle, John

  Butler, Chris

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Butterfill, John

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hill, James

  Carrington Matthew

  Hind, Kenneth

  Carttiss, Michael

  Holt, Richard

  Cash, William

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

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

  Channon, At Hon Paul

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Chope, Christopher

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Churchill, Mr

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  Irvine, Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Jack, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Janman, Tim

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Jessel, Toby

  Couchman, James

  Johnson, Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Cran, James

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Critchley, Julian

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Key, Robert

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Day, Stephen

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Devlin, Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knowles, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knox, David

  Dover, Den

  Lang, Ian

  Dunn, Bob

  Latham, Michael

  Durant, Tony

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Eggar, Tim

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lightbown, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lilley, Peter

  Evennett, David

  Lord, Michael

  Favell, Tony

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Forsyth. Michael (Stirling)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Forth, Eric

  Malins, Humfrey

  Franks, Cecil

  Mans, Keith

  Freeman, Roger

  Marland, Paul

  French, Douglas

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Fry, Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gardiner, George

  Mates, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gill, Christopher

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gorman. Mrs Teresa

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Gow, Ian

  Moate, Roger

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Grist, Ian

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Ground, Patrick

  Moss, Malcolm

  Grylls, Michael

  Moynihan Hon Colin

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Needham, Richard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Neubert, Michael

  Hannam, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

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

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Harris, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  1040

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Paice, James

  Speller, Tony

  Patnick, Irvine

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Pawsey, James

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Squire, Robin

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Steen, Anthony

  Portillo, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Price, Sir David

  Stevens, Lewis

  Raffan, Keith

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Redwood, John

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Renton, Tim

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Stokes, Sir John

  Riddick, Graham

  Stradling, Thomas, Sir John

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Summerson, Hugo

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Rost, Peter

  Thorne, Neil

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Thurnham, Peter

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waller, Gary

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wells, Bowen

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wheeler, John

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shersby, Michael

  Woodcock, Mike

  Sims, Roger

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Mr. David Maclean and

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mr. Michael Fallon.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dixon, Don

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Dobson, Frank

  Anderson, Donald

  Doran, Frank

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Douglas, Dick

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Beckett, Margaret

  Eadie, Alexander

  Beggs, Roy

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bell, Stuart

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

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

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Blair, Tony

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

  Boateng, Paul

  Fisher, Mark

  Bradley, Keith

  Flannery, Martin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Flynn, Paul

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Foster, Derek

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Foulkes, George

  Buchan, Norman

  Fraser, John

  Buckley, George J.

  Fyfe, Maria

  Caborn, Richard

  Galbraith, Sam

  Callaghan, Jim

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clay, Bob

  Gould, Bryan

  Clelland, David

  Graham, Thomas

  Cohen, Harry

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hardy, Peter

  Cousins, Jim

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Cox, Tom

  Haffer, Eric S.

  Crowther, Stan

  Henderson, Doug

  Cryer, Bob

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cummings, John

  Holland, Stuart

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Home, Robertson, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hood, Jimmy

  Darling, Alistair

  Howarth, Geroge (Knowsley N)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Howells, Geraint

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Hoyle, Doug

  1041

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Patchett, Terry

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Illsley, Eric

  Prescott, John

  Ingram, Adam

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Janner, Greville

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Randall, Stuart

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Lambie, David

  Reid, Dr John

  Lamond, James

  Richardson, Jo

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Robertson, George

  Leighton, Ron

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lewis, Terry

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Litherland, Robert

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Salmond, Alex

  Loyden, Eddie

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAllion, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McFall, John

  Short, Clare

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Sillars, Jim

  McKelvey, William

  Skinner, Dennis

  McLeish, Henry

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McNamara, Kevin

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

  McTaggart, Bob

  Spearing, Nigel

  McWilliam, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Madden, Max

  Strang, Gavin

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Marek, Dr John

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Turner, Dennis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Vaz, Keith

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Wall Pat

  Martlew, Eric

  Wallace, James

  Maxton, John

  Walley, Joan

  Meacher, Michael

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Meale, Alan

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Michael, Alun

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wilson, Brian

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Winnick, David

  Morley, Elliott

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Worthington, Tony

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mullin, Chris

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Murphy, Paul

  Nellist, Dave

  Tellers for the Noes:

  O'Brien, William

  Mr. Ken Eastham and

  O'Neill, Martin

  Mr. Frank Haynes.

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House diveded: Ayes 257, Noes 189.

  Division No. 19]

  [12.33 am

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bellingham, Henry

  Alexander, Richard

  Bendall, Vivian

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Bennett, Nicholas, (Pembroke)

  Allason, Rupert

  Benyon, W.

  Amess, David

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Amos, Alan

  Body, Sir Richard

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Ashby, David

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bowis, John

  Atkins, Robert

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Atkinson, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Baldry, Tony

  Bright, Graham

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

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

  Batiste, Spencer

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  1042

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hayes, Jerry

  Burt, Alistair

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Butcher, John

  Hayward, Robert

  Butler, Chris

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Butterfill, John

  Heddle, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hill, James

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hind, Kenneth

  Cash, William

  Holt, Richard

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

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

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Chope, Christopher

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Churchill, Mr

  Howell, Geraint

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howells, Geraint

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Conway, Derek

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Irvine, Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Jack, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Janman, Tim

  Cran, James

  Jessel, Toby

  Critchley, Julian

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

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

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knapman, Roger

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Dover, Den

  Knowles, Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Knox, David

  Durant, Tony

  Lang, Ian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Latham, Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evennett, David

  Lilley, Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Favell, Tony

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Forth, Eric

  Mans, Keith

  Franks, Cecil

  Marland, Paul

  Freeman, Roger

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  French, Douglas

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Fry, Peter

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gardiner, George

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gill, Christopher

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Moate, Roger

  Gow, Ian

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Grist, Ian

  Moss, Malcolm

  Ground, Patrick

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Grylls, Michael

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Needham, Richard

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Neubert, Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hannam, John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

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

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Harris, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  1043

  Paice, James

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Pawsey, James

  Squire, Robin

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Steen, Anthony

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Stern, Michael

  Portillo, Michael

  Stevens, Lewis

  Price, Sir David

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Raffan, Keith

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Redwood, John

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Renton, Tim

  Stokes, Sir John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Riddick, Graham

  Summerson, Hugo

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Thorne, Neil

  Rost, Peter

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wallace, James

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waller, Gary

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wells, Bowen

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wheeler, John

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shersby, Michael

  Woodcock, Mike

  Sims, Roger

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mr. David Maclean.

  Speller, Tony

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

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

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Dixon, Don

  Allen, Graham

  Dobson, Frank

  Anderson, Donald

  Doran, Frank

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Douglas, Dick

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Beckett, Margaret

  Eadie, Alexander

  Beggs, Roy

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bell, Stuart

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

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

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Blair, Tony

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

  Boateng, Paul

  Fisher, Mark

  Boyes, Roland

  Flannery, Martin

  Bradley, Keith

  Flynn, Paul

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Foster, Derek

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Foulkes, George

  Buchan, Norman

  Fraser, John

  Buckley, George J.

  Fyfe, Maria

  Caborn, Richard

  Galbraith, Sam

  Callaghan, Jim

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clay, Bob

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clelland, David

  Gould, Bryan

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Graham, Thomas

  Cohen, Harry

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hardy, Peter

  Cousins, Jim

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Cox, Tom

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Cryer, Bob

  Henderson, Doug

  Cummings, John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Holland, Stuart

  Darling, Alistair

  Home, Robertson, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  1044

  Hoyle, Doug

  Patchett, Terry

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Prescott, John

  Illsley, Eric

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Ingram, Adam

  Radice, Giles

  Janner, Greville

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Reid, Dr John

  Lambie, David

  Richardson, Jo

  Lamond, James

  Robertson, George

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Leighton, Ron

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Lewis, Terry

  Rowlands, Ted

  Litherland, Robert

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Salmond, Alex

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Loyden, Eddie

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAllion, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Short, Clare

  McFall, John

  Sillars, Jim

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Skinner, Dennis

  McKelvey, William

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McLeish, Henry

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

  McNamara, Kevin

  Spearing, Nigel

  McTaggart, Bob

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McWilliam, John

  Strang, Gavin

  Madden, Max

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Marek, Dr John

  Turner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Vaz, Keith

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wall, Pat

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Walley, Joan

  Martlew, Eric

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Maxton, John

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Meacher, Michael

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Meale, Alan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Michael, Alun

  Williams, Alan W.(Carm'then)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wilson, Brian

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Winnick, David

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Morley, Elliott

  Worthington, Tony

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mullin, Chris

  Murphy, Paul

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Nellist, Dave

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  O'Brien, William

  Mr. Ken Eastham.

  O'Neill, Martin

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
  Mr. Sillars:: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not imagine that I am the only right hon. or hon. Member who witnessed an altercation just before the Division, when the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) took a totally unprovoked swing at the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). I wonder whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will rule on whether that was unparliamentary conduct.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to be helpful, because I witnessed three, or possibly four, criminal offences. I witnessed the offences of assault, battery, conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace, and possibly the offence of unlawful assembly. It occurs to me that there are three ways of dealing with those matters—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) will leave the matter for me to deal with. An allegation has been made that an hon. Member engaged in disorderly conduct. No such incident has been reported to me. If it occurred, it should have been raised at the time. I cannot rule retrospectively.

  Transport (Scotland) Bill [Money]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Transport (Scotland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (i) any expenditure of the Secretary of State in connection with the dissolution of the Scottish Transport Group;

  (ii) sums required for fulfilling any guarantee given by the Secretary of State in respect of sums borrowed by Caledonian MacBrayne Limited, David MacBrayne Limited and any subsidiary of theirs;

  (iii) any increase in payments out of money so provided arising from any increase in administrative expenses of the Secretary of State attributable to the provisions of the Act; and

  (iv) any increase attributable to the Act in payments out of money so provided under any other enactment;

  (b) any payment into the Consolidated Fund under the Act.—[Mr. Fallon.]

  12.46 am
  Mr. Brian Wilson: We are not minded to wave this money resolution through and to make available on the nod the money that is required to put into effect legislation that my right hon. and hon. Friends have argued against for the past five and a half hours. It would be inconsistent if we were now to say that the Government are welcome to the money needed to implement legislation of which we strenuously disapprove.
  Mr. James Wallace: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman deploy that argument. Can he give any indication as to why he and his right hon. and hon. Friends did not vote against the Electricity Bill money resolution last night?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) will not explain what did not happen last evening, but will restrict himself to tonight's business.
  Mr. Wilson: I almost said that I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—but that might have been misunderstood.
  The reasons for the money resolution are spelt out in the sub-paragraphs. Sub-paragraph (i) refers to
  "any expenditure of the Secretary of State in connection with the dissolution of the Scottish Transport Group."
  That begs the question why the Scottish Transport Group is being dissolved and why money is required for that purpose. The reason why it is being dissolved is that the Scottish Bus Group, which is the major element in the Scottish Transport Group, is being privatised. So all that is left is the rump of the Scottish Transport Group, which is Caledonian MacBrayne—notwithstanding the threat that part of it, too, will be privatised. The notion of using public funds to break up the Scottish Transport Group, which has served the people of Scotland well and continues doing so, is unacceptable.
  What will the expenditure be? What administrative tasks are involved? What will be the cost of those administrative tasks in the dissolution of the Scottish Transport Group, for the purpose of privatising the Scottish Bus Group?
  Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: One of the factors to be considered in that process, which my hon. Friend describes in a restrained and careful way—characteristically so, as another of my hon. Friends remarks—is that certain administrative tasks will involve the provision of funds for redundancy payments to large numbers of clerical and administrative staff. At present, they are located in Scotland's central belt, in respect of the CalMac operation. The management side, as represented by the Government, must tell the House—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a speech, perhaps he will try to catch my eye later; otherwise, his intervention should be brief.
  Mr. O'Neill: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that 1 interrupted my hon. Friend's speech at an early stage, but I felt I should make the point about the Minister's administrative responsibility for the redundancy payments to the people employed by CalMac. I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having done so in a way that was a wee bit overblown.
  How much do the Government think will have to be paid to the people working in the central belt of Scotland for the transfer of CalMac's administrative functions to other parts of Scotland? Is not that important?
  Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point, for which I am grateful. This legislation will inevitably mean redundancies in Scottish Bus Group and CalMac. As my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) so ably pointed out earlier, CalMac's particular problem is its ill-thought-out removal from Gourock to Oban. As a native of Argyll, I have nothing against Oban—many developments are appropriate for it—but uprooting people and telling them that, on pain of losing their jobs, they will have to move from Gourock to the very different environment of Oban is unacceptable. Redundancy payments will be involved, and we want to know what they will amount to.
  Sub-paragraph (ii) of the resolution mentions
  "sums required for fulfilling any guarantee given by the Secretary of State in respect of sums borrowed by Caledonian MacBrayne Limited, David MacBrayne Limited and any subsidiary of theirs".
  On a nostalgic note, I was surprised to learn that the firm of David MacBrayne still exists. My impression was that it had been subsumed into CalMac. At one time there were three or four companies, but I do not want to go into the history of that now—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I must not stray. First, there was the Caledonian Steam Packet Company. Those who are familiar with Clyde waters well remember it. Then there was David MacBrayne Limited, which operated the island ferry routes. Those of us with an interest in these matters remember that MacBrayne vessels always had red funnels, whereas Caledonian Steam Packet vessels had yellow ones.
  Then, in the late 1960s, these two companies were brought together in public ownership as Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd. That, however, left two elements outside the operation. There were some smaller vessels: I can think of the Loch Arkaig which continued to ply to some of the small islands. These were purely passenger vessels. Then there were the cargo vessels. I remember in recent years the last of those vessels to operate were the Loch Carron and the Loch Dunvegan, carrying freight from the Clyde around the Hebridean islands. Before that, they were used
  1048
  to serve the distillery trade on the island of Islay and to carry heavy cargo to the islands. The point is that those vessels remained in the David MacBrayne company.
  The fourth element was MacBrayne Haulage, which had also been part of David MacBrayne Ltd. When the main part went into the newly formed Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd, MacBrayne Haulage had to go somewhere else. It was formed as a separate company, still within the state sector and the Scottish Transport Group. So post-nationalisation there were three companies: Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd, David MacBrayne Ltd and MacBrayne Haulage.
  The sad thing is that paragraph (a)(ii) of the money resolution contains no reference to MacBrayne Haulage. Hon. Members who were here earlier will be aware of the worrying story that has led to its no longer being mentioned in the resolution. In the most shameful and suspicious circumstances, MacBrayne Haulage was flogged off in a previous privatisation effort, and is now being sold on at a massive profit—as we said at the time would happen.
  Mr. Alistair Darling: Is my hon. Friend aware that MacBrayne Haulage had debts at the time of its sale? Does anything in the money resolution allow the public purse to recoup the amount that might have been written off, or reduced, when MacBrayne Haulage was sold to Kildonan? It seems only right that if Billy Walker, or whatever his name is, has made a packet by flogging off public assets we ought to get the money back. It would be outrageous for the public purse to be stripped of so much—and I dare say that the same argument would apply to any debts to be written off relating to any MacBrayne vessels. There is substantial debt, not to mention the money that comes from the EEC.
  Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend strikes the nail on the head. When MacBrayne Haulage was sold off, of course there was debt attaching to it. But the entire circumstances surrounding the sale are, I believe, an embryonic public scandal. As I said earlier, I have asked for those circumstances to be referred to the Public Accounts Committee, and I hope that if any of its members are here they will take note of that and accede to any request that they investigate the matter.
  That, then, is why MacBrayne Haulage is not in the picture. But, for the reasons mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). I am concerned about this phrase in paragraph (a)(ii):
  "sums required for fulfilling any guarantee given by the Secretary of State in respect of sums borrowed by Caledonian Mac Brayne Limited, David MacBrayne Limited and any subsidiary of theirs".
  Mr. Tom Clarke: My hon. Friend is developing his point extremely well, but could he give the House some information that so far has not been given? Could he tell us precisely what the MacBrayne debts might be?
  As we are addressing ourselves specifically to the money resolution, may I ask my hon. Friend to consider paragraph (a)(iii), which refers to:
  "any increase in payments out of money so provided arising from any increase in administrative expenses of the Secretary of State attributable to the provisions of the Act"?
  Would that not be almost like a blank cheque, and is it not in stark contrast to the niggardly approach of the Scottish

  1049
  Office to local government? The Scottish Office certainly would not provide such a blank cheque for anticipated administrative costs.
  Mr. Wilson: I shall come to paragraph (a)(iii) in a moment and deal with my hon. Friend's points. First let us wrap up paragraph (a)(ii).
  Let me make it clear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) suggested, I shall be pleased to give way to the Minister at any point if he feels inclined to put figures on the vague concepts that we have before us. What sort of sums borrowed by Caledonian Macbrayne Ltd., David MacBrayne Ltd. and their subsidiaries are we talking about? We know that Ministers still hope that in the future they will be able to sell Caledonian MacBrayne to the private sector. As MacBrayne Haulage had the benefit of a favourable financial deal, will the people who eventually buy any part of Caledonian MacBrayne—if they ever materialise—have a similar financial deal?
  I shall now deal with sub-paragraph (ii).
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Does my hon. Friend recall that the Minister inadvertently enclosed with a parliamentary reply that he sent to me some time ago information relating to the fact that P and 0 European Ferries was interested in taking over the entire CalMac ferries operation? Is my hon. Friend concerned that, since the Secretary of State is taking CalMac into his hands to sell off under whatever deal he may regard as suitable, he might give his friend Sir Jeffrey Sterling and the other fly-by-nights who operate P and 0 European Ferries an extremely attractive deal at the expense of the public purse?
  Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is so right that he has persuaded me to stay with sub-paragraph (ii) for a while longer.
  Sub-paragraph (1) provides expenditure for the dissolution of the Scottish Transport Group. The Government will then transfer the ownership of Caledonian MacBrayne to the Secretary of State and appoint a board. Nobody here knows who will be on the board, but we could dip into a hat and have a good guess.
  Whatever other service was performed tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), he told me something that I did not know and which I find extraordinary. He told me about the appointment of my predecessor to the post of chairman of the Scottish Transport Users Consultative Committee. That is fantastic. I could have understood the Government putting him in charge of belted Galloway bulls, but I was interested to find out that he will be in charge of the consultative system in Scotland. I shall be pursuing that further. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) suggests, that is the sort of precedent with which we are dealing.
  It is not just the Secretary of State who will be running the new company. I would perhaps have had a little more confidence if the Under-Secretary of State was to have his hand on the tiller. However, it will be the Secretary of State and the board he will appoint. I could take hon. Members on a Cook's tour of the Highlands and Islands and point out the public bodies where every post has been given to
  1050
  tame Tory nominees. I could point out health boards in places where there is no Tory support but where they have used their local stooges to fill the posts.
  I have lived in the Highlands and Islands for most of my life and I remember when the political map of the Highlands and Islands was painted blue. One can look at the area covered by the Highlands and Islands Development Board. In my relatively short political memory, Moray, Nairn, Ross, Cromarty, Argyll, Banff, Inverness, Caithness and Sutherland have been held by Tory Members of Parliament at some time. At present there is not one Government representative in the vast land mass of the Highlands and Islands.
  Mr. Tony Favell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does this have anything to do with the money resolution? This is an absolute travesty—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. I was beginning to wonder quite what the relationship was. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) ought to explain it, or turn to another matter.
  Mr. Wilson: Apart from its having something to do with the money resolution, for these Tory appointees in the Highlands and Islands it has something to do with the jackpot. We wonder who the board appointees will be. The new board members of Caledonian MacBrayne will decide what is to be done in the future, particularly about the absurd proposition to sell off the Dunoon to Gourock and the Wemyss bay to Rothesay routes. In that context it is necessary to spell out some of the financial consequences of selling off these routes.
  One does not have to be a mathematician or an arithmetician to understand that there is a global subsidy for Caledonian MacBrayne and that the most financially viable routes include the Clyde coast routes. That is why P and 0 is interested. However, P and 0 is not interested in boats that sail to Barra at 6 o'clock on a cold December morning. It is interested only in the short crossings on the Clyde. What will Caledonian MacBrayne be left with if the more profitable or the less loss-making routes are taken away from it? It will be left with those that sustain the higher losses.
  The logic of that is inescapable. If any of the Caledonian MacBrayne routes on the Clyde is privatised, either there will be a diminution of service, if the subsidy remains the same, or the subsidy will have to be increased to maintain the remaining services.
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend has referred to the Clyde crossings. The money resolution does not include the loan debt for the three vessels that currently serve the Clyde crossing—the Saturn, the Jupiter and the Juno. All those vessels were built in the 1970s. They were quite expensive because of their revolutionary design. Does my hon. Friend know how large that loan debt is? Even more important, does he know, if these vessels are to be replaced, as Caledonian MacBrayne is considering, what the loan debt will be if the ships are transferred to a shark who wants to operate the service for his own private gain?
  Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend has again made an extremely good point. These assets have been built up over many years with public money. New ferries are sailing on many of the routes. In many cases, European regional development fund money has been put into them. Are

  1051
  these vessels to be handed over to the private sector and the sums borrowed by Caledonian MacBrayne to be written off—as paragraph (a)(ii) of the money resolution suggests? Will they be given as a free gift to those who acquire the vessels? We are talking about millions of pounds. If that ever happened—we intend to ensure that it never does—it would result in a further pillaging of the public purse.
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: On the financing of the new ferries, did not the Government come up against this problem when they tried to work out a scheme for privatising Caledonian MacBrayne? Most of the money that was provided for the construction of the new ferries and for other infrastructure work came from the EEC. If Caledonian MacBrayne had been privatised, as the Government at one stage obviously intended and wanted to achieve, that money would have been lost. It would have been impossible for that money to be made available by the EEC and then go into the pockets of a private operator.
  Is it not true that, when that point was raised in the House, the Government did not know that that would be the case and that the Opposition had to tell them about it? After months had been spent on trying to work out a solution to the problem and after spending enormous sums of money on an expert report to solve it, the Government have still not found a solution. That is why Caledonian MacBrayne is still in public hands.
  Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is right again. People served by CalMac are indebted to him for mentioning European regional development fund money and asking what the EEC would make of the disposal of assets, that have been built up by grants made on grounds of peripherality and social circumstances, to the first chancer who wields a bit of influence with this shower in the Government. I do not think that the EEC would think much of that. It would not be a good precedent. That is one of the reasons why the CalMac privatisation has been abandoned, at least for the time being.
  Mr. Macdonald: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the outstanding projects is the supply of a new vessel for the Stornoway-Ullapool route? It will require a great deal of EEC assistance. It would be a disgrace if the money were provided and the vesssel ended up in private hands. Can my hon. Friend ascertain whether the Government have contributed their share? Perhaps tonight is a good opportunity for them to tell us about the vessel for that route.
  Mr. Wilson rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not in the debate on the money resolution.
  Mr. Wilson: I am sure that if the Minister wanted, as an act of unrehearsed largesse, to promise a new Vote for a vessel for the Stornoway-Ullapool route, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would be tolerant of that initiative.
  A few weeks ago, I attended a meeting in Oban at which opposition to this privatisation nonsense was rallied. I heard a representative of CalMac say that there were no plans to replace the Suilven, which plies the Stornoway-Ullapool route, until 1995. That was probably
  1052
  disappointing news for people who use the service. I must say that, out of route loyalty, I always use the ferry Hebridean Isles.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: Will my hon. Friend apply his mind to the important issue of the disposal of public money and the relationship between what will be left of the Scottish Transport Group, Caledonian MacBrayne and Western Ferries? It is proposed that they should coalesce. We have considered what will happen to the Gourock-Dunoon ferry service. A board is to be appointed by the Secretary of State. We do not know what its composition will be. A private company already exists. The Secretary of State's instructions to coalesce to determine what will happen to this vital route—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Briefly, please.
  Mr. Douglas: I am making a serious point.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that interventions should be brief. If he wishes to make a speech, perhaps he will seek to catch my eye later.
  Mr. Douglas: My hon. Friend is taking on board my point about the interrelation between the two companies and the fact that we have not considered the important aspect of safety. I am an old-fashioned Clyde builder, and am in no doubt that safety considerations have to be borne in mind.
  Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend makes a number of important points which flow directly from my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald). I am informed that the Suilven is not to be replaced until 1995. Would it ever be replaced if the company were in private hands by then? From where will the money come for the replacement of the fleet?
  The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) is relevant because, on the Clyde coast and the Western Isles routes, we have only one precedent of a private operator of ferry services. Western Ferries operates the Gourock to Hunter's Quay route. Anyone who knows anything about that knows that Western Ferries has been plying on that route for 20 years with small, second-hand ferries which many people will not use because they much prefer the larger Caledonian MacBrayne ferries and because they are in no way comparable with the ferries that the public sector company has provided.
  If for 20 years Western Ferries has been unable to replace a single, small vehicular ferry in the private sector, what possible prospect is there in 1995 of a privatised Caledonian MacBrayne, stripped of EEC aid because of the irresponsible conduct of Ministers in selling it off in the first place, providing a new ferry of that size and capacity?
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Conservative Members have been listening with rapt attention and following with considerable interest the many compelling points that he has made in his usual lucid and eloquent way, but he must be aware that he has been speaking for about two thirds of the allotted time for the money resolution. We are concerned only that those of us who have open minds and want to hear the variety of views available from Opposition Members will be denied that opportunity. Will he tell us why he is filibustering to prevent—
  Hon. Members: Order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The occupant of the Chair will make a judgment about whether hon. Members are in order. So far, the hon. Gentleman has very skilfully kept in order.
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) is a fairly dismissable figure, and his interest in the matter is demonstrated by the fact that his first appearance in the debate was very recent. However, there will be many debates when the hon. Gentleman can depart early from his favourite bierkeller and participate in debates on Scottish matters. We shall welcome the hon. Gentleman. I am reminded of the joke that we can see a lump on the hon. Gentleman's sleeve where the armband used to be.
  Mr. Darling: Sub-paragraph (ii) says that guarantees can be given by the Secretary of State. Does that not mean that it lies with the Secretary of State to guarantee sums to replace the boat operating on the Stornoway to Ullapool route, perhaps with a vessel similar in design to the Hebridean Isles, on which we met one summer morning two years ago? We commented on how uncharacteristic of Caledonian MacBrayne vessels it was—it was comfortable and pleasant. If the Government wanted, they could provide the guarantees necessary to replace that boat. The Scottish Transport Group promised me that it would be replaced in 1992, not 1995.
  Mr. Wilson: I am open to correction, but I think that the date was as I heard it.
  I have been trying for some time to move on from sub—paragraph (ii) and the specific shipping aspects of the money resolution. It was gross impertinence for the hon. Member for Tatton to suggest that there has been procrastination. There is much in the measure about which to talk and we intend to use every minute of our time to do so, without his unwanted interventions.
  Mr. Macdonald: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Wilson: For the last time, on sub-paragraph (ii).
  Mr. Macdonald: My hon. Friend is being hasty in trying to move from sub-paragraph (ii). He mentioned cross-subsidisation, the loss of routes threatened by privatisation and the effect on other Caledonian MacBrayne routes that remain in public hands. My hon. Friend said that there would be one of two effects—diminution of service or fare increases. He is wrong. There will be both effects.
  Does my hon. Friend agree that there will also be a third effect—the severe impact on the economy of the outer islands? That economy depends on the price of goods and quality of services provided from the mainland by Caledonian MacBrayne ferries. The islands suffer already from having to import all their goods and export all their products via the ferries. Any increase in fares and diminution in services must severely affect the economy of the Western Isles.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This has been a wide debate, but it cannot go as wide as a discussion on the economy of the Western Isles. Perhaps the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) will address himself to the money resolution.
  Mr. Wilson: I am tempted. A case can be made for saying that there is an impact, because nothing leaves or enters the Western Isles except by Caledonian MacBrayne ferry. Anything that the Government do to undermine that company is a threat to the economy of the Western Isles. There would not be much weaving, crofting, fishing or fish farming, an industry in which a large amount of public money has been invested—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am interested not in those matters but in the scope of the debate on the money resolution. All that is outside the scope of the money resolution.
  Mr. Wilson: I respect your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These matters were opened because of the broadness of sub-paragraph (ii), which refers to
  "sums required for fulfilling any guarantee given by the Secretary of State in respect of sums borrowed by Caledonian MacBrayne Limited, David MacBrayne Limited and any subsidiary of theirs"
  being written off by the Secretary of State at some future time.
  There are so many issues on which I have not yet commented that I must move on to sub-paragraph (iii). It is the catch-all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West said a long time ago. It states:
  "any increase in payments out of money so provided arising from any increase in administrative expenses of the Secretary of State attributable to the provisions of the Act".
  As one of my hon. Friends said, that is the original blank cheque. There is power to pay for anything that arises from the legislation. I return indignantly to the intervention by the hon. Member for Tatton. It was offensive and unacceptable to complain about reasoned and rational discussion of the measure taking place over a modest 45-minute period, given the powers involved in it.
  This takes us back to the issue of bus privatisation. In the short term at least, that is undoubtedly where most of the expenses will arise. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister on this matter before the end of the debate. I recognise his suitability to deal with the legislation because he did once travel on a bus. That reminds me of a story about the Minister. When he got on the bus, the conductor said to him, "Where do you want to go?" and he said, "132, Belgravia". He was accustomed to taking taxis.
  The breaking up of the Scottish Bus Group into 11 constituent companies, the marketing of those companies, the bureaucracy and the merging in some cases of the existing administration of bus companies had been mentioned before the daft notion was raised of moving the offices of Caledonian MacBrayne from Gourock to Oban. All of that is expensive.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I am sure that my hon. Friend is as puzzled about this as I am. The Government point to the expense of public bodies and say that they should save money by passing it over to the private sector. Why does sub-paragraph (iii) state:
  "any increase in payments out of money so provided arising from any increase in administrative expenses of the Secretary of State attributable to the provisions of the Act",
  when the purpose of the Act is to make public bodies less expensive, as they are supposed to be uneconomic and inefficient, and, above all, to save money?
  Mr. Wilson: As I would expect from my erudite colleague, he has made the precise philosophical point.

  1055
  We know that this is not about saving public money; it is about selling public assets on the cheap, yet the Government will have to dole out money to pay for that. It is apparent from sub-paragraph (iii) that it will not even be a self-financing exercise and is therefore very misguided.
  I regret that I have not been able to deal with sub-paragraph (iv) and I wish that we could return another evening to discuss that.
  I shall end by dealing with paragraph (b). These moneys are to be spent on purposes that we regard as unworthy and unwanted in Scotland. The Bill is an imposition on the Scottish people. It is not an earth-shattering piece of legislation, but an irritating piece of legislation. That is why we oppose it and why we shall try to improve it in Committee.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that subsidies are provided under the Highland and Islands (Shipping Services) Act 1960? That is different matter from this money resolution.
  Mr. Wilson: There is a thin line between the general financing of Caledonian MacBrayne and the specific question of subsidies to Caledonian MacBrayne. It would be careless to us to assume that the residue of money—I hope that this will never happen if Caledonian MacBrayne—
  It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14
  (Exempted Business);—
  The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 57.

  Division No. 20]

  [1.29 am

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Cran, James

  Amess, David

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

  Amos, Alan

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Day, Stephen

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Devlin, Tim

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Ashby, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dunn, Bob

  Atkinson, David

  Durant, Tony

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Fallon, Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Favell, Tony

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bendall, Vivian

  Forman, Nigel

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Forth, Eric

  Body, Sir Richard

  Franks, Cecil

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Freeman, Roger

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  French, Douglas

  Bottomley, Peter

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gill, Christopher

  Bowis, John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brazier, Julian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bright, Graham

  Gow, Ian

  Burt, Alistair

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Butterfill, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Grist, Ian

  Carrington, Matthew

  Ground, Patrick

  Cash, William

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hannam, John

  Conway, Derek

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

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  1056

  Harris, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hayward, Robert

  Paice, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hind, Kenneth

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Holt, Richard

  Porter, David (Waveney)

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

  Portillo, Michael

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Redwood, John

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Irvine, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Jack, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Janman, Tim

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Sims, Roger

  Lang, Ian

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Latham, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Speller, Tony

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Lightbown, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lilley, Peter

  Squire, Robin

  Lord, Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Stern, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stevens, Lewis

  Marland, Paul

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Wallace, James

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Waller, Gary

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Wells, Bowen

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Nelson, Anthony

  Mr. David Maclean and

  Neubert, Michael

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Lewis, Terry

  Anderson, Donald

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  McAllion, John

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  McAvoy, Thomas

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

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Buchan, Norman

  McKelvey, William

  Buckley, George J.

  McLeish, Henry

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Maxton, John

  Clelland, David

  Nellist, Dave

  Cohen, Harry

  O'Neill, Martin

  Cryer, Bob

  Patchett, Terry

  Cummings, John

  Pike, Peter L.

  Darling, Alistair

  Reid, Dr John

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Dixon, Don

  Salmond, Alex

  Douglas, Dick

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Sillars, Jim

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Foster, Derek

  Strang, Gavin

  Foulkes, George

  Turner, Dennis

  Fyfe, Maria

  Vaz, Keith

  Galbraith, Sam

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Galloway, George

  Wilson, Brian

  Graham, Thomas

  Wray, Jimmy

  Haynes, Frank

  Home Robertson, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie and

  Ingram, Adam

  Mr. Jimmy Hood.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Transport (Scotland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (i) any expenditure of the Secretary of State in connection with the dissolution of the Scottish Transport Group;

  (ii) sums required for fulfilling any guarantee given by the Secretary of State in respect of sums borrowed by Caledonian MacBrayne Limited, David MacBrayne Limited and any subsidiary of theirs;

  (iii) any increase in payments out of money so provided arising from any increase in administrative expenses of the Secretary of State attributable to the provisions of the Act; and

  (iv) any increase attributable to the Act in payments out of money so provided under any other enactment;

  (b) any payment into the Consolidated Fund under the Act.

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With the leave of the House, I shall put together the three motions on legal aid and advice, Scotland.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  Statutory Instruments, &c.

    LEGAL AID AND ADVICE, SCOTLAND
    That the draft Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost) (No. 3) Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 23rd November, be approved.—[Mr.Neubert.]
    That the draft Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 23rd November, be approved.—[Mr. Neubert.]
    That the draft Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 23rd November, be approved—[Mr. Neubert.]
    Question agreed to.

  PETITION

    Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Gravesham)
    1.30 am
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: I wish to present a petition signed by 3,178 residents of the villages of Istead Rise and New Barn within the Gravesham constituency. The signatories include County Councillor Marven and Borough Councillors Barnes and Turner, who represent the area on the respective councils.
    The significance of the scope of the petition is apparent in that the 3,178 signatories come from villages that have only 3,713 electors on their rolls. That is a very clear expression of the intense feelings aroused. Following considerable confusion in presentation, British Rail has published draft proposals for routes 1 and 2 of its high-speed rail link, which would run above ground close to those villages. The routes would have a profound impact on the environment of the area.
    The prayer of the petition consequently reads:
    'Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urge British Rail to respect the wishes of those living in the affected area of Kent that no new railway line shall be built in the vicinity of Istead Rise and New Barn.'
    To lie upon the Table.

    Manchester International Airport
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]
    1.41 am
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: One lesson that I have learned is never to have an Adjournment debate after Scottish business.
    I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise this important issue on the Adjournment, because Manchester airport is the biggest single employer in my constituency. More of my constituents work for Manchester airport than for any other single employer. The Government have often stated their intention to develop Manchester airport as an international gateway outside London to complement Heathrow and Gatwick and thus provide the necessary route infrastructure for British industry, commerce and leisure.
    For some time we have been told of the congestion in the south-east, so I should think that anything that would take traffic from the south-east to the north would be welcomed. We are anxious that people flying to other continents do not have to take the shuttle to London, change planes and fly on from there. We want to increase the number of intercontinental flights in and out of Manchester. In that regard I am grateful to the Government for the enormous progress that has been made since 1979. However, like Oliver Twist, I am never satisfied.
    On 28 and 29 November negotiations took place in Washington to consider outstanding licence applications by United States carriers to serve routes between Manchester and points in the United States and the reciprocal benefits that will be available for British airlines as part of a negotiated agreement between the United Kingdom and United States Governments. Hopes were high that the negotiations would be successful and that we would have new routes across the Atlantic using Manchester airport. Those routes would bring substantial benefits to the tourist industry outside London and to the northern business traveller crossing the atlantic. They would mean improved services and time saving and a boost to the regional economy.
    Recently the university of Salford made a study to show a stimulus to the north-west in the order of an additional £40 million a year and the creation of about 3,000 permanent new jobs merely as the consequence of the three new routes across the Atlantic that have been applied for by United States carriers. Those are not idle requests. About a year ago, discussions between the Department of Transport and Manchester airport regarding the potential for new routes between the United States and Manchester led to a visit by a top-level team from Manchester airport to several United States airlines. Subsequently, three airlines—Pan Am, American Airlines and Northwest—all made applications to the United States Department of Transport to serve Manchester. These are three highly respected airlines with astute route-planning procedures which have identified the Manchester market as being a prime area of interest and which see an attractive commercial return.
    More United States airlines are trying to get into Manchester airport than any other airport in the world. The reason is not hard to find. It is because demand so clearly exists. That demand is frustrated to the tune of 1
    1060
    million passengers a year who cannot, on the availability of current services, travel directly from Manchester airport. That is wholly unacceptable when one considers that within two hours' drive of Manchester we have 60 per cent. of United Kingdom manufacturing industry and over 20 million people. As we see improvements in the national economy moving further and further north, as they are, through the manufacturing sector and the new vibrant financial and high-tech centres based in the north-west, we can anticipate a significant increase in trans-atlantic travel.
    In the north-west we have been fighting the battle for Manchester airport for some years and we were hopeful that the negotiations in Washington would bear fruit. I am told that a great deal of creative thinking by the British Government was evident and a major exercise was mounted to achieve an appropriate settlement which would allow increased United States' access to Manchester airport. In return the Government rightly sought significant opportunities for British airlines from London airports as a balancing effect.
    I am saddened that at this stage British airlines do not seem keen to pursue the opportunities which are already open to them for flights across the Atlantic from Manchester and that the focus of their attention should be on new services from London. That is a matter for regret, but I have to acknowledge and accept that the commercial decisions of the British airlines are affected by their specific equipment and crew resource levels. However. what should be recognised is that Manchester airport's successful foray to engender interest by United States airlines in services to Manchester presents a rare opportunity for British airlines to derive some advantage from a round of negotiations.
    This opportunity must not be squandered. The national interest would be well served by the development of new routes into Manchester because of the enormous net economic benefit to the whole of the United Kingdom. The further benefits which can be achieved for British airlines from an agreement operating out of London is an added bonus. The British negotiating team—I confess that I was delighted to hear that the marketing director of Manchester airport was included in the Washington talks for the first time—must be given the full support of the Government to achieve a successful conclusion with a realistic balance of aviation rights and major economic benefits for this country.
    I am told that the talks will resume on 4 January 1989 in London and it is essential that the settlement be completed to allow the airlines to start operating in the summer of 1989. Failure to reach an agreement could mean that the Americans would lose interest and not come back for a third time to seek rights into Manchester. I think the Minister will agree that it would be a considerable loss to the United Kingdom if United States carriers are forced to look elsewhere. For example, there are other countries that are only too happy to welcome United States airlines with open arms.
    We need a settlement urgently which allows for growth in the services out of Manchester across the Atlantic with consequential benefits to British aviation. 1 believe that the will is there on all sides and the potential benefits are enormous. I ask my hon. Friend to tell the negotiators to do all they can to reach an agreement on this occasion to the benefit of all.

    1061
    Other major opportunities await Manchester airport. Singapore Airlines has applied for a daily service into Manchester—at the moment, it is restricted to only two services a week. This year, my wife and I went to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Australia. We decided that the best way to get there was to fly by Singapore Airlines from Manchester direct to Singapore. On 6 July, I went to book seats on the Manchester-Singapore flight for Saturday 10 September, and we were wait-listed. That should prove the popularity of the route.
    Hong Kong, which is served by British Airways, is seen by Cathay Pacific as a possible route, and it has applied for rights to fly from Manchester to Hong Kong. This application has also run into difficulty, and no progress has been made, even though the Hong Kong Department of Aviation approved traffic rights two years ago.
    It is known throughout the aviation world that the Manchester case is an extremely good one. The level of interest engendered in Manchester airport in the past 12 months presents an opportunity that must not be lost. If the negotiations with the United States are successful and if Hong Kong and Singapore should reach similar conclusions—with benefits for British aviation and the economy—it will mean an enormous boost for the United Kingdom and particularly the north. Some 20 million people have high hopes and high expectations of getting equal treatment with those who live in the south-east. I hope that my hon. Friend will show the Government's wholehearted commitment to the north and Manchester airport in particular.
    1.51 am
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) on having obtained this Adjournment debate. He has pursued this subject with tremendous commitment and has shown a deep understanding of the problem, which demonstrates his true interest in the subject and his genuine concern for the airport, for the region in which it is situated and for the United Kingdom as a whole. The quality of his speech was all the more striking because it was the first sensible speech that we had heard for a couple of hours, and that was welcome. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for providing me with this opportunity to remind the House of the Government's considerable successes in its policy of expanding services from the regional airports, and also to explain the reasons why progress on increasing United States services to Manchester has not been as speedy as we would all have liked.
    In 1985 the Government published their White Paper on airports policy. This confirmed unequivocally our commitment to encourage the use and development of our regional airports so that they can meet the maximum demand they can attract. Such developments benefit passengers to and from the regions by offering them more convenient services. Better use is made of the existing infrastructure as our regional airports, and the road networks providing access to them, are generally less congested than those in the south-east. Thriving regional airports also provide direct and indirect employment in their local area.
    1062
    Of course, for airports to expand, it is crucial to attract the airlines. Airports such as Manchester have been doing a very valuable job in encouraging airlines to recognise that there is a market that they can serve successfully at Manchester. Where traffic rights do not exist, airports should make it clear to airlines, and through them to foreign Governments, that such rights are worth negotiating.
    The Government take the lead in negotiating air traffic rights for United Kingdom airlines to fly to international destinations, and for foreign airlines to fly to United Kingdom airports. As set out in the airports White Paper, we are committed to the creation of wider opportunities for airlines when conditions of competition are fair and British interests are not prejudiced. We have taken the lead in the move towards liberalisation of air services in Europe and we have successfully negotiated a liberal air services agreement with Canada. As a result, both Canadian and United Kingdom-designated airlines are completely free to operate services between any airport in either country's territory. That has already resulted in a significant increase in intercontinental services from our regional airports.
    During 1988, Birmingham, Leeds/Bradford, Cardiff and Newcastle have all offered regular scheduled services to Toronto. Manchester has also offered services to other Canadian destinations, such as Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and Halifax.
    Over the last decade, traffic at regional airports has grown by 92 per cent. compared with only 59 per cent. at the British Airport Authority's London airports. Growth at Manchester has been more than 150 per cent., and that airport now operates scheduled services to more than 60 foreign destinations. That includes services to eight points in North America and the Caribbean, and to another eight intercontinental destinations in Australia, India, the middle east and the far east.
    The possibility to which my hon. Friend alluded, of introducing more liberal air service arrangements in respect of Singapore, is currently being examined at Government level. There will be a further meeting between United Kingdom and Singapore aeronautical authorities early next year.
    Nevertheless, there are examples where, despite our endeavours, we have been unable so far to negotiate wider opportunities for airlines to serve our regional airports. The main example, of course, is the subject of tonight's Adjournment debate—access by United States airlines to Manchester airport. We must recognise that our aviation relations with the United States of America are very different from those with, say, Canada. We were able to persuade the Canadian authorities that a liberal air services agreement was in all our interests. However, the United States authorities take a far more protectionist attitude towards access to the major American market. The air services agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom is founded on the principle that there is a broad balance of opportunities for each country's airlines. If the Americans are given new rights at Manchester, balancing concessions are needed for United Kingdom carriers in the United States.
    In 1986, as a gesture of goodwill, we gave American Airlines a temporary permit to operate services between Chiacgo and Manchester—a valuable new right, for which we still have received nothing in return. That gesture is not

    1063
    something we can repeat if we are to retain the strong United Kingdom aviation industry of which we are rightly proud.
    For a considerable time, the United States Government showed no interest in coming to the negotiating table to discuss further access to Manchester. They claimed that their airlines had no interest in such services. But Manchester airport successfully persuaded some United States carriers that Manchester and the north-west offered their own substantial market for additional United States services, and the American Government were finally persuaded to the negotiating table in March of this year.
    At those talks, we offered the United States a very reasonable package, taking account of the benefits that will accrue to Manchester and the north-west from additional United States services. We were prepared to agree to the immediate commencement, in the summer 1988 season, of a daily direct Manchester to Boston service and daily one-stop Manchester to New York service, as well as putting the Manchester to Chicago service on a permanent footing.
    However, the American team insisted that any package must permit the immediate commencement of all the services it sought, including two separate daily New York to Manchester services operated by two large United States carriers. That would have seriously jeopardised British Airways' daily service on that route—and Manchester airport, which was consulted frequently during the course of the negotiations, advised that the retention of BA's service was its top priority.
    The United States Government then made it clear that they were not interested in further talks before 1989. Eventually, we persuaded them back to the negotiating table in late November, in Washington. We were disappointed that a final agreement did not emerge at those talks, but not, I must say, surprised—bearing in mind the fact that the United States authorities had clearly indicated that they would not be prepared to reach agreement in a single round of consultations.
    However, those negotiations were of value. There was a useful exchange of views, and the two sides explored a number of new ideas for developing an appropriate package as the basis for agreement. A Manchester airport representative was included in the United Kingdom delegation throughout. At the conclusion of the talks, we agreed to meet again as soon as mutually possible. We proposed dates in December and early January, and 4 and 5 January was recently agreed, as my hon. Friend said. Meanwhile, both sides are further examining each other's ideas, and the Government hope very much that a satisfactory settlement will soon be reached.
    There is, however, a very important point to bear in
    1064
    mind. The United States Government must be in no doubt that if agreement is to be reached, they must be prepared to pay a reasonable price. Our demands will not be excessive. We recognise the advantages for Manchester and the north-west and we shall take them fully into account. But there must also be advantages for United Kingdom airlines. The United States negotiators watched very closely the reactions of Manchester airport and its supporters to the breakdown of talks in March. They will also be monitoring this debate tonight. No doubt they are still hoping that the Government will acquiesce in the face of domestic pressure, and give them traffic rights to Manchester for little or nothing in return. If so, they are mistaken. There must be mutual benefits.
    My hon. Friend is concerned that unless we reach a satisfactory settlement in January, the United States airlines will lose interest in Manchester and look elsewhere. The Government are equally concerned that there should be a successful outcome to the January negotiations. But if there is not, and if the United States airlines have a genuine interest in serving Manchester, they will no doubt press their Government to continue the negotiations. Looking elsewhere in Europe to mount services is unlikely to be an attractive alternative. The vast majority of countries demand reciprocal benefits for their airlines in exchange for wider access for foreign carriers. The British Government are far from being alone in pursuing that policy in their negotiations with foreign Governments.
    Our policy reflects careful consideration and extensive consultations. We are not about to set it aside and ignore the interests of United Kingdom airlines in the very difficult and demanding United States aviation environment. Allowing access to Manchester for nothing in return would not be in anyone's long-term interest.
    Of course the Government wish to increase traffic to the regional airports, of which Manchester is the leading candidate, but the interests of the nation as a whole and, ultimately, of the regional airports too, demand that we have a strong aviation industry. The agreement reached over Manchester must not ignore the interests of the United Kingdom aviation industry.
    I hope that this short debate has been an opportunity for me to reassert to my hon. Friend the considerable importance that we attach to Manchester airport, the great pleasure we have derived from seeing it thrive and prosper and the great pleasure it would give us to be able to conclude an agreement that brought more services to Manchester, if that could be attained on terms that were of mutual benefit to the two countries involved.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Two o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Rectors and Vicars (Contracts)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many team rectors or vicars, for each of the last five years, have not had their contract renewed and have been asked to vacate the team rectory.

  Mr. Alison
  I regret that the commissioners do not have this information. Records are normally kept by the legal secretaries to diocesan bishops.

WALES

  Waiting List Fund
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will announce the allocation to the Welsh health authority from the waiting list fund for 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Decisions on public expenditure in Wales in l989–90 are currently being finalised and will be announced shortly.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many trainees are on employment training in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  At 2 December 1988 there were 6,468 participants in employment training in Wales.

  Planning Policy
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what guidance his Department has offered to local planning authorities on when they may consider the needs and interests of communities, including the protection and character and way of life of communities, as a factor in decisions relating to planning permission;

  (2) what guidance his Department offers in the form of a planning policy guidance note, to include the needs and interests of communities, including the protection of the character and way of life of communities, within the provisions of their development plans;

  (3) if he will make it his policy to require local planning authorities to include the social needs and interests of communities within the provisions of their development plans and local plans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I intend issuing guidance on the place of the Welsh language in development plans and planning control in the very near future. The Department's current policy, as regards development plans, is set out in paragraph 4.10 of Welsh Office circular 43/84, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Crown Agents
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for the future of the Crown Agents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In 1984 my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) announced measures to improve the efficiency and competitiveness of the Crown Agents with a view to their privatisation in due course. Those measures, which included staff reductions, a change from public sector terms of service to private sector terms and the sale of the organisation's principal property at Millbank, have been implemented.

  Her Majesty's Government have no immediate plans to privatise the Crown Agents. They have agreed with the Crown Agents certain further measures to put them on a sounder footing in the public sector. These measures involve further changes in the business and capital structure of the organisation designed to improve profitability. The Crown Agents will retain their core activities of procurement, financial and technical services. They have given up, or will give up, speculative trading and certain other activities which are not closely related to their main business. These other activities include two postage stamp production and sale companies, which the Crown Agents have sold, and some pensions services which are being taken over by the Overseas Development Administration.

  The measures introduced from 1984 onwards reduced permanent staff numbers from some 1,100 to about 800. The further changes will involve a reduction in staff numbers of about 55. Most of these jobs will be transferred with the activities that are taken over by other organisations. The balance of the reduction in staff will be achieved through agreed redundancies or natural wastage.

  The Crown Agents have customarily provided, and continue to provide, valuable services to the Overseas Development Administration, their major client, in respect of procurement and loan and grant administration. These services have demonstrated their worth in terms of securing better value for money and ensuring propriety and expedition in the international delivery of goods and services provided under the overseas aid programme. In recent years the Crown Agents have diversified their sources of business to reduce their dependence on the Overseas Development Administration and, in international competition, have won substantial business financed by other governments and by multilateral agencies.

  The proposed changes in the capital structure will provide a more commercial basis for the Crown Agents, in particular a debt equity ratio more appropriate to the size and nature of the business. Subject to parliamentary approval of the new estimate in the supplementary round, I propose to use existing powers to make a grant of about £15·8 million effectively to convert to equity all but about £2·8 million of the Crown Agents' commencing capital debt to the national loans fund, which they assumed under the Crown Agents Act 1979. The normal rules for premature repayment will apply. These sums will be additional to the Overseas Development Administration's existing public expenditure survey provisions and will

  563
  involve a net charge to the Reserve of around £3 million; they will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The Crown Agents have undergone a continuous process of change since incorporation in 1980. It reflects credit on the board, senior management and staff of the organisation that this process has been carried through successfully in a difficult period. I am confident that the additional measures announced today will strengthen the Crown Agents' position and leave them better placed to meet the challenges of the 1990s.

TRANSPORT

  New Railway Line (Kent)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the environmental effects of British Rail's proposals to build a new railway line through Kent.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have received a large number of representations on this subject. It will be important for British Rail to take proper account of the environment in its design of the line.

  Refrigerated Vehicles
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps have been taken to ensure that the new maximum width of refrigerated vehicles will be enabled to pass each other with safety on class A roads from January 1989.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The increase in permitted width of refrigerated vehicles—of 2 cm—is too small to require particular steps to be taken to enable them to pass safely on class A roads.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on British Rail's proposals for terminals and new rail links in central London to connect with the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail's plans for the first few years of operation through the tunnel involve a new passenger terminal at Waterloo and the use of the west London line by through trains to the north. BR's report on long-term route and terminal capacity for Channel tunnel train services, published in July 1988, identified three possible sites (White City, King's Cross and Stratford) for a second London passenger terminal and possible route corridors through Kent and London once traffic through the tunnel has grown sufficiently to exhaust the capacity of Waterloo.

  Ports
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that British ports will be able to compete on an equal basis in the single European market with other north European ports.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer on 6 December at columns 97-98 to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin).

  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the level of subsidy,564
  both direct and indirect, received by the ports of Glasgow, Hamburg, Antwerp and Rotterdam, over the last five years.

  Mr. Portillo
  We know what percentage contributions the national and local government authorities make to expenditure on certain categories of port facilities in Hamburg, Antwerp and Rotterdam, but not how much money this and any other aid there may be from public funds has amounted to in any given period. The European Commission is studying our proposal for more transparent financial relations between public authorities and port authorities within the EC and for the accounts of port authorities to be published.

  Orange Badges
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people are in possession of an orange badge at the latest available date.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Information supplied by local authorities shows that at March 1987 there were about 840,000 badge-holders in England and Wales—over 14 per cent. more than at March 1986. We estimate that there are currently some 70,000 badge-holders in Scotland.

  European Clearway Ferry
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the final date by which a decision has to be taken on whether a prosecution will be pursued by his Department arising from the fire on the European Clearway ferry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  Informations have to be laid within six months of the alleged offences. A decision would need to be taken before the expiry of that period.

  Supply Boat Falderntor
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking about the fire aboard the supply boat Falderntor in the British sector of the North sea on 26 November.

  Mr. Channon
  The engine room fire aboard the Falderntor is under investigation by surveyors from the See-Berufsgenossenschaft (SBG) as the vessel is registered in the Federal Republic of Germany and the incident occurred outside United Kingdom territorial waters. My officials are in contact with the SBG.

  Buffer Stop Collisions
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many multiple units and locomotives were involved in buffer stop collisions in 1985, 1986 and 1987 for each category; what type of braking system was involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  Details regarding the number of buffer stop collisions in 1985, 1986 and 1987 are set out in the table. Data on the type of brake involved are not available as railway authorities are not required to specify such detail in reporting accidents of this sort to the Department.

  Locomotive

  Class

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Total

  008

  3

  1

  2

  6

  009

  0

  1

  0

  1

  020

  0

  0

  1

  1

  565

  Class

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Total

  025

  1

  0

  0

  1

  031

  6

  0

  2

  8

  033

  0

  1

  0

  1

  037

  1

  0

  3

  4

  045

  0

  2

  0

  2

  047

  13

  7

  2

  22

  058

  0

  0

  1

  1

  073

  1

  1

  3

  5

  085

  0

  1

  2

  3

  086

  0

  4

  1

  5

  087

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Steam

  1

  1

  0

  2

  TOTAL

  26

  20

  17

  63

  EMU/DMU

  Class

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Total

  101

  2

  1

  4

  7

  104

  0

  1

  0

  1

  105

  1

  0

  1

  2

  111

  0

  1

  0

  1

  115

  1

  0

  0

  1

  116

  0

  1

  0

  1

  117

  0

  0

  1

  1

  121

  0

  1

  0

  1

  141

  3

  3

  0

  6

  142

  0

  0

  2

  2

  205

  1

  0

  0

  1

  207

  0

  0

  1

  1

  254

  1

  0

  1

  2

  303

  0

  3

  1

  4

  305

  0

  1

  1

  2

  307

  0

  1

  0

  1

  309

  1

  0

  0

  1

  310

  0

  0

  1

  1

  311

  0

  1

  0

  1

  312

  1

  0

  0

  1

  313

  1

  3

  2

  6

  315

  1

  3

  1

  5

  317

  1

  1(1)

  0

  2

  318

  0

  0

  2

  2

  319

  0

  0

  1

  1

  414

  0

  1

  0

  1

  415

  5

  1

  5

  11

  416

  1

  1

  1

  3

  419

  1

  1

  1

  3

  423

  1

  3

  2

  6

  455

  8(3)

  6(5)

  7(1)

  21

  501

  1

  0

  0

  i

  507

  2

  0

  0

  2

  508

  1

  1

  0

  2

  LUL

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Casualty and Accident Rates: Great Britain: 1987

  Casualty rate/100 million passenger kms

  Accident rate/1,000 vehicles

  Accident rate/100 million vehicle kms

  Vehicle type

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  KSI

  Total

  KSI

  Total

  1. Ratio of rates for cars/motorcycles to those for minibuses:

  Minibus

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Car

  2·5

  2·7

  2·4

  1·0

  1·1

  1·2

  1·3

  Motor cycle

  65·0

  109·1

  47·9

  —

  —

  15·2

  12·1

  2. Casualty and accident rates:

  Minibus

  0·2

  2·2

  12·1

  3·6

  14·4

  19·1

  76·2

  Car

  0·5

  5·9

  28·7

  3·6

  16

  22·9

  102·8

  Motor cycle

  13

  240

  580

  n/a

  n/a

  290·0

  920·0

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Elders Plc
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assurances were sought from 566

  Class

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Total

  Total

  34

  35

  36

  105

  Figures in brackets denote a roll back on starting

  Ferries (Fires)
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fires have been reported to his Department occurring on British-registered ferries sailing out of British ports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  Eleven such fires have been reported to my Department between 1 January and 8 December 1988. All these incidents have been, or are being, followed up.

  Bicester and Waddon Foxhounds
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will call for a report from British Rail into the circumstances leading to the 9 am train from Poole to Glasgow being forced to make an emergency stop at Little Mill crossing, Cropredy on the Oxfordshire/Warwickshire border on Monday, 5 December, when the Bicester and Waddon foxhounds were obstructing the main railway line.

  Mr. Portillo
  I see no need to call for a report on this incident.

  Volunteer Drivers
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made in his representations to the EEC Commission about the provision in the second transport directive relating to the practice in the United Kingdom of permitting volunteer drivers to be in charge of small coaches for transporting disabled persons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The proposals do not appear to go far enough since they would still involve a second test and higher medical standards for minibus drivers. These requirements would cause serious problems for organisations relying on volunteer drivers.

  The Government will continue to press for whatever changes are needed to allow these voluntary services to continue their valuable work. We have written to the commission to point out the safety record of minibuses. The table sets out the figures.

  Elders plc that it would not buy shares in Scottish and Newcastle Breweries plc, when it was advised that its bid was to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; what assurances were received from Elders; and what alterations he proposes in order to make assurances mandatory and binding in future cases.
  567
  Mr. Maude
  Elders' advisers were clearly informed by the Office of Fair Trading at the time of the announcement of the reference that undertakings not to purchase further shares in Scottish and Newcastle were being sought. In the light of Elders' action the Secretary of State made an interim order under the Fair Trading Act 1973 requiring Elders not to acquire any further shares and not to vote any shares in Scottish and Newcastle above 15 per cent.

  The Secretary of State also announced that in future a similar prohibition on further share purchases will come into effect at the time a reference to the MMC is announced. At present this requires a new order to be made for each reference. It is intended that this prohibition will be put on a permanent footing by inclusion in the provisions relating to mergers in the forthcoming Companies Bill.

  FIMBRA
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he intends to seek to review and amend the protection afforded by the financial services legislation to FIM BRA members against libel actions and retaliatory loss of business should they report suspicions of wrongful activities to that body; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  If a FIMBRA member properly draws allegations of wrongdoing to the attention of a regulatory body having relevant regulatory functions under the FS Act his position will be no different from that of any other person acting similarly. Such communications should, in the absence of malice, be protected by qualified privilege, under the law of libel. I see no reason at this stage for seeking to change this position. If there has been any wrongful interference with the business of persons who have reported suspicions to a relevant body it shall be open to them to take appropriate legal action.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has concerning the total number of people employed by FIMBRA and each of the other self-regulatory organisations to scrutinise applications for membership; how many such applications were processed in each case in each of the last six months; and how many man hours per application were spent on average on each application.

  Mr. Maude
  This is a matter for the organisations concerned.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish in the Official Report a copy of the guidelines issued by the Securities and Investments Board on the procedures which should be adopted by self-regulatory organisations such as FIMBRA when suspending their members.

  Mr. Maude
  This is a matter for the Securities and Investments Board.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish in the Official Report a copy of the guidelines adopted by FIMBRA concerning their procedures when suspending members.

  Mr. Maude
  This is a matter for FIMBRA.

  Restaurants and Hotels
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many trading standards officers there are in the United Kingdom; how many are required to monitor compliance with the proposed voluntary code of practice on service, cover and minimum charges in restaurants and hotels amongst the 67,000 establishments concerned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The purpose of the code of practice is to provide guidance to traders to help them to avoid misleading price indications. It would be a matter for each local weights and measures authority to decide if, in respect of particular circumstances, it was necessary for them to monitor compliance with the code.

  The number of trading standards officers in the United Kingdom are contained in the following tables.

  Table 1

  Great Britain

  Number of qualified trading standards officers in post with local weights and measures authorities

  Year ending 31 March 1987

  Number

  England

  1,207

  Scotland

  139

  Wales

  97

  Total—Great Britain

  1,443

  Note: The figures have been collated from the annual returns of local
  weights and measures authorities.

  Table 2

  Northern Ireland

  Number

  Number of qualified trading standards officers in post (as at 13 December 1988)

  20

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether restaurants and hotels which suggest a voluntary service charge are liable to value added tax and national insurance on those charges; and what provision will be made in the voluntary code of practice to be introduced under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 in respect of those items.

  Mr. Forth
  Restaurants and hotels which suggest voluntary service charges are not liable for VAT on those charges. National insurance would be payable only where an employer controlled the distribution amongst staff of any voluntary service charges received.

  The code of practice for traders on price indications advises that all price indications given to ordinary consumers, by whatever means, should include VAT. It further advises that suggested optional sums, in addition to the price, whether for service or any other item, should not be included in bills presented to customers. No reference is made to national insurance, which is outside the scope of the code.

  Electronic Communications
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he expects to publish the report of the steering group set up in 1987 to advise on the prospects of the development of the electronic communications infrastructure in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Atkins
  The report by the communications steering group, "The Infrastructure For Tomorrow", has been
  569
  published today by HMSO along with an associated report "Evolution of the United Kingdom Communications Infrastructure" by PA consulting group. Copies of both reports have been deposited in the Library of the House. They are being published as a contribution to the discussion about the United Kingdom's future communications infrastructure needs.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Land Registry Office
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the current number of cases before the Land Registry Office awaiting processing; what is the average waiting time; and what action he proposes to take to reduce this backlog.

  The Attorney-General
  The total number of cases held at the Land Registry at various stages of processing is 1,168,052.

  The average time taken to complete an application is 16 weeks. Dealings with the whole of the land in a title, which represent 74 per cent. of the cases received, are completed in an average of nine weeks.

  In addition to the recruitment and training of over 2,000 staff since April 1988, new work initiatives to improve productivity have been introduced. The measures are expected to reduce the backlog, provided that the volume of applications does not rise substantially.

  Republic of Ireland (Extradition)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General how many applications for extradition from the Republic of Ireland have had to be resubmitted, because the initial application was deemed by Republic of Ireland authorities to be insufficient in content, during the past 12 months.

  The Attorney-General
  No requests for extradition submitted to the authorities of the Republic of Ireland during the past 12 months have had subsequently to be resubmitted because they were deemed insufficient in content. In cases unaffected by the Irish Extradition (Amendment) Act 1987, the only documents required of United Kingdom police forces by Irish law are warrants of arrest and affidavits and certificates supporting them. No further explanation of such cases ordinarily is required.

  In cases to which the 1987 Act does apply, sufficient information has to be given to the Irish Attorney-General to satisfy him that the relevant United Kingdom prosecuting authority has a clear intention to prosecute and that this intention is founded upon the existence of sufficient evidence.

  Six applications for extradition falling into this category have been submitted during the past 12 months. In four of those cases the Irish Attorney-General has authorised the backing of warrants for the fugitive's arrest. In one case, that of Patrick Ryan, he has declined to do so, for the reasons which he has made public. The sixth case, submitted to him on 21 October, is still receiving his consideration.

  "Sinclair User"
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will prosecute the publishers of Sinclair User for offering to
  570
  supply an intoxicating substance within the meaning of section 1 of the Intoxicating Substance (Supply) Act 1985, in an advertisement carried on page 76 of the December 1988 edition; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions has asked for police inquiries to be made into this matter. I shall write to my hon. Friend once those inquiries have been completed.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the numbers of Iraqi diplomats expelled in each year from the United Kingdom from 1970 to 1987, inclusive.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As the information is not readily available, I shall write to the hon. Member once it is to hand.

  Antarctic
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to protect the environment of the Antarctic.

  Mr. Eggar
  Proposals for consideration at the next Antarctic treaty consultative meeting, to be held in Paris in October 1989, include the creation of a new category of protected area and a revised code of conduct for the disposal of waste. They are the result of requests for advice made by earlier consultative meetings to the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR). The United Kingdom participates fully in such consultative meetings.

  Western Europe (Security)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has anything to add to his comments made to the Western European Union Assembly on Wednesday 7 December concerning security of Western Europe in the light of the speech made to the United Nations by President Gorbachev on that date.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The cuts in Soviet forces announced by Mr. Gorbachev at the United Nations on 7 December represent an important and welcome first step towards securing a better balance of conventional forces in Europe, though they would still leave the Warsaw pact with superiority over the Alliance of some 2.5:1 in tanks and artillery (compared to approximately 3:1 at present). We and our allies hope to build on this hopeful development at the conventional stability talks due to start early next year in Vienna, where we will be pressing for the total and verifiable elimination of disparities in weapon systems relevant to surprise attack and offensive action.

  Dependent Territories (Health Services)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, prior to the implementation of the findings of the review of health services in the dependent territories, he will take urgent steps to provide assistance to Sterling Clarke, Vera Daniel, Sonia Cabey, Robert Fergus, David Favell, Michael White
  571
  and David Harris to enable them to travel to the United Kingdom for cardiac orthopaedic and ocular treatment not available in Montserrat, about which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe has written to him.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government of Montserrat are responsible for their own internal affairs, including the provision of health care. This was one of the subjects that I discussed during my recent visit.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Education Reform
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action has been taken to inform parents and school governors of the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988, and what costs are involved.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Copies of the following have been sent to every governing body since the passing of the Education Reform Act 1988 to help inform school governors and parents.

  1Printing costs £'000

  School governors

  Letter from the Secretary of State for Education and Science to the chairmen of school governing bodies on education reform

  21·0

  Letter from the Secretary of State for Education and Science to school governors on educational reform

  Guide for county and controlled school governors entitled "A Guide to the Law"

  263·0

  Booklet and letter for school governors on "How to become a Grant-maintained School"

  23·0

  Bulletin for school teachers and governors about the Education Reform Act

  24·0

  Circular on local management of schools

  12·0

  Circular on grant-maintained schools

  9·0

  Circular on admission of pupils to county and voluntary schools

  21·0

  Parents

  Notes for parents and leaflet about grant-maintained status

  11·0

  Booklet entitled "Our changing schools", a handbook for parents providing information on the education system and forthcoming changes

  375·0

  1 To 9 December 1988.

  Primary School Head Teachers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what evidence his Department has received about turnover among primary school head teachers; and if he will make a statement.

  Subject

  Number teaching the subject

  Number of these with a post A-level qualification in the subject

  Proportion of total tuition in the subject provided by teachers with a post A-level qualification in it

  Biology

  14,300

  11,800 (82 per cent.)

  91 per cent.

  Chemistry

  11,800

  9,400 (80 per cent.)

  91 per cent.

  Physics

  12,600

  8,800 (70 per cent.)

  83 per cent.

  General or combined science1

  28,400

  6,800 (24 per cent.)

  28 per cent.

  Other sciences1

  7,500

  3,000 (40 per cent.)

  56 per cent.

  572
  Mr. Butcher
  The Department estimates that in the year ending March 1986 the proportion of head teachers in England leaving the maintained nursery and primary sector was 7·3 per cent.

  The most recent survey by the local authorities' conditions of service advisory board, for the calendar year 1987, shows turnover of 4·8 per cent. among primary head teachers in England and Wales, compared with 7·2 per cent. from a similar survey for the financial year 1985–86.

  GCSE System
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the impact of the GCSE system on university courses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The first awards of GCSE certificates were made in the summer of 1988, and the holders would not expect to enter higher education before autumn 1990. It would be premature to assess any possible effects. The GCE examining boards have taken account, in their continual revision of A-level syllabuses, of changes needed in the light of GCSE. Modifications to A-levels and subsequent higher education courses may be needed, but revolutionary changes are in general neither necessary nor desirable.

  "A Strategy for the Science Base"
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made towards a response to the advice of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, "A Strategy for the Science Base", and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend is taking account of the ABRC's strategy advice in the continuing development of detailed policies for the science base. These will be substantially underpinned by the £306 million increase in the science budget over the next three years which my right hon. Friend announced on 1 November at column 605.

  Science Teachers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many science teachers there are at present in schools; and how many of these are fully qualified for this subject.

  Mr. Butcher
  Estimates of the number of teachers of science subjects, with and without a science qualification, available from the 1984 secondary school staffing survey of maintained schools in England are as follows:
  573
  1 Teachers with a post A-level qualification in "general or combined science" and in "other sciences" exclude those with qualifications specifically in biology, chemistry or physics.

  A further secondary school staffing survey was conducted in 1988. The results of this are expected to be available shortly.

  Exam Results
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the percentages of school leavers obtaining no graded result in GCE and CSE for each year since 1970–71.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The table relates to the percentage of English school leavers with no A-level pass nor any graded result at GCE O-level or CSE.

  Leavers with no graded results1

  England

  Academic years

  Percentages

  1970–71

  44·1

  1971–72

  43·0

  21972–73

  7·3

  1973–74

  20·4

  1974–75

  18·6

  1975–76

  16·5

  1976–77

  14·8

  1977–78

  14·3

  1978–79

  12·8

  1979–80

  12·2

  1980–81

  11·4

  1981–82

  10·6

  1982–83

  9·6

  1983–84

  9·5

  1984–85

  9·4

  1985–86

  9·6

  1986–87

  9·4

  1 Subject to sampling error.

  2 The numbers of school leavers fell in 1973 following the raising of the minimum school leaving age from 15 to 16 in September 1972.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to ensure that school subjects not specified as foundation subjects of the national curriculum will be safeguarded in courses of initial and in-service teacher training.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend is confident that the full range of what is taught in schools will continue to be included both in courses of initial teacher training and in-service teacher training activities.

  Research
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if the Natural Environment Research Council has any plans to fund interdisciplinary research into the interactions between sea birds, fish stocks and commercial fisheries in Shetland and neighbouring waters.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand from the Natural Environment Research Council that it is considering a proposal from a university group on the interaction between sea birds and sand eels. A decision will be taken in the spring, following a full peer review of the proposal.

  Medical Research Council
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received the annual report of the Medical Research Council for 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The annual report of the Medical Research Council for 1987–88 has been submitted to me under the requirements of the Science and Technology Act1965. A copy has been laid before the House, and the report is being published today.

  I was most interested to study the report, and in an eventful year for the council, I was particularly encouraged to note:

  i. the wide-ranging studies being undertaken on AIDS, including research on the development of vaccines and drugs, epidemiological studies on heterosexual transmission and on infection in infants, research on the social and biological factors influencing transmission in Africa, and the introduction of collaborative international research agreements.

  ii. exciting progress on the influence of specific strutural features of the human B-globin gene on its expression, with important implications for the development of new therapeutic agents and new therapies such as for human inherited diseases.

  iii. research of direct relevance to the health services, particularly a controlled study of outpatient cataract surgery, monitoring of the performance of intensive care units, and a controlled trial of community based care after hospital discharge.

  iv. research on rehabilitation for those with head and spinal injuries, including the treatment of incontinence and the restoration of limb movement in paraplegic and tetraplegic patients.

  v. the successful establishment of a centre for collaborative research, dedicated to work jointly with industry on strategic research problems which have the potential to lead to exploitable new products and processes.

  Local Authority Employees
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to protect the rights of local authority employees who are re-employed by(a) grant-maintained schools and (b) city technology colleges or city colleges for technology of the arts.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  It has always been my intention to protect the employment rights of staff moving from the local authority sector to either grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges or city colleges for the technology of the arts. Subject to the outcome of the necessary consultations, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment proposes to bring grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges and city colleges for the technology of the arts within the scope of the Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) Order 1983, with effect from 1 April 1989.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Harland and Wolff
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the precise nature and terms of the negotiations presently under way with Bulk Transport Shipping, Mr. Ugur Mengercioglu
  575
  and Sealink British Ferries on the proposed sell-off of Harland and Wolff and on the state of his discussions with the management and employees of Harland and Wolff on their proposed buy-out.

  Mr. Viggers
  No. The companies interested in acquiring Harland and Wolff have asked that negotiations should be confidential. I have met recently Sealink which is considering its future requirement for ferries; and I have also held discussions with senior managers of the company about a proposed management/employee buy-out. No firm proposal has yet been tabled.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will review his policy of preventing Harland and Wolff competing for new contracts while the company remains in public ownership; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Viggers
  The Government believe that the best prospects for Harland and Wolff lie in its return to the private sector and they are not willing to permit the company to enter into new contracts until future arrangements for the yard are resolved.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what safeguards on future employment levels the Government are seeking in their negotiations with potential purchasers of a) Harland and Wolff and (b) Shorts.

  Mr. Viggers
  Prospective purchasers of both Harland and Wolff and Shorts are being asked to address a number of specific matters in their proposals, including the future levels of employment in the companies. In the long run, however, employment levels will be determined by commercial success.

  Short Brothers plc
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the proposed timetable for the sale of Shorts and the Government's contingency plans to safeguard the future of the company if no suitable offers are received.

  Mr. Viggers
  Interested parties have already been asked to register their interest with the Government's merchant bank advisers and an information memorandum is being prepared which will be issued to a selected short list. The Government are committed to the privatisation of Shorts and their preference is that the company should be sold as a single unit. Beyond this, I have nothing to add to my statement of 21 July.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his plans to produce a series of mini-prospectuses for potential purchasers of Shorts indicating the availability of sections of the company for separate purchase.

  Mr. Viggers
  I have no plans to produce a series of mini-prospectuses.

  Game Birds
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what tests have been carried out on game birds in the areas of Northern Ireland affected by the Chernobyl disaster; and what has been the result of the tests.
  576
  Mr. Needham
  During the winters of 1986–87 and 1987–88 the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland arranged for tests to assess the levels of caesium 134 and 137 in game birds which migrate to the Province from areas in northern Europe which were particularly affected by radioactive pollution from Chernobyl. The results of the surveys, which were published, showed that there was no danger to health from eating game birds. I am arranging for copies of the press statements issued in March 1987 and June 1988, including schedules of the test results, to be placed in the Library.

  Health Boards (Grading Appeals)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the machinery to be used by health boards in Northern Ireland to hear appeals about the new grading system; and about the advice he has given to health boards about the methods and time scale for resolving any problems.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 13 December 1988]: Health and social services boards are reviewing informally the grades of nurses who are unhappy with their new grades. Staff who remain dissatisfied may make a formal appeal using the normal appeals procedure agreed by the general council. As there is yet no indication of the likely number of nurses who will make use of the formal procedures I have not given advice to boards about the methods and timetable for resolving problems which may arise. I shall keep the matter under review.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  United Reform Church
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has sent to letters sent to him dated 8 July, 16 September and 29 November from the Reverend Michael Davies, moderator of the Thames North province of the United Reform Church; and if he will make a statement concerning the delay in responding.

  Mr. Renton
  I am writing to the hon. Member.

  Smoke Detectors
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent consultations his Department has had with chief fire officers over smoke detectors.

  Mr. John Patten
  Smoke alarms have been discussed with representatives of chief fire officers, in the context of publicity within the forum of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council at its meeting on 22 September and also at recent meetings of some of the council's subsidiary committees. We shall be writing to chief fire officers in the Thames and Granada television regions this week seeking their support for a further public education campaign based on television advertising in the new year.

  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is yet able to report progress on pilot schemes being conducted to place smoke detectors in local authority domestic accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  A Home Office research project with Tameside metropolitan borough council and Greater
  577
  Manchester county fire service, under which smoke alarms are to be installed in 10,000 homes in the Tameside area of Greater Manchester, was formally launched on 6 December. The neighbourhoods and dwellings are being selected on as random a basis as possible to reflect a wide cross-section of the community and local authority dwellings are included in the scheme.

  The results will be monitored over the next three years to find out the overall effectiveness of smoke alarms in alerting occupants to the outbreak of fire and reducing fire casualties.

  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent consultations his Department has had with home safety organisations over smoke detectors.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Home Office consults widely on fire safety matters but there have been no specific consultations with home safety organisations in recent months.

  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent consultations his Department has had with local authorities over smoke detectors.

  Mr. John Patten
  Smoke alarms have been discussed with local authorities' representatives in the context of publicity within the forum of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council at its meeting on 22 September and also at recent meetings of some of the council's subsidiary committees.

  Fires
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the latest available figures of fires in dwellings and other occupied buildings by source of ignition.

  Mr. John Patten
  The latest available information relates to accidental fires in dwellings and other occupied buildings in 1986 analysed by source of ignition, and is published in tables 3 and 34 of "Fire Statistics United Kingdom 1986". Figures for 1987 will be published on 20 December in table 3 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin 39/88, "Summary Fire Statistics United Kingdom 1987".

  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the figures for fatal and non-fatal casualties from accidental fires in dwellings by source of ignition in 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested for 1984, 1985 and 1986 is published in table 11 of "Fire Statistics United Kingdom 1986". Figures for 1987 will be published on 20 December in table 11 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin 39/88, "Summary Fire Statistics United Kingdom 1987".

  Cable Television
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to seek to ensure that all films shown on cable television meet the same standards of classification as those applied under the Video Recordings Act 1984.

  Mr. Renton
  All cable services are regulated by the Cable Authority, established by the Cable and 578
  Broadcasting Act 1984. I understand that the Authority has approved a self-classification process for films not classified by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), using a comparable classification scheme. The authority has taken further steps to safeguard viewers, by developing guidelines for the scheduling and identification of films shown on cable according to these classifications. A film or uncut version of a film refused certification by the BBFC would be similarly rejected under the authority's cable classification system.

  Immigration
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the revised guidelines on the handling of representations by hon. Members in immigration cases will come into effect; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have made certain amendments to the provisions of the draft revised guidelines first circulated on 18 July in the light of points made to my hon. Friend the Minister of State in the debate on 10 November. My hon. Friend is writing to all Members today enclosing the final text of the revised guidelines and a copy has also been placed in the Library. The revised guidelines will be implemented on 3 January 1989 in respect of all representations received on or after that date.

  The guidelines issued on 18 July by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in connection with Members' representations about the operation of the immigration control overseas will also come into effect as from 3 January 1989.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement about the outcome of the meeting of European Community immigration Ministers in Athens on 9 December.

  Mr. Hurd
  This was the fifth such meeting following, an initiative taken during the United Kingdom Presidency in 1986 to help prepare the EC's approach to the creation of the single market by the end of 1992 so far as the movement of persons is concerned.

  On this occasion the meeting took place after the meeting of the European Council, upon which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reported to the House on 6 December at columns 173 to 186. Meeting in Rhodes, the European Council, in its final communique on 3 December, noting that the achievement of objectives in relation to frontiers was linked to progress in intergovernmental co-operation to combat terrorism and other serious crime, indicated that member states would each appoint a co-ordinator to help the Community achieve results. Although there are already established arrangements within the United Kingdom, I signified, at the Athens meeting, the United Kingdom Government's support for this proposal whose implementation is now being given urgent study amongst EC partners.

  Otherwise the Athens meeting's main work was to review the progress of the ad hoc working group on immigration and its sub-groups on asylum and fraudulent travel papers. Ministers noted the linkages between aligning visa policy, frontier controls and asylum practice in the drive to simplify controls at EC internal frontiers, and took account of various practical measures identified for action or further study. It appears that, if a basis for agreement can be found on which state should be

  579
  responsible for considering individual applications for asylum, most EC states will need to legislate to give it effect.

  In the context of the meeting, I took the opportunity to mention the Government's intention to introduce next spring a single immigration channel for all nationals of the EC (including British nationals) entering the country. The aim of this change is to reduce, as far as possible, the levels of checks on EC nationals entering the United Kingdom without disturbing our ability to maintain adequate controls on nationals of third countries.

  At the same time, I reminded the meeting that there could be no question of abandoning checks on third country nationals at internal frontiers in the foreseeable future. This was a point emphasised by my right hon. Friend on 6 December and in which the United Kingdom is supported by a number of EC partners. This means that checks will have to be maintained on all travellers to ensure that the authenticity of their claims may be verified.

  Further, although it arose as part of separate consideration it is relevant to add that the Trevi group's meeting which immediately followed that of immigration Ministers—and upon which I shall be reporting separately ·considered the implication of 1992 for the maintenance of successful defence in depth against terrorism and serious crime. It decided to authorise further study of how to strike the right balance between greater freedom of movement for the development of the Community on the one hand and, on the other, creating an open market for terrorists and major criminals.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of overseas applicants for entry to the United Kingdom are awaiting reconsideration of their cases on the basis of DNA tests; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ban on Drinking in Public Places
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider extending the experimental ban on drinking in public places to encompass the town of Beverley.

  Mr. John Patten
  Seven local authorities, including Coventry, are trying out the experimental byelaw which makes it an offence to drink alcohol in a public place and we have no plans to extend the experiment. I believe that it is sensible to wait and see how this measure works out in practice in these areas before deciding whether to offer the byelaw for general adoption by local authorities.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Services
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what account he takes of reports of the relevant United States congressional committees when considering improvements in hon. Members' services.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The House of Commons (Services) Committeee and its sub-committes take account of all relevant information that is available. If the hon. Member 580
  has any particular report in mind may I suggest that, in the first instance, he brings it to the attention of the appropriate sub-committee.

  Accommodation
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. or right hon. Members have not been allocated a room.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Five. However, there are sufficient desks for allocation to all right hon. and hon. Members, whether they choose to accept them or not.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. and right hon. Members(a) have been allocated a single room, (b) share a room with one other hon. or right hon. Member, (c) share a room with two other hon. or right hon. Members and (d) share a room with three or more hon. or right hon. Members.

  Mr. Wakeham
  A total of 283 right hon. and hon. Members occupy single rooms, 230 share a room with one other right hon. or hon. Member, 36 share a room with two other hon. Members and 95 share a room with three or more right hon. or hon. Members.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. and right hon. Members have rooms allocated to parliamentary assistants or secretaries.

  Mr. Wakeham
  None. Rooms are allocated to right hon. and hon. Members and it is up to them to decide what use is made of their accommodation.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many parliamentary assistants or secretaries have been allocated a room; and how many share a room with(a) one other person, (b) two other persons and (c) more than three persons.

  Mr. Wakeham
  None. However there are 422 right hon. and hon. Members who have been allocated a desk for use by either their private secretary or research assistant. A total of 26 share a room with one other, 66 share a room with two others and 321 share a room with three or more others.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Salmonella
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many inspections have been carried out(a) in 1987 and (b) in 1988 of protein processing plants making chicken feed; how many of these showed plants to be contaminated with salmonella; and how many prosecutions were brought under the Protein Processing Order 1981 against the infected plants.

  Mr. Ryder
  In 1987, 83 statutory inspections were carried out and 21 cases of salmonella contamination recorded. So far in 1988, 135 inspections have taken place, with 17 cases of salmonella contamination. In each of these cases advice was given on how to eliminate the contamination and prevent recurrence. On re-inspection all samples of products from these contaminated plants were found to be clear of salmonella contamination and so no prosecutions were brought.
  581
  In 1988 the policy has been to inspect each plant at approximately six-monthly intervals, with additional visits to those plants where problems have been found. We are currently considering introducing measures requiring plants to test each day's production for salmonella, and to make the results available to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated level of contamination of imported animal feedstuffs by salmonella; what powers his Department has to monitor and control such contamination; and whether he plans to seek to increase his powers in this respect.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  A very small proportion of compound animal feed is imported. The majority of imports are of the raw materials for incorporation into feeding stuffs.

  Statutory controls apply to the importation of all animal protein requiring all imports to be licensed. Importations made in contravention of these controls may be required to be re-exported, destroyed or treated. Importations of animal protein are also monitored and samples are taken for testing for salmonella contamination. The overall contamination rate found in imported animal protein in 1987 was 28 per cent.

  Discussions between representatives of the animal feeding stuffs industry and my officials are already under way to consider the application of the present controls and the need for any further measures to reduce salmonella contamination in feedingstuffs and their components.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the names and locations of the 21 protein processing plants that were inspected in 1987 and found to be contaminated with salmonella; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: Protein processing plants are subject to inspections under the Diseases of Animals (Protein Processing) Order 1986 to ensure that their product conforms with the required bacteriological standard and contains no salmonella. The 21 plants which were inspected in 1987 and failed these tests were given advice on overcoming their problems and when subsequently re-inspected were found to be meeting the required bacteriological standard.

  In these circumstances prosecutions were not taken. Information on the identity of the plants concerned is a matter of commercial confidence.

  Milk
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the retail sale value of one pint of milk is paid to the farmer.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Approximately 45 per cent.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average yearly farm income in each of the four countries of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Detailed information on farm incomes is provided in the Ministry publication "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom" (1988 edition), a copy of 582
  which is in the Library of the House. Table 3.5 (p. 75) provides annual estimates of aggregate farming income for each country and table 2.3 (p. 18) provides estimates of net farm income by farm type, size group and country. This publication also provides further information on farm incomes and definitions of the above terms.

  Butter
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tonnes of butter there are in store within the EEC; what were the corresponding figures for each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  At the end of October 1988, there were 374,922 tonnes of butter in store within the EEC, 162,928 tonnes in intervention, and 211,994 tonnes in aided private storage. Corresponding stock figures for the end of the previous 10 years are given in the table.

  EC Butter Stocks at 31 December (to nearest 100 tonnes)

  Intervention tonnes

  Aided private storage tonnes

  Total tonnes

  1978

  231,500

  186,500

  418,000

  1979

  270,800

  100,600

  371,400

  1980

  128,800

  110,600

  239,400

  1981

  11,100

  136,100

  147,200

  1982

  111,900

  193,800

  305,700

  1983

  692,100

  161,300

  853,400

  1984

  841,500

  107,400

  948,900

  1985

  995,800

  127,700

  1,123,500

  1986

  1,283,300

  83,200

  1,366,500

  1987

  859,900

  98,200

  958,100

  Bracken (Sprays)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department or any relevant agencies have given any guidance to local authorities, landowners and farmers in respect of the environmental and public health implications of using sprays to control the spread of brackens in national parks or other areas of countryside.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Ministry has published a leaflet "P190 —Bracken Control". It is available from ADAS staff at local offices of the Ministry.

ENERGY

  AERE, Harwell
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what contracts Harwell Atomic Energy Authority research centre has with the Ministry of Defence; whether any of these involve handling plutonium; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (Harwell) undertakes work, under commercial contract for the Ministry of Defence. which exploits its expertise in a range of matters including plutonium handling.

  Trawsfynydd Magnox Plant
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if the additional cost incurred on the Central Electricity
  583
  Governing Board to generate replacement electricity for the output of Trawsfynydd Magnox plant has been accounted against nuclear or fossil fuel expenditure.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Output from nuclear plant is maximised at all times. Any shortfall in that output must be made up by an equivalent increase in fossil-fuelled generation. Nuclear and fossil-fuelled generation respectively are not separately accounted for within the bulk supply tariff.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the decision by the nuclear installations inspectorate to refuse permission to the Central Electricity Generating Board to restart the Trawsfynydd Magnox nuclear plant on 24 November; and on what basis further decisions were made by the nuclear installations inspectorate to allow it subsequently to start.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Consent to start up reactor 1 at Trawsfynydd was given by the nuclear installations inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive on 2 December 1988. This followed the satisfactory resolution of issues identified at a meeting between the nuclear installations inspectorate and the Central Electricity Generating Board.

  Hinkley Point C
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what communications have been received by his Department from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament pursuant to the attendance at the Hinkley Point C public inquiry by Christopher Wilcock of his Department; and if he will set out the issues addressed in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament letter and the departmental responses.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  A letter from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament was received on 24 November. A reply will be sent as soon as possible.

  Plutonium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current status of the joint United States and United Kingdom fast reactor research programme announced by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in 1979; what is the total amount of plutonium to date transferred(a) from the United Kingdom to the United States of America and (b) from the United States of America to the United Kingdom under this programme; and in what form this plutonium has been transported.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The research work under the joint United Kingdom and United States fast reactor research programme announced by the UKAEA in 1979 was successfully completed in 1987. The studies of the results are now being finalised. There have been no net transfers of plutonium (other than in gram quantities) between the United Kingdom and the United States arising from the programme.

  Electricity Bill
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will initiate an investigation into the leaking of a draft of the Electricity supply industry privatisation Bill to the fortnightly publication Power in Europe which published details on 24 November.
  584
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No.

  Natural Gas
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of total electricity in the European Community is produced from natural gas; and what is the percentage of each member country.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  In 1986, the latest year for which data are available for all member states, 6·5 per cent. of electricity in the Community was produced from natural gas. Figures for individual member states are in the following table.

  Member state

  Percentage of electricity produced from natural gas (1986)

  Belgium

  1·5

  Denmark

  1·9

  Federal Republic of Germany

  6·2

  France

  0·8

  Greece

  0·2

  Ireland

  22·4

  Italy

  15·8

  Luxembourg

  0·1

  Netherlands

  61·9

  Portugal

  —

  Spain

  1·7

  United Kingdom

  0·6

  Source: Energy Statistical Yearbook, 1986.
  (S.O.E.C December 1987).

DEFENCE

  Atomic Weapons Research Establishment (Burghfield)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what materials were being disposed of at the atomic weapons research establishment, Burghfield, on the morning of 2 December;

  (2) what distance the area being used to dispose of explosive materials at the atomic weapons research establishment, Burghfield, on the morning of 2 December was from: (a) work places at the atomic weapons research establishment, Burghfield, (b) any surrounding buildings and (c) areas accessible to the public;

  (3) what surface explosive material was being burnt at the atomic weapons research establishment, Burghfield, on the morning of 2 December;

  (4) how the explosive materials being disposed of at the atomic weapons research establishment, Burghfield, on the morning of 2 December were ignited;

  (5) if the site used for disposal of explosive materials at the atomic weapons research establishment, Burghfield, on the morning of 2 December has a water supply with sufficient stand pipes and hoses to allow access to all areas; and if he will specify any other means of extinguishing fires that were present at the disposal site;

  (6) if the site used for disposal of explosive materials at the atomic weapons research establishment, Burghfield, on the morning of 2 December (a) was fenced to prevent inadvertant entry and (b) had a red flag displayed to indicate disposal taking place;
  585
  (7) how many entrances there are to the site for the disposal of explosive materials at the atomic weapons research establishment, Burghfield, on the morning of 2 December:

  (8) what protective clothing and other safety equipment was issued for the use of burning site operators at the site used for the disposal of explosive materials at the atomic weapons research establishment, Burghfield, on the morning of 2 December;

  (9) what type of log was kept of disposal operations at the atomic weapons research establishment, Burghfield, on the morning of 2 December; and what details it contains;

  (10) why the disposal of explosive materials at the atomic weapons research establishment, Burghfield, on the morning of 2 December took place in the hours of darkness;

  (11) if the explosives disposal site at the atomic weapons establishment, Burghfield, is licensed by any organisation outside his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 8 December at column 252.

  Private Security Companies
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of the private security companies listed in his answer to the hon. Member for Leyton of 2 November,Official Report, column 645, guard establishments in the (a) Bristol and (b) Oxford areas.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.

  European Defence Contractors
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy towards cross-border alliances between European defence contractors.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry monitors cross-border alliances between European defence contractors and assesses on a case-by-case basis their implications for our ability to secure value for money in procurement.

  Retired Research Staff (Emigration)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions exist on retired research staff from Aldermaston and Burghfield emigrating to the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 8 December at column 267.

  Property Sales
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there are any plans to sell the Dreadnought seaman's hospital building and the nurses' home off King William walk in Greenwich.

  Mr. Freeman
  Greenwich hospital, of which my right hon. Friend is the trustee, is the freeholder of the Dreadnought seamen's hospital building and the Devonport nurses' home. There are no plans to sell the freehold of these buildings. Since the Dreadnought 586
  building is no longer required as a hospital, new uses for it and the associated buildings are now under consideration.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in developing Her Majesty's Stationery Office as an executive agency.

  Mr. Lawson
  I am pleased to announce that HMSO will today become an executive agency under the Next Steps initiative. HMSO is already a successful Government trading fund. Executive agency status will help it to develop its business on sound commercial lines. with significantly greater managerial freedom and a more flexible pay structure best suited to the achievement of its aims and objectives. HMSO will be expected, in return, to achieve progressively more demanding profit and performance targets. This is reflected in the framework document governing the operation of the agency and in a new Treasury minute which is being laid today under the Government Trading Fund Act 1973. Copies of the framework document are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Family Incomes
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has produced any estimate of the expected impact on the living standards of an average sized family on average incomes of the combined effects of the poll tax and the privatisation of electricity and water.

  Mr. Major
  No specific estimate is available. However, to raise the same revenue from community charge as from domestic rates will need no change in the average household bill. The introduction of competition and the disciplines of the private sector into the electricity and water supply industries will put downward pressure on costs and prices.

  Debt Repayment
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the total debt repayment paid by Britain in the current year; if he will express the figures as a percentage of gross domestic product; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  The public sector debt repayment (PSDR) is expected to be about £10 billion in 1988–89, equivalent to 2 per cent. of gross domestic product. On the basis of this forecast, the PSDR in 1988–89 will be larger as a proportion of money GDP than in any year since the beginning of the 1950s, the earliest date for which figures on this basis are available.

  VAT
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to exempt apnoea respiratory monitors from value added tax.

  Mr. Lilley
  Apnoea respiratory monitors may be zero-rated when supplied to specified "eligible bodies", provided that they are purchased with funds provided by
  587
  a charity or from voluntary donations. "Eligible bodies" include health authorities, non-profit making hospitals and research institutions, charitable institutions providing care or medical or surgical treatment for handicapped people and charitable institutions providing rescue or first-aid services.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow can expect to receive answers to his letters of 12 October and 16 November about value added tax on new buildings.

  Mr. Lilley
  I replied to the hon. Member's letter on 12 December.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on how many occasions value added tax has been waived on contracts awarded by the health authorities to outside companies;

  (2) how many contracts awarded to tenders from companies outside the National Health Service have had value added tax applied to them.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answers 12 December 1988]: Value added tax applies in the normal way to all such contracts. Health authorities can however claim refund of the tax where section 27(2A) of the Value Added Tax Act 1983 applies. Information on the number of contracts in question is not available.

  Cancer Screening
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the mobile breast screening unit provided by the Wessex Cancer Trust as a registered charity has now been made subject to value added tax.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 8 December 1988]: Medical equipment donated to a health authority by a charity is entitled to zero-rating when it is to be used solely for medical research, diagnosis or treatment. The zero rate covers X-ray and other specialist medical equipment for a mobile breast screening service, but it does not, I regret, extend to equipment such as general purpose trailers or towing units. If the Wessex Cancer Trust can produce further evidence to show that the unit in question does constitute specialist medical equipment, Customs and Excise will of course be pleased to reconsider the case.

  Coventry Four
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what charges are still outstanding against Colonel Hendrik Botha, Stephanus de Jaser, William Metelerkamp and Jacobus la Grange.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: The four would face charges that they conspired with each other and with others on diverse dates between 23 February 1982 and 1 April 1984 to evade prohibitions in force on the exportation of goods from the United Kingdom pursuant to the provisions of the Export of Goods Control Order 1981 whereby an offence or offences contrary to section 170(2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 would have been committed.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date in 1984 passports were returned to those persons known as the Coventry four.
  588
  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: Passports were not returned to the persons known as the "Coventry Four".

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the bail money offered by Mr. Andre Pelser in the case of the persons known as the Coventry four has been returned to persons acting for or on behalf of the South African Government.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: The £400,000 offered by Mr. Andre Pelser was estreated by the Coventry magistrates court. Estreated bail is paid into the Consolidated Fund.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many summaries of developments in the inquiries by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise into the case of those persons known as the Coventry four were written; and to whom they were despatched.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: I regret that this information is not available.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will name the four persons remanded before magistrates at Coventry in March 1984 on charges of breaching arms embargo regulations.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: The four persons were William Randolph Metelerkamp, Hendrik Jacobus Botha, Stephanus Johannes de Jager and Jacobus Francois La Grange.

  Building Societies
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exhequer what is the ratio of investors in building societies to those who have mortgages from them.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: Figures in the annual report of the Building Societies Commission for 1987–88 suggest that at the end of 1987 there were in total 45·6 million investing shareholders and depositors in building societies. Since some people have an account at more than one society and many people have joint accounts, the exact number of individual investors is not known. During the same period there were 7·2 million borrowers with mortgages. This figure treats as single borrowers almost all holders of joint mortgages.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Mr. Frank Ballard
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will investigate the reasons why his Department's records division at Newcastle upon Tyne has not acknowledged or replied to the letters sent by Mr. Frank Ballard of 20 High street, Colton, Rugeley, Staffordshire, on 14 July and 23 October regarding a deficiency in credits for the year 1986–87.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that there is no record of receipt of Mr. Ballard's first letter in July. His letter of 23 October with which he enclosed a copy of his original letter was forwarded to the Department's local office at Lichfield to answer and a reply was sent on 14 November. I am writing to my hon. Friend.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many retirement pensioners are in receipt of an occupational pension; and what is the average weekly income from occupational pensions.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Approximately 3·4 million pensioner tax units1 were in receipt of an occupational pension in 1986; the average weekly amount was £39·54.

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey 1986.

  1A pensioner tax unit is a single pensioner over state pension age or a couple where the man is over state pension age.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of (i) all pensioners, (ii) single male pensioners, (iii) single female pensioners, (iv) pensioner couples, (v) single women aged 75 years or over, (vi) single men aged 75 years or over and (vii) couples where at least one partner is aged 75 years or over, are in receipt of an occupational pension; and, for each group, what is the average amount received.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  Proportion of pensioner tax units1 with occupational pensions percentage

  Average weekly amount received2 £

  All pensioners

  50

  39·43

  Single males

  55

  32·20

  Single females

  38

  27·66

  Pensioner couples

  65

  50·79

  Single women aged 75 and over

  31

  27·60

  Single men aged 75 and over

  50

  31·12

  Couples where at least one partner is aged 75 and over

  42

  36·73

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey 1986.

  1 A tax unit is a single person of pensionable age or a couple where the man is of pensionable age.

  2 Average amounts are based on the number of pensioners actually in receipt of occupational pensions.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of (i) all pensioners and (ii) newly retired pensioners have neither a state additional pension nor an occupational pension.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is (i) the total number and (ii) the proportion of(a) single pensioners and (b) pensioner couples who are in receipt of income support;

  (2) what is (i) the total number and (ii) the proportion of single pensioners aged (a) 75 years and over and (b) 80 years and over who are in receipt of income support;

  (3) what is (i) the total number and (ii) the proportion of pensioner couples aged (a) 75 years and over and (b) 80 years and over who are in receipt of income support.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is as follows:590

  Total numbers in 000's

  Proportion

  All pensioners

  Single

  1,340

  27

  Couples

  335

  9

  Pensioners 75 and over

  Single

  735

  31

  Couples

  100

  13

  Pensioners 80 and over

  Single

  435

  31

  Couples

  40

  13

  Notes:

  1. For the purpose of this table pensioners are defined as those in receipt of a pensioner premium.

  2. Proportions are those in receipt of Income Support as a percentage of total pensioner units within the group.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is (i) the total number and (ii) the proportion of(a) single pensioners and (b) pensioner couples who are in receipt of housing benefit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Special arrangements have been made with the Department of Employment's claimant adviser service for family credit claims made by families of people assisted into work by them to be dealt with through a streamlined procedure. The target is for 90 per cent. of these claims to be cleared within five working days. This target is being met and 95 per cent. are cleared within 10 working days. Other claimants resuming work after claiming income support are sent a specially marked family credit claim form so that, if necessary, their claims can be given priority. The target is to clear these claims, as other family credit claims, in an average of 18 working days. In November a clearance rate of just under 23 days was achieved.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from pensioners' organisations about the effect on their pensions of recent changes in the financial climate.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since the beginning of October we have received 18 such representations.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of gross national product is devoted to payments to pensioners.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information is not available in the form requested. Social security expenditure on the elderly is approximately 5 per cent. of GDP.

  Taxes and Benefits
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update his answer on taxes and benefits on 25 March,Official Report, column 244 for 1989–90 assuming that tax allowances are indexed according to the statutory formula and taking account of the uprating of benefits.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Figures for 1989–90 are not available.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if there is a specific target for clearing claims for family credit for people who have moved into paid work.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Special arrangements have been made with the Department of Employment's Claimant Adviser
  591
  Service for Family Credit claims made by families of people assisted into work by them to be dealt with through a streamlined procedure. The target is for 90 per cent. of these claims to be cleared within 5 working days. This target is being met and 95 per cent. are cleared within 10 working days. Other claimants resuming work after claiming Income Support are sent a specially marked Family Credit claim form so that, if necessary, their claims can be given priority. The target is to clear these claims, as other Family Credit claims, in a average of 18 working days. In November a clearance rate of just under 23 days was achieved.

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he plans any alteration in severe disablement allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We do not have any plans for major changes to the structure of severe disablement allowance pending our consideration of the reports on the survey of disabled people undertaken by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Crisis Loans
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time between a claimant applying for a crisis loan and the person receiving the girocheque in payment of the loan.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not available.

  Crisis loan applications are decided as soon as all necessary information has been obtained. Inevitably it takes longer to proces some applications than others, but a majority are decided and paid on the date of application.

  Transitional Payments
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when his Department's Glasgow office will determine the eligibility or otherwise of transitional payments for Mrs. P. D. Mills of 1 John Till Close, Rugeley, Staffordshire following the return of the completed questionnaire requesting information relating to housing benefit by the Cannock Chase district council on 10 October.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The notification about the outcome of the application for housing benefit transitional payments, in the case referred to, was sent out to the applicant on 3 November.

  Durham Local Office
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, for Durham Department of Social Security office since April in all cases, what was(a) the total budget and (b) the amount spent to date for (i) budgeting and crisis loans and (ii) community care grants expressing (b) as a proportion of (a) in each case; (c) what was the average (i) budgeting loan, (ii) crisis loan, (iii) community care grant, (iv) maternity payment and (v) funeral payment paid out; (d) how many people have been refused (i) a loan, (ii) a community care grant and (iii) both; (e) how many people were refused a loan more than once in a one
  592
  month period; (f) how many applications were refused under the 26-week rule; and (g) how many people were refused extention loans on the grounds of their existing commitments.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on numbers of applications for social fund loans and grants processed and awarded, listed by local office, including information on budget allocations and expenditure, is available from the details held in the Library.

  A statutory amount of £85 is available in respect of maternity payments. However, any capital held by the applicant in excess of £500 is taken into account on a pound-for-pound basis. In the period from April to November 1988 the average amounts paid out from the social fund in the Durham office in respect of funeral payments was £310·44.

  In the period from April to November 1988 a total of 129 applicants were refused awards on the grounds that they had either not been in receipt of income support for 26 weeks or that they had previously applied for the same item or service in the preceding 26 weeks and their circumstances had remained unchanged.

  Information on the number of applicants refused a loan more than once in the one month period or the number of applicants refused a second or subsequent loan on the grounds of existing commitments is not available.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give for(a) Durham local office area and (b) England (i) the number of claimants who have experienced, or will experience real reductions in income as a result of the changes made to diet and heating allowances in April and (ii) the amount saved by this means.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Estimates of the information required could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the average benefit paid to disabled claimants at Durham local office for the periods(a) 4-10 April and (b) 11-17 April, excluding transitional protection.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that this information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Single Parents
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what support from within the community is available to lone parents under the age of 18 years who are unable to gain support from their own family or his Department.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Lone parents under age 18 are eligible for income support from this Department subject to the normal rules. Lone parents were not affected by the general withdrawal of entitlement to income support from 16 and 17-year-olds. Young lone parents can also claim other benefits such as family credit, housing benefit, child benefit and one parent benefit provided that they fulfil the conditions of entitlement. A lone parent under age 18 may also be able to obtain help of other kinds from local authorities and voluntary organisations.

  Working Mothers
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing estimates of the
  593
  numbers of women who are working, with children, who have marginal tax rates in excess of 50 per cent., broken down into bands of 10 per cent. and into married women and one-parent families.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information is not currently available.

  Form FC1
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will revise the family claim form FC1.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We expect to bring a revised version into use in the spring.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was raised through national insurance contributions in 1987; and on what it was expended.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This information is not available for the calendar year 1987. Figures for the financial year ended 31 March 1987 are contained in the account of the national insurance fund for 1986–87 (House of Commons Paper 277). The account for 1987–88 will be published in the new year.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will report on the progress being made by the occupational pensions board in considering measures to safeguard the rights of occupational scheme members; and when he expects the board to complete its report.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We asked the occupational pensions board to report by the end of the year. I understand that the board expects to meet this date.

  Community Care Grants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what steps he will take to publicise the availability of community care grants as a means of ensuring the community care grants budget is not underspent;

  (2) if he will issue an instruction to his Department's local probation services and hospital social workers concerned with re-establishment of patients in the community, as a means of ensuring full take-up of the community care grant budget.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information about the availability of community care grants is contained in a variety of leaflets, forms and posters, and guidance to social fund officers already emphasises the importance of liaison between local offices and statutory and other bodies.

  We are currently considering a range of further measures to improve awareness of community care grants amongst the priority groups for whom they are intended and amongst organisations involved with potential applicants.

  Local Offices (Rhondda)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what percentage of applications for social fund 594
  loans were successful in (a) the Porth Rhondda and (b) the Tonypandy Rhondda West offices in the period up to 30 August;

  (2) how much of the social fund allocation had been spent up to 30 August in (a) the Porth Rhondda and (b) the Tonypandy Rhondda West offices;

  (3) what percentage of applications for social fund grants were successful in (a) the Porth Rhondda and (b) the Tonypandy Rhondda West offices in the period to 30 August.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on numbers of applications for social fund loans and grants received, processed and awarded, listed by local office, including information on budget allocations and expenditure, is available from the details held in the Library.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many claims for single payment have been allowed at(a) the Tonypandy Rhondda West and (b) Porth Rhondda offices since 1 April; and what amount of benefit these represent in each case;

  (2) how many claims for single payment have been made at (a) the Tonypandy Rhondda West and (b) the Porth Rhondda offices since 1 April; and what are the main items asked for in each case.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is not available on the numbers of claims for single payments made and allowed since 1 April 1988 and the items asked for. The numbers of decisions made in respect of single payments during the period 11 April 1988 to 31 October 1988 were, at Rhondda West 1,188 and at Porth Rhondda 1,026. The total amount paid for single payments at each office during the same period was, at Rhondda West £67,982 and at Porth Rhondda £32,825.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many new claims for housing benefit supplement were received at(a) the Tonypandy Rhondda West and (b) the Porth Rhondda offices from 1 November 1987 to 11 April 1988;

  (2) what was the total amount of housing benefit supplement paid at (a) the Tonypandy Rhondda West and (b) the Porth Rhondda offices in the year prior to 31 October 1987.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that information is not available in the form requested.

  Information obtained from the housing benefit subsidy claims submitted by the local authorities with which the Department's Rhondda (west) and Porth offices deal is shown in the tables.

  Table 1

  Number of housing benefit supplement claims on 31 March

  Authority (Borough Council)

  1987

  19881

  Rhondda

  386

  438

  Taff-Ely2

  640

  706

  1 Provisional.

  2Includes claims from Pontypridd office.

  Table 2

  Total amount of housing benefit supplement paid

  Authority (Borough Council)

  1986–87

  1987–881

  £

  £

  Rhondda

  86,215

  100,236

  Taff-Ely2

  133,219

  147,842

  595
  1 Provisional.

  2 Includes claims from Pontypridd office.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many new claims for supplementary benefit were received at(a) the Tonypandy Rhondda West and (b) the Porth Rhondda offices from 1 November 1987 to 11 April 1988.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of claims, both new and repeat, for supplementary benefit received between 21 October 1987 and 8 April 1988 (the closest available dates) is as follows:

  Claims

  (a) Rhondda West

  2,902

  (b) Porth

  2,530

  Source: Internal management information, which is provisional and subject to amendment.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount of supplementary benefit paid at(a) the Tonypandy Rhondda west and (b) the Porth Rhondda offices in the year prior to 31 October 1987.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Young People
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases in each standard region are(a) aged 16 to 17 years but receiving income support whilst in relevant education, (b) aged 16 to 17 years who are entitled to income support under schedule 1 of the income support regulations, (c) aged 16 to 17 years who have been entitled to income support for short periods and (d) aged 16 to 17 years for whom he has used his discretionary power to grant income support to avoid severe hardship.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested concerning 16 and 17-year-olds receiving income support whilst in relevant education is not available.

  The estimated number of 16 and 17-year-olds entitled to income support without time restriction (schedule 1 of the Income Support (General) Regulations) at September 1988 is as follows:

  Number

  England

  15,000

  Scotland

  2,000

  Wales

  2,000

  Great Britain

  19,000

  Notes:

  (1) Based on a sample of 1 in 50 cases in receipt of Supplementary Allowance on a day in May 1987.

  (2) Figures rounded to the nearest thousand.

  (3) Information is not available according to "standard regions" and in view of the small number of sample cases involved any further breakdown would be subject to wide sampling error and would therefore be of doubtful validity.

  The number of awards of income support made to 16 and 17-year-olds for limited periods (schedule 1A of the Income Support (General) Regulations) in September and October 1988 was:
  596

  Region

  Number of awards

  London (North)

  27

  London (South)

  32

  Midlands

  42

  North Eastern

  55

  North Western

  60

  Wales and South West

  38

  Scotland

  34

  Great Britain

  288

  Notes:

  (1) Based on 100 per cent. count of awards made up to 31 October 1988.

  (2) Information is not available according to "standard regions".

  (3) Information relates to the number of awards rather than to the individual number of young people involved. Some may have had more than one award.

  The number of directions given under the Secretary of State's discretionary power to avoid "severe hardship" to 16 and 17-year-olds during the 13 weeks ended 9 December 1988 is as follows:

  Region

  Number of applications

  Number successful

  Number unsuccessful

  London (North)

  174

  124

  50

  London (South)

  131

  91

  40

  Midlands

  222

  167

  55

  North Eastern

  366

  243

  123

  North Western

  293

  193

  100

  Wales and South West

  185

  122

  63

  Scotland

  518

  329

  189

  Great Britain

  1,889

  1,269

  620

  Notes:

  (1) Based on 100 per cent. count of applications received.

  (2) Information is not available according to "standard regions".

  (3) Information relates to the number of applications rather than to the number of individual young people involved. Some may have made more than one application.

  Severe Disability Premium
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current estimated percentage take-up of the severe disability premium.

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

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of awards thus far of severe disability premium to(a) individuals, (b) couples at the lower rate and (c) couples at the higher rate.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that information on the number of people receiving the severe disability premium is not yet available.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assistance is available to residents of private aged persons' houses where the fees are raised above the maximum allowable income support towards residential costs.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Income support limits for help towards fees are intended to meet all reasonable charges for accommodation, board and personal care. The actual fee charged by an independent residential care home is a matter solely between the home and the resident.

  Contribution Records
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to ensure that his Department's contracted-out earnings group office at Newcastle can provide contribution records within a reasonable time period.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Normally it is not necessary for the contracted-out earnings group to provide earnings or contribution information as employers and pension schemes have their own records of this. However, an inquiry service for employers submitting details to the group on magnetic tape is provided, for which a charge is made. The information requested is normally sent within a week of the inquiry.

  Medical Tribunals
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when a medical appeal tribunal will hear the case of Pamela Walsh, 4 South avenue, Leigh, whose appeal was lodged in January.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand from the office of the president of social security and medical appeal tribunals that Pamela Walsh's appeal will be heard on 18 January 1989.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when a medical appeal tribunal will hear the case of Mr. R. T. Watson, 4 Fitchfield walk, Worsley, Manchester whose appeal was lodged on 16 March.

  Mr. Scott
  This is a matter for the president of social security and medical appeal tribunals, but I understand that Mr. Watson has not yet been allocated a date for a hearing of his appeal.

  Relocation of Offices
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration is being given to moving offices of his Department to Bolton.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We shall shortly be making an announcement setting out our plans to move some local office work away from London. Detailed work is also progressing to identify headquarters functions which might be relocated. This work still has some way to go but we are considering all alternative locations which will help the Department to improve efficiency.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many were eligible for housing benefit transitional payments at the start of the scheme; and how many are estimated to be in the next financial year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  When the transitional payments unit was set up it was announced that up to 300,000 people would be eligible to receive payments. Up to 9 December 396,000 applications had been received and 146,000 cases are receiving payments. In the majority of cases where assessments have not been made the unit is awaiting the return of inquiry forms from local authorities. The final date by which applications can be made is 31 March 1989 and until this date is reached it is not possible to predict how many people will eventually benefit from the scheme.

THE ARTS

  British Library
  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what were the total buildings costs of the Urquhart building at the British Library in Boston Spa; and what was the cost of fitting out this building.

  Mr. Richard Luce
  [holding answer 8 December 1988]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 19 October 1988 at column 880 in respect of the total costs of the building. The cost of fitting out was approximately £1·5 million.

HEALTH

  Nurses (Grading)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether it is his policy that where a local manager wishes to change a nurse's grade he should not do so without having first consulted the regional health authority who in turn must consult his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No. It is for regional and district health authorities to determine what consultations, if any, should take place and in what circumstances this would be appropriate.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate for the Shropshire health authority of the number of patients who have been on the hospital waiting list for more than a year.

  Mr. Mellor
  The most recent validated in-patient waiting list figures are for 31 March 1988. At that date, there were 2,797 patients on the Shropshire list for more than a year.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Carttiss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of expenditure for health services per 1,000 population for each of the health districts in the East Anglia region 1979–80 and for 1987–88.

  Mr. Mellor
  Figures based on the total populations of the district health authorities in the East Anglian region are shown in the table for the years 1982–83 (the first year following the establishment of those authorities) and 1987–88.

  Total revenue expenditure on hospital and community health services (HCHS) per thousand population—East Anglian region

  District health authorities

  1982–83 (cash) £

  1982–83 (at 1987–88 prices) £

  1987–881 (cash) £

  Real-terms increase per cent.

  Cambridge

  196,875

  247,974

  282,190

  13·8

  Peterborough

  147,793

  186,152

  201,761

  8·4

  West Suffolk

  122,989

  154,911

  177,316

  14·5

  East Suffolk

  156,002

  196,492

  206,428

  5·1

  Norwich

  163,649

  206,124

  218,825

  6·2

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  127,619

  160,742

  184,129

  14·6

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  113,474

  142,926

  166,040

  16·2

  Huntingdon

  86,731

  109,243

  189,427

  73·4

  599
  1 Provisional (ie as yet unaudited figures).

  HCHS covers all services provided (including hospital and community health services and where appropriate ambulance and other services).

  Sources:

  (a) Annual accounts of the district health authorities.

  (b) Mid-year estimates of resident population 1982 and 1987 (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys).

  Notes to the table:

  1. The 1982–83 figures have been expressed at 1987–88 prices by the use of the Gross Domestic Product deflator.

  2. District capital expenditure and all revenue and capital expenditure incurred by the East Anglian regional health authority for the region as a whole is excluded.

  3. Expenditure on family practitioner services is excluded: such expenditure is accounted for by family practitioner committee (FPCs) and cannot strictly be attributed to particular districts. However, prior to 1 April 1985 the Cambridge, East Suffolk and Norwich district health authorities each had an associated FPC and their total revenue expenditure for 1982–83 included small, not separately identifiable, elements relating to FPCs' administrative expenses.

  4. Significant variations in per capita expenditure figures at district level arise principally because:

  (i) people travel across district boundaries for treatment and sub-regional resource allocations reflect the pattern and changes in the pattern of service provision locally.

  (ii) the population figures used make no allowance for people resident in one district who receive treatment in another or for the differences in morbidity and age/sex structure of particular populations.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what proportion spending on the health services has increased over and above inflation since 1979; and what is his estimate of how much further that figure is likely to increase when the additional resources he has announced for the coming year are taken into account.

  Mr. Mellor
  The real terms increase in NHS gross expenditure since 1978–79 is 37 per cent. and is expected to rise to 40 per cent. in 1989–90. If, however, account is also taken of the extra cash released in 1989–90 by the reduction in employers' superannuation contributions and from health authorities' income generation and cost improvement schemes the value of the resources available is equivalent to a real terms increase of 4·5 per cent. over 1988–89.

  Drug RU 486
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if there are any plans to introduce the RU 486 abortion pill for use in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what test have been carried out on the drug RU 486 in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Any information of this kind received pursuant to the Medicines Act 1968 is confidential to the licensing authority. A company statement on RU 486 was issued by Roussel Laboratories Ltd. on 1 November 1988, a copy of which and any further information may be obtained from the company's office at Bradwater Park, Denham, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB9 5HP.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the turnover rate amongst National Health Service speech therapists in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Mellor
  I regret that we do not collect this information centrally.
  600
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing, by health authority (a) the establishment figure for speech therapists, (b) the actual number in place, (c) (b) as a proportion of (a), and (d) the number of cases treated in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Mellor
  I regret that we do not collect information on establishment and number of cases treated centrally in this form. The figures for whole-time equivalent staff in post in each English region and the London postgraduate special health authorities is as follows.

  NHS staff in post

  Speech therapists—England by region at 30 Sepember 1987

  Region

  Whole-time equivalents

  1. Northern RHA

  160

  2. Yorkshire RHA

  160

  3. Trent RHA

  260

  4. East Anglia RHA

  120

  5. North West Thames RHA

  210

  6. North East Thames RHA

  240

  7. South East Thames RHA

  220

  8. South West Thames RHA

  170

  9. Wessex RHA

  140

  10. Oxford RHA

  140

  11. South Western RHA

  180

  12. West Midlands RHA

  260

  13. Mersey RHA

  110

  14. North Western RHA

  230

  20. London Postgraduate Special Health Authorities

  30

  England Total

  2,630

  Source: Department of Health (SR7) Annual Census of NHS Non-Medical Manpower.

  Note: All figures are independently rounded to the nearest (10) ten whole-time equivalent.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy on health authorities insisting that patients or the guardians of patients in their area needing speech therapy should first sign an agreement or contract before such treatment can commence.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 13 December 1988]: The terms on which speech therapy is provided to individual patients is a matter for agreement between the patient, or guardian of the patient, and the local health authority and speech therapy manager responsible for the provision. Many forms of speech therapy treatment need the parent or guardian of a speech-impaired child to work with the child outside the formal speech therapy sessions to reinforce the therapy. We are not aware that health authorities are generally requiring patients or guardians to sign written contracts.

  AIDS
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement outlining the various methods by which HIV may be transmitted from one person to another; and what is the latest evidence available to him on whether HIV may be transmitted in saliva.

  Mr. Mellor
  HIV is recognised to be transmissible by three main routes:unprotected penetrative sexual intercourse with an infected person (between men or between a man and a woman);

  601
  by inoculation of infected blood and blood products. In the United Kingdom this mainly results from drug misusers sharing contaminated injecting equipment; and
  from an infected mother to her baby before or during birth, or after birth via breast feeding.

  HIV has been found in low concentration in saliva but I am advised that there is no good evidence that HIV has ever been transmitted in saliva.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest measures being taken to protect at-risk groups from contracting the HIV virus in(a) prisons, (b) Her Majesty's forces and (c) the business travelling community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Since April 1986 the Government have allocated £32·5 million for a sustained programme of public education about HIV and AIDS. In October 1987 the Health Education Authority was given responsibility for further development of the campaign. Campaigns mounted so far include mass media work aimed at those travelling at home and abroad on holiday or on business. In addition, new leaflets have been produced for issue to travellers overseas. These include up-to-date information about the risks of HIV infection abroad.

  Educational initiatives aimed at prison inmates and members of HM armed forces are the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence. However, I am aware that an educational package for prison inmates, comprising a video, a guide to its use and a leaflet, is nearing completion. Members of the armed forces were included in the distribution of the household leaflet "Don't Die of Ignorance" in early 1987 and with it received an insert directed at service personnel. Units moving overseas are given instruction on relevant health hazards, including HIV and other communicable diseases, and precautions that individuals can take to protect themselves.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of reported cases of people affected by food poisoning for each calendar year from 1980 to the present time.

  Mr. Mellor
  The numbers of formally notified and otherwise ascertained cases of food poisoning for the years 1980–87 are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1980

  110,318

  1981

  19,936

  1982

  14,253

  1983

  17,735

  1984

  20,702

  1985

  19,242

  1986

  23,948

  1987

  29,331

  1 Formally notified only; otherwise ascertained not available.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the Government's estimate of the ratio of unreported cases to each reported case of a person affected by food poisoning.

  Mr. Mellor
  While there is considerable under-reporting, we do not have available a precise estimate of the ratio.
  602
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will proceed with plans to leaflet every household to warn against the dangers of food poisoning.

  Mr. Mellor
  Following preliminary assessment, the Government are to launch early next year a nationwide campaign to advise the public on how to prevent food poisoning in the home. Initially, this will be based on a leaflet "The Recipe for Food Safety" to be distributed extensively through supermarkets, doctors' surgeries and other outlets. Other ways of promoting good food hygiene practice in the home will also be considered.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of salmonella poisoning there have been in the last year for which figures are available; and whether the incidence of this type of food poisoning is declining or increasing.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  In 1987, 20,532 isolates from humans in England and Wales were identified by the Department of enteric pathogen of the Public Health Laboratory Service. This is a 21 per cent. increase over the previous year and figures to date for this year indicate a further increase in salmonella isolates from humans.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of cases of salmonella food poisoning are estimated to be due to salmonella in eggs; what is his estimate of the proportion of the 30 million eggs eaten annually that contain the salmonella bacteria; and what advice he has circulated to the public and to the catering industry on how to avoid salmonella food poisoning from eggs.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  In the first 10 months of this year there were 46 outbreaks associated with eggs involving over 1,000 cases of salmonella food poisoning. We do not have information to estimate the proportion of cases of food poisoning due to eggs as in the great majority of sporadic cases no particular food is identified as the cause of the illness. Although the risk of harm to any healthy individual from consuming a single raw or partially cooked egg is small, it is advisable for vulnerable people such as the elderly, the sick, babies and pregnant women to consumer only eggs that have been cooked until the white and yolk are solid. Advice has been given to the catering industry and the public about the handling, cooking and use of eggs.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of cases of food poisoning in the last year for which figures are available, what assessment he has made as to whether the incidence is declining or increasing; and what proportion arose from(a) home catering, (b) commercial catering and (c) catering in institutional establishments.

  Mr. Mellor
  In 1987 there were 29,331 cases of food poisoning, 20,363 of which were formally notified and 8,968 ascertained by other means. Figures to date for this year indicate that the incidence is increasing. No precise data are available on proportions of cases attributable to different catering locations.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will take steps to introduce a statutory requirement that all those commercially involved in handling food take a course in food hygiene;
  603
  (2) if he has any plans for strengthening food hygiene legislation;

  (3) what information he has concerning courses that provide training in food hygiene; and whether his Department provides any input to these courses.

  Mrs. Currie
  A review of food legislation has been the subject of wide consultation over several years and the results were reported to Ministers. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 30 October 1987, announced that officials had been asked to review the proposals in the light of the response to consultation. The proposals under review include the suggestion that training in food hygiene should be mandatory for food handlers, along with other measures.

  Such training is currently provided by the food industry itself, by local authorities and by professional bodies. Departmental officials keep in close contact with training bodies and advise where necessary.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of how many cases of food poisoning due to the bacteria listeria there have been in the last year for which figures are available; whether there has been an increase or decrease in the incidence of such cases; and what evidence there is that the cook-chill method of preparation encourages these bacteria to flourish.

  Mr. Mellor
  I am informed of one well-documented case of food-associated listeriosis in 1986. No such cases were reported in 1987. To date in 1988 there have been three cases. None of these was associated with the cook-chill system of catering. I am satisfied that provided the Department's guidelines on cook-chill catering are carefully followed, microbiologically sound food will be produced.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of food poisoning due to campylobacter there have been in the last year for which figures are available; what indications there are as to whether the figures are declining or increasing; and what evidence there is that refrigeration helps the bacteria to thrive in poultry and underdone meat.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  In most instances there is no evidence which specifically links individual reported cases of campylobacter infection with a particular food. In 1984 there were 20,861 laboratory reports of campylobacter enteritis. In 1987 this figure had increased to 25,900 and in a small proportion of these it was possible to identify a food vehicle. There is no evidence to show that the organism grows in food, refrigerated or otherwise.

  Whitley Council
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many appeals are currently being processed by the Whitley council procedures in(a) Sunderland health authority, (b) Hartlepool health authority and (c) Durham health authority.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Midwifery Students
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many entrants for future student midwifery courses have withdrawn their application since 1 October.
  604
  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Heart Transplant Programme
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's heart transplant programme.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The number of heart and heart-lung transplants carried out in the United Kingdom has grown significantly this year. In the period 1 January to 25 November 1988, 348 heart and heart-lung transplants were performed compared with 288 over the same period last year.

  Revenue funding for the heart transplant programme will rise from £6·8 million in 1988–89 to £9·1 million in 1989–90, a cash increase of over one third. This will provide for about 50 extra heart and heart-lung transplants above current levels and for the follow-up of over 350 patients successfully transplanted in earlier years. Nearly £1 million of capital will be spent in 1989–90 on essential developments at the transplant centres. I shall also be asking the supra-regional services advisory group to advise me on the location of a fifth heart transplant which will receive central funding from April 1990.

  This expanding programme, which is at the forefront of medical technology, shows the Government's determination to modernise and improve the NHS.

  Opticians
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he can give information as to who was available to present evidence to the ophthalmic service committee of the Manchester family practitioner committee investigation referred to in his reply to the hon. Member for Oldham West, on 5 July,Official Report, columns 516-17.

  Mr. Mellor
  The ophthalmic service committee obtained written evidence from the patients and opticians involved and decided, in accordance with the National Health Service (Service Committees and Tribunal) Regulations 1974, that the investigation could be determined without a hearing.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will consider the introduction of an arbitration officer to determine a fair level of fees for people in private residential and nursing homes.

  Mrs. Currie
  The level of fees charged in these homes is a matter between the proprietors and the residents, or whoever pays on the residents' behalf, and not one in which we would wish to intervene.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the Official Report the prescription charges for patients who do not qualify for exemptions for each medicament included in the limited list.

  Mr. Mellor
  NHS patients must pay a prescription charge of £2·60 for each item prescribed at NHS expense unless they qualify for exemption. If a patient is given a private prescription for a drug or other product which is
  605
  not available at NHS expense there is no prescription charge, but the patient must pay the pharmacist the full cost of the item supplied.

  Artificial Hips
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many National Health Service artificial hip operations took place in the last year for which figures are available; and what is the approximate average cost of this operation.

  Mrs. Currie
  We estimate that the number of total hip replacement and other arthroplasty of hip operations performed in NHS hospitals in England in 1986 was 40,000. The average cost of such operations is about £2,400 (1988–89 prices).

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what would be the approximate cost of providing powered outdoor wheelchairs for all boys suffering from muscular dystrophy;

  (2) what representations he has received regarding the provision of powered outdoor wheelchairs for boys suffering from muscular dystrophy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Most boys with muscular dystrophy would probably need a wheelchair for certain periods of their life. On the best information available, and depending on the type of wheelchair provided, the approximate cost may be in the region of £¼ million—£1½ million. We have received no representations on this issue.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the latest estimate of the additional cost of providing a powered wheelchair that could be used outside and inside instead of just inside;

  (2) how many powered wheelchairs are currently on issue through the wheelchair service; and what is the estimated number of those using powered indoor wheelchairs who would benefit from having a powered wheelchair that could also be used outside;

  (3) which aspects of wheelchair provision are now being handled by the regions and which remain the responsibility of the Disablement Services Authority.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the annual amount allocated to the Disablement Services Authority; and what proportion of this amount is available for the improvement of appliances, and in particular, for improved wheelchairs.

  Mr. Mellor
  These are matters for the Disablement Services Authority, to which the right hon. Member should address questions.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the annual expenditure in each of the last five years on wheelchair provision; what has been the percentage increase each year; and what has been the percentage annual increase in expenditure on all health provision.

  Mr. Mellor
  The annual expenditure in each of the last five financial years on wheelchairs provision plus the percentage increases is as follows:606

  Financial year

  £

  Per cent.

  1983–84

  22,210,329

  —

  1984–85

  24,592,517

  10·72

  1985–86

  25,863,573

  5·16

  1986–87

  27,265,645

  5·42

  1987–88

  29,413,356

  7·87

  National Health Service gross expenditure percentage annual increase on all health provision in England is as follows:

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  1983–84

  5·9

  1·2

  1984–85

  7·4

  2·8

  1985–86

  5·8

  -0·2

  1986–87

  7·6

  4·0

  1987–88

  9·9

  4·6

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultation there has been between his Department and the Disablement Services Authority regarding the provision of powered outdoor wheelchairs.

  Mr. Mellor
  Following a recommendation in the McColl report that powered occupant-controlled outdoor wheelchairs should be supplied by the wheelchair service, the DSA has decided to undertake a 12-month pilot study to gain information and experience in the supply of powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs. Consultation between the Department and the DSA has not been appropriate since this is a matter for the authority.

  Pacemakers
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many National Health Service operations to implant a pacemaker took place in the last year for which figures are available; and what is the approximate average cost of this operation.

  Mrs. Currie
  We estimate that in 1985 (the latest year for which we hold information centrally), there were 6,360 operations to insert pacemakers.

  The average cost, based on a study by Trent regional health authority, is approximately £1,700 for the first implantation and £1,500 for a replacement, at 1986–87 prices.

  Prescribing Responsibility
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list for 1976 and each subsequent year the number of complaints received by his Department concerning non-compliance with the policy on prescribing responsibility set out in HN(76)69; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list for years 1986 and 1987 the complaints received by his Department concerning non-compliance with the policy on prescribing responsibility set out in HN(76)69, indicating in each case the health authority involved, the nature of the complaint, and the action taken.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not hold information in the form requested. In the years 1986 and 1987 about 70 items of correspondence referring to prescribing responsibility were received from health authorities, general practitioners and others. The Department has investigated all
  607
  complaints received regarding non-compliance with our advice on prescribing responsibility for outpatients in HN(76)69 and more recently in DA(87)10.

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate how many women are likely to be screened for breast cancer in(a) 1989, (b) 1990 and (c)

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret that we do not have this information available centrally. The breast cancer screening programme is being implemented over the three years to 1990. We shall collect statistics centrally on the number of women screened once the service has been fully implemented. We hope that by 1993 all women aged between 50 and 64 will have been invited for screening.

  Ambulancemen
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the report from the Ambulance Council working party on "The Problems of Long Serving Ambulancemen", which concluded its report in September 1985.

  Mr. Mellor
  We intend giving the contents of the final report careful consideration including a decision about publication when it is submitted to Ministers.

  Erythroprotein
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether any financial assistance is to be provided to renal units to enable them to purchase stocks of erythroprotein;

  (2) whether erythroprotein has passed its clinical trials; and how soon he expects it to be generally available to renal units.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: Information about whether a product licence application under the Medicines Act 1968 has been made or the results of any associated trials is treated as confidential and it is not possible to say if or when this product will become generally available and on what terms.

  Doctors' Pay
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the real terms increase in doctors' remuneration since 1979.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 13 December 1988]: 25·5 per cent. between 1978–79 and 1987–88.

  Orthotists
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many orthotists there are in England; and how many orthotists there are in England per 100,000 people.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 13 December 1988]: Most orthotists in England are employed by the private sector and we do not collect information on their numbers. Orthotists employed by the NHS in England are graded as medical physics technicians and are not identified separately on manpower returns.

  South Western RHA
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the sources of funding for the South Western 608
  regional health authority's regional computer centre and regional design service, which enable them to be self-financing.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 13 December 1988]: The regional computer centre and the design service charge fees for the services that they provide. Their customers are primarily health authorities within the South Western region and elsewhere.

  Project 2000
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding arrangements have been made for the implementation of nurse training under Project 2000; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 13 December 1988]: In the Autumn Statement the Government announced additional funding for the NHS in 1989–90 which included £12 million for nurse education and training. This is additional to the provision already made for nurse education by health authorities from their existing allocations and is intended to provide extra funds for post-basic education and Project 2000.

  Decisions on the allocation of the additional funds for Project 2000 will be taken when authorities submit costed implementation plans to the Department. They have been asked to submit these by the end of February 1989.

  Health Authorities (Meetings)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make it his policy that minutes of district and regional health authority sub-committee meetings be made available to community health councils, providing that patient, staff and commercial confidentiality is maintained;

  (2) whether he has any plans to open to the public district health authority meetings or their sub-committee meetings;

  (3) if he will make it his policy that minutes of district and regional health authority sub-committee meetings should be made available to the public, providing that patient, staff and commercial confidentiality is maintained.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 13 December 1988]: Under the provisions of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 health authority meetings are open to the public and their agendas and related papers available on request, except when confidential matters are under consideration. Most regional and district health authorities conduct their business in an open manner, as is reasonable. I do not believe that any useful purpose would be served by extending these provisions to sub-committees at the present time.

EMPLOYMENT

  YTS
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of companies, employing 100 or more YTS trainees, hire no YTS trainees from(a) the Afro-Caribbean community, (b) the Asian community and (c) ethnic minorities, respectively, in (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) the east midlands and (iii) Leicestershire.
  609
  Mr. Cope
  I regret that the information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people are without a YTS place after their entitlement to child benefit or bridging allowance ran out; and how many were temporarily in this position during 1988.

  Mr. Cope
  It is not possible to provide this information. Young people are not obliged to report what they are doing after bridging allowance ceases.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide figures on the number of young people no longer on bridging allowance who have not yet been allocated a YTS place.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 13 December 1988]: It is not possible to provide this information. Young people are not obliged to report what they are doing after bridging allowance ceases.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the total expenditure on YTS for 1986, 1987 and the estimated expenditure for 1988, 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 13 December 1988]: Figures for Great Britain for financial years are published in the 1988 Public Expenditure White Paper. Taking into account the changes made by the winter supplementary Estimates the figures are:

  £ millions

  1986–87

  874

  1987–88

  11,006

  1988–89

  21,145

  1989–90

  21,189

  1990–91

  21,156

  1 Estimated outturn.

  2 Plans.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the cost of publicity of the YTS programme.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 13 December 1988]: The planned YTS marketing budget for 1988–89 is £5·9 million.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unfilled places by region, there were on YTS at the most recently available date and at the same date one year previously.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: The number of unfilled YTS places as at 31 October 1987 and 1988 is given in the table.

  Region

  31 October 1987

  31 October 1988

  South East

  20,109

  15,698

  London

  16,030

  10,064

  South West

  14,763

  11,456

  West Midlands

  26,899

  20,663

  East Midlands and Eastern

  18,300

  13,973

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  15,050

  9,245

  North West

  26,837

  14,268

  Northern

  11,761

  6,904

  Wales

  8,365

  3,352

  Scotland

  19,571

  12,835

  Great Britain

  177,685

  118,458

  610
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people have experienced benefit penalties for leaving YTS early since it was designated an approved training scheme.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  The youth training scheme (YTS) was designated an approved training scheme on 10 March 1983. Between December 1983 and April 1988, the period for which information is available, a total of 24,204 people had their supplementary benefit reduced for leaving courses early.

  Community Opportunity Posts
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria were operated in deciding how many community opportunities posts were allocated to each training area; what is the decision making process operated by Training Agency area offices whereby host organisations are awarded community opportunities posts; and what value-for-money measurements are applied in this process.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In developing the arrangements for community opportunities, Training Agency area offices took into account the make-up of their area, the likely size of the client group, and the buoyancy of the local labour market.

  In selecting host organisations area office staff considered the following criteria:

  (i) proven experience in arranging voluntary activity for individuals;

  (ii) ability to access a range of voluntary activity to meet the differing needs of clients;

  (iii) ability to relate to, and well established links with, voluntary organisations in the community;

  (iv) a local base in the area, together with the necessary facilities to accommodate a co-ordinator on their premises;

  (v) operation of an equal opportunities policy.

  Account was also taken of the effectiveness with which the host organisation could organise the opportunities for employment training leavers, and the performance of host organisations will be carefully monitored.

  Training Places (Merseyside)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many Employment training scheme places have been taken up on Merseyside service since the inception of the scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  At 2 December 1988, there were 3,446 people training on employment training on Merseyside.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employment training scheme places have been taken up in Blyth Valley.

  Mr. Nicholls
  At 2 December 1988, there were 1,682 people training on employment training in the north Tyne area, including Blyth Valley.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State For Employment what percentage of disabled people of working age are employed in Blyth Valley; and what action he is taking to increase job opportunities For disabled people in Blyth Valley.
  611
  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested in the first part of the question is not available.

  My Department maintains a comprehensive network of services to help people with disabilities find and retain jobs through advice, assessment, rehabilitation and training; and in the case of people with severe disabilities, support in the form of sheltered employment. My officers are continuing to give all possible help to people with disabilities in Blyth Valley through the application of these services against a background of increasing employment opportunities.

  Creche Facilities
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what inquiries his Department is making to establish the effect lack of creche facilities has on employment.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department is currently participating in the work of the ministerial group on women's issues on childcare in the context of women's employment. Among other aspects the group is considering the availability of childcare and the effects that the lack of it may have on women's employment.

  Benefits (Adjudications)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current average waiting time for adjudications relating to reasons of dismissal in cases where claimants were waiting for unemployment benefit.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. However the speed with which adjudication officers make decisions—that is, the time taken between their receiving a referral and reaching a decision after making all the necessary inquiries—is monitored in a 5 per cent. sample of cases.

  The sample shows that, for the three-month period ending 30 June 1988, the percentage of cases decided within four weeks of referral to an adjudication officer, on whether a claimant was dismissed due to misconduct, was 62·6 per cent.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many cases are currently being dealt with by unemployment benefit adjudication officers in the constituency of Stoke-on-Trent, North;

  (2) how many unemployment benefit adjudication officers are available to serve the constituency of Stoke-on-Trent, North.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Figures are not available by constituency of the number of cases considered by adjudication officers, or the number of adjudication officers who serve that area.

  However on 2 December 1988, the total number of cases currently in the process of adjudication arising on claims for unemployment benefit in the adjudication office area of Staffordshire, which includes the Stoke-on-Trent, North constituency, was 3,204.

  The number of adjudication officers in post on 2 December 1988 in the Staffordshire adjudication office was nine.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Pensions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the basic state pension and the state earnings-related pension have fallen as a percentage of annual earnings since May 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  The full basic state pension, as a percentage of average earnings for male manual workers, was 22·5 per cent. in November1 1979 and in April 1988 the percentage was 20·5.

  It is not possible to calculate corresponding precentages for the State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme because it is not a fixed rate pension.

  1The information given is for the date of uprating.

ENVIRONMENT

  Football Clubs (Membership Scheme)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the proposed national membership scheme for Football League clubs.

  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received seeking greater flexibilty for his proposals for a national football card membership scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on his proposals to promote a full membership scheme for Football League clubs.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have received nearly 650 letters about the national membership scheme from right hon. and hon. Members, members of the public and from various organisations since the meeting between the Prime Minister and the football authorities on 6 July. In addition, I have received a large number of proposals to implement the scheme from computer companies and others.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will meet the directors of Barnsley football club to discuss proposed membership schemes.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My diary is already very full for the coming months but I am happy to meet directors of Barnsley football club if mutually convenient arrangements can be made.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent talks he has had with the football authorities about the Government scheme for membership cards for football spectators.

  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has held with the football authorities concerning the introduction of a compulsory membership scheme.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I had lengthy discussions about the proposed national membership scheme for football
  613
  supporters with the football authorities at meetings of the working party which I chaired, between July and October this year.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will meet the new president of the Football League to discuss identity cards for football supporters.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I hope to meet the new president of the Football League shortly.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of houses in multiple occupation following his Department's consultation document issued in July on houses in multiple occupation.

  Mr. Trippier
  We are considering what changes to existing legislation might be appropriate in the light of the 200 responses received to consultation.

  Water Authorities (Land and Building Assets)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the land and building assets owned by the English and Welsh water authorities.

  Mr. Howard
  This information is not available centrally.

  Rate Support Grant Settlement
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the proposed rate support grant settlement for 1989–90.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have received representations from about 110 local authorities and comments from the local authority associations.

  Estate Action Programme
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of expenditure on the estate action programme in 1987–88; and what is planned for 1988–89.

  Mr. Trippier
  We increased the resources made available under the estate action programme from £75 million in 1987–88 to £140 million in 1988–89. A further 36 per cent. increase to £190 million is planned for next financial year.

  Planning Inquiries (Public Representation)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will increase the opportunities for public representation at planning inquiries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The rules of procedure at planning inquiries, in addition to conferring rights of appearance on certain parties, give inspectors wide discretion to allow members of the public to make representations. I believe that inspectors exercise that discretion reasonably; but in fairness to everyone involved, they do on occasions have a responsibility to control representations which are clearly irrelevant or repetitious.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce further controls on handling of hazardous waste.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Following extensive consultation we announced our conclusions and intention to legislate on 29 June. A further consultation paper was issued on 23 November. A review of the special waste regulations is well advanced and we expect to consult on this early next year.

  District Council Rates (Essex)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the average rate increase for district councils in Essex for 1989–90.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We estimate that if district authorities in Essex spend in line with the proposed 1989–90 rate support grant settlement, and make the same use of balances as this year, then average rate increase would be around 3 per cent.

  Stonehenge
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made with regard to the creation of a new visitors' centre at Stonehenge.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Progress on this scheme is a matter for English Heritage.

  Nirex
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet the chairman of United Kingdom Nirex; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet the chairman of United Kingdom Nirex; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet the chairman of United Kingdom Nirex; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing).

  Competitive Tendering (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to meet the leader of Lancashire county council to discuss competitive tendering; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to meet the leader of Lancashire county council to discuss competitive tendering. I recently had discussions with the authority on a range of local government issues.

  Nurses (Property Taxes)
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about what a
  615
  typical ward sister would pay in (a) rates, (b) community charge and (c) a system of capital value rates plus local income tax paid in the proportions of 80:20, respectively, if she lived in a typical one-bedroomed flat in the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to what a typical ward sister would pay in(a) rates, (b) community charge and (c) a system of capital value rates plus local income tax paid in the proportions of 80:20, respectively, if she lived in a typical one-bedroomed flat in the London borough of Lambeth.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to what a typical ward sister would pay in(a) rates, (b) community charge and (c) a system of capital value rates plus local income tax paid in the proportions of 80:20, respectively, if she lived in a typical one-bedroomed flat in the London borough of Camden.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to what a typical ward sister would pay in(a) rates, (b) community charge and (c) a system of capital value rates plus local income tax paid in the proportions of 80:20, respectively, is she lived in a typical one-bedroomed flat in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.

  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to what a typical ward sister would pay in(a) rates, (b) community charge and (c) a system of capital value rates plus local income tax paid in the proportions of 80:20, respectively, if she lived in a typical one-bedroom flat in the London borough of Greenwich.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg).

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the poll tax which will be levied in Nottingham.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax. I wrote to the hon. Member on 6 December about the level of the community charge in Nottingham.

  The Government have made no estimates of community charges. We published on 23 June illustrative figures showing what the community charge would have been in each area, had the new system been in force in 1988–89. Those illustrative figures assume existing levels of spending and existing local authority responsibilities. On that basis, the personal community charge in Nottingham would have been £251. Under the Government's safety net proposals this figure would have been reduced to £231 in the first year of the new system.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made by local authorities in preparing for the introduction of the community charge in England.
  616
  Mr. Gummer
  Many local authorities are clearly making good progress in preparing for the introduction of the community charge. I intend to monitor progress carefully in the months ahead.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on any campaign to refuse to pay the community charge.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am aware that a number of individuals have said that they do not intend to pay the community charge. Such action would, of course, be both unlawful and futile.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the average national community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have made no estimates of community charges. We published on 23 June illustrative figures showing what the community charge would have been in each area, had the new system been in force in 1988–89. Those illustrative figures assume existing levels of spending and existing local authority responsibilities. On that basis, the average personal community charge in England would have been £246.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by how much the standard rate of income tax would need to be raised if the expected amount of revenue generated by the poll tax were to be raised through income tax.

  Mr. Gummer
  On 23 June the Government published illustrative community charge figures, based on local authority spending in 1988–89; copies are in the Library. Those figures also showed the rate of local income tax that would be needed to raise the same revenue. The average increase in income tax rates across England would be 6·4p.

  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he is making to ensure that the public are informed of the way in which the new community charge system will operate.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Department of the Environment published yesterday a new booklet giving up-to-date information on the new community charge system which will be introduced in April 1990. It is available free on request. The Department will also be publishing shortly seven supplementary leaflets, giving more detailed information on particular aspects of the system, for example, on exemptions and appeals. These, too, will be available free on request. Copies have been placed in the Library. The total cost of producing the booklet and leaflets is estimated at £80,000.

  We shall also send a leaflet to all households in England next May to coincide with canvassing by local authorities to prepare the register of those liable to pay the community charge. The leaflet will help people to understand the purpose of the canvass and what they need to do. We estimate that the cost of producing and distributing it would be of the order of £980,000.

  Since May this year we have issued, jointly with local authority associations, a series of practice notes to individual local authorities and interested organisations dealing with the practical and technical details of the new system. Nine practice notes have so far been published at

  617
  a cost of £9,000. Twelve more are in preparation. One of the practice notes contained a model canvass form with associated information notes. We are arranging to have the form and notes translated into five minority languages for use by local authorities where appropriate.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in the draft regulations at present being prepared on enforcement of poll tax payments, he will amend the relevant regulations that currently apply in Scotland.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: No. My right hon. Friend's regulation-making powers in respect of enforcement in the Local Government Finance Act 1988 do not extend to the amendment of Scottish legislation on enforcement of the community charge.

  Clay Pigeon Shooting
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why he did not consult the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association on the recent general development order relating to permitted days.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department is issuing a consultation paper this week about whether the order should be amended to revert to 28 days. The Clay Pigeon Shooting Association will be among those consulted.

  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to have consultations with the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association about the General Development Order 1988 and the reduction of shooting days from 28 to 14.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department is issuing a consultation paper this week; a copy is being sent to the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association.

  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to respond to the views of the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association, by reverting to the 28 days permitted use set by the General Development Order 1988.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department is issuing this week a consultation paper about whether the General Development Order 1988 should be amended to revert to a maximum 28 days permitted use rights for clay pigeon shooting. The Clay Pigeon Shooting Association and the Sports Council are among those we are consulting.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures of homeless households in(a) London and (b) England and Wales.

  Mr. Trippier
  In the quarter ending September 1988 English local authorities accepted 30,220 households under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: of these 7,550 were accepted by London boroughs.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to seek to amend the homeless persons legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) on 6 December at column 198.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the causes of the increase in the numbers of families accepted as homeless by local authorities since 1983.

  Mr. Trippier
  Estimates of the number of households accepted by local authorities in England under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act broken down by the immediate reasons for homelessness are as follows:

  thousands

  Immediate reason for homelessness

  1983

  1987

  Parents, relatives or friends no longer able/willing to accommodate

  32·2

  47· 3

  Breakdown of relationship with partner

  15·3

  20·2

  Mortgage arrears

  4·8

  10·5

  Rent arrears—LA dwellings

  1·8

  2·0

  Rent arrears—other dwelling

  1·7

  1·8

  Other reasons for loss of non-LA dwelling

  8·3

  10·6

  Loss of service tenancy/tied accommodation

  4·4

  4·8

  Other

  9·8

  15·2

  TOTAL

  78·2

  112·4

  Rate Support Grant (Brent)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the level of rate support grant for the London borough of Brent.

  Mrs. Bottomley
  On our latest calculations, Brent will receive £74 million of block grant this year.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be laying the 1989–90 rate support grant settlement shortly. Under our consultation proposals Brent would receive £86 million, £19 million more than this year after allowing for the changed treatment of polytechnics. This is an increase of 28 per cent. over 1988–89.

  Inspectorates (Staffing)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to review the staffing complement of the inspectorate in his Department dealing into air, water and waste.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to increase the numbers of hazardous and waste inspectors.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  On 7 December my noble Friend the Minister for Housing Environment and Countryside announced that 13 additional posts will be created to strengthen the professional capacity of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in the spheres of air, water quality and waste. Among other things this will help with implementing the large combustion plant directive, administering the EC directive on the disposal of sewage sludge to land, and developing a programme of inspection of waste disposal authorities and major waste disposal sites. We shall continue to keep the manpower and resource needs of the inspectorate under review in the light of current circumstances and priorities.

  Water Industry (Expenditure)
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the change in the level of capital expenditure by the water industry between 1979–80 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Iain Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the change in the level of capital expenditure by the water industry between(a) 1974–75 and 1979–80, and (b) 1980–81 and to date.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Capital expenditure on DOE services, in real terms, decreased by 33 per cent. between 1974–75 and 1979–80, and increased by 52 per cent. from 1979–80 to the present.

  Ozone Layer (Conference)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the progress being made on the calling of the London conference on the ozone layer.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on the international conference to be held on the subject of the ozone layer.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The London conference "Saving the Ozone Layer" will be held in the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre on 5-7 March 1989, Ministers from developed and developing countries are being invited to attend, as well as world industry and international organisations. Initial reactions have been very favourable. The executive director of the United Nations environment programme (UNEP) has offered his warm support for the conference, which is designed to support existing international efforts to protect the ozone layer. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the detailed programme for the conference in consultation with UNEP.

  Water Bill
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the Water Bill.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend continues to receive representations covering various measures proposed in the Water Bill.

  Rate Support Grant
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest available figure for the amount of rate support grant to local authorities throughout Great Britain; and what was the figure in 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The latest estimate of rate support grant is £12,702 million for 1988–89. In 1979–80 it was £9,001 million.

  Sheltered Housing
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to make additional funds available to meet the increased demand for sheltered housing.
  620
  Mr. Trippier
  Most elderly people wish to remain in their own homes for as long as possible and grants are available for improvements and adaptations. Local authorities must assess need in their areas and secure provision, with the private sector and other agencies, especially housing associations. The extra resources planned for housing in the PES period include an 80 per cent. increase in the Housing Corporation programme.

  Football-related Incidents
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many arrests there have been in football-related incidents inside and outside grounds in the 1986–87 and 1987–88 seasons.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The total number of arrests made at league matches in seasons 1986–87 and 1987–88 is as follows:

  Arrests

  1986–87

  5,531

  1987–88

  6,147

  The Association of Chief Police Officers does not hold information on the number of arrests for football-related incidents away from the grounds.

  Rivers (Quality)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of rivers in England are of good or fair quality.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Water authority data shows that 89 per cent. of the river length in England was assessed as being of good or fair quality in 1987.

  Regional Water Authorities
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairmen of the regional water authorities; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend last met the water authority chairmen on 5 December when a wide range of issues affecting the water industry were discussed.

  Departmental Relocation
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussion he has had about relocating his Department's establishments and personnel from the south to the north of Britain.

  Mr. Ridley
  About 56 per cent. of the Property Services Agency's non-industrial staff are already located outside the agency's London and south-east regions. The PSA is to be reorganised into three separate businesses between now and April 1990. I shall be considering relocation in the context of the future shape of the agency.

  For the Department of the Environment, over one fifth of the staff are already outside London and the south-east. My aim is to relocate as many more of these as makes financial and operational sense. To that end, all areas of the Department's work were considered in the summer and some prima facie candidates for relocation identified. Detailed studies of costs and benefits are needed before firm decisions can be taken. These are in progress.

  Land Transfers
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the average total of land transferred from farmland to urban uses each decade since 1958; what steps he proposes to take to increase the availability of land for building; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's records show that in the periods 1958–68, 1968–78 and 1978–85 the average estimated net area of farmland transferred to urban and industrial development (including mineral workings) each year in England was 14,000, 13,400 and 5,100 hectares respectively. More recent data in this series are not yet available. The planning policy guidance note "Local Plans" (PPG12) issued on 30 November emphasises that it is the responsibility of local planning authorities to make realistic provision for the foreseeable development needs of their area, in general conformity with the structure plan. In the last two years about 46 per cent. of new housing in England has been on derelict or vacant land in urban areas; the Government are committed to policies of restraint in green belts and other environmentally important areas.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to increase the number of staff involved in the monitoring of water quality.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The monitoring of drinking water quality will continue to be carried out by local authorities. However my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will also appoint technical assessors to ensure that water undertakers comply with the standards.

  Water Authorities (Assets)
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to value the assets of water authorities prior to privatisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Department is discussing with representatives of the water authorities what new valuation work should be undertaken in connection with the preparation of prospectuses. No decision has yet been taken.

  Leasehold (North-West)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the operation of the leasehold system in the north-west of England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  We have received a number of representations recently from hon. Members and others, most of which relate to the activities of Salt Properties Ltd.

  I deplore the activities of landlords and their agents who seek to exploit their tenants. Leaseholders who receive unexpected demands should check the terms of their leases and seek advice if necessary.

  Under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 most long leaseholders of houses can insist on buying their freehold if they want to, but they should not feel obliged to buy simply because the landlord offers to sell.

  Planning Regulations
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals his Department has for changing planning regulations for building homes close to unstable cliff faces on the sea shore.

  Mr. Chope
  Existing planning regulations are adequate to deal with development close to unstable cliff faces but advice on how to apply those regulations is needed by planning authorities and developers. My Department has recently carried out a public consultation on draft advice on development on unstable land. The responses are now being considered and the advice will be issued in 1989.

  Ozone Layer
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further measures he intends to introduce to help protect the ozone layer.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further action he intends to take to lessen the dangers posed to the atmosphere by the use of chlorofluorocarbons.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In the light of the advice of the United Kingdom stratospheric ozone review group in their second report published in October 1988 about depletion of the ozone layer and the role of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) we are calling for worldwide emissions of CFCs to be reduced by at least 85 per cent. by the turn of the century and for the Montreal protocol to be strengthened accordingly.

  At the Environment Council on 24 November most member states supported the United Kingdom's proposal that the Community should adopt this position in the review of the protocol. In order to underline the worldwide commitment needed to reduce CFC emissions and to demonstrate how these can be achieved my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are calling a major international conference next March to which Ministers and world industry are being invited. We have also offered to host the second meeting of the parties to the protocol in April 1990, at which we hope that the further cuts we are demanding will be agreed.

  General Development Order 1988
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations were held with interested parties before he tabled the General Development Order 1988.

  Mr. Chope
  We issued a consultation paper, including a draft of the proposed order, in February this year. There were 290 original consultees, and a further 156 copies of the paper were sent to those who requested them. A list of those consultees who responded to the paper will shortly be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  New Town Houses
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to meet the chairman of the Telford development corporation to discuss the future of the new town houses.

  Mr. Trippier
  I meet the chairmen of development corporations from time to time to discuss a wide range of issues of mutual interest.

  Vehicle Exhaust Emissions
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce exhaust emission standards for British vehicles similar to those applying in the United States of America.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Yes. The exhaust emission standards for large cars, which the United Kingdom Government will be implementing as part of the Luxembourg agreement, will be equivalent to United States standards. For medium and small cars the recently agreed completion of the Luxembourg agreement will also lead to major reductions in emissions for these vehicles.

  Vacant Land
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to speed up the development in inner cities of vacant land owned by public bodies.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend has put into action several programmes which can speed up the development of vacant land in inner cities owned by public bodies.

  The land registers highlight unused and underused land owned by public bodies, and 13,000 acres of such land in inner cities have been removed from the registers since 1984 because it has been sold or brought into use by the owners. We are consulting public bodies about a new code of practice on the publication of information by those bodies themselves about unused and underused land they own. My right hon. Friend is also using his power to direct the disposal of inner city sites owned by public bodies. He is prepared to consider using these powers more widely when asked to do so in respect of specific sites.

  Additionally, nine urban development corporations have been set up in England to stimulate the development of vacant and derelict land in their areas. The urban programme supports projects for improving land and buildings in inner cities so that they can be brought back into economic use. Payments from the derelict land grant programme meet the cost of reclaiming damaged land for development, and there has been a steady annual increase since 1984 in the amount paid to inner city local authorities.

  South-East (Population Statistics)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has of the proportion of the population in the south-east region with incomes insufficient to become home owners.

  Mr. Trippier
  Over 72 per cent. of households in the south-east (excluding London) already own their own homes. We believe that this proportion could increase even further not least through the continuation of the successful right-to-buy programmes.

  Low-Cost Housing (East Anglia)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding the need for low-cost housing in East Anglia.

  Mr. Trippier
  Ministers and officials mantain close contact with housing matters in East Anglia. The 624
  Government believe that the new Housing Act will greatly increase scope for the private sector, supported by local authorities to meet the needs of the housing market and increase the supply of low cost housing.

  Rented Office Space (London)
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to reduce the rented office space in central London which has been pre-let for the Government by the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Chope
  The Property Services Agency negotiates pre-let agreements where there is a firm forward requirement for Government use. It is for Departments to determine and justify their accommodation needs and its chosen location, having regard to operational and financial considerations and taking account of the Government's relocation policy. There is expected to be a net reduction of 120,000 sq ft in the overall size of the Government's London estate in the current financial year.

  "The Green Gauntlet"
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to make a response to the document entitled "The Green Gauntlet," a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  "The Green Gauntlet" is a welcome contribution to the continuing debate on environmental matters. We shall consider it, alongside the views of other interests, as we take forward our policies for safeguarding the environment.

  Rates
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the level of rate rises from April 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We estimate that if all authorities in England spend in line with the proposed 1989–90 rate support grant settlement, the average rate increase for next year will be substantially less than inflation.

  Denis-Wild Houses
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to persuade building societies to offer mortgage advances on Denis-Wild type houses.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Building Research Establishment has published technical advice on the structural condition of Denis-Wild houses, and on their inspection and assessment. My Department liaises regularly with the Building Societies Association on the dissemination of such information, and will bring to its attention any particular problems concerning mortgageability.

  Sewage (Sea Disposal)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are being taken to control the discharge of sewage into the sea; and if he will make a statement.
  625
  Mr. Moynihan
  Discharges of sewage by water authorities are regulated by consents granted on behalf of the Secretary of State by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  The consent procedure will be used so as to ensure that discharges which at present have deemed consents will be determined positively. These consents, together with consents for new discharges, will be set so as to respect the EC bathing water directive, where it applies, and generally to reduce pollution by sewage.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in England since May 1979.

  Mr. Trippier
  From April 1979 to September 1988, about 960,000 tenants bought their homes from English local authorities and new towns.

  Housing Investment Programme
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to announce details of individual local authority housing investment programme allocations.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 8 December in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) at column 274.

  Estate Action
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the planned level of expenditure on the estate action programme in(a) 1988–89 and (b) 1989–90.

  Mr. Trippier
  The provision for additional allocations under the estate action programme in 1988–89 is £140 million. We expect that local authorities will make full use of these resources in expenditure in the current year.

  For 1989–90 the estate action budget has been increased by 36 per cent. to £190 million. The initial distribution between the regions will be as follows:

  Total £million

  London

  33·643

  North West

  51·606

  Merseyside

  18·423

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  22·175

  Northern

  13·545

  East Midlands

  10·719

  West Midlands

  25·736

  South East

  1·040

  Eastern

  1·115

  South West

  2·025

  180·027

  A total of £10 million will be held as a central reserve to provide flexibility in managing the programme and to support good new schemes which might come forward later in the year.

  The distribution of resources between the regions is based upon the volume and quality of bids received from local authorities for individual schemes.
  626
  I am delighted that the Government's desire to improve living conditions on neglected and run-down council housing estates will receive this very considerable boost.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy for containing the emission of chlorofluorocarbons arising from dry cleaning establishments; what consultation has taken place with the dry cleaning business on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Officials of the Department of the Environment and of the Department of Trade and Industry hold regular meetings with representatives of the users of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). including the dry-cleaning sector, on the steps that they are taking to reduce use of CFCs to the maximum possible extent. The major dry cleaning solvent used in the United Kingdom is perchlorethylene rather than CFC113.

  I am advised that all dry cleaning machines are sealed to be gas-tight, that solvent purification takes place within machines and that they are fitted with refrigeration units to condense solvent vapours and minimise potential emissions. Any solvent remaining in residues is recovered before exposure to the atmosphere. The industry is nevertheless looking at ways of developing even greater economy of use and has produced guidelines on machine operation, which includes proper use of solvents.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is contemplating new guidelines and instructions for inspectors hearing appeals against the refusal of planning permission in the future.

  Mr. Chope
  A new planning policy guidance note on local plans was published on 30 November. The note stresses the importance of formally adopted and up-to-date local plans which are consistent with national and regional policies and with the relevant provisions of the structure plan. The note indicates that where there is such a plan, together with properly substantiated reasons for the local authority's decisions, my right hon. Friend and his inspectors will be guided by it in dealing with planning appeals.

  Inspectors will take this new advice into account, along with other material considerations, in hearing appeals.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to use the powers granted to him in the Housing and Planning Act 1986 to enable appellants who prosecute planning appeals by means of written representations or local hearings to be awarded costs against an unreasonable local authority.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has no present plans to bring these powers into operation, but the matter is being kept under review.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the latest figures for mortgage repossessions(a) for owner-occupiers as a whole and (b) for former council tenants who have exercised the right to buy.
  627
  Mr. Trippier
  Building societies took 9,770 properties into possession in the first six months of 1988, a fall of 13 per cent. compared with the previous six-month period. Statistics available do not distinguish between houses bought under the right to buy and others.

  Planning Inquiries
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance is given to planning inspectors as to the weight they should give to local opinion in reaching their decisions.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend and his planning inspectors are subject to the requirement in section 29 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 that those who decide planning applications must have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as is material to the application, and to any other material considerations. Accordingly, inspectors give weight to local opinion in so far as it relates to material land-use planning considerations.

  First-time House Buyers
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the price/incomes ratio for first-time buyers in(a) London and (b) other regions of England and Wales.

  Mr. Trippier
  Information for those with building society mortgages is published in table 10.11 in "Housing and Construction Statistics 1977—87", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are being taken to penalise water authorities which supply contaminated water to consumers.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Water Bill will provide a new and strengthened legal basis for drinking water quality standards. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to enforce compliance with the EC standards and will also introduce a new provision making it an offence for a water undertaker to supply water unfit for human consumption.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to reduce pollution from sewage discharges into the Bristol channel.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave today to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones). The measures apply generally, and no special rules are needed for the Bristol channel.

  Housing Costs
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assumptions his Department uses of the maximum percentage of disposable income which can be allocated to housing costs.

  Mr. Trippier
  Although income levels are considered in determining rates of subsidy no view is taken of the maximum percentage of disposable income that can be allocated to housing costs.

  Outer London Boroughs (Redevelopment)
  Mr. John L. Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received recently about the state and scale of redevelopment in outer London boroughs.

  Mr. Chope
  We have received several representations from hon. Members, councillors, and members of the public about pressures for intensive redevelopment of sites in established residential areas. Advice on the inclusion in local plans of policies on residential densities was included in planning policy guidance note No. 12, published on 30 November.

  Water Authorities (Land and Buildings)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the results of any consultants' work commissioned by him into the extent and value of water authority land and buildings.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No decision has yet been taken on the commissioning of new work on valuation of water authority land. Relevant information on the land of the successor companies will be contained in the companies' prospectuses.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the value of land and buildings owned by the water authorities.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The net asset value of the water authorities' land and buildings is shown in their published annual accounts.

  House Prices
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the link between house prices and job vacancies in the south-east.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department keeps under review the evidence about the effect that house prices have on migration between regions. But I do not consider that house prices are the main influence on the number of job vacancies in the south-east as a whole.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement regarding enforcement of green belt restrictions.

  Mr. Chope
  There is a general presumption against inappropriate development in green belts. The policy is set out in planning policy guidance note No. 2 (PPG2) published in January 1988. My right hon. Friend, and planning inspectors, apply this policy in determining appeals and call-ins. We expect local planning authorities to have similar regard to green belt policy in the exercise of their planning functions.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to the number of council house properties currently standing empty in the Bury area; and how many have remained unoccupied for more than three months.
  629
  Mr. Trippier
  The latest available information was provided by Bury M BC in their 1988 housing investment programme return (HIP1), a copy of which is in the Library. The return shows the number of council houses which had been empty for more than six months at 1 April, but it does not give any further breakdown of those empty for six months or less.

  Red List (Dangerous Substances)
  Mr. Redmond
  to ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to halve the number of dangerous substances that are listed in the United Kingdom red list; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The ministerial declaration following the second international conference on the protection of the North sea called for substantial reductions (of the order of 50 per cent.) by 1995 in the total quantity of substances which are toxic, persistent and liable to bioaccumulate entering the North sea via rivers and estuaries.

  The United Kingdom reduction programme will focus in particular on a "red list" of the most dangerous substances, proposals for the selection of which were set out in a consultation paper published in July. That paper also included proposals for a new approach towards controlling inputs of the most dangerous substances, involving the application of strict environmental quality standards, the use of best available technology (not entailing excessive cost) for the main point source discharges, and measures to minimise inputs from diffuse sources. These proposals are in line with the range of measures recommended in the North sea conference declaration for the purpose of reducing inputs of the most dangerous substances.

  In the meantime, the Department has asked the water authorities in England and Wales to produce action plans setting out their proposals for achieving early reductions in inputs of dangerous substances. Similar plans are being drawn up for Scotland and Northern Ireland. There is certainly no proposal to halve the number of dangerous substances that are being considered for inclusion in the United Kingdom "red list" as the hon. Member's question suggests.

  Football Matches (Arrests)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment from what disaggregated sources the totals for the number of arrests at division III and IV Football League matches given in his answer of 5 December are compiled.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The figures given in my answer to the hon. Member on 5 December were provided by the Association of Chief Police Officers which collates statistics on arrests and ejections from football liaison officers at police forces throughout the country. The form in which the figures are sent to ACPO show only totals of arrests and ejections at each club; they are not broken down into individual matches. Information on individual matches would require direct contact with every liaison officer and extensive searches of police records.

  Power Station (Malta)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will monitor the building of a new 630
  power station in Malta and its likely effect on the environment, as a means of drawing environmental lessons for the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. I am not aware of information that could be obtained from experiences in Malta that would add to the understanding of conditions in Britain. Full environmental impact assessments are required before power stations can be built in the United Kingdom. All specifically local factors have to be taken into account, as well as the need to conform to emission standards and requirements.

  Radioactive Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the policy and technical considerations underpinning the policy choice of early disposal instead of long-term monitorable and retrievable storage of low and intermediate level radioactive wastes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government believe that decisions on the disposal of low and intermediate-level radioactive wastes should not be left to future generations, and that the costs of disposal should be met by the "polluter". It is satisfied that early disposal in general carries a lower risk to workers in the nuclear industry and to the public, and also avoids the provision of costly and extensive storage capacity.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has made any representations to the Japanese Government and the Japanese Environment Bureau to persuade them to accept limitations on CFC 113, as part of Her Majesty's Government's policy to protect the ozone layer.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. I understand that Japan has ratified the Montreal protocol which limits production and consumption of five chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) including CFC113. The protocol will enter into force on 1 January 1989.

  Bracken (Sprays)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department or any relevant agencies have given any guidance to local authorities, landowners and farmers in respect of the environmental and public health implications of using sprays to control the spread of brackens in national parks or other areas of countryside.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Nature Conservancy Council has published guidance on the use of herbicides in nature reserves as "Focus on Nature Conservation" No. 14. This includes a chapter on asulam, which is the chemical normally used to control bracken.

  Sea Water (Southend)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in improving the sea water quality at coastal towns in the United Kingdom; and if he is satisfied with the progress made on sea water quality at Southend-on-Sea.

  Mr. Howard
  Some 60 per cent. of our bathing waters now meet the mandatory standards of the EC bathing
  631
  water directive. At Southend-on-Sea, although the recently extended outfall has brought about substantial improvements to water quality, further measures are being considered to deal with the problem of storm overflows.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Knowles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he can give details of the Housing Corporation's approved development programme for 1989–90 and forward plans for 1990–91 and 1991–92; and what grant rates will apply next year to the Housing Corporation's programme of mixed privately and publicly funded schemes.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend announced on 1 November that gross provision for the Housing Corporation in 1989–90 would be £815 million, rising to £1,036 million in 1990–91 and £1,328 million in 1991–92. By 1991–92 gross expenditure by the Housing Corporation is planned to be 80 per cent. above original provision for 1988–89, demonstrating the Government's confidence in the housing association movement to play a central role in the provision of subsidised housing for those in the greatest housing need.

  The programme we have now approved for 1989–90 and the provisional plans for the following two years should enable the Housing Corporation to approve schemes in 1989–90 providing about 17,600 homes for rent rising to 24,400 new approvals in 1991–92, over 50 per cent. more than the expected number of approvals in the current financial year. This will be possible not only because of the greatly increased level of public resources being made available, but because of the wider opportunities for private finance opened up by the Housing Act 1988. It is planned that by 1991–92 schemes providing about 80 per cent. of new homes for rent will be approved on a mixed funded basis, combining grant from the corporation with private loan.

  Substantial public subsidy will remain available in all cases to ensure that rents are within the reach of those on low incomes. Mixed funded grant rates will vary in different parts of the country because of the significant regional differences in development costs, but the average grant rate in England in 1989–90 will be 75 per cent. The Housing Corporation will publish in due course details of the rates applying to different regions and in respect of different scheme types.

  Provision of housing for sale under the corporation's low-cost home ownership programme will also be significantly expanded. The whole of the programme is planned to operate on a mixed funded basis from 1989–90 which should allow the corporation to approve over one-third more new homes than in the current year. By 1991–92 the number of approvals given for housing for sale should be nearly double this year's expected outturn.

  In allocating resources regionally for new rented projects, greater emphasis will be placed in 1989–90 and subsequent years on the Housing Corporation's index of housing needs, which will be reviewed to ensure that it reflects housing needs as accurately as possible. A total of £381 million of public and private money will be invested in London and the south-east, where housing pressures are most acute, nearly 40 per cent. more than in the current financial year. But owing to the overall increase in
  632
  resources available, investment in all other regions will also go up by between 12 per cent. in the north-east and 53 per cent. in the east midlands.

  At my request, the Housing Corporation will encourage associations to examine their lettings policies to ensure that priority is given to those in the greatest housing need, especially the homeless. I am convinced that the needs of the homeless are best catered for by focusing sufficient resources in the right places. The greatly expanded overall programme for the Housing Corporation and the improved targeting of resources to areas of greatest need should help provide much needed homes for the homeless.

  I have also asked the Housing Corporation to ensure that the needs of those in rural communities are adequately catered for. The corporation will bring forward to 1989–90 its target of giving 600 approvals for new homes in the special rural programme for villages with a population of less than 1,000. A further announcement will be made in due course on targets for later years and the corporation's investment programme in rural areas generally.

  I have confidence in the Housing Corporation to make the very best use of the greatly increased level of resources being made available to it within the approved development programme for 1989–90 and provisional plans for the following two years, and to justify the enhanced responsibility it now bears for the provision of subsidised housing for those in housing need.

  The breakdown of the approved development programme for 1989–90 and forward plans for the following two years is as follows:

  1989–90 ADP £ million

  1990–91 plans £ million

  1991–92 plans £ million

  Net allocation (cash limit)

  701

  921

  1,211

  Receipts

  114

  115

  117

  Gross allocation

  815

  1,036

  1,328

  Housing for rent

  Schemes approved under the Housing Act 1985:

  100 per cent. public funding

  501

  158

  36

  Mixed funding

  28

  22

  —

  Schemes approved under the Housing Act 1988:

  100 per cent. public funding

  74

  422

  575

  Mixed funding

  40

  318

  587

  Major repairs

  52

  54

  62

  Mini HAG

  4

  5

  5

  Housing for rent—total

  699

  979

  1,265

  Housing for sale

  Improvement for sale, leasehold scheme for the elderly and shared ownership:

  Schemes approved under the Housing Act 1985

  65

  15

  1

  Schemes approved under the Housing Act 1988

  7

  21

  30

  Home ownership for tenants of charitable associations etc.

  39

  16

  27

  Housing for sale—total

  111

  52

  58

  Other expenditure

  5

  5

  5

  633
  Notes:

  1. Included within housing for rent: Housing Act 1988 100 per cent. publicly funded schemes is expenditure to be incurred on schemes to be approved before 1 April 1989 which do not reach tender approval until after 30 September 1989 and are therefore to be be resubmitted under the Housing Act 1988 framework.

  2. Other expenditure includes right to buy mortgages and a provision of £1 million to support certain self-build schemes.

  3. £8·5 million has been included in the programmes of housing for rent and for sale in 1989–90 to cover the costs of certain projects in Merseyside. Further sums will be made available in subsequent years.

  Housing Associations (Tenants)
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance is available to tenants of housing associations who wish to buy homes of their own on the open market.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Housing Corporation's approved development programme for 1989–90 allocates £39 million for the home ownership scheme for tenants of charitable housing associations, under which portable discounts are paid to people who do not have the right to buy their present homes. There are currently some 3,250 tenants who have applied but are having to wait. They will all be able to proceed by 31 March 1990.

  The scheme has helped nearly 6,000 households into home ownership, and released their old homes for reletting, but demand has outpaced the resources available. The rules of the scheme, under the payments are related to right-to-buy discount, are not apt to help as many tenants as possible to buy homes of their own. The scheme is therefore to be superseded by one which will enable resources to be used more efficiently, and no further applications will be accepted after today under the present scheme in England or Wales.

  The Housing Corporation is today publishing a consultation document seeking views on proposals for a new scheme to be introduced in 1990–91. Housing for Wales will shortly be publishing a separate consultation document in Wales. The proposals are modelled on the powers in section 129 of the Housing Act 1988 for local authorities to offer financial assistance to tenants to obtain new homes. The forward programme provides substantial funds for the new scheme. It will not be specifically aimed at tenants who do not have the right to buy, but the Housing Corporation envisages that in allocating resources some preference would initially be given to charitable housing associations whose tenants would have qualified for assistance under the present scheme.

  Polychlorinated Biphenyls
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about the level of polychlorinated biphenyls in the North sea.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: Information about inputs of PCBs, concentrations in marine species and ecological effects in the North sea is contained in the quality status report (scientific and technical working group) prepared for the second North sea conference in November last year, a copy of which is in the Library.

  As the report shows, levels of PCBs in European coastal waters have been declining. Levels in United Kingdom waters are considerably lower than in the eastern North sea. Monitoring by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries
  634
  and Food and water authorities continues, but generally levels are so low that it is difficult to make reliable estimates for rivers and coastal waters.

SCOTLAND

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what, to date, are the total savings for each health board resulting from competitive tendering.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Contracts awarded to date have identified annual recurrent savings as set out in the table:

  Health board

  Annual recurrent saving £000s

  Argyll and Clyde

  147

  Ayrshire and Arran

  115

  Borders

  63

  Dumfries and Galloway

  230

  Fife

  103

  Forth Valley

  397

  Grampian

  598

  Greater Glasgow

  1,688

  Highland

  102

  Lanarkshire

  386

  Lothian

  1,124

  Tayside

  148

  TOTAL

  5,101

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many of the recent tenders in the National Health Service awarded to private contractors as the result of competitive tendering value added tax was paid.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total value to date of all contracts placed with the private sector following competitive tendering in the National Health Service.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The value of all contracts awarded to date is £29·5 million, of which £8·2 million was placed with the private sector.

  Health Councils (Review)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the report of the review of local health councils; and when it will be published.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The report is due to be submitted by the end of December. I shall consider the question of publication when I have studied the report.

  "The Scottish Health Service"
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State For Scotland how many copies of the publication "The Scottish Health Service" were printed; how many have been distributed; and to whom.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There were 62,000 copies printed, of which 55,000 were distributed in bulk to health boards
  635
  to be made available to health board members, staff in hospitals and in the community, the family practitioner service and the public. In addition, about 3,000 copies have been issued to all hon. Members for Scottish constituencies, local health councils and the media and in response to requests from, for example, teachers and the public. The booklet is having a wider impact and greater range of applications than we anticipated and has been very well received.

  Cigarettes (Illegal Sales)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions were brought against retailers for illegal sales of cigarettes to children in the last year for which figures are available; of these how many led to convictions; where these cases were heard; what penalties were imposed; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Training Agency
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money the Training Agency expended on the voluntary projects programme in Scotland for the financial year 1987–88.

  Mr. Lang
  Voluntary projects programme expenditure in Scotland in 1987–88 was £940,000.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of each training agency area in Scotland together with details of the host organisations that have been awarded posts and the number of posts allocated to those host organisations.

  Mr. Lang
  The number of organisations and posts awarded under community opportunities by each training agency area office in Scotland are:

  Full-time posts

  Part-time posts

  Glasgow City

  Community Central Halls

  1

  —

  Glasgow Old People's Welfare

  1

  —

  Volunteer Centre

  1

  —

  Scottish Conservation Project

  1

  —

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  Ayr Volunteer Exchange

  2

  —

  Wigtown council for Voluntary Services

  1

  —

  Coodham Unemployed Project

  1

  —

  Central and Fife

  Scottish Conservation

  1

  —

  Falkirk Voluntary and Action Resource Centre

  1

  —

  Fife Inter Church Action

  1

  —

  Gangforth

  1

  —

  Impasse Community Industry (Glenrothes)

  1

  —

  Highlands and Islands

  Ross and Cromarty Council of Voluntary Services

  1

  —

  Lewis Council of Social Services (Western Isles)

  1

  —

  Voluntary Services (Orkney)

  —

  1

  Inverness Voluntary Organisation Group

  1

  —

  Highland Regional Council

  1

  1

  Shetland

  Not contracted as yet

  —

  1

  636

  Full-time posts

  Part-time posts

  Grampian and Tayside

  Adult Community Training (Dundee)

  1

  —

  Perth and Kinross Association for Voluntary Service

  —

  2

  Unallocated

  1

  2

  Lothian and Borders

  Organisations yet to be publicly announced

  3

  1

  Lanarkshire

  YMCA

  2

  —

  East Kilbride District Council

  1

  —

  Clyde Calders Projects (Motherwell)

  1

  —

  Renfrew, Dunbarton and Argyll

  Volunteer Centre (Centre for Employment and Training)

  3

  —

  Training Services Inverclyde Ltd.

  1

  —

  Strathkelvin Enterprise Trust

  1

  —

  31

  8

  Community Opportunities
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money will be allocated to community opportunities in(a) Scotland and (b) Glasgow in the current financial year and for the financial year 1989–90.

  Mr. Lang
  A total of £560,000 has been budgeted for community opportunities in Scotland in the current financial year of which £64,000 has been allocated to Glasgow. Comparable figures are not yet available for 1989–90.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people recruited into community opportunities in the Glasgow area will receive training or further education opportunities.

  Mr. Lang
  The nature of community opportunities activities cannot yet be determined, nor can the number of individuals who may choose to participate. These matters will depend on the types of opportunities identified and whether or not individuals take them up.

  Voluntary Projects Programme
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money the Training Agency expects to expend on the voluntary projects programme in(a) Scotland and (b) Glasgow for the financial year 1988–89.

  Mr. Lang
  Voluntary projects programme expenditure in Scotland in 1988–89 is estimated at £925,000 of which £160,000 has been allocated to Glasgow.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in the Glasgow area were recruited into voluntary work in 1987–88 by schemes funded through the voluntary projects programme; and if he will provide a breakdown of this, project by project.

  Mr. Lang
  A cumulative total of 798 volunteers were recruited into voluntary work in 1987–88 through the voluntary projects programme. From April 1987 to March 1988 the following voluntary projects programmes operated in Glasgow:
  637

  (a) The Volunteer Centre—402 volunteers;

  (b) The Govan Aid Project/Pearce Institute—38 volunteers;

  (c) Maryhill Community Central Halls 156 volunteers;

  (d) Community Care/Gairbraid Community Association—112 volunteers;

  (e) Community Service Volunteers—90 volunteers.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people recruited into voluntary projects programme schemes in the Glasgow area, received training or further education opportunities.

  Mr. Lang
  Glasgow voluntary projects programme sponsors provided training or further education opportunities to all their volunteer helpers. This took the form of on or off the job training and further education, according to individual requirements.

  Education (Professional Bodies)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all professional bodies within the Scottish education system that have made representations to him requesting or demanding the right to opt out of the state system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The right to apply to withdraw schools from education authority control will be offered to parents. It will be for parents at a local level to decide whether to exercise this right.

  A paper describing our proposals was issued last week and I look forward to receiving constructive comments from all involved in Scottish education including appropriate professional bodies.

  Farming (Interest Rates)
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the cost effect of interest rate increases since May on the average arable farm in the east of Scotland; and if he will express these figures by acre.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Overall borrowings by Scottish farmers are somewhat lower than last year, but the position will vary from one type of farm to another.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effect on the incomes of arable farmers in the east of Scotland of payments of bank and other interest on loans for purchase of inputs up to May 1989.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have no information about the extent to which farmers' loans are used for the purchase of inputs.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish farming industry about interest rates rises; and what indications he has of their effect on Scottish farmers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend is naturally very much aware of the concerns of Scottish farmers about the possible implications of increases in interest rates. Higher interest rates are expected to add £3 million to interest payments this year, but, because of a lower level of overall borrowings than a year ago, interest payments in 1988 are likely to be only marginally higher at £97 million than the 1987 level of £96 million.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many items of correspondence he has received from hon. and right hon. Members about the work of the Department of Registers for Scotland since 1 July.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Sixteen.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many items of correspondence he has received from hon. and right hon. Members about the work of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Directorate since 1 July.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since 1 July my right hon. and learned Friend and I have received 33 items of correspondence from and right hon. Members relating to the directorate's work.

  Legal System
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the established number of procurators fiscal and procurators fiscal depute in each sheriffdom in Scotland; and how many such positions are currently vacant.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The established numbers of procurators fiscal and procurators fiscal deputes in each sheriffdom in Scotland with current vacancies are as follows:

  Complement

  Vacancies

  Sheriffdom

  PF

  PFD

  PF

  PFD

  Glasgow and Strathkelvin

  1

  65

  Nil

  7

  Lothian and Borders

  6

  28

  Nil

  Nil

  North Strathclyde

  6

  27·;5

  Nil

  3

  South Strathclyde

  6

  31

  Nil

  Nil

  Grampian

  14

  16

  Nil

  2

  Tayside

  10

  26

  Nil

  Nil

  43

  193·5

  Nil

  12

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average time between first appearance in(a) summary cases and (b) solemn cases and final disposal in each sheriffdom in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The average period between pleading and trial diet in summary criminal business in the sheriff courts for the year ending 31 March 1988 was 17 weeks. The actual delay period in each sheriff court as at 30 September is as shown in the table below. Information about the average time between first appearance and final disposal in solemn cases is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Summary Criminal Business Quarter ended 30 September 1988—Delay Period between Pleading and Trial Diet (in weeks).

  30 September 1988

  Aberdeen

  17

  Airdrie

  15

  Alloa

  10

  Arbroath

  15

  Ayr

  18

  Banff

  9

  639

  30 September 1988

  Campbeltown

  13

  Cupar

  19

  Dingwall

  8

  Dornoch

  10

  Dumbarton

  23

  Dumfries

  16

  Dundee

  7

  Dunfermline

  10

  Dunoon

  9

  Duns

  3

  Edinburgh

  19

  Elgin

  7

  Falkirk

  7

  Forfar

  7

  Fort William

  18

  Glasgow

  17

  Greenock

  11

  Haddington

  31

  Hamilton

  22

  Inverness

  9

  Jedburgh

  5

  Kilmarnock

  16

  Kirkcaldy

  7

  kirkcudbright

  16

  Kirkwall

  7

  Lanark

  9

  Lerwick

  8

  Linlithgow

  10

  Lochmaddy

  8

  Oban

  10

  Paisley

  20

  Peebles

  10

  Perth

  9

  Peterhead

  13

  Portree

  8

  Rothesay

  5

  Selkirk

  6

  Stirling

  12

  Stonehaven

  8

  Stornoway

  14

  Stranraer

  12

  Tain

  6

  Wick

  8

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate how many women are likely to be screened for breast cancer in(a) 1989 and (b)

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not currently available. A detailed programme is being worked out with health boards for implementing a national breast cancer screening programme in Scotland by 1991. Once the service is fully operational, about 111,000 women will be screened each year.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to make any further changes to the cash limits within his responsibility for 1988–89.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Yes. I intend to make a change to one of the cash limits within my responsibility. The 1988–89 cash limit for Class XVI, Vote 19 (General Register Office for Scotland) will be reduced by £25,000 from £4,951,000 to £4,926,000 as a penalty following a cash limit breach in 1987–88.

  Local Government (Staffing)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when it is intended to issue the finalised circular on the review of staffing standards in local government.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: I assume that the hon. Member's question refers to staffing standards in local authority schools. I am considering the responses to a draft circular on teaching staff in schools. I have also arranged for the outcome of the review of staffing needs to be reflected in the Government's provision for education within the revenue support grant for 1989–90.

  Language Teachers
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of secondary school language teachers which the Government project is needed for 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: The current projections are:

  Number

  1989–90

  1,910

  1990–91

  1,880

  1991–92

  1,880

  1992–93

  1,890

  These projections fall to be revised in detail in the light of the Government's intentions for the teaching of modern languages in secondary schools. By 1992–93 I expect the number of modern languages teachers to rise to about 2,300.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the Government's proposed intake for teacher training for modern language specialists for 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: My right hon. and learned Friend prescribes each year the total number of postgraduate students to be accepted by colleges of education for secondary teacher training; intakes are not set for specific disciplines. The Government will ensure that colleges are made aware of their projections of the number of foreign languages teachers required in forward years. It is then for each college to consult its local education authorities about their detailed requirements, taking full account of the pool of trained teachers already available, and to determine its intake of language graduates accordingly.

  Salmonella
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of illness in Scotland can be reliably related to eggs in the last year for which figures are available; what form the illness took in each case; how many cases of illness in Scotland resulted from eating other items; how many deaths have resulted from eating eggs; and what reduction in the sales of eggs has occurred since 2 December.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 12 December 1988]: As at 2 December, 2,847 cases of food poisoning in

  641
  Scotland have been reported in 1988 by general practitioners. It is not always possible to identify the precise cause, but in some 641 cases 99 were attributable to salmonella in egg or egg-based products and 542 to other food, including poultry. Typical symptons of food poisoning include diarrhoea and dehydration. No deaths from the consumption of eggs have been recorded during this period. Information on the sale of eggs is not held centrally.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Family Credit
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if there is a specific target for clearing claims for family credit for people who have moved into paid work.
  642
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Special arrangements have been made with the Department of Employment's claimant adviser service for family credit claims made by families of people assisted into work by them to be dealt with through a streamlined procedure. The target is for 90 per cent. of these claims to be cleared within five working days. This target is being met and 95 per cent. are cleared within 10 working days. Other claimants resuming work after claiming income support are sent a specially marked family credit claim form so that, if necessary, their claims can be given priority. The target is to clear these claims, as other family credit claims, in an average of 18 working days. In November a clearance rate of just under 23 days was achieved.

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

London Underground Rail Services
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to improve London Underground rail services, and when an improvement may be expected.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Government have approved investment of over £100 million since October 1986 on measures to relieve Underground congestion in addition to the modernisation of the Central Line at a cost of £720 million. Some of this is already beginning to have an impact. But more must be done. It was for that reason that the Secretary of State for Transport launched the Central London Rail Study in March. The study is developing a strategy to improve London's rail services and cater for demand to the end of the century. Its findings will be published in the New Year.
Lord Nugent of Guildford:My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very helpful Answer. I congratulate him on the extra resources that the Government have placed at the disposal of London Regional Transport for this purpose. However, although 1 congratulate him on the dramatic improvement in the appearance of the stations, is he aware that the service is still defective? Far too often there is delay due to defective signalling or rolling stock, and this causes increased congestion and then further delays. Will my noble friend direct the attention of the management to taking further care to see that these faults do not occur?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, yes, of course. As I said in my original Answer, much more still needs to be done. Included in the investment programme over the next three years is £200 million on a major continuing renewal programme for track, signalling, structures, lifts and escalators; the repair of track, tunnel, stations, bridges and so on; resignalling on the Metropolitan and District Lines; modernisation of the signal control and communication systems; and new lifts and escalators at some 20 stations. In addition to that, there are 16 new, additional trains being built which should come into service next year.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is it intended to allocate any money to the escalator system, which seems to be continually breaking down?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, part of the £200 million is involved in escalators. This is in addition to the £266 million which has been allocated specifically for safety measures resulting from the Fennell Report, which we debated on Monday. It involves a good deal of work on the wooden escalators.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in the light of recent events since the King's Cross fire, will my noble friend urge London Underground to concentrate on the provision of greater safety and in particular on providing unobstructed egress from all Underground stations while in service?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said on Monday, £266 million will be spent specifically on safety measures and finance will not be a barrier to implementing any of the Fennell recommendations. On egress from stations, my noble friend is probably referring to the automatic barrier system. This is also being reviewed.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that many of these matters were considered during our debate on Monday on the King's Cross tragedy? Does he not also agree that there was a general feeling throughout the House that finance must not play any part in any requirements to improve safety?
The Central London Rail Study may well decide that there should be additional Underground lines and this could run into very large sums. While the Government cannot give an undertaking now, will they bear in mind that if the increase has to be borne by the passengers, that will be of no real value? All that will happen is that fares will increase, which will bring more motorists into central London, which will increase the problem.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that we had a good debate on Monday on the general topic. Indeed the figures that I announced then gave some indication of the amounts of money and the undertakings that have been made on safety measures.
I cannot comment on the Central London Rail Study until it is published in the New Year. However, the question of paying for any new lines and so on will be addressed at that time.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, do the Government have any plans to have a direct line and a station to Battersea?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, no, not at present. That may or may not be a matter to come up in the Central London Rail Study.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, in the context of the Question on the improvement of services, how many of the workforce who operate these trains, drivers and signalmen, are on the executive board of management?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not quite sure what my noble friend means by train drivers and

935
so on being on the board. The board of London Regional Transport is appointed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am aware of the answer which my noble friend gave, but surely there is a further question to be answered along the lines which I suggested to my noble friend.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can only take note of my noble friend's request.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one escalator at Pimlico station has been out of order for months on end during the past year? This is one of the newest stations in the system and that escalator has now been out of order for many weeks. Is he aware that there are 85 steps and that many old people who live in one-bedroomed flats near the station, including a number of your Lordships, find those 85 steps a great burden? Why must that escalator be out of order for so long, with no work being carried out on it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot answer specific questions on individual Underground stations around London. That is not a matter for the Government but is a matter for the board of London Regional Transport. No doubt the noble Lord will wish to make his complaint to them.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we are deeply impressed by the extremely high quality of the report by Mr. Fennell into these matters? Will he also accept that an escalating problem facing London Underground is that there are too many people in London? I should be interested to hear whether the noble Lord has any suggestions as to how we could deal with that matter.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure how that problem should be dealt with but the noble Lord makes a good point. Patronage of the London Underground is 80 per cent. up on the past six years, which is contrary to everything that the planners previously told us.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, could the population of London be catered for by promoting the sale of eggs?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not think that it would be wise for me to enter into a debate on that.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, the noble Lord's reply to me was extremely unhelpful and constitutionally wrong. London Underground is publicly owned and in the last analysis the Government are responsible. I expect him to hand on my complaint to the London Underground. That is what he is there for and that is what he is paid for.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, without looking at the Standing Orders, I believe that it is not
936
appropriate to answer specific questions on the nationalised industries. I am giving a general overview of the Government's policy towards London Transport. If the noble Lord expects me to have details of every single Underground station in London and what might or might not be wrong with one escalator or lift, then I am afraid he is mistaken.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, as regards extensions, as mentioned by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, can we have an extension on the Victoria Line through to Harlow, which would save the appalling congestion at Liverpool Street?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I have said, the Central London Rail Study will be published in the New Year. I do not know what recommendations that will contain.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, if the Minister does not have the information on my question, perhaps he will write to me. Is he aware that many of us who use the Circle Line and have used it for years consider that it is almost dropping to pieces? Is he further aware that in all that I have read about the alterations and reforms on the Underground system, I have not read one thing about the Circle Line? Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to refer that to 55 Broadway, where he will find that they know what I have been trying to do. Will he write to me about that matter?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall certainly do that. At present 16 new trains are being constructed, and I mentioned the Metropolitan and District Lines. I am not sure whether that would apply to part of the Circle Line.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I do not think that the new trains would be compatible with the present rails on the Circle Line.

Museums Year
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they intend as a result of the designation of 1989 as Museums Year and what support they intend to pledge to the national collections.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, Museums Year is the initiative of the Museums Association in their centenary year of 1989. It has been strongly supported by my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts. I understand from the Museums Association that the national museums and galleries are lending Museums Year their enthusiastic support. The Government's provision for museums and galleries will rise from £153 million in the current year to £174 million in 1991–92.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her splendidly encouraging reply. Is she aware that in 1989 Her Majesty the Queen is lending pictures from the private apartments at Windsor Castle to mount separate exhibitions at Aberdeen, Newcastle, Bristol, Norwich, Plymouth and Sheffield? Is she also aware that there is an excellent new museum which has started this year in the Guards Museum at Wellington Barracks? Is she also aware that the Anstruther Fisheries Museum in Fife is celebrating its 20th anniversary on 4th July and it is launching a boat called "White Wing"? Can she tell us any further good news?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for her very interesting information.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, while we are delighted to hear about all the people who are supporting museums, is the Minister aware that the increase for the arts world which she cited is still well below the rate of inflation? Is it not the case that now the Japanese are coming into the art market so strongly and buying works of art of all schools, irrespective of those referred to the review committee on the export of works of art, that unless purchase funds are increased, we shall lose even more of our national heritage? Moreover, is not a substantial increase in purchase funds the best way in which the Government can respond to Museums Year?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not blame the noble Baroness for giving her commercial; but it is rather far from that which we are discussing on the Order Paper—that is, Museums Year.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of our great museums and art galleries have vast numbers of treasures stored underground which are never seen by the public? Should not the opportunity presented by Museums Year be taken to do something about that, perhaps following the excellent example of Her Majesty in allowing some of those treasures to be shown outside London?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am sure that the Museums Association will take note of what my noble friend said. Most of the national museums and galleries are involved heavily in Museums Year. For example, the National Gallery's 1989 exhibition programme is to be promoted as part of Museums Year. I shall not weary your Lordships with a long list; but I do have a long list if noble Lords would like me to read it out.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, will the Government consider allowing the national museums to recover VAT in the same way as local authority museums are able to do? Are the Government aware that the Tate Gallery, for example, which receives a purchase grant of £1·8million a year, has to pay £250,000 in VAT? How do the Government think that the gallery can compete in the international markets when shackled in that way?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, this is not a general debate on the arts. The Question concerns Museums Year. However, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, may be interested to hear (if he does not already know) of the passport scheme. The Museums Association has secured from The Times a substantial sponsorship for Museums Year. A passport costing £5 gives a range of discounts at the discretion of individual museums. There is a 150-page guide to the year's events. I think I may be allowed to make a commercial, too.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the important report published today by that most influential Select Committee in another place—namely, the Public Accounts Committee—which describes the conservation and storage situation in our national galleries and museums as a national disaster? Would it not be a fitting way to mark Museums Year if the Government could initiate a major programme to quantify the problem and, above all, to improve the standards of training for conservation?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government's funding record for the national collections indicates a sincere commitment to supporting the institutions in their important work. In the new three-year allocations announced in November, the Minister for the Arts has set aside special provisions in 1991–92 for the priority concerns of the national museums and galleries in the management of their collections, including conservation, storage and documentation.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many museums will be grateful for the extra funding promised? Is she also aware that the Museums Association centenary conference is being held in York in 1989 and that the Museums Association was founded in the Yorkshire Museum in York?
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of that.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, has the noble Baroness any plans in her capacity at the Ministry of Agriculture to open a museum for the poultry industry, which the Government are trying so hard to kill off?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, what I can tell the noble Lord is that the Science Museum is opening a new food and nutrition gallery in 1989 which is linked to Museums Year, as well as the celebration of British Food and Farming Year.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the Government consider placing Mrs. Currie in that museum?
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House what makes her think that the Museums Association will take note of the wise words of her noble friend Lord Renton about the treasures hidden away in the cellars of so many

939
museums when it has failed to take note of those same observations which have been made over and over again for the past 20 years?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is impossible for the museums to display all their collections. The only museum of which I have any personal knowledge is the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge, which rotates pictures. Inevitably pictures will be in store, but it is up to the museums to work out their own programmes. I feel sure that many people will be reading these exchanges in Hansard.

Radioactive Waste Disposal
2.54 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the present arrangements for disposal of low level radioactive waste from medical equipment in hospitals and research departments of universities.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, radioactive waste may only be disposed of from hospitals and universities in the United Kingdom subject to authorisations issued under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 by the relevant regulatory authorities. Authorisations set strict conditions and activity limits for each type of waste. All such premises are subject to inspection to ensure compliance with the terms of their authorisations.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Where difficulties arise over ultimate disposal, and as this waste is so obviously a product of beneficial activities approved by virtually everyone, will the Government encourage carefully considered approaches to local authorities, voluntary organisations and the general public to convince them of the need to co-operate in the safe and thorough disposal of radioactive materials?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the technology for the most part exists and it is a question of making sure that everyone is convinced that it is being used to the best advantage. As my noble friend so rightly said, there are enormous benefits as a result of the work carried out in hospitals and universities which lead to some low level radioactive waste.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on occasions Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution gives authorisations without any consultation with local environmental health officers? Does not the noble Earl agree that there should be a statutory requirement for local consultation to take place before authorisation is given?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as regards England, which is the area for which Her Majesty's
940
Inspectorate of Pollution is responsible, I note the concerns of the noble Baroness and will look into the matter.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Earl tell the House whether, within the ambit of this Question concerning waste, he also includes the actual instruments used, which are frequently highly toxic and, therefore, also present a danger of radioactivity? Are they disposed of in addition to the waste? If not, will the noble Earl ensure that they are?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point, but I am sure that he is fully aware that those instruments which produce the waste are in most cases returned to the manufacturer for recovery and/or recycling. A strict account of all such sources are kept by the users and the regulatory authorities.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that is not a satisfactory reply. The noble Earl said that "most" are returned. What happens to the others?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, those that do not need to go back to industry or to the manufacturers can be disposed of in a way subject to the authorisations.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he may encounter the syndrome known as "not in my back yard"? That certainly does not apply in my case, and there are others who are familiar enough with the subject and the processes not to be afraid or apprehensive.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. We are referring to low level radioactive waste and that is strictly defined and carefully catered for. I am sure that some of your Lordships wear luminous watches and have no hesitation in putting those in the dustbin when they go wrong.

Foreign Exchange Markets: Intervention
2.58 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne Lord Bruce-Gardyne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on intervention in the foreign exchange markets by the Bank of England.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, it has been the policy of this and all preceding governments not to comment on exchange market tactics.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that helpful and informative reply! Can he possibly tell the House whether the wise warning which the Prime Minister gave in the spring about the potentially domestic inflationary effects of substantial intervention in the foreign exchange markets by the Bank of England is still, as the Americans put it, operative?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend would cast his mind back a few years to the time when he was a most distinguished Economic Secretary to the Treasury. If he had been asked this Question then, he would have given the answer that I am going to give now; namely, that it is not our policy to comment upon exchange policy tactics anyway.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is obviously detrimental for the Bank of England overtly to intervene? That can be counterproductive by giving the impression that there is a weakness which, in the international mind, may not exist.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I believe that it is best that we do not comment on this whole area. It is an area in which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer sees a world in which sterling is strong. He is determined that it shall stay strong, in his own words, "for the indefinite future". I believe that we should leave the matter at that.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in those circumstances will the noble Lord confirm more specifically that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to maintain exchange rates which make our exports more expensive and which therefore are likely to hamper them? Is it also government policy to have imports cheaper and to encourage them in the existing circumstances? If the noble Lord is of a mind that he should not disclose any directions that go to the Bank of England as regards matters of this kind, will he say more precisely what is the exchange rate policy of the Government? Is the noble Lord aware of the interest rate implications on that subject?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, although I shall not comment on the Government's exchange rate policy, I remind the noble Lord that, whereas our reserves stood at 22 billion dollars in May 1979, today they stand at 51 billion dollars. The level of official debt that was standing at 22 billion dollars in May 1979 is now under 17 billion dollars. I believe that those figures speak louder than words.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the noble Lord willing to clarify his earlier answer in case the foreign exchange markets are misled? Are we right in understanding that although the Government have a foreign exchange policy, it is simply that the noble Lord refuses to tell us what it is?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I believe that my answer demonstrated blinding clarity. I do not believe that I can add anything to it.

Business
3.2 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about the arrangements for this afternoon's two short debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, and the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. As is the custom in short debates, the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes and the Minister should rise to reply not
942
less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate. In the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, it means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 10 minutes. In the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, the number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to propose any formal time limit, but I am confident that noble Lords will keep the length of their speeches within the limits that are compatible with the spirit of these short debates.

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make new provision with respect to deeds and their execution and contracts for the sale or other disposition of interests in land; and to abolish the rule of law known as the rule in Bain v. Fothergill. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—( The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Personal Bills: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on Personal Bills be appointed, to which all Petitions for Personal Bills shall stand referred; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

Campbell of Alloway, L.

David, B.

McNair, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Templeman, L.

Wilberforce, L.

—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Broadcasting: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Select Committee on Broadcasting:—

Ardwick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Davidson, V.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Teviot, L.

Winstanley, L.

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time;
That two be the quorum of the Committee;
That the Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers;
That the Committee have leave to confer on matters relating to sound broadcasting and to meet concurrently for this purpose with any Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting appointed by the Commons for the purpose of deliberating and of examining witnesses; and have leave to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman for any such meeting.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Southern Africa
3.4 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby rose to call attention to the situation in southern Africa; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that the whole House will welcome the Brazzaville Protocol that was signed yesterday in the capital of the Congo. Before we become too euphoric about what may be an historic event, I believe that it is important that we note the grave dangers which accompanied the negotiations which have led to the signing of the protocol. It may be, as it has been widely reported, that it is the result of joint pressure from both the United States and the Soviet Union. If it is, then I warn the House that the ordering of regional affairs by the two great super powers can bring grave dangers to the inhabitants of those regions.
As regards this protocol, nothing has been said as to what is to happen to the organisation known as UNITA led by Jonas Savimbi. So far as we know, United States' policy remains unchanged and it will continue to supply UNITA and Savimbi with arms, resources and finance. If that is so, the danger to the integrity of Angola continues.
Within the protocol there is an arrangement for the Cuban forces in Angola to be withdrawn. If those forces are all withdrawn, Angola itself will become vulnerable. I remind the House that Angola is a sovereign state exercising its full rights in asking for help from another sovereign state—namely, Cuba—when it was, and only when it was, invaded by South African forces. The talk about the Cubans being foreign forces on African soil really does not add up when one considers the number of the French forces that have remained on African soil for the past 20 years.
The second danger in this protocol is the danger to Namibia, which is not a party to the protocol. We have talked many times in this House about Resolution 435 of the United Nations guaranteeing that Namibia will become independent under United Nations' auspices. That has now been overtaken because Resolution No. 435 is no longer enough. The fact that Namibia is given constitutional independence is worthless unless that independence is totally guaranteed by the Security Council. We have seen that South African forces are able to penetrate
944
and invade Namibia, Angola, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Zambia. Resolution 435 must be guaranteed and the integrity and independence of Nambia must be guaranteed by the Security Council if that new state is to be safe in the future.
I have no doubt that the Government will argue, as they have already done, that the arrangements and negotiations that have taken place have been the result of their policy of dialogue rather than sanctions. That is not the case. The South Africans have been forced to come to the negotiating table, first, because of their defeat in Angola last May when they lost control of the air and had to withdraw and, secondly, because of the very high cost of the Angolan and Namibian campaigns. It was a high cost taken at a time of economic crisis. It will be argued by the Government that they have helped to arrange this protocol and these negotiations. That is not the case. If anything, the United Kingdom has hindered them. The United Kingdom was a member of the Contact Group for eight years, but what did it do? What did it do about United Nations' resolutions? What did it do about the Eminent Persons' Group report? A Member of this House was one of that group.
What has the United Kingdom done about the purchase of uranium from Namibia and about giving resources to the South Africans and to the Namibians in breach of resolutions of the United Nations? The Government have said to me consistently that they do not recognise Decree No. 1 of the United Nations regarding Namibia. What they have not set out—and they could not answer this point when I met the Minister in July—is their attitude to the Security Council resolution, which is binding and mandatory on all members of the United Nations. The Security Council asked the International Court of Justice for a verdict on the position of Namibia and the position of member states of the United Nations regarding Namibia. That advisory opinion was given in 1971. It said that states members of the United Nations were obliged to,
"recognise the illegality of South Africa's presence in Namibia and the invalidity of its acts on behalf of or concerning Namibia".
Member states were also obliged to,
"refrain from any acts and in particular any dealings with the Government of South Africa implying recognition of the legality of, or lending support or assistance to, such presence and administration".
What have the Government done since 1971 to follow that verdict? The Government say that they do not recognise the International Court of Justice. But in the same year the Security Council passed Resolution 301 stating its agreement with the opinion of the international court and reaffirming United Nations' responsibility in promoting Namibian independence. That was a Security Council resolution. It is mandatory but it has not been carried out by any British Government since 1971.
We must ask whether this protocol will improve the security of the southern African region. My answer is no. The whole core of insecurity in that region lies in South Africa. It lies not in the commonly used word "apartheid" but in the determination and religious belief of the Afrikaner nation over the past 100 years that white supremacy is all-important to the future of South Africa. It is

945
that white supremacy which is untouched. We welcome, and I pay tribute to, the efforts made by this Government to save the Sharpeville Six from the gallows, but long sentences were passed simply because the Sharpeville Six were members of a crowd. What is more, the day after the Sharpeville Six were reprieved five other Africans were executed.
In South Africa an average of 100 Africans are executed every year. As noble Lords will know, there has been a determined, oppressive and brutal campaign by the South African Government, described by Mr. Dukakis as "the terrorist state", against all opponents of apartheid or white supremacy. I have no doubt that the Government will claim, as they have already claimed, that it has been their policy of dialogue rather than sanctions that has led to the minor modifications of apartheid over the past few years. I contest that and do so by looking at the historical facts.
Despite British obstacles to sanctions, they have been applied and have worked. The Government have consistently argued that economic development will undermine apartheid, but the answer is that it never has. When South Africa was most prosperous in the 1950s and 1960s apartheid was applied with the utmost severity. Only when sanctions have begun to bite into that economy have any alterations, even minor alterations, been made. From 1985 onwards the United States and its banks called in their loans as a protest against apartheid. In October 1986 the anti-apartheid law was passed in the United States and sanctions were imposed. A ban was imposed on new investment and new hank loans. Exports to the South African police and military forces and certain imports from South Africa were banned.
It is estimated that 10 billion dollars of capital have left South Africa since 1985. The rand has fallen by more than 21 per cent. this year alone. Inflation is now running at 13.5 per cent. a year. Coal exports have fallen by 15 per cent. Steel has been blocked by Western Europe and by Japan. When the Government say that sanctions will hurt the Africans I should point out that more than 100 municipalities have reacted to the redundancies that have been caused by sanctions by removing racial restrictions on blacks doing business in central business districts. When the South African economy was under the greatest pressure the pass laws were scrapped—we all applaud that—and property rights were granted to black South Africans. Yes, sanctions do work and are working, although with residential segregation and compulsory racial registration, white supremacy itself has never yet been dented. It is still dominant and the British are protecting and assisting it through the expansion of their trade with South Africa, through their investment in South Africa and through the kindness of the Prime Minister to President Botha and by her opposition to sanctions.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, as the noble Lord said that all governments since 1971 have been guilty of the omissions to which he referred, is he saying that the Labour Government, who were there for quite a number of years, followed precisely the policy that is being followed now? What is the complaint from a Cross-Bench point of view?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I am saying precisely that, my Lords. I do not excuse the Labour Government for what they did. This Government have expanded what was done. There was a great deal of argument within the Labour Government, as is shown by the references I have made previously in the House to Barbara Castle's diaries, as to whether uranium should have continued to be imported from Namibia. I do not see any such argument within the present Government.
Finally, I agree with the Government's consistent case that sanctions must damage the interests of the front line states just as they will damage the economic interests of certain black Africans in South Africa. The front line states and the black Africans have said that they are suffering already but that their suffering will be reduced in length by the application of sanctions. What are the Government doing in regard to the front line states? What are they doing to help Angola? What aid do they give to Angola? It is pitiful compared with what they give to other countries. How are they preparing Namibians to take control of an independent Namibia? Above all, what is their attitude to Zambia, which is also in the front line?
Why did the Prime Minister make that petty gesture of missing out Zambia in her tour of southern Africa? Is it because of the treatment of Sir Geoffrey Howe? Sir Geoffrey Howe was representing the EC. His visit immediately followed the report of the Eminent Persons Group. Yet the British Government were opposed to those specific recommendations.
Is it not the case that the Government are refusing to give Zambia programme aid until Zambia comes to agreement with the IMF—an agreement which at the beginning of the year immediately led to food riots because of the abolition of subsidies? Further, is it not the case that the British Government are trying to influence other European governments to refuse aid to Zambia until such agreement is made with the IMF?
Over the last month Zambia has devalued its currency by 25 per cent. and reduced its subsidies. It is taking measures, severe measures, which damage the interests of the people because of the great difficulties which Zambia has been labouring under as the copper price has dropped and as the cost of essential imports has increased.
As regards Zambia, I should like to ask the Minister who will be winding up the debate a specific question. Is it not a fact that when Mrs. Lynda Chalker, the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, was invited to Zambia during her recent tour the invitation was refused because it was felt by the Government that she should not meet with members of the African National Congress who are based in Lusaka—who are called terrorists by the Prime Minister—and because she would have been embarrassed by having to announce in that country that the British Government were not prepared to give any further programme aid until agreement was reached with the IMF?
Finally, and very briefly, I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that South Africa is now a nuclear power. We went through this matter only last week. I asked the Minister then why the British

947
Government support the continued membership of South Africa of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He did not answer the question. He did not say why they support it. He gave various reasons as to why those who oppose it were not putting forward a good case. I want to know why the Government continue to support membership of an organisation that is providing South Africa with technical and scientific knowledge that is assisting that country in what is has boasted it can now do, which is to build atomic weapons.
We know from historical experience that no one can trust the words of the white South African leaders. We know that from the experience of the long conferences which have taken place; for example, the experiences of the Nkomati agreement with Mozambique. Their actions are based, and always have to be based, on the preservation of white supremacy.
South Africa is the fundamental challenge to the stability of the southern African region. Britain will be judged by history by the extent to which she supports South African racialism and the racialist regime there, or supports those who are fighting to create a non-racist society in South Africa and throughout southern Africa. I beg to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Elibank: My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, for introducing this debate on a most important subject which has particular relevance to British foreign policy. I have not had the opportunity to visit some of the southern African states which he very properly mentioned but I had the pleasure of visiting the Republic last year. It is of my experience there, the opinions that I formed and the discussions that I had that I wish to speak today.
I came away with two conclusions, neither of which is the least bit original. The first was that it is a subject of quite extraordinary difficulty; indeed, it is a very complex subject. I think that the assumption which most people of this country have is that there are two groups of people, one black and one white, who are diametrically opposed and united together in their opposition to the group of the other colour. Of course on the ground that proves not to be so at all.
There are in fact among the whites two, or arguably three, distinct groups—or fairly distinct groups,—because they overlap—and among the blacks perhaps a dozen different groups. Each of those entities has its own objectives, tactics and policies, some of which coincide but many of which do not. It is very difficult indeed when one is there on the ground to form any sort of a cohesive picture of what the various groups want. So, first impression: difficulty and complexity.
The second impression that I had was of the dangers of unemployment, which are superseded at the moment by the political evils of apartheid, but they are latent nonetheless. There is unemployment in South Africa at present but due to the practices of the South African Government it is obscured from
948
the eye of the tourist to some considerable extent, but nonetheless it is there.
One wonders what will happen as and when black democracy takes over and black managers, who are at the moment at any rate singularly ill-prepared either by education or by training, take over the leadership of the major firms. One fears—and it is no more than a fear—that the effect on South Africa's economy may be very considerable and most detrimental. That of course is no argument for not opposing apartheid as such; but it is an argument for proceeding with a measure of caution when one comes to consider the methods which should be taken to overthrow it.
There were one or two other thoughts which I had, one of which was historical. One cannot wander in the country without reflecting on its history, and particularly of course on imperial history of the last 100 years or so. But what is more relevant is the outlook of the Afrikaners in particular, and the whites in general, to the historical background of their country.
I think that in this country it is commonly thought that the whites are in South Africa as Imperialist conquerors, much, if you like, as we were in India; whereas of course the original inhabitants— namely, the bushmen and Hottentots—have practically disappeared and in any event put up a rather token resistance to the ingression of the whites from the south and the Bantu black races from the north and east. The result was something like 100 years, or perhaps more, of fairly bloody warfare, and in the end the whites triumphed.
The Afrikaners, rightly or wrongly, look on the land as their land; they do not look upon themselves as conquerors, transient occupants or transient rulers of a native population. Whether one agrees with that or not, I think that it is a potent factor to bear in mind.
The other thought which cannot help but cross one's mind—and if it does not the white population are all too ready to discuss it—is what would happen if in the near future the whites were either removed or effectively neutered politically. I think that the assumption is that there would be a smooth, or relatively smooth, turnover to a form of black democracy, sponsored—led—by the African National Congress.
That is not the view of the whites of South Africa. Their view, which is a difficult one to oppose when one sees the conflicting forces at work in the union, is that the blacks of the major tribes—namely, the Zulus and their ethnic cousins the Xhosas—would be very likely to take over the entire peninsula. That may not be a realistic worry, but it is a cause for at least a certain caution when one presses forward as best one can with opposition to apartheid and with advice and recommendations for change. Too rapid change may result only in the black races going from the frying pan into the fire.
It is impossible to talk about South Africa without mentioning sanctions. Two preliminary points must be borne in mind. The first is the nature of the Afrikaners themselves. They are a tough, resolute, courageous lot and extremely obstinate. It has been

949
said often enough that they have nowhere else to go. It is pretty clear that if they cannot live in their country they will die in it. The second point is the nature of the country itself. It is a fertile, prosperous, agricultural community. It has an abundance of most of the principal raw materials and it has a far from negligible arms industry. In those circumstances, what will happen if the policy of apartheid is pressed hard?
The views, again, of the whites in South Africa in general are that the country can sustain a siege economy against the most savage sanctions likely to be imposed. It would result in hardship, hunger and perhaps death, but it could be sustained. A local study by the University of Cape Town estimates that 1 million of those who already have jobs would be unemployed, of whom about 16 per cent. would be whites. That would clearly have a catastrophic effect on the economy but could be sustained. If that level of unemployment can be sustained, what will happen next? There is only one last card to play, is there not? That is invasion. Who will invade? Certainly not this country. Certainly not the United States. The United Nations? We have seen the United Nations conduct some sensible, worthwhile police operations in different areas of the world, but I do not see it fighting a sustained and bloody war against powerful resistance.
The most likely eventuality is a state of siege followed by—this, I am afraid, is inevitable on the international scene—sanctions-breaking by individuals and nations who will do what is required for the money on offer. In the long run, sanctions are not the answer. What is the answer? We have only to reflect upon the type of people who influence us in our private lives. They are those who talk to us kindly and quietly and whom we trust and who we believe have our interests at heart. They do not shout at us through a megaphone from the street; they talk and give their advice persistently and in a friendly fashion. Those are the people to whom we listen and those are the people to whom nations will listen. The situation in South Africa demands patience and persistent, quiet advocacy. I believe that to be the present policy of Her Majesty's Government, and I warmly support it.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, I should not have ventured to intervene in this important debate, for which we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, had I not recently returned from a visit to South Africa after an interval of 10 years, previously having visited about 10 times. So far as one can, I know the country well. I cannot pretend to have the excellent knowledge of the politics of South Africa, or southern Africa generally, enjoyed by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch; but I hope that I can maintain the same moderate tone as was demonstrated by the two previous speakers. A visit to South Africa today by a person of nominal sensibility does not leave one in a moderate state. It is an abomination to a great number of people.
Perhaps I may indicate the simple demography of the matter which makes inevitable, if not an abomination, a horrible anomaly. South Africa has
950
something under 5 million Europeans; about 28 million—at least that was the figure given in the 1984 census, which is believed by most experts to be much too low—blacks; 3 million coloureds and 800,000 Asians. That community is controlled by the 4.8 million whites. It is fair to say that, of that 4·8 million, possibly 3 million are supporters of apartheid. Something over 30 million people are condemned to a life of degradation, shame and deprivation because 3 million people so require it.
That is the simple demography of the situation. It is the ambit of the matter that must be solved. It is necessary to persuade 3 million obstinate people, who have valid reasons for apprehension—they are reasonably convinced that if the African obtains the franchise and there is a free vote by 28 million people—their way of life will be destroyed. I doubt whether that is a totally valid apprehension; but if it is, it would not be a good reason for maintaining the status quo. Merely to maintain the privileged position of 3 million people at the expense of millions of others would be wrong.
Perhaps I may demonstrate in a word how the problem impressed itself upon me during that visit. I had the misfortune to contract a rather hideous virus while I was there. I was in bed in the Mount Nelson Hotel, which is a haven of comfort, quiet and consideration, for some eight days or longer. The doctor thought that I should have nurses. I was attended by two coloured nurses. They were admirable girls. They were efficient, considerate and compassionate; they were even affectionate. No society can have a better quality of person than those people. They represented the best that one could hope to have in one's society.
There was an illustration of the problem that arises. One morning one of the nurses came in. I cannot remember her name, but she told me that she was named after a film star. I told her that she was looking tired. She said, "Oh yes, it is because I have to travel 40 kilometres to my home outside Cape Town." She said that if she could go by bus instead of train it would be more comfortable. I asked why she did not go by bus. She told me that it was because it would cost an extra 2 rands each way. Needless to say—it was not an especially generous gesture—I provided her and her colleague with the necessary additional rands to go by bus. I then asked her a foolish question, because I knew the answer before I asked it. "Why do you live 40 kilometres outside Cape Town?" She said, "I have to. I am required to live there. It is a coloured reserve to which we were moved from District 6 some years ago", when the entire population of that area was involuntarily evacuated to that area 40 kilometres away.
Does one need to say anything more to demonstrate the quality of civilisation that exists in that society? It is easy to point to the problems; it is much more difficult to point to the answers. I do not propose to engage in a discussion on sanctions, except to say that it is a mistake to believe that they are not biting. The anxiety and energy that the South African Government put into presenting reasons why sanctions should not operate is of itself conclusive proof that they are worried about them.

951
We are told that sanctions did not bite in Rhodesia. There is only one person here who can speak on that subject with greater authority than myself. They did bite in Rhodesia. On my last visit to Rhodesia, Europeans came up to me, tugged at my coat and said, "Please get a settlement", because the sanctions almost emptied the shops of consumer goods. The reports one receives from countries many thousands of miles away need to be verified by people on the spot.
The arguments against sanctions are difficult to assess. The South African arguments are three: one is that they will greatly damage the black population. I can only say that noble Lords should see as I did the conditions of an area called Crossroads, where a quarter of million blacks are living in what can only be called hovels. They are not even shanties. They were erected in place of the shanties that had been there which had been deliberately demolished by the South African Government for the solitary purpose of ensuring that they had de-blacked the urban areas so that there was no danger of too great a black population in those areas.
In place of the shanties, there were hovels built with bits of corrugated iron, bits of cardboard, bits of plywood stretching for miles and miles. There was no sanitation, there was a bucket scheme. There was no water; there was just one tap per four houses. If people tell me that sanctions will reduce the standard of living of these poor wretches, I must say that I should need a lot of convincing that the case is valid.
The other argument against sanctions is that they will not work: so obdurate and determined are the Boers to resist any suggestion of emancipating the black population, they will never succumb to any pressure. That may be so; but it seems to me that that is equivalent to a small boy saying, "It's no use punishing me; I shall not be good, whatever happens". I think one has to continue punishing him until one kills him. That seems to me to be another argument which has no great validity.
There is a variety of other arguments. One is that sanctions will destroy the economy of South Africa. The answer to that is that the solution is in the hands of this tiny minority. The 3 million people can behave properly as they were urged to do by the great Mr. Macmillan in 1960. He assured them that if they would behave like civilised people and operate what he said were Christian values, they could be sure that there would be no economic sanctions invoked against them. That is the simple answer to people saying that sanctions will ruin the economy. I do not wish or intend to pass judgment on that difficult subject. However, it is absolutely right that the argument should be presented to this House because the House has great influence in these matters.
One thing about which I wish to warn noble Lords is that there is a near-explosive situation there; but not on the part of the blacks. I spoke to a great variety of people and it is unfair to South Africa to say that there is no liberal opinion urging changes very vigorously. However, it is a tiny minority. The great majority of people are not wicked, they are just complacent, blind and terrified. I had, and still have,
952
many relatives in South Africa. I can assure noble Lords that they are virtuous people—they could not be members of my family if they were not! The fact remains that they are absolutely blind to what is going on. When I asked them if they had been to see the appalling area, Crossroads, they said, "Oh, no, we have not", although it is only 12 or 14 miles from Cape Town. There is a carefully devised situation where a great barrier has been built to prevent people coming from the airports seeing these shanties and the hideous conditions.
All I would say is this. I venture to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, on only one point. I do not think that the solution lies in Britain's hands. I was immensely impressed, if I may say so, by the attitude of the British consul and the British ambassador who were behaving with total propriety and were concerned to see that visitors to the country saw the townships and the worst of the horrors going on. That reflected very much credit on them, and I was most impressed by it.
I went over there as the deputy chairman of the British Council. That council does a very good job and steers an extremely subtle and professional course, treading on very thin ice. It never expresses opinions that would antagonise people; but it never expresses opinions that show approval of what is going on.
I believe that the urgent necessity is to secure that something is done before there is an explosion. The place is a time bomb. Resentment did not emerge so much on the part of the blacks; a number of them came to see me and they are well-educated, nice, kindly people. I do not think that they are on the verge of explosion. However, I would not say the same of the coloured community, who show the kind of resentment that people who find themselves in this deprived and degraded position through no fault of their own must be expected to show.
The South African Government are incredibly astute at actions to try to require people to look at the situation through rose-coloured spectacles. As regards the homelands, they are probably the most ingenious piece of constitutional chicanery that has ever been devised. The Government have exiled great numbers of people from their own homeland and attributed to them a nationality and lands that do not really exist. I do not profess to be an expert on South African affairs; but I believe that there are now four homelands. The nationality of these poor wretches is attributed to those homelands but there is no foreign office, no means of getting a passport, no taxation system. They are just areas largely of scrub where people are required to live without any possibility of earning a living. Needless to say, those people who are supposed to live there do not do so. They return to the conurbations and their homes are systematically destroyed. It is a situation which requires a masterly approach from some masterly statesman who can influence that tiny, selfish, silly community to realise that it is committing suicide.
I do not believe that sanctions will produce the result necessary, nor that the Government could dismantle apartheid. I do not think it is within their power. If they tried to do so effectively then a more Right-wing and more poisonous government would

953
replace them. That is what I believe. However, that does not alter the fact that we have a duty to continue to urge upon these 3 million people the desperate necessity of submitting to important changes. That is our duty and it is what should take place.
I was appalled at the reaction of some of the white people towards the blacks, and the things they say about an heroic figure like Bishop Tutu. Whatever view one may take of his accent—and some might think that it is a little peculiar—the fact remains that he is one of the heroes of this age. He is living a life of great danger, the resentment against him is principally because he has the right to live in a palace in a select white area in Cape Town. What people said about him, the rancour and the viciousness of the utterances about this man, indicated the insecurity of the people concerned.
I urge upon us all the necessity to see this as an immensely serious international situation. It is necessary to use every possible means to urge upon the 3 million people—and I do not think it is more than 3 million who need to be convinced—that they are living in a world with a time bomb that will explode at any moment. That is my reaction.
I agree very much with what the two previous speakers said except that the noble Lord preceding me took the view that it was not possible to form any opinion because of the racial differentiation. It is very easy to say that because the 30 million or 40 million who are being oppressed, as far as the blacks are concerned, constitute nine different races (Asians, Indians and so forth), one can then justify the oppression and torture of them all. That is a very feeble argument indeed. We have a duty to urge and to continue to urge reasonable behaviour. I hope it may be possible for that urging to take effect before there is an explosion which will be too horrible to contemplate.
3.48 p.m
Lord Walston: My Lords, I am afraid that we are already over-running our time but I shall try to redress the balance if that is at all possible. I wish at the outset to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, not only for his speech but for the opportunity he has given us to discuss this vital, burning question. I wish to a certain extent to follow the fine speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and direct the attention of noble Lords to human rights, a matter which is very much in our minds. In the subsequent short debate it will take up more of our time, I am sure to our benefit.
I do not think we realise sufficently what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, realises full well—the total disregard of human rights that exists in South Africa. It is something on which Her Majesty's Government quite rightly lay great stress. The Prime Minister herself has made some very cogent remarks about it. I hope that she will realise that human rights are ignored and spurned not only in some of the communist and other countries but also in South Africa itself. I shall give an example of that. Some 20 years ago I was invited—that is rather a mild word, as I was very nearly ordered—by the then Prime Minister John Vorster, with whom I had a curious
954
and somewhat close personal relationship, to visit Robben Island, and particularly to see Robert Sobukwe, Nelson Mandela and the other political prisoners there. He invited me because there had been a great deal in the British press about the appalling conditions in which those people were kept. He wanted me to see how very well they were kept.
I spent a day there and I was shown round everything that I wanted to see. I had talks with several of the people there, including Mandela and Sobukwe. I came away with the very firm impression that the South African Government were convinced they were treating those people well—one could almost say humanely—but they did not really regard them as human beings. It reminded me very much of the kind of visits I used to pay in my youth with my father to various people who were considered modern landowners and modern farmers in those days. They used to show me their pigs. They used to tell me how well they kept their pigs. They used to say to me, "Look, they have so many cubic feet of air. They have balanced rations. A veterinary surgeon comes once a month to look after their health. They cannot be kept in better conditions." That was precisely the way in which those political prisoners were kept. They had medical inspections, they had clean concrete cells, balanced rations and so on. But they were treated as we would treat our rather valuable animals, but not as we would treat or consider treating human beings.
That is borne out by what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said, that the majority of at least the Afrikaners, certainly the majority of those who control policy in South Africa, simply do not regard the blacks, or indeed the coloureds, as human beings. They regard them as something entirely different who, if one is liberal minded, one treats kindly but who one does not treat as belonging to the human race. Until we accept that and until we realise that it is the denial of human rights that is at issue—I put the accent on the word "human" rather than the word "rights"—we can never understand what is going on in the Republic of South Africa at the present time.
Millions of people are denied the most fundamental of human rights—the right to enjoy life, the right to develop their own capabilities and personalities, even the right to live with their wives and children, and the right to enjoy the normal type of civilised society and intellectual pursuits that we take for granted here. That is the great denial of human rights which is going on today in South Africa, and which is being imposed on the vast majority of those 30 million people who are living there. It is no good saying that people go to that country of their own free will, that they earn good money and send it back to their families; they are not being treated as human beings.
I now wish to draw very briefly to the attention of noble Lords the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, when he said, quite rightly, that whatever happens in South Africa the blacks are ill-prepared to take over not only the government of the country but the running of the country. The same thing applies of course not only to South Africa but also to Mozambique, Angola and, above all, to Namibia. I wish here to pay tribute to the painstaking and

955
lengthy work of Dr. Chester Crocker who, after many rebuffs and many disappointments, has at last produced something about which, even though the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has doubts—of course we must have our doubts about it—we must happily admit is a very gret step forward both for Angola and for Namibia.
However, in all these countries—South Africa, Namibia, Angola and Mozambique—there is a whole mass of people of innate intelligence and innate capabilities. They have been born with those capabilities and endowed with them. They have received God given gifts which they are not now able to develop because of the educational facilities, which are virtually non-existent in so many of those countries, from the lowest level of literacy or numeracy up to the higher levels of technological capabilities in university training and other forms of education.
Here there is something that we can do. It is something which I believe is completely non-controversial. I hope it is something which will gain the support of your Lordships and, possibly more importantly, of Her Majesty's Government. I suggest that we could take active steps to help people from all those areas, and particularly those from Namibia and South Africa, to pursue some form of higher education—not very high, necessarily—in this country which will enable them, when eventually the time comes, to play their full part, whether it is in promoting new agricultural techniques, in carrying out research, or in keeping the electrical services, the telephone services, the legal services and all the services of government itself running properly. We hope that that time is not far distant in Namibia or Angola, although it is much farther distant in South Africa.
We could help produce a whole cadre of trained people. That is essential for whenever that transition may come about. By giving a modest amount of money in this country to enable such people to come over here and gain some training—they would, of course, be suitably selected people—we would do far more to help the future development of that sad troubled area of the wonderful continent of Africa than by any debates in your Lordships' House or elsewhere. I say that with the greatest respect.
I urge Her Majesty's Government to give serious thought to my suggestion as a positive contribution towards the well-being of all those countries. I urge them to give not only serious thought to it, but also hard cash to enable that to be carried out, and to be carried out immediately.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, this is a very timely debate and I pay tribute to the expertise of my noble friend Lord Hatch, and particularly to the humanity of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I wish to restrict my contribution to the country of Mozambique. It is a country with which I have had a long association. That association dates back to many years before its independence, when I used to speak in your Lordships' House in support of the
956
liberation movement which was then called FRELIMO.
It has been a very happy association, largely because of the deep humanity and the spirit of international friendship which characterises the leadership of Mozambique. It has also been happy because of Mozambique's unswerving commitment to a non-racial, non-tribalist society where people of all races, all religions, all cultures and all language groups can develop, thrive and build up the country together. That is the dream which we have for a nonracial South Africa.
However, that is very much a reality in Mozambique where, if one looks among the leadership one will find, for all that it matters, blacks, whites, Indians and those of mixed race. But the point is that it does not matter at all. It is the quality of one's contribution and not the colour of one's skin which counts.
It has also been an association beset by much tragedy. I recall with deep sorrow the late president Samora Machel, one of the great leaders of Africa. A true friend of this country, he commanded the respect of conservatives and socialists alike. Noble Lords opposite may recall his deep friendship with the late Lord Soames.
He was killed with other leaders of Mozambique in October 1986 when his plane crashed into a South African hillside. The black-box transcripts revealed that his plane was lured off course by a decoy beacon. The overwhelming inference from many suspicious features of the crash is that his death was engineered by some agency of the South African state.
President Samora had a deep love of children. He spoke of them as the flowers that never fade. He would say that the certainty of a better tomorrow lay with them. In the early years following independence huge strides were made in Mozambique in providing nursery schools, crêches and schools where the children and youth of the country could develop in ways which were unthinkable under colonial rule.
The overwhelming tragedy of Mozambique is that those children have become the deliberate targets of a terrorist campaign of unspeakable brutality. It is horrifying that that terrorist campaign has been created and is waged as the chosen strategy of the South African military forces.
In developing this theme I am very anxious to speak in a non-partisan spirit. While I share the deep disagreement expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, with the central elements of the Government's policy on South Africa, I should be the first to recognise that the Government have responded to Mozambique's call for help with concrete assistance and with co-operation on many fronts. On that aspect of the southern African situation I hope that political opponents can come together constructively to stop the brutality.
Horror and brutality are not exaggerated words. The terrorists of the co-called MNR, whom the people of Mozambique call armed bandits, have no political programme. They massacre whole villages; they destroy health clinics, schools and hospitals; they ambush civilian buses and food lorries; they destroy crops and cause whole populations to

957
become refugees; they mutilate civilian administrators by cutting off their ears and noses. They terrorise and kidnap the children, children as young as 11 and 12, to enlist them into their ranks and force them to become killers or, if they do not co-operate, to kill them.
Mrs. Graca Machel, the Minister of Education and widow of the late president, has taken special responsibility for the rehabilitation of the children who survive those massâcres or who manage to escape from the terrorist camps. British medical experts are among those who are helping her. The stories that they can tell would make all of your Lordships weep.
Why is that happening? Do not make the mistake of thinking that it is some haphazard form of barbarity. There is clear proof that the so-called MNR, originally created by the Rhodesian security forces, was taken over on the independence of Zimbabwe by the South African military. It is the South African military which has trained, armed, supplied, transported and in effect commanded the MNR. The documents captured at the Gorongoza base inside Mozambique in 1985 proved that active support from the South African military continued despite the agreement signed in Nkomati in 1984 between South Africa and Mozambique. That support continues to this day.
It is wrong to say that South Africa merely supports the MNR. The MNR is an integral part of the strategy of the South African defence forces. Those elements of the apartheid regime which pursue that strategy of sowing misery and devastation in Mozambique do so because they want to prevent the emergence of a successful, non-racial African state along their borders, a state which might be too fine an example for the South African people themselves. There can be no real peace or security in Mozambique or in any of the other front-line states until the system of apartheid is overthrown. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hatch on that point.
People are dying in Mozambique now. There are strategies to defend Mozambique which can be pursued now and on which I hope that we can find some common ground. First, we can maintain and increase the aid which goes from the United Kingdom to Mozambique, both governmental and non-governmental aid, both direct aid and aid through the Southern African Development Coordination Conference (SADCC). The government aid already includes military assistance in the training of the Mozambique forces. That is absolutely right. We should recognise that Mozambique has the right to, and the desperate need for, materials for its self-defence against aggression. However, the overall scale of the aid does not meet the needs of the situation.
Secondly, we should be exposing the nature and the causes of terrorism in Mozambique. It is a challenge, as great as the challenge of Nazism in the 1930s, to the civilised world to unite in action to stop the outward aggression of a vicious regime. President Samora Machel himself in a memorable phrase described apartheid as the Nazism of our time.
958
There are elements within the South African leadership which I believe wish, even while maintaining their own supremacy, to have good neighbourly relations and economic co-operation with Mozambique as against the brutal and confrontational policies and in particular the policies of the military. By taking a firm position, by giving a lead within Europe, by giving a lead to the new United States' Administration, the British Government can, I believe, play a significant part in helping to stop the aggression even if one could wish that they did more to help stop apartheid itself.
Thirdly, we should have no truck with the representatives of terrorism when they come to Europe. If we are consistent in our stand against terrorism we should be excluding from our country those people who come here from the so-called MNR to seek and sometimes to receive support for their terrorism. They receive it from certain shameful individuals and organisations in this country. At a major conference at which I was present in Bonn last weekend a leading Mozambique representative made this call:
"The peoples of southern Africa are fulfilling their duty to fight apartheid directly. Compared with what they have to suffer, they do not ask much of you: only that you help stop those forces which, in your countries, connive with the holocaust which apartheid has unleashed".
I urge your Lordships, and especially I urge the Government, to heed that appeal.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the end of apartheid is an almost universal goal but I should like to discuss whether sanctions and disinvestment are likely to bring that about and what they will achieve if they are successful.
There seem to be three schools of thought that advocate sanctions. First, there are those well-meaning people, frustrated by the continued injustice of apartheid, who seize on sanctions for a quick result. They see sanctions as the last possible peaceful alternative to revolution. While they believe that they can produce a quick result, they pay little attention to the mechanism by which that goal is to be achieved. They ignore the essential nature of the South African problem, the struggle for political power among all the competing elements within the country whether they be black and black, white and white or coloured.
The second school of thought doubts the effectiveness of sanctions but wishes to satisfy its conscience with a moral statement and wants to get on the right side of history. The third school is based on the idea of attrition. More realistically they realise that sanctions alone will not induce a powerful and very determined regime to relinquish control or even to share power. Sanctions are advocated as an adjunct to other forms of pressure, including armed struggle, but permanent damage to the economy is accepted as the price to be paid. When confronted with the apparent lack of progress they all argue for tougher measures, more to satisfy their consciences than in the expectation of success.
Should the impoverishment of the South African economy by sanctions actually succeed in ushering in black rule, the new black government could find itself

959
confronted not only with the appalling legacy of apartheid—under-development, urbanisation, population growth with many of the tribes at each other's throats but they would face an economic wasteland from which there would be little hope of recovery. That government would be unable to satisfy the expectations of their followers and would be doomed to instability. The end result would not be democracy but a different form of deprivation and repression, as we have seen in almost every other African state, and almost certainly tribal warfare.
What has in fact happened in the two years since the United States and the European Community introduced their measures? The laws of supply and demand have led to the growth of the South African armaments industry and they are now major exporters, following the united arms boycott of 1977. The embargo on oil has led to successful synthetic fuel production. International disinvestment has allowed delighted whites to pick up businesses at knock-down prices. While black employees benefit from the black advancement policies of the multinationals, it remains to be seen whether they will fare as well under their new masters in conditions of unemployment.
As their economy reduces, we can be sure that the 40 per cent. of Afrikaners who work for the government or the agencies will be all right. Jobs for bureaucrats will surely be protected. The people who will suffer—and I do not think there is any disagreement about this—are the black Africans. They will become unemployed and poorer. Meanwhile, it is interesting to note that the companies which have withdrawn have not reestablished themselves in neighbouring states. That is a recognition that there is no way to stimulate the economy of the southern African continent if the hub is in decline.
So sanctions in South Africa are sanctions against the whole of southern Africa, and no amount of aid will redress the growth and prosperity that has been sacrificed. Blacks will also suffer in other ways than by losing jobs. For example, two years ago Baragwanath Hospital had all the capital equipment that it needed. With disinvestment and reduced support, it is now falling back and will increasingly be less able to care for the health of all the blacks in South Africa, and indeed all the blacks in all of southern Africa, as it did before.
Yet while the Western world urges more sanctions, there is a startling uniformity against sanctions by most blacks. No more than a quarter of those who have been polled recently were prepared to support economic sanctions if they involved significant loss of jobs. Of 1,000 coal miners canvassed, 70 per cent. did not believe in sanctions.
What, then, is the answer? If we want to see the emergence of a democratic and prosperous South Africa the last thing that is needed is the impoverishment of the black population, particularly at a time when their skills will be increasingly needed to contribute to the running of the country. Black impoverishment achieves exactly the opposite of what is needed for black equality.
960
What is needed is black empowerment, and this implies that the greater their economic stake the more influence they can wield. This can happen only with greater black participation in skills, professions and management; and this can happen only with increased education, training and jobs. The essential need for their contribution would make their demands irresistible, and that is exactly what was starting to happen. Companies were adopting equal opportunity of promotion, with special help for blacks. New black businesses were appearing. For example, eight years ago there were few black taxis but since then black entrepreneurs have built up a taxi business in face of opposition by the state. There are now over 100,000 black taxis, employing directly or indirectly over 300,000 black people. There are many black businesses and even a sprinkling of black millionaires.
Those who work are better off than they are in most other black African countries that I have seen; and I have also seen Crossroads and been through it. The situation is dreadful but is the kind of situation that can be seen in every other African country, and also in Hong Kong. The only difference is that outside Crossroads the government have now built standpipes, lavatories, and so on, so that the conditions in Crossroads can be improved.
Ten years ago black trades unionism was launched by the Wiehahn Commission, and now unions and employees negotiate deals over a wide area beyond just wages. There is therefore a nascent industrial democracy at the heart of South Africa's economy. Great political progress has been made in the past 10 years, and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said they were just touching at it. Sport is multiracial; job reservation has been abolished; public transport is about to be integrated; marriage laws were repealed in 1985; the Immorality Act has been scrapped; property ownership by blacks in townships was allowed; property ownership in grey areas is about to be allowed; the pass laws have gone; central business areas are multiracial; there are no curfews in the towns and it is illegal to attempt to reintroduce them. Political parties are open to all races, and there have been many other reforms. More and more housing areas are becoming grey areas, and the government are turning a blind eye.
However, once again the party in power has moved to moderation, too slowly for the world, maybe, but faster than their electors will stand. A Right-wing party has emerged to try to put the clock back, just as the Nationalist Party did in their own day. Even petty apartheid is coming up again. The world must accept a slow pace if it wishes to see continued progress and success in the end. We must accept South Africa and its voters as they are, and not as we would wish them to be. If South Africa is further isolated and its communities become further polarised, the gains will be lost. The influence of the unions, with smaller support bases, will shrink. Indeed, the Conservative Party policy includes the total banning of all black unions.
This is not to suggest that one man, one vote can ever be practical. Apart from wildcat leaders, more realistic, educated blacks realise that that would be tribal disaster. It would also be foolish to ignore that

961
white security is a precondition for black liberation. Greater black economic power is the surest route for full black political power in South Africa, but it is something that has to take time. The experience of the past 15 years has shown that black people can act to change their own situation. It is nothing short of racist for the world to deprive black South Africans of their most potent—weapon—economic power—by imposing sanctions and thereby deliberately imposing on them poverty, hardship and permanent political impotence.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, in the debate on foreign affairs following the most gracious Speech at the opening of Parliament, several noble Lords drew attention to the slowly improving international scene. It was suggested there were signs that certain long-term problems seemed to be moving forward, though perhaps not yet to the point of solution. Developments which 12 months ago were almost unimaginable are now taking place and are opening up the possibilities of fruitful consequences. President Gorbachev's speech and that of Mr. Arafat foreshadow such changes, but, in my view, it is not possible to exclude developments in southern Africa which may also be a prelude to beneficial change. There are undeniable signs of movement, and in the last few months we have seen meetings between President Botha and important black African leaders on the west coast of the continent, in central Africa and on the east coast.
The first steps have been taken to resolve the problems of Angola and Namibia. These have come with surprising speed and would have been considered impossible under the present Nationalist government only a few months ago. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that the Namibia settlement is not foolproof. However, I believe that, having reached this point, it will be extremely difficult to go backwards. Actions have also taken place within the republic that suggest a new approach to some selected political prisoners; but I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that the conditions within the country that the visitor sees—I have not been there for the past five years—are appalling, and one cannot fail to be shocked, just as the noble Lord was shocked. I think that the conditions are so unacceptable that in the end they will prove impossible to sustain.
I believe that the people of South Africa, black and white, want to solve their own problems. South Africa does not belong either to the black race or to the white race. Both have shameful episodes in their past when white has fought against white, black against black, and black and white against each other. I believe that the time is coming when the two races will eventually come to terms, and it may not be as distant as some speakers have suggested. It cannot be denied that among the younger generation there are signs that they are coming together. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, (who is to speak later) will be very authoritative on that point.
Thoughtful people in both black and white races understand that the full potential of the country cannot be developed without co-operation between
962
the races. They know in their heart of hearts that the clock cannot be put back. When speaking to white South Africans, I sometimes think that they do not reveal what their innermost thoughts are. They know that the time has come for change; they may not say it openly, but they know it in their heart of hearts.
In regard to Namibia, the Americans and the Russians have both done a great job. They have done it not by crude pressure on one side rather than on the other, but by the persuasion of both sides. Clumsy pressures like mandatory sanctions, so freely spoken of, are not the way. Those who favour sanctions are those who are least affected by them. Japan and Germany are now South Africa's largest trading partners, and no doubt will continue to trade. I believe that new efforts by the Commonwealth and even by the United States will be without constructive effect. There may come a time when Her Majesty's Government individually can play a role. Our influence in South Africa is traditional and remains strong. We should be alert for the right time to use it in a constructive and even-handed way. Above all, we must maintain direct and close contact with the South African Government in order to see how we can be helpful. Attempts from outside to force the pace without a real understanding of the depths of the problem can only fail.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, for introducing the Motion. I have one problem in trying to assimilate what he said about some of the great difficulties that he sees facing the British Government, and indeed everyone generally, in coming to a satisfactory solution of the situation in South Africa. He made certain assumptions that I found very difficult to follow in statements about the reactions of the Prime Minister to certain situations and reactions to what has been going on in negotiations with other territories. He may have a great deal more knowledge than I possess. It seems to me that such difficulties would be known to those people in the Foreign Office currently engaged in the business of dealing with the South African situation.
Apart from that, there is not very much else that I wish to say. I want to speak briefly and get what I have to say over fairly quickly. Most speakers have already adopted a 10-minute standard in their speeches and one or two have exceeded the allotted time. I do not wish to deprive any noble Lord of the opportunity to speak.
I have a view about British overseas colonial policy. I propose to defend that policy from my experience as a colonial officer of 30 years' service in Malaysia. In my view the policy was similar for all territories on their way to independence, a fair and humane policy of general application.
In recent times it has seemed to me that when an independent country gets into difficulties—and there are difficulties when an independent country governs its territory and anything goes wrong in the country, there is a tendency to attack British policy or former colonial policies and to blame Britain for what is happening. It is a great pity that we cannot be a little more careful in what we say in answer to those

963
criticisms in the speeches that we make and avoid the deafening silence which seems to be the policy that follows such a situation.
South Africa is of course in a somewhat different situation in application from other territories granted independence. For many years it has had its own Parliament—indeed, many years before many countries post-war were even granted independence. It has its own Prime Minister, whose residence was Groote Schuur in Cape Town, a house that I visited. Nevertheless, because of the Boer influence, there have been difficulties in recent years between that country and other countries in regard to what has happened in South Africa. There was our war with the Boers, which took place prior to the First World War. In the Second World War South Africa was our ally, and it was General Smuts, Prime Minister of South Africa, who had a seat in the British War Cabinet and was an outstanding leader in that connection.
Of course, apartheid or separate development is a policy of the present South African Government under President Botha and is to be entirely deplored. Nevertheless, I do not believe that sanctions against South Africa would succeed in removing apartheid, quite apart from the fact that if they were imposed they would hit the poorer elements of the black community in two ways, and very heavily: first, by denying to a very large element of black Africans who travel annually from countries such as Zambia employment at higher wages than they command elsewhere; and secondly, by depressing the economy. Sanctions were not successful when imposed against Italy prior to the Second World War. That is going back some time, but it is debatable whether sanctions always succeed.
It has also seemed to me that President Botha in recent months has moved at least some of the way to placate criticism levelled against him by his commutation of the death sentence against the Sharpeville Six. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, felt that it was quite unreasonable for the life sentence to remain against them. I agree with that observation to some extent.
It has been suggested that President Botha acted in that way because he does not wish Mr. Mandela to become a martyr, which would be the case if Mr. Mandela dies in an African prison. It is said that he would release him on that count.
From my experience of Britain's attitude towards overseas territories and taking any decision which may affect their future, it has always been honourably concerned that there should be individuals in the country capable of governing and that others not governing would suffer by Britain's departure. In other words, the criteria was not to give independence too quickly and to ensure that the country concerned would be well governed before Britain's departure.
Three years ago at the time of Remembrance Day in Malaysia, I was asked by Her Majesty's Government to go to Singapore to honour the colonial servants who had died as a result of incarceration in Changi gaol. I was one of the
964
prisoners in the gaol. Terrible torture had been inflicted upon the inhabitants and oppression of the people had been a subject for our Government in Singapore.
The reason for my visit must be brought to the attention of your Lordships. If the people outside the gaol had any reason not to like our colonial policies they would never have risked their lives to ensure that an organisation was set up in order to obtain funds to supply prisoners with various items. We were able to set up wireless sets in the gaol and every night we listened to the broadcasts of the BBC. They kept alive people who would otherwise have died because they knew only to well that, if the BBC was able to broadcast our failures and defeats in the war, when the victory came and it broadcast the news it was telling the truth. I believe that that story is worth telling under the present circumstances.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, for giving the House the opportunity to discuss this important and topical subject. I should dearly like to touch on every country in the region but the time constraints of a short debate necessitate my remarks being confined to the southern half of southern Africa.
Seventeen months ago I forecast publicly that to increase vituperation and punitive sanctions against South Africa would, far from pushing white voters in a more liberal direction as was naively hoped, have precisely the opposite effect and boost the electoral furtunes of the far Right. So it has proved to be.
One of the main problems is that people in Europe and North America do not understand what the terms "Left" and "Right" mean in the South African context. In western Europe and Australasia—in North America the position may be slighly different—by and large those who are well off vote for Right of centre parties. By and large those who are less well off vote for Left of centre parties. In South Africa the position is precisely the reverse as regards white voters. Admittedly the comparison is complicated by the fact that in South Africa Right-wing parties believe in state intervention and subsidy, whereas Left-wing parties believe in Thatcherite free-market economics. In other respects the terms "Left" and "Right" mean the same as elsewhere.
Whites who live in large houses in the northern suburbs of Johannesburg, or the more salubrious parts of Cape Town or Newlands, surrounded by immaculate lawns and high walls, normally vote for liberal parties. The less well-off whites who live cheek by jowl in bungalows normally vote for Right-wing parties. For a fuller picture of that section of the population—the poorer whites—I commend most highly to your Lordships an article by A. R. Kenny published in the Spectator on 5th September 1987, and an article by Stephen Robinson published in the Daily Telegraph magazine on 22nd October 1988. Incidentally, the poorer the whites, the more Right-wing they are.
The reason for that voting pattern is not that the better off are more altruistic, although they may well be, but the fact that they judge that there is a

965
reasonable chance of their continuing to do well—in a few cases, very well—under a black government. The future of their children and grandchildren is another matter, but at least the present generation will probably be all right.
In total contrast the less-educated and less-skilled whites fear that their futures will be very bleak indeed under a black government. Bearing in mind what has happened to their counterparts in other parts of the African continent over the past 35 years, who can blame them?
Let us not forget, as the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, mentioned, that the families of most of those people have been in South Africa for over 300 years. They are not gastarbeiter to be sent packing when their utility is at an end.
Incidentally, that shows how half-baked are the proposals of certain eminent politicians in this country to ban intercontinental flights from Europe to South Africa in order to punish the Right-wingers. Most Right-wingers have never ventured outside South Africa; they do not particularly wish to do so and many cannot afford to do so.
The threat that they perceive arises not because of any xenophobia on the part of black leaders, although some of their followers may well be xenophobic, but because of the terrible population explosion in southern Africa. There are far too many people chasing far too few jobs: this in the coming age of the micro-chip. There is massive concealed unemployment in South Africa in the form of overmanning; whenever I am there I am always struck by the fact that it takes eight people to do a job which three people could do easily in this country. However, given the well-known revolution of rising expectations, it is likely that, given a black government, the black electorate would press for still higher pay, and that would inevitably be at the expense of jobs.
Given the realities of the perceptions of the blue collar whites, it will be difficult to reverse the Right-wing backlash that we have seen. But at least the West can refrain from exacerbating the situation, and making the Right-wingers even more vicious, by constantly trying to undermine both the present Government and President Botha.
Irascible and difficult he may well be, but at least over the past 10 years President Botha has been responsible for more beneficial reforms than most previous South African governments put together. That includes the government of the much revered Jan Smuts. Furthermore he has presided over a massive increase in the real wages of the black population.
When I first visited South Africa 23 years ago the idea of a black consumer boycott was an absolute joke. The purchasing power of the blacks was so tiny that it would have had no effect whatever. Now collectively the black population has a massive purchasing power. On a per capita basis it is nothing like as high as that of the whites or the Asians but it is increasing all the time. To pursue a boycott such as we have seen recently in the Transvaal really hurts. It is effective and the kind of boycott I believe the West
966
should be glad to see as a means of shifting government opinion.
Yet President Botha is pilloried in the West as some kind of bloodthirsty, sadistic dictator who eats babies for breakfast. But many of his kith and kin regard him as a pale pink, wet, wishy-washy, liberal do-gooder, and a potential traitor to boot. To someone of his age it is hardly an incentive to go on trying very hard.
It is true that the National Party often gives the impression of not being sure where it is going: It muddles along hoping that somehow it will he all right on the night. In this respect I often feel that the Right-wing parties, for all their narrow-mindedness, their mean-mindedness and their frequent viciousness sometimes have a more intuitive grasp of the long-term realities than do the parties to the left of them.
On the African continent, power flows from the barrel of a gun, as indeed it does in most of the Asian continent, a good deal of the South American continent and the eastern part of the European continent. Treaties, guarantees, bills of rights, and other scraps of paper do not mean very much in the long term. For minorities to survive—and I do not mean in this instance only the white blue collar minority—at least some degree of autonomy is needed, together, with some territorial base where people can feel secure and relaxed even if they normally work elsewhere—all this within a customs union, a common currency area, with an integrated transport system, agreement on control of epidemics and so on.
An excellent example of the degree of autonomy and self-determination that is already to be found in southern Africa, is in Bophuthatswana. Bophuthatswana's enemies claim that it is not really self-governing because it called in South African troops to put down an attempted coup. But so did Lesotho and I do not think that anybody claims that Lesotho is not an independent country.
Naturally one understands why Her Majesty's Government believe that the diplomatic disadvantages of recognising Bophuthatswana outweigh the moral rectitude of such a course. But that should not prevent Members of both Houses of Parliament of all political parties, from going to Bophuthatswana to see for themselves. In particular I should like my noble friend Lord Goodman to do so. I think that he would have the surprise of his life. It is certainly not the barren land full of poverty-stricken people that he supposes. I should say that those who go there will be made very welcome and shown everything that they want to see—good, bad or indifferent. Unless their minds were hermetically sealed before departure, I guarantee that they would be extremely impressed by all the good things that are going on there.
4.42 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, for instituting this debate. I should like to make one comment on what he said about the withdrawal of the South African army from Angola. He gave various reasons. I should

967
like to add one more. It is the death of white South African soldiers in Angola, to which I do not think he referred. From my observations in South Africa that is the reason, above all others, why the Afrikaner in the street was getting fed up with the role in Angola. I believe that is a fact; and I should like to add that for the purposes of the record.
The present situation in South Africa has been described very eloquently and effectively. I do not wish to add to that in any way. I should like primarily to look to the future and make certain comments on it. I believe, as I am sure we all do, that one day the hated apartheid and the white supremacy in South Africa must come to an end, if only for reasons of numbers or whatever.
First, on the question of talking, I am sure that we are all agreed that for people with opposing views to talk is very much better than to fight. My noble friend Lord Elibank talked about the disunity among the blacks. This is one of the problems that I see at the present moment, which is greatly fostered by the South African Government. They do not want the black leaders from different groups to get together and to build personal relationships with each other. I believe that that is a factor that should be encouraged by any means possible. The South African Government do not want to talk to all the different black leaders. However, I believe that there are ways in which black leaders can meet together.
I am not sure whether the Minister can offer us any encouragement on this or whether the British Government are able to provide opportunities for black leaders from different groups to meet together and to talk. I believe that it is one of the most fundamental things that should be happening at the present time. Perhaps I should mention to the Minister, having just come back from the Far East, how glad I was to hear his personal praises being sung there for his efforts on the work he is doing out there.
Secondly—on a point that has been touched upon—the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, spoke of preparing Namibians, and other noble Lords have talked about the question of preparing black leaders in South Africa, for the future. I believe that disinvestment has set back the preparation of black managers who were working in British-owned companies. But there are still quite a number of British companies out there with influence. I believe that we in this House should be doing all we can to encourage them to train black managers for the future.
Thirdly, I wish to talk about the question of what will happen when people from differing groups in South Africa meet together to talk about a possible settlement. We know that we probably have a greater experience in this than any other country. The UK Government played a very great part in reaching a settlement in Zimbabwe. Of course the decisions will need to be taken by the South Africans themselves when the time comes. On the other hand, there will be a great need for balanced ideas and programmes to be put forward for consideration. A settlement in South Africa will be far more complicated than most others that have ever been considered by Her Majesty's
968
Government. There are questions that will be raised and programmes that will have to be agreed not only on the consitutional settlement of South Africa but also on such questions as land reform, the economy, the future ownership and management of industry and how agriculture will be treated in a multiracial society. An enormous amount of work will need to be done before these problems are resolved.
Noble Lords may say that I am being overoptimistic in thinking that this is the time for any consideration of these questions. However, time has the facility of racing ahead. We do not know what will trigger the need for a settlement. We are not there yet; but it could come very quickly. There are very experienced people in your Lordships' House who, for instance, have been Foreign Secretary or Prime Minister. My question to the Minister is this. Are Her Majesty's Government, however informally, giving any thought to what could be done when the time comes for a settlement of all the enormously complicated and vitally important issues that will need to be resolved?
4.49 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I too wish to join noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, for introducing today's debate. I believe that I am the only one among your Lordships who has spent almost all his life in South Africa. I have spent a total of 29 years there; I am now a proud 31 years old.
Indeed, today's debate comes at a very critical period. It comes at a time when there is crucial economic and political change evolving in southern Africa and against the following major movements of the past four months. We heard recently of the agreements about the withdrawal of Cuban and South African forces from Angola. We also have the likely agreement which could lead to the independence for Namibia and free and fair elections—which I might add are long overdue.
It also follows on the recent moves by the South Africans to normalise their relations with their neighbours, specifically the recent meeting between President Botha and President Chissano of Mozambique. Indeed, in South Africa it also closely followed on the reprieve of the Sharpeville Six and the release of certain political prisoners. Of course we all hope for the ultimate unconditional release of Nelson Mandela.
Finally it follows on the recent local elections in South Africa which saw the expected increase in the Right-wing pro-apartheid movements in the Transvaal. Indeed, the future and prosperity of South Africa hinge to a large degree on a lasting peace accord in Namibia, Angola and Mozambique and obviously an acceptable socio-economic and political resolve in South Africa incorporating all population groups.
I am well aware of the time restraints on this evening's debate and in preparing my speech I picked out a few of what I believe to be the major themes dominating the southern African situation. First and foremost, there is the inevitability of black majority rule in South Africa. There is the need for free and

969
fair elections throughout southern Africa, the interdependence of South Africa in southern Africa and a change in Soviet foreign policy and, more specifically, its influence in reducing tension in the region. I believe that that is a very major issue in the current developments in southern Africa. Finally, there is the choice between evolutionary or revolutionary change in South Africa.
My main theme is the inevitability of black majority rule in South Africa. One main cause for the stalemate in South Africa, apart from the obstacles of legislative apartheid, is the lack of strong unity on both sides of the dividing line. I speak here of the divisions within the Afrikaner Nationalist Group. Those divisions have only really developed over the past five years. I categorise them into two groupings. I call them the 1,000-year Reich Nationalists, which are the AWB (Afrikaans Weerstand Beweging) and the convervatives, the more moderate element, the aprés nous le deluge element, those who believe that the status quo will continue for their lifetimes but perhaps not for their children's. I believe that that is important to note. So often people speak about South Africa and the wicked Afrikaners who think that the situation will continue for the rest of their lifetime. There has definitely been a change in attitudes in South Africa.
One other aspect worth noting is on the other side of the dividing line; that is, the rivalry between the Zulu "Inkhata movement and the UDF.
Clearly the reform programme in South Africa has come to a literal standstill over the past year. To a large degree that has been a result of the Conservative Party becoming the official opposition and the reluctance of the Nationalist Party to forge ahead with their reform programme for fear that they might lose vital white votes.
However, as your Lordships are aware, next year there is likely to be another general election in South Africa. In terms of the constitution of the tricameral legislature, provision has been made for elections to be held before the end of 1989. Indeed, over the past year the South Africans have emphasised their efforts to normalise their relations with the southern African states. Clearly no matter what the Government in Pretoria do, they will fail to achieve success without the consent of the black population. For that reason I remain sceptical about the success of the Regional Services Councils. I support the idea of Regional Services Councils because that effectively is a phasing in of black power at local municipal levels, but until such time as the ANC is unbanned in South Africa those Regional Service Councils, I am afraid, are doomed to failure.
In fact I believe that Nelson Mandela will be unconditionally released, but only after the general election. What is more, I believe that President Botha will be resoundly returned to power and many whites in South Africa will be surprised at how the Right-wing has effectively shot itself in the foot. I mention that because of—and I can describe it in no other wayéthe disgusing behaviour in Boksburg where the Conservative Party, after coming to power in the recent local elections, re-imposed petty apartheid with "whites only" and "non-whites only" signs.
970
There we have seen an emergence of a very powerful weapon, the black consumer public. The boycotting of white businesses in Boksburg has effectively brought business there to an almost total standstill. I believe that that is an effective means of bringing about meaningful change to retarding the retrogressive measures of apartheid.
Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana was the first Prime Minister of the first colony to become independent in the early 1960s. His premise was that political freedom was the first ideal and that economic prosperity would follow. I beg to differ on this point.
Here, I wish to raise the issue of sanctions. We can argue for hours about sanctions but I simply ask whether economic sanctions work. I do not believe that they do. Certainly there is no quick fix. I hear the counter argument: What peaceful alternative is there to show the international community's disdain for the system of apartheid? I argue that targeted sanctions have worked. I bear in mind the Gleneagles Agreement. I am a very keen sportsman and something which hurt me most was when we were cut off from playing sport with the international community. Certainly the Gleneagles Agreement has brought about multi-racial sport. However I must add that now that there is multi-racial sport, there is no encouragement about when the South Africans will again be able to play sport with the international community. I believe that that is a great shame.
Economic sanctions can only hurt the very people whom they aim to help. I believe that the threat of sanctions is the most powerful weapon. That has had a profound psychological impact on the business community. However, in reality, economic sanctions have only served to polarise the white vote.
We now need to revert to my major theme; that is, the inevitability of black majority rule in South Africa. Do the sanctions lobbyists want South Africa to degenerate into an economic wasteland? I refer to a recent speech given by Gavin Relly, the chairman of the Anglo-American Group. In a speech to a delegation in Bonn he said:
"Political stability presupposes economic prosperity and social order. If a future black-led government were to inherit a wasteland, it would never be able to fulfil the expectations of its followers, and would be doomed to instability and worse from the outset".
I believe that the only way that change can take place in South Africa is by building an atmosphere of mutual trust. But how can mutual trust be obtained in South Africa? I do not understand why the South Africans have this fetish about keeping legislative apartheid. I live in a multi-racial village and have done so for 14 years. We have always had a multiracial village atmosphere. It is a complete facade to claim what I heard the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, say, that the coloureds have to commute from 40 kilometres outside Capetown. Certainly Mitchell's Plain is 40 kilometres outside Capetown, but there are many areas in Capetown which are multi-racial.
Why does South Africa keep legislative apartheid? I feel strongly on that point. Surely now is the time to repeal the Group Areas Act, to unban the ANC; now when it has shown its initiatives in bringing about real change in South West Africa and, we hope, a peaceful solution ultimately to Angola. Now is the time.

971
A well-brandished theme among white South Africans is that white security is the precondition for black liberation. I believe that following the next elections in 1989 we shall possibly see the lifting of the state of emergency. We shall see the ultimate lifting of the Group Areas Act. History has proven that violence has never succeeded in bringing about lasting solutions.
I conclude by quoting a very dear friend, Alan Paton, who in his last book, Save the Beloved Country, wrote:
"The great problem which confronts white South Africans and their country today is whether they will be able to undo the damage of the Verwoerdian doctrine"—
Dr. Verwoerd was the architect of apartheid—
"and gain, to some extent at least, the trust and confidence of Black South Africa in the goodness of their intentions".
Bearing in mind the enormous interdependence of South Africa and southern Africa, if South Africa is allowed to degenerate into an economic wasteland the repercussions for southern Africa will be disastrous.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hatch has once again given us an opportunity to review the current scene in southern Africa. We are grateful to him for that and for his comprehensive speech. We have also had a most impressive debate with knowledgeable speeches from noble Lords who know southern Africa well.
References to southern Africa were, of course, made in the recent debate on the gracious Speech and we were glad to hear on the day of our debate on foreign affairs that the Sharpeville Six had been reprieved although, as my noble friend said, they were given long prison sentences—a punishment which on the evidence they did not deserve.
One could recite a grim catalogue of state repression, executions, indefensible sentencing and of cruelty on an ever-widening scale towards the native population. Those are the inevitable consequences of apartheid. As some diseases produce outward manifestations, so this wicked policy has its terrible results. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, described it so vividly in his splendid speech, it is an abomination. There is no defence for it and the Government have properly condemned it.
The Foreign Secretary described apartheid as,
"A violation of basic human rights and human dignity".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/88; col. 345].
He went on to say that the Government are working for the "unconditional release"—he stressed those words—of Nelson Mandela. Of course, we warmly welcome that. After 26 years in prison Mr. Mandela has arrived in a bungalow with a swimming pool but he is still a prisoner, as Mrs. Mandela has made plain with her usual courage. How can one begin to find excuses for so indefensible a government?
Noble Lords have welcomed the developments on Namibia. There is no doubt that the influence of the United States and the Soviet Union was crucial in achieving the draft statement. Well deserved
972
compliments have already been paid to Dr. Chester Crocker for his long and assiduous efforts. Namibia and Angola will certainly need all the help they can get as they begin to rebuild their countries after a long war and there are now real hopes that there may be a negotiated end to Angola's civil war. However, there is still a long way to go. As my noble friend Lord Hatch said, we welcome the signing yesterday by the South African, Angolan and Cuban governments of an agreement to implement United Nations' Resolution 435 on Namibian independence.
The noble Lords, Lord Elibank and Lord Gisborough, have both argued against sanctions. That is where we on this side differ from the Government. The Government stand virtually alone in the world, and that is something we must regret. They have insisted throughout that sanctions will not work while we and others, especially our Commonwealth partners, have taken a different view. But the accumulating evidence appears to support our arguments because South Africa is in increasing financial difficulty.
South Africa has substantial short-term debts to pay. I understand that in 1990–91 South Africa is due to repay 12 billion dollars—about half its export earnings—and it has other related problems of insoluble difficulty. However, the point I must make to the noble Lord is that these problems are compounded, are made more complex, because South Africa has no one to whom it can turn. The fact is that since 1986 there has been a 5 billion dollar net outflow of capital as foreign banks and corporations under pressure from countries which do not believe in apartheid have pulled out of South Africa. I should like to know the Government's reactions to that. Are they at last prepared to take a similar line to those countries?
Where can South Africa turn for financial salvation? Does the Minister think that the IMF or the World Bank can or will help? It does not seem that western credit agencies or foreign banks will bail them out. South Africa might get some help from Switzerland and possibly from West Germany but, for obvious reasons, I would be surprised if those two countries show a willingness to sustain the government in Pretoria. For the South African economy to survive at anything like its level of recent years it must have new foreign capital to stimulate its economic growth. There is a strongly growing view that the necessary capital will not be forthcoming unless there is a radical change in South Africa's political system.
That leads us to a point of the utmost significance: namely, that if this scenario is correct, sanctions of a kind are certainly working—and working steadily to a profoundly serious end for South Africa, black and white. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodman said, sanctions are biting. What do the Government make of that? I believe that the Government should combine with our allies and others to ensure that this economic pressure is applied more strongly so that the changes which we, and they, want to see come about as soon a possible. Change through economic pressure is better than change through force of arms. The sooner it comes the more lives will be saved in southern Africa.

973
There are still those in British political life who seek to find excuses for the South African Government. We had a slight flavour of that in one or two of the speeches today. The bogey of Communism was raised. It was said that the South African Government have moved away from the worse excesses of apartheid and that, at the end of the day, Mr. Botha may be a moderate leader, and so on.
I wish I could believe that. I want to see the end of violence; I want to see a free multi-racial community with equality for black and white. But unhappily I do not see any light at the end of this tunnel, though I hope that my noble friend Lord Greenhill's more optimistic view is ultimately proved right.
Perhaps I may take one example and that is the attitude of the South African government towards newspapers. Last month it closed down the Weekly Mail, a liberal newspaper mostly read by middle class white people. The Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. Stoffel Botha, justified the action on the grounds that the newspaper systematically published material which caused a:
"threat to the public order".
That is rubbish because this particular paper has a circulation of only 25,000 among relatively well-to-do whites. This particular Mr. Botha has the power to close any newspaper for three months without redress or right of appeal. As noble Lords are aware. other newspapers have been closed down and one editor, Mr. Sisulu, an enlightened liberal, has just been in prison without trial for two years. I am glad to learn that he has now been released, though strict restrictions have been imposed upon him. He must not practise as a journalist or express his views.
But what kind of government is this that stifles free speech and imprisons journalists without trial? Is this a government for which this House should feel a jot of sympathy? I think not—that is, if the traditions of this House on all sides stand for anything. I read last week that four ANC members were found guilty of treason, the judge saying that it was "common ground" that South African citizens "owed allegiance to the state" and that those convicted had conspired to overthrow the government.
A noble Lord: My Lords—
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am in difficulties about time and I apologise to the noble Lord. What the judge in question did not discuss in his summing up was the very relevant question why black South Africans should owe allegiance to a state which systematically operates apartheid and which deprives them of basic human rights in their own country. This South African high court judge also said that a call to scrap apartheid,
"is an unequivocal declaration of war on the state".
It reminded me of the summings up of Nazi judges in the 1930s. There is never a future for regimes which commit crimes against humanity. Sooner or later the curtain comes down and the work of repairing the damage has to start.
I listened carefully to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, whose views we must all respect. He spoke of interdependence of southern
974
African states. He is right. The key to the future of southern African states lies in South Africa itself. But while apartheid remains, tension, expenditure on arms and social and economic instability will persist throughout this vast region. This is why apartheid must be ended, and the sooner the better. We call upon the Government to use all their endeavours to this end.
5.13 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has given us an opportunity once again to debate the important topic of southern Africa. It is a part of the world which has caused great anguish to many. It still does, as this debate has shown. But it is one where we have seen significant developments in recent weeks.
At last a settlement of the long-standing problems of Angola and Namibia is in sight. We warmly welcome the agreement signed yesterday morning in Brazzaville between the governments of Angola, Cuba and South Africa. This confirms the understandings reached in Geneva in November on a timetable for the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. This is a triumph for United States diplomacy and, we would all agree, a tribute to the efforts of Assistant Secretary Crocker. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walston, in his comments about that particular triumph.
We are delighted that 1st April has been set for the implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibia. We look forward to the signature of an agreement by South Africa, Angola and Cuba on 22nd December in New York, which will ensure that the United Nations plan can be smoothly introduced. Namibians have had to wait too long for their independence.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, seemed to pour some scorn on the agreement, but nevertheless it was only through dialogue that this moment of very considerable hope could be reached. We welcome the flexibility that the parties have shown.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, pointed to two supposed dangers in the Brazzaville Protocol. First, there is the supposed danger to Angola. I say to the noble Lord that Angola is a sovereign power and it is not for us to question its own decision to sign. Secondly, he seemed to suggest that there was a supposed danger to Namibia. If I have understood the noble Lord correctly, he said that the United Nations Resolution 435 was not enough. We say it is—I say it is—the essential step to independence for Namibia.
The noble Lord rightly predicts that we will argue that dialogue has achieved this major success. We have strongly supported the process throughout and we are also very much encouraged by the dialogue and the issue between the United States and the Soviet Union. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, asked what we were doing to aid an independent Namibia. Her Majesty's Government have been preparing for Namibian independence. We hope to make a significant contribution to the United Nations transition assistance group which will monitor the

975
elections. We and our partners in the Twelve also stand ready to assist an independent Namibia economically.
As regards aid for Angola, we are concerned about how the reconstruction of Angola might be achieved. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development will be attending the SADCC meeting in Angola in January when the question is almost certain to be discussed.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, also called for this aid and he referred to education assistance, more particularly as regards South Africa. As regards Namibia, our education assistance will continue to grow after independence.
We have also witnessed a number of recent developments in South Africa itself. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has recently returned and he described South Africa as a time bomb. We are glad to see that the noble Lord has recovered from the virus that he picked up there. We have been encouraged by the South African Government's release of some political prisoners; by their reconsideration of draft legislation to enforce the Group Areas Act; and by their decision to drop other legislation intended to restrict the flow of foreign funds to local organisations. We welcome the statesmanlike decision of President Botha to reprieve the Sharpeville Six. We had made representations on behalf of the six on many occasions. I believe that the most important point is that those who were reprieved were reprieved from death. That is what our representations may have helped to secure.
As regards human rights, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Walston (and we shall turn to this matter in the second debate) that we condemn all abuses of basic human rights wherever they occur. In the case of South Africa, we have made our views plain to the South African Government on many occasions both in London and in South Africa. We have long called on the South African Government to release all those detained without charge. Our ambassador recently raised this issue again with the South African authorities.
I said that there were encouraging signals. They do not represent anything like a fulfilment of our hopes for South Africa. We will continue to press the South African Government to release all political prisoners, including Mr. Nelson Mandela. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, that we shall continue to press for the group areas legislation to be not merely amended but abolished. Above all, we will continue to seek the total abolition of apartheid. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister told the Afrikaner newspaper Beeld in an interview very recently, apartheid is contrary to the Government's whole philosophy, which is that people should be able to live where they like in their own country, exercise their full democratic rights and advance according to merit, not the colour of their skin.
We do not believe that this objective, of a nonracial, representative system of government in South Africa, will be brought closer by further isolation of that country. Indeed, the positive developments of recent weeks, whether over Angola, Namibia, or
976
South Africa itself are, I believe, a vindication of our policy of engagement not withdrawal. It is this same approach—of searching for ways to make a positive contribution to improving the lot of black South Africans—that guides our response towards those who call for further sanctions.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has, somewhat predictably, made his familiar call for sanctions. He gave some facts to support his case. I respect the noble Lord's point of view, though I do not agree with it. But I hope he will respect the Government's position and view and accept that our policy is also supported by facts. Punitive sanctions have not worked. Have they stimulated political change in South Africa? No, they have not. Have they prevented new repressive measures by the South African Government, or rolled back existing restrictions? No, they most certainly have not. Instead, since the last round of sanctions were imposed in 1986 we have seen the renewal and the extension of the state of emergency; the measures taken on 24th February against the United Democratic Front and other organisations; and the continuing rise of the extreme Right-wing in South Africa. No one could have put that point more eloquently than the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, with his special knowledge.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Gridley. The imposition of punitive sanctions would increase South African isolation. I very much agree too with my noble friend Lord Gisborough. How can we expect to change the outlook of those in positions of influence in South African society by cutting them off from the very ideas and influences that will do so? That is like trying to convert a country to Christianity by withdrawing the missionaries. It is true that some black leaders call for punitive sanctions. Others oppose them. But whatever the balance of black opinion, there is no escaping the fact that sanctions would cause ordinary black South Africans grievous harm. And without any doubt they would also hit the economies of the front line states severely.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked specifically about financial matters. I agree with him that market forces have had some effect on the South African economy, but they have not had the kind of effect that he would like to see and indeed I would like to see on the structure of apartheid itself. It is precisely because there were market forces that that is the case. Governments should not dictate to markets in quite the way that he suggests.
As to punitive sanctions, I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, says that only where sanctions bite are alterations made by the South African Government he will reflect on what the President of the United States said in his report to Congress in 1988 on the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act 1986. I quote:
"The Act has reduced United States leverage, hardened the South African Government's determination to resist outside pressure and increased the appeal of ultra conservative movements".
My noble friend Lord Elibank mentioned jobs. It is perfectly true that Chief Buthelezi has stated that lost international trade has cost South Africa some 150,000 jobs already, and disinvestment some 60,000 jobs. It is worth remembering that the editor of the

977
largest circulation black newspaper, the Sowetan, told the Financial Times on 23rd November that most blacks oppose sanctions because they know they will lead to more unemployment and more misery.
All that is not to suggest that there have not already been a number of restrictive measures implemented by Britain. I have a list. There are 25. Some of them were agreed at the meeting of EC foreign ministers in September 1985; others at Nassau; others at Marlborough House in August 1986; and more in September 1986. It would serve the noble Lord and others who support sanctions to study precisely what has already been done.
The Government have rejected the negative approach in favour of engagement in South Africa, as I think my noble friend Lord Elibank would have us do, to work for positive change throughout that country's society. We have a rapidly expanding programme of aid to blacks in South Africa, now running at £4.5 million annually. We contribute some 20 per cent. of the total European Community aid programme, which is worth £14.5 million annually. If one adds that to our programme of scholarships, running at 500 this year with an expected increase to 960 in 1991—I hope that this will please the noble Lord, Lord Walston—the £500,000 we spend on community self-help projects as well as aid to social welfare projects and black trade unions, one can see that we mean business.
In South Africa's neighbours too we maintain considerable programmes of economic and security assistance. Since the formation of the South African Development Co-ordination Conference in 1980, we have spent almost £1 billion in bilateral aid to the countries of the region and have committed £54 million to projects of the SADCC organisation, mainly in the vital regional transport sector. We shall also give £103 million in the period 1986—90 as our share of commitments to the region by the sixth European development fund. Our objective is to help to ensure the survival of the neighbouring countries and to reduce their dependence on South Africa. Support for the neighbours sends a strong message to the South African Government. They know where we stand. We call on others to join us.
The economic dependence of the neighbouring states depends on their ability to defend the security of their transport routes to the Indian Ocean and ensure their internal security. We continue to provide military training to the Zimbabwean army and are training company-size units of the Mozambique army at Nyanga. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, spoke about Mozambique. He rightly pointed to well-documented atrocities by the rebel group. His account of South African support is, however, something of an exaggeration. We welcome the recent agreement at Songo between the presidents of Mozambique and South Africa and assurances by South Africa that assistance to the rebels will not take place.
In recognition of the importance of Mozambique's role in southern Africa, the British Government have increased substantially the extent of their aid to that country. During his visit my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary announced a £15
978
million contribution to phase two of the project to rehabilitate the vital Limpopo railway line which links Zimbabwe and Mozambique. This complements the £14 million worth of United Kingdom funding for phase one of the project channelled through SADCC.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, to whose points I listened with great care, referred to one other country, if I may describe it as such—one of the so-called independent homelands, Bophuthatswana. In common with all other states except South Africa, we do not recognise the so-called independent homelands. I do not believe that any United Kingdom interest would be served by a change in this policy. The noble Lord may disagree. Bophuthatswana does not meet our usual criteria for recognition as a state. Its creation is an expression of the South African Government's policy of separate development; and that policy, he will appreciate, we strongly oppose.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, accused me of not answering an earlier question about South African membership of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He asked why we support South African membership of it. We support the objectives of the IAEA to facilitate international co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons. We also firmly believe in the principle of universality of membership and the right of each state to belong, if it so wishes.
I must say to the noble Lord that support for South African membership in no way implies approval of the system of apartheid. I must also say that there is no evidence that South Africa has been violating the IAEA rules. As I explained the other day, we are continuing to urge South Africa to remove doubts about its position on nuclear matters by acceding to the non-proliferation treaty and opening all its facilities to IAEA inspection, as indeed some facilities already are.
In conclusion I believe that I have been able to demonstrate incontrovertible evidence of the Government's deep concern at the problems of southern Africa, and of South Africa in particular. Like the noble Lords, Lord Greenhill and Lord St. John, and my noble friend Lord Brentford, we believe that change will come to that country; indeed it is inevitable. Apartheid must go. But that change must come from within South Africa itself. Outsiders can assist, as we are doing, to bring the parties together and to encourage dialogue. That will point the way to preparation for an eventual settlement in the way that my noble friend Lord Brentford would wish. But, ultimately, it must be for South Africans to determine their future, and achieve a system of government which is fair and acceptable to all the people of South Africa.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, my first pleasant task is to thank everyone who has taken part in the debate, which I think has been of a very high standard. I shall use the two minutes which I have to wind up the debate to take issue on just two points. First, the Minister who has been replying appears to

979
be arguing in two contrary ways: on the one hand, he says that sanctions do not work; and, on the other hand, he says, "These are the sanctions which we are applying". I ask why? He can only justify that if he inserts a word before the word "sanctions"—one which we have never used—namely, "punitive". The object of sanctions is not to create a wilderness in South Africa; it is to reduce the power of the South African terrorist state to terrorise its own citizens. That is the first point.
The second point is that all the way through the debate speakers have been saying that it will take time. Indeed the Minister was saying, "We are pressing", and talking about engagement. Before I was banned from South Africa in 1959 I was working with Nelson Mandela, Oliver Tambo and Walter Sisulu on peaceful demonstrations against the oppression of the African people. By then they had had 100 years of peaceful protest; they only turned to violence when they found that such peaceful protests brought nothing more than increased oppression.
Today the black Africans, the coloureds and the Asians in South Africa have fewer rights than they had 100 years ago. That is the answer to the present policy of the South African Government. My whole point has been that we still have the Group Areas Act and the Population Registration Act. Those are the foundation stones of apartheid. I ask the British Government to do what the Minister said in his last words; that is, to help those in South Africa who are working against oppression. We can only help; they have to decide. However, we can help most clearly by increasing our sanctions, as other countries have done. That has led, as my figures have shown, to the few reforms and liberalisations of the last period. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Human Rights
5.34 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster Viscount Buckmaster rose to call attention to the continuing violation of human rights world-wide and particularly in Uganda, Iran and Chile; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I consider myself particularly fortunate to have achieved this short debate today as last Saturday was Human Rights Day. In fact it was the 40th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Paris on 10th December 1948.
Perhaps I should first remind your Lordships that the last wide-ranging debate we had on human rights was in the Unstarred Question which I asked on 20th July 1983. Since then, regrettably, there has been very little, if any, overall improvement in the situation, especially in the three countries to which I intend to give special attention; namely, Iran, Uganda and Chile. Indeed, in some ways, as I shall show in a minute, the overall situation has deteriorated.
Much of the information that one has to work on is inadequate and indeed suspect. I must say quite
980
frankly that even the excellent reports of Amnesty International cannot be taken as absolute gospel. But those reports do at least provide a starting point. And what a terrible picture it is that they portray: a picture of terror, torture, senseless slaughter, degredation and despair.
I suppose that it is axiomatic that cruelty is endemic in man and has been ever since Cain slew Abel. But is it not sad in the extreme that, whereas we set out happily to explore the mysteries of the moon and the marvels of Mars, we fail, in the words of the Bible, to live peaceably one with another?
We must not forget the judicial aspect. Instead of the Old Bailey with its timeless traditions of justice, probably unsurpassed throughout the world, we have in many countries today, especially in Africa, the "New Bailey", where impartial justice is virtually unknown, truth is manipulated to suit the whims of unscrupulous dictators and the size of one's sentence depends more than anything else upon the bribe that one is perpared to pay the judge.
But terrible though that picture may be to an outsider, it is even more disturbing to someone like myself who has seen some of these horrible happenings at first hand. I shall give just one example. I was in Kampala in 1970. While I was driving home one evening I saw two people lying by the roadside who had been beaten up by the police for no apparent reason. Moreover, the cause of the attack seemed to concern no one. I played the role of the Good Samaritan, took them to hospital and I was of course accused of being their attacker.
It is impossible in a short debate such as this to give anything approaching an accurate overall picture of human rights violations worldwide. I am sure many of your Lordships may criticise me for having framed the Motion rather too widely. However, you will have gathered enough from recent radio and television reports to gauge the magnitude of the problem in areas such as Kurdistan, where it seems that the Iraqis have been using chemical weapons against defenceless civilians, including young children. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, will be able to say something on the matter, during the course of his speech, to which I greatly look forward.
I return now to the reports of Amnesty International. In its report of October 1982, upon which my Unstarred Question was based, violations of human rights in the form of extra-judicial executions—that is, executions without trial—abduction, imprisonment without trial and torture in prison were reported in 48 out of a total of 53 countries in Africa. The figures were 32 out of 39 in Asia, 19 out of 24 in Latin America and 20 out of 25 in Europe. Those were the 1982 figures.
The latest figures, published in the 1988 report, refer to 1987. These were 49 violations in Africa (that figure is up by one) 39 in Asia (that figure is up by seven) 23 in Latin America (that figure is down by one) and 21 in Europe (which is an increase of one). Those figures represent an overall increase of no fewer than 13 countries violating human rights during those six years. What a dismal and disturbing discovery that is. The figures take no account of the

981
nature of the violations, some of which are comparatively minor.
I shall not attempt to deal with the Soviet Union and other countries well known to your Lordships, except to say that in the Soviet Union there seems to have been some progress in the past year or so. I feel sure that those of your Lordships with wider knowledge of the country than I have will agree with that. For example, the authorities have opened up discussion on some human rights issues which were previously taboo. Many prisoners of conscience have been freed and fewer people are now being arrested on political grounds. Although that general picture may seem encouraging, and it is, there are as yet no laws to protect Soviet citizens who peacefully exercise their rights or to prevent ill treatment in places of punishment and abolish the death penalty. Thousands of so-called patients are still detained in unpleasant conditions in psychiatric hospitals.
I shall deal first with Iran, where the most serious violations are taking place and upon which so much attention has been focused recently. It is in Iran where the bloody and insensate tyranny of the ageing Khomeini continues largely unchecked. First-hand accounts of torture, authenticated by medical reports and testimony from Iranian refugees who have fled from political persecution in that country, suggest that arbitrary detention, unfair trials, torture and summary executions, not perhaps on the same scale as in the early 1980s, continue. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the United Nations General Assembly have repeatedly condemned that regime for its flagrant violation of human rights and have called on the Iranian Government to allow a mission to visit Iran to investigate the matter. Khomeini's response has always been in the negative.
Recently attention has been focused on reports of the position of the Mujahedin and their continued executions in that country. According to them, 5,000 people have been executed in the past four months. There is ample evidence from press reports to confirm that fact. For example, the headline in the New York Times of Thursday, 3rd November states
"UN states human rights abuses are continuing throughout Iran".
The report states:
"A United Nations report said today that serious human rights violations were continuing in Iran. It said the violations included a wave of executions of political prisoners in July, August and September after Teheran accepted a cease-fire in the war with Iraq".
That point is important.
I have another report in the Independent of Wednesday, 30th November 1988. The headline is:
"Mass executions reported in Iran."
It states:
"The Iranian opposition People's Mujahedin organisation claimed yesterday that 5,000 political prisoners had been executed in Iran".
An interesting report was made to me recently from a body called the Committee for the Defence of the Iranian People's Rights. It states:
"Detailed information makes it clear that prisoners with affiliation to a wide spectrum of political parties are included in the lists of victims. Numbered among the dead are leaders and supporters of the Iranian People's Mujahedin Organization, the Iranian People's Fedaian Majority, the Organisation of Revolutionary Workers, and
982
the Tudeh Party of Iran. Many of those summarily brought from their cells to execution were serving prison sentences passed many years previously".
That is an important point. People have been lying for years in some of those appalling prisons. I do not have time to describe the conditions. I did so last time. They are probably more dead than alive when they are finally taken to the gallows.
Some of your Lordships may have seen the worderful stand of the Iranian opposition Mujahedin who fasted for eight days in Kensington. It was a vigorous fast. I went to see them. I was greatly impressed by what I saw.
I must return now to Uganda. I spent two years (1969–1971) in Her Majesty's High Commission. According to Amnesty International more than 4,000 alleged—that word needs stressing—political opponents of the Government have been detained without trial during 1987. They are mainly in the Northern and Eastern regions where the army has been fighting armed revolutionaries. There have been many reports of extrajudicial killings of prisoners or non-combatant civilians by soldiers. They are continuing. There has been little change in the situation there.
I have recently received a mass of reports from various bodies opposed to the regime. Whereas in Kampala and other areas—the Western and Central regions—the situation seems reasonably peaceful, in the north and east the security situation is bad. Most of the information is repetitive and a good deal of it is tendentious. From that collection of papers various facts seem to emerge. The first is that in the Northern and Eastern parts of the country, Museveni has been taking on the mantle of Obote. He has been more and more involved, it seems, in assassinations. It is difficult to estimate how many people have been killed. There are unconfirmed reports of several thousand. There are photographs, some of which again are suspect; but there can be no doubt, as the body was widely photographed, that a former commander of the Uganda People's Democratic Movement, Lieutenant Colonel Eric Odwar was killed in a horrible fashion by Museveni in January. Indeed, Museveni has several times been quoted as saying:
"We shall liquidate them. We shall crush them. We shall massacre them. We shall assassinate by terror".
He was referring to his enemies. That is the main fact which emerges from all the papers. Other reports deal with haphazard killings here and there and are perhaps not vital to the main theme of the debate.
I turn to Chile. Why do I bring in Chile, which has not been prominently mentioned in the human rights connection? I do so mainly because, although the fairness of the recent referendum has been referred to in your Lordships' House, there has been no recent reference in the House to human rights violations. The most serious problem relates to those who are known as the disappeared ones: those men, women and children abducted by governmment forces in the 1970s and about whom nothing has been heard since. Their number, according to a fairly reliable report, is now about 700. It may well be more.
The appalling mental suffering of the relations of these pathetic people can scarcely be imagined.

983
However, in addition, I am afraid that intimidation by clandestine groups is now one of the most common methods of political persecution in Chile. The use of death threats, abduction and other types of intimidatory action started to spread in 1983 when opposition demands for a return to democracy and the restoration of human rights began to gain momentum.
Apart from the three countries which I have highlighted, Amnesty International is also particularly concerned about Turkey and Kenya. My time is up and I cannot mention those in detail, but Amnesty is concerned about them.
I must make one brief reference to the better side, that is North and South Yemen. I visited that country last summer and conditions are very much better. It is now off the black list. Security is good throughout the country.
Finally, what are my recommendations? I say to the Minister that we need more and more vigorous protests. We have protested before, but perhaps we have not achieved very much. We need wider reporting from our overseas posts. Further, I should like to recommend a committee of inquiry to look into the situation in Uganda. More and more attention is now being focused worldwide on the terrible problem of human rights. I look forward to the contributions of noble Lords who have so kindly agreed to support me and particularly to those of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who knows so much more about the situation than I. I greatly look forward to an encouraging reply from the Minister. I beg to move for Papers.
5.51 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, not only on his good fortune in winning the ballot and choosing such an interesting subject but on the telling way in which he has presented the question to the House, based on his tremendous knowledge.
I realise that in the terms of our debate we shall be concentrating mostly on violations and not on the happier side of things. However, if we want to cheer ourselves up, as the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, pointed out, matters are encouraging in the Soviet Union compared with a few years ago. I think the noble Viscount is quite right to be extremely cautious even though we can draw some encouragement there. After all, it is only 10 years since Spain returned to democracy, which was a tremendous event in the history of Europe. We now have the triumph of Benazir Bhutto and the return of democracy in Pakistan. I twice debated against that lady—once in the Oxford and once in the Cambridge Union—and was defeated on each occasion. I formed the opinion that she was a natural winner and I hope that she will be in power at the head of a democracy in Pakistan for many years.
I mean to spend these few minutes nearer home. We all know of the instruction of Jesus Christ given in the Bible, St. Matthew, Chapter 7. I quote from one translation of that gospel:
"God will apply to you the same rules as you apply to others. Why do we look at the mote in our brother's eye and pay no attention to
984
the beam in our own? You hypocrite. First take the beam out of your own eye and then you will be able to see clearly to take the mote out of your brother's eye."
We have been discussing the beams in the eyes of some countries. I am not saying that there are beams of such magnitude in our own eyes but I am at least asking the House to consider whether, in talking about the violation of human rights, there are not one or more motes which we might perhaps attend to. After all, there is no rule which exempts us, in this country, the one we know most about, from close scrutiny.
I have seldom spoken on Irish matters in this House and, having possessed an Irish and a British passport when I was a British Minister and wearing an Irish Rugby Union tie—given to me, I hasten to say, by an Ulster Protestant—I feel that my views might be discounted. However, just occasionally one feels the need to discuss matters affecting this country and Ireland.
I prepared these remarks before the result of the so-called Ryan case was known, although I knew that a decision was pending. I shall not inflame opinion further but just quote what the article in the Guardian has to say this morning:
"Whatever the temptations, the Prime Minister ought to sheath her megaphone"—
rather a curious metaphor—
"which has done too much damage already".
That is the view of the Guardian, and I suppose the view of English liberalism quite authoritatively. Incidentally, I hope that the word "liberal" can now be used without some sort of pejorative implication. During the American elections apparently one only had to call someone a liberal to drive him off the platform. I use the word in the complimentary sense and I am saying that much English liberal opinion would share the view of the Guardian.
I do not wish to give the impression that I am an unqualified critic of our Prime Minister.
A noble Lord: Why not?
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, there is a great deal of force in that liberal contention, but the answer I give in this connection anyway is that the Prime Minister played a major part in the establishment of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The great thing, it seems to me, in being infallible or in thinking you are infallible is that, whatever the circumstances, you stick to your guns. If by any chance you are in the right, then that is of enormous benefit. I shall not discuss the even more numerous cases where that helpful circumstance might not be present.
At any rate, I admire the Anglo-Irish Agreement and think that we need a really stubborn champion of it, as we all agree we have. I am not unaware that countries have to ensure their own survival and, when they are dealing with any form of terrorism and certainly with civil war, they adopt extra-legal methods. In Ireland in 1922, at the outbreak of civil war, some Irish leaders who seized the Four Courts in Dublin were taken out and shot. The justification was salus populi suprema lex. For those who were on the modern side at school, perhaps I may translate

985
that in the words of Bethmann Hollweg, the German Chancellor in 1914. He addressed the German Reichstag when Germany was invading Belgium with the words, "Gentlemen, we are in a state of necessity, and necessity knows no law". I agree that countries which either are or think they are in a state of necessity pass outside the law. I hope we shall be told tonight that that is not the attitude of the present Government and that they are not just saying that anything goes and that, when dealing with terrorists. one must adopt the same methods. I hope that we shall be told something very different.
I shall raise quite briefly three matters which will be familiar to noble Lords. Let us look at an article which appeared in The Times of 30th November headed "Justice and the Guildford Four". I shall quote one extract from the article, which was signed by two Law Lords, both extremely eminent Members of this House, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Seaman and Lord Devlin. The attitude of these Law Lords was shared by a deputation which included two former Home Secretaries and it was later supported by the Archbishop of Canterbury. I should have mentioned also that the view was shared by Cardinal Hume, so there could hardly have been a stronger deputation, enjoying as it did the additional support of the Archbishop of Canterbury. I shall quote one extract from the article written by the two noble and learned Lords:
"Justice for the Guildford Four is now in the forefront of a larger issue. Their fate has shattered our belief that there is no-one in any English prison serving a sentence of more than a year who has not been found guilty by a jury which has heard substantially all the relevant evidence."
I now come to the punch line. The article continues:
"our constitutional law on which our freedoms depend has been disordered."
People might dismiss that if it had been stated by a lawyer of ordinary rank. But that article was signed by two Law Lords. Therefore it must be taken very seriously. I need hardly say that it will be very carefully studied in Ireland when people discuss whether Irishmen get a fair trial in this country.
I now come to another issue that moves outside Ireland, although Ireland is involved in it. I wish to refer briefly to the British record before the European Commission of Human Rights. The United Kingdom has been brought before the European Court of Human Rights on 31 occasions since becoming a signatory in 1950, and has now been found in violation of the convention 21 times, including two rulings this year. We have yet to learn what attitude our Government are taking up as regards the latest condemnation by the European Court.
Finally, I come to what I will call, and what all will recognise as the Stalker Case. I shall not go into the details of that, but it was brought before the 44th session of the Commission of Human Rights by the international federation which includes our own much respected National Council for Civil Liberties. I shall quote from the statement of the international federation. The statement said:
"Last month the Attorney General announced to the House of Commons that there would be no further prosecutions in respect of the six shootings. He also announced that, although evidence had
986
been found which would have justified the prosecution of RUC officers for perverting the course of justice, the DPP had decided not to prosecute for reasons of 'public interest' and 'national security'."
It would seem that on that occasion public interest and national security took precedence over legal considerations. The statement continued:
"These events have severely undermined public confidence in the police and the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. The maintenance of the rule of law requires that all those who pervert the course of justice be prosecuted. National security should not take precedence over the rule of law."
Those are just three examples, but others could be produced to show why there is no confidence in Ireland— in the 26 counties at any rate—in the kind of justice that is meted out to any Irishman who is accused of any kind of terrorist offence in this country.
Many years ago Sir Winston Churchill stated in one of his books:
"Integral communities like human beings are dominated by the instinct of self-preservation."
No doubt there is a great deal of truth in that. But this country is great for more than one reason. It is great because of its heroic survival in the face of great odds in various wars. It is great also when we are at our best—and we are not always so—in showing an equal desire to preserve the rights of others.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I hope I shall be permitted to start by paying tribute to Paul Sieghart, who is probably the most distinguished human rights lawyer of his generation. He was a great friend of many of us here and a legal adviser to the Parliamentary Human Rights Group, of which I have the honour to be chairman. He died less than 48 hours ago, and the best tribute I can pay to him is to base what I have to say on two remarks he made in his distinguished contributions to the literature of human rights.
He wrote in The Lawful Rights of Mankind that human rights exist for the benefit of the weak, and generally that weakness derives from some difference which distinguishes them from the dominant group. He further stated:
"In that sense all human rights exist for the protection of minorities".
In another of his great works, The International Law of Human Rights, he pointed out that, until after the Second World War, how a state treated its own citizens was a matter exclusively for its own determination. That, today, is no longer the case. He stated in that work:
"for the first time in the history of mankind . . . such matters are now the subject of the legitimate concern of all mankind".
We are very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, for giving us the opportunity of debating human rights today, and for the effective way in which he presented his case. I am not sure that I take quite such a gloomy view as he did in saying that we had lost ground over recent years. It would be naive to expect that enormous strides would have been made in the observance of human rights, merely because of the agreement of the world community to the Universal Declaration of 40 years ago. As we have been reminded by the noble Earl, Lord

987
Longford, some of the principles on which the Universal Declaration was based were enunciated by Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago. Indeed, one could go back 500 years earlier still to the Buddha. But, nevertheless, human nature is still the same. Perhaps the wonder is that we have advanced as far as we have in the space of a single generation.
The United Nations has at least evolved standards, particularly in the Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights respectively, which command the support of the whole world. There are rules for applying the right of self-determination, conventions on the abolition of slavery, the abolition of torture, racial discrimination, discrimination against women, the status of refugees and religious intolerance.
However, what has been lacking is any really effective machinery for enforcing those magnificent undertakings. It is easy to see why that is. In a civilised community, the majority of citizens are not criminals, so they have no difficulty agreeing to legal procedures which may lead to the humiliation and the punishment of offenders. But since, as the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has pointed out, the majority of states violate human rights continually and flagrantly, the organisation which is composed of those states is not going to agree lightly to the arraignment of individual members before a tribunal with effective powers to impose penalties, or to compensate the victims.
I think there is one other important consequence that we should note of the rearguard action to defend the concept of absolute national sovereignty. We do not have any mechanism for examining and trying to alleviate the stresses which arise from conflicts between the aspirations of national, linguistic, ethnic or religious minorities and the perceived threat to the integrity of a state. The only way a new state can come into existence is by armed force, as the right of self-determination is limited to former colonial territories. Territories which have been annexed are treated in practice as having forfeited the right of self-determination, as we see from the examples of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Tibet, West Papua, East Timor, Eritrea and western Sahara.
There are also subject peoples who were denied a separate existence because it did not suit the great powers at the time, such as the Kurds, the Armenians and the Palestinians, and minorities which aspire to greater autonomy within some kind of federalism, such as the Tamils of Sri Lanka, the Tigrayans and Oromo of Ethiopia, the minority nationalities in Burma, the Chakma of the Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh, the Sikhs in the Punjab, and the non-Moslem southerners of Sudan.
Then there are minorities which might prefer to be transferred to a neighbouring sovereignty, such as the Albanians of Yugoslavia, the Hungarians of Romania and the Tswana-speaking people of South Africa. There are five examples one can think of where a state is actually ruled by one of its minority ethnic groups. There is South Africa itself, Burundi, Ethiopia, Guyana and Fiji. That was not meant to be a rigorous taxonomy of the right of self-
988
determination, but to cite those examples is to highlight the causes of some of the most horrible violations of human rights we see across the world today. We justly condemn the mass executions which have been perpetrated by the psychopathic regime of Ayatollah Khomeini in what one hopes are its death spasms. But how much more frightful is the mass murder of Kurdish civilians by the Iraqis, using chemical weapons.
Incidentally, the United Nations has no mechanisms for dealing with the threatened use of chemical weapons. The Secretary General has yet to reply to a telex which I sent him concerning eye witness reports of nerve gases which were supplied by Libya to Somalia on 7th October. I suggest that there is a need for a special rapporteur to deal with allegations of the use or threatened use of chemical weapons so that, for example, patients can be examined properly and where possible scientists can test soil and other samples, so that there might be some form of deterrent to those evil men who contemplate the use of such evil weapons.
Somalia is another country where the regime is engaged in a viciously destructive conflict against a section of its own population. The whole of the North-West of that country has been reduced to rubble and the army and the air force are now attacking the 420,000 refugees huddled in the region's refugee camps. Is it not a crime against humanity to attack refuges, and why has that matter not engaged the attention of the Security Council?
I mentioned East Timor. In that case the United Nations originally condemned the annexation of the territory 13 years ago, but since 1982 the question has not appeared on the agenda of the Security Council. Responsibility for developing a solution in consultation with all the parties concerned was given to the Secretary General in November 1982. Since then we in the Parliamentary Human Rights Group have asked him on a number of occasions what steps he intends to take to consult the people of East Timor themselves, who after all are the most important of the parties concerned. We have had no reply to that question.
The 12 EC countries, I was glad to note, agreed at least on a joint statement to the UN Third Commission condemning human rights' violations in East Timor, but their message omitted any mention of the need to involve the people themselves in decisions on their future political status. Unfortunately there are many people in the outside world who are ready to listen to Indonesian propaganda. They accept the argument that more development aid and the granting of limited access to the territory somehow cancel out the extermination of a third of the population in the years following the invasion. They ignore the evidence that the people of East Timor are not reconciled to foreign occupation after 11 years, as was shown yet again by the need of the regime to arrest 3,000 people during the visit of President Suharto to the territory on 1st November.
The Australian Government, to their eternal shame, have recognised Indonesia's sovereignty over the territory, thus, in my opinion, encouraging potential aggressors to think that violations of

989
Chapter IV of the United Nations Charter, which expressly prohibits the transfer of territory by means of force, can be purged by the mere lapse of time.
Jan Martensen of the United Nations Human Rights Centre in Geneva complained the other day that he had only 18 staff to deal with the many tens of thousands of cases that are brought to his attention over the course of any year. We shall never be able to have a world police force with the resources to carry out on-the-spot investigations of individual human rights violations, and the non-governmental organisations themselves can only scratch at the surface of the problem.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, pointed out, every year hundreds of thousands of people are murdered, abducted, tortured or imprisoned without trial by their governments. Millions more are deprived of some of the other rights in the international convenant such as the right of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, the right to emigrate, and the right to practise and teach their religion. The scale of the violations is so vast that we cannot expect to get very far by treating the problem on a case-by-case basis. That is not to say that the work of organisations such as Amnesty International is not useful or indeed essential. They highlight the abuses and create some public demand for actions by governments.
I think that after 40 years we should be considering new initiatives which tackle the root causes of human rights problems. If one takes, for example, the case of Sri Lanka, the government there killed thousands of Tamils in the North and East until the Indian peace-keeping force took over the job of maintaining law and order in those areas. The atrocities were then stepped up, spreading terror indiscriminately among the civilian population. Incidentally, that is the bottom of the slippery slope on which our own Prime Minister set foot when she remarked that civil liberties had to take second place to winning the battle against terrorism. In that sense I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that we have to be very careful not to be excessively critical of others when we do not always seek to put our own house in order. If the grievances of the Tamil community had been addressed vigorously and in time, I do not believe that Sri Lanka would ever have come to such a pass. But it was perhaps too much to expect that a Colombo government, dependent on the support of the majority Sinhalese community, could have made the necessary concessions.
What is needed is a new international agreement setting out the rights of ethnic, linguistic or religious groups which are not themselves in control of a state. Where the groups in question live in a definable geographical area those rights might include a measure of internal self-government, including control of the police force and appointments to the judiciary. There would also have to be a tribunal to which a group could appeal if they considered that their group rights had been violated. States would be unlikely to agree that decisions of the tribunal should be binding, but they could be crucial in at least persuading a majority community to accept generous solutions.
990
Meanwhile, I am sorry to say that attention is focused on human rights violations selectively, according to the political orientation of the offenders. At the United Nations, Chile and South Africa are seen as the worst culprits, because they have no friends in either the Soviet or US power blocs.
Conversely, nations which cultivate good relations with the big powers escape serious criticism. When I drew the attention of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to a report by Jonathan Mirsky in the Observer of 8th May about the massacre of 33 monks in Lhasa during the disturbances of 7th March, he replied that we had no direct sources of information about the atrocity. My own inquiries since then reveal that eyewitnesses saw 16 bodies of named individuals, both monks and laymen in the vicinity of the Jokhang temple after it was attacked by the Chinese police, and that a number of people were taken away by the police after the assault, some of whom were unconscious. We do not know whether they survived. There are many first hand accounts available of the torture of monks and nuns as well as lay people, and only a few days ago, on the fortieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration itself, the Chinese police fired on peaceful demonstrators, killing at least two, including a monk, and injuring a number of people including foreign tourists. The Foreign Secretary assures me that we do remind the Chinese authorities of the concern of the British people for the Tibetan people, but our voice is hardly raised above a whisper.
Take the case of Ethiopia, a bankrupt and incompetent military dictatorship which receives massive arms and military advice from the Soviet Union, and economic assistance from the West. The Foreign Secretary told me that when he stopped in Addis Ababa during his August tour of East Africa, he took the opportunity of making clear to the Ethopian Foreign Minister, Berhane Bayih, our own Government's serious concern about the wars being waged by the Dergue against the people of Eritrea and Tigray, particularly the use of napalm against the civilian populations.
But he also remarked that those people would do well to look seriously at the proposals for regional autonomy contained in the 1987 constitution at the behest of the Soviet Union. Those proposals dismember Eritrea, and their purpose is to make sure that the instructions of the central party are carried out in the regions. What we ought to be doing is to persuade the Soviet Union to disengage totally from Ethiopia, and there is surely reason to hope for a positive response from the Soviet's following their disengagement from Afghanistan, Angola and indirectly from Cambodia. At the same time, we should be calling for a suspension of aid under Lomè IV, which serves to enhance the capacity of the regime to conduct military operations. The fact that the aid agencies have been kicked out of Eritrea shows that the Dergue wants to hide something, and we know that in the past they have had no scruples about diverting humanitarian aid to the armed forces.
When it comes to the Soviet Union itself, and to the satellites of eastern Europe, the Government have never hesitated to speak out and to go into detail about individual cases. It is claimed that different

991
methods are appropriate with different countries, but how is it that open criticism is thought to be more useful with Warsaw Pact countries, while "quiet diplomacy" is reserved for others? Is it not a fact that we use "quiet diplomacy" whenever there is a danger that we may lose business if we are more frank?
No discussion of human rights could fail to note the tremendous changes which, as has been said, are occurring within the Soviet Union itself. A year ago I wrote to a Soviet Exile, Lyudmila Yevsukova, who had recently arrived in the West, saying that at that time I was impressed by the release of political prisoners, greater freedom to emigrate and the emergence of some freedom of expression. This process seemed to have momentum, I thought, and the events of the past 12 months have confirmed my hopes.
I only regret that the liberalisation has not spread from the Soviet Union itself to the rest of eastern Europe. Romania is still a personal dictatorship of ramshackle corruption and nepotism. The GDR has explicitly rejected glasnost; and Czchechoslovakia, which I visited recently, severely restricts freedom of expression and of assembly, and continues to imprison people for what they say or even for what they might say. Yet the idea of the reforms being promoted by Mr. Gorbachev has caught the imagination of the people in those countries and, in the case of Czechoslovakia at any rate, there is a lot of discussion and the formation of new groups, such as the Independent Peace Association, prompting new political thinking outside the rigid framework of the communist establishment.
So although progress has been painfully slow over the 40 years since the universal declaration, there is some room for hope. The era of glasnost has vast implications for human rights, not only within the Soviet orbit but throughout the rest of the world. The diversion of resources from armaments to peaceful development and the possibilities of co-operation ultimately between socialist and capitalist nations for the promotion of human rights are wonderfully exciting in my opinion.
The Soviet Union may have a particular role to play in developing the mechanisms for resolving conflicts to which I have referred between subject nationalities and the state. If they can produce formulae which reconcile the needs of Armenians and Azerbaijanis, together with all the other national and linguistic minorities within their polity, they will have made a huge contribution to the future survival of mankind.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, for having initiated this debate. I am not going to try to match the tour d'horizon of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury; nor am I going to follow my noble friend Lord Longford into Ireland, though I am a citizen of that country, beyond saying that I agree with what he said.
Instead, as the noble Viscount indicated, I am going to turn once again to the Kurdish people of
992
Iraq because, in my opinion, they have suffered far more serious denials of human rights there than in any of the countries named by the noble Viscount or by any other speaker in this or the preceding debate.
There are now some 20 million Kurds in the area of Kurdistan, a large and rather amorphous area that stretches across the borders of Turkey, Iraq and Iran, with enclaves in Syria and the Soviet Union. The other day the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, had a pungent remark to make about the plight of the Kurds in each of those countries in which they have been a subject people for decades after the allies reneged on their plan for an independent Kurdistan in the Treaty of Sevres immediately after the First World War.
However, in Iraq their sufferings have been greater than anywhere else. In Iraq they have for decades been a thorn in the side of the Baghdad Government because of their armed struggle for a greater degree of human rights, including autonomy and self-determination. The Baghdad Government took the decision, when the Iraq-Iran Gulf War ended and their army was no longer required in the battle against Iran, to move with all their force against the Kurdish people and to eliminate them. That programme has been carried out since, with devasting effect, and is still going on.
Some of your Lordships may have seen a letter in the Independent on 9th December from Jalal Talabani. He is one of the two joint leaders of the nationalist resistance in Iraq. He used to be leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan; now there is an alliance between the various nationalist groups. He is a personal friend of mine. I have complete confidence in what he says, and as a matter of fact he is not a million miles from your Lordships' Chamber at this moment.
Mr. Talabani's letter was on the 14th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration. He lists just a few of the denials of rights that there have been. He points out that the Iraqi Government have destroyed more than 4,000 Kurdish villages in the past 10 years and have deported tens of thousands—I should myself have said hundreds of thousands—of Kurds into what are known as protected villages or internal exile. In addition, there has been the use of chemical weapons as a means of exterminating entire Kurdish communities. Mr. Talabani uses these words:
"Iraq has been waging a systematic campaign . . . aimed at uprooting the Kurdish identity and transforming the national characteristics of the Kurdish homeland".
This programme has been going on throughout Iraqi Kurdistan: the complete devastation of the countryside, the deportation to other parts of the country (if you can deport to other parts of a country) of almost entire rural populations to the cities and the towns and to new concentration camps which have been built. There has also been the arrest of thousands of young men who are potential guerrillas and their subsequent disappearance. For instance, two or three thousand Barzanis have gone, and no one knows where they are.
Of course what has most caught the attention of the public here has been the devastating use of

993
chemical weapons against civilians in Kurdistan. Baghdad still appears to be denying that chemical weapons have been used; yet on the 8th of last month the Iraqi Vice-President, Taha Mohieddine Maarouf, admitted, and was reported in Le Monde as having admitted, that the Iraqi Air Force had been responsible for devastating attacks on the town of Halabja in Iraqi Kurdistan on 16th and 17th March, in which at least 4,000 people—almost all women and children—died. Some shots of that tragedy may have been seen by your Lordships in the course of the television documentary by Gwynne Roberts recently.
Mr. Maarouf is said in Le Monde to have justified this operation by affirming that at the time Iraq was facing a war of aggression. He said:
"Every state that faces an aggression has the right to use all the means at its disposal to put an end to that aggression".
He believes that is enough reason to poison and kill 4,000 to 5,000 civilians with poison gas in Halabja. The use of poison gas would be justified in many war situations if one accepted arguments like that.
I maintain that actions of this kind—not only chemical warfare but mass executions and deportations—amount in the case of Iraq to genocide. I do not use the word lightly. It is a word that we hear used rather loosely. It means, according to the Oxford English Dictionary:
"Deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group".
The definition that matters for us is that contained in the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which is very much wider. It is:
"In the present Convention genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group",
and so on. Under the UN definition, therefore, you are guilty of genocide if you kill a part—not a substantial part but a part—of a particular race. I would go a lot further than that and say that it should possibly be a substantial part. If it were a substantial part, in the present agony of the Kurds I would say that state action against the state's own people would qualify as genocide.
What is being done by the Western world in the face of genocide by a member of the United Nations? Practically nothing is being done—a few vague undertakings. But instead of taking positive action, the British Government are not talking about sanctions. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, had some very telling words in the previous debate on how effective sanctions can be and should be. There are no proposals of sanctions against Iraq, there are no proposals of any action under the convention of 1948, about which I have just spoken, but instead the Government send a Minister to Baghdad vastly to increase the credits that Iraq can have in order that Britain can sell more material and expertise to Iraq in the reconstruction of that country. We should he stopping the dispatch of British-made goods to Iraq, not doubling the capacity of Iraq to import them.
I think that it is scandalous that this country should do business on these terms with war criminals, because war criminals is what they are. What the
994
Iraqis have done in Kurdistan is no better—Give them a chance, they have a little bit further to go—than Hitler did in the Holocaust in Germany before the war.
I call upon the Government to take action to initiate sanctions against Iraq over its behaviour in this case. I maintain that President Saddam should be brought to the international court and tried on charges of genocide.
6.35 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, for giving us this opportunity to discuss the subject in a wide way. I do not object to that at all because I think that some general principles are involved here affecting all the countries of the world.
It is of course the 40th anniversary of the United Nations declaration of human rights. We may well ask ourselves what exactly has happened over 40 years. My noble friend Lord Avebury touched on that. I think we may say that attitudes have changed towards different perceptions of human rights, but perhaps there has been no formula generally or by any accepted agency in the world of how to monitor and to endorse the right action against those countries or those individuals—but I think that countries and governments are the most important—that contravene what is an accepted level of human rights in their countries.
Being given this excellent chance, I should like to move to another part of the world about which I and, I think, other noble Lords feel passionately. It is a very different part of the world, the Western Sahara. The difference in the Western Sahara—this is one of the reasons why I value the opportunity to bring it up tonight—is that it is an extraordinary case of continued violations of human rights over a long period which has been virtually ignored.
Most people—certainly noble Lords, I am sure—know where the Western Sahara is. For the benefit of those who may pick up Hansard, I should like to explain that the Western Sahara was formerly known as the Spanish Sahara. It exists on the western coast of Africa below Morocco, north of Mauritania, roughly on a latitude similar to the Canary Islands. It is an area of some 900 x 500 miles, by our standards a considerable area. It became a colony of Spain in that rush for colonial possessions in the 19th century, and remained a colony of Spain until the mid-1970s when the area was ceded by Spain with promises of a referendum among the indigenous people of that part—albeit a nomad people mainly—on which would depend the future of the people in that area. This has failed to happen.
The Spanish withdrew. They failed to press for the implementation of the undertakings that they had given to the inhabitants of that part of the world. Encouraged by France and Morocco they entered into a tripartite agreement, which resulted in the 1970s in a very vigorous attack, an invasion of the area by both Morocco and Mauritania. We may forget Mauritania because it was ill-equipped to perform the invasion. Morocco was well equipped by major Western powers in the way that the noble

995
Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has described in regard to another part of the world.
Between 1975 and now there has been the most extraordinary oppression of a people in the Western Sahara who have been forced to flee their country in the face of the military power of Morocco, an ally of the United Kingdom. Those who failed to move to that area made available to them by Algeria, a newly independent country, remained in the South Western Sahara, where there has been an increasing settlement of Moroccans. There has been a long and tragic history of violation of human rights, torture, imprisonment without trial and disappearances on a scale one might expect in a South American country, which gets much more publicity.
Of those who managed to flee across a very dangerous, barren part of Africa to that area made available to them by Algeria many were women and children who not only suffered the privations of a long journey through a barren area—one of the most barren and difficult areas in the world—but during their flight to Algeria were harried by the Moroccan air force. It used against those women, children and adult men napalm, phosphorous and cluster bombs in exactly the same way as they have been used in other parts of the world but where more publicity has been levelled against their use.
Various international agencies have been concerned about the persecution of those people who were fleeing from oppression in their country. Many of the agencies have proof which cannot be disputed that the horrifying weapons, particularly napalm and phosphorous bombs, originated in the United States. Thankfully, my information is that the British have not had levelled against them the accusation of having supplied such weapons. I should be interested to know of the use that has been made by the Moroccan Government of British credits and whether they have been used for peaceful purposes. The United States was given undertakings by the Moroccan Government that weapons that it purchased from the United States would be used only internally. As usual, those undertakings were broken.
I speak in the debate in place of my noble friend Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham. He has previously spoken in your Lordships' House about the forgotten and horrifying episode on the western side of Africa. My noble friend was very moved when he visited the camps where the refugees have found a resting place. They have developed an encouraging community with equal rights for women and they have a constitution which specifically outlaws the use of violent terrorism.
It is an interesting part of the world because there are people who have been dispossessed. They have written into their constitution the fact that they will try to regain their homeland but will not resort to violence and terrorism. If one is cynical about the matter one may say that perhaps that is the reason why the country and the area of horror has been ignored internationally.
It gives a greater reason for major countries such as ours, the United States and others to pay particular attention to the plight of those who are deprived of
996
their human rights. That is regardless of whether the issues are connected with our alliances with various countries. Morocco is a country which many people, including noble Lords in this House, have enjoyed as a place to go for holidays and they have also enjoyed the importation of citrus fruits from that country. Nevertheless, it has a level of human rights well below that which we would expect of a country which enjoys such friendly relations with Britain. It is in a strategically important location in the event of conflict in the area. It has access to the important minerals available in the western Sahara. That may explain why there is such energy in pursuing an annexation of a country with total disregard for its indigenous population.
My noble friend Lord Winchilsea was so moved by what he saw that when he returned he formed a charity. It has been most successful over a short time because people have been horrified. Perhaps they felt guilty because they had totally ignored the situation or because they felt outraged by the fact that the international press had not given them information.
In a short time my noble friend raised an enormous amount of support from worldwide organisations. In February a number of vehicles which have been bought by the money secured by his efforts will leave from outside your Lordships' House. They will be driven through Europe by volunteers. They will pick up Members of Parliament, Euro MPs and personalities in show business and the record industry. Various organisations have been most supportive, including the Metropolitan Police. Some of the vehicles are fitted as ambulances and dental clinics, and some will carry educational equipment and medicines for children. Algeria is a country in exile and it has little access to products which are vital, particularly to the health of children.
Fifteen vehicles will travel down to Algeria. I hope that their journey will focus attention on that ignored part of the world where people have suffered terrible oppression. It is important to note that they have endured such hardships. A quarter of a million people have set up a state within a state in Algeria and have made the best of the little that they have. They have provided education for their children in a rudimentary form. Wherever possible they have secured health assistance in the form of volunteers. They have established a democratic society with equal rights for women and a peaceful formula for reasserting their rights to return to their homeland.
I have followed the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, whose passionate speech I admired. I hope that I have caught some of his passion for the subject. It is an example of a country and of people who have been ignored because the major powers found their case not particularly interesting. They found it troubling to involve themselves. Unparalleled hardship has been involved. Perhaps it stands alongside that suffered by the boat people and many others who have had the attention of the world brought upon them.
I hope that in the next 40 years we talk less of individuals. Society will always produce people like Klaus Barbie, Lieutenant Calley and Eichmann. I suggest that they exist in our society but are probably

997
doing mild things in the Home Counties and are unable to use their twisted talents. What matters is the environment in which people live. If a government and a country take seriously their responsibilities towards human rights, such people will not flourish. In this country we are lucky in that any breach of human rights is immediately sat upon and publicised. Many countries which are close to us and are our allies do not have such safeguards. Without fear or favour, regardless of whether they are our allies or our foes, wherever we see human rights being flagrantly denied we should treat them equally.
I hope that in February noble Lords will go out to see the column of vehicles leave. They are painted in the bright colours of the rainbow, so they cannot he missed. I see two noble Lords in the Chamber tonight who will be there. I believe that it will be a most informative journey.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, the quest for human rights is an endless crusade. Oppression has existed throughout human history and I am afraid that it is likely to continue as long as mankind exists. However, those of us who would prefer to see it otherwise must show eternal vigilance and be prepared to voice our opposition when we see it.
Over the past few decades Members of your Lordships' House have shown a great deal of vigilance. The House has an excellent record for providing time and opportunity for the discussion of abuses in many countries. It has also allowed the development of some noble proponents of human rights, not least among whom is the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, to whom we owe today's opportunity.
Many reasons have been advanced for oppressing opponents. However, one is particularly piquant to me. It has a special hypocrisy. It is religious extremism. It seems so inexpressibly bad and evil to use the will of God to burn people alive and oppress them in one's search for power. Goodness knows, our own country has enough blots on its record. We used to burn people alive to save their souls. There are still parts of these islands where extremism for religious matters still exists and causes great suffering and death.
However, I wish to draw attention to the position of the Baha'is in Iran. Your Lordships have considered the position of these poor people several times. Any noble Lords who have met the Baha'is cannot have failed to gain the same impression as I have done: that here are gentle and godly people. In spite of their sufferings, I have never heard a single word of malice from them towards their oppressors, nor any tendency to call for revenge in the future, no matter what they or their relatives have suffered. It does not seem to save them from further suffering.
The position in Iran is quite bizarre. The constitution of that country says that Iran is an Islamic republic. That is understandable. The vast majority of people are Moslems. However, a very liberal feature of the constitution is that it recognises the right of various minorities to their own religious
998
persuasions. Jews and Christians are therefore welcome to practise their religions. However, only those groups that are specifically mentioned are so free and those that are not do not have that freedom. It is one of the tragedies of our world today that these gentle people, the Baha'is, do not exist according to the constitution of Iran. Because they do not exist, they are thought to be heretics and they suffer from seizure of property and destruction of their places of worship. The marriages of Baha'is by Baha'i rites are not recognised. Those who marry in the high churches are considered to be living in adultery and are therefore subject to all the penalties of a Moslem country for that sin. Their children are denied education and their adults are subject to arbitrary imprisonment. Over the first eight years or so of the regime they have been subject to most appallingly cruel executions for their religious beliefs.
These happenings have given rise to a flood of protest in the world. Noble Lords have expressed their disgust in this House, and the press has contained many examples. The United Nations has given considerable attention to the problem. The special representative of the UN has recently published yet another report concluding that oppression of the Baha'is continues to this day. On 8th December—only six days ago—yet another resolution of the UN condemned the oppression still existing in Iran.
Is the picture hopeless? I hardly dare to breathe the words, but there could conceivably be the first hint of a pre-dawn light. Perhaps I may quote from a letter by a Baha'i to myself. It states:
"The Iranian government …appears to have concluded that their efforts to improve relations with the community of nations could he assisted by a reduction in the persecution to which the Baha'i minority in Iran has been subject over the past nine years".
Various people whom I know, who have access to information which appears to be reliable, for the first time have the feeling that over the past 12 months or so the pressure has very slightly eased. The numbers in prison have gone down slightly. There are now believed to be 129 still in gaol on religious grounds. The Baha'i children have begun to be readmitted to the schools. Perhaps there is the first hint of light.
It gives me therefore great pleasure to pass on to Her Majesty's Government, as I have been asked to do, the thanks of the Baha'is of the United Kingdom. Their words are:
"The United Kingdom can be said to have played a strong positive role in the adoption of the resolution"—
passed on 8th December in the United Nations—
"and we would be grateful if you would express on our behalf our genuine appreciation for the supportive position taken by our government. We know of the complexities that surround such issues and are all the more grateful for our government's resolute support in this matter".
To that I am happy to add my own support. I hope that this gratitude will encourage Her Majesty's Government to maintain pressure of representations in any way they can for a full restitution of civil rights to the Baha'is in Iran.
I understand that we are shortly to have a new ambassador in Iran. Perhaps he will take the opportunity to continue to press the Government's view on the freedom of the Baha'is. He might also

999
take the opportunity to point out that the strength of a regime is never shown by its arbitrary severity. It has been very common in human history that when a revolutionary movement takes power it tends to use strong-arm tactics to show how "macho" it is. However, that does not show real strength. We should express to the regime in Iran that if it wishes to be respected as having strength and maturity, then the real hallmark of maturity, strength, civilisation and confidence in a government is the tolerance and compassion which it shows to the least of its own minorities.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, there cannot possibly be any reason for persecuting the Baha'is. I hope that noble Lords are now disabused of the idea that they are a remote Middle Eastern sect. There are small, flourishing communities of the Baha'i in both Orkney and Shetland. They play a very valuable part in that they are attempting to synthesise the religions of the world and not to create difficulties between them.
We are indeed grateful to the noble Viscount for initiating this debate. Let no one say that these matters that are taking place all over the world are no concern of ours. In this sphere, no man is an island. Just as we feel for the Armenians and their troubles, so we should feel for the millions of people who at this moment are suffering the horrors of persecution—persecution on a scale worse than that of Armenia and in some cases persecution which has gone on far longer. From a more, if one likes, selfish view, the persecution of Jews has haunted this century ever since Hitler. We are all involved in the troubles which stem from attacks on human beings all over the world.
For some years I was chairman of the Minority Rights Group. We amassed a considerable amount of information about minorities in different countries. The difficulty is to get anyone to act on the information. I should first like to ask whether the Government have any proposals to put before the United Nations or other international bodies for monitoring and acting upon the wrongs of minorities.
As has been said this evening, one of the most appalling wrongs which minorities have suffered is what is being done to the Kurds in Iraq. I hope that we shall have a clear explanation, withdrawal and apology, if necessary, from the Government if it is true that we are supplying Iraq with the means, credit and so forth, to carry on that persecution, because that is what it amounts to.
There is a good deal which wealthy nations can do to help minorities. In my youth it was the traders in arms, particularly Sir Basil Zaharoff, who were condemned for creating war and persecution in different countries. I am afraid to say that it is now very often governments who stand behind the arms trade and who are frightened to take what action they can for fear of losing trade. Surely there are some matters in the world which are more important than trade, although in this country one might think that trade is by far the most important matter with which the Government have to deal.
1000
We should like to know what the Government have done, as regards Tibet. They appear to have contacted the Chinese. What progress have they made in stopping the persecution in Tibet? Hungarians are being persecuted in Rumania and one could also mention that in speaking to the leading Russians.
The particular matter with which I am currently concerned is Ethiopia as I am a vice-president of the British Horn of Africa Council. As your Lordships will know, Ethiopia has been under a Marxist government for some time. Tyranny and cruelty of all sorts have been perpetrated. Lately a particularly horrible event has been reported. It is said that 80,000 people have been forced to leave their homes around She'eb. As has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, those are people from Eritrea who at present are forcibly incorporated into Ethiopia. Four hundred of them were rounded up and crushed to death with tanks. Old men were locked in huts and the huts burnt. Children were driven out and thrown over precipices.
That is a country to which the western nations send aid. One thing which we could do would be to represent to our European friends that long-term aid to Ethiopia should stop unless it shows some attention to human rights, which, after all, is stipulated, as I understand it, within the recital of the Lomé Convention. Further, the 45th session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission will soon meet. I should like to know whether the Government will raise the question of Ethiopia at that session.
Further, Russia is the main supporter of Ethiopia. As we are on good terms with Russia, we should raise the question as to what Russia will do with its new-found enthusiasm for human rights in order to use its influence to stop the atrocities in Ethiopia, which is very much under its protection and to a great extent is economically supported by it.
As I say, all over the world those atrocities continue and we have heard about them this evening; and yet the western nations seem unable to do anything about it. There are great difficulties about minorities, and I speak as someone who was chairman of the Minority Rights Group. It is not as impossible as governments like to think, because they are really terrified of losing trade. That is the basis of many of their attitudes to this.
If one wants to see the disastrous results of internal western politics on this matter, perhaps we should consider the banning of Arafat from appearing in America before the United Nations. That is a matter where our Government come out with no credit whatever. Their excuses were lame to say the least of it and dishonest into the bargain. That Arafat should be denied entry to the United Nations purely for internal reasons of the United States political scene is a scandal not only to the United States but also to the West. I hope that at the end of this debate the Government will not spend time wringing their hands or telling us what they have done—and I fully accept that they have taken some action. I hope they will tell us what they are now going to do in the the face of these appalling events about which we have been told from all over the House tonight.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, for his initiative in bringing to the forefront of our minds the great issue of human rights. Perhaps I may say that it has led to a notable debate in this House in which the wings of noble Lords have been spread over a great deal of the world in the cause of pleading for something to be done to rescue and relieve those suffering from breaches of human rights.
I congratulate the noble Viscount on his foresight in enabling the great theme of human rights to be discussed in the House so near the celebration on 10th December of Human Rights Day—the day on which in 1948 members of the United Nations declared that every human being, wherever he or she may be, is entitled to basic human and inalienable rights and when the governments of the world then pledged themselves not only to respect those rights in their own countries but to protect and promote them in all countries.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was followed by two covenants on human rights, one covering economic, social and cultural rights and the other covering civil and political rights—both in terms binding on ratifying states. Regional human rights conventions have followed in different parts of the world.
The significance of those measures in international law was brilliantly expounded by Paul Sieghart in his book The International Law of Human Rights. He called it
"a revolution in human affairs comparable with those of 1789, 1848 and 1917; namely, the birth of international human rights law."
It was a cause to which he gave and dedicated much of his life. Sadly, he died on Monday, championing human rights and justice to the very end in a speech which I heard him make a few hours before he died. I am deeply grateful, as is the House, to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his tribute to Paul who was a friend of so many of us.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, what was agreed and accomplished 40 years ago was in legal terms, as Paul wrote, indeed revolutionary. The accepted article of faith and legal doctrine until then was that the way in which a sovereign state treated its own citizens was a matter only and exclusively for its own sovereign determination.
Following the various treaties and conventions solemnly entered into by governments, including our own, when the war ended that was no longer the case. How governments treated their own subjects was, from then on, rightly the legitimate concern of all mankind and of international law itself. What is more, the actions of governments are now capable of being judged by the test of common standards of internationally agreed and legally binding rules, known now as international human rights law. If I may say so, it was good to hear the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, with his wide and distinguished record in human rights, speaking on these matters. The individual, wherever he or she may be, is no longer a
1002
mere object of compassion but a subject of rights. International law now reaches down to individual men, women and children.
The crucial question remains: what actual practical difference has this law made to the behaviour of governments? Alas, as the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, and others in their eloquent speeches have indicated, very little. We have heard that violations of human rights' law are taking place all over the world in varying degrees of gravity.
A major difficulty is that there are few, if any, executive bodies at international level capable of enforcing this human rights' law against governments which are in breach of the law. The separate states into which the world is still divided boast of their sovereignty and still, alas, have the monopoly over the means of coercion of the offenders and enforcement of the law against them.
The question that has been asked, and upon which I wish to dwell, is: what steps are being taken by the United Nations and its agencies to create and operate mechanisms of enforcement against the offenders? Has it any emergency machinery? I know of none, but there ought to be.
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights is the central human rights body at the United Nations. For how long do its annual sessions last? I have the impression that they are not anything like long enough. In its 44th session at the beginning of this year the commission, which is composed of 43 governments who are elected by the Economic and Social Council, adopted without a vote a resolution calling for the release of those it termed "political prisoners". I am happy to say that the resolution was introduced by the United Kingdom Government. Political prisoners were defined as those people detained in many parts of the world for,
"seeking peacefully to exercise their human rights and fundamental freedoms, including not only the right to freedom of expression but also freedom of assembly, association and participation in public affairs."
As it is formulated, that resolution covers many of the prisoners of conscience who are of particular concern to Amnesty International, which has done notable work in this field.
Has any working group been set up to examine progress in this field? Perhaps the Minister can answer that question for us. Has a special rapporteur been appointed to investigate and report upon the matter? Is there any prospect that that will be done in any future sessions of the commission? If not, the resolution may be merely a statement of pious intent and nothing else.
Since 1980 the United Nations working group on enforced or involuntary disappearances has acted on more than 15,000 "disappearances" in over 40 countries. Can the Minister say—not in any detail, of course, but broadly speaking—what success was achieved? In 1987 the United Nations working group intervened in more than 1,000 new cases in 14 countries. Again, I wonder what the result was.
The special rapporteur on summary and arbitrary executions has approached 60 governments to try to prevent threatened executions. Were any of those approaches successful? I hope they were. I shall await

1003
to hear what the Minister says. I thought it right to give him notice of some of these questions because to shoot them out without warning would not be helpful to the House.
The special rapporteur on torture has tried to stop torture in more than 30 countries. Alas, the wicked evil of torture continues. The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, which to my surprise I learned functions in a Hampstead hospital, reports that although torture is banned in international law, it is practised in over one-third of the countries of the world. It is not simply the exercise of sadism by individual torturers, bad enough though that is, but it is often used deliberately by governments to suppress dissent through coercion and terror.
That foundation reports, "Torture knows no frontiers." It lists 32 countries, widely varied in their political and ideological affiliations, from which patients who attend that hospital come for treatment. The Dutch have a rehabilitation centre attached to the University College Hospital of Copenhagen where torture survivors are treated after an appeal from Amnesty International to doctors around the world.
I was happy to learn today—I missed it in the press, I am sorry to say—that the Government have ratified the United Nations convention against torture, and did so on 8th December. However, why was no declaration made by the Government under Article 22 of the convention, which I believe allows for the right of petition? For some reason they have not included that in their ratification of the convention. I submit that that should have been done in order to recognise the competence of the Committee against Torture.
Another matter of grave concern mentioned by one or two noble Lords is the number of reports that slavery continues to be practised in certain African countries. The House would like to know what steps the Government are taking in that respect. For example, have reports of enslavement of members of the African Dinka ethnic group in Southern Sudan been made to the United Nations or our Foreign Office.
As it has been reported by Amnesty International, is it the case that slaves are selling for £30 a head in the Sudan? Noble Lords have raised their own particular concerns and interests about other territories and other peoples. We would like an assurance as to the actual concern and involvement by the Foreign Office in and about the United Nations itself and particularly by communication and protest and whatever action is possible against the offending governments.
Persecution and the killing off of minority groups tragically still occurs. My noble friend Lord Kilbracken and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and others, have spoken of that and in particular of the suffering of the Iraqi Kurds and the appalling fact of aerial gas attacks. That takes us back to the evils of Mussolini in Ethiopia itself which has left a terrible mark upon the outlook and the fate of the unfortunate Ethiopian people. They are a splendid,
1004
lovely people. I had the pleasure of doing a case there many years ago. They are a delightful people suffering hell.
In its report, Amnesty International has indicated that in scores of countries governments pursue their goals by kidnapping and murdering their own citizens. In very many countries large numbers of their inhabitants are locked away for speaking their mind, often after sham trials. Mercifully, the struggle to enjoy human rights is not always lost. As has been said, there is room for good cheer in the Soviet Union but not, alas, in the territories of Iran, Uganda and possibly Turkey as well. The Prime Minister registered a remarkable vote of confidence in the Prime Minister after her return from Turkey when the information that one receives from there is by no means reassuring.
Apart from the actions of the United Nations, public opinion is a vital factor in this field. Dictators fear it and do their best to control it. One noble Lord has spoken of the manipulation of facts. Experience has shown that even the most repressive governments are sensitive to international pressure. Here the world-wide human rights movement is playing a vital part. Amnesty International has groups of volunteers working in almost all countries. There are more than 8,000 other human rights organisations in different parts of the world campaigning for human rights.
The exposure of offending governments to the glare of international publicity is a valuable weapon against the oppressor. It is good that the human race is to that extent very alert to what is happening. A large number of non-governmental human rights organisations, as I have said, are ready to expose human rights violations. To indicate the extent of it, 113 such organisations from all over the world attended this year's meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.
There is much more that needs to be done. One noble Lord has referred to the need for a proper system of monitoring by the United Nations and its agencies of these infringements and of enforcement of the law of human rights. Is there a particular machinery that has responsibility for that? As Ben Whitaker, the United Kingdom expert and member of the United Nations human rights sub-committee, has mentioned, do we not need to emphasise the individual responsibility of the torturers? They do not like at all the idea of being named. One day the law may catch up with them if we have the machinery. Ben Whitaker has suggested a world-wide United Nations inspectorate of prisons and police interrogation centres set up perhaps initially through the International Red Cross. Is that a practical possibility? It sounds a very dramatic and splendid concept to my mind. Perhaps something may be done in that field.
Reliable information is essential for the campaign for human rights to work. For instance, at present there is no independent press or source of information to report on situations in several of the states that are mentoned. I identify North Korea or Albania as enjoying the benefit of the lack of publicity as regards what goes on in the field of human rights. Peoples of the world still look

1005
anxiously for signs that the time for the world enjoyment of human rights has come. It has not come yet.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, would have found it impossible, I believe, to find a more opportune moment to initiate this debate. Many of your Lordships have referred to the 40th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which we celebrated on 10th December. I too should like to pay tribute to this declaration, particularly in the context of this debate, since for the past four decades the declaration has been of fundamental importance to the international community's efforts to promote respect for human rights.
I should also like to be associated with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, among others, about the death of Mr. Paul Sieghart. His death is indeed a sad affair. I gladly acknowledge the work that he has done in this most important field. He will be much missed.
The Universal Declaration was first a symbol of the determination of governments to protect human rights world-wide. It reflected the aspirations of the founders of the United Nations itself. Secondly, it elaborated a vital and new principle: that the international community has a shared responsibility to promote respect for human rights. It removed from governments the excuse that external comment on internal repression in other countries is interference, though sadly we still hear versions of that phrase far too often today. For the first time, on 10th December 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights set standards which were recognised universally, and against which all nations are judged.
To demonstrate the importance which we attach to the Universal Declaration, we have marked the occasion of its 40th anniversary in a number of ways to which I should like briefly to refer. Most important, we introduced agreed amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill earlier this year which allowed us to ratify the United Nations convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs himself deposited the instrument of ratification with the United Nations Secretary General on 8th December shortly before addressing the special session of the United Nations General Assembly which met in New York on that day to celebrate the anniversary. We will play our part in helping to ensure that the committee against torture works effectively to eliminate torture globally.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, for giving me notice that he intended to ask a number of questions. I shall cover as many of them as I can. He asked in particular about the effectiveness of the United Nations in this regard. I entirely agree with him that what matters is the implementation of international human rights standards. We believe that the United Nations plays an increasingly effective role in promoting respect for
1006
human rights. The United Nations focuses attention on governments, making it harder for those who abuse the rights of their own citizens to escape the glare of international publicity and condemnation.
The Commission on Human Rights is particularly useful in this respect not least because it provides a most useful focus for non-governmental organisations such as Amnesty International. The commission may meet for only a few weeks a year but it has evolved increasingly effective machinery which operates all year round. That is important. We strongly support the system of thematic and country rapporteurs and believe that they have been of practical assistance in promoting the implementation of existing standards.
The noble and learned Lord referred to two particular rapporteurs—for torture and for disappearances. The special rapporteur for torture was appointed in 1985 by the commission to investigate allegations of this particularly horrific abuse. We have strongly supported his reappointment each year and will continue to do so. The entry into force of the convention against torture has not removed the need for such a rapporteur. The committee against torture can only monitor the performance of states party to that convention—presently 38 in number. The rapporteur has a mandate from the United Nations to investigate allegations of torture wherever they might arise. We believe that his appeals to governments, like those of other rapporteurs and the working group on disappearances, have on occasion brought practical results. We shall continue to urge all governments to co-operate with the United Nations mechanism.
The resolution on political prisoners which we introduced at this year's commission was adopted by consensus. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary made clear in his statement to the commission that we wish to see set up an appropriate mechanism, such as another special rapporteur, to focus on the problems of political prisoners throughout the world. Perhaps at this moment I may also refer to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord about slavery. We deplore the practice of slavery in all its forms and wherever in the world it is alleged to be going on. Although slavery is illegal throughout the world we are concerned to hear that slavery and the slave trade still exist in some places. The United Kingdom co-sponsored a resolution at this year's Commission on Human Rights which addressed the problems of slavery, including contemporary forms of slavery. The resolution recommended the appointment of a special rapporteur to look into ways of preventing and suppressing slave-like practices.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the subject of special rapporteurs, will he comment on the notion that a special rapporteur might be appointed to look at the use or the threatened use of chemical weapons against civilian populations?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, perhaps I may come back to that point in a moment when I deal specifically with the Kurds and the alleged Iraqi use of chemical weapons. I shall endeavour to do that.

1007
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was and remains a remarkable achievement. The British Government described it on its adoption as "a milestone on the road to human progress". I think that assessment has stood the test of time. And yet the human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals continue to be violated all over the world—a sad reality. We are firmly committed to the promotion and protection of human rights and seek universal observance of the standards which have been agreed internationally for that purpose. We are concerned about human rights abuses wherever they occur and whatever form they take and regularly raise such problems in our bilateral contacts with other governments, in joint demarches with our European Community partners and in international fora such as the United Nations. Our position was set out clearly in the statement agreed by Foreign Ministers of the Twelve on 21st July 1986.
We will continue to take a clear stand with other governments on human rights issues, in public and in private. Our objective is always to secure actual improvements for the victims of human rights abuses. We believe that discreet and confidential approaches are sometimes more likely to achieve this objective than public statements. We must also be ready to recognise improvements where they are established and to encourage further progress. If we are not prepared to do so we cannot expect the blame we hand out to be taken seriously.
I should like to turn now to the situation in the three countries referred to in the Motion and then come on to some others. I listened with care to the comments of the noble Viscount about the position in Uganda and noted his suggestion that a commission of inquiry be established. We have all very much welcomed the considerable improvement in Uganda's human rights record since the present Government took power in January 1986. In view of Uganda's tragic recent history, we are encouraged to see the priority now given to the re-establishment and maintenance of respect for human rights.
We have welcomed President Museveni's regular public statements of his commitment to this goal. He has shown his commitment in practical ways, such as the establishment of human rights commission, an amnesty for rebels, the release from Luzira and other prisons earlier this year of nearly 2,000 detainees, and the severe punishment of human rights offenders when detected. Under him, Uganda has become a party to most of the main international instruments on human rights.
At the same time we recognise that the Ugandan Government continue to face serious security problems in the north and east. There is continued armed insurgency there. It is naturally very difficult to be sure what exactly is happening in these areas on the ground. We are, however, aware that allegations have been made about human rights abuses committed by both government and rebel forces.
We of course treat these reports with serious concern. The Ugandan Government know this; we enjoy a good dialogue with them on these matters. My right honourable and learned friend the Secretary
1008
of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had the opportunity to discuss this very issue with President Museveni during his visit to Uganda in September.
We are also seeking to help in practical ways. We are giving Uganda considerable assistance in training its police force to resume responsibility for civil security. We have provided a large amount of equipment to help them do so. We are also giving help to the Ugandan judiciary by providing a supreme court judge and by contributing to the reprinting of Ugandan laws.
All these things are designed to help ensure that the improvement I spoke about earlier will be consolidated. And, where necessary, we shall not hesitate to continue to let the Ugandan Government know that we expect them to uphold their public commitments to the rule of law and respect for human rights.
Recent reports of executions in Iran are a matter of considerable concern to the Government. We have consistently condemned violations of human rights in Iran, bilaterally, in concert with our European partners and as members of the wider international community.
On 8th December, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution on human rights in Iran which, among other points, urged the Government of Iran to respect the international covenant on civil and political rights, to which the Islamic Republic of Iran is a party. The United Kingdom was a co-sponsor of this resolution and played an active part in its drafting and negotiation. We shall continue to make clear our concern at human rights violations in Iran for as long as they occur. At the same time, we welcomed the expressed commitment of the Government of Iran at the United Nations to co-operate fully with the UN special representative to enable him to investigate and report upon allegations of human rights abuse in Iran. We hope that this commitment will be fulfilled.
The noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, asked about the Baha'is in Iran. The persecution of Baha'is is a continuing cause of concern. We shall continue to urge the Iranian authorities to ensure that human rights of all minorities are respected. I am glad that the Baha'i community is pleased with the action we have taken and will continue to take.
We very much welcome the progress which is being made in Chile to return that country to its former democratic tradition. We and our partners in the Twelve have been encouraged by the exemplary conduct of the 5th October presidential plebiscite, by the Chilean Government's speedy acceptance of the result, by the lifting of the state of emergency and by the end of the prohibition on the return of exiles.
Those are all positive steps and we have admired the great sense of responsibility shown by all the Chilean people in recent months. It would be wrong not to recognise this process. The armed forces have now more recently begun the process of withdrawing from government. This, we all hope, will culminate in orderly and peaceful presidential and parliamentary elections in December next year and the installation

1009
of an elected civilian president and government in March 1990.
We regard the restoration of democracy in Chile as the best guarantee of full respect for human rights in that country. Some progress in human rights has been made in Chile over the past few years, but so much more needs to be done. We remain seriously concerned about continuing violations, allegations of torture, the harsh system of military justice, the lack of full independence of the judiciary, the prolonged periods some prisoners are held, sometimes many years, without trial, and intimidation—particularly of people who are working to promote respect for human rights. We condemn these abuses.
I can assure your Lordships that the British Government are not slow to draw their concern directly to the attention of the Chilean authorities. We do so frequently, in the hope of encouraging change, and will continue to do so as long as violations persist. It is, for example, a matter of deep regret to the British Government that Señora Ledy Castro Urra, a Chilean lady whose husband and son reside in the United Kingdom, is now serving her fifth year in detention without any trial whatsoever. It is of concern to Her Majesty's Government that the Chilean authorities have so far failed to respond to representations on this matter.
But it would be wrong for any of us to be blind to the destructive terrorism which continues in the face of the advances which have been made towards a restoration of democracy in that country. As the United Nations special rapporteur, Senor Volio, has pointed out in his most recent report:
"Terrorism remains a formidable obstacle to the enjoyment of human rights in Chile".
The British Government fully agree with him and roundly condemn terrorism in all its ugly forms in Chile as elsewhere. It invites repression and does nothing to advance the cause of the vast majority of Chileans who want peaceful change.
In this debate we have not covered all the countries in which human rights abuses occur, though, judging by the amount of paper which I have here, I feel that we have gone a very long way towards that point. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, gave a masterly and all too depressing review of human rights abuses worldwide. Perhaps I may concentrate on one particular aspect, because I have some recent personal experience in the matter.
The noble Lord referred briefly to the Chittagong hill tracts in Bangladesh. I visited them only last week. While there I took the opportunity to make clear to the Bangladesh authorities the level of concern in this country about alleged abuses of rights of the tribal population there. I must say to the noble Lord that I was encouraged to find that those to whom I spoke were sensitive to this concern and were aware of the need to find a political solution to the current problems. Indeed, I was impressed by the activities which they are undertaking in order to bring this about. I thought that I should mention that fact to the noble Lord because, having been there only last Tuesday, it seemed to me that it was specially germane to the issue.
1010
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also touched on Tibet. Let me begin by saying how saddened I was to hear reports of new disturbances and loss of life in Lhasa. Her Majesty's Government have made clear to the Chinese Government the concern of people in this country, and in your Lordships' House, about Tibet. Both my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister raised the subject of Tibet with the then Chinese Foreign Minister, Mr. Wu Xueqian, when he was here in March this year. Moreover, I have taken up the subject with Chinese Ministers in Peking.
It is difficult, because of the remoteness and isolation, to know precisely what is going on in that country. Indeed, there may be some exaggeration on both sides. Nevertheless, the noble Lord has made a point and I can assure him that we shall continue to raise the matter as and when appropriate. It is important for the Government of China to work constructively with the Tibetan people, including the Dalai Lama, in the search for a political settlement.
The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, said that he would not mention the Soviet Union and then promptly did so. I shall be brief on the matter and say that the human rights situation in that country has improved in the past year. I think that that is very much in tune with President Gorbachev's long-term attempts to civilise Soviet society. However, not all problems have disappeared. For example, the KGB remains largely untouched by glasnost and perestroika. Few arrests on political grounds have taken place but other abuses, such as violent assaults on activists, have continued. Glasnost itself continues to be selectively applied. We are looking for fundamental and lasting change in the Soviet Union to allow all Soviet citizens to enjoy the full range of human rights and freedoms.
The noble Earl, Long Longford, referred especially to the Irish situation and human rights. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him in his remarks about the Ryan affair. I shall simply say to him that it is important that a balance is struck—it always has to be in such cases, as the European Commission on Human Rights has recognised—between the protection of individual rights and the need to defend democratic societies against the threats posed by organised terrorism. I do not believe that those matters will ever be very easy to reconcile, and individual cases will crop up. Indeed we can all think of cases where we might feel that the balance had tilted one way rather than the other. However that balance is an important one to strike and I hope that the noble Earl will agree that that is what we strive to achieve.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot just sit here and allow that to be said. I do not agree for a moment with that.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Earl may not agree but the fact is that a balance must be struck in such matters; that is what we try to achieve. I do not believe for one minute that the noble Earl can claim that in our attempts to meet the horrifying effects of terrorism, of which the noble Earl is fully

1011
aware, that we have in any sense denied human rights to the extent which he indicated in his speech this evening.
I turn now to the issue of the minorities which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Grimond. Both noble Lords are quite right to draw our attention to the plight of minorities, whether they be Kurds in Iraq or whatever. I note the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that a special rapporteur might be established to examine allegations of CW (chemical warfare) use. We took the matter to the UN and pressed for an independent investigation. However, I regret to say that the proposal received insufficient support.
As regards proposals which might be put before the UN to protect the rights of minorities—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond—there is no shortage of rights on the international statute book. The problem, as I think we all agree, is actually enforcing them. We fully support the work of the sub-commission of the Human Rights Commission which is tasked to investigate abuses of such rights. Moreover, I am glad to say that a highly qualified independent British member was elected to that body last year.
So far as Ethiopia is concerned, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that we shall be raising the matter of the situation in that country—about which we share his concerns—at the next meeting of the Commission on Human Rights in February next year.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord may recall that he wrote to me saying that it was not a good idea to have this put on the agenda of the 45th meeting of the Human Rights Commission, because when the United States attempted to do so in 1986, with UK support, it was voted down. He said that he did not think it was a good idea for such a Motion to be defeated on two successive occasions because he thought that that might lead the Ethiopians to be able to claim that their human rights record had been vindicated. Therefore I am not sure that he is right in saying that the 45th meeting of the Human Rights Commission provides us with the opportunity of exposing the record of the Ethiopians.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, perhaps I may look at my last letter to the noble Lord and reply to him in the light of his remarks and what I have just said about my understanding that we can raise the situation again next time. Of course I shall place a copy of the letter in the Library.
I turn now to the important matter of Iraq and the Kurds raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbacken. I can assure him that we are deeply concerned at Iraqi actions against the Kurdish people. I have referred to the issue on more than one occasion in your
1012
Lordships' House. Reports of chemical use are one, but sadly not the only, major humanitarian problem there.
My right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary stressed our concern to the Iraqi Minister of State and described the use of chemical warfare as uniquely barbaric. However, I cannot accept the noble Lord's view that to isolate Iraq or to impose sanctions would encourage it to improve its behaviour any more than it would do on a number of other occasions, because it is important that we maintain our contacts and use them to impress upon the Iraqi Government the unacceptability of their behaviour.
We shall ensure that that issue is kept permanently on the international agenda. I shall make it absolutely clear that we do not allow the export of equipment which might be used for internal repression.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, mentioned Western Sahara. I can assure him that that conflict is far from forgotten. We fully support the efforts of the UN Secretary General to mediate in that long dispute. We have welcomed the encouraging indications of progress in recent months.
It would be impossible to cover every country and wrong of me to do so in the time available for a short debate. I hope that what I have been able to say has reassured your Lordships that we remain deeply concerned about human rights abuses wherever they occur and we take a firm stand with governments on human rights issues. We recognise this to be a responsibility handed down to us by those who, 40 years ago, set out the Universal Declaration.
It is not a matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, suggested, of Her Majesty's Government wringing their hands on such an issue. It is a responsibility which we try to fulfil as impartially as possible and we believe that our approach to human rights is coherent, consistent and constructive. We shall continue to play an active part in multilateral human rights fora and to work towards our objective, which is to secure the maximum improvements for the victims of abuse.
7.53 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this interesting and wide-ranging debate. I am especially grateful to the Minister for his encouraging reply. I did state in my little note that I should refer briefly to the Soviet Union. I am glad that he picked up that point. It was especially interesting to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and other noble Lords who have first-hand experience, as I have, of that horrible problem. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at six minutes before eight o'clock.

  SOUTH GEORGIA: MARINE CONSERVATION
  SOUTH GEORGIA: MARINE CONSERVATION
  HOUSING ASSOCIATION TENANTS AND RIGHT-TO-BUY
  HOUSING ASSOCIATION TENANTS AND RIGHT-TO-BUY
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC
  COMMUNITY CHARGE: INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC
  HOUSING CORPORATION: DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
  HOUSING CORPORATION: DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
  M.54 SERVICE AREA
  M.54 SERVICE AREA
  IMMIGRATION CASES: GUIDELINES FOR REPRESENTATIONS
  IMMIGRATION CASES: GUIDELINES FOR REPRESENTATIONS
  DEPORTATION STATISTICS
  DEPORTATION STATISTICS