Sitting of 21 December 1988

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

    Bus Companies (Takeover)
    Dr. Reid: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what safeguards he intends to introduce to protect Scottish Bus Group companies against predatory takeover.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The best way of promoting local control is to have strong, viable companies in which there is a significant stake by the employees or established locally based companies.
    Dr. Reid: Is the Minister not ashamed of that vacuous answer? Does he not realise that the real dangers of predatory takeovers are monopolisation and, perhaps, bus firms being run by cowboy outfits? What steps does the Minister propose to ensure that there are some safeguards for the travelling public and for the workers in the industry? In the absence of any safeguards, what kind of competition policy is it that allows even the possibility of a vital public service being transformed into a private monopoly, perhaps controlled by people who are resident thousands of miles away from the customers whom they serve?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It will be open to any company to put in a bid. I make it clear that, while no guarantees as to future ownership can be given, we want as much as possible to encourage management-employee buy-outs. The price offered will not be the only factor in assessing bids. Competition and the extent of employee participation will also be important. Preference will be given to management-employee buy-out schemes, but the scale of the preference has yet to be determined.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: Does the Minister have any plans to consider putting in the remit of the Scottish Transport Users Consultative Committee a provision to include buses, in view of the imminent privatisation proposals?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is a Department of Trade and Industry Committee, but I shall certainly pass on the hon. Lady's comment concerning the remit.
    Mr. Roger King: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is only right and proper commercially that businesses with a common interest should work together in providing the services that the community needs, either in partnership or in a form of ownership of the companies?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Most certainly. I believe that our thinking has developed considerably since the National Bus Company privatisation. At that time there were a large number of management buyouts, but I believe there were only two management-employee buyouts. We are anxious to encourage management-employee buyouts. A recent poll of people working in the industry in Scotland shows that more than 70 per cent. are in favour of them.
    Mr. Wilson: The Minister has again paid lip-service to the encouragement of management-employee buyouts, without announcing any initiatives which would give them a reasonble prospect of success. Will the Minister show his sincerity by guaranteeing that those involved in buy-out initiatives will have the opportunity to acquire those companies before bids are invited from the open market? Does he acknowledge that that is what has happened in Grampian? Will he admit that, without the legislation being thus weighted towards employee buyouts, they will be involved in an unequal struggle with the giants of the bus industry?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to Grampian. My right hon. and learned Friend has made it clear in a letter to Grampian that that approval has been given. He will be glad to hear that Strathclyde has come out in favour of management-employee buyouts. Councillor Malcolm Waugh said:
    "I am quite confident we will go ahead."
    While there is no guarantee, we are anxious to encourage management-employee buyouts. We shall give financial assistance that amounts to an indemnity of 75 per cent. of fees, up to a maximum of £60.,000, which means maximum assistance of £48,750. Hon. Members have heard, too that we shall be arranging video presentations and seminars.

    "A Claim of Right for Scotland"
    Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received a copy of the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly document, "Claim of Right for Scotland"; and if he will make a statement on his policy towards the matters raised in the document.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I have received a copy of the document. The Government are deeply committed to the unity of the United Kingdom, and we do not believe that Scotland would benefit from an additional layer of government. The purpose of the meeting proposed by the campaign is simply to discuss how to carry forward certain conclusions which have already been reached by the organisers. Since it is not intended as a genuine debate on the merits and demerits of the constitutional changes which they have in mind I consider that it would not be appropriate for the Government to be represented.
    Mr. Galloway: Is the Secretary of State aware of the dismay and disappointment with which his reply will be met in Scotland? In the light of last evening's events and his undoubted scrutiny of the media this morning, is the Secretary of State aware of just how isolated he and his Government are becoming on this question? With all the respect to which his great office is entitled, I ask him whether he will begin to put his country before his party?
    Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman believes that the Conservative party is isolated, it appears that he also believes that his Front Bench is isolated because on 12 November this year he was quoted as saying:
    "It is the leadership that chose the Front Bench. They dictate the key policies and the strategy. We tried it their way —and it has gone devastatingly wrong."
    Mr. Bill Walker: The question refers to rights, but it makes no mention of duties, responsibilities or accountability. It is important that any measure that any Government in this Chamber thinks that they can get through Parliament takes into acount the fact that more than nine of 10 of the people living in the United Kingdom live outside of Scotland. Ministers on every Front Bench who are responsible to this unitary Parliament must take that into account before they bring forward measures to change the unitary system.
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is certainly correct. I believe that any constitutional reform within the United Kingdom must be of a type that would strengthen the United Kingdom as a whole. The proposals for unilateral devolution are unlikely to achieve that result.
    Mr. Sillars: May I refer the Governor-General to his earlier reply—
    An Hon. Member: You should regard him as a friend.
    Mr. Sillars: On a personal level, but not politically.
    He said that the reason the Tory party will not be represented at the potential convention organised by the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly is that the Government believe that the outcome is pre-determined. Why will he not give an affirmative answer to the request for the Government to support an elected constitutional convention that would be open to every point of view and would not have a pre-determined outcome? Why are the Government afraid to give the Scottish people the opportunity to decide their own future?
    Mr. Rifkind: We have a continuing debate on these matters and there is no need for pressure groups to organise meetings to which they give grandiose titles. It is possible for such debates to take place in this Chamber and in Scotland as they have for many years. The idea that some new meeting is required to achieve a purpose that has already been identified by the organisers of the meeting shows how bogus the exercise is.
    Mr. Barry Field: My right hon. and learned Friend should answer the sterile arguments that we are hearing from the Opposition about English Members being involved in Scottish Questions by pointing out that only two offshore islands are administered by the English Civil Service—I represent one and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) represents the other. We want to know why it is that the Scottish Highlands and Islands Development Board has such a main line into the pockets of the British taxpayer and why it does so well through the generosity of the Government?
    Mr. Rifkind: The Highlands and Islands Development Board—
    Mr. Sillars: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the point of order arise out of the question?
    Mr. Sillars: Yes. If you, Mr. Speaker, are to call English Members of Parliament, could we have an interpreter because, quite frequently, I cannot understand them.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's question was in order.
    Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been in this House for more than 20 years and I have attempted, on occasions, to raise a point of order during Question Time. This is the first time that I have known you to allow a point of order at this time. Is this now the custom of the House.
    Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman had been hear earlier this week he would have heard my ruling when I said that matters needing immediate attention should always be raised at once.
    Mr. Buchan rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That has always been the position and, as the House well knows, that is the position in debates as well.
    Mr. Buchan rose—
    Mr. Rifkind rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Rifkind: If I may respond to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), the Highlands and Islands Development Board has received generous treatment from the Government because we have always recognised that the needs of the north of Scotland are specific to that area and that the area has a fragile economy. It is a matter of great pleasure that over the past 20 years the population of the Highlands and Islands has for the first time for a century begun to increase.
    Mr. Dewar: May I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I thought that his initial response was a series of rather arrogant assumptions about the motives of those involved in the constitutional convention. That response did him little credit. Is it not the duty of responsible politicians in Scotland to examine the possibilities and argue their corner in the very lively and important debate on the future Government of this country? While I recognise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has a personal difficulty in that he is trapped by the policies of his party, does he accept that it is time that he broke out of the trap and recognised the very strong wish of Scots to have a greater say in their own affairs and in the framework of the United Kingdom? Can I take it from his earlier reply—and I would be sorry if this were so —that he has departed from the position that he has outlined in the past, that his main objection to some form of devolution of power is simply that he is unconvinced that the majority of the people of Scotland want it?
    Mr. Rifkind: The duty of hon. Members in this House is to take part in the debates of this House and not, like the grand old Duke of York, lead their hon. Friends out and then lead them back in again—
    Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. No. We are in the middle of the answer.
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman supports the so-called convention organised by the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly and the document which it produced. As a Unionist is he not occasionally uncomfortable associating himself with the campaign document which refers to the Union in the following terms:
    "The United Kingdom has been an anomaly from its inception and is a glaring anomaly now."
    I can understand why Nationalist hon. Members support that analysis. However, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is playing with fire if he associates with that kind of analysis.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many public sector houses have been sold under the right to buy; what is the current level of applications; and if he will make a statement.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Between April 1979 and September 1988, about 133,000 public sector houses in Scotland have been sold to sitting tenants under the right-to-buy legislation and voluntary sales. Some 4,500 applications per month have been received on average during 1988. This sustained high level of applications is clear evidence of the continuing success of the Government's right-to-buy policy.
    Mr. Devlin: Given that in England about 62 per cent. of the population own their own homes as against a measly 42 per cent. in Scotland, does my hon. Friend agree that it is a most welcome development to see recent house sales under the right-to-buy policy and so many Scottish people following the example of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and buying their houses under the right-to-buy scheme?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Many Scots now believe that the best landlord that they can have is themselves. However, while 18 per cent. of the stock has been sold south of the border, 13·6 per cent. has been sold in Scotland. If sales continue at that rate, we will reach the 150,000 mark around May 1989.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Minister will be aware that in communities such as mine where people exercised the right-to-buy three or four years ago, "for sale" signs are now up in the council house windows and many of those houses are going to the highest bidder—[Interruption.] It is all very well for Conservative Members to claim that they are trading up. There are 8,000 people unemployed in my constituency who cannot trade up. Is it not time that the Government built houses and decent homes for those people to live in?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I was glad to be in the hon. Gentleman's constituency a few days ago, when I learnt that the Housing Corporation is building a number of shared-ownership houses, which is proving very successful. Research has shown that once tenants have purchased their houses, most remain living there. In fact, they wish to remain whether or not they purchase them.

    Nurses (Regrading)
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what instructions he gave to the Greater Glasgow health board regarding regrading of nurses
    432
    following the recent meeting of his junior Minister with the Royal College of Nurses and the Royal College of Midwives.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Officials of the board were informed of concerns which had been expressed by the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives.
    Mr. Marshall: Does the Minister realise that he and the Greater Glasgow health board are making an absolute mess of nurses' regrading? Will he ensure that Greater Glasgow health board comes into line with all the others in Scotland and gives Glasgow nurses the regrading that they deserve?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong, and he will find that the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives disagree with him. Following discussions with the board, the problems associated with grading in wards where there is only one nursing sister on duty was resolved. I understand that after restructuring is implemented, Glasgow's grading profile will be in line with the rest of Scotland.
    Mr. McKelvey: Does the Minister realise that this morning the alternative select committee on Scottish affairs was launched, and that its first subject for investigation is the Health Service in Scotland? In the interests of the Scottish people, will he give an undertaking that he will gladly appear before that committee if required, and will allow his civil servants and health boards to give the evidence that, obviously, they so desperately want to give to that committee?
    Mr. Forsyth: In view of the question that was asked a few minutes ago, I welcome any attempts by Opposition Members to make themselves better informed on what is happening within the National Health Service. I am only too delighted to meet any right hon. or hon. Member wishing to raise Health Service issues.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend remind the House of the average percentage increase paid to nurses in Scotland? Will he remind the House also how their pay compares in real terms with that prevailing in 1979? Does he agree that it is irresponsible of COHSE and NUPE members to indulge in industrial action, which merely prevents patients from undergoing the operations that they need?
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. COHSE and NUPE signed up for the regrading proposals and were party to them. They did not inform their members of the consequences of the agreement that they reached, and when the going got rough they ratted on the agreement to which they were a party. The majority of nurses have benefited considerably, not only in terms of increased pay, which was recommended by the independent review body, but from the new structure enabling nurses continuing to be involved in clinical work to be rewarded. My hon. Friend is right to point to the irresponsible behaviour of COHSE and NUPE. Fortunately, the Royal College of Nursing behaved responsibly and delivered the best possible deal for its members.
    Under the last Labour Government, nurses' pay was cut by 21 per cent., but under the present Government it has increased by 45 per cent.
    Mr. Galbraith: I will not let the Minister get away with that. He ought to be condemning those responsible for the shambles in the Greater Glasgow health board, not the trade unions. I shall assist the Minister to be better informed. Greater Glasgow health board was totally out of line with every other health board in the country, and it backed down only because of pressure brought by my hon. Friends. That was the reason.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Question, please.
    Mr. Galbraith: Does the Minister admit that he knew Greater Glasgow health board would be totally out of line and that he should have done something earlier? Is he not culpable for the shambles in Greater Glasgow health board?
    Mr. Forsyth: The Greater Glasgow health board has more multi-sister wards than others in Scotland but has particular difficulties. As I have said already, its profile, following restructuring, will be similar to that of other boards in Scotland. As a Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Gentleman would do well to take a little care in some of his accusations against the Greater Glasgow health board, which will subsequently turn out to be unsubstantiated. In the circumstances it will have to wait a long time for an apology from the hon. Gentleman.

    Fisheries Ministers
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last personally attended a meeting of the European Council of Fisheries Ministers.
    Mr. Rifkind: My noble Friend the Minister of State has attended meetings of the Council of Fisheries Ministers as a member of the United Kingdom delegation and was present at the most recent one on 9–11 December.
    Mr. Wallace: The Secretary of State, significantly did not answer the question. Many of our European partners must have questioned how seriously the Government took the threat to the Scottish fishing industry at the last round. Unlike his predecessor during the negotiations for the common fisheries policy, he was conspicuous by his absence. Will he do something to mitigate that dereliction of duty by convening a meeting of EEC and non-EEC fishery Ministers to consider a package of conservation measures—other than using total allowable catches as a means of enforcing conservation? That would give some hope to the Scottish fishing industry.
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman seems totally unaware of the great success of my noble Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in these negotiations. They have led to the United Kingdom's quota going up from 78 per cent. to 87 per cent. of the total and have involved serious sacrifices by other member states. It was a splendid result for them and I noted that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation were quoted as saying that given the scientific evidence, it was the best possible result that the United Kingdom and Scottish fishermen could have hoped to achieve.
    Mr. Foulkes: Why are the Government able to fork out £17 million to compensate egg producers, whereas they give nothing to help the fishermen who will lose substantial amounts of money because of a Government decision?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that quotas for fishermen change each year and that scientific evidence on the basis of the conservation of stocks is an important consideration. He will also be aware that—
    Mr. Foulkes: Answer the question.
    Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman will be silent for a moment, I might be able to answer his question. He will also be aware that, for several years, Scottish fishermen have had a healthy share of quotas and have experienced a substantial improvement in their share of stocks and in their standard of living. The fact that it has been necessary to reduce stocks to preserve the species in one year is not in itself an argument for compensation—indeed, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation has not argued that.
    Sir Hector Monro: In view of the decimation of herring stocks in the 1970s through overfishing, was it not right, in terms of conservation, too look after haddock fishing this time? Was it not a triumph for the government to obtain 87 per cent. of the catch in those circumstances?
    Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the Scottish fish processors congratulated the Government on their achievement. They showed more perspicacity than certain Opposition Members about the long-term interests of the Scottish fishing industry.

    Education Bill
    Dr. Moonie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received any representations from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, teaching unions or parents' organisations regarding the opting-out provisions in the forthcoming Education Bill.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: A paper describing the expected basis for legislation on self-governing schools was issued to a wide range of interested bodies on 7 December. I look forward to receiving constructive comment.
    Dr. Moonie: The Minister is well aware that he, his colleagues, his party and his policies are as popular in Scotland now as a raw egg. Will he, therefore, undertake to listen to the results of the consultation and the views of the Scottish people? Will he act on those, rather than on his own political prejudices, or is his sense of honour and decency as deficient as his sense of rhyme?
    Mr. Forsyth: We have heard the Opposition saying that our policy on school boards was not supported by the majority of people in Scotland, yet a System 3 poll showed a 2:1 majority in favour of our school board proposals. I note that the Opposition have now changed their position to one of supporting the school boards. On the proposals for self-governing schools, a recent MORI poll in The Scotsman showed that one third of the Scottish people thought that parents should have that right. Once again, it is this Government who are extending the rights of parents and the Opposition who are seeking to undermine the rights of parents.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have received a huge number of letters over a considerable period from constituents who wish the Government to give parents the opportunity to opt out? May I congratulate my

    435
    hon. Friend on his television appearance when he rightly mentioned that many parents at Neilston primary school are considering opting out because of dissatisfaction with Strathclyde region's refusal to give them a much-needed extension instead of bussing the pupils to Barrhead? Is my hon. Friend aware that shortly after his television appearance mentioning opting out, Strathclyde regional council promptly did a complete U-turn? Is not that the first victory for opting out?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am delighted to hear that Strathclyde has changed its position on Neilston primary school. It could be said that that is due less to the power of the media and more to the power of the idea of self-governing schools. Opposition Front Bench spokesmen may laugh, but they should consider what councillor Malcolm Green, the convener of Strathclyde education committee, said about our proposals for allowing schools to opt out. He is on the record as saying that the impact of opting out will be that local authorities will have to look at their provision of education and try to be more responsive to parents' needs. It seems that Neilston is the first positive fruit and that even the threat of opting out will benefit parents throughout Scotland.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As the Minister claims that there is such widespread interest in Scotland in opting out, why has this centrepiece of legislation from the Scottish Office not yet been published? Is it that the Minister has opened his mouth and the parliamentary draftsmen are desperately trying to catch up?
    Mr. Forsyth: No, on the contrary, we have stated the basis on which we expect self-governing schools to operate and have invited constructive comments. The Bill has not been published because it is being drafted and we mean to take account of the comments that we receive. I know that that position will appear odd to the hon. Lady who is content to carp on the sidelines and make no constructive contribution towards increasing choice for parents in Scotland.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is difficult to understand the views of Opposition Members who oppose parental opting out, because if parents' views are as Opposition Members say, no schools will opt out? Perhaps Opposition Members take that view because they do not speak for parents and because they know that parents will vote for opting out.
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend points to the paradox of the Opposition's position. On the one hand, Opposition Members say that no schools in Scotland are interested in self-governing status but on the other hand they argue that opting out will have a profound impact on the Scottish education system, which implies that they believe that many parents in Scotland will wish to take the opportunity with which we are presenting them. Once again, the Labour party seeks to remove opportunities for choice and to concentrate power in the hands of local authorities and bureaucracy.
    Mr. McLeish: Is the Minister aware that people who take a serious interest in education in Scotland believe opting out to be profoundly damaging, divisive, potentially inefficient and irrelevant and, more important, that we believe that it is a betrayal of the real needs of pupils, parents, and teachers in Scotland?
    436
    Does the Minister recall his comments in the Scottish Grand Committee on 21 March when he said that evidence of real and substantial demand for opting out would be necessary before he would consider it? Why was that not mentioned in the Conservative manifesto or in the proper consultative document? Why has there been no requests from parents, teaching organisations or from the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities— [Interruption] Will the Minister tell us whether this form of nationalisation of education is based on real and substantial demand or is merely the political ideology upon which much of Scottish education seems to be based?
    Mr. Forsyth: Thirty-three per cent. of the Scottish people seems to me to be fairly substantial demand. I contrast the hon. Gentleman's stance with that of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) who, I believe, speaks for the Opposition on education matters. He was quoted in The Daily Telegraph last month announcing the new consumerist approach to education. He said that the Labour party wanted the creation of flagship schools which would be "paradigms of excellence". He said that they would be measured by objective standards of examination results, truancy rates and the quality of teaching.
    Mr. McLeish: This is Scotland.
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman argues that that does not apply to Scottish education. Why does the Labour party in Scotland wish to prevent parents in Scotland from having access to schools which are "paradigms of excellence"?

    Scottish Special Housing Association
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the Scottish Special Housing Association, to discuss its housing disposal policy.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am in regular contact with the chairman about the association's activities and saw him on 18 November.
    Mr. McAvoy: Will the Minister acknowledge that the Government's housing policies have created great insecurity among SSHA tenants in my constituency? Will he give a commitment that disposals will be subject to majority voting of those who actually vote in a ballot?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the hon. Member was referring indirectly to Torbay, I can say that that matter is with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is considering it but has not made a decision. I can give a guarantee that, before there is any voluntary disposal of SSHA property, tenants will be consulted. The statutory rights that we have given local authority tenants will also apply to SSHA tenants. No proposals will be put before them before 1 April. The top priority now is setting up Scottish Homes and the re-employment of staff.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: In regard to the disposal of public assets such as SSHA housing, will the Minister and the Secretary of State take advice from my good friend, Wallace Mercer, who has just been added to the brains department of the Tory party in Scotland? He sold one of his best assets for £600,000 and had to get a banana seller

    437
    to help him buy it back for £150,000 more than he sold it for. Is that a sign of the future for the Tory party and housing in Scotland?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member can be assured that, if a majority of tenants oppose the proposal, it will certainly not go ahead. I note what he said about Wallace Mercer.
    Mr. Maxton: In view of the considerable alarm and disquiet that have been caused to SSHA tenants by recent bids made by various groups for large quantities of housing, will the Minister concede to the tenants' demand that there should be a three-year moratorium from 1 April on all such sales? Will he give an absolute guarantee that consultation means a ballot of tenants and that, even then, no tenants will be forced to leave Scottish Homes unless they wish to do so? Will he give SSHA tenants the real option of joining the local authority if they so wish?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about a moratorium is no, as we believe that one would be damaging to tenants' interests as they would lose out on considering properly formulated proposals which are in the interests of tenants, consistent with proposals to improve choice and quality in tenanted housing. Tenants will be consulted as soon as possible.
    The hon. Gentleman asked whether there will be a ballot. With ownership co-operatives there have, to the best of my knowledge, been no ballots, so there are certain forms of disposal where it is not necessarily ideal to have a ballot. At Castlemilk in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I understand that there was a show of hands. There may well be a ballot, but that is a matter for Scottish Homes to work out. It must work out the details thoroughly. That is still some way ahead—and after 1 April.

    Electricity Industry Privatisation
    Mr. Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the volume of electricity likely to be sold by the Scottish electricity industry to England following privatisation.
    Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates he has made of the amount of electricity which could be supplied to England from Scotland over the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): The level of electricity exports from Scotland after privatisation will be a matter for commercial negotiation between the companies. Active consideration is being given to upgrading the capacity of the interconnector so that opportunities for trading can be maximised to the limits justified commercially and economically.
    Mr. Harris: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposals in the Electricity Bill, coupled with the moves to upgrade the interconnector between Scotland and England, offer exciting prospects for the generating industry in Scotland? Would he find it a refreshing change if the ragbag of an Opposition thought positively about the matter rather than negatively?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These provisions enable the prospect of a competitive and
    438
    commercially oriented environment to be introduced in the electricity industry, and that is bound to have a downward effect on prices for the consumer.
    Mr. Strang: Does the Minister of State accept that it is enormously important that Scotland sells electricity to England on a substantial scale in the coming years? Are the Government prepared to pay for the investment in the increased capacity of the interconnector? Above all, will he give an assurance that he and his right hon. and learned Friend will not stand idly by and allow the South of Scotland electricity board to write off hundresds of millions of pounds of investment and thousands of jobs in the Scottish deep mining industry?
    Mr. Lang: The decision on whether to proceed with the upgrading of the interconnector is a matter for the commercial judgment of the companies involved. The industry has reached agreement in principle to increase the capacity of the interconnector to 1600 MW. The cost, which may be as high as £200 million, is a matter for negotiation.
    Mr. Home Robertson: What prospects are there for the future of electricity generation at the highly efficient coal-burning power stations at Cockenzie and Longannet if the SSEB persists with its policy of burning loss-lead, imported coal rather than honouring its contract to burn Scottish coal at those power stations? Is it not absurd that two nationalised industries should be taking each other to court in a dispute about a perfectly clear contract that was intended to protect investment and employment not only in the power stations but in the pits? Will the sponsoring Minister for the SSEB—the Secretary of State for Scotland —intervene now to stop the dispute to ensure that the contract is honoured and the jobs protected?
    Mr. Lang: The upgrading of the interconnector will increase the possibility of coal-generated electricity being exported to England, but the competitiveness of coal is a matter for British Coal to negotiate with the SSEB.
    Mr. Gregory: Does my hon. Friend agreed that the privatisation of Scottish electricity would bring a welcome move from Whitehall to Scotland and provide opportunities for employees, as well as members of the public, to share in the future of that great industry?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. The privatisation of the electricity industry in Scotland will create two substantial free-standing private enterprise companies and enhance the enterprise economy in Scotland.
    Mr. Kennedy: Will the Minister give Scotland a guarantee that following privatisation, the ownership of the successor companies to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and the SSEB will remain in Scottish hands?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the industries are not in Scottish hands at the moment. However, privatisation will provide for an opportunity for consumers in Scotland and employees of the boards to buy shares in the electricity industries in Scotland. In addition, there is provision for a special share that will enable my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to control the shareholding of any one individual.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. Douglas: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of poll tax which will be levied in Scotland for 1989–90.
    Mr. Lang: Our generous revenue support grant settlement for 1989–90 means that if authorities do not increase the volume of their spending, the average community charge should be £267. Indications so far from Strathclyde regional council confirm that our estimates are well-founded.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister reflect a little on an answer given by the Secretary of State earlier about the Union being an anomaly? Does he consider that the poll tax is an illustration of the Government making the Union an anomaly when it suits them, by imposing this unwanted and unwarranted tax on the people of Scotland first, and making Scotland a guinea pig for a method of taxation that nobody wants? Will he say clearly that a major anomaly in that tax is the treatment of the disabled? There will be rebates for the disabled, but a substantial burden will be placed on other sections of the population. What advice is he giving to local authorities that find people unable to pay after three instalments, after which the whole year, plus a surcharge, becomes payable? The Minister is the greatest anomaly.
    Mr. Lang: The major anomaly that has hitherto existed in local government finance is that only 40 per cent. of the adult population in Scotland contribute to the local government financial burden. The justice that we are bringing to Scotland, a year ahead of England, is the removal of the unfair burden of domestic rates that falls so unevenly on such a small proportion of that adult population.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that some regional authorities are pushing up the volume of expenditure far above the level of inflation so that, even allowing for the very high increased grant from the Government, they can push up the community charge? Before those authorities have the opportunity to set their community charges, will my hon. Friend remonstrate with them and persuade them to move in the world of good housekeeping rather than of increased expenditure?
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that problem. Dumfries and Galloway regional council, in whose area both my hon. Friend and I have our constituencies, will have an increased revenue support grant for next year of 12·8 per cent., just about double the rate of inflation. There is every opportunity for that regional council, as for every other regional council in Scotland, to keep down spending and to keep the burden on the community charge payers within reasonable limits.
    Mr. Steel: Does the Minister accept the figures produced by the Borders regional council that show that a poll tax as low as the £126 that the hon. Gentleman forecast would mean its budget having to be 8 per cent. below the level of assessed expenditure need, which is the measure that the Government themselves use? Will the hon. Gentleman explain why my constituents in Ettrick and Lauderdale have to pay £45 more and in Tweeddale £50 more to subsidise the safety net procedure for Strathclyde?
    Mr. Lang: The revenue support grant for the Borders regional council is being increased by 13·5 per cent. next year. There is every opportunity for it to keep its spending and the burden on the community charge payers at a low level.
    I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the safety net and I welcome his conversion to the policy of accountability in local authorities. That is why we are removing the safety net. If full safety nets had remained in place, his constituents in Berwickshire would have been £29 a head worse off.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of inward investment secured in 1988.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to meet the ambassador of the United States of America to discuss inward investment into Scotland.
    Mr. Rifkind: The estimated value of planned inward investment to Scotland from April 1988 to date is £306·6 million with the prospect of the creation or safeguarding of 4,451 jobs. At present I have no plans to meet the ambassador of the United States of America for this purpose.
    Mr. Thompson: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that since 1981 inward investment in Scotland has created or safeguarded 50,000 jobs? Is not that a tribute to the skill and talent of the Scottish work force as well as a justification for the Government's policies?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is also a tribute to Locate in Scotland, which was created by this Government and has been remarkably successful in attracting inward investment to Scotland.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that at a time of rising protectionism in the United States, it is the Government's policy to give unequivocal support to the success of responsible American investment in Scotland and the United Kingdom generally? Can he further confirm that we expect reciprocal treatment from the United States Congress?
    Mr. Rifkind: That is a desirable objective. The United Kingdom has substantially benefited from being attractive to overseas investment, and Scotland has shown herself remarkably able to attract that investment.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: Does the Secretary of State agree that the best record of achievement in inward investment to Scotland in the post-war period is that of the five Scottish new towns? Will he give an undertaking now to leave in place those mechanisms designed to achieve inward investment in the new towns, notwithstanding what else may happen as a consequence of the review of new towns' functions?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to the success of new towns in attracting inward investment. I agree also that., in considering the future of new towns and their possible winding up, we must explore ways of ensuring that they can continue to be attractive

    441
    locations for inward investment. The consultative document that we published recently invites contributions designed to achieve that effect.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, apart from the qualities of the Scottish people, the reason for increased inward investment is that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is certainly an asset for Scotland that it has benefited from low taxation, improved industrial relations, and increased competitiveness, which are a direct result of the Government's policies.

    Scottish Enterprise (White Paper)
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss Her Majesty's Government's White Paper on Scottish Enterprise.
    Mr. Lang: The STUC has not sought a meeting about Scottish Enterprise, but I shall be happy to consider any such request.
    Mr. Clarke: Is not it unacceptable that the Secretary of State, who might have been expected to answer my question, has not formally met the STUC for over 15 months, even though it was anxious to meet him to discuss NEL, Scott Lithgow, Bishopton and other matters? Is the attempt to marginalise active trade unionists in Scotland reflected in the White Paper proposals for local structures that will give far more weight to local employers than to local authorities and trade unionists, who are just as committed as anybody else to training and employment? Does the Minister accept that, since the election, the Secretary of State has not attempted to achieve consensus in Scotland and that the only voices to which he is prepared to listen are those of the discredited, minority far right in his own party?
    Mr. Lang: Any request by the STUC for a meeting would always be carefully considered. In recent months, my right hon. and learned Friend has had several meetings with the general secretary of the STUC, and I shall meet representatives of the STUC on 27 January to discuss the economy.
    It is our intention that there should be no automatic right of membership of Scottish Enterprise. We want to get the right people as individuals who can best help Scottish Enterprise achieve good results for Scotland.
    Mr. Salmond: What procedures will be undertaken for the appointment of people to the new area enterprise boards. Has there been any correspondence, apart from the letter from Sir Hector Laing looking for recruits to such boards? What assurances can the Minister give that the proposal is about enterprise in Scotland, as opposed to the extension of Tory patronage throughout Scotland?
    Mr. Lang: That is an offensive and irrelevant question. On the establishment of enterprise agencies, it is for local individuals and local organisations to put forward proposals to Scottish Enterprise to bid for the contract in their own areas. Proposals will be assessed on their merits. Contracts will be awarded accordingly and monitored by Scottish Enterprise.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that Scottish Enterprise recognises employers' key role in training the people whom they employ? It should acknowledge also the existence of the STUC, though the STUC has failed to come forward with positive and constructive proposals, and has been girning. One can only assume that it will not contribute in a positive way.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. When the STUC comes forward with positive proposals they are always carefully considered, as was the general secretary's suggestion that my right hon. and learned Friend should set up a committee to consider the implications for Scotland of the single European market.
    It is our intention that about two thirds of the membership of the board of Scottish Enterprise should be from the business and industrial community. Business men and industrialists are more likely to be the most effective at assessing the need for training in their areas and throughout Scotland.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some hon. Members are reaching the conclusion that the Secretary of State is reluctant to meet anybody to discuss enterprise and industry in Scotland? Is he aware also that, over three weeks ago, I wrote to the Secretary of State and listed my parliamentary colleagues who would attend a meeting to discuss the Scottish mining industry? Why does the Secretary of State show such discourtesy to his parliamentary colleagues and to the House?
    Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman's question is wholly unwarranted. As I have already said, my right hon. and learned Friend would give consideration to any organisation asking for a meeting and so would I. I am meeting the STUC next month.
    Mr. Dickens: Will my hon. Friend ensure when he next meets—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Please get on with it.
    Mr. Dickens: I am trying. Control them. When my hon. Friend next meets the STUC will he be sure to remind it both of how well we are doing with inward investment in Scotland through various enterprise schemes and of the stupidity of the trade unions in Scotland which cost Dundee the Ford plant?
    Mr. Lang: I shall certainly remind the STUC of those points if by then it has not already read my hon. Friend's comments. I shall also urge it to withdraw its opposition to the Government's implementation of employment training. The attitude of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the STUC in refusing to co-operate with that important training scheme has done considerable damage to the employment prospects of young unemployed Scots.

    Local Authorities (Economic Development)
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from local authorities regarding their role in economic development.
    Mr. Rifkind: Representations have been made by Monklands district council and by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities concerning what action is to be

    443
    taken in Scotland in response to the Widdicombe committee's recommendations on local authorities' role in economic development. These representations will be considered carefully.
    Mr. Bruce: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that there is some concern about the role of the public sector and local authorities in the Government's proposals for Enterprise Scotland? Does he acknowledge that initiatives, such as the Grampian initiative and the economic development committee of Gordon district council and other councils, are a useful form of partnership which should be developed and encouraged? Can he give an assurance that when the proposals are introduced in detail they will ensure that we have a proper spirit of partnership between private and public agencies, with leadership from local authorities, and that he will ensure that Enterprise Scotland is not simply a gimmick which damages the promotion of enterprise in Scotland?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman. If he has read the White Paper he will have noted that it specifically refers to the fact that local authorities are employers and are perfectly free to come forward with others with proposals for the establishment of local agencies.

    Single Market
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the level of business awareness there is in Scotland of the opportunities presented by 1992 and the completion of the single market in Europe.
    Mr. Rifkind: There is widespread awareness of the implications of the single market among the Scottish business community, but we propose to continue and intensify our efforts to ensure that businesses in Scotland are the best prepared in Europe.
    Mr. Taylor: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Bearing in mind that over 50 per cent. of exports from Scotland go to the European Community, will he constantly remind Scottish firms that they are benefiting from the low-taxation, high-growth economy which is the result of the policies of this Conservative Government?
    Mr. Rifkind: That is the case. I do not think that Scottish industry needs to be reminded of it, because spokesmen for Scottish industry have themselves made that point and welcomed the Government's economic strategy.
    Mr. Worthington: Is the Secretary of State aware that there cannot be a single economic market until there is a uniform business rate for the whole of the United Kingdom and that the impact—[interruption.] This is absolutely true. Is it correct that there will not be a uniform business rate until after a second revaluation in 1995, and, therefore, not until about 1996–97?
    Mr. Rifkind: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in managing to get away with asking a question about the uniform business rate on a question about the single European market. Unlike all previous Labour Governments who tolerated higher rates poundages in Scotland compared with other parts in the United Kingdom, this Government are the first to say that we intend to work towards a common rates poundage.

    South of Scotland Electricity Board
    Mr. Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met Mr. Donald Miller, chairman of South of Scotland Electricity Board; and whether he discussed the future of the Scottish coal industry.
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend last met the chairman of the South of Scotland electricity board on 4 July when, with the chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, a range of issues was discussed. While coal was not the main subject of the discussions, we see no reason why a satisfactory outcome to the present negotiations between SSEB and British Coal cannot be achieved by the two parties concerned. This remains our view irrespective of the court action now being pursued by British Coal.
    Mr. Hood: Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider intervening in the dispute between the SSEB and British Coal to try to prevent expensive legal action? Does he agree that political action is far better than legal action? Will he accept that it is his responsibility to consider the consequences of failure? The cost of failure to arrive at a settlement in the dispute between the SSEB and British Coal will be the elimination of the Scottish deep mining industry. Is that to be the Secretary of State's Christmas present to Scottish miners?
    Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend and I are anxious to see a strong and viable Scottish coal industry. Matters of pricing and contract between the SSEB and British Coal are for commercial negotiation between the two parties. British Coal can have a successful future only if it remains competitive.

Points of Order
Mr. Speaker: Private notice question—Mr. Matthew Taylor.
Mr. Tony Favell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No. If the point of order needed to be raised at the time and if it had been raised, I would have heard it then.
Mr. Favell rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the point of order needed to be raised— [interruption] May I deal with this matter? If the point of order needed to be raised at the time, that is when it should have been raised.
Mr. Favell: It is important that the matter be raised now, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: On which question does the point of order arise?
Mr. Favell: The point of order arises—
Mr. Speaker: On which question does it arise?
Mr. Fayell: Question No. 2.
Mr. Speaker: In that case I shall take the point of order after the private notice question.

Meat Imports
3.31 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor(by private notice): To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has taken any steps to ensure that meat entering the United Kingdom from the Republic of Ireland is fit for human consumption.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): There are standard arrangements for port health authorities to carry out checks on meat imported into the United Kingdom from the Republic of Ireland. Environmental health officers from Carrick district council have, over a period, been monitoring regularly meat coming into Mid-Cornwall Meat Packers, and on a number of occasions meat has been surrendered. Last week the company refused to surrender part of a consignment which the EHO considered unfit. It was taken before a magistrate, who condemned it. We have asked the authorities of the Republic of Ireland to investigate the origin of the consignment of meat sent.
Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister convinced that standards in Ireland are equivalent to our own? If he is, will he explain why consignments of this sort have been entering the United Kingdom in this way? We are aware of the problem in Cornwall, but does the problem extend further? To what extent have such consignments been entering the country?
What reassurance can the right hon. Gentleman give consumers that the meat that is on their plates is clean, pure and wholesome, unlike that which has been imported into my constituency? Can the Minister explain how it is that, on "The World at One" today, the Irish Minister of Agriculture said that he had not been contacted by the Ministry and that it was not conducting an investigation?
Mr. MacGregor: My officials have been in touch with the Ministry and I hope later today to talk to the Minister myself.
Under the EC rules, all meat that is imported from other EC states—[Interruption.]—has to be accompanied by health certificates. The incident demonstrates that the effective action taken by Carrick district council should have ensured that no unfit meat enters the human food chain. Several consignments that have come to the company have been surrendered. The checks to ensure that unfit meat does not get into the human food chain—I agree that they are extremely important—are, first, a check by the environmental health officers of Carrick district council.
It is clear that that procedure has worked, and I pay tribute to the work that has been carried out by the district council's EHOs. Since September, they have been monitoring rigorously the meat coming into the company. Secondly, there are checks by EHOs in manufacturing plants to which the meat has gone. Thirdly, there are checks by the companies, which are most anxious that their products are safe.
Also, because of the concern felt by Carrick district council EHOs, they alerted EHOs in all other parts of the country though their electronic mail line. We have checked with the Institution of Environmental Health Officers and I am assured that there is no particular concern as a result of the information that has been provided to all other EHOs. In other words, the EHOs in Carrick have picked

447
up this problem and, by the other action I have outlined, should have ensure that none of this meat has entered the food chain. That shows that the system works well, and has done so on this occasion.
Mr. Robert Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this incident causes concern as the imports come from the Republic of Ireland, a fellow Community country?
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is no evidence that the meat in question got into the human food chain on this occasion?
Mr. MacGregor: Obviously, we shall follow up this consignment, like others, with the Irish Government. I am sure that they will be equally concerned because they do not want any negative attributes to attach to their exports. I am sure that both countries will follow up this matter.
The most important point is that the system has worked. The meat has been found and taken out of the system and all the checks worked. I can assure my hon. Friend hat there is no evidence that the meat has entered the food chain; we have made sure, through the checks, that it has not.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Contrary to what has been said, is it not a fact that animal health standards in various EEC countries are not up to British ones?
Secondly, the Minister mentioned monitoring, but is it not true that spot checks can be carried out in as few as 5 per cent. of cases at some points of entry into the United Kingdom? Should not that proportion be increased?
Mr. MacGregor: We are keen to ensure that our standards are enforced to the highest level, as I am sure exporting countries are. This instance has shown that we are ensuring that. I have forgotten the right hon. Gentleman's second point—
Mr. Molyneaux: The 5 per cent. spot checks.
Mr. MacGregor: Obviously, it is not possible to check every consignment, but there are careful checks. In all cases there are two checks—that is the important point. The first is carried out by the port health authorities and the second by the EHOs, who are responsible, as members of the local authorities, for the plants in their district council areas. Because they were concerned about the meat in this plant, the EHOs have enforced rigorous monitoring for some time now. That has ensured that any meat thought to be unfit in any way has been surrendered or, as I said, condemned by a magistrate in this case.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Can my right hon. Friend clear up one point? Does the check at the port of entry merely consist of ensuring that there is a valid certificate, or does it look behind the certificate and check that it has been issued to a consignment that complies with it? Clearly, false certificates were issued in these cases. That is an important point. It shows that we cannot rely on the certificates.
Mr. MacGregor: The check is done on the certificates. One of the problems is for EHOs, who carry out the main check to determine wether meat is unfit for consumption, to be certain whether it became unfit after or before it entered the country. That point has been checked on some of the meat consignments that came into this plant.
Mr. Frank Doran: The Minister will be aware that many meat producers in this country will be very concerned about the possible spead of the effect of the news about this incident—particularly those in my area, the Grampian region, which is one of the largest meat production areas in the country. What assurance can he give the British public that the meat which they expect to be wholesome actually is?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is on exactly the right point. The checks that worked in this case are clear evidence that the system works. Effective action taken by the district council should have ensured that no unfit meat has entered the food chain from this source. We all know about the excellent standards of Scottish meat. The real lesson of this episode is that the system works: that is the best guarantee for consumers.
Sir David Price: Did the meat in question, coming from Ireland, come from EEC-approved abattoirs or from abattoirs of the lower standard accepted by the Irish? As we approach 1992, it is very important that all abattoirs in the Community should be up to the higher EEC standards, and it is insufficient to accept the lower domestic standards.
Mr. MacGregor: If it was exported from another Community country, it would have had to be from an abattoir that was export-approved. My hon. Friend is right on the wider question of 1992: it is important that all abattoirs are brought up to the same standard. That is part of the discussion that is taking place on all matters relating to 1992.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Yns Môn): The Minister referred to the way in which checks were carried out effectively in Cornwall. Will he also bear in mind the fact that checks are made at points of entry, such as Holyhead in my constituency, by very efficient and hard-working environmental health officers? Will he recognise that last year they carried out extensive checks at the port and found no contaminated meat? That should be a reasonable assurance for our meat consumers.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that the points that he has made will get wide circulation. I should like to pay tribute to all those who are involved in ensuring that our food is safe. That includes EHOs, people at the ports and many others who work extremely hard to ensure that that is so. In an isolated case of this kind, it is doubly reassuring to be able to say what I said earlier, that there is no evidence that the meat has entered the food chain. Enormous imports and exports and food processing are taking place all the time, and the hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to the work of all those people and to the fact that there are so few incidents of this kind.
Mr. David Curry: Is it not true that environmental health officers have been present in this plant since September monitoring all the consignments coming into it? Does that not show that no contaminated consignments have got through into the food chain? Has my right hon. Friend received any suggestion from other parts of the country that there have been complaints about contaminated meat?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The answer to his last question is that the EHOs did an

449
exemplary job in warning all other EHOs of what they were finding in this case. The fact that we have not been able to find any other similar evidence shows that the system was working extremely well. The lesson from this case is that the EHOs in Carrick district council were doing a splendid job. The fact that they were monitoring the meat so carefully since September should be another reassurance.
Mr. Tom Cox: While the Minister repeatedly says that the system is working—given this discovery, one obviously would say it is—whose laws are we under? Are we under the laws of the EEC or the laws of this Parliament? I remind the Secretary of State that a distinguished Member of this House, Norman Atkinson, who sadly is no longer here, introduced a Bill some years ago specifically on the issue of the quality and kind of meat that could be sold to the general public. That became the law of this country.
If we are operating under our own laws, the general public would know that they were safeguarded and would have total confidence in them. However, if they are laws imposed by the EEC, then, in view of comments made by Conservative Members, surely it is time that we made clearly known that our safeguards will be stringently imposed irrespective of the origin of our meat imports.
Mr. MacGregor: Yes, our safeguards are stringently imposed. We apply the highest possible practices. It is equally desirable that the same levels and standards should apply throughout the Community. When one is dealing with intra-Community trade, one obviously operates within EC rules. As I say, we are endeavouring to ensure that the EC rules apply the highest standards. That is happening in the case of exporting abattoirs. They now have to meet the EC rules.
Mr. Christopher Gill: I am sure that the whole House and the general public will be reassured by my right hon. Friend's statement. He will be aware that, as we move towards 1992, we will become more and more dependent upon the inspection that is carried out in the exporting countries. Will he take this opportunity to remind our brothers in Europe that they must get their act together if they are to retain the confidence of the British public in the products that they consume from other Community countries?
Mr. MacGregor: I know that my hon. Friend has extensive knowledge of the meat industry. I can give him the assurance that, between now and 1992, I shall do precisely as he wishes in all the discussions which I have on these matters. I shall make the same point in my discussion with my fellow Minister in the Republic of Ireland. I am sure that he will be as concerned as I am to ensure that Irish exports are of a high standard, because that is obviously of great importance to him in terms of Irish exports.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private notice question and I must have regard to the important debate to follow, in which many right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part. I shall take two more questions from each side of the House.
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the answer which the Minister just gave, can he explain why he said earlier that he had not yet talked to the Irish Minister of Agriculture? In view of the communication difficulties which we have had with the Republic over the Ryan case, and in view of the incompetence which the Minister has shown over the egg fiasco, would it not have been common decency, let alone common sense, to talk to the Irish Minister first?
Mr. MacGregor: I think that that is a rather pointless question. My Ministry has been in touch and I shall be in touch later this afternoon. Last week, I had a good series of discussions with my Irish colleague on an issue which is important to many plants in this country in relation to the Scotch whisky industry. Those discussions led to his seeing our point of view and removing an objection he had. That was of great importance to the Scotch whisky industry. I have been in pretty constant communication with him during the past week. The moment that I can get hold of him, I shall talk to him about this incident.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The private notice question is about meat, even though it is Christmas.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if the meat was contaminated when it entered this country, it is 99·9 per cent. certain that it was contaminated when it was in Ireland?
Mr. MacGregor: The EHOs and my Ministry are investigating to establish exactly when the contamination occurred. That is obviously one of the difficulties. it is certainly one of the points that we are pursuing.
Mr. Ken Eastham: I note the Minister's fulsome praise for the environmental health officers. Can he assure the House that there are enough such officers to carry out a 100 per cent. inspection of meat? Are there not dotted across the country small abattoirs which are difficult to control? Is it not about time that we had a look at this problem?
Mr. MacGregor: That is obviously not a direct matter for me. The example of this case shows that those officers are doing a good job.
Mr. Neil Thorne: In view of the alarming reports circulating about animal and poultry feed, can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the source of the beef feed was not in any way contaminated? What action has he taken to ensure that animal and poultry feed is properly processed and is not likely to cause this kind of problem?
Mr. MacGregor: Animal feed in this country is certainly properly controlled. I have announced the further steps that we intend to take. I do not at this stage know the source of the feed that was given to these animals.
Mr. John Home Robertson: May I gently remind the Minister that the second "F" in "MAFF" is supposed to stand for "Food". How can it be possible for contaminated meat to be diverted towards the public food supply? Will the right hon. Gentleman take immediate action to make the local, national, and, most important, international system of inspection and control work

451
properly now and after 1992? We are grateful for the categorical assurance that none of the contaminated meat has got into the public food supply. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would assure us that anyone who may have attempted to commit that offence will be brought to book by the relevant authorities.
Events over the past two weeks demonstrate a disturbing failure by Ministers to maintain proper health standards in the nation's food. The proof of that is in the eating, with a doubling of salmonella food poisoning cases over the past three years, up to 39,000. We are grateful to Carrick district council for doing its work properly. I wish we had the same confidence in Ministers.
Mr. MacGregor: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that this was a case of the system working properly, as it does very often in this country. My Department, too, acted immediately it received the information. We followed up the matter straight away. That is evidence of not only the local authority working properly, but also my Department.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the amount of effort and resources that we have put into the food side of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has increased during recent years, and will continue to increase. I assure the hon. Gentleman, too, that during the past 18 months, I have been spending a great deal of my time—both in this country and in the European Community—on food matters, food legislation, food hygiene and food safety.

Points of Order
3.50 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your help and guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the question of the Court of Auditors report, which was published last Tuesday, 13 December, not being available in the Vote Office. That is one of the most important EEC documents published in the year, and, according to press reports, it contains widespread reports of fraud, of inadequate cover of expenditure and of illegal expenditure of money passed and approved by the House.
You will know, Mr. Speaker, that "Erskine May" makes it abundantly clear that we should treat such documents as parliamentary documents, and in fact the same guidance is given in the House of Commons guidance.
You will be aware, Sir, that I raised this point at business questions last Thursday. I appealed to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to ensure that this document was made available. There has been report after report in the newspapers, and yesterday in The Daily Telegraph there was a detailed leader article making specific reference to the report. It is a shameful insult to the Court of Auditors that this document should be issued to the press but not to Members of Parliament, and that this document, which is vital to public expenditure, is treated in such a way that Members of Parliament cannot obtain it, although I and other hon. Members have asked for it every day.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Can I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Skinner: This matter is exceptionally important. We have just been discussing a matter which in many ways is connected with fraud in the Common Market. You will be aware that the Court of Auditors report last time, which went before the Public Accounts Committee, stated that there was a Common Market fraud—referred to in this document, too—called the "roundabout scheme". That scheme enables meat to be transferred backwards and forwards over national boundaries—into the fridge, out of the fridge and back into the fridge—with the result that massive amounts of money are made every time that meat crosses a national boundary. It is significant that on this day, when we are complaining about fraud and the Court of Auditors report not being available, we should also be discussing the question of rotten meat. I believe that those two matters go well together.
It is important that the Ministry of Agriculture—as well as yourself, Mr. Speaker—investigates this matter and the way in which this meat is being transferred time and time again—
Mr. MacGregor indicated assent.
Mr. Skinner: —and look into the fraud while the right hon. Gentleman is at it.
Mr. Speaker: May I first of all congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting his point of order absolutely in order.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: On a Point of Order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. No.
The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) gave me notice of his point of order, for which I am grateful, because it has given me the opportunity to look into it. I am always concerned when hon. Members are unable to obtain papers which they need for a debate, and I have looked into the matter. I understand that the Vote Office copies of the Court of Auditors report are in transit by air freight. The Library's two copies arrived by post. The Vote Office is making inquiries about its consignment. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will soon receive his copy. I cannot explain why the post was quicker than the air.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if you have had notice of an intention of the Department of Education and Science to make a statement. If not, my information is that the DES has planted a parliamentary answer which gives notification of the amounts of money on capital expenditure in education. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you have no direct control over Ministers, but I believe that it is important on these issues that the Government should not arrange planted PQs on the last day before a recess, because that gives no opportunity for consideration, especially by hon. Members such as myself, with important constituency interests—we have 500 temporary classrooms in Bradford. I understand that the PQ will announce that the trend in decline in capital expenditure will continue.
It will be impossible for Bradford to replace some of the much-needed temporary classrooms, whose replacement has been desperately needed for many years. Therefore, I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will use your influence to stop not only the DES, but the Department of Health, which has also put down a planted answer, from carrying out this nefarious practice, which avoids parliamentary accountability and scrutiny and robs hon. Members on both sides of the House of the right to ask questions of Ministers to discover what they are about.
Mr. Speaker: Again, I have sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. We are coming towards the Christmas recess, and I am sure that what he has said will have been heard by those on the Front Bench. I will now take the point of order from Mr. Favell.
Mr. Tony Favell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I tried to raise a point of order at the end of the second question during Scottish Questions because you had taken two points of order from Opposition parties —one from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), who represents the Scottish National party, and the other from the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) who represents the Scottish Labour party. Is there a special practice during Scottish Questions, or do you intend to return to your usual practice of not taking points of order during questions?
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, would you make it perfectly clear to the Opposition parties that hon. Members representing other parts of the United Kingdom have the right to be heard during Scottish questions without being shouted down? Those hon. Members who are deeply committed to the Union have a special right to be heard, particularly as the Union is coming under increasing threat from many Opposition Members who seem dedicated to achieving a Socialist state at any cost.
Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) was here earlier in the week —I hope that he was—when this matter was dealt with. I will deal with it yet again.
If a matter needs the immediate attention of the Chair, it should be raised immediately as a point of order even during Question Time. If it is a point of order arising out of questions later on, which the hon. Gentleman sought to raise, he knows perfectly well that, as I explained last year, points of order arising out of Question Time are always taken at their proper time, which is now, after private notice questions or after a statement. I am sorry that I did not see the hon. Gentleman, and I apologise to him.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will take Mr. Dalyell first.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been brought to your attention that the Hansard published today records that, yesterday morning, at 5.45 am, I suggested that the new vice-president of the European Community had rendered the supreme service of silence to the Prime Minister. The House was then suspended by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
You will know, Mr. Speaker, that the Clerk of the Journals has written a letter to say that there is no direct precedent for that action. I wonder if you would care to make a statement on this?
Mr. Speaker: I am not aware that the Clerk of the Journals has written a letter, but there are plenty of precedents; the hon. Gentleman need only look at page 314 of "Erskine May". There are frequently occasions when the Chair considers that an informal suspension would be for the convenience of the House and many examples have been given.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not the practice for the Speaker to comment on what has taken place when not in the chair. The incident to which he referred was dealt with well by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
Mr. Skinner: On that matter—
Hon. Members: No, no.
Mr. Aitken: Further to the important point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), Mr. Speaker. I respectfully urge you to look behind the explanation given to the Vote Office, or whatever source, about the Christmas mail and the air freight schedules. I ask you to concentrate upon the real gut issue, the increasing contempt shown by certain European institutions towards this House and this Parliament.
This important Court of Auditors report has somehow been passed to all the media, yet it has not been possible to pass it to the House of Commons. This issue deserves a protest to be recorded, and I hope that, at the appropriate time, you will make it known, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I will certainly look behind the explanation given. Copies are in the Library and hon. Members may see them, but I shall consider the explanation given to me.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 20 JANUARY
Members successful in the ballot were:
Miss Ann Widdecombe
Mr. Irvine Patnick
Mr. Barry Field

BILLS PRESENTED
  PROTECTION OF PRIVACY
  Mr. John Browne, supported by Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. Merlyn Rees, Mr. William Cash, Sir Marcus Fox, Mr. Denis Healey. Mr. Ivan Lawrence, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. John Hannam, Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Peter Temple-Morris and Mr. Frank Cook, presented a Bill to establish a right of privacy against the unauthorised use or disclosure of private information; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27 January and to be printed [Bill 14].
  RIGHT OF REPLY
  Mr. Tony Worthington, supported by Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Norman Buchan, Mr. Joseph Ashton, Mr. David Steel, Mr. Jonathan Aitken, Mr. Merlyn Rees, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Peter Temple-Morris and Mr. Robin Squire, presented a Bill to give members of the public the right of reply to correct inaccuracies which affect them in the press or in broadcasts; to establish a Press Commission; to extend legal aid to actions for defamation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 February and to be printed [Bill 15].
  NATIONAL IDENTITY CARD
  Mr. Ralph Howell, supported by Sir William Clark, Sir Eldon Griffiths, Mr. Ted Garrett, Sir Rhodes Boyson, Sir Marcus Fox, Mr. Jim Lester, Dr. Keith Hampson, Mr. Tony Faye11, Mr. John Greenway, Mr. Tim Smith and Mr. Allan Stewart, presented a Bill to provide for a national identity card system for all residents of the United Kingdom: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 10 February and to be printed [Bill 16].
  SUNDAY SPORTS
  Mr. Andrew Mackay, supported by Mr. John Carlisle, Mr. David Davis, Mr. George Gardiner, Sir Eldon Griffiths, Mr. Denis Howell, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Sir Charles Morrison, Mr. George Robertson and Mr. Nicholas Soames, presented a Bill to exempt races, athletics sports and other sporting events from the entertainments and amusements to which the Sunday Observance Act 1780 applies and to allow betting to take place on all or some Sunday afternoons on tracks and on a number of Sunday afternoons in licensed betting offices and to make provision as to the rights of established employees concerning Sunday working: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 February and to be printed [Bill 17].

  CONTROL OF POLLUTION (AMENDMENT)
  Ms. Joan Ruddock, supported by Ms. Jean Walley, Ms. Harriet Harman, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Sir George Young,
  456
  Sir Hugh Rossi, Mr. Robin Squire and Mr. Gerald Bowden, presented a Bill to provide for the registration of carriers of controlled waste and to make further provision with respect to stopping, detaining and retaining vehicles for waste disposal as it relates to the deposit of controlled waste onto unlicensed sites: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 24 February and to be printed [Bill 18].

  CITIZENS' COMPENSATION
  Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe, supported by Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. John Hannam, Mr. Charles Irving, Mr. Jonathan Aitken. Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Jim Lester, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. George Howarth and Mr. Sean Hughes, presented a Bill to establish a Board to make recommendations for the levels of compensation awarded to injured persons; to place a duty on the courts to have regard to such recommendations and to actuarial evidence in awarding compensation; to increase the amount of damages paid in the event of bereavement and to extend the categories of persons entitled to receive such damages: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 March and to be printed [Bill 19].
  ABORTION (AMENDMENT)
  Miss Ann Widdecombe, supported by Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Seamus Mallon, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Mrs. Marion Roe, Dame Peggy Fenner, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman and Dame Jill Knight, presented a Bill to limit the period within pregnancy during which an abortion may be performed, subject to certain exceptions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 March and to be printed [Bill 20].
  ROAD TRAFFIC (BREATH TESTS)
  Mr. John Home Robertson, supported by Sir Anthony Grant, Mr. Roland Boyes, Mr. David Knox, Mr. Ronnie Fearn, Sir Philip Goodhart, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. Barry Sheerman, Mrs. Rosie Barnes, Mr. leuan Wyn Jones and Mr. Tony Lloyd, presented a Bill to amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 to redefine the powers of the police to administer breath tests; to make further provision for the deterrence and detection of driving under the influence of alcohol; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 24 February and to be printed [Bill 21].
  HEARING AID COUNCIL (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, supported by Mr. Jack Ashley, Miss Emma Nicholson, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mrs. Rosie Barnes, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Allen Mckay, Mr. Roger Sims, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Andrew Welsh, Mr. Peter Thurnham and Mr. John Hannam, presented a Bill to amend the Hearing Aid Council Act 1968, in order to make further provision for the regulation, conduct and discipline of persons engaged in dispensing haring aids; to amend the composition and procedures of the Hearing Aid Council; and for purposes connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 10 February and to be printed [Bill 32].
  INDECENT DISPLAYS (NEWSPAPERS AND WORKPLACES)
  Ms. Clare Short, supported by Ms. Jo Richardson, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mrs. Margaret Beckett, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms. Joyce Quin, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Ms. Joan Ruddock, Ms. Diane Abbott, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Ms. Marjorie Mowlam and Mrs. Ann Taylor, presented a Bill to remove pornography from the press and the workplace: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 February and to be printed [Bill 30].
  DISABLED PERSONS (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  Rev. Martin Smyth, supported by Dame Jill Knight, Mr. Tom Clark, Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. William Ross, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. John Hannam, Mr. Paddy Ashdown, Mr. Eddie McGrady, Rev. William McCrea, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. Ken Maginnis, presented a Bill to make provision equivalent to the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 for Northern Ireland: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 February and to be printed [Bill 26].
  FIRE SAFETY INFORMATION
  Mr. Andrew Smith, supported by Mr. John Battle, Mr. Paul Boateng, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. David Knox, Mr. Steve Norris, Sir David Price, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Robin Squire, Mr. Nicholas Winterton and Mrs. Audrey Wise, presented a Bill to provide for certain information concerning fire safety to be available to specified persons; to provide for public inspection of such information; to require local housing authorities to keep a register of certain information; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 24 February and to be printed [Bill 31].
  HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS (ACCESS TO INFORMATION)
  Mr. Andrew Welsh, supported by Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Charles Irving, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. Clive Soley, Dr. Lewis Moonie, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Alex Salmond, Mr. Jim Sillars and Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, presented a Bill to provide for access to meetings, reports and documents, subject to certain confidentiality provisions, of housing associations by the tenants of those associations; to give housing associations a duty to publish certain information; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 February and to be printed [Bill 33].
  ALCOHOL ABUSE (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Jimmy Hood, supported by Sir Hector Monro, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Mr. Calum Macdonald, Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. George Galloway, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Harry Ewing, Mr. Nigel Griffiths, Mr. David Marshall and Mr. Malcolm Bruce, presented a Bill to make it an offence for persons under the age of 18 years to consume alcohol in public places and to impose fines of £1,000 maximum on persons selling, or being agents for the sale of, alcohol to persons under the age of 18 years: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10 February and to be printed. [Bill 22].
  DATA PROTECTION (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Eddie Loyden, supported by Mr. Eric S. Heller, Mr. Robert Parry, Mr. Terry Fields, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Martin Flannery and Mr. Sydney Bidwell, presented a Bill to amend the Data Protection Act 1984 to include data held in any form whatsoever for use by a personal information bureau: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 March and to be printed. [Bill 28].
  CONTROL OF SMOKE POLLUTION
  Mr. Andrew Hunter, supported by Mr. Nicholas Bennett, Mr. William Cash, Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. Simon Coombs, Mr. Conal Gregory, Mr. Humfrey Malins, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Mr. David Nicholson, Mr. Lewis Stevens and Mr. Timothy Wood, presented a Bill to repeal section 16(1)(a) of the Clean Air Act 1956 and to amend section 1 of the Clean Air Act 1968: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 February and to be printed. [Bill 23].
  PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION
  Ms. Joyce Quin, supported by Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. John Bowis, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Allan Roberts, Mr. Robin Squire, Mr. Simon Hughes, Ms. Joan Ruddock, Mr. Steve Norris, Mr. Andrew Welsh, Mr. Win Griffiths and Mr. Andrew Smith, presented a Bill to give certain bodies duties regarding information concerning public safety; to require the designation of a public safety officer by such bodies; to provide for the keeping of registers of such information; to provide for public access to that information; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 February and to be printed [Bill 29].
  ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION (PARKING)
  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope, supported by Mr. Ted Garrett, Mr. Roger Knapman, Mr. John Battle, Mr. David Curry, Mr. James Cran, Mr. Irvine Patnick, Mr. Robert G. Hughes, Mr. Keith Bradley, Mr. Christopher Gill and Mr. Archy Kirkwood, presented a Bill to amend the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in relation to parking: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27 January and to be printed. [Bill 24.]
  INTERNATIONAL PARLIAMENTARY ORGANISATIONS (REGISTRATION)
  Mr. Michael Marshall, supported by Mr. Donald Anderson, Mr. Tom Cox and Mr. Neil Thorne, presented a Bill to set up a register of publicly-financed international parliamentary organisations which fund both British and international secretariats and which draw their membership from both Houses of Parliament: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27 January and to be printed. [Bill 25].

  DEFINITIVE MAP MODIFICATION
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, supported by Mr. Tim Boswell, Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. David Harris, presented a Bill to amend section 53(3)(c)(ii) and (iii) and section 56(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981:

  459
  And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27 January and to be printed. [Bill 27].

Orders of the Day

  Official Secrets Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: Before we start this important debate, I remind the House that a very large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. I do not think that this is a day on which it would be appropriate for me to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches. However, I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind the fact that many right hon. and hon. Members want to take part and that they will tailor their contributions accordingly.
  4.4 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
  We ask the House today to agree in principle that the criminal law should be prised away from the great bulk of official information. We propose that it should be used to protect unauthorised disclosure of six limited areas and we shall be asking the House to agree on the scope and definition of those areas. Within the areas to be protected we introduce a number of tests of harm which the prosecution will have to prove. We mean that the criminal law should protect, and protect effectively, information whose disclosure is likely to cause serious harm to the public interest, and no other.
  This is a coherent and ambitious reform. It is bolder and more open than anything attempted by any Government in this area since the war. Beside it the Labour proposals in the 1978 White Paper look pale, timid and restrictive. The present law is both too wide and too weak. After 16 years of dickering and dispute since the Franks report, I believe the time has come to settle on the successor to section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911.
  We published a White Paper in June this year which set out the Government's proposals. It was debated by the House in July. We promised then to listen carefully to the points made in the debate and to take account of them as we prepared the Bill, and we have done so. Before returning to the general theme, I should like to analyse briefly the changes that have taken place between the White Paper and the Bill.
  First, the Bill has introduced a harm test for the disclosure of information received in confidence from a foreign Government or international organisation. In the White Paper this was an absolute offence. I listened carefully to the powerful arguments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler). I hope that we have met their main concerns. This change has not escaped the obfuscation in which some critics have tried to shroud the Bill. The Bill makes it clear in clause 3(3) that the prosecution may argue that the fact that a confidence has been broken may jeopardise our interests abroad as much as the content of the information which has been disclosed. But, of course, there is no obligation on the jury to accept that argument and it does not allow the harm test to be bypassed. There is no absolute offence here—there is a harm test. The prosecution has to prove that the disclosure jeopardised

  461
  United Kingdom interests abroad. The fact that a confidence was disclosed would not by itself be enough if our interests had not been put at risk.
  It seems to me reasonable that the criminal law should operate against those who deliberately breach the confidence of another country or international organisation when they have good reason to know that this is likely to harm our interests abroad. Those confidences are not entered into capriciously. The test in the Bill relates to our national interests abroad, not to the interests of another country or any international organisation—and the decision is for the jury.
  We have looked carefully, too, at the harm test as it will now govern the whole of the foreign affairs field. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks suggested that this test was too vague and too easily met. It is not easy to provide language which draws the line in the right place, but on reflection we thought that there was a way of reflecting the proper concerns of the criminal law without undermining the effective conduct of our foreign policy. We have not introduced in the Bill the White Paper's reference to a disclosure which might prejudice dealings with another Government or international organisation. The test now much more accurately catches its purpose. It is not about maintaining good relations with other countries. Here, too, it is whether a disclosure jeopardises the interests of the United Kingdom abroad.
  The White Paper mentioned penalising disclosure of information likely to be useful in the commission of offences. That language has a long pedigree—it goes back to the Franks report, the Labour Government's White Paper, and the Protection of Official Information Bill in 1979. However, it was suggested—for example, by the Guild of British Newspaper Editors—that those words were too vague and too wide. It was never our intention to cover all kinds of information of a general nature that might conceivably be useful in committing an offence, where the chain of circumstance is too long and too uncertain to justify involving the criminal law. The Bill provides a narrower and more precise definition of such disclosure. The prosecution will have to prove that the disclosure resulted in the commission of an offence or was likely to do so.
  Fourthly, the Bill makes it clear what information is to be protected in the area of interception. We tie that category specifically and only to the unauthorised disclosure of information about, or arising from, a special investigation. Such an investigation must be undertaken under the authority of a warrant issued by the Secretary of State under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 or, if Parliament agrees to our proposals, under the Security Service Bill.
  At one time, the obfuscators whom I mentioned suggested that the press would no longer be able to report a citizen's belief that his telephone was being tapped. The Bill shows that to be nonsense.
  Changes have been made between publication of the White Paper and the Bill. In the light of comments and constructive criticisms, we now have a Bill that is tighter in its drafting, narrower in its scope, and more specific in its meaning
  I return to the main purpose of the Bill.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: I refer to the right hon. Gentleman's comment about "obfuscators". Is it still the case that clause 3(3) as drafted will make it an offence to publish a leak of any document from another country or international body, regardless of its subject matter?
  Mr. Hurd: Regardless of its subject matter, but there is a test of harm. The prosecution must show that the disclosure jeopardised United Kingdom interests abroad. That is the difference between the White Paper and the Bill.
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: It is the word "belief" that worries me. The Home Secretary, referring to people whom he does not name but whom he calls "the obfuscators", remarked that it was wrong to say that a citizen having the "belief" that his telephone is being tapped will be prosecuted and convicted if he reveals that belief. However, if an individual is told by a security service officer that his phone is being tapped under the Interception of Communications Act 1985, will he not commit an offence if he discloses that?
  Mr. Hurd: Yes, it will be an offence, because we believe in the duty of confidentiality. If a man believes, as often happens on these occasions, rightly or wrongly, that something is amiss, there is no reason why he should not go to a newspaper, and no reason why the newspaper should not publish. That point is the one that the obfuscators have constantly failed to grasp.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I think that I had better get on. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later. I have already given way twice.
  Many people fail to grasp our proposals, or attempt to trivialise them. Those people include the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). They suggest—this is the main thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms—that we are withdrawing from the protection of the criminal law only frivolous and unimportant information. The example given by the right hon. Gentleman was the canteen menu, the colour of the carpets and the brand of tea bags used. In fact, the Bill will remove the protection of the criminal law from the great bulk of sensitive and important information—including policy documents, Cabinet discussions on education, on health and on social security, and economic information and budget preparations. None of them will any longer have the protection of the criminal law. Nor will material within the Bill's protected areas which fails to meet the relevant harm test.
  The obfuscators said, "Ah! The Government may do that, but they compensate by legislating to strengthen the civil law on the duty of confidence—the Government will impose through the civil law what they are withdrawing from the criminal law." I do not see that clause. I do not know where it has been smuggled in. In fact, it never existed. We have studied the "Spycatcher" judgment and have considered its implications and the present state of the law most carefully. I can tell the House that we have no plans to introduce legislation to amend the civil law of confidence.
  Then the obfuscators said, "You may not do it that way, but you will do it by discipline; you are getting out the thumb screws—the inquisition is being prepared."
  Mr. Norman Buchan: Who are "the obfuscators"?
  Mr. Hurd: I am dealing with points made by obfuscators both in the House and outside. I have already named the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and I shall give other examples as I proceed.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You, Mr. Speaker, will guide me on this matter, because you know better than I what are the rules of the House. The Home Secretary seems to be making allegations under a cloud of secrecy. As the House is debating the Official Secrets Bill, which the Home Secretary claims will make matters more open, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House who he means by "the obfuscators"?
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman was in the middle of explaining that complicated matter.
  Mr. HurdThe hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) is both literary and literate. Does he really feel that "obfuscators" is an unparliamentary expression? I have given one example and I will give others.
  The obfuscators argue that the Government will seek to achieve through tighter discipline the effects that we are renouncing by withdrawing the protection of the criminal law. Even the most chaotic newspaper or any kind of private company seeks to provide for the protection of loyalty and discipline by rules of discipline. Now that the criminal law is to be withdrawn from a great mass of information, the Civil Service code needs to take account of that in its ground rules, but there will be no tightening of disciplinary arrangements and the necessary rewriting will be discussed with the trade unions. All kinds of tricks and traps have been suggested, but the obfuscators have failed to prove the existence of any of them.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: I find it difficult to understand what is going on. If by "obfuscators" the right hon. Gentleman means opponents, will he say so? I do not know what he means by "obfuscators".
  Mr. Hurd: It is quite clear and the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what the word means. It is one thing to criticise the merits of the proposals but another to obscure their description. I suggest that both processes have been at work.
  It is not safe to remove the protection of the criminal law from all official information. Those who disclose official information without authority may cause such a degree of harm to the country's interests that it is right that they should face criminal proceedings. The criminal law is as necessary to protect the public interest in this area as in any other.
  If we are to provide protection in those limited areas, the law must be effective. We need make no apology about that. There can be no credit to Parliament in passing legislation that it knows to be flawed or fudged, and it is against that yardstick that I analyse briefly the arguments of those who wish to overlay the specific definitions and tests in the Bill with blanket defences claiming prior publication and disclosure in the public interest.
  464
  The defence of prior publication, if accepted, would mean that anyone who can show that his disclosure had been previously published at any time, or in any form, or anywhere, could in no circumstances commit an offence by his disclosure. That is an offer of immunity from prosecution that the House should not accept. Under our proposals, prior publication can be relevant to a prosecution and, for the first time ever, that fact is recognised by the Bill. With the very narrow exception of special investigations, the jury will always have to consider whether a journalist who publishes information which has already appeared elsewhere in fact caused the specific harm provided in law and had good reason to know that publication would cause that harm. It will be for the prosecution to prove both the harm and the knowledge of harm, and to do so beyond reasonable doubt.
  If such cases are ever brought, in many instances they will fail at that point if there had been prior publication. The defence will successfully argue that prior publication means that the disclosure which is the subject of the prosecution has done no further harm—but not always, as there may be circumstances in which the timing and placing of a fresh publication is bound to cause harm which earlier publication had not. A front-page spread in a daily newspaper, for example, on an item previously carried in a technical journal in another country might cause serious further harm. There cannot be any certainty about such matters, and a sensible provision should not suggest that there can. That is why we propose to leave the matter with the jury to decide rather than admitting an overarching defence.
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: On the last point, is my right hon. Friend ignoring completely the historic judgment of the Hon. Mr. Justice Caulfield in the Sunday Telegraph case, in which he said that there is not a limited circle in which it is right to publish and avoid prosecution but a wider circle in which one can publish and be prosecuted—in other words, there is not one standard for publication for a tiny audience and a different standard for a wider headline or enlarged circle?
  Mr. Hurd: It is a question of the harm done to the public interest. I should argue, on the ground of common sense, that it is perfectly possible to have partial, incomplete publication in a distant publication with no particular circulation and then to argue that to pick up that information, put it in a different form and splash it across the news, so causing major circulation, would provide a further harm. We cannot assume in advance that it would not and it would be foolish to admit an overarching defence of prior publication. That is why we propose to leave the matter to the jury.
  Mr. Dalyell: Does the Home Secretary recollect that in the Zircon affair important details were published in a technical journal? One of the subscribers to that technical journal was the relevant technical office in Moscow. Which does the greater harm—the technical journal which gives the details, or a front page imprecise spread? In the name of common sense, let us think about that.
  Mr. Hurd: That is the speech which a defence lawyer would make in that case and which might prevail. All I am saying is that it is wrong to have an overarching defence of prior publication regardless of the circumstances.

  465
  Our decision to sweep away the proposal for a ministerial certificate and to replace it with clear and objective criteria for the jury has also changed the whole context of the debate about the so-called public interest defence. So, indeed, have the proposals in the Security Service Bill.
  There are those who have sought to bolster their case for a public interest defence by suggesting that there is, at present, a public interest defence in section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. I have studied the arguments as carefully as possible, but they do not stand up. On the basis of the judgments that have been cited as relevant here, we cannot find one that suggests that there is such a defence in the present law. Many have sought to argue such an interest, but the judgments have never given cause to accept that argument. We are talking about the proposition that there should be a defence, rather than that we should retain an existing defence. We do not believe that a blanket defence of public interest should have a place in the proposals.
  It is for Parliament to make clear to the courts what it believes to be in the public interest for the protection of official information. We are asking Parliament to say that it is not in the public interest knowingly to damage the work of the security and intelligence services, knowingly to prejudice the capability of the armed forces, knowingly to jeopardise our country's interests abroad, knowingly to put our citizens' lives at risk, knowingly to add to the crime rate or knowingly to disclose details relating to special investigations under authorised warrants. The House will realise that I have run through the specific harm tests.
  The Bill provides that the jury shall consider whether such public interest tests have been met in respect of an individual case. The public interest will be at the heart of the case. The defendant will be able to argue that his disclosure either did not satisfy any relevant harm test or that he had no reason to know that it did. For someone who was not a Crown servant or Government contractor —a journalist, for example—it would be for the prosecution to prove that beyond all reasonable doubt.
  Many supporters of a public interest defence have argued that a person may make a disclosure which does good and not harm, or that any harm done may be so modest as not to merit a criminal sanction. The Bill invites Parliament to establish the few areas and the few cases in which a disclosure always causes harm and, in all the other areas, provides a harm test which allows the defendant to make precisely these points. That is what a harm test is all about and that is why we have included it in the Bill. The Bill does not allow someone to say, "Yes, I know my disclosure did the damage set out in the legislation, and what's more I knew that it would, but I divined a different public interest which, in my view, justified my otherwise criminal action".
  This is the heart of the real argument. If people think that such arguments should be allowed, that the court should be left to balance some sort of competing interest, that it is all right that lives should be lost, or the national interest endangered, so long as one public servant's perception of maladministration, wrongdoing or misconduct can be aired in the press, we are close to saying that these are not matters which can be regulated by the criminal law. We would be close to saying that it is more properly a matter of dispute between the Government and
  466
  one of their employees whether a disclosure is in the public interest and that it is a matter that should be settled by a civil court on the balance of probabilities.
  I do not think that the House should banish the criminal law from these matters. The House will wish to discuss whether we have identified accurately the matters to be protected by the criminal law and whether we have got the harm test right, but I do not believe that we should accept a general public interest get-out, which has no place in the operation of this law.
  Let us consider a practical example. In the area of defence, because of the harm test, the prosecution would have to prove that the disclosure was likely to prejudice the capability of the armed forces and that the defendant knew that that was likely. That might be a hard thing to prove. It would be in order for the defendant to argue, if he could, that so far from prejudicing the capability of the armed forces, his disclosure had enhanced it or had, at least, not prejudiced it. I believe that no responsible person should argue that, while he knew that his disclosure would prejudice the capabilities of the armed services to defend us, it was justified on other grounds—that he believed, for example, that it was in the public interest that the misconduct of a Minister should be exposed or that the Government's defence policy should be reversed. That is the nature of the overarching public interest defence which some people propose.
  Mr. Tony Benn: I wonder whether the Home Secretary can help the House on the test of international relations. Since the Official Secrets Act 1911 was passed, this country has entered into wholly new relationships with other Governments—notably through the Common Market. Eighty per cent. of the legislation that we used to pass is now to be dealt with by the Commission. All negotiations up to the passage of those directives or regulations will be international in character and any Minister going to Brussels to attend the Council of Ministers for matters which may affect meat distribution or matters of great concern will be covered by international relations. Is it not the case that with the growth of an international impact on our national life and by protecting all international contact the Home Secretary has enormously extended the area of secrecy protected by statute into the area of legislation applying to the citizens of this country?
  Mr. Hurd: No, because those disclosures are already included. The right hon. Gentleman is making the point that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks made in July. It is partly because we accept that there is some validity in that argument that we have introduced the harm test. The test will be a stiff one on whether the disclosures of information received from abroad or from international organisations in confidence jeopardise the United Kingdom's interests abroad. The point raised by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has been met in the Bill.
  I recognise that there are some Members of the House who find the argument about public interest hardest in the context of our proposals that members of the security and intelligence services, and some who work with them, must continue to be subject to the criminal law if they make any unauthorised disclosure about their work. The very fact

  467
  that we argue, as we have consistently argued, that such people cannot talk about their work creates a secret garden which journalists and others naturally want to enter.
  It is right that there should be safeguards and controls in this area. That is why we have introduced the Security Service Bill which proposes clearer controls and safeguards. However, I do not believe that further safeguards should be provided by giving members of the services open access to the front pages of the national newspapers.
  The Security Service is there to protect the nation as a whole. The services can protect us effectively—for example, against terrorism—only to the extent that their operations stay secret. That is the difficulty with which the House wrestled when discussing and approving the Security Service Bill last week. If members or former members of the services make unauthorised disclosures, they may be putting at risk the lives not only of their colleagues but of all of us. They are aware of that when they volunteer and take on the work initially. Many operations depend on the use of techniques, the details of which are not known and for which there are no other means of averting the threat. Many operations depend also on people who help the services knowing that their help will never be made public. That is why a disclosure by a person claiming to be a member of the services can shake that trust and cause deep damage. I hope that the House will understand the reason behind the special offence that we propose for those people.
  In recent years we have moved forward in that area. We now have the independent staff counsellor for the security and intelligence services. He is there to ensure that anxieties of members of the services about their work, if they exist, can be considered at the highest levels. We have introduced the Security Service Bill, to which the House gave a Second Reading last week, which will make clear for the first time in statute the extent of the Security Service's remit and the authority and control for its activities. Those members of the public or organisations who feel aggrieved by the Service's activities will be able, once the Bill is enacted, to take their complaint to an independent tribunal, as they can already take a complaint about the interception of their communications to an independent tribunal.
  Mr. Graham Allen: Would that really be the appropriate venue for an individual to go to with such a complaint if, for example, a serving officer in the security services finds a plot involving potential assassinations or the destabilisation of a Government? Would that really be the appropriate place for an effective remedy in such circumstances?
  Mr. Hurd: In such a case an officer would use the staff counsellor. That would enable him to bypass his superiors. That is new since November last year. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it into account.
  The point that I am making is that there are now effective and reasonable ways for members of the security services and others affected to ensure that anxieties are not smothered and that concern about wrongdoing is not overlooked. The aggrieved insider, about whom the hon. Gentleman is concerned, and the aggrieved citizen outside are now both catered for. Those who suggest that members of the services should be free to make unauthorised disclosures about their work to members of the public or
  468
  to journalists have failed to recognise that there are now better avenues for considering such matters. These are all matters of balance and judgment. However, in making that judgment, they are making a judgment that could leave our security dangerously exposed.
  I have tried to deal with some of the real anxieties and with some of the obfuscation to which the White Paper and the Bill have given rise. It does sometimes happen—right hon. and hon. Members will have their own examples—that critics of a measure create a caricature in which they genuinely come to believe. I remember that that was the case with the first big Bill that I helped to take through, which became the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. There was a great deal of tumult and many distortions and heated meetings going far beyond anything which Mr. Des Wilson has so far been able to contrive. In the end, the Bill was passed, the tumult subsided, the interest groups turned to something else, and the Act struck the balance that Ministers had described when defending it. I think that it will be so with this Bill also.
  The Bill is not, and does not pretend to be, a freedom of information Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] But it comes—perhaps hon. Members will not accept this either—from a Government who have freed more information, especially as regards the security services, than any of their recent predecessors. The Bill lifts from journalists much of the tension inherent in the present law. I do not feel a great deal of sympathy with those to whom I have listened for decades as they lament the tyranny of section 2 but who complain today with equal melancholy now that they are to be relieved of it, especially when they have not studied carefully the nature of the relief.
  I should like to take the House back 11 months, to the aftermath of the unhappy debate on the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I agree entirely that it was an unhappy moment. It was widely supposed that the Government were doing just a little perfunctory work as an excuse for voting against the Bill but that that work would trickle away and come to nothing. Even if we did venture on a proposal, it was supposed, even by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, that in that proposal ministerial certificates would reign supreme. There was no suggestion that we were planning to put the Security Service on a statutory basis or provide a remedy for the aggrieved citizen. It was assumed, by and large—I would say overwhelmingly—that we would stay stuck in the trenches that had been dug deep and manned devotedly by the Labour Government in the days of the right hon. Members for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen).
  However, there is a little bit of a change, is there not? Surely fair-minded hon. Members will accept that there is a little change. We are now exactly in the position which in January I hoped that we would be in by this time. I am proud to be the sponsor and mover of the Security Service Bill and of the Official Secrets Bill. As these clouds of obfuscation—I say that for the last time—roll away, this Bill will be seen for what it is and, indeed, these two measures will be seen for what they are. They are certainly conservative measures in that they have at their heart the effective protection of the citizen from specific and grave dangers. However, they are also radical reforms because they open windows that have remained closed and

  469
  cobwebbed, because they define clearly what has been confused for a long time, and because they strike in 1988 a balance that is designed for today.
  The Bill will greatly reduce the scope of the criminal law. It will provide a modern, fair and effective way of protecting this country's necessary secrets. I commend it to the House.
  4.36 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: Since the White Paper on this subject was published, and perhaps before—during the debate on the private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—the Home Secretary has chosen to defend his proposals in an extraordinary way. I do not mean simply the obfuscation that characterised as well as dominated the beginning of his speech; I mean some of the techniques that the right hon. Gentleman has used to defend what he proposes to do. We have seen two examples in his speech today.
  One of the bad habits that I hope he will get out of before Committee is defending clauses by adding to them in his speeches words that they do not contain. He asked in his more reasonable manner who would want to complain of the limitation on the publication of information which prejudices the capabilities of the armed forces to defend us? That is not what the Bill says. There is no concept of defence in the clause. Information prejudicing the prospects of the work of the armed forces being carried out successfully are all covered by the Bill, for example, when the armed forces are helping at the Smith lawn polo field, or officiating in some way at the Royal tournament at Earl's Court. The idea that that is a harm test is fatuous and the fact that the Home Secretary wheels in such wholly bogus arguments shows that he doubts his own proposals.
  The second bogus argument was the one about the obfuscator, whom the Home Secretary said had been misinforming the public about telephone intercepts. The Home Secretary is quite right. If I go into Whitehall this evening and say that I suspect that my telephone is being tapped, I shall not be prosecuted. It should not be thought terribly generous that the Home Secretary allows me to make such an allegation without being sent to prison. If on the other hand—this is the charge that was made against him, not the one that he invented—I go into Whitehall and say that I know that my telephone is being tapped because I was told so by the man who tapped it, I am automatically guilty of an offence. If the Home Secretary believes that that is an extension of liberty and a liberalising measure, we can understand some of the mistakes that he has made in the Bill.
  One mistake and one of the Home Secretary's extraordinary habits when defending his proposals is that he uses the most extravagant language to describe what he proposes. I have no idea why he has chosen to use that language, but I think that we can be certain of one thing—that the terms that the right hon. Gentleman has used have, in almost all particulars, been misleading. He has variously described the Bill as
  "an essay in openness," as "a substantial and unprecedented thrust in the direction of greater openness",
  as "a charter for liberty" and as "an earthquake in Whitehall".
  Mr. Hurd rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: I shall certainly give way to the Home Secretary in the hope that we may have another bit of flamboyant nonsense from him.
  Mr. Hurd: In the interests of historical accuracy, perhaps I should say that one of the phrases that the right hon. Gentleman used—that about "a charter for liberty"—was used, I think, in a speech made to the Royal Television Society. I said that it was a charter for liberty in comparison with the Labour Government's 1978 proposals.
  Mr. Hattersley: I shall withdraw, and say that there are mitigating circumstances because the right hon. Gentleman was making a speech to the Royal Television Society—why that should be mitigation I am not quite sure—and because of the other qualification that the right hon. Gentleman put on the description, but there are still the other three descriptions to which the right hon. Gentleman pleads guilty. All are clearly and absolutely misleading. If that flamboyant language has any meaning at all, it is a description of a Bill which is designed positively to increase the amount of official information that is available to the public. This Bill does not have that purpose and, if it is passed into law, it will not have that effect.
  In his calmer moments—we had a few of them today—the Home Secretary has made it clear that he has no wish to introduce or intention of introducing a Bill which would be appropriate to the description that I have just quoted. He said
  "This is not a freedom of information White Paper and we do not propose to introduce a freedom of information Bill."—[Official Report, 22 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 1419.]
  He said it again today. Only the Bill which the Home Secretary explicitly rejected would justify the language which he has used to describe the very different Bill which we are debating today. A Bill which justifies the title, "essay in openness" or, "earthquake in Whitehall" would set out positively to promote the free availability of all official information which could be published without damage to the national interest. That Bill would stipulate in positive language the public's right of access to official information. It would enshrine the right to know in law, making that right the presumption on which publication of information depended. It would then, inevitably and necessarily, stipulate categories of information which might, after due process, be taken as exceptions to the general rule of publication and the way in which information which must be kept secret.
  This Bill works from the opposite end of the equation. It is concerned solely with secrecy. It does not increase the amount of information available to the public by one iota, and nor does it purport to do so. It must be examined not on the basis of the Home Secretary's extravagant language outside the House, but on the basis of the real principles on which it is constructed. The Bill is not intended to facilitate a free flow of official information—it is intended to provide a new method by which the availability of information can be reduced and obstructed. It is also intended—I think that this accounts, in part at least, for the Home Secretary's strange and inappropriate language

  471
  —to help the Home Secretary sound liberal to one audience but appear authoritarian when he finds that convenient.
  Without a freedom of information Bill, the cocoon of unnecessary and debilitating secrecy by which Whitehall is surrounded will continue to deny the British people information about the actions of Government which is freely available in other democracies. That is the background against which the Bill must be debated. The best that we can say about it—at least about its purpose—is that it has the object of replacing the discredited and absurd section 2 of the present Act with something more reasonable and less risible. Even then, it fails to make the improvements that are possible within the limited terms of that aspiration. Section 2 of the present Act is so indefensible that it seems almost impossible that the Government could not find something substantially better to put in its place. In some particulars, however, the effects of this Bill will be substantially worse, not least because section 2, being so discredited, has lost much of its force. It is being replaced by a Bill which will more easily give effect to the Government's authoritarian instincts.
  In his description of the Bill today, the Home Secretary made much of two points: first, official information—which will no longer be covered by official secrets legislation—and, secondly, the employment of the courts to make judgments about what is and is not publishable within the terms of the new prohibition. In both cases, the right hon. Gentleman exaggerated the changes proposed by the Bill to such an extent that we can assume only that the exaggerations were intentional.
  Some material covered by the Official Secrets Act 1911 will not be included in the Bill and, therefore, will not be covered. That is hardly surprising as the present Act covers every item of information, no matter how trivial, unimportant or small it is. Saying that everything is no longer covered is not the same as doing what the Home Secretary implies he is doing, which is encouraging the publication of information which it is not necessary to keep secret. Democracy requires the publication of more information, and the Home Secretary is not making even a gesture in the direction of that principle. Nor is it right to say that the final arbiter of what can and cannot be published will no longer be the Government alone.
  In some categories of information, the courts will be required to make judgments about intention and damage, but, as I hope to show, the Government will still possess arbitrary powers over far too large an area of official information, and even when the courts are required to judge the effect of disclosure, the nature of the judgments that they are required by the Bill to make will make conviction certain when conviction is not reasonable.
  If the Bill becomes law, the Government will still possess far too much power over the crucial decision about what should and should not be secret. In too many clauses, the Bill makes the Government, and the Government alone, the arbiter of the national interest. It is inevitable that, when the Government possess powers that enable them to describe and determine where the national interest lies, they do not distinguish between the true national interest and the sectional interests that they represent. That is why Clive Ponting was prosecuted for telling the truth. His real crime was correcting the deception that had been perpetrated by the Government.
  It goes without saying that there is agreement on both sides of the House that official information which, were it
  472
  to become public, would damage the security of the state must remain secret. I believe that there is also agreement that that principle requires sanctions to deter publication of material which would benefit enemies and potential enemies. It also requires penalties to be imposed upon those who are guilty of doing the damage which publication brings about, but I believe that there are three essential questions which divide us. I was about to say "divide the House" but I think that, as the Committee stage goes on, it will become clear that the divisions are not on the traditional and hackneyed lines that we have come to expect in this place.
  I believe that the three questions are these: how are we to define the categories of information which, were they made public, would so damage the state that their publication must be an offence, who should be the arbiter of whether information comes into that category, and what procedures shall be followed to prosecute and convict those who are suspected of publishing information which it is necessary to keep secret?
  For many of us, the essential requirement that links each of the answers to those questions is that there should be a test of damage to the national interest which is not applied by the Government alone. If we examine the Bill in detail, we see how comprehensively the Government fail to meet that need.
  First, there are those categories in which the Government alone are the arbiter of what may be published. Clause 1 is comprehensive and arbitrary. Disclosure about their work by members of the security and intelligence services, and similar disclosures by those designated as being associated with those services, is an automatic offence. In this area, there is no need to demonstrate damage to the national interest. The fact of disclosure is the evidence on which conviction is made certain, no matter how trivial or inconsequential the information received may be. It cannot be necessary or right to make every item connected with security, no matter how loosely, subject to automatic restriction. It is intolerable that the Government alone should be able to define and designate the individuals who are covered by the blanket ban, and the categories of work which are to be shrouded in secrecy.
  There was much justifiable complaint at the idea that the Government should certificate individual items of information as being damaging breaches of a secrets Act. Clause 1 allows the Government to designate activities, categories of individuals and swathes of information that oblige people to observe complete secrecy about what they do and what they have discovered from their jobs, even if that discovery involves fraud or felony. In those cases, the court makes no judgment about harm—revelation in itself is an offence.
  Mr. Tony Baldry: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile what he is saying now with the fact that the 1978 Labour proposals contained no defence of public interest or prior publication? However, they referred to an intention to introduce a system of binding ministerial certificates.
  Mr. Hattersley: I can easily explain that. We have an improved system. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) must not despair of political parties improving. If he has any doubts about that, the Home Secretary exists to prove my point. He is the last Minister to say that

  473
  politicians have to remain immobilised in the position they adopted 10 years ago. Ten years ago the Home Secretary was the apotheosis of Heathism. He was the Heath man to end all Heath men. He was the great follower of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), and worked and spoke for him throughout the country. I doubt that he often says in Cabinet today the complimentary things that he said about his right hon. Friend 10 years ago. We can all change and improve. I do not propose for one minute to pretend that we should not have gone further on official secrets 10 years ago. Of course we should have done so. Some of us thought so at the time—I shall not mention any names but we certainly existed—and I propose to continue arguing that we should go further than the Bill provides.
  Government spokesmen have gone out of their way to suggest that the power to prosecute and convict without demonstrating harm to the national interest is limited in the Bill to public servants. That is certainly not the case. Under clause 4(3)(a) it is an offence—which does not require the proof of damage—to publish information related to a warrant under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 or under the Security Service Bill. If my telephone is tapped in mistake for my neighbour's, I would commit an offence by making public that fact and any newspaper that published the story would also have broken the criminal law.
  If the Security Service broke into my house in mistake for my neighbour's house and injured my family or damaged my property, it would be a criminal offence to reveal that. It is only necessary to describe the provisions relating the the Interception of Communications Act and the Security Service Bill to realise that they are wholly unacceptable. The Security Service and its activities, as designated by the Minister and as covered by this legislation and the Security Service Bill, are shrouded in complete secrecy. That is unhealthy for the public and for the service itself.
  In the recent past, particularly since the publication of the Bill, the Government have gone out of their way to suggest that they have relaxed some of its provisions, especially as they affect journalists as distinct from public servants. An examination of the liberalisation claim shows how slight it is and how careful the Government have been to obtain powers to enable them to take action against journalists if and when they choose to do so.
  We have been blandly told, time after time—the Home Secretary did it again today—that on almost every occasion the prosecution of a journalist as distinct from the prosecution of an intelligence officer would succeed only if there was proof that harm had been done. That is not true. An editor who publishes the diaries or biography of a retired intelligence officer could be prosecuted as an accessory to the offence committed by the officer. The offence is not limited by the need to demonstrate harm. An editor who discussed publication with the author of intelligence service memoirs would be guilty of collusion, even before they were published. Does anyone doubt that the Government, who so obsessively pursued Peter Wright at the taxpayers' expense and who attempted to gag The Guardian and the Sunday Times, would not choose to proceed against an editor under the accessory provisions and prevent him from arguing that no harm had been done
  474
  by his actions? There are other areas where, although in theory the test of harm is necessary, in practice convictions will almost always be automatic.
  The obvious example is information supplied in confidence by other Governments. Such information is protected by two subsections. Clause 3(2) specifies comparatively objective tests against which the damage caused by disclosure must be measured. The most definite and—I concede at once—the most justifiable is the test that disclosure would endanger the safety of British citizens abroad. But clause 3(3) allows for conviction if disclosure is likely to have any of the effects stipulated in the previous clause. The word "likely" injects a terrifyingly objective analysis into the entire legal process.
  Worse is to follow. Clause 3(3) allows conviction on the basis that damage might have been caused simply by the disclosure of the information, whether or not the information itself was damaging. It will be possible to argue that the publication of a confidential story so unnerves our allies that it is a breach of the Bill. It will unnerve our allies because any breach makes them uncertain about the competence of our security services.
  As I said to the House last week, that was the case made to me by the Foreign Secretary about Zircon. When I suggested that the Soviet Union probably knew as much about Zircon as did the editor of the New Statesman, he said that the revelation of the facts was not as damaging as the discovery by our allies abroad that we allowed such facts to be revealed. If that is the criterion on which the Government operate, this clause does not require actual harm of any sort. It simply requires the Government to say that, in their judgment, harm was likely. Does the Home Secretary believe that the defence "has not done harm", when the Government are saying that the very fact of publication will cause harm, would succeed? If he believes that, he will believe anything. I am sure that he does not hold that view.
  In some categories, a demonstration of harm is necessary, but even there the harm is defined in such a way as to diminish the protection that the qualification is claimed to provide. The Home Office press release—another example of the Home Secretary's recently acquired and deplorable technique—promised that the Bill would require juries to make
  "specific tests of harm to the public interest".
  That is simply not true. Unfortunately, neither the concept of public interest nor the words "public interest" appear anywhere in the Bill.
  Different tests of justification are applied to different categories of information. Information about crime must not be revealed if the revelation results in the commission of an offence, or is likely to do so. Information relating to the offence must not be revealed if revelation prejudices the capabilities of the armed forces, in part or in whole, or is likely to do so. The words "likely to do so" add an area of unacceptable subjectivity to the process. More importantly, each of the tests against which the damage is judged is much less specific and, in terms of making a real assessment of the national interest, far weaker than should be tolerated by the House.
  In its submission to the Government on the criterion "jeopardises the interests of the United Kingdom abroad", the BBC observed wryly that "jeopardy" is not a
  "useful guide to journalists or juries."

  475
  I am sure that that is true, but the concept of jeopardy is a useful catch-all for Governments interested more in conviction than in objective analysis of possible harm.
  In 1972. the Franks committee proposed a much more rigorous definition of the harm test: that disclosure would result in
  "serious injury to the interests of the nation."
  Mr. Hurd: And ministerial certificates.
  Mr. Hattersley: If the Home Secretary wishes to tell me now why those two things must go together and why we cannot reject one and accept the other, I shall give way to him immediately.
  Mr. Hurd: Under the Franks arrangements, the Minister will decide in his certificate whether the test has been met. For the past five minutes the right hon. Gentleman has neglected the existence of the jury members, who are crucial people in the process.
  Mr. Hattersley: On the contrary, for the past five minutes I have been drawing the attention of the House to something that the Home Secretary neglected to mention—the criteria on which a jury is asked to make a judgment. I contend that the criteria are inadequate and damaging. I asked why the Franks criteria could not be used instead of the fatuous—or perhaps I should say vacuous—criteria laid down by the Home Secretary. He might think that he has explained why he rejected the more rigorous, tight and precise concept of serious injury to the interest of the nation, but I assure him that the faces behind him do not suggest that his hon. Friends are convinced by what he purported to call an answer.
  The Franks definition is that which successive Governments have regarded as suitable for classification of information as secret. The Franks report recommended that information classified below that level, and therefore not appropriate for that test, should not be covered by official secrets legislation or criminal sanction. We support that wise judgment. Under the Bill, anything remotely related to security, no matter how trivial, will be covered. "Confidential"—which anyone who has been in Government knows means nothing at all—"Restricted"—which anyone who has been in Government knows means very little—"Secret" and "Top Secret" are all lumped together. In the categories where a test of harm applies, the definition of "harm" is so wide and so weak that it is difficult to imagine any revelation, which is followed by a prosecution, not resulting in conviction. Eight years ago the Bill that the Government abandoned included a far better test of harm—the notion of serious injury. We have heard no justification for going back on that more rigorous definition; the only possible explanation is the Government's desire to construct a Bill that will convict more easily than was thought necessary in 1979.
  The Bill is and will remain authoritarian until a public interest defence is included within its provisions. During the White Paper debate I suggested that the Bill, far from being a liberalising measure, would have secured the conviction of, for example, Mr. Clive Ponting, who was acquitted on what amounted to a public interest defence. I vividly remember the cheers with which that contention was greeted by Conservative Members.
  The Home Secretary has done much to confuse both the House and the country about the application of a public interest criterion, sometimes arguing that such a
  476
  defence is possible under the Bill by equating it with the harm test—that is quite wrong—and sometimes insisting that acquittal on such a defence would be perverse, even under the present Act. Indeed, he made that point today. I shall remind the right hon. Gentleman of what happened in the Clive Ponting case. The jury concluded that it was in the public interest that the truth should be told. Although, under the Bill, that jury might still decide that the balance of interest supported publication, the terms of the Bill would make it impossible for Mr. Ponting to be acquitted in the way that he was acquitted four years ago. There is no doubt that what Mr. Ponting revealed would, in the words of the Bill,
  "prejudice the capability of … the armed forces of the Crown to carry out their tasks."
  That having been demonstrated, nothing else would matter. Mr. Ponting would be found guilty.
  Mr. Dalyell: According to Mr. Ponting today—and I understand from legal authorities that this is likely—Mr. Bruce Laughlan could not have called for testimony from my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), nor from the Master of Caius, the Rouse-Ball Professor of Law, Professor Wade.
  Mr. Hattersley: I propose to develop exactly that point, but without those examples, in a moment. Before doing so, I wish to ask a general question. Is impairing the work of the armed forces really a proper criterion by which a criminal offence is to be measured —a criminal offence that is an automatic offence convictable in all circumstances? No other western democracy would make it so. If that were, in itself, enough to convict, we would be arguing, like some South American dictatorship, that the work of the armed forces was an object in itself that must be protected from all outside interests in all circumstances. We believe that when such matters are judged, we should decide whether, on balance, the outcome was good or bad for the public interest.
  In the Ponting case it was decided that impairing in one particular the work of the armed forces was in the public interest. Any official secrets legislation that does not include at least that possibility is intolerable. Let us consider the possibilities. Public servants who discover a crime or a misdemeanour within their service, and find the internal method of complaint and appeal provides no redress, will be prevented from exposing that wrongdoing. That public servant will be sure that, whether or not the perpetrator of the wrongdoing is prosecuted and convicted, exposing the crime or the misdemeanour will, of itself, lead to certain prosecution and inevitable conviction.
  Under the present law—absurd and inadequate though it is—a public interest defence is possible. A defendant can argue in litigation that he or she made the classified information available only to those—and I quote from the Act—
  "to whom it is, in the interest of the state, his duty to communicate it."
  That becomes a public interest defence, as it was in the case of Clive Ponting. He argued that, numbered among the people for whom it was in the interests of the state for him to communicate previously suppressed facts about the Ministry of Defence, were the people of Great Britain. The jury representing the people of Great Britain agreed with him.
  Mr. Ray Whitney: On the question of a public interest defence, the right hon. Gentleman will recall that the Cabinet of which he was a member authorised the production of the Cheveline as the upgrading for the Polaris nuclear weapon. That information was kept from other members of the Cabinet, from hon. Members and from the public. Had some of those civil servants—who must have been aware of that—leaked that information in the public interest, would the right hon. Gentleman have approved of their action?
  Mr. Hattersley: Of course I would not have approved, and I believe that a jury would have convicted them of behaving in a manner against the national interest. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to know whether I would be prepared to allow that to be tested, the answer is that, of course, I would. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the entire case of those who believe in openness. We are prepared to test our judgment against the judgment of an English court. What divides the authoritarians and the libertarians is the view, which the hon. Gentleman clearly holds, that if the Government say it, it must be right and it must be true. I do not accept that principle. If it is any consolation to the hon. Gentleman, I do not believe in it any more for a Labour Government than I do for a Conservative Government. We need to be protected against Governments of all sorts and of all persuasions.
  Mr. John Maples: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who asked why a public interest defence was not included in the Labour Government's proposals in 1978, the right hon. Gentleman said that his Government had changed their mind. I hope that he will forgive us for wondering why it is such a fundamental principle of liberty now when it was not such 10 years ago.
  Mr. Hattersley: It is important to consider the Bill and the alternative proposals on their merits. I shall argue for the merits of the sort of freedom of information legislation that I want. I believe that to be right now as I believed it to be right in 1978. I do not want to be over sententious, but I hope that when we try—as I hope that we will—to discuss the merits of the alternative systems, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the argument about motivation 10 years ago is pretty small beer and trivial.
  I shall put the point about a public interest defence in a way that will explain and justify it to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney). Let us assume that a Labour Government are in power and that they tap the telephones and break into the houses of hon. Members who have close but wholly legal connections with South Africa. Let us further assume that an intelligence officer reports that abuse to The Times and The Daily Telegraph. He has explained that he made a complaint within the official machinery, but the abuse continued. When that unlawful interception and burglary are reported, would the hon. Gentleman really want the intelligence officer who exposed the scandal and the newspapers that reported it to be automatically and inevitably convicted of a criminal offence? Or would they wish, as I wish, that those who expose wrongdoing to be given the right to argue the defence that they did what they did in the public interest? Under this Bill, such a defence would be impossible, for part of the intention of the Bill is to withhold information not from the enemies of society but from the members of
  478
  society. If I had doubted it for a moment, one of the more extraordinary points that were made by the Home Secretary almost an hour ago would have convinced me of that conviction.
  The Home Secretary told us that damage may be done if a previously secret story were published on the front page of a newspaper, even though the secrecy had previously been breached on the inside pages of a technical journal. That contention can be justified in two ways. The first is that intelligence agents of foreign powers do not read technical journals. The second is that we wish to keep information not from foreign powers but from the British public. It is that which is most offensive about the Bill.
  Mr. Hurd indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hattersley: Although the Home Secretary shakes his head now, there is no possible explanation of the extraordinary point that he made in the exact terms that I described.
  Let us pursue the matter a little further and examine clause 6(3). No offence is committed if confidential information in this country is published when that information has already been published lawfully in another country. Why is it an offence to repeat information that has been published unlawfully in another country? I make the same point. It is reasonable to conclude that Russian agents examine the Washington Post, Le Monde and La Stampa. They will not confine their interest simply to matters that have been published with the authority of the American, French and Italian Governments. If a secret is published in an allied country, it is not unreasonable to assume that it is known in Moscow and Peking. Prohibiting its republication in London can have only one intention—that it should be kept not from the enemies of Great Britain but from the people of Great Britain.
  The history of official secrets legislation, as manipulated by the Government, is concerned with the convenience of Government as much as it is concerned with the security of the realm. The Wright fiasco was prolonged and pursued to avoid the Government in general and the Prime Minister in particular losing face. Clive Ponting was prosecuted because he told the truth and, in consequence, exposed official lies. This Bill, if it is passed into law, will confirm the Government's power to perpetrate all those excesses.
  It is a bad Bill. Its application is likely to be worse because, during its early years, the Government will manage and manipulate it. We shall vote against it tonight.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Edward Heath: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on having carried out his undertaking to bring the White Paper to the House before the end of the last Session and on bringing the Bill before the House at the beginning of the present Session. He faced a formidable task; nobody recognises that better than I do. The Government over which I presided set up the Franks committee, and, in 1973, we accepted all its recommendations. My right hon. Friend's predecessor, Mr. Robert Carr—now Lord Carr —made that statement in the House. We were not in power long enough to implement the committee's recommendations in the next Session. The Franks committee urged that the House should pass an official information Act. It shows the difference of approach that the emphasis was on

  479
  an "official information" Act. That is one of the causes of anxiety among many hon. Members and the press about the real attitude behind the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend has considered many of the points that were raised. This debate can only be an introduction to consideration in Committee. I appreciate that. Mr. Speaker has asked hon. Members to make brief contributions. I should like to make a brief contribution, but many points in the Bill need to be discussed in detail. Therefore, my right hon. Friend and the Whip will urge the Leader of the House to allow proper time for discussion in Committee.
  One cannot rush the passage of a Bill of this kind. The implications are far too great. There is the implication for the safety of the realm. That is of great importance, but of equal importance is the right of the individual citizen, and certainly of the House, to the utmost information available, compatible with the safety of the realm. That requires striking a balance, but, in my experience over many years, all too often Governments are likely to put the balance on the side of Government keeping information secret rather than giving information to the citizen and the House of Commons.
  I can recall, in my time in politics, at least three major foreign policy matters, for example, when information should most certainly have been made available to the House of Commons and to the public, but it was not. I have no desire to see those instances repeated. I also have in mind the case of Sir Con O'Neill, who resigned over Suez, and did so quietly. He just wished to leave the Civil Service. He should not have left it at that. I quite agreed with the Chief Whip at the time—I said nothing. As a senior civil servant who knew the whole story, he had a responsibility to give the real and full reasons why he resigned. Under this Bill, he could not do so. There are several similar instances at major points in our history when it became necessary for a civil servant to do that. It is now said that he can go through the channels of the Civil Service.
  Again, in my experience, the attitudes of heads of the Civil Service vary. Sir William Armstrong was strongly in favour of an open Civil Service and always gave permission for civil servants to appear on the BBC or ITN to give their views. Other heads of the Civil Service have not taken that view. If the head of the Civil Service says, "You have your complaint, you have expressed it to me, but that is the end of the matter," should it be the end of the matter? It is a matter of ethics and professional service, which must he taken into account in a Bill of this kind.
  The Official Secrets Act 1911 has been open to a great deal of criticism. However, it has continued because, on the whole, it has been dormant. It has been used by Governments only in cases of obvious espionage. For sound reasons, cases were often heard in private. Nobody doubted that the court had dealt with a case of deliberate, organised espionage. The Ponting case was dismissed. In another case, the girl, not the Government who brought the case, got the sympathy of the public. That is why the Official Secrets Act has continued in its present form. It was used only in the most extreme cases.
  The question is whether the Bill will continue in that tradition. The cause of anxiety is the belief that it will not. I ask my right hon. Friend not to get upset about it. Any Government who pursue the Wright case to the ultimate ends of the world, as this Government did, are bound to face suspicion about the degree to which they will use the
  480
  great powers that they have in the Bill. The Wright case was pursued to the ultimate. My right hon. Friend must accept that, if the Government were successful in the Wright case here, the British people would not have had the right to read the book, whereas the rest of the world would have. Surely that is not tolerable.
  After a press conference in Hong Kong, I was presented by the press with a paperback copy of Mr. Wright's book. I expressed only limited gratitude to them, because, when I opened it, I saw that it was in Chinese. That did not make Mr. Wright's allegations available to me, but it made them available to 1·05 billion Chinese readers. We cannot continue that sort of thing with this Bill. That is what gives cause for such anxiety.
  That brings me to prior publication. My right hon. Friend spoke of technical journals. Technical journals in the United States produce a mass of information about the American forces, the like of which is never seen in this country, never published and never revealed by Ministers. It is for the super-powers that it is made available. The United States, too, has its Freedom of Information Act. This legislation will close the doors on anything of that kind. It is not justifiable that, if information appears in an American technical journal, the British are the only people not to be allowed to know about it. The Russians, Chinese and Americans can know. All our allies know. The only people who cannot know are the British people. That cannot be allowed to continue. That is why I emphasise to my right hon. Friend the need for time in Committee to discuss this in detail, and to give him the chance to examine some criticisms.
  Our objective should be to produce a Bill acceptable to both sides of the House and, as far as possible, to the press. The latter will be more difficult. When we discussed the Franks report I invited all the editors of the British papers to come to No. 10 and give me their views about it. They had only one view: ignore it, and sweep away the Official Secrets Act. That is not possible. The degree of support from the British press will always by limited, but what is said in the House should be taken into account.
  I cannot see any way of dealing with these problems other than by having a public interest. I recognise my right hon. Friend's emphasis on the jury, but if public interest is to be taken into account, fewer cases are likely to be brought under the Act. Why should one open the whole arena to cases being brought when one expects that juries will dismiss them?
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is difficult for any judge to prevent a jury hearing arguments which will amount to a public interest argument? [HON. MEMBERS: "Quite right."] My hon. Friends properly say, "Quite right." But when a case is being argued before a jury, it is necessarily argued much more widely than before a judge sitting alone.
  Mr. Heath: The terms of the legislation must be taken into account. If it is clear in the Bill that public interest must be taken into account, it clarifies the whole position, as it should do.
  There are many confusions in the Bill and I resist the temptation to call my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for obfuscation. He has hidden some parts, and when we reach Committee stage these must be produced. For example, what happens if, as may happen under a future

  481
  Government, our defence forces are in a particular way inadequate? If such public knowledge is produced, one may say that it is damaging to the country. This takes us back to the famous Duncan Sandys case before the second world war. He was absolutely right and was finally shown to be right. If we rely on the terms of the Bill, that would not happen. It would be said that, by revealing our weakness, he has done immense harm to the good of the country. That would hold good under this Bill.
  Again, if there are better reasons than I have found for this, we can discuss them in Committee. That emphasises the need for a thorough discussion in Committee.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is it not also true that Major Sir Desmond Morton, who advised Churchill and told him about air weaknesses, would certainly be in prison under this Bill?
  Mr. Heath: There may be other cases and it is open to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to explain them all later.
  We can argue about the past, what we were about to do in 1972 and what a Labour Government did or did not do in 1978. In the past 20 years we have seen a complete transformation of information in the world. It is due entirely to technology, satellites and everything which goes with them. Whatever happens at any moment we hear a second later on the radio and see on the first news broadcast on television. That has transformed the whole approach to public information, which includes the secrecy of essential services. It means that the public not only expect more information, but are led to expect it by the media and are entitled to it. It may be said that I have changed since 1972–73. Yes, I recognise that what goes on in the world is of prime importance to citizens and Parliaments. That is being recognised elsewhere, but we have been slow to recognise it.
  If the Bill is passed, will Irangate be possible? The answer is no. For 30 years, nothing would come out. Yet Irangate exposed the incompetence and hypocrisy of the President of the United States. Real damage was done to the United States because the matter was seen worldwide. I shall not attempt to describe the actions of his subordinates, but they were all publicly discussed because the basic information was made available in the first instance which led to the Congressional hearing in which everything was brought out. That is a test of this Bill. Could such an example happen in this country under the Bill? I do not believe that it could.
  Mr. Buchan: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that America was a great deal healthier as a result?
  Mr. Heath: I agree with that. I know that opinions vary. I know from an answer that she gave at Question Time that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister thinks that it was not right that everything should have come out. There is a difference of view; I accept that. There is not a difference of view in the United States, which expects information to be made available for people to make their judgments, although other powers may draw their deductions from what was revealed. When we have a Bill in which that is possible—we have information and can form our judgments about it—it will be a satisfactory Bill
  482
  for information. The other side of the coin is that we must ensure that vital questions of security can be protected, as they are under the Official Secrets Act.
  I thank my right hon. Friend for introducing the Bill. In the past, he has listened to criticisms. I hope that he will pay attention to what is said in this House and outside, and that in Committee we can have longer, more detailed discussions of important matters which remain.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Peter Archer: The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) must have given the Home Secretary the clue to why the dancing in the streets at the introduction of this Bill was somewhat restrained. We are discussing the circumstances in which we prosecute people for revealing information. Any question of an obligation on the Government to make information available is not even part of the debate, because it is not part of the Home Secretary's proposals.
  In my usual conciliatory way I should like at least to start by advancing some propositions which may meet with the approval of the whole House. Since it is Christmas, I suggest a party game. Who said:
  "Publicity is the … most effective check against any arbitrary action."?—[Official Report, 5 February 1960; Vol. 616, c. 1351.]
  Was it John Milton, Duncan Campbell, Esther Rantzen, Clive Ponting or Peter Wright? The answer is that it was not any of them. It was said originally by Franks, but it was quoted with approval by an honourable Member of this House on 5 February 1972 when introducing a private Member's Bill. She was then simply the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).
  Mr. Buchan: I think I would have guessed the right answer.
  Mr. Archer: I think that some of my hon. Friends might have guessed. Admittedly, that hon. Lady was dealing with local councils and she was no more enamoured of them then than now, but I suspect that she might have said the same about the state, because at that time, like Louis XIV, she had not become the state.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said 1972, but I think he means 1960.
  Mr. Archer: I meant 1960. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for correcting me. The lady in question was then the hon. Member for Finchley, not the right hon. Lady.
  I never expected to hear myself say, "I agree with the right hon. Lady." Honesty compels me to declare, however, that in this instance I do agree with her, even though she no longer agrees with herself.
  Perhaps there are propositions that will gain general acceptance in the House. For example, information is the key to high standards in public administration; there is no more effective inducement to high standards than the knowledge that achievements and failures will become known; information is the key to representative democracy; there can be a choice only for those who know what the options are; the electorate can pass judgments on Governments only if it knows what Governments are doing. I would think that those propositions would be met with general agreement.
  Equally, I think that there is general agreement that there must be some restrictions on the right of the public

  483
  to have information. For example, there are the interests of security, crime prevention and other matters that are set out in the Bill, as well as subjects which do not relate to the Bill. There is the right of individuals to a deserved reputation. There are matters of copyright and of obscenity. The European convention on human rights lists some of the instances where restrictions are necesary in the interests of a democratic society. I fear, however, that those are not the only considerations that induce administrations to attempt to conceal information.
  We cannot gauge the state of public information in the United Kingdom by reading section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 or even the statute book as a whole. One would expect the Prime Minister's assertion to gain general acceptance in a country where, until this century, those who were persecuted in their own countries came to settle and to find refuge, because it was within the United Kingdom that they were free to say and to write what they chose. Yet to discover the hygiene conditions within meat factories, it was necessary for the investigator to go to the United States, to which the factories exported, to invoke the Freedom of Information Act in that country and to read the reports which inspectors in the United States had prepared on the British meat factories. This is a country where only a series of private Members' Bills over the past two or three years have brought us to a position which is somewhere near that which prevails in other countries, not one that is in advance of them.
  As I have said, we cannot gauge the state of information in this country by reading the only legislation in the statute book. Perhaps we suffer from the fact that British bureaucracy is one of the oldest and most established bureaucracies in the world. Its culture is one of the most deeply entrenched, with all the advantages and disadvantages which that entails. One of the disadvantages is the collegiate sense of identity and of superiority which comes from sharing secrets. It is the binding mechanism of a priesthood or of a freemasonry. It is the source of that sense of loyalty to the machine which extends beyond loyalty to the community, which has elevated the ability to keep secrets to the greatest of all virtues.
  The evidence given to the Franks committee included a quotation from a permanent secretary to the Treasury of 1873, which read:
  "The unauthorised use of official information is the worstfault that a civil servant can commit. It is on the same footing as cowardice by a soldier."
  It is against that background that we debate the Bill. Section 2 of the 1911 Act has stood for years as a symbol of excessive, all-embracing secrecy for the sake of secrecy. It sprang from the paranoia of 1911, and it has subsequently been protected by the mentality that is portrayed so perceptively in "Yes, Prime Minister".
  Opposition Members should welcome the final dispatch of section 2. We should commend the Government for taking such action. We have few enough opportunities to commend the Government, and we must not be ungenerous when they occur. But if we are to disturb the sleeping dog to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup referred—the sleeping dog that does not wake very often, and only in a restricted way—we are surely entitled to examine what the Home Secretary proposes to put in its place. If the Bill, when enacted, remains on the statute book for as long as its predecessor, it had better be an improvement. The
  484
  Home Secretary must not be surprised that the Bill has been hailed as a substitute for a freedom of information Act.
  It is in the interests of time that I shall concern myself only with the absence from the Bill of a public interest defence, on the lines of that included in the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). The Home Secretary does not provide a substitute for that defence when he introduces the damaging disclosure test. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said—this was taken up by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup—the prosecution is entitled to succeed on the damaging disclosure test if it can show any damage that follows from the disclosure. The public interest test introduces a balancing of the advantages and disadvantages that flow from the disclosure.
  I am bound to ask what our reaction should be when a normally loyal and discreet official says that the arguments of security and confidentiality are being used, or abused, to conceal something that should be challenged, something about which the public should know and something on which they are entitled to pass judgment. What is the position if the official says, "My conscience tells me that I can no longer be party to the deception"? If any Conservative Member tells us that he can envisage no circumstances in which he would feel that dilemma, he would be more at home in some Orwellian nightmare than in a free society.
  How far should a political community recognise the dilemma? I do not seek to argue that we can afford absolute licence for the individual conscience. I accept that, if any of us were permitted to do whatever our consciences dictated, it would be impossible for us all to remain on one planet. That is not what we are being asked to consider. I imagine that it will be said that decisions of the sort that I have postulated should cost something. As Nye Bevan once said, one cannot be a martyr without being prepared to wear a martyr's crown.
  But understanding and tolerance are political virtues. A healthy political community should be able to accommodate a genuine dilemma in which even a decent and loyal individual—indeed, especially a decent and loyal individual—may find himself. I make a suggestion, in the hope that as a result we may find some common ground. I have no authority to speak on behalf of any of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I do not know whether they will agree with me—I make it clear that I am not trying to draft a provision—but could we not say that a jury should be empowered to acquit if it found the following three factors: first, that the accused was motivated by a genuine conscientious conviction; secondly, that he tried so far as possible to rectify the position within the system; thirdly, that on balance the public interest was better served by disclosure than by silent acquiesence?
  Mr. Greg Knight: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us in what other area of criminal law motive is a defence?
  Mr. Archer: I could list at least 20 offences where motive is a defence. Motive is one of the matters frequently considered by the courts in the context of intention. Juries have no difficulty in considering it. The philosophy underlying our criminal law is that there should be no guilt

  485
  without a guilty mind. I am prepared to argue about this in Committee with the hon. Gentleman. It is not a novel concept.
  I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would go along with me in erecting two hurdles—one subjective and the other objective. I can well imagine that some of my friends in the NCCL might not thank me for doing that. They might say that it places the individual conscience in mercy to popular opinion. I have no doubt that some Conservative Members will say it is the thin edge of an anarchist wedge, but I should have thought that the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) and the Minister would have agreed that this was an attempt to find some middle ground.
  It may be said that such a matter should not be left to a jury; as I understood it, the Secretary of State said something like that. That surprises me, because every day of the week juries decide on concepts that are broadly of this type. As the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup pointed out, juries have been deciding matters similar to this in the context of section 2. On the whole, juries have a better record of recognising the occasional conflict between liberty and order than politicians.
  This is not the only problem raised by the Bill, but time, as always in this Chamber, imposes its own restrictions on free speech—
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one major problem with the public interest defence is that a defendant can agree that he has caused positive harm to the national interest, but claim that he has done so in the public interest? He may argue that the harm he has done should be considered in the light of the good that he has achieved. However, if positive harm is done to the public interest, the public interest is not being served.
  Mr. Archer: The difference between the two tests is that, with the public interest test, it is possible to balance whether, on the whole, the public has benefited from a disclosure. The positive harm test does not permit a jury to take that into account—
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence rose—
  Mr. Archer: I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will make his own speech later.
  We all know of cases in which juries have been directed that they cannot take such a judgment into account. Occasionally, they break loose and do not follow the judge's direction, but it is unsatisfactory for a jury to have to disregard a judge's direction in order to effect justice—
  Mr. Lawrence rose—
  Mr. Archer: I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me; I have spoken for long enough.
  I urge the Minister to reflect that, if secrecy is sometimes necessary to protect our way of life, it is the cure that may well be worse than the disease—it may provide a greater threat to the way of life it is intended to protect.
  5.43 pm
  Mr. Ray Whitney: The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) underestimates the difficulty in his proposition about the public interest defence. Even by his second criterion—he is a lawyer, I am not—Clive Ponting would have been vulnerable to being found guilty, as he did not exercise all the options available to him through the normal channels to express his concerns.
  I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on bringing to the House a Bill for which the House and country have waited for so long. We all know how unusable and dangerous the Official Secrets Act 1911 has been, but we all are aware of the difficulties that Government's of both complexions have encountered. Finally, the nettle has been grasped. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should congratulate the Government on doing that.
  Of course, the Bill upsets some people—I shall avoid calling them the obfuscatory: let us say, the perpetrators—who take advantage of the sheer unusability of the 1911 Act. The prospect of having an Act that will be usable causes anxiety in some quarters, but the majority of people in the country very much welcome it.
  It is important to understand the world in which we live and the sort of information that needs to be kept secret. Lip service is paid to this, and then we move quickly on to the mass of information for which the people are allegedly hungry and thirsty and without which they will not be satisfied. This hunger and thirst may exist more in the minds of politicians and journalists than among our constituents. However, let us accept that it exists and that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) pointed out, there is now a vast mass of information that was not available before. When it is enacted, this Bill will release huge amounts of information into the public domain which now exist in a grey area. But there remains a crucial area that must be protected, and I think that the Bill does that.
  My interest in the public interest defence arises from my experience as a member of Her Majesty's diplomatic service. I recall with wry amusement the sanctification of Mr. Clive Ponting. He has now been enrolled as a member of the Social Democratic party. It is unfortunate that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) is not with us today. He was Foreign Secretary when I was the head of the Foreign Office Department. On many occasions items of information became available to me which I could have done a Ponting with. I could perfectly well have put them in plain brown envelopes and sent them to people who are now my hon. Friends. It would not have occurred to me to do so. Had I done so, the right hon. Member for Devonport, who now welcomes Mr. Ponting with acclamation into his party, would have been rightly outraged and would have launched proceedings under the 1911 Act.
  It is important to recognise that Mr. Ponting did not take the opportunities that he had to pursue his concerns through the channels that then existed which, as a result of this legislation, will be greatly enhanced. When challenged with disclosure, he denied it. He took every chance to conceal the origin of the documents and, in the end, passed them not to his Member of Parliament, or to a Privy Councillor, or to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, but to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell),

  487
  whose rather special—one might even say idiosyncratic—interest in the affair was well known. That was clearly a politically motivated act. So any defence of the public interest concept mounted on the basis of the Ponting story immediately shows the weakness of the proposition—
  Mr. Robin Corbett: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on the bitter personal attack that he has made on Mr. Ponting in circumstances in which the latter has no right of reply. The hon. Gentleman should also put the saga in context. Mr. Ponting was charged under the 1911 Act and acquitted by his peers.
  Mr. Whitney: I am well aware of that, and everything that I have said about Ponting I have said in writing before. It is not subject to challenge; it is absolute fact. He was acquitted by his peers, and that shows the inefficacy of the 1911 Act. We need a new one. That is not to say that there is not a propensity for excessive secrecy in the Civil Service. It is a challenge to all Ministers to ensure that that propensity is not pursued to dangerous lengths. That cannot be achieved by legislation on secrecy. The freedom of information legislation in the United States is greatly open to challenge as an effective means of achieving that.
  Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend has hit rather hard and successfully the Ponting long hop bowled by the Opposition on the public interest defence. However, he completely ignored and failed to play the much more devastating ball bowled by, among others, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) on the public interest defence as it applied in the non-prosecution of cases such as that of Mr. Duncan Sandys and the civil servants who briefed Sir Winston Churchill before the second world war about the lack of preparedness of our anti-aircraft defences. My hon. Friend ignores the fact that the public interest defence has helped the free flow of responsible information. It should not be narrowed down to the debatable case of Mr. Ponting.
  Mr. Whitney: My hon. Friend takes us to a much more profitable area. However, we have to draw a line somewhere and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup says, we must look at this area in Committee. In general, the Government proposals have the right balance and the structures that are about to be put in place will take account of that. I say at the risk of appearing immodest that if a civil servant feels strongly about an issue he may as well do what I did and leave the Civil Service and enter politics. That option is open to a civil servant.
  Some Opposition Members have shown wry amusement about prior publication. They take the view that if people in Moscow know about something why should we not know about it. That fails to understand the nature of the attack on free societies and how that attack has developed in recent years. Let us be clear: the attack continues. While we continue to wish Mr. Gorbachev well about the words that he expresses and hope that they will be translated into reality in terms of improving conditions in the Soviet Union and reducing the pressures of the arms race, the reality is that free societies are still under attack.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) quoted from a United States' statement about that the other day and a Home Office Minister also emphasised that there is no evidence at all that the attack on Western
  488
  societies has let up in any way. We must understand the nature of that attack. One element of it is the degree of political warfare that relies precisely on the mechanism of prior publication. It is not a question of people in Moscow or anywhere else knowing something before we do and using it to, at the very least, discomfort Western societies.
  I shall give the House one example. A foreign magazine published in 1973 the name of the then head of the Security Service, a service which of course did not exist, and neither did the man. Not only was that man's name published in the foreign magazine, but a large photograph of him was published in the British press on the basis of prior publication. The publication of that information endangered the life of the head of the intelligence service and increased the vulnerability of servants of the Crown. The danger was not from the Russians but from a terrorist or some nutter. We all knew where the officer lived and where he dined, and the publication of such information exposes the members of the security services to risk.
  Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the name and address and describe the behaviour of the director of the CIA in America?
  Mr. Aitken: That can be found on the front cover of Newsweek.
  Mr. Whitney: The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) will know that the presence in this country of Mr. Philip Agee was rightly terminated by the Home Secretary in a Labour Government. Mr. Agee was expelled from Britain. His disclosures resulted in the assassination of some CIA officers. Therefore, the danger exists and it arises because of the threat of prior publication. These two areas cause concern to the House, so I hope that hon. Members will take full account of the problems of public interest and the dangers of prior publication.
  Mr. Heath: Is my hon. Friend aware that the head of the CIA and the head of the FBI have both taken part in television broadcasts with me in the United States? Everybody knows their names and their faces and knows their views. We have had discussions, we were cheered by the audience and seen by millions who came to watch me.
  Mr. Whitney: My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to know that I am well aware of that. I, too, have participated in similar discussions. My right hon. Friend must not have heard me when I said that it was the names of CIA officers in the field who were revealed and those officers were exposed. I know about the practice in the United States, but it was not the practice in this country in 1973 to expose the names of the heads of the security and intelligence services. A small obscure magazine published, I think, in Hull and called, would hon. Members believe, Lobster makes a practice of publishing names of gentlemen who are alleged to be members of the security services. That creates danger and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup shares my deep apprehension about that sort of practice being allowed to continue.
  I strongly urge the House to take account of the points that I have made and to understand that as well as living in a world of information we live in a world of dangers and threats. I draw to the attention of the House a statement by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey)

  489
  who was well known last week for playing Father Christmas in Epping and who was the Foreign Secretary in a Labour Government. He said:
  "I get no letters whatever about the Official Secrets Act or any of these issues. I think the level of public interest is pretty low. …"
  Mr. Corbett: Times have changed.
  Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman says that times have changed, but the right hon. Member for Leeds, East said that a few months ago and that remains the position.
  5.57 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: No one in the House—or, indeed, in the country at large—doubts that the Official Secrets Act 1911 required amendment, but the circumstances in which the Government are bringing forward the Bill after nine years of deliberation are causing many observers to view its purpose and provisions with the greatest suspicion. The Bill is not brought forward in the context of careful deliberation by the Government on how best to strengthen and secure the democratic right of the citizen to receive as well as to impart information. We have extremely few laws which positively encourage information flows. Secrecy is the curse of British democracy. However, it is upon the availability of official information that a democracy depends, because it enables the citizen to participate effectively in the making and administration of laws and policy.
  Although Britain has subscribed to article 10 of the European convention on human rights, which guarantees freedom of expression as a fundamental right, we cannot rely upon any specific legislation which ensures that that right is powerfully protected by the judicial system. We need legislation to provide a firm basis of principle to safeguard the conflicting interests of confidentiality, privacy and accessibility of information. The legislation should ensure that in the last resort the right to obtain information is not left to the discretion of a Minister, a civil servant or a judge, but depends upon the law as determined by Parliament, which can be enforced by the courts.
  That is why the Democrats strongly advocate a freedom of information Act, not merely to limit the scope of the protection of information by the criminal law but to encourage a pluralistic and participatory democracy. That, after all, has been the approach pursued in many other countries with common law systems like our own—in Canada, Australia and the United States. In the absence of such a measure which could curb the uncontrolled disćretion of the public authorities to withhold information, the public are bound to look with a jaundiced eye on a Bill which seems designed more to tighten control over certain categories of information than to advance openness of government.
  It seems that the Government have finally decided to legislate primarily because of the Ponting and "Spycatcher" cases. The Ponting case demonstrated that at least a British jury was not prepared to accept that it could not decide whether publication of official information was in the public interest. The Ponting jury appeared to have followed closely the reasoning of the civil
  490
  law of confidence which recognises that, exceptionally, the public interest can justify a disclosure, even of highly confidential information.
  Years after section 2 of the 1911 Act was condemned by the Franks committee, the Government have been forced to recognise that it is no longer a useful instrument to protect information. "Spycatcher", after an expensive and humiliating tour of the courts of the world, ultimately determined that the reportage of what was already in the public domain could not be injuncted. The Bill appears to have been prompted by those two judicial defeats for the Government more than by any regard for the modernisation of the law and the freeing of information.
  It must be made clear that, despite what the Home Secretary has said, the Bill does nothing to increase public access to information. It does nothing to reverse the prevailing assumption that information collected on behalf of the public—by public servants and at public expense—should be kept secret. It does nothing to place on the authorities the responsibility for justifying that secrecy. Instead, it continues to charge the public with responsibility to justify access. It perpetuates an undesirable inconsistency between the criminal and civil law of confidentiality, making the obligations to maintain confidentiality more strictly enforceable by criminal penalty than they are by civil remedies, as the civil law of confidence provides that it is a defence of an action of breach that that breach was justified in the public interest.
  The scope of section 2 of the 1911 Act is ludicrously wide. It was certainly time to confine tightly the ambit of the criminal law to those matters where disclosure would cause
  "serious injury to the interests of the nation",
  as the Franks committee put it. It is to be noted that, in abandoning the criminal law in wide areas of official information, the Government propose to tighten the sanctions of the Civil Service discipline code. The Home Secretary did not deny that point when he alluded to these procedures. Although it may be true that the Government are not seeking new powers of injunction, as the Home Secretary said, there is no sign that they wish to abandon their considerable powers to seek injunctions under the civil law to prevent unauthorised information from being published or broadcast. Furthermore, we have heard nothing from the Home Secretary today or in earlier debates about the many statutes—about 100 of them—which make it a specific offence to reveal specific types of information. There is much still to be done to rationalise the law, even within the terms used by the Home Secretary.
  I do not argue that there are not certain limited classes of information on which it is appropriate to invoke the sanction of the criminal law, but I fear that by drawing too widely the categories of protected information—those categories in which disclosure constitutes an absolute offence and those in which disclosure is an offence if it is likely to cause harm—the Government risk perpetuating uncertainty in the operation of the law. If there is obfuscation on this, it flows from the language of the Bill, which has already been subjected to considerable scrutiny by the press and those most likely to feel its impact, who undoubtedly find its provisions extremely obscure.
  A further matter which has not been raised in the debate is that the Bill appears to invite the further attention of the European Court of Human Rights. The careful and persuasive arguments advanced in the unanimous report of Lord Deedes' committee, set up by

  491
  Justice to consider the Bill, strongly show that the Bill is defective in that the limitations that it imposes on freedom of expression are not those that would be regarded as "necessary", as defined in the Handyside and Sunday Times cases. In particular, the Deedes committee argued that the requirement only of "damage"—and not of "serious damage", as the Franks committee recommended—cannot constitute such a "pressing need" as to justify criminal sanctions in respect of so fundamental a right as freedom of information.
  The Deedes committee further argued that it would be even more difficult to justify limiting that freedom in categories which, under the Bill, would give rise to criminal liability, even though no damage had been proved—the categories relating to security and intelligence, interception of communications pursuant to a warrant, and action authorised by warrant under the Security Service Bill 1988. I hope that the Minister, who has just returned, will answer the case made so powerfully by that unanimous report—that the Bill will offend against article 10 of the European convention on human rights. Will the hon. Gentleman answer the arguments which that report so cogently expressed?
  It is highly imprudent of the Government, who hitherto have tried to square their legislation with our international obligations under the European convention, to embark upon a Bill of such doubtful conformity with international law. The "Spycatcher" case brought the Government into ridicule, principally because they did not take proper account of the effect of prior publication. The Government have not tackled that problem effectively in the Bill. It appears that, where the offences are absolute under the Bill, the repetition of previously published information will be a further new offence. The position is less clear where there is a requirement that disclosure is likely to cause harm. In those cases it is apparently intended that matters should be left to the determination of the jury, but I am not entirely clear that that is so.
  The provision that in certain cases any disclosure would be an offence, regardless of harm, is far too widely drawn. In particular, clause 3(3), which makes it an offence to publish a leak of any document from another country or international body regardless of the subject matter, is a patent absurdity. I do not see how the Government can begin to defend a proposal that it should be a crime to publish leaks of European Community documents which emanate from Whitehall about, say, pollution, tax reforms or information received from the Food and Agriculture Organisation on nutritional standards. I do not think that the Home Secretary answered that point by talking about the additional requirement of harm.
  A further major criticism of the absolute offences is that they depart from the Franks committee's recommendation, particularly in respect of the interception of communications and security and intelligence matters, that they should be offences only if they cause
  "serious injury to the interests of the nation".
  The same objection may be made to those categories of disclosure where the Bill requires some test of damage. The result of the weak tests of "prejudicing" and of "putting in jeopardy" the national interest is greatly to extend the categories of protected information beyond what the Government proposed in the Protection of Official Information Bill in 1979.
  Those are all matters to which the House must return in detail in Committee. I certainly support the call of the
  492
  right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) for a long and careful Committee stage. We are dealing with matters of national security and how best to safeguard them. This is possibly a matter of constitutional importance and it is certainly a matter of high security importance. It would be inappropriate for the debate to be in any way truncated when the Bill is of such great significance.
  The overwhelming reason why we shall vote against the Bill is that the Government are adamantly opposed to incorporating in the Bill any form of public interest defence. That defence has long been accepted under the civil law of confidence. In the "Spycatcher" case, the House of Lords described the justification of that defence with great clarity. Lord Goff of Chieveley put it in this way:
  "It is incumbent upon the Crown in order to restrain disclosure of Government secrets, not only to show that the information is confidential, but also to show that it is in the public interest that it should not be published … although in the case of private citizens there is a public interest that confidential information should as such be protected, in the case of Government secrets, the mere fact of confidentiality does not alone support such a conclusion, because in a free society there is a continuing public interest that the workings of Government should be open to scrutiny and criticism."
  Although Lord Goff was speaking of the civil law, I see no reason why similar considerations should not operate in criminal law.
  At an earlier stage of that case, Sir John Donaldson, the Master of the Rolls, said:
  "The press has a legitimate role in disclosing scandals in government. An open democratic society requires that that be so … the ability of the press freely to report allegations of scandal in government is one of the bulwarks of our democratic society."
  The public interest defence is what will enable crime, abuse of power and scandal to be exposed. Without it, important areas of public administration will remain beyond the purview of Parliament and the press. To accept the public interest defence is not—as the Government wish to imply—to permit leakers, as a matter of subjective judgment, to determine where the public interest lies. That is for the jury.
  The Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) showed how the procedural rquirements of the defence could ensure that reasonable steps must first be taken to draw misconduct to the attention of the appropriate authorities before the defence could be invoked. Without such a defence, the Bill will simply ensure that in this country the net of secrecy is cast over wide areas of public administration only to be pulled aside when Ministers, in their discretion, decide that it is right to do so. It is not hard to understand that some Ministers seek to preserve that prerogative. It would be harder to understand the House of Commons being their accomplice. I hope, therefore, that the House will resolve to reject the Bill.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Julian Amery: I am in some doubt as to whether I can support my right hon. Friends in the Lobby this evening. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will listen to what I have to say. I am no crusader for open government when it comes to the secret services. By their nature, some of their operations, both abroad and at home, must be conducted by means which would be regarded as illegal abroad and at home, unless

  493
  covered by warrant. I am clear about the fact that one cannot put the decisions about such work into commission.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) appeared to come down in favour of the American system. I believe that anyone who has read Mr. Woodward's book, "The Veil" will see that the conduct of American intelligence and covert operations has been completely paralysed by Congress attempting to exercise an overview of those measures. I do not believe either that there is anything to be said for a retrospective supervision by Privy Councillors or judges. I yield to no one in my respect for Privy Councillors, but I consider that only one or two of them would be competent in the matter. Of course, it would be quite wrong of me to put myself forward in such a context!
  The failures of the secret services are broadcast, but, of course, their successes are unsung, which is as it should be. Supervision would not have altered the balance except that it might have restrained initiatives and led to omission. I believe that my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench share that general approach. My anxiety is that their recent rigid interpretation of the obligation of lifelong confidentiality may lead to exactly the opposite result to what they want. I shall not go into detail, but my experience is that it has already damaged morale in the services concerned. It has certainly injured the reputation of those services. If that is persisted in, it may lead to the demand for extra-Executive control, which has happened already in the Security Service in the shape of the Bill that was before the House last week. I am concerned that that will not happen for the secret intelligence service.
  The obligation of lifelong confidentiality is, of course, right. Those who join the service must take a Trappist vow, but it must be interpreted with some flexibility. There is a human aspect to it. A man—or, in these modern times, a woman—who joins the service has, perhaps, a lifelong career, but must never explain to his friends, his wife, or his children what he is doing. Nobody knows when he goes to the office in the morning what it is about. He can never talk about it when he comes home. Nobody knows whether he has been a success or whether he has been promoted in rank.
  Therefore, it is not unreasonable that, when he retires after a lifelong career—he may only have been in part-time service or loosely connected with it, as I have been—he would want to write something about it. So long as what he writes is not prejudicial to the safety of other members of the service, the reputation of the service or the national interest, he should be allowed to do so.
  The same is true of the service itself. The British secret services have been held in high esteem all over the world by those who are interested in such matters. How do we maintain that esteem? Of course, partly by secrecy, but partly by allowing the different successes to be known after an appropriate time.
  New recruits to the service must also be considered. As a young member of one of those services, I profited a great deal from the memoirs of Paul Dukes and Compton Mackenzie and others, who had been through the mill. What they had to say taught me a lot and in a sense was an inspiration.
  494
  I believe that all those matters used to be recognised by the secret services. There was a perfectly good convention that, if one wanted to write, one submitted one's text to the proper authorities and they discussed it with one. If they thought that there was a paragraph or a sentence or, perhaps, names mentioned that would be better omitted, one was told, and most of those who submitted their texts would have agreed. I submitted my books twice and very little censorship was exercised upon them.
  I raised this issue when my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) had a debate on this matter earlier in the year. I have also raised it since in correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who wrote to me to say:
  "I am happy to confirm, … that it is and will remain possible for members and former members of those services to publish with authority, without contravening the criminal law. Applications for authority will continue to be received and carefully considered."
  I thought that that was reassuring and, as my daughter was getting married on the day of the debate on the Security Service White Paper, I did not join in it nor did I raise any further questions. On reflection, however, I must ask whether my right hon. Friend's statement is reassuring enough. What will be the criterion of reasonable authorisation?
  The precedents are not encouraging. I wish to refer to two books that have been commissioned by the Cabinet Office—I am sure that the Minister will know all about them. One is the "History of Deception Strategy in World War II" by Sir Michael Howard, until recently the Regius professor of history at Oxford. That book was commissioned and has been paid for, but, although Sir Michael was assured of its publication, it has been vetoed. However, I understand that the services concerned were happy about the book.
  The other similar book is by Mr. Anthony Simpkins, who has written about some of the wartime operations of the Special Operations Executive and M15. Unless I am mistaken, that book was also commissioned by the Cabinet Office. It had been vetted, and no objections had been raised. The publication of those books has been stopped on a narrow interpretation of the lifelong obligation to confidentiality.
  I now come to the Wright case. It is painful for any Government supporter to discuss this. In my experience, it is an example of unparalleled ineptitude in the conduct of administrative affairs by any Administration of which I have known, or indeed read. Had Graham Greene or Evelyn Waugh written a satire about it, it would have been panned by the reviewers as far-fetched.
  There was never a chance of success even if the Australian courts had found in our favour, which was extremely unlikely. Publication would have taken place in the United States or elsewhere. Besides, there was no serious reason to deny publication or to deny its import into this country. Looking back, I can see that there was a logic in stopping "Lady Chatterley's Lover" being imported into this country. It might have put the wrong ideas into the heads of wives of landowners or into the heads of their gamekeepers.
  Who could have been subverted or who could have suffered from the import of "Spycatcher"? Most of the information had already been made available by Harry Chapman Pincher and, as Mr. Wright has subsequently admitted, a good deal of the book was invented.

  495
  I do not want to rub the Government's nose in this more than I can help, but my argument is based on the convention that I have described. The normal course of events is to submit one's book and then have it discussed. My understanding is that Mr. Turnbull, Mr. Wright's lawyer, and Heinemann, the publishers, submitted the text in April 1986 to the authorities. It was rejected and any question of negotiation was rejected by the Treasury Solicitor—I think it was Sir John Bailey—on the ground that the Government were concerned not with what was in the text, but simply with the principle of lifelong confidentiality. The Government refused to discuss it and simply said "No, you cannot do it". Is that true? That is what Mr. Turnbull has told me and what he has published—I cannot vouch for that information, but I hope that the Minister will when he replies.
  If what Mr. Turnbull said is true, I think that we have done something of a wrong to Mr. Wright. Precedent would have entitled him to expect that he could have sumitted his text and argued about it. His reputation has been blackened. I believe that one of the Law Lords compared him to Philby, although there is nothing in the book that is, in any sense, treasonable. Of course, he has ben enriched beyond measure. He would have never made
  £25,000 out of the book if the Government had let it go. If they had paid him £50,000 to stop its publication, he would have done well. But we have blackened his reputation, and we may have done him a considerable wrong.
  Then there is the case of Mr. Cavendish. He and his publishers have told me that he submitted his text and that it was rejected on the same grounds. I do not want to press my hon. Friend about this case because I believe that it is still sub judice. I will only note that two thirds of the book can be freely published in England, but none of it in Scotland. That is a rather curious state of affairs.
  In the light of those cases and referring back to my right hon. Friend's assurance in his letter to me, I must ask the Minister to spell out the terms under which publication would be reasonably authorised. I hope the Minister would say that authorisation would not be withheld, subject to the excision of anything that endangered personnel, endangered existing or potential operations, endangered technology, or could cause grave embarrassment to the department or service concerned. My hon. Friend should also add that, in event of disagreement with the author, there would be some provision for appeal. I am not suggesting a public or judicial appeal, but appeal to an ombudsman. If I understand the matter correctly, that person is now intended to deal with questions of conscience.
  If the Minister cannot give me such information tonight, I will find it hard to support my right hon. Friend in the Lobby, and I suppose that some of us would have to consider drafting an amendment expressing the conditions that I have outlined. I hope that we will not have to do that, because that would be a great bore for the Government and a great bore for those of us who are concerned about this.
  This important matter cannot be ducked because a number of books are in the pipeline at the moment. Some I know about, some I do not. Given that the recess is coming, before the Bill reaches the Committee, it would be nice to know that clearance had been given or not unreasonably withheld to those books that are now "on hold" until this debate has taken place.
  496
  This is not the only issue in the debate. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) raised a broader scheme of issues to which the House must give attention.
  Mr. Aitken: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the crucial argument that he has just made, is he aware that he has put the Government on a devastating spot? An answer is vital. In addition to the cases that he has cited, the entire American system, which works extremely effectively, follows the blueprint that my right hon. Friend has mentioned, but with one important addition. Under the American system, anyone who does break the rule of not getting proper clearance can be hit far harder and far more effectively than we were ever able to begin to hit Mr. Wright.
  Mr. Amery: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I had not thought that I had put a devastating bomb under the Government Front Bench, but if I have, so much the better, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will have interpreted that in the way that my hon. Friend has expressed.
  I apologise if I have detained the House too long on this one aspect. However, I have been involved with these services personally in war and afterwards. I was also responsible at the old Colonial Office and at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for some supervision of those services. Britain has been held to be pre-eminent in those services in the past. As hon. Members realise, the services depend on individuals, often with idiosyncratic temperaments. To put it in a coarse way, spies are not civil servants in the ordinary sense, and they must be handled with sensitivity. They are not run of the mill. Failure to recognise that will call down on the services the very thing that I—and I think the Government—want to avoid, namely extra-Executive control of their operations, whether that be through Privy Councillors or judges. If that happened the Government would have put at risk two vital arms of our national safety.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. Norman Buchan: It is unusual for me to participate in a debate on official secrecy. For a good deal of my life I have been concerned with secrecy which comes from censorship of printed matter, in broadcasting or newspapers. I have been less concerned with the Official Secrets Act 1911. However, over the past few years I have taken an interest in what has happened in this country and the crucial changes that have taken place arising from the "Spycatcher" case.
  The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) referred to the harm which might or might not be done through the importation of "Spycatcher" and compared it with "Lady Chatterley's Lover", which was also banned from entering this country. I remember that a friend of mine discovered a copy of "Lady Chatterley's Lover" carefully hidden away in his young son's wardrobe. Unfortunately, his young son had hidden the expurgated edition. My friend was not sure whether he should give his son the unexpurgated edition. The point is interesting because it shows that the apparatus and attitude of secrecy and censorship begins not only in order to prevent punishment but to prevent things from happening. The

  497
  function of censorship is not to punish—it is to prevent. That poor young soul hiding the expurgated edition is a typical example of that.
  If we applied the test of public interest to the decision to pursue "Spycatcher" over two years and asked whether it benefited or harmed our nation, we all know what the answer would be. It is absurd that the Government were not even fearful of that final fear of Governments which is to appear ridiculous because they went ahead with that case.
  I had a telephone call from my brother-in-law in Toronto a couple of years ago. He said that he was going to arrive in Prestwick the following Tuesday week because he had a music engagement in England. He asked me if I could meet him at Prestwick. I said, "Certainly. Oh, by the way, can you get me something?" He asked what and I told him I wanted a book. When he asked me which one, I said "Spycatcher". He said, "Of course—I want to get a copy myself and it's on sale in the centre of Toronto." He arrived with a copy of "Spycatcher". He had no problem entering the country and walked in without interference, carrying the book under his arm. The same week, I tried to get an immigrant into this country from India without a copy of "Spycatcher". His face was brown and he was not allowed in—yet my brother-in-law walked in with a banned book. That nonsense is spreading, has increased and ought to be diminished.
  One of the most worrying aspects about all this is that the Home Secretary, whom we had previously regarded as a liberal, described the White Paper in the following terms:
  "This is not a freedom of information White Paper"—
  just in case we thought that it was—
  "and we do not propose to introduce a freedom of information Bill."—[Official Report, 22 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 1419.]
  He was trying to take credit for not introducing a White Paper or a Bill with freedom of information aspects. In fact, he was taking credit for not introducing a freedom of information Bill. That is an extraordinary position for an old liberal to take.
  We have seen an extension of censorship this year, although I thought that last year was bad enough in that respect. For most hon. Members today, the main concern is Government secrecy. I am interested in a much wider area, of which secrecy is a part and which is helping to create the atmosphere for the other part. Over the past month, we have seen the introduction of a ban in broadcasting of six named organisations. The effect of that will not be to bring people to trial but to inhibit the directors, writers, producers and actors in much the same way as section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 was designed not to punish, but to prevent and to inhibit.
  Also this month a Bill was introduced to make the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 permanent. A Bill was also introduced to make councillors take the oath. The Security Service Bill was introduced and will make legal what was hitherto illegal—that is, burgling and bugging. Now we have the Official Secrets Bill. We hoped that the Bill would improve things, but it has not. Under the Bill, offences that were previously not absolute will become absolute. If Ponting were to be tried under these provisions, the argument of the public interest could not stand up and Ponting would be found guilty.
  498
  Most of us find that shift worrying. As a result of the Lords' judgment on "Spycatcher", the British news media were finally allowed to report and comment on the contents of the book. Many people believe that the judgment was reached partly because the horse had already bolted. To be fair, the Lords' judgment was more extensive than that. The judgment stated that the Government would have to show that publication of information would be harmful to the public interest before the courts would order an injunction.
  Lord Goff said that English common law recognises that:
  "In a free society, there is a continuing public interest that the working of Government should be open to scrutiny and criticism."
  Intrinsic to their judgment in freeing "Spycatcher" was the public interest in opening Government to scrutiny and criticism.
  Des Wilson wanted to know whether there was any single aspect of information that the public ought to receive and are entitled to receive, and which would be secured for us as a result of the Bill. He wanted to know whether the Bill had brought in any fresh information which would be made known to the public. We must consider the absence of any move forward in that respect in this liberalising Bill.
  This country is becoming the most secretive of all Western nations. The Government have inverted requirements. In any democratic country information should be known unless evidence is given why it should not. The assumption behind the Government's thinking is that things should not be known unless the Government exempt them and allow them to be known.
  There is an obligation on every United States Government agency to make public information available including opinions and orders, records and proceedings. That obligation was extended to all information, not specifically excluded. The assumption of the right to know is there.
  The same thing happens in Canada. The Canadian Access to Information Act states:
  "The purpose of this Act is to extend the present laws of Canada to provide a right of access to information in records under the control of a government institution in accordance with the principles that government information should be available to the public."
  It goes on to refer to exemptions. No such assumption exists in our law, and the Government boast about specifically rejecting such an assumption.
  A good deal of all that is due to the Prime Minister's lack of intelligence and imagination. I cannot imagine any person, other than someone under the domination of a second-rate and unimaginative mind, accepting such a state of affairs after all that has happened. We face the problem of an inversion of the right to freedom of information and access.
  Both the Security Service Bill and the Bill now before us should be considered together, one in relation to the other. We had every right to expect from them increased democratic supervision of MI5. The "Spycatcher" case is important not in itself but because it drew attention to MI5's behaviour. We expected democratic supervision as a result. We are told that a former Prime Minister was the subject of attempted subversion. That is a serious allegation, yet it has never been properly investigated, not even through a private inquiry being undertaken.

  499
  For the first time, we are framing MI5 in a statutory form without there being public examination of its role or of the demands that we should be making of it. Oversight and supervision of MI5 remains entirely in the hands of Ministers, but they are themselves bound to secrecy.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: It is intriguing to hear the hon. Gentleman say that oversight of the security services will be limited strictly to Ministers. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Security Service Bill he will find that it provides for the introduction of a commissioner for precisely that purpose.
  Mr. Buchan: The Security Service Bill makes provision for the appointment of a commissioner but not for a Select Committee or even for a committee of Privy Councillors to supervise the service. The commissioner will report to the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. No provision is made for the publication annually of matters such as those covered, for example, by the Irangate hearings, because MI5's operational circumstances are not included and are to be ignored.
  Mr. Allason: The commissioner will publish an annual report, and there will be a complaints tribunal. What more does the hon. Gentleman want?
  Mr. Buchan: A great deal more than that. I have said what I want. The hon. Gentleman confirms my claim that any aspects of MI5's organisational operations will be ignored. In America, we saw a crucial investigation into the Executive's very recent behaviour before a Congressional committee and under the gaze of television cameras. In Britain, we cannot even have an investigation into the so-called subversion of the Wilson Government. The American Congress undertakes such investigations within weeks or months, and America is the healthier for that.
  The secrecy that obsesses the present British Government results in the population of this country knowing nothing, rather than having a right to know. The Government have made legal that which was illegal, without extending control.
  That aspect of both Bills includes a provision for dealing with subversion arising from political or industrial action. That stems from a Prime Minister who has described the miners as enemies of the state. In this Official Secrets Bill, which could have liberated information and removed the atmosphere of secrecy, we see an absence of any improvement. Its real purpose is not to punish, but to create an atmosphere of secrecy—a level of confidentiality beyond all reason. We see that happening in Northern Ireland. Quite apart from the Prime Minister's deficiencies, the events of Northern Ireland are creating an atmosphere in which here, too, things can be done which ought not to be permitted.
  There are parallels in the private sector. One of the most appalling cases was that of the man who blew the whistle on de la Roche drugs. He was a private individual who thought to himself, "What is happening is iniquitous", but when his revelations were published he suffered as a result. That was persecution by private interests. It is intolerable that there should be the same kind of persecution of the honest whistleblower in public affairs, though we have taken some steps to deal with that situation.
  Throughout history, the honest whistleblower has played a very noble role. He has been forced into doing so.
  500
  He should be given the chance to legitimise his revelations so that there can be a public trial in which the public interest is considered. Some Conservative Members have been so affected by the Government's attitude to secrecy that they cannot even understand the concept that sometimes a person may have access to confidential material which should not be confidential.
  Another worrying aspect has been the Government's tendency, until now, to avoid a case coming to trial by using the Official Secrets Act 1911, fearing that honest juries would respect the honest whistleblower and find in his favour. That is what happened in the Ponting case. In my view, the judge clearly directed the jury to find him guilty, saying that there was no defence of public interest, but the jury said, "This judge is talking rubbish—it is right that we should know such things." The jury went against the law to find Ponting innocent because common sense and decency told them that he should be found not guilty. Now that the Government are failing to make prosecutions stick, and now that the public have largely rumbled the Government, the Government are changing the statute and turning to the law of confidentiality so that a law which was intended to deal with commercial situations can be used in public matters.
  Allied to my arguments about the public dissemination of information is the Lobby, which is another instrument in the Government's creation of secrecy, enabling the Government to manipulate news. I hope that the blow that the Lobby has received in respect of the Queen and the Russian invitation and other matters will have an effect.
  I shall not review the entire Bill, but I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that the place for detailed examination is in Committee. However, I make again the point that the Bill has not brought the emancipation that we expected, and the opportunity has not been taken to secure control over secrecy. On the contrary, the Bill makes absolute that which was not absolute before. It comes at a time when the press has even less opportunity to investigate matters of public interest.
  The United States has its Congressional apparatus for investigation, and we used to be able to claim that in this country at least we had a diffuse press and public service broadcasting which perhaps could remedy certain deficiencies, but that is no longer true. The press is now in the hands of three men—a "tripoly" or triple monopoly. It is dedicated to stories about pop stars, royalty, and so on. It is no longer the investigative press of 20 years ago when we had the iconoclastic Daily Record on the one hand and the views of Lord Beaverbrook in the Daily Express on the other. Still, they printed far more important news on their front pages than they do today.
  The modern press is totally ineffective. My concern is that as the Government's apparatus of secrecy is developed, so the apparatus to cope with it by our mass communications will deteriorate. Our public service broadcasting structure is also being destroyed. It is passing into commercial hands—the same hands of Maxwell and Murdoch—who control the mass media and none of whom find it necessary to protect the public interest by disseminating certain information.
  Anyone reading Margaret Drabble's article in The Guardian today will understand the depth of feeling among civilised people about what is happening to our country. Recently I spoke to an unlikely informant. He is a Communist, and a journalist who has represented the

  501
  Italian newspaper Unita in Paris for many years. When he was in Britain recently, he said to me, "Norman I have always regarded Britain as the bourgeois country in excelcis—respectable, orderly, neat and clean. I see dirt, filth and squalor around and I see that your papers have degenerated—we used to send for them." That is the voice of a Communist who sees that we are now incapable of expressing our best liberal position. I am talking about a man who understood something about our civilisation in Britain and who honoured it. We are becoming a sleazy, second-rate country. We have had liberals in Government who now boast that they are not bringing in a Bill on freedom of information. We are facing a major crisis in the combination of inadequate media and a secretive press. Censorship, directly or indirectly, has increased and is increasing—and by God, it ought to be diminished.
  6.51 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: On 5 February 1960, in a maiden speech on the Public Bodies (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Bill, an hon. Member stated:
  "the paramount function of this distinguished House is to safeguard civil liberties rather than to think that administrative convenience should take first place in law."—[Official Report, 5 February 1960; Vol. 616, c. 1357-8.]
  The Bill before us seeks to replace an Act that makes it illegal to reveal trivia or what is embarrassing to Government with a law that is confined to official information when its unauthorised disclosure would cause unacceptable harm to the public interest. By supporting it, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has re-emphasised a conviction that she first stated in her maiden speech.
  No one can deny that the Official Secrets Act is a geriatric absurdity which is incapable of functioning correctly. No one can ignore the fact that the Bill removes from criminal jurisdiction a wide range of offences, whole classes of people and a mass of trivia. However, all should accept that, for the security and safety of us all, there are some secrets that need to be kept and some people who need to keep them.
  If one unquestioningly accepted some of the comments culled from the press and quoted by the Opposition, especially in the debate on the White Paper, one might be tempted to believe that the Bill had no friends at all. However, I have scanned the pages as well, and I have come up with some rather different reactions from some rather odd sources. In the comment column of The Guardian of 30 June, there is the sentence:
  "Mr. Hurd tries some welcome things."
  Hugo Young, in the same newspaper on 5 July, talks of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary
  "importing some sanity to the criminal law".
  The Times of 30 June states:
  "Mr. Douglas Hurd deserves to win a wide measure of praise for the reform of the Official Secrets Act."
  Mr. Corbett: What about The Independent?
  Mr. Sayeed: I shall come to The Independent in a moment. The Financial Times of 30 June, in an article entitled "A Limited Reform", begins one paragraph with the sentence:
  "Some of it is very good",
  and goes on to call the measure
  "A tidying up exercise with a slightly liberal bent".
  502
  The Independent of 30 June states:
  "Mr. Hurd has produced ideas which are more liberal than had been anticipated".
  The Economist of 2 July gave the Bill "two cheers". If one considers the origin of those statements and the media's wish for unrestricted access to almost everything, those guarded endorsements can be construed as grudging praise.
  I want to deal with two aspects of the Bill that have particularly exercised hon. Members—that there should be a public interest defence, and that there should be a defence of prior publication. As we know, under current law there is no public interest defence. Under the Bill, the blanket provision will be circumscribed. However, it would be absurd for anyone and everyone to be able to pray in aid a public interest defence on all occasions. We need to understand that the moment when the decision is made about whether a disclosure is in the public interest is not when the court decides on the matter, but when the original disclosure is made. The court merely confirms or rejects that assessment—the harm will have been done.
  Hon. Members have, by necessity, to develop a breadth—if not a depth—of vision. Yet we have all come across people who suffer from tunnel vision and who so concentrate on the particular that they fail to develop the span of understanding that is essential to see clearly. I am not prepared to believe, despite what has been said, that if the editors of our great newspapers believed that a great public mischief had been perpetrated, they would be unwilling to hazard themselves to expose it. Under the harm test, they could argue that their disclosures had caused good, not harm, to the public, and a British jury would decide on that.
  A Crown servant is a different case. Crown servants are elevated to a position of trust and are duty-bound to respect the confidence placed in them. Yet should they discover what they believe to be corruption or malpractice, they have not only the facility but the duty to report their concern to the permanent secretary, to the staff counsellor for the security and intelligence services, to the Minister or even to the head of the Civil Service. Does anyone, apart from the conspiracy theorist, believe that such safeguards will not be sufficient in a democracy in which trial by jury is enshrined? If some people are still unconvinced, are they not willing to accept that a person would be prepared to hazard his or her livelihood and liberty to expose gross misconduct, especially when Parliament with its privileges, and the courts with their juries, are there to protect the individual against the abuse of power by the Executive?
  I would argue against the suggestion that there should be a defence of prior publication. It has been suggested that, once a piece of information is in the public domain anywhere in the world, and of whatever origin or status, people should be free to publish it. By publishing it, they will promote it and add to its status. Although I in no way question the motives of those who hold such a view, it is the product of muddled thinking. Cannot they see that such a defence would encourage the disclosure of unauthorised and, possibly, damaging information? Cannot they see that there are only a finite number of solutions to a given problem, so such a defence would encourage irresponsible journalists to embark on fishing expeditions? Do they not understand that to permit the uncontrolled repetition of stories emanating from the

  503
  foreign media whose aims, interests and standards of accuracy and probity are different from our own would do nothing to enhance the safety and security of our people?
  For very good reasons, successive Governments have refused to confirm or deny a story, even when it was in their short-term interests to do so. Sometimes the consequence is that confidence is needlessly undermined and fear is unnecesarily caused. The defence of prior publication would increase that likelihood. It would be a recipe for mischief-making and would be in no one's interest.
  I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, so I have confined myself to dealing with the suggestions that there should be a blanket defence of prior publication and an automatic defence of public interest. I shall conclude with the observation that, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, the Bill is not a freedom of information Bill—nor should it be. It is a Bill that seeks to inhibit the disclosure of information that, if divulged, could threaten us all. I am satisfied, as the House should be, that there are secrets that need to be kept and people who need to keep them. The Bill clarifies which they are and who they are, and it is to be commended.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: The Bill has little to do with safeguarding national security, because there are very few real secrets, and they are certainly not permanent secrets. Details of military equipment become outdated. The secrets of negotiating positions, which are prepared for Ministers when they go to international conferences, become public knowledge when they are disclosed in the negotiations. Economic particulars that may be exchanged between Governments expire with the passage of time.
  I remember vividly one occasion when I was the Minister in charge of atomic energy. I had in front of me the most secure documents, headed "TOP SECRET: ATOMIC UK eyes only". However, I read the newspapers, and the same information appeared in the New Scientist. What was secret was that my paper stated what we knew we could do, whereas the New Scientist was saying what it thought could be done in respect of the centrifuge. Therefore, it is absurd to speak as though the Bill is necessary to protect such information.
  The Bill was devised, drafted and presented deliberately to conceal from the electors information that they need to exercise their democratic functions. Discussion about the Bill has skirted the real question. What we are discussing is a constitutional Bill because today we are discussing not just the details of individual disclosures but the relationship of power between Government and governed. Nothing is more relevant to the power relationship than how much knowledge is available to the two parties.
  To read a Bill that is alleged to defend democracy when there is no reference in it to the rights of the electors, or the rights of the people, is a revelation of what the Bill is about. It does not have to be a freedom of information Bill to suggest that the people of this country have some rights. Although I am sure that it is not necessary, I remind the House that we only borrow the power of the electors on polling day. That power is entrusted to the Government by the electors on loan, and the electors then decide whether to renew their confidence at the subsequent general election. If, in the period of office of any Government, the public are denied knowledge of what the Government or
  504
  the state are doing, they cannot exercise that right. It is important to recognise that we are discussing matters that may not be known even to Ministers.
  I was somewhat amused by the Home Secretary's attempt to present himself as a great reformer. I looked up the Witchcraft Act 1735 because I had a distant memory that I was in the House when it was repealed. I was right: it was repealed in 1951 by the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951. Some poor woman who was a fraudulent medium had been prosecuted by an anxious policeman under the Witchcraft Act because he could not think of anything else to get her for.
  I sat in Parliament when the Witchcraft Act—or a part of it—was still on the statute book. However, I do not remember the Law Officer who presented the later Act saying, "This is an earthquake of reform." Indeed, he was a bit embarrassed that the Witchcraft Act was still on the statute book, as Ministers should be about the Official Secrets Act 1911. The Act is being changed not because of a wave of liberalism from the Home Secretary, but because it is absurd, unworkable, unpopular and unenforceable, so let us hear a little less about the reforming achievements of the Home Secretary.
  When one considers constitutional questions, many issues arise that are not often discussed. The one that most interests me is the lifelong obligation of confidentiality to the Crown. Crown servants are identified. However, we must ask, what is the Crown? Who is the Crown? Where do we find the Crown giving orders to anybody? "The Crown" is a code for that concreted area, the state within a state, which the Government believe needs to be more forcibly protected.
  I am a Crown servant, as I have been a Minister. I looked in the Bill to see whether I too am obliged to have lifelong confidentiality to the Crown, and I am. It is absolutely clear. Back-Bench Members of Parliament who have never held ministerial office are not. However, as I look around the Chamber, I see other Crown servants who would be covered by the Bill.
  When we consider "the Crown" in respect of secret matters, we must ask where it fits in. I shall take the Peter Wright case. Did the Queen say to Peter Wright, "Get rid of Harold Wilson"? No. Well then, who was the Queen's first Minister? It was Harold Wilson. Did he say to Peter Wright, "Get rid of me"? No. Did the Cabinet say to Peter Wright, "Get rid of Harold Wilson"? No—the Cabinet never knew. Did Parliament say it? No. The truth is that for the purpose of the Bill, "the Crown" is the language used to protect the activities of people who are no friends of democracy, the secret services which believed that in trying to get rid of Harold Wilson they were answering the wishes of the Crown. We are discussing a major constitutional Bill.
  Let us consider the way in which the secrets are supposed to appear and must be protected. I can think of some examples, including Martin Gilbert's biography of Winston Churchill—this was touched on earlier—which reveals that, before the war, civil servants gave masses of secret documents to Winston Churchill because they thought that Neville Chamberlain was betraying the national interest by failing to re-arm. The first time that I came to the House—in 1937—I heard Churchill speaking on the Naval Estimates. I did not know, seeing him surrounded with his Blue Books and White Papers, that he

  505
  was also getting a steady drip of information from civil servants who thought that Neville Chamberlain was a traitor. But that is a fact.
  I could take more recent cases. The Sandys case has been referred to. Duncan Sandys was a captain in the Territorial Army. One of his mates in the Territorial Army told him that the anti-aircraft defence of London was defective. Sandys tabled a question. The officer who told him was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. It became a famous parliamentary case. Would such a case be stopped by the Bill?
  Let us consider the Zircon case, when Mr. Speaker—I sympathise with him—was lectured on the absolutely vital necessity that nobody should see the film. Mr. Speaker, not knowing how to respond to an appeal from Ministers, banned the Zircon film. Was that film so secret and so damaging? What was secret about the Zircon film? I can tell the House that it was the fact that Sir Frank Cooper, the former permanent secretary to the Ministry of Defence, said in the film that we did not have an independent deterrent. That was very embarrassing, since the Government had been pretending for years that we did have one.
  We could consider also the Belgrano case, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is always referring. It would have been damaging to let it be known that the Conqueror was pursuing the Belgrano while it was happening, but it is in the public interest to know whether the Government knew that the Belgrano was going home, and the relevance of the Peruvian peace objective. We cannot justify this legislation by example.
  I turn now to international examples which are even more relevant although rather less pregnant with security considerations. I was the President of the Council of Ministers for Energy in the EEC eleven years ago. While there, I was a legislator. I do not know how many people realise that Ministers in the EEC are legislators, not executives. The Executive is the Commission. When one goes to the Council of Ministers—my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has attended the Council—one makes regulations. Before the regulations are made, there is a mass of negotiation between one's Department, other Departments, Departments in other countries and the Committee of Permanent Representatives—all negotiate the package which the Commission will consider and the Ministers then endorse. All that is now to be covered by the new restrictions in the Bill.
  As President Jacques Delors has said, 80 per cent. of the legislation enacted by national Parliaments will soon be enacted by the Commission. Eighty per cent. of the legislation that we now discuss in Parliament which is reported in Hansard for all to see and which will soon be televised will be covered by the new Official Secrets Bill because of its international implications. The Bill will cover not only the EEC but our international military arrangements or our discussions with the International Monetary Fund, in which other countries negotiate.
  The Bill would reduce public discussion of public affairs to municipal matters. We would be allowed to discuss only things that are purely municipal—things that are about England or the United Kingdom alone. We will not be allowed to enter a discussion of issues that touch on
  506
  international negotiations. That is a major restriction. It is, however, a product of the internationalisation of the world, not a product of this Government.
  The danger of abuse is the greatest in regard to intelligence. I shall speak in a measured way because I am sure that there are fine public servants in the security services who are trying to do their best. Nevertheless, the danger of abuse is very great. Ted Short, formerly Lord President of the Council, was told by Chapman Pincher that he, Pincher, had access to a Swiss bank account which Ted Short was supposed to have had. It was a forged bank account. There is no question about it being forged by the security services.
  Mr. Allason: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Benn: I am not giving way for the moment, because I want to finish this point.
  In his book, Peter Wright said—he was, after all, the deputy director—that the fabrication of evidence against Labour Ministers was part of the strategy. Even if it is only Wright confessing, at least we got an explanation later of one of the most revolting episodes that I recall—involving the use of civil servants loyal to the Crown to destroy a Government elected by the people to be the Crown's Administration. I hope that the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) wants, to raise a serious point, because I am on one.
  Mr. Allason: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the famous Ted Short letter. All the research that has been done to determine the origin of that forged letter has come down to a group of Socialist Workers in Leicester. As for the Peter Wright plot against Harold Wilson, I do not know how many times we must repeat that Peter Wright went on television in the "Panorama" programme of 15 October when he said that the plot was down to him and that he was the only person in it.
  Mr. Benn: I believe that the hon. Gentleman was in the Security Service or writes about it—I do not know much about it. All I can say is that the evidence on Nasser is Anthony Nutting, who said on television that Eden had told him to get rid of Nasser. There is a lot of other evidence. If the hon. Gentleman really has served in the Security Service—I do not know whether he has or whether he just writes about it—he will know that assassination is one of the instruments of security.
  Mr. Allason: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Benn: I am not giving way again, because I was not on the Nasser point.
  Mr. Allason: But he was not assassinated.
  Mr. Benn: When the hon. Gentleman intervened, I was talking about the fabrication of Ted Short's bank account. I am afraid that, if any structure of power is surrounded by secrecy, there is a danger of abuse.
  I remember when, as a Minister, I was approached by a Conservative Member of Parliament who complained on behalf of a constituent that that constituent could not get into the Civil Service. As I am a libertarian, I took the case up. I discovered that the constituent's father read the Morning Star. Nobody should think that the Security Service does not want to veto anybody who is to the left of the Prime Minister. It tried to veto Jack Jones and Hugh Scanlon, who were pillars of the Government.

  507
  Conservative Members may not like them, but the Security Service regarded them as security risks. The only guarantee against that is bringing these matters into the open.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, on 28 October, during a seminar for opinion leaders at the NATO defence college in Rome, the Pentagon-sponsored tutor in one of the tutorials—Dr. Robert McGeehan—said that we have come to the time when we must deprive our politicians of our best intelligence because of the way in which they have chosen to distort and misrepresent it in the defence of democracy?
  Mr. Benn: The enemy within may be somewhere other than where the Prime Minister thinks it is.
  I shall tell the House another story, lest it be thought that I am trying merely to protect the Left. In the 1974 general election campaign, somebody brought to me, and tried to persuade me to use, a highly scurrilous and scandalous pamphlet about the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who was then Prime Minister. It was an extremely libellous document. I would not touch it. I realised later, when I read what I read, that the idea was to discredit me by getting me to smear the right hon. Gentleman and to discredit the right hon. Gentleman by getting that smear spread. I do not think that only Harold Wilson was toppled. I think that two Prime Ministers were toppled.
  It would be a great mistake for Conservative Members to think that this is a Left versus Right issue. I ask Conservative Members to contemplate what they would think about a Labour Government with the powers that they are proposing to entrust to a Conservative Government. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said, I can envisage circumstances in which it might he thought highly desirable to bug and burgle the homes of people engaged in exporting capital to South Africa. It is the Conservative party which proposes to entrust such powers to the Government. There are some issues in the House—not many—when the legislature has an interest that is separate from the Executive.
  The last Labour Government have been mentioned. Jim Callaghan was bitterly opposed to open government. Everybody knew that. Everybody knew it at the time. It was only because it looked as though Clement Freud's Bill would be accepted that he, then the Prime Minister, put me on the relevant Cabinet Committee. He thought that he had better have somebody on the Cabinet Committee who agreed with Clement Freud and might interpret his Bill.
  This is an argument between the legislature and the Executive. We are not talking about the great supporters of private enterprise versus the revolutionaries from the Fabian Society.
  The House is being asked to give Ministers the power to designate what is secret and to determine when to prosecute. That is a power which no Parliament should give to any Government. I hope that the House will reject the Bill or amend it, or that the Government will withdraw it. If it is enacted, there will be only one safeguard for democracy. I refer to the oldest and most reliable safeguard—that people with conscience will not obey the law. Parliament never likes being told what it needs to be reminded of each generation, but the rights to free speech
  508
  and to free religious worship were won by people who broke unjust laws. I believe that juries will refuse to convict.
  The Bill is really aimed against Ponting, Massiter and Tisdall. Only the last was sentenced. If people of conscience in the security services—those who favour the security services must want people of conscience in them—come across skulduggery, blackmail or criminal fabrication of information, and make it public on conscientious grounds, that is the safeguard of democracy in Britain, not this shabby little Bill.
  When this debate comes to be studied, it may turn out that, by opening up on questions that we do not normally discuss, we will find ourselves tracing our way back to the roots of democracy. Honest, decent people will not put up with injustice, even if it becomes entrenched in a statute passed by both Houses of Parliament.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Tony Baldry: The longer I listened to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), the more I wondered whether he had been studying the same Bill. He and a number of other Opposition Members need to have a conspiracy theory in order to exist. Without such a theory, the right hon. Gentleman would find it difficult to have a role in contemporary politics.
  Spies spying and leaks leaking always make good copy for journalists. The area is too often treated sensationally and with too much drama. We, by contrast, must act rationally and logically, remembering at all times that we are putting criminal law on the statute book. We must consider the public mischief that we seek to defeat and the public good that we wish to protect and promote. We must test the provisions of the Bill against those objectives. We must ensure, at all times, that the possible offences and defences strike a proper balance between the rights of the community and the position of the defendant. The public good that we seek to protect is straightforward. It is to protect information vital to the national interest, not information that might simply embarrass the Government of the day or any Minister.
  This is not a catch-all Bill and it does not contain any catch-all provisions. It is a clearly drafted and narrowly defined measure which sets out with clarity a limited number of specific offences. The Bill is comparatively short. Its 16 clauses contain a number of defined and specific offences intended to protect the public good. Such is the care to strike exactly the right balance that invariably, to prove an offence, the prosecution will have to clear a number of specific hurdles, and to the jury's satisfaction, fulfil specific tests—of, for example, harm to the public interest—before a conviction can succeed.
  For example, to secure a conviction when a journalist discloses information relating to security or intelligence, the prosecution must clear a steeplechase of hurdles. We should never forget that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution, and the standard of proof is that the jury must be satisfied that each hurdle has been cleared. If the prosecution fails at any of the hurdles, the entire prosecution case fails.
  To secure a conviction against a journalist for disclosing information on intelligence, the prosecution must prove, first, that the information has been in the possession of a Crown servant or Government contractor in his official capacity. Secondly, the journalist must know

  509
  or have reasonable cause to believe that it has. Thirdly, it must relate to security or intelligence as defined in the Bill. Fourthly, the journalist must know or have reasonable cause to believe that it does. Fifthly, the information must come into the journalist's possession in a number of ways, such as being disclosed without authority by a Crown servant or Government contractor. Sixthly, the journalist must know or have reasonable cause to believe that the information has reached him by one of those three routes. Seventhly—the canal turn—the journalist must make his disclosure without authority. Eighthly, the journalisit's disclosure must cause damage to the work of the security and intelligence services. Ninthly, the journalist must have known or had reasonable cause to believe when he made his disclosure that it would, or was likely to, cause damage, or that the information fell into a class or description of information likely, if disclosed, to cause damage—Becher's brook. That is a veritable steeplechase of hurdles, all of which the prosecution must clear before it can secure a conviction.
  I suspect that it is because editors and journalists appreciate the hurdles that the prosecution must clear that there has been little press criticism of the Bill.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): My hon. Friend has accurately set out the hurdles that the prosecution has to clear.
  Mr. Corbett: The Minister wrote them for him.
  Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman seems rather overexcited this evening. I cannot imagine why.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) has accurately described the hurdles that the prosecution must successfully pass to secure a conviction. Does he accept that a conviction can be found against a journalist only if the prosecution can prove that the journalist knew, or had good cause to know, that he was deliberately causing harm?
  Mr. Baldry: Yes—[Laughter.] I do not know why the Opposition are laughing. They complain that this is a catch-all Bill, but when we take them step by step through a single clause showing them all the hurdles that the prosecution must clear before it can secure a conviction they will not acknowledge the facts.
  Mr. Allason: That was an interesting exchange. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to clause 4(3)(b), under which the disclosure of information is an absolute offence. This is one area in which the burden of proof would be not on the prosecution but on the defence. The defence would have to show that it did not know or had no reasonable cause to believe that the information disclosed was of the type described in the Bill.
  Mr. Baldry: In criminal statutes the burden of proof never moves to the defendant. The defendant is entitled to raise a defence and it is then for the prosecution to negate that defence.
  I opened The Times and other newspapers today expecting ringing declarations against the Bill, but there was none. The press appreciates, even if the Opposition do not, the great care that has been taken to get the balance right.
  Mr. John Patten: Does my hon. Friend agree that the frivolous attitude displayed on the Labour Front Bench shows that the Opposition have not read or understood the Bill, whereas the journalists and editors of our great national newspapers have read the Bill and understand the considerable protections that are offered to them? That is why they no longer criticise the Bill on those points.
  Mr. Baldry: As I listened to the speeches of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and subsequent speeches from the Opposition, I came to believe that they could not have studied the same Bill as we did. I hope that my hon. Friend will ensure that they are all provided with another copy.
  Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to know the cause of the outbreak of laughter in the middle of his speech. I was just telling my hon. Friends about a letter sent by the Minister of State to a newspaper setting out eight hurdles which journalists had to overcome. We were enjoying hearing the hon. Gentleman read it during his speech.
  Mr. Baldry: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that those hurdles exist because nowhere in his substantive speech today did he recognise that the Bill has been tightly defined and narrowly drafted to ensure that a proper balance was struck. If one listened only to the right hon. Gentleman, one would think that the Bill had many catch-all provisions, which it clearly has not.
  It is clear that Ministers and draftsmen have taken great care to get the balance right in the Bill and to define more clearly than was possible in the White Paper the areas that should remain in the criminal law and the harm test that should apply. Under clause 3(1)(b) information received in confidence from overseas Governments or international organisations will not be the subject of an absolute offence. It will be subject to the same harm test as information on international relations. The harm test is narrowed by replacing the general reference to prejudicing dealings between the Government and that of another state or an international organisation with the more specific test of jeopardising the interests of the United Kingdom abroad. No hon. Member could object to the clarity with which that is now defined.
  The definition of information likely to be useful to criminals, which was criticised as being too wide, has been narrowed to information that
  "results in the commission of an offence … facilitates an escape from legal custody … impedes the prevention or detection of offences or the apprehension or prosecution of suspected offenders".
  A jury would have to be convinced that unauthorised disclosure had, or was likely to have, that effect. What possible objection could there be to any one of those elements in that clause?
  Since the publication of the White Paper, my right hon. and hon. Friends have sought to take on board the views expressed to them and to ensure that the Bill strikes exactly the right balance. It is a well defined Bill. Much of the opposition to it stems from the claim that it contains no defence of public interest and no defence of prior publication. That shows a complete misunderstanding of the Bill. On the question of public interest where there is a harm test under which a defendant could argue that the disclosure caused good, not harm, to the public interest. It would be for the jury to decide. Opposition Members appear to have forgotten the existence of those 12 men and

  511
  women. However, a defendant could not argue that, although his disclosure did cause a degree of harm, because it also did some good the harm did not matter. That has never been a principle of English criminal law, so the Bill is consistent with legal history.
  On the question of prior publication, under the harm test a defendant could argue that he had caused no harm beyond that created by the earlier publication. It would be for the prosecution to prove otherwise, and the standard of proof would have to be such that a jury was certain that an offence had been committed. The prosecution must overcome those hurdles.
  It does not lie in the mouths of Opposition Members to criticise the Bill's lack of public interest and prior publication defences. They should not forget that in 1978 the then Labour Government proposed no defence based on public interest or on prior publication. Indeed, they did not go anywhere near so far as this Government in providing a test of harm. The Labour Government provided for the binding use of ministerial certificates so that at the end of the day it was the Minister and not the jury who decided the case there, there has been a veritable bonfire of ministerial certificates. We must study the reality of what the Bill proposes. My right hon. Friend referred to it as obfuscation, but I do not think that Opposition Members have read the Bill.
  The Bill is a sensible, balanced measure that will do much to restore a sense of proportion to this whole area of law, and the sooner it reaches the statute book the better. I hope that as the Bill goes through its Committee stage we can debate the reality of what it does and what it contains, and the actuality of what it says, rather than having a debate based on the conspiracy theories invented by some Opposition Members.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: There is not a piece of Government legislation about which the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) could not make the same favourable speech, with only slight changes in the odd sentence. It was a lapdog speech. The hon. Gentleman made no attempt to answer any of the legitimate points made by hon. Members from both sides of the House. It has not been a one-sided debate.
  Had the Home Secretary felt able to include a public interest defence somewhere in the Bill, that would have gone a long way towards lessening some of the natural suspicions that were bound to arise. It is no good Ministers lecturing the House and saying that there will be an opportunity to put that defence to a jury—one which, in any case, would be vetted. The fact is that the words "public interest" do not appear in the Bill. The first hurdle put up in a court against the use of a public interest defence would be the fact that it was not specifically mentioned in the legislation.
  It is not as though "public interest" as a phrase is not important. Paragraph 65 of the White Paper, under the heading "Other Offences, Enforcement and Extent", states:
  "The central mischief at which the Government's proposals are aimed is the unauthorised disclosure of information the publication of which is harmful to the public interest."
  According to that White Paper, that is what the Bill is all about. There has been no change between the publication
  512
  of the White Paper and the publication of the Bill that takes away the significance of the first sentence of paragraph 65 of the White Paper.
  Two Conservative Members have quoted extensively from the many newspapers and magazines that they obviously read daily. The hon. Member for Banbury made the specific allegation that not a single newspaper today carried any criticism of the Bill. That is palpable nonsense. The hon. Gentleman clearly has not read today's newspapers; he has read only the information in the briefing given to him by the Conservative party. He should look at today's The Independent, whose leader title is "Hurd's undemocratic society". The last sentence of the leader states:
  "If Mr. Hurd would trust the people, he would reduce the temptation for public servants to stray. Unfortunately he cannot bring himself to do so."
  The Independent is not a Labour-supporting newspaper; thank heavens it is not, by and large, a Tory supporting newspaper either. It is a newspaper of record which does not agree with the Bill. Conservative Members come to the Chamber and trot out their briefs, for all the world as though the press carried no opposition to the Bill. That is not the case.
  In Committee we can discuss in greater detail the defence of public interest. We must separate public interest, Government interest, state interest and, in the Britain of the 1980s, party interest. The problem is that the words "public interest" do not appear in the Bill. Judges —not all, but some—have said that state interest and Government interest are one and the same. It is just a short step from there to perceiving damage to the interests of a Government as damage to the interests of the Government's party. We must keep a distinction in mind.
  Judging from the Home Secretary's speech and Home Office press releases—the one that was released on the date of publication of the Bill and the one that was put out by the Minister on 14 December—the Government are concerned to float the idea that, if the Bill is passed, key areas of security intelligence and defence, international relations and criminal investigations are to be dealt with, tied up and codified. There is the idea that it naturally follows that any journalists, investigators or Members of Parliment who claim that Britain is still a secret society will be brushed aside as a group of misguided individuals—the obfuscators to whom the Home Secretary referred. There is the idea also that lots of information will be released. We know that it is not a freedom of information Bill, but because the Official Secrets Bill covers matters of supreme importance, such as security, intelligence and defence, anyone who says that there are still secrets in other aspects of life is misguided and a troublemaker, and does not know what he is talking about. That is the idea that is supposed to get abroad.
  I shall refer to only one part of the Bill—clause 3, which is entitled "International relations". International relations are defined in subsection (5). However, international relations go much wider that that. One would suppose that the clause covered only intergovernmental communications of various kinds. Naturally it does that. However, it covers information, documents or other articles relating to international relations and any confidential information, documents or articles which do not relate to international relations but which were obtained outside the United Kingdom. International relations may not be covered, but,

  513
  because the information was obtained from states or international organisations outside the United Kingdom, they are covered by clause 3.
  The disclosure in clause 3(2) is a major drafting error. Paragraphs (a) and (b) are linked by the word "or", yet one cannot read (b) without reading (a). It does not make sense. The term "those effects" has no meaning in paragraph (b) unless it is read in conjunction with (a). Paragraph (b) is supposed to stand quite separately.
  The disclosure of confidential information that is obtained from abroad is an offence only because the information is confidential. It is irrespective of the contents of the documents or articles. I warn the Government that that point will be considered in great detail in Committee. They will do themselves and the House a service if they tidy it up or even withdraw it from the Bill by way of a Government amendment. How can one defend the idea that people can obtain information from states, international organisations abroad, Crown servants—that global expression for those who are part of the state apparatus abroad—on matters that do not affect industrial relations can affect anything under the sun?
  If an offence is committed, it does not matter whether an issue is harmful, but only whether it concerns a document marked "confidential". That cannot be sustained. The briefing document that was issued to hon. Members by the Campaign for Freedom of Information on that point is valuable, and I have not heard it being refuted. If the Ministers attempt to do so, I shall be pleased to listen to and argue with them.
  Mr. Aitken: Far from refuting the hon. Gentleman's case, I may be able to confirm it. Anyone who shares my experience of The Sunday Telegraph case will note that the clause is drafted with that experience in mind. The Foreign Office cannot distinguish between embarrassment and security. Because Ministers fear that some embarrassment may be incurred that is already used, in a press briefing, as the Scott report was, but causes embarrassment to our diplomatic relations, they slap it in as a criminal offence. That is wrong. The hon. Gentleman was right to zero in on it.
  Mr. Rooker: That is the only point on which I wish to zero in. An extra test is applied to that information. It applies only to information from overseas sources. If I may paraphrase clause 3(3), it states that information may be regarded as likely to have any of the effects mentioned in the paragraph,
  "either by reason of the fact that it is confidential or by reason of its contents and nature."
  It does not state "and by reason of its contents and nature"; it states "or by reason of its contents and nature". How it can be an offence simply because the information is confidential is beyond the pale, especially given the Home Secretary's description of the Bill as coherent, bolder and more open than anything before. It is quite ludicrous.
  I understand why the clause is in the Bill, but I do not support why it is there. The scale of international trade and relations in the modern world is such that much information—not that relating to the matters that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) raised—turns out to be economic information. Classes of economic information are ruled out in paragraph 33 of the
  514
  White Paper, and will no longer be subject to the criminal law. We shall see an enormous number of contradictions. We shall see contradictions in relation to information that comes to Britain or is used or disclosed in Britain by journalists, the media, or Members of Parliament. It is sourced overseas. It may have been originally sourced in this country by our supplying information to overseas organisations, such as the OECD.
  We shall ask why it is an offence to publish and disclose information in EEC documents that emanated from Whitehall about pollution control. A document may or may not be about hazardous waste or a danger to public health, but it may set out the amount of industrial and other waste that this country imports. There are court cases in the midlands because the economic livelihood of one large company is thought to be at stake. The bottom line is economics.
  It will be argued that disclosure should be an offence. The Government are arguing that that is the case. I do not accept that case. We may get information on industrial safety or vocational training from the International Labour Organisation. It will be an offence to disclose it. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) mentioned Food and Agriculture Organisation nutritional standards. What about draft documents on the development of World Health Organisation teaching standards, papers about efforts to cut child mortality and papers on the control of oil pollution from the International Maritime Organisation? The disclosure of information from those sources which could or could not have an economic or public health content in no way affects security, intelligence or defence. Surely it cannot be defended by Ministers that people who disclose such information should be hauled before a jury.
  We have heard from Ministers and Conservative Members, sounding for all the world as though they had been before a jury: "Well, of course, being hauled before a jury is nothing. If one is innocent, the jury will find one innocent. It is nothing to be worried about." That has not happened to me, but I know what it is like to come before the full jury of the House of Commons, having had the experience of making one personal statement to the House. That can be nothing compared with appearing either in the box at the Old Bailey or at the Bar of the House, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) did long before I came to the House. It should not be shrugged off with the aside, "With a jury you will be all right."
  I wish to give two further examples before I resume my seat. The first concerns product defects. Whenever Ministers or the media ask what I am going on about and what information is being held back that we want, I would like to say, "Give me a list of what you have and I shall choose." They say, "Well that's not an effective argument." So virtually every time I say, "Let's take something simple. Let's take something that affects the man and woman in the street." This certainly affects the streets of London because they are congested with motor cars.
  This Government and foreign Governments have in their charge information about accident rates of motor cars according to models and years. That information is never disclosed. It is not seen to be in the interests of the motor industry to have a league table of car models which have certain types of accidents, whether those cars are imported or made here. If that information were obtained

  515
  by British journalists from overseas sources, for example from the person in a foreign Government department who collated the information, which was then kept secret for the public good, and published the accident rates of foreign motor cars on British roads—we should bear in mind that we import 58 per cent. of our cars—it would be a criminal offence under this Bill.
  Such journalists would be hauled before the courts with little defence. They would not be able to say that the Bill provides that such information should be released in the public interest. They cannot point to any part of the Bill that gives them that defence. I shall leave aside my example about hygiene regulations in food canning factories. That type of information would be caught under virtually every limb of clause 3. The British public have a right to know that information, but it will remain secret.
  My final example, funnily enough, relates to a matter which I raised with the Attorney-General at Question Time a couple of weeks ago. The ownership of House of Fraser and Harrods is a matter of international relations. There is no question about that whatever. From whichever side one looks at the saga of House of Fraser, international relations are involved, as in clause 3. I should like the Minister to explain how information will be treated that has been published, mainly by one side of the argument—Lonrho and The Observer—on the takeover, involving, as it does, information from a state other than the United Kingdom.
  Several states are involved, including both Haiti and Brunei. The Sultan of Brunei can certainly be satisfied that that information affects his international relations with the United Kingdom and consequently might jeopardise United Kingdom interests under clause 3(2)(a). It is clear that much of that information has been disclosed from overseas official sources.
  Allegations have been made as a result of this case which concern international relations and the conduct of Conservative Ministers, particularly the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). There is a prima facie case that his conduct as Secretary of State fell well below what is acceptable in the conduct of public administration on merger policy. I should like to get to the bottom of this, and it is clear that one party to the merger takeover would also like to get to the bottom of it. By legitimately pursuing its interests, it will disclose all sorts of information from overseas state sources.
  At present, no one has talked about a prosecution, but under this Bill that would be open to prosecution. More than that, it is more likely that many politicians more partisan than I may see that Conservative Ministers in a Conservative Government want to keep the lid on a scandal affecting members of the Conservative party, by using the draconian measures in this Bill. That will certainly be put to the House and the country.
  The buying and selling of major British companies where overseas interests are involved will be affected. One cannot simply say that everything is commercially confidential, and we are not allowed to know anything about it. In this particular case, there are good grounds for believing that Conservative Ministers allowed House of Fraser to be purchased by a known crook. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] I am not saying anything that I have not said before. The silence and acquiescence of the former Secretary of State enabled House of Fraser to be purchased by a known crook.
  516
  Clearly, clause 3 deals admirably with public, state, Government and party interests. As such, it should not be included in the Bill, and that is a good enough reason to vote against the Bill. We are a joke, a laughing stock, in most of the civilised world for the way we run such a secret Government.
  Examples were given of America, Canada and New Zealand and, although no one mentioned Sweden, it is fair to add it to the list. They are all more open on more aspects of government than we are. On the issues which really count, the measures that they operate and the penalties for those who fall foul of the system are much more severe than anything that we operate. There is a message there: genuinely to target what counts and to hit offenders hard. That enables a democracy to operate much more trustingly between Government, Parliament and our masters, the people. This Bill mitigates against that, and as such should not receive a Second Reading.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Unless speeches are more restrained and shorter, some hon. Members will be disappointed by being unable to participate in the debate.
  8 pm
  Mr. John Wheeler: I welcome your observations, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Those who were present at the beginning of the debate will recall that M r. Speaker suggested that we might consider 10-minute speeches. I hope that my remarks will fit within that specification.
  First, I give an unreserved welcome to the Bill. It is high time that section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911—a 77-year-old measure—was repealed. It is discredited. It is wrong that the brand of tea served in the Home Office canteen should be treated in the same way as Britain's defence secrets, with disclosure being a criminal offence. It is wrong in principle that the criminal law should he used to protect trivial secrets or information that merely happens to embarrass the Government. It is counterproductive. Section 2 is a catch-all provision, and it has fallen into disrepute.
  I support the contention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the Bill will advance liberty. It is right that we should consider tightly defined legislation, and the Bill will cover only six areas of information that it is in the interests of all the British people to keep secret. These are defence, security and intelligence, diplomacy, information given in confidence by other Governments, official information helpful to criminals and the interception of telecommunications. All these matters will continue to have legal protection.
  The issue of information that is supplied by other Governments has been raised, and it is important that we should dwell upon it for a moment. It has been suggested that the test of harm following the disclosure of information received in confidence from overseas Governments, on foreign organisations, would not be subject to the same criteria of consideration before the courts as other disclosures. That is wrong. The Bill will require the prosecution to argue that harm was likely to arise in a particular instance either because of the breach of the confidence which the disclosure involved or the nature of the information or its contents.

  517
  There will be no obligation upon the jury to accept the prosecution's argument and the defence will be free to argue that the disclosure was not likely to lead to harm. The onus will remain on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. That is a formidable obligation, and it is right that it should be imposed upon the prosecution. It is one that the prosecution carries in all cases in this country. The prosecution will have to prove its case before a jury, and that, too, is right.
  Currently, there is no public interest defence, and I do not wish to see such a proposition introduced into our law. It would generate confusion rather than certainty. It has been the position from time immemorial, generally speaking, that the criminal law defines an offence in terms of an individual's actions, not his motives for carrying them out. Motive may be taken into account by a judge when passing sentence, but it does not affect the determination of guilt or innocence. This principle should apply to the Bill.
  The special duty of lifelong confidentiality will continue to apply to members of the security and intelligence services. Those who join these services do so voluntarily. There are arrangements for former officers to obtain permission to talk or write about their work, and that procedure is well understood. There are arrangements for an officer who is discontented with part of his work, or who has a problem within his department, to consult the new staff counsellor. Every officer knows from the outset, however, that there is an overriding obligation to keep silent about the work that he performs on behalf of the British people. The law provides that any disclosure by special service people is a criminal offence. That is not changed by the Bill, but the removal of so much Government information from the scope of the criminal law is bound to highlight the special position of those in the security services.
  Apart from the categories which I have mentioned, no official information will be protected by the criminal law. That is the extent of the proposed liberalisation. It applies to the trivia which I have mentioned, such as the canteen menu and laundry lists, and to more important and sensitive information. It will no longer be a criminal offence to disclose Cabinet papers on controversial subjects such as health and education. The same applies to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech. To that extent, the Bill extends freedom of information, and that is most welcome.
  There has been talk of prior publication and the position of newspapers, with much comment externally by those in the media. No one could be convicted of repeating information on security, intelligence, defence or international relations unless the prosecution could prove that the disclosure was likely to cause specified harm to the public interest and that the defendant knew it. It is a formidable test that the prosecution has to overcome.
  Similarly, no one could be convicted for disclosing information that would be useful to criminals unless the prosecution could show that the information was still likely—this is important—to be useful despite its prior publication. The defence of prior publication is therefore subsumed within the test of harm. The arguments about
  518
  prior publication and the public interest defence are answered by what I have said and by the proposals that are set out in the Bill.
  8.9 pm
  Ms. Diane Abbott: The Secretary of State described the Bill as coherent and ambitious and, of course, it is neither. It is a cornerstone, however, of the Government's wider strategy, which is coherent and ambitious.
  We have been told by Conservative Members, and especially by the Home Secretary, that the Bill is a fantastic leap forward in reform. Let me remind them that section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 has been a dead letter for over 20 years. Far from boasting about the removal from the statute book of legislation which was thoroughly discredited and almost entirely unenforceable, Ministers should be embarrassed that they have not even begun to take advantage of the opportunity with which they were presented to engage in real reform. If Ministers had cleared their minds of any thoughts of reform and of any notions of leaps forward, and had merely written on a small piece of paper the names of those who have embarrassed them in recent years—for example, Mr. Wright, Mr. Ponting and those involved in The Daily Telegraph case—and if the Government had sent civil servants scuttling off to cobble together a Bill that would ensure that all the people who had embarrassed the Government in the past would be caught by it and would serve time behind bars, this is the Bill that they would have come up with. Perish the thought that that was the motivation behind the Bill, but it is curious that all the people involved in the most embarrassing official secrets cases of recent years would have to do time as a result of this Bill. I am sure, however, that that is mere coincidence.
  The point about the public interest defence is that the Government, their Ministers and almost all their loyal rank and file have shown themselves in recent years wholly unable to see that there might be a concept of public interest separate from the interest of the Government of the day. For the Government, the public interest is one and the same as the Government interest—the interest of the party in power and, particularly, of the leader of that party and her immediate circle.
  In the closing years of this decade public interest has been reduced by the Government to the narrowest partisan version conceivable. These are the politics and political theories of the one-party state and I can well imagine how Conservative Members would point the finger if they emerged in the politics of other countries. Yet Ministers and seekers after office on the Conservative Back Benches parrot the political theories that underpin the one-party state.
  We have heard much from Conservative Members about what can be expected from members of the security services—about how they join of their own free will, how they are not conscripts and how security and secrecy must be provided for. I remind them of what Mr. Justice Scott said, among other things, about the "Spycatcher" case. He had heard the Government's evidence and reflected on what Sir Robert Armstrong had said and on what poor Sir Robert had had to do in Australia. He had taken in at tremendous length—greater than Ministers had been able to explain this evening—the Government's thinking about

  519
  the desirability of protecting the security services. Mr. Justice Scott, who is not a member of the Socialist Workers party, said:
  "I find myself unable to escape the reflection that the absolute protection of the security services that Sir Robert was contending for could not be achieved this side of the Iron Curtain."
  It is precisely that absolute protection that this Bill proposes to enshrine in law.
  It will not do for the Home Secretary to come before the House in his familiar garb of the great reformer. The Bill tries to enshrine thoroughly illiberal and anti-democratic ideas in law—
  Mr. Allason rose—
  Ms. Abbott: I do not have the hon. Gentleman's expertise in these matters, but I do have a few thoughts of my own that I want to expand.
  Last week we debated the Security Services Bill. In the course of the debate, the problems that the security services have had in the past were made clear—the recurrent history of KGB infiltration at the highest levels, the lack of any notion of real accountability to the Government of the day in some parts of the service, and even the propensity on the part of some members of the security services to go mad in as little as four or five years, according to some past heads of MI5. So the House knows the institutional and structural problems of the security services. It knows that the Government have no proposals, now or ever, to make the security services the subject of genuine parliamentary oversight. So how can we go on this week to enshrine in legislation terms and conditions which remove one of the only possible guarantors against an over-mighty Security Service acting against the public interest?
  Of course, if members of the security services want to do a Peter Wright they should be subject to administration and management procedures and to the law. But the procedures in the Bill are more reminiscent of those governing iron curtain security services. That does no credit to Ministers, the Government and, above all, to the Secretary of State, with all his pretensions of being a liberal reformer—
  Mr. Allason: May we scotch the myth involved in these continual references to Peter Wright? They are completely out of context. Peter Wright is in Australia, out of the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom; and it would be open, even under this Bill, to any member of the Security Service to go abroad and escape jurisdiction and repeat the exercise. The Wright case is wholly irrelevant.
  Ms. Abbott: Funnily enough, I agree that too many references to the Peter Wright case, which was an irresistibly humorous and comic case, tend to obscure the issues around the Bill and around that discussed last week. The hon. Gentleman has not answered my point—that the absolute protection for the security services for which the Government called in the Wright case was described by a member of the judiciary as unachievable this side of the iron curtain. I repeat that and challenge Ministers to counter what lay behind that statement.
  The Secretary of State has boasted again that part of the reason why the Bill is such an amazing reforming measure is that vast areas of information will be freed from the criminal law. We are all supposed to gasp and thank him for his munificence. Of course, those areas of
  520
  information have never been the subject of prosecution in living memory anyway. What is the point of the Secretary of State boasting when, in practice, section 2 has not been used?
  I said earlier that the Bill was neither coherent nor ambitious. It shows every sign of having been drafted to cure past embarrassments and to ensure that they never happen again. The Government loathe giving out information as much as vampires abhor garlic. The Government have missed this opportunity to give any right to information to the citizen. But the Bill should be taken in the context of the increasingly cowed and restricted press and media. They have been cowed by the buying off of press barons and lordships, and by the constant denigration of public service broadcasting by ill informed Conservative Members. The press and media are increasingly hemmed in.
  Alone among English-speaking democracies, we have a Security Service over which there is no parliamentary oversight. The Government and Prime Minister are increasingly authoritarian and intolerant of opposition, even from within their own ranks. That is the Bill's context, and it shows that the Bill is part of a coherent and ambitious design. It is a grand design which reduces the information available to the subject, thereby reducing the liberties of the subject and increasing the over-arching power of the Government and of the leaders of that Government. We believe, but we may be wrong and may be the innocent victims of conspiracy theories, that the Bill is part of an overall design. We reject that design and the Bill. The Bill is illiberal and by no means a reform. I shall be glad when the Home Secretary stops coming before the House in his gleaming white robes posing as a reformer, because in reality he is wearing the emperor's clothes.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: If the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) would read the Franks report of 1971, she would discover that much of the basis of the Bill harks back to its recommendations. However, I shall not dwell on that.
  I appreciate that there are many experts on official secrets and I do not claim in any way to be one of them, but having listened to some hon. Members I am not sure that the expertise is all that it is cracked up to be. I can, however, claim one unique feature. I have signed the declaration that I will keep confidentiality—in 1965 when I became a Metropolitan police officer.
  We make many promises in life, but, sadly, some of them are broken. The promise of confidentiality is not to be broken lightly. If I say nothing else in the debate, I shall say that Peter Wright was despicable beyond description and that I have nothing but utter contempt for his dishonourable acts. It would be wrong to conclude that the Wright case has prompted this reform. Successive Governments have tried to address the question of reforming the catch-all provisions of the 77-year-old Official Secrets Act. The Government are right to claim that they are taking a liberal view. I shall shortly come to my reasons for saying that.
  There is a genuinely held view that disclosure in the public interest is a valid argument and that the Bill falls short of a public interest defence. I do not agree. There are two important matters to be considered on the question of the public interest defence. The first is where the greater

  521
  public interest lies and the second is the burden of proof when cases are brought to court. The greater public interest is best served by discouraging through criminal sanctions a disclosure that may be damaging or is likely to be damaging. The Bill puts the onus of proof the right way round, so that Crown servants are discouraged from disclosing information for fear that damage or harm may occur, rather than encouraged to disclose it by a public interest defence.
  As far as I am aware, only the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) contained a public interest defence. If I understand correctly what my hon. Friend had in mind, a Crown servant who leaks or discloses information would not have to prove conclusively that misconduct had occurred. Equally, suspicion would not be enough. Nevertheless conclusive proof of misconduct was not necessary. There may be other information of which the discloser does not know. The burden of proof in such a public interest defence would be on the prosecution which would have to establish, first, that no crime, fraud, abuse of authority, neglect of official duty or other misconduct had occurred and, secondly, that the discloser had acted unreasonably.
  It might well be impossible to prove that misconduct had not taken place without releasing other important, confidential information which the public interest might require to be kept secret. The prosecution or the Crown would be on the horns of a dilemma. A Crown servant may have made an allegation of misconduct which on the face of it looks convincing. Public opinion, perhaps reacting to a front-page headline in one of the daily newspapers, would demand that the record be put straight. But to do that, the Crown might have to reveal information which ought to be kept secret. That is the real reason why it would not be valid to include in the Bill a public interest defence.
  The alternative approach is the one in the Bill. The discloser can reveal information provided that he does not cause harm and there is no reasonable likelihood of damage. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove harm. Equally, the discloser knows that, however altruistic his motives, if he causes damage he will be guilty of an offence. Therefore, there is a general discouragement. The right balance must be to err on the side of caution. A public interest defence runs the risk of causing more damage to the national interest than the discloser may be seeking to protect. He may be acting only on a narrow appreciation or knowledge of the matters about which he makes his disclosures. An actual harm requirement, such as that in the Bill, reduces the risk of accidental disclosure. At the end of the day, it cannot be said to be in the public or national interest to disclose information which damages the national interest or is reckless as to whether such damage might occur.
  The Opposition have asked whether the Government are right to claim this as a liberalising measure. The Opposition feel that the Bill does not go far enough. There is another point of view—to question whether some of these reforms go too far. The important point here is that under section 2 everything is caught. There are no definitions—they are not needed. The Bill specifies only those offences for which there can be a prosecution. Surely
  522
  it must be right to ask whether we have included in the Bill all the offences that we ought to include. I am not about to suggest a long list of offences that we should have in the Bill, but it is right to adopt a questioning approach from the other point of view.
  I should like to touch briefly on law and order. It would be reasonable in today's world to claim that the maintenance of law and order is as important a function of Government as defence. There is international terrorism and crime and mobility of criminals and terrorists, and threats are being posed to our normal civilised way of life. We see this almost every day. Is the Minister satisfied that all the evetualities required for the public interest are in the Bill? I should like his assurance that as the Bill progresses in Committee the Government will not be reluctant to introduce amendments.
  Part of the answer to my question may lie in reference to other measures because we have to look at the Bill not just in relation to the Official Secrets Act but in relation to other statutes. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referred to a written question put down in 1976 by his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) about the list of offences under other statutes. I was interested to find, for example, the Marketing of Eggs Act (Northern Ireland) 1957 on that list. There appears to be no reference to the marketing of eggs in England, Wales or Scotland, but no doubt that is covered by some other statute.
  We need to consider how disclosure of historical information which might affect the reputation of an individual rather than future events is covered. What about unauthorised disclosure of criminal records or police files? Over the years, there have been a number of prosecutions of police officers and journalists—some successful and some not—when information had been leaked about police records. We need to ask whether the Bill covers the leaking of such information.
  When the Government published the White Paper, they gave a general definition of criminal activity. The Bill is a considerable improvement because it specifies events. It is not difficult to imagine circumstances in which the specific offences could occur. A number of past prosecutions provide clear examples. In 1966, a police officer who passed on information about a proposed police search was fined after a magistrates court hearing. It seems as though such an occurrence would be covered by the Bill under the provisions applying to disclosure which impedes
  "the apprehension or prosecution of suspected offenders".
  In 1968, a police officer passed on information about a mail van run, with a view to robbery—clearly an action likely to result in the commission of an offence. I could give many other such examples, but other hon. Members wish to speak.
  There has been criticism of the Bill from one side. I hope that a Committee of the whole House will consider these important issues. Of course, we are unlikely in the foreseeable future to see a repeal of the legislation that we are about to enact. This is not a matter on which Parliament would wish to legislate too often. It is important that we get it right and ensure that those offences that should be covered by the Bill are indeed covered.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) has told us that there has been an appalling jumbo plane crash

  523
  in Scotland. I wondered whether I could formally ask the Government to consider making a statement, even a preliminary one, at 10.15 pm.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am sure that Ministers who are present have heard the hon. Member's comments. It would not be in order to interrupt this important debate.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. Tony Worthington: The depressing aspect of the argument is that Labour Members and some Conservative Members have been consistently winning the argument for a reform of the secrecy law. That happened in the Ponting, Tisdall, Massiter and Wright cases—all instances when the Government have been severely embarrassed. Flaws in the secrecy law have been pointed out.
  We won the argument over ministerial certificates. They were seen to be an inappropriate way of dealing with the arguments. We won the argument and there was a modest step forward in the statutory basis for the Security Service, but it did not go far. The argument has been won also in relation to the problems of hierarchical organisations, the people trapped in them and the need for a counsellor within the service. Last year, in one of the high spots of my short career here, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) effectively highlighted the need for reform. Unfortunately, the Government have not taken the right message from that. They believe that the way to approach official secrets is to shoot the messengers who tell them that things are going wrong and to ensure that there will be no more messengers. In the end, that will fail, just as every attempt to suppress the truth must eventually fail.
  It is depressing that one of the surest tests of a maturing and growing democracy is whether the public are entrusted with more and more information while the Government go in the opposite direction. Who can say after looking at the collective outcome of Ponting, Tisdall, Zircon, Wright and Massiter that it was wrong for us to have heard about those events? No one could seriously argue that we were damaged by hearing about them. Our public life was enhanced by that knowledge, but the Government's central motive is to ensure that in future we shall not know about such events.
  One aspect of the Bill disturbs me. Sworn to life-long confidentiality will affect not only full-time members of the security services but those temporarily associated with the world of secrets. I take the instance of John Stalker, a person to whom peculiar things were happening. I cannot judge the rights and wrongs of the Stalker case, because I do not know, just as no other hon. Member does, about the full events. In the end, Stalker left the police service and decided to write a book. What else would a man in such circumstances do but say, "That is what was happening to me in terms of my relationships with my police authority, the Home Office, the RUC, the Northern Ireland Office and the secret services"? John Stalker's book contains references to MI5. I shall take some virtually at random.
  He said:
  "I had authority from MI5, and the expressed support of the Home Office and the Director of Public Prosecutions."
  He also said:
  "Present at the meeting were Sir John Hermon, the very senior MI5 legal officer and the MI5 Belfast representative. The meeting was opened by the senior MI5 man. He made it
  524
  absolutely clear, as he had six months earlier, that his department was not standing in the way of a murder investigation. He said that MI5 was prepared to release all information to me."
  That is an example of a person who, at that stage in his career, was involved with secrets and the work of the secret services and who seemed to be stitched up in terms of his investigation—having been given a job to do but then been prevented from doing it. Are we to remove from that person, who seems to have suffered an injustice, the right ever to tell his side of the story?
  Mr. Allason: Is it not a fact that, if that gentleman believes that there has been an injustice, he will have an opportunity through the Security Service Bill to lay a complaint before the tribunal?
  Mr. Worthington: A conspiracy seemed to surround Stalker everywhere. Something strange was going on that enveloped the entire Government service and the secret service, too. At the end of the day there is for some people no escape from that. They are trapped within that world and sometimes they must break free—not in any circumstances—from that entrapment.
  The idea of life-long confidentiality is disturbing. As a general principle, I accept that people must exercise confidentiality in their jobs, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) demonstrated earlier, secrets come and go. What is secret at one time becomes very commonplace the next minute. There must always be some kind of filtering of what can be said by previous members of the secret service, or those people temporarily associated with it. However, to deny people the chance to put their side of history is profoundly illiberal.
  One wonders whether this embargo on temporary members of the secret service will apply to Government Ministers. I do not consider that it can be right for history to be denied 20 or 30 years later the actuality of what occurred at a particular time. Many Prime Ministers and Ministers—even junior Ministers—at some stage later have found it important to tell the world their version of events. In many cases their positions have brought them into contact with what were state secrets. That they should for ever have an embargo on them speaking about that is profoundly wrong. Something should be done to ensure that they do not release current secrets, but to have life-long confidentiality as the over-arching theme is fundamentally wrong, and should be reconsidered.
  I am worried about the world of investigative journalists. Certainly there are times when journalists reveal information that is extremely important. This year one of the most startling articles that I read was in The Observer, and it was about telephone tapping. The allegation was that 30,000 individual telephones were currently being tapped. The number of operatives involved in telephone tapping has doubled. In addition to the 60 tapping operatives, another team of 80 higher grade engineers maintain and service tapped lines. Mr. David Norman, who represents the telephone tappers as treasurer of the National Communications Union, said:
  "I can say with absolute certainty that I have been the victim of state surveillance in the form of telephone tapping for the best part of the last year."
  That is the kind of information which should surface occasionally.
  Mr. Allason: Why should it?
  Mr. Worthington: It should surface because of the power given to the secret service to do fundamentally what they like. I am open to correction, but, as I understand the Bill, an article giving that kind of information would in future not be published, which is fundamentally wrong.
  The police argue that the public interest defence is easy, but it is not. Hon. Members spoke earlier about the barriers to be overcome to establish that public interest defence. Have we learnt nothing from the events of recent years about what happens in various hierarchical institutions? One can take it from the world of psychology, and the work of Professor Milgram years ago on authority. He determined that people could be induced to do the most frightening things in the presence of authority. In cases of abuse within hospitals, child sex scandals and in every tragedy—whether it be Clapham Junction, or Kings Cross—where there is human error, there is information that would have stopped that horror occurring if it could have been released from that hierarchical organisation. One must face up to the fact that the secret services and the world of secrets must be the most hierarchical organisation of all. It is not enough to appoint councillors and to have good internal supervision of those services. Ultimately, there must be a public interest defence for people to escape from that.
  It is not easy to establish a public interest defence, because it would have been necessary for the person to have gone to the councillor, to have real knowledge that an outrage was going on and to have explored every other avenue in that organisation before that public interest defence could be accepted.
  It is crucial—a kind of bedrock of our kind of democracy—that there should be some escape from a hierarchical organisation that has control over one's career, one's family and over everything in one life. One should be able to escape from that situation and have some root of satisfaction in being able to plead a public interest defence, and that is taken away in this legislation.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. Greg Knight: One thing that the entire House has agreed upon is that section 2 of the 1911 Act needs reforming. The present law is a mess and is drawn too widely. As the Franks committee observed on section 2:
  "A catch-all provision is saved from absurdity in operation only by the sparing exercise of the Attorney-General's discretion to prosecute."
  The Government are to be congratulated on grasping this problem and bringing legislation before the House, but it is right that we should examine the substance of the Government's proposals. The only matter about which I agreed with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was when he said that we should consider the Bill on its merits, but he did his case no service when he then quoted a number of misleading examples. Referring to the special investigation powers, the right hon. Gentleman said that if those carrying out powers under a warrant were to blunder into his own house, which was next door to the house that should have been searched, if he were to pass on that information an offence would be committed. I must disagree with him because clearly, as I read the Bill, any action carried out that is not authorised by the warrant would not be covered.
  526
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook then criticised the Government for the test of harm. He and other Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott)—who referred to the Bill as bringing about the creation of a one-party state—said that the Government were actually setting down what amounted to harm, and that that was a dangerous precedent. Hon. Members who put that argument forward should read the Bill, because in five out of the six cases the Government may have a view as to what is harm, but it is for the jury to decide after considering the evidence in the case. It is poppycock to talk of a one-party state being created by the provisions.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred to the Civil Service, and, having listened to all the debate, I have failed to understand why it should be necessary for someone in the Civil Service who feels that something is amiss to run off to a newspaper. A procedure has been set up whereby a person can invoke the Civil Service procedure if he has a valid complaint. To argue that civil servants should have a licence to reveal to newspapers something that they consider to be underhand is a bogus point.
  The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) denounced the Bill in a robust speech. His speech, as always, was good value. I am sorry he is not in his place because I believe that his remarks on this Bill carry no credibility. He was a member of the previous Labour Government who, in 1978, published a White Paper—it was debated in July of that year—which did not address the question of freedom of information about which he was so concerned today. The Labour Government White Paper also stated that information relating to security and intelligence was to receive absolute protection. It appears that the right hon. Gentleman, who supported that White Paper, has gyrated through 180 deg. now that he has been relieved of the burdens of office. His remarks did not carry any weight tonight.
  Contrary to some of the remarks that have been made, the Bill does contain a number of substantial changes that narrow further the scope of the present law as compared with the proposals published earlier this year in the Government's White Paper. I am especially pleased to note that it will not be an offence under the Bill simply to disclose information received in confidence from other Governments or from international organisations. The White Paper suggested that that would be an absolute offence, but I am delighted that the Bill makes it clear that harm would have to be proved. That is a welcome change.
  The current proposals mean that the prosecution must satisfy specific tests of harm to the public interest in cases involving disclosure by most people, including journalists, in five of the six areas still covered by criminal law. It is only for members of and others closely connected with the security and intelligence services that any unauthorised disclosure would always be treated as harmful. The Government have got the Bill exactly right.
  There is some controversy about whether there should be a statutory defence. A number of Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends have said that they want absolute defences of prior publication and of disclosure in the public interest. When the House last debated this matter I had some sympathy for that view. If I read the Bill correctly, however, the existence of a harm test will mean that it will be open to a defendant in court to argue that he

  527
  had caused no harm beyond that created by the earlier publication. In those circumstances, it would be for the jury to decide. That is reasonable.
  It is also fair to say that there is no statutory defence of public interest in the Bill. The harm test, however, will still apply. Surely a defendant will be able to argue in court that his disclosure was not harmful and that it was for the public good. If that is accepted by the jury he will, quite properly, be acquitted.
  I have a couple of questions that I wish to put to the Minister about the Bill as it affects matters concerned with crime. What about the discloser of information as opposed to the publisher? In some cases the person who discloses information will clearly be an accessory to the offence. Could that person be prosecuted as such? I hope that, in appropriate cases, he could. Also, will the Minister confirm that military offences—for example, desertion and other such offences—will not be covered by the Bill? I trust that they will still be dealt with under separate law.
  Having read the criticisms of the Bill that have appeared in the press, I am led to the conclusion that journalists have obviously not read or fully digested the Government's proposals. I believe that when seeking to take a journalist to court, the prosecution—the Crown—would have a near Herculean task persuading the jury that the journalist had committed an offence. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) has already touched on that.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred to my hon. Friend the Minister's letter, which I understand was published in a newspaper, but I am afraid that I have not seen that letter.
  Mr. Corbett: It was not published.
  Mr. Knight: Well, whatever happened to the letter, the right hon. Gentleman referred to eight hurdles that the prosecution must clear. From my understanding of the Bill, I believe that there are nine hurdles to be cleared to ensure the prosecution of a journalist. It is not right for some members of the press to say that this is a repressive measure.
  Mr. John Patten: Let me clear up the matter of the letter. Is my hon. Friend aware that I did not write a letter to the press, as suggested by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook? Rather, I gave an interview to The Times in which I set out the hurdles that the prosecution would have to clear to prosecute a journalist successfully. That was the source and it was entirely accurate. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury was spot-on when he directed the attention of the House to it.
  Mr. Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification and I am glad that he has confirmed that nine points have to be proved by the Crown to pursue a journalist for a breach of the provisions. If that is the case, members of the press should be praising my right hon. Friend as the most liberal Home Secretary since 1911.
  This is an excellent Bill. It is a well-balanced measure and I hope that the whole House will support it today.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I believe that the question asked by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) about the position of the discloser is extremely important to all of us in the House.
  528
  I shall speak quietly to the Home Secretary and Minister in the hope that the questions that I put will he answered, possibly by a letter—not to me, but placed in the Library before we start discussing this Bill in Committee. Frankly, having spent 11 days at the Old Bailey during the trial of Mr. Clive Ponting, I realise that this is a very difficult, delicate, grey area.
  One: is it unfair to say that this Bill could be subtitled the "Anti-Ponting Jury Bill"? It looks to me as though Ministers dislike the 1911 Act because it does not guarantee that those who reveal information can be prosecuted when convenient and found guilty. If that is unfair, may I be told by letter why?
  Two: I have a personal request of the Home Secretary. It ill becomes him to use terms of abuse. That is not his style. Who were the obfuscators? I genuinely do not know. We may be wrong, but we should not be treated with that kind of abuse if we are to have a sensible Committee stage. Such abuse is not in the Home Secretary's nature. If I am a melancholic obfuscator, I want to be told why.
  Three: is it fair to say that the Bill is designed to prevent the newspapers, radio and television from putting over stories and facts which the Government do not want made public, to make certain beyond peradventure that those prosecuted are found guilty in future? We must know whether this is a measure to deal with perverse juries in trials like Ponting's. That is how it looks to a number of serious people. I note that the Home Secretary is knitting his brow in a pained way. I simply want to know why the Home Secretary thinks I am wrong about that.
  Four: having read the Bill, it seems to some of us that it is constructed for one purpose above all others—to put a stopper in the loopholes revealed by recent cases which have been awkward for the Government. My hon. Friends the Members for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) have already outlined the cases and to save time I need not repeat their excellent speeches. However, my point must be answered in a letter to all of us who have taken part in this debate.
  Five: I realise that it may be difficult to refer to previous. cases, as there may be retrospective hypothetical situations, but it is fair to ask the following question. Under this Bill, I am sure that Sarah Tisdall would still be found guilty, but are we right to think that The Guardian would be found guilty as well? Could The Guardian have been prosecuted for printing the documents? From our reading of the Bill, it seems that it could. I would like that confirmed.
  Six: under the Bill, are we right to assume that Cathy Massiter could be prosecuted with a greater chance of success? Not only would it be illegal to report her allegations. If a newspaper or the BBC reported Massiter-like allegations, Ministers would presumably be cocking a proverbial snook at their critics, for would they not say then that illegal actions undertaken by MI5 are legalised under the new security legislation? If I do the Government an injustice, let us be told.
  Seven: I asked a former Prime Minister, the right hon.. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), a question about someone acting as Desmond Morton acted for Churchill. The former Prime Minister said that the Home Secretary would have to answer. The Home Secretary shook his head, and I believed that he thought that anyone in Desmond Morton's position would not be

  529
  prosecuted. May we have some reflections on that? I believe that some people think that someone like Desmond Morton would find himself in prison.
  Eight—in all these points I hope that Ministers will correct me in a letter if I am wrong—could Ms. Massiter be prosecuted under one of the new-fangled provisions in the new legislation for putting out "false information" about MI5?
  Nine: under the Bill, if another Peter Wright were to publish in Australia, would it be illegal to report anything Wright wrote for the benefit of the public in the United Kingdom, even though the rest of the world could read about it as they pleased? That question was implied by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington. It would be useful to have the Government's reflections about that before the Committee stage.
  Ten: under this Bill, would it be illegal for Duncan Campbell and the BBC to make a Zircon film or for the New Statesman or any other journal to write an article about Zircon? If so, we could cut out the need for highly publicised and damaging special branch raids on the BBC at Queen Margaret drive in search of Campbell's sources. If I have got it wrong, let us be told.
  Mr. Michael Foot: My hon. Friend is right.
  Mr. Dalyell: I think that I have got it right, because I have taken legal advice about it.
  Eleven: as to national and sectional interests, will the Home Secretary explain what he was trying to say on that subject in his opening speech? His remarks were a little obscure. It may be that I was being thick about it, but I do not think that that can be said of all my right hon. and hon. Friends. It was not clear what distinction the right hon. Gentleman was drawing.
  Twelve: are we being unfair in suggesting that the Home Secretary's distinction between the front pages of national newspapers and articles in technical journals borders on the absurd? The Russians will take into account—but the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) shakes his head.
  Mr. Whitney: The point is not necessarily whether the Russians know a fact, but whether it suits the Russians or some other party to surface a fact and have it more widely distributed for other reasons. If I may say so, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, he thinks in simplistic, Len Deighton-type terms. The world has moved on and is a more subtle place. Prior publication is a more dangerous area than the hon. Gentleman seems to understand.
  Mr. Dalyell: So that I may understand before Committee stage, let there be a letter on the matter, not just for myself but placed in the Library, so that all right hon. and hon. Members interested in the Committee stage will know the Government's reflections on the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Thirteen: having spent 11 days at the Old Bailey during Clive Ponting's trial, I cannot understand how, under this Bill, Bruce Laughland or anyone else could mount a defence at the trial. Would the evidence of a Government cover-up introduced at that trial be allowed under the provisions of the Bill? I think not. I understand also that, under clause 3 of the Bill, my right hon. Friend the
  530
  Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and Professor Wade, Master of Caius, would not be permitted to testify. That is what Ponting himself has written in today's press, and I know that he has grounds for doing so. If that belief is wrong, let the House be told.
  Fourteen: at first sight, the Bill has been devised to stop leaks. Do the Government imagine that they will in any way be successful in that attempt? It seems that, in practice, the Bill will make leakers rather more sophisticated, as they have been recently. People are becoming better at it. In this context, I hope that I shall not be ruled out of order if I say that people such as Mr. Mogg put their accounts of delicate events and other matters in bank vaults, as has Colette Bowe. Heaven knows why civil servants should put their accounts of events in bank vaults if they tally with those of Ministers.
  Fifteen: there is also the question of leaks to Members of Parliament. What will be the position if a right hon. or hon. Member, or anybody else, discloses information? The hon. Member for Wycombe made certain remarks. I shall not argue the point, but I do not see what else I should have done in the case in question other than go to the Chairman of the Select Committee. I did not go to the press. I believe that I behaved perfectly responsibly in keeping within parliamentary procedure. We can return to that point in Committee. I will only say that part of the trouble was misbehaviour by others.
  On the third day of the Ponting trial, what did we hear other than the clever Richard Mottram, private secretary to the Secretary of State for Defence, reveal that the report of the commander-in-chief, Sir John Fieldhouse, was altered behind his back. That seems a good example of misbehaviour—altering the commander-in-chief's report behind his back.
  If the Government bring a case under the new legislation, they had better pick their first case carefully because it could easily end in a fiasco.
  Finally, I shall quote the words of Bruce Laughland from the end of his submission at the Ponting trial, which are very moving:
  "If what he"—
  that is, Clive Ponting—
  "did was a crime for which he renders himself liable to punishment, you know it could be a licence for Ministers to withhold from Parliament information with the tame acquiescence of their Civil Servants and so infringe our liberties. And if what he did was a crime in English law, you say so. But if it is, God help us, because no government will."
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I detect a curious feature in the way in which the Government are approaching legislation. It seems that we are almost legislating to appear before the European Court on a whole range of issues, of which this is one. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 has brought us before the Court. The letter that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary sent to the BBC governors and to the IBA will bring us there, and last week we introduced the Security Service Bill. I have no doubt that that will ultimately lead us there as well. As a party, we should be cautious in legislation that ensures that we are reviewed directly in front of the European Court. It seems that we no longer attest to the common rules and principles of our democracy that have informed it for the past 200 years. The Government should be mindful of that.

  531
  Why do I say that this Bill will bring us in front of the European Court? The most obvious reason is the absolute offence that the Bill establishes. An absolute offence means that a man or woman in public service, who has been or is at present in the narrow area of the security services, may never say anything. If they do say something, they will have committed an offence and all that the prosecution will have to demonstrate is that they have said something in contravention of an onerous law that insists, by virtue of the fact that they have said something relating to their former or present service, that they have committed an offence.
  Mr. Allason rose—
  Mr. Shepherd: One should consider crime, fraud and high iniquity, which have been tested and weighed in the courts—the High Court, the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords. All those courts have said that one cannot enjoin on a citizen an absolute duty of confidence in the face of iniquity. Yet the Government throw that out of the window, knowing that they will ultimately come in front of the European Court on this issue if they persist with the Bill. They do not see a way to remedy that or to give justice to the citizens of this country.
  The public interest defence is one way to remedy that, and it is not as it has been caricatured by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the White Paper. It can be narrowly defined—that a civil servant has to adduce evidence of crime or fraud and it can be brought into play only after the Civil Service has exhausted all internal remedies. If civil servants go directly to the public, they will deny themselves that defence.
  Mr. Allason rose—
  Mr. Shepherd: I regret that I shall not give way. I am already running into ministerial time.
  The other point that causes me concern is clause 3 and its definition of international relations and organisations. I have exchanged correspondence with the Home Secretary on that, and we have been going round in circles. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) made an important speech on a range of issues, which I am unable to cover because of lack of time.
  The qualifying basis on which a prosecution may be secured is that little phrase that has been slipped in, which states that damage may have taken place
  "by reason of the fact that it is confidential".
  That is the test that we now must meet. I know of almost no public document that does not have confidentiality in it.
  Let me refer to the example given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), a former Home Secretary. He thought that the clause referring to international organisations should be dropped. The Government now seem to be legislating by Home Office press release. The extraordinary extravagance of the language of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on this matter has confused the issue.
  Let us take two international organisations as examples —OPEC and the International Tin Council. They are producers or cartels against the public interest as we would define it. They are trying to maintain the price of their commodities against all our interests. They will be regarded as "international organisations" and information
  532
  revealed about them will give rise to a crime under the Bill. At present, there is no crime in that area in our statute book. It is an inhibiting factor.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary may yet again nod his head, but the fact is that the Foreign Office is quite incapable of identifying what constitutes an international organisation. We have been around this before. The Foreign Office cannot even tell us the international organisations with which it has done business this year. On the basis of the fact that clause 3 defines international relations as follows:
  "'international relations' means the relations between States, between international organisations",
  OPEC is an international organisation, as is the International Tin Council.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he wanted the Bill to be effective, enforceable and reasonable. I do not think that, as drafted, the Bill is reasonable. It does not meet that criterion. Because I have doubts about my right hon. Friend's arguments, I wonder whether the meaning of "confidential" should be clarified by amendment. If "international organisations" covers the Ghana Cocoa Marketing Company (UK) Ltd., the International Tin Council, OPEC and all the Common Market subsidiary organisations, it is an onerous and wrong principle.
  I am nervous about saying that the difficulty that I have in voting for the Bill and my reason for therefore voting against it is that, all the way through the process from January to the White Paper and to this debate, the Government have consistently yielded very little on the principles. The underlying principle is the citizen's right to be able to hold Government accountable. We lose sight of that so often.
  The Executive's perception of the way in which the world ought to be is, "If we can close unto ourselves and hold unto ourselves the information, all the inconveniences of having to manage this House of Commons go out of the way." It is not in the interests of the House of Commons to pass the Bill as drafted.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. Robin Corbett: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), and it is a shame that the Government did not allow two days for this debate. I hope that the Home Secretary and others heard the remarks by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) about ensuring adequate time when we come to Committee.
  I should like first to congratulate the Minister on his reply. I expect that we shall have the usual knockabout accusing the Opposition for opposing the Bill. Perhaps, given the time of the year, it will be in pantomime costume. I hope that the Minister enjoys himself. I make no apology for the Opposition, who are guilty only of thinking about the Bill and that has led us to the conclusion that we should oppose it.
  It was the Prime Minister who, in 1960 as a newly elected Member, set the proper background against which we should judge the Bill. When introducing a private Member's Bill to expand the right of the public to attend council meetings, she said:
  "the paramount function of this distinguished House is to safeguard civil liberties rather than to think that administrative convenience should take first place."—[Official Report, 5 February 1960; Vol. 616, c. 1357-58.]

  533
  Those were wise words, but not for the first time they have been long since forgotten by the right hon. Lady and her Government.
  At heart this Bill is all about the convenience of the Government, and has nothing to do with civil liberties or freedom of information. That is why it is an unwelcome and unwanted Christmas present. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members have shown, the Bill fails on every major count. It will not increase public access to information. It will provide tighter controls over information which the Government decide they want to keep secret, and over people, not just inside Government but outside Government service, who have access to such information —even unto the grave. Even if information comes to a journalist or anyone else, second, third or even tenth hand, if its disclosure was unauthorised, it will be an offence to receive it or to pass it on.
  In many areas of the Bill, there is no test of specific harm. People can and will be convicted and imprisoned without there being any evidence that actual harm has been done to the national interest. Newspapers will have to decide, when they pick up a story about the intelligence or security services, whether all the potential harm attached to that report has already been done. There is no way in which they can know. Any newspaper's lawyers will advise, "Do not publish." In a free society, we take the view that the motto should be, "Publish and be damned" when there is no evidence of harm to our security.
  In our debate in July, the Home Secretary said:
  "Our central objective is to narrow the law so that it applies only to disclosure without authority of official information which"—
  these are the words that matter most
  "is likely to give rise to an unacceptable degree of harm to the public interest."—[Official Report, 22 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 1413.]
  If that is what the Bill set out to do, we would support it, but it does not. Those words are another example of the Government's doublespeak. The Home Secretary used the expression, "unacceptable degree of harm". Why is there no proper test of actual harm in most of the Bill? The Home Secretary mentioned the public interest. Why do the words "public interest" appear nowhere in the Bill? His words were designed to mislead. Yet again today he said one thing while the Bill says another.
  When the Home Secretary spoke of unacceptable harm, he was near to the Franks report definition of a serious injury to the security of the nation or the safety of the people. The concept of unacceptable harm to the public interest is something with which we agree. It presupposes that there are different degrees of harm—that at one end disclosure is acceptable because no real damage is done, and that at the other it is unacceptable because damage is done to the nation's security. If the Home Secretary believes that—the words are his—why has he not put them in the Bill? Has he changed his mind since July, or has he had it changed for him?
  On 22 July, the Home Secretary boasted:
  "No Government have made so much official information available to the public or Parliament"— [Official Report, 22 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 1418.]
  He cited the prison system, press visits to Scottish prisons, reports made by the schools inspectors and even press
  534
  visits to parts of Porton Down and Aldermaston. That is the trouble: his very boasting misses the point. The real question for the House is why these matters were ever made secret in the first place. The Home Secretary's boasting reveals an attitude—that freedom of information is based on the Government's claim to decide on and know what the people they are supposed to serve are able to know. That is to turn the argument on its head. In a democracy, there should be a general right to know everything except that which touches on the safety and security of a nation.
  Still boasting, the Home Secretary described what was happening as, "an earthquake in Whitehall". He must know that it did not even rattle a teacup, let alone shake the doors to rooms full of information which should never have been locked away. One of the most wicked aspects of what is proposed is that entirely innocent people can, as in the past, have their lives ruined by the wrongdoings of the intelligence services. There is nothing that they can do about it. An M15 officer, M14 officer or other Government officials—
  Mr. John Patten: That was last week's Bill.
  Mr. Corbett: If the Minister will listen, he will see that they are related. Those people will commit a criminal offence if they reveal misbehaviour on the part of the intelligence or security services. It will be a crime for any newspaper, television programme, book or magazine—or indeed anyone uttering such statements—to disclose misbehaviour or wrongdoing. There are four cases of such behaviour on record. Under the Bill, they would never see the light of day.
  Case one involves a former distinguished Labour Minister—Niall MacDermot—who was denied high office because of a false allegation, made by the security services, that he had married a Soviet agent. False allegations were leaked to colleagues here and to selected journalists. Details of that malpractice came to light only through the publication of a book by David Leigh called "The Wilson Plot" which, under the Bill, would be banned.
  The second case involved Jack Jones, a distinguished former general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union who was falsely and ridiculously accused of being a Soviet agent—[Laughter.] It is remarkable that anybody can find this funny. Misleading MI5 files were used to advise Ministers to prevent him from being brought into Government between 1965 and 1968. We know that only through "The Wilson Plot" book, publication of which—I remind the House—would be banned under the Bill.
  The third case involves Miss Isabel Hilton who was falsely accused of being subversive after reading Chinese at university and joining the Scotland-China Association. Against that background she was denied a job at the BBC. Miss Hilton found out about that only after a report in The Observer—[laughter.] I repeat to Conservative Members, who find that funny, that under the Bill that report could not be published in The Observer.
  The fourth case involves my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), on whom a file was opened because of her work with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. That is a proper, legal organisation, as the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), reminded us. The pretext was that she was a contact for

  535
  Soviet journalists. That came to light only because Miss Cathy Massiter, a former MI5 officer, spoke out on the "20/20 Vision" television programme. Under the Bill she would have committed a criminal offence and the programme makers would be similarly treated.
  Clause 15 makes it an offence for any British citizen or Crown servant to disclose information about the security or intelligence services when abroad. It follows logically from other provisions and will doubtless afford successive Cabinet Secretaries expensive trips to the far corners of the globe where ex-spies seem to settle.
  What about satellite television? What happens if Mr. Rupert Murdoch's channel broadcasts out of Luxembourg a news item that involves security or intelligence in the United Kingdom? Mr. Murdoch is an American citizen and. I assume, outside the scope of the Bill—or is he? Are the Government contemplating starting extradition proceedings in the New York courts to bring him back here to be tried for unauthorised disclosure in the United Kingdom? What about the thousands, perhaps millions, who see such news via a satellite broadcast? Under the Bill, they will be caught, not for watching it but for telling their neighbour or someone at work about what they have seen and heard. The same would be true if they videod such a transmission. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ridiculous."] It is not ridiculous. Read the Bill. If a British citizen is not involved in such a satellite broadcast nothing can be done, except to British citizens who see and hear the broadcast because they have received unauthorised information and mentioned it to a relation, friend or neighbour. The world can know of a deed that did not even cause harm to the interests of the nation, but we who live here are not, under the Bill, allowed to know it. How is that for open Government? The lawyers will thank the Government from the bottom of their bank balances for such a gift.
  How does the Bill stand in relation to article 10 of the European convention on human rights which, as the Minister knows, guarantees
  "freedom to … receive and impart information … without interference by public authority."
  Has the Minister examined the Bill in light of that convention or will the Bill be yet another case—there have been more than 30 so far—where Britain has to be dragged before the European Court before our liberties can be safeguarded? Even the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks protested, when we discussed the White Paper, at the wider catch-all scope of proposals relating to defence. He said:
  "It would be easier to prove that the material that is disclosed prejudices something than that it does serious harm … I do not see any justification for what amounts to a tightening up of proposals that were originally put forward in 1979."—[Official Report, 22 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 1430.]
  On the use of criminal law in that area, the Franks report said in paragraph 118:
  "This means that the criminal law would not apply to information the unauthorised disclosure of which would cause some injury to the interests of the nation, but short of serious injury."
  I made that point earlier.
  Paragraph 119 sets out what the Franks committee said should be
  "a proper basis for the employment of criminal sanctions the unauthorised disclosure of official information which would be likely to cause serious injury to the security of the nation or the safety of the people. If criminal sanctions are justified at all, they are justified for this purpose. If they are to be reserved for what is most important, they should not go any wider."
  536
  The Bill ignores those important words and stretches the criminal law more widely. It replaces the large net with the large mesh, which was provided by the 1911 Act, with a smaller net with a smaller mesh, the better to catch and silence those who, at the end of the day, mainly cause this Government embarrassment.
  There is a supreme irony about having this debate today. It is 21 December, the darkest day of the year. The Government have chosen darkness and rejected the chance to let the light into vast areas of Government, which could only benefit from that. Proper steps to protect our national interests from espionage and subversion are one thing, and would find universal support; casting a wide net over information outside those areas is another and it shows that, at basic level, this is simply a Government who do not trust the people. They cry freedom and they act like tyrants.
  I tell the Government that there is a consensus on the Bill—something for which the Prime Minister has repeatedly asked—but that that consensus does not belong to the Government; it belongs to the Opposition and to some distinguished right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches. Ours is a consensus for freedom, openness, honesty and accountability because—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) jests about these matters when they lie at the heart of our democracy. Ours is a consensus for freedom, openness, honesty and accountability, which are all precious ingredients, precious parts of our democracy. Part of our anger about this Bill is that it is precisely those things that the Government reject. This Bill demeans even the Government in the eyes of all those who truly care about our safety, security and democracy. That is why we shall vote against it tonight.
  9.33 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on his speech. He was poetic, almost Shakespearian, as befits one coming from middle England. We shall see how many divisions there are in his consensus when we vote tonight. That will be the test.
  We have had a long and thorough debate. When I replied to the debate on the White Paper in the summer, I said that we would listen to what hon. Members said. My right hon. Friend's Bill demonstrates that we have listened to the points made and have made changes that are reflected in the Bill. That is why I am convinced that so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends support the Bill.
  An impressive list of six thoughtful and independent-minded hon. Members have spoken strongly in support of the Bill. I refer to my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), for Banbury (Mr. Baldry)—[Interruption.] The frivolous mood that so captured Opposition Front Bench Members during the tea period seems to have continued during the after-dinner period. I refer also to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler), who made a remarkable speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who criticised us for perhaps going too far—clearly we shall have to mark his points carefully in Committee—and my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), who made a notable contribution.

  537
  I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) were not able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, because of the limited time. I was glad to be in the Chamber to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington)—he is not present at the moment—if only to demonstrate my expertise in pronouncing his unpronounceable constituency. Also, I do not see in the Chamber the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who asked my right hon. Friend 15 specific questions and asked for a letter to be placed in the Library. We shall look at the record of what the hon. Member for Linlithgow had to say.
  Three right hon. and hon. Conservative Members have doubts or have expressed outright opposition to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is the only Conservative Member who has spoken in outright opposition to the Bill. We respect his views, although we disagree. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who for a proper reason cannot be present tonight—he has written to say why he cannot be here—asked a specific question about the parliamentary handling of the Bill. As the provisions of the Bill go to the heart of government, we take the view that the Bill should be considered by a Committee of the whole House. Therefore, after Second Reading we shall move that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House. I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Government Chief Whip the important points that were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup about proper consideration of the Bill.
  I do not know which way my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup would have voted if he were here tonight, but I know that the vote of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) is in the balance and, to a certain extent, hangs on whether I am able to satisfy him by giving the reassurances that he specifically sought from me. I shall attempt to answer his questions and, I hope, reassure him.
  My right hon. Friend is particularly concerned about the position of a serving member or former member of the security and intelligence services who wishes to publish his or her memoirs or reflections on his or her life and times in the security services. I should like to give my right hon. Friend and the House a little more detail of the authorisation procedures involved, some of which may be new and novel to the House of Commons. I can give my right hon. Friend the necessary reassurances that he sought. I listened carefully, as he enjoined me to do, to everything that he said.
  All members of the services know that they should not write about their experiences in any way that might harm the work of the services or damage the national interest. I am sure that no hon. Member would dispute that. However, if a member or former member of the services wished to write material relating to his or her work, he would first talk to a senior officer about his plans for publication. All serving officers know to whom they should turn to talk about such matters, and all retired staff also have a point of contact with the relevant service. So if a member or former member prepares material which
  538
  may have some connection with his or her work he or she will be required to send the book or article to the relevant service. That is made clear to all members of the services on appointment.
  No member of the services is unclear where he or she should turn if he or she wishes to seek clearance. The draft of the book or article will then be considered carefully by the service to identify points of sensitivity. As my right hon. Friend, with his distinguished record, will appreciate all too well, that can be done only by staff who have a detailed knowledge of the consequences of the publication of material affecting particular areas. They will then submit their reasoned analysis to the senior members of the services. So the sole criterion for authorising publication is whether publication of a particular piece of information will jeopardise national security directly or indirectly. It is a judgment about considerations which are relevant today, not about past history or former embarrassments.
  If a point of difficulty were to be identified it might still be possible through discussion to agree with the author a change in the text to overcome the problem. My right hon. Friend has gone through this procedure when publishing his own works.
  Mr. Allason: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Patten: If I could continue to explain in full the points that I want to make to my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion, I will then give way. I want to set out the procedure so that the House can understand each step. If the problem is larger than just a few minor textual changes or if agreement cannot be reached, sometimes authorisation will not be given. My right hon. Friend will understand that authorisation cannot be given on every occasion, but I can assure him that this decision would never be taken by one person alone, but by senior members.
  My right hon. Friend then asked where a member of the service would turn if he still felt dissatisfied. He will turn to the staff counsellor. At present our distinguished staff counsellor is Sir Philip Woodfield. That is a matter of public knowledge. This applies not just to present members but to former members of the services. If a member or former member is seeking to use publication to report anxieties that he or she may have about his or her work or former work, or if he or she is concerned about the reasons for a refusal of publication, he or she can go to the staff counsellor who can, if necessary, put him or her in touch with the relevant Secretary of State or my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Following those reassurances, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion will be persuaded to join us in the Division Lobby tonight.
  Mr. Allason: This is a serious area of difficulty and one that is recognised by hon. Members on both sides. We accept that there is some sort of mechanism for authorising publication, but should the sole arbiter of these matters be the former Department of a particular employee? Would it not be better to have a publication review board similar to the one that works so well in America?
  Mr. Patten: It would be extremely difficult sometimes for a publication review board to go into areas which were still of operational importance to the security of the nation, its economy or the welfare of its citizens. The

  539
  system that I have outlined, parts of which have been outlined to the House for the first time tonight, gives the sort of cast-iron assurances that someone who wishes to publish has redress —[Laughter.] As usual, there is raucous laughter from the Labour Front Bench. That is about all that has characterised their behaviour in today's debate.
  I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—
  Mr. Maclennan: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Patten: I ask the hon. Gentleman to forgive me for not giving way to him. I am anxious to answer the specific question that was included in his speech before I reach the end of my remarks.
  As I have said, I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, as I always do. He composes his speeches extremely well and, therefore, I listened intently when he said that he felt that the object of replacing the discredited and absurd section 2—I think that that is how he described it, but his words will appear in Hansard tomorrow—was to make an improvement. I welcome the fact that he feels that the result will be an improvement. I think that that sentiment was expressed also by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). Having said that, however, both the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded strongly to criticise the Bill.
  It is to be welcomed also that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook recognised—some of us had doubts whether he did—that it is necessary to have sanctions for harmful disclosure. That, at least, is an advance. The need for sanctions was recognised also by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).
  The debate rolled on and then we began to understand what Labour Members really thought about the Bill. The veil was lifted as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook continued to speak. Their thinking was beautifully summed up in a remark made a few moments ago by the hon. Member for Erdington, who spoke of his attitude to official secrets in a free society as "publish and be damned".
  Mr. Corbett: I did not say that. Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Patten: Of course.
  Mr. Corbett: Let us get this right. Will the Minister accept that I said, "The motto should be 'publish and be damned' where there is no evidence of harm to real security"?
  Mr. Patten: That is the entire message of the Bill. That is exactly what the Bill sets out to do. It has tests of harm throughout each of the clauses.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Withdraw.
  Mr. Patten: I see no need to withdraw and I do not intend to do so.
  The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook got into a terrible muddle over harmful disclosures of foreign confidences. I shall give a couple of examples in an attempt to clear up the muddle in which he so obviously found himself. First, we take extremely seriously our international obligations to organisations such as NATO. If, for example, we receive from NATO confidential information
  540
  about defence strategy, and we fail to protect it, the confidence of our NATO partners would be damaged and our standing in that organisation would be reduced. As a consequence, our ability to pursue the defence interests of the United Kingdom within NATO would be jeopardised. I will give the right hon. Gentleman a second example. I hope that he is supportive of the work of Trevi, as I think that all members of political parties in western Europe are. If a state that co-operates with us within the Trevi arrangements provided information about the activities of international terrorist organisations, for example, operating in that country and in the United Kingdom and we failed to protect that information, which would he an extremely serious matter, we could not expect that state again to supply us with information. That would obviously jeopardise this country's interests by impairing the effectiveness of the Trevi arrangements through which we combat international terrorism with considerable success. I look to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook to give the support of the Labour party on these critical issues.
  The two central issues of principle in the debate have been whether there should be a public interest defence and a defence of prior publication. Those who have spoken in support of a public interest defence have served only to illustrate what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in his splendid opening speech. Those who advocate such a defence are seeking to remedy not the criminal law but the resort of the civil law. Clearly, there is confusion in the minds of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and his right hon. and hon. Friends.
  The Government do not accept that the criminal law is the right place to balance one Crown servant's perception of the public interest against the specific and serious damage that his disclosure has caused. Incidentally, the definition of a Crown servant, which deeply interested the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), is set out in full in clause 12. If that perception and damage were balanced under the criminal law, that would alter the role of Crown servants in this country and their relationship with the Government of the day. A Crown servant or civil servant would become a free agent, responsible for his independent decisions only to the court. That is not the way to maintain an effective and impartial Civil Service, which I still believe is one of the great glories of the British constitution. An effective criminal law must be clear and predictable in its operation and that is its basis in this country.
  If the House believes that this cannot or should not be done because it wants to leave a gaping loophole through which a Crown servant can leak information to a journalist or anyone else, it will be deciding one of two things—either that this is an area into which the criminal law should not enter and which should be left entirely to the civil law, or that it wants such a muddle and fuzz that the criminal law will be a dead letter the day the Bill is enacted.
  The Government recognise, as does my right hon. Friend, who has done so much to promote openness in Government since he became Home Secretary—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is envious because he does not get compliments like that. The Government recognise that there is a place for a Crown servant with a worried conscience to go, but that place is not the front page of a newspaper or a surreptitious dispatch in a brown envelope. That is why we have a clear

  541
  system of access to the head of the Civil Service and, in the case of members of the intelligence and security services, to the staff counsellor.
  Some hon. Members have discussed the public interest and the damage done to it as though there were an agreed and precise formulation which a jury had only to balance, but that is not so. We are discussing the criminal law, not the civil law. We cannot agree that the criminal law should admit a defence which claims that only a little harm was done to salve someone's conscience. That is like arguing that only a small murder had been committed to rid the globe of a scoundrel. Such an argument is incompatible with the criminal law.
  The prior publication defence is another central point of principle for which we have heard some eloquent pleas, but we have heard no coherent argument why people who disclose information knowing that it will do serious harm to the public interest should not be prosecuted like other people. Yet that is what the prior publication defence, as it has been presented today, amounts to. It is puzzling that those who support our decision to leave it to a jury to decide whether a particular disclosure is harmful also press us to take away such a decision from a jury when there has been prior publication. That sounds suspiciously like special pleading on behalf of the media—
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Patten: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I referred to his speech earlier when he was not in the Chamber.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe was spot-on in dealing with this issue, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East in the course of his notable contribution.
  I want now to fulfil my pledge to respond to the question asked by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland about the Justice report. This also allows me to answer the point about the European convention made by the hon. Member for Erdington. I say unequivocally to both hon. Members that there is no evidence and no reason to believe that the Bill as drafted will in any way contravene the European convention on human rights. If we had thought that it would do that, we should not have brought it to the House in its present form.
  The European convention on human rights specifically recognises that the protection of official secrets is a legitimate concern for any Government. The Bill has been carefully restricted only to those areas that require the protection of the criminal law. Where disclosure of such information may not always be harmful, specific harm tests have been introduced. All six of my right hon. and hon. Friends who spoke in support of the Bill mentioned those tests. The tests have been ignored by the Opposition and in Committee we shall have to take them through the Bill line by line.
  In his marvellous speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury summed up all the protections that are available to the media. The House should recognise that we have constructed the Bill in such a way that no media defendant will be convicted except on the clearest evidence that he knew or had good reason to know the harm that
  542
  he was doing. [Interruption.] It was not my article in The Guardian. I am not allowed to accept payment from The Guardian. I write for it gratis.
  The Bill deserves the support of all my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Security Service Bill deserved support because it put the Security Service on a statutory footing and provided avenues of redress via a tribunal and commissioner, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay
  (Mr. Allason) said in an intervention, and because it gives all the protection of the European convention on human rights.
  The present Bill deserves the support of the House because it will remove from the criminal law unnecessary restrictions on freedom of speech and the freedom to publish. It will ensure that secrets which must continue to be protected by the criminal law will be effectively protected. It will place on the statute book clear, reasonable and enforceable legislation. For the first time it will define in most circumstances the harm arising from the unauthorised disclosure of official information. It will leave it to the jury to decide whether or what harm has been done. The Bill will provide a fair and effective law on official secrets. That is surely what the House seeks and the choice before the House is clear.
  Opposition speeches, and especially the speech by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, were wholly appropriate to this festive, melodramatic and pantomime season. In recent weeks the Opposition have denigrated our security services. They have belittled the importance of national security and forgotten their own record in Government. The Government of which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was a member made no attempt to introduce anything remotely approaching the Bill. The Labour party has been so long out of Government that it has forgotten that ministerial responsibility for the safety of the nation is right, and it has so little hope or expectation of office in the future that it no longer shrinks from playing party politics with security matters.
  The Opposition's recent record on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, the Security Service Bill and now on the Official Secrets Bill is shameful. The Labour party's comments are wholly inaccurate and ill conceived, compared with the Government's proposals which are the sensible way to reform the law. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 221.

  Division No. 27]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Allason, Rupert

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Amess, David

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Burns, Simon

  Ashby, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Atkins, Robert

  Butcher, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Butler, Chris

  Bellingham, Henry

  Butterfill, John

  Benyon, W.

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Carrington, Matthew

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter

  Cash, William

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Bowis, John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Chapman, Sydney

  Brazier, Julian

  Chope, Christopher

  543

  Churchill, Mr

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

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

  Holt, Richard

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Howard, Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Cran, James

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Curry, David

  Irvine, Michael

  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

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Dunn, Bob

  Key, Robert

  Durant, Tony

  Kilfedder, James

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Eggar, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Knapman, Roger

  Evennett, David

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Fallon, Michael

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Favell, Tony

  Knowles, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Knox, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lang, Ian

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Latham, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Forth, Eric

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Franks, Cecil

  Lightbown, David

  Freeman, Roger

  Lilley, Peter

  French, Douglas

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fry, Peter

  Lord, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Gardiner, George

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Gill, Christopher

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Maclean, David

  Goodlad, Alastair

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Gow, Ian

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Madel, David

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mans, Keith

  Gregory, Conal

  Maples, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Marlow, Tony

  Grist, Ian

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Ground, Patrick

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Grylls, Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mellor, David

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

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Harris, David

  Mills, Iain

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Hayes, Jerry

  Moate, Roger

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hayward, Robert

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Heddle, John

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hind, Kenneth

  Mudd, David

  544

  Neale, Gerrard

  Steen, Anthony

  Needham, Richard

  Stern, Michael

  Neubert, Michael

  Stevens, Lewis

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Norris, Steve

  Stokes, Sir John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Sumberg, David

  Page, Richard

  Summerson, Hugo

  Paice, James

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Pawsey, James

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Thorne, Neil

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Portillo, Michael

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Tracey, Richard

  Price, Sir David

  Tredinnick, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Trippier, David

  Redwood, John

  Trotter, Neville

  Renton, Tim

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Viggers, Peter

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Walden, George

  Rost, Peter

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Waller, Gary

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Ward, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Watts, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wells, Bowen

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wheeler, John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Whitney, Ray

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Shersby, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Sims, Roger

  Wolfson, Mark

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wood, Timothy

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Woodcock, Mike

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Yeo, Tim

  Speller, Tony

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Squire, Robin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mr. Alan Howarth and

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Allen, Graham

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Alton, David

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Buchan, Norman

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Buckley, George J.

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Caborn, Richard

  Ashton, Joe

  Callaghan, Jim

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Barron, Kevin

  Canavan, Dennis

  Battle, John

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cartwright, John

  Beith, A. J.

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

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

  Clay, Bob

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clelland, David

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Blair, Tony

  Cohen, Harry

  Blunkett, David

  Coleman, Donald

  Boateng, Paul

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Boyes, Roland

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Bradley, Keith

  Corbett, Robin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Cousins, Jim

  545

  Cox, Tom

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Crowther, Stan

  Haynes, Frank

  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)

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

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Dewar, Donald

  Hoyle, Doug

  Dixon, Don

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Dobson, Frank

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Doran, Frank

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Douglas, Dick

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Illsley, Eric

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Ingram, Adam

  Eadie, Alexander

  Janner, Greville

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Kennedy, Charles

  Faulds, Andrew

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Fearn, Ronald

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Lambie, David

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

  Lamond, James

  Fisher, Mark

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Flannery, Martin

  Leighton, Ron

  Flynn, Paul

  Litherland, Robert

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Livingstone, Ken

  Foster, Derek

  Livsey, Richard

  Foulkes, George

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Fraser, John

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Fyfe, Maria

  Loyden, Eddie

  Galbraith, Sam

  McAllion, John

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  McFall, John

  George, Bruce

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  McKelvey, William

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  McLeish, Henry

  Gordon, Mildred

  Maclennan, Robert

  Gould, Bryan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Graham, Thomas

  McTaggart, Bob

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  McWilliam, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marek, Dr John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  546

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Martlew, Eric

  Short, Clare

  Maxton, John

  Sillars, Jim

  Meacher, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michael, Alun

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

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Snape, Peter

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Soley, Clive

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Morley, Elliott

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Stott, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Strang, Gavin

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Straw, Jack

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Murphy, Paul

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Nellist, Dave

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  O'Brien, William

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Turner, Dennis

  Patchett, Terry

  Vaz, Keith

  Pendry, Tom

  Wall, Pat

  Pike, Peter L.

  Wallace, James

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Prescott, John

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Radice, Giles

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Randall, Stuart

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Redmond, Martin

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Wilson, Brian

  Reid, Dr John

  Winnick, David

  Richardson, Jo

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Robertson, George

  Worthington, Tony

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Wray, Jimmy

  Rooker, Jeff

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Salmond, Alex

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr. Allen Adams and

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Sackville.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  Air Crash (Scotland)
  10.12 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
  As the House may be aware, there has been a major air crash at Lockerbie, Dumfriesshire, involving a Pan Am Boeing 747 on route from London Heathrow to New York, reported to have more than 250 people on board.
  The House will appreciate that, at the present time, there are very few facts available. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is flying to the scene tonight. The emergency telephone numbers have been given on television. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will make a full statement to the House tomorrow.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his courtesy in making this statement. I am sure that everyone in the House recognises that there is nothing that can be said by the Secretary of State for Transport at this time.
  I am sure that the whole House joins in offering sympathy to those who have suffered and who are grieving. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We also offer our best wishes to the emergency services who are currently carrying out their desperately difficult tasks. I am sure that the whole House is confident that they will be doing so with the dedication and professionalism that we have come to expect.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the words that he has spoken.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I hope that the House will agree that we cannot carry this matter further, but I will call the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) in whose constituency this accident happened.
  Sir Hector Monro: This terrible disaster occurred in the centre of my constituency, and the hearts of all hon. Members will be with those who have lost their lives, with the relatives and with the seriously injured—many of whom may be my constituents—as well as those who have been killed in the aircraft. I am fully confident that tonight the rescue services, the Health Service, the police, hospitals and the fire service will do magnificent work to help those who are still alive. I will be going north to the site with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I apologise for the fact that I shall not be present in the Chamber tomorrow for the statement.
  Mr. Wakeham: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I know that he spoke for the whole House and I hope that he will reach Scotland as soon as possible to do what he can there.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: After these very solemn matters, we return to the business of the House and the debate on structural funds.

  European Community Structural Funds
  [Relevant document: Framework Regulation on the Structural Funds described in the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 7th June 1988.]
  10.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7397/1/88 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 21st November 1988 on reform of the Structural Funds, 10025/86 on the activities of the European Regional Development Fund in 1985, 10308/87 on the activities of the Fund in 1986, 6969/87 on the application of the European Regional Development Fund Regulation, 7002/87 on the social and economic situation of the regions of the Community and COM(88)501 on the future of rural society; supports the Government's aim of maximising receipts from the Funds while ensuring that they are concentrated on the regions and areas of greatest need and disbursed with due financial discipline; and endorses the Government's aim of supporting comprehensive Community consideration of rural issues.
  In introducing this short debate I think it would be sensible for me to make a relatively brief contribution in explaining the documents with which we are concerned and then, if I am able and with the permission of the House, to direct my comments to the points that may be raised during the debate.
  During 1988 the European Community has been conducting a major reform of its three structural funds —the European regional development fund, the European social fund and the guidance section of the European agricultural fund. The reform is due to come into force on 1 January 1989.
  I regret that we have not before now been able to find time to debate the issue in the House. The main part of the negotiation on the four most recent regulations took place during the summer recess. The Community issued its proposals in French on 29 July and by 17 October they were being discussed in the Foreign Affairs Council. That timetable caused particular difficulties for our scrutiny procedure. The present position is that this week's Foreign Affairs Council agreed on the terms of the regulations, but of course subject, in the United Kingdom's case, to a parliamentary scrutiny reservation.
  The principal documents then are the new framework regulation adopted on 24 June—
  Mr. Tony Marlow: My hon. Friend is no doubt more aware than the rest of us of the vast amount of money involved and the vast import of the issue that he is discussing with the House tonight. Could he tell the House—I think it is the case—why it was that the House was not enabled to debate this issue before a common position was agreed with our Community partners? It is very difficult to influence a matter of this importance and magnitude if the Government have already agreed a common position with other Community members. What can the House then do about it?
  Mr. Atkins: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, which he represents fairly frequently in the House. In my opening remarks, I endeavoured to explain that much of
  550
  the activity occurred between 29 July and 17 October, when the House was not sitting. That is a particular problem of the scrutiny process. It may be that the authorities of the House will have to consider whether there are easier ways. Clearly, we cannot discuss matters when the House is in recess. That is a fact of life that we have to face.
  Mr. Marlow: This is a vast amount of public money. Was there any rush to get this thing agreed? Would it not have been possible to delay coming to a common position? Do the Government want to steamroller all this stuff through the House? My hon. Friend will be aware of the fact that there is a complaint about a democratic deficit. There is a very significant democratic deficit when it comes to regional policies—policies which the Government in this country have thrown out now being thrust upon us by the European Community, involving vast sums of public money. Why could not the Government delay and bring it to the House before they agreed the common position?
  Mr. Atkins: I am aware, as are many right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House, of my hon. Friend's position on European matters. That does not mean that his comment is invalid. I understand his point, but in essence we are asking the House to agree tonight to something that will be to the United Kingdom's benefit. I hope that my hon. Friend understands that it was in the interests of both my Department and those associated with us in arguing the case in Europe to press the case as strongly as we could.
  That does not negate the fact that the scrutiny procedure, to which my hon. Friend and I have both made reference, took place at a time when the House was in recess. That is a fact of life. It may be that my hon. Friend will decide that, in future, he ought not to observe the long parliamentary recess from July to October so that such matters can be discussed. I have tried to make crystal clear the situation. I cannot gainsay the facts, however hard my hon. Friend presses me.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: The Minister is not kidding me. I shall tell him straight. He could have arranged for Parliament to be recalled. He can take the grin off his face. It is very nice for the Government to be doing things during the recess, so that we cannot get at them. Bearing in mind the amount of money involved for the people of this country, the Government should have taken the opportunity to recall Parliament so that the matter could be discussed before any decision was taken.
  Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman flatters me with a power that I did not think I had. It does not fall to me to recall Parliament. If Parliament had been recalled, the hon. Gentleman, like me, would not have found it easy to return, as we would probably have been on our annual holidays. Recalling Parliament to debate such a measure is not as easy as the hon. Gentleman would have us believe. As the debate progresses, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand, as will other right hon. and hon. Members, that much of the concern being expressed is from hon. Members who, quite legitimately and honourably, are opposed to our membership of the European Community.
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Mr. Atkins: No, I must make progress. A number of right hon. and hon. Gentleman wish to contribute. My hon. Friend has made two pressing interventions, and if he is able to catch Madam Deputy Speaker's eye, I feel sure that he will be able to persuade—
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The Minister has made it clear that he will not give way again at this stage.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: This is taking Father Christmas too far—how much money?
  Mr. Atkins: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must wait. He will find out how much money is involved in due course.
  I have indicated the reasons for the problems surrounding the scrutiny procedure. I turn to the documents involved. The principal documents are the new framework regulation adopted on 24 June and the four further regulations that I have mentioned. They comprise one each for the three funds and a horizontal regulation applying to all three.
  Two of the documents before the House, No. 7937/1/88 and the unnumbered one, are the Commission's proposals for these four regulations. These two documents are identical apart from an extra cover sheet on one of them. A third document, COM(88)501, is a Commission paper on the future of rural society. The other three documents before the House are more for background or reference and they are regular Commission reports, all of them now a year or more out of date. One of them, No. 7002/87, was controversial at the time it came out, in June 1987, because of a so-called synthetic index, which attempted to measure the relative severity of different regions' problems and gave some odd results. I can assure the House that that index has had no influence on the subsequent reform of the funds.
  The funds are to be devoted to five objectives set out in the framework regulations. The first objective is promoting the development and structural adjustment of the regions whose development is lagging behind.
  Mr. Skinner: Like Sunderland.
  Mr. Atkins: The second objective is converting the regions seriously affected by industrial decline.
  Mr. Skinner: Like Sunderland.
  Mr. Atkins: The third objective is combating long-term unemployment.
  Mr. Skinner: Sunderland again.
  Mr. Atkins: The fourth objective is combating youth unemployment.
  Mr. Skinner: Sunderland again.
  Mr. Atkins: The fifth objective, with a view to reform of the common agricultural policy, is speeding up the adjustment of agricultural structures and promoting the development of rural areas.
  The administration of the funds will lie in the hands of a former colleague of ours, Mr. Bruce Millan, and his new colleagues in the European Commission. In important cases, we have ensured that the regulations provide that the Commission is to act in agreement with the member
  552
  states or after consulting the three new committees on which member states are to be represented. My right hon. Friends and hon. Friends, Secretaries of State and Ministers, and I will be in constant touch with the Commission throughout the five years the regulations are to run before the next review. I know that hon. Members will not hesitate to get in touch with me, as in the past, if they wish to take up particular points in Brussels. I invite the House to support me in accepting these regulations.
  10.28 pm
  Mr. Richard Caborn: First, I shall express our concern about the lack of consultation that has taken place on this extremely important batch of regulations. For the record, on 19 October the Select Committee on European Legislation strongly recommended that these regulations be brought before the House at the earliest opportunity. The manner in which the Select Committee and, therefore, the House have been treated is nothing less than contemptuous. The work done by the Select Committee in scrutinising European legislation on a weekly basis should, at least, have a little more priority given to it by the Secretary of State. The Opposition, like many others, wish to ensure that Members are consulted, either through the Select Committee or through the House itself.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: On the question of the House having these discussions at an earlier time, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) said that the Committee recommended a debate on 19 October. The Select Committee took up the matter again on 25 November. It was not purely a matter of timing and the House being in recess made it impossible to have the debate. Does the hon. Gentleman agree? Does he also agree that Ministers are in considerable difficulty in bringing these matters before the House, given the current regulations governing the Select Committee? This requires consideration by the House as a whole.
  Mr. Caborn: It is clear from the minutes of 19 October that provision could have been made for this debate to take place in the House before this late hour. This is just about the last opportunity to debate these regulations before they come into operation on 1 January 1989. Provision could have been made earlier. I was a member of the Select Committee and there was always a battle between Ministers about provision for debates on the Floor of the House.
  Before I deal with the main documents—
  Mr. Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Caborn: No, because many hon. Members with genuine constituency concerns wish to take part in the debate. The hon. Gentleman may want to discuss the constitutional position, but he has plenty of opportunity to do that.
  Before I deal with the regulations, it is only fair that I should put on the record the great fear that is felt around the country, especially in the less developed regions, about 1992 and the Government's attitude to the regions and to what is happening in member states.
  I refer to a document that has been before the Commission, which was commissioned by Cambridge Economic Consultants, suggesting that the effects on individual regions will vary according to location and

  553
  economic characteristics. There is therefore a danger that the already disadvantaged regions will become weaker with "overheating" occurring in those that are already well favoured. That analysis has subsequently been confirmed by the regional policy directorate of the EC in a paper calling for improved infrastructure, increased local development—including the small business sector—and the targeted allocation of the increased EC structural funds. Unlike France, Belgium and many other member states, the United Kingdom Government have published little further research on the parameters for individual region's economic attractiveness and projected sector activity. However, it can be assumed that the direct economic benefits will further accrue to those regions with effective road and rail links to the south-east and the Channel tunnel, thereby widening that discrepancy. That concern is real.
  One conclusion reached by the report of the department of applied economics at the university of Cambridge, entitled "The Regional Impact of Policies Implemented in the Context of Completing the Community's Internal Market by 1992", was:
  "Another important conclusion of this paper is that the regional effects of completing the internal market are likely to intensify the polarisation between regions enjoying cumulative growth and cumulative decline. In addition, market liberalisation could well precipitate certain vulnerable regions into cumulative decline. The implied scale of the problems indicates that regional policy needs to be significantly strengthened. Self-correcting market mechanisms"—
  this is an important point as far as this Government are concerned—
  "have been shown, in the past, to work either inadequately or not at all".
  That view has been put forward by the Commission in the documents that we are considering. Unless the Government take note of those points, there could well be further devastation in many of the northern regions.
  We should consider the lack of regional input over the past five or six years—during which there has been the abolition of the regional grant regime—in the light of yesterday's press conference by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier). Yesterday's edition of The Guardian contained the headline,
  "Minister puts brake on urban aid".
  The article states:
  "In a gentle retreat from the central strand of Mrs. Thatcher's Action for Cities programme, launched six months ago, Mr. Trippier said yesterday it was more important to ensure the existing 10 urban development corporations 'are already up and running and established' than to designate any new UDC areas.
  He was speaking at a Department of Environment press conference, where he launched an annual report on the department's inner cities programmes, which cost more than £500 million a year."
  I ask the Government to consider the fact that about £22 billion has been removed from local government in reductions in the rate support grant since 1979, and that a further £700 million has been taken from the regions with the abolition of regional support grant. Those two factors alone clearly show that in the removal of resources the opportunity to try to effect some type of regeneration, rebuilding and restructuring in those areas has been missed by the Government.
  554
  The 12th annual report—one of the documents that we are discussing—has tried to develop the integrated operations programme. Page 37 outlines the effects of the integrated regional development operation. There has been co-operation with local authorities. Indeed, there was an announcement today in The Guardian—I gather that it will be in the rest of the press tomorrow—of a £600 million grant to Strathclyde and to Yorkshire and Humberside. That has come about because of the co-operation of the local authorities.
  The same document also refers to the development of the region's endogenous potential. That was dealt with in articles 15, 16 and 27—the only parts of the grant regime that go direct to local authorities. Local authorities got together a package, but there was a delay because the Department of Trade and Industry would not submit to Brussels as there was to be a direct payment to local authorities under article 15.
  There was a crisis meeting in November because the Commission was not prepared to concede that local authorities should be treated differently from national Government. There was a compromise—the three-year package for the whole of the integrated operations development programme would go ahead, but local authorities would be allowed only year one funding.
  That has meant that the business initiative centre that Lord Young opened just a few weeks ago is now in jeopardy for financial reasons. Areas for small and medium-sized businesses that have been established are in jeopardy unless year two and three funding is available. Is the Minister prepared to give a commitment that year two and three funding under article 15 for the integrated operations development programme will be forthcoming?
  It would be wrong of us to encourage small and medium-sized businesses to start using establishments created for them if we know that we shall have to shut them down for lack of funds in years two and three. The Commission has tried to press the Government to accept three-year funding, but because of their dogmatic approach the Government would accept funding only for year one.
  We broadly welcome the more effective and coordinated approach to grant regimes, but there are several areas about which there is anxiety. We also welcome the increase in the structural fund's allocation. Many of us have argued for that for many years.
  Mr. William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Caborn: No, we have only one and a half hours and several of my hon. Friends want to raise issues that concern their constituencies.
  The package would have been considerably better if the Government had accepted what was proposed in the initial round of discussions, when it was proposed that all the money for structural fund development should be additional. The result would have been about £9 billion for the regions. I suppose that it was in splendid isolation that they fought the battle. We believe that they have now got that figure down to an extra £1 billion.
  There is a consultation document out at the moment on local government in England and Wales entitled "Capital Expenditure and Finance: a Consultation Paper". Page 26, which deals with European regional development fund grants, says:

  555
  "The Departments have an open mind on the treatment of European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) grants. Local authority expenditure financed by ERDF grants is public expenditure (and such grants are paid for by the UK taxpayer). So at present an authority obtaining ERDF grant do not thereby obtain additional spending power. The present treatment could be mirrored under the new system by treating ERDF grants received as a form of credit, which would require use of a corresponding amount of credit approval. An alternative treatment, however, would be to allow ERDF grants to be a source of both finance and spending power for local authorities receiving them. But the implication of this is that there would be a reduction in the national total available for credit approvals."
  If the first proposition contained in section A.31 of the consultation document were agreed, it would break the agreement that has been reached, under the structural fund arrangement, that additional finances would be additional to the capital spend that has already been determined. If the second proposition were agreed, we could top-slice and the poorer regions would benefit. But a penalty would be paid by the better off regions. The fairer proposition is the second one, but all the advice that I have received is that if the first proposition—to mirror what is happening now—is achieved, the additionality will not be there and the agreement will be broken.
  There is anxiety about the tighter criteria. If the £600 million announced today for Strathclyde and South Yorkshire had been evaluated under the new regime, not so much money would have been available. My hon. Friends the Members for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and for other south Yorkshire constituencies will be trying to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that they can talk about the implementation problems that they perceive in their areas. Today I received a document from Yorkshire which, although welcoming the new regime, said that there would be problems in the area.
  Will the Minister confirm a quotation from European Information Service bulletin No. 92? It states:
  "Departments will liaise with the Commission in the selection of areas and they hope that all present Assisted Areas and Urban Programme Areas will qualify."
  We should like to know whether those are the criteria. If they are, it will create difficulties because selective assistance was last revamped in 1984, since when there has been an increase in unemployment and a decline in industrial activity in several places which are neither assisted areas nor urban development areas.
  I hope that the Government will change their attitude to local authorities to one of more co-operation. The changes in the criteria and the more flexible approach to the structural fund make it important to have more co-operation between the localities and central Government. If that does not exist, we shall not gain the advantages that the structural fund could mean, especially for less well off regions.
  Unless the Government take seriously the fair body of opinion about the implementation of the Single European Act and promote some regional policy, instead of leaving the matter simply to market forces, there will inevitably be a further deterioration in the regions. During the next two or three years we have an opportunity to put right some of the problems in the regions so that we can take advantage of the fund, but unless the Government make available the finance, and unless there is confidence that at least a dialogue can begin so that we can remove the
  556
  Government's dogmatic approach to local government, the northern regions will be unable to take advantage of the new structural fund.
  10.44 pm
  Mr. Bowen Wells: The Minister said that these matters were discussed in Europe during the summer recess and that, therefore, he was unable to bring them before the House. In our correspondence with the Minister's Department, members of the Select Committee on European Legislation stated as early as 19 October that these matters would require debate. The Minister's reply was that he could not recommend a debate, because no common position had been arrived at in European Community Ministers' meetings.
  That brings me to the point of which the House should take note. Ministers believe that they cannot bring to the attention of the House serious matters that are being discussed in Europe and the various arguments and debates that are going on before a common position is reached. That common position must then be referred to the European Parliament for comment and amendment. It is referred back to the Council of Ministers, who adopt it, and it is then presented to the House. The Minister and his Department have found themselves in that difficulty tonight. The Greek president wanted the matter to be adopted on 1 January this year. According to advice from the Department of Trade and Industry, it would be to the advantage of the country if it were so adopted. The programme was accelerated at the last minute. The result is that hon. Members are here tonight, within 24 hours of the House rising for Christmas, discussing this extremely important matter.
  The House, let alone the country, has not been able to absorb what these matters involve. Hon. Members must read a large number of documents available from the Vote Office to enable them to understand what is being proposed. We must co-operate with Ministers and understand their difficulties in bringing these matters before the House before Ministers agree them in the European Community. That is an important matter.
  Sir Hal Miller (Bromsgrove): It is a most important point. Not only are these matters before the House this evening—unlike some of my colleagues, I speak from a pro-European stance—but we are at a real disadvantage. We do not officially know what is proposed by the Commission in Brussels. A matter goes to the Council of Ministers, there is a political exchange, and positions are set as a result of negotiations. It is then too late for us effectively to influence it. Apart from our influence tonight, that has serious implications for businesses and firms that have new regulations and standards. Back Bench hon. Members have no means of being able to alert our constituents to what is going on or to bring pressure to bear on Ministers before they take a decision.
  Mr. Wells: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is the point that I have been trying to make. The House must take it seriously and help Ministers to bring such matters before it before decisions are made. We are discussing a regulation that has been agreed. There is nothing that the Minister can do to alter it.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) on apparently doing a great deal of

  557
  homework to understand some of the implications of the measure. The guidance from the clerks to the Select Committee on European Legislation states:
  "It is very difficult to assess the full implications of this proposal in the absence of the complete text."
  That is our position. It is not good for Europe or the House, and it is certainly not good for our constituents.
  It seems that we are getting co-ordination on a series of structural adjustment measures.
  Mr. Marlow: There is just one other point I would like to put to my hon. Friend. The letter from the Department states:
  "In view of the extent of the implementing powers that the Commission proposes for itself and in the absence of the supplementary proposals … it is not yet possible to assess fully all the policy implications."
  Here we are stuck with the wretched thing. There is nothing we can do to influence it. We do not even know what it is. The Government do not know what it is.
  Mr. Wells: I endorse what my hon. Friend said. It is a matter of genuine regret for the Minister as well as the House.
  This appears to be a co-ordination measure which will target areas of deprivation which need help from the European fund. That is to be welcomed. The Minister said that it would be to the advantage of the United Kingdom. When he replies, will he tell us how it will advantage us? What sort of sums of money can we expect? Why was he anxious to agree the measure and why did he agree it? He has not had time to tell us even that and I am sure that both the House and the country want to hear about that.
  How will these matters be administered? Who makes the applications? How is it determined in Britain and how is it determined in Brussels? How can we tell people who stand to gain from this measure how they are to find out the details which clearly the House lacks tonight?
  10.50 pm
  Mr. Joe Ashton: make no apology for highlighting the unique position of my constituency—the only Labour constituency which does not receive any rate support grant. Of 18 councils which do not receive rate support grant, 17 are Conservative in the rolling hills of Surrey, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire or where the wealth is, and the other one is Bassetlaw.
  Bassetlaw does not have assisted area status. It used to, but it was taken away. Yet we have massive unemployment. That is peculiar. We used to get £3·8 million in rate support grant in 1977, but now we get nothing. Yet we have few new industries. Because we have three pits and three power stations, the Government say that we have sufficient rates from industry.
  The industries provide us with pollution, slag heaps, heavy lorries, acid rain and everything else associated with them. Nottingham county council takes 85 per cent. of industrial rates, leaving Bassetlaw district council, which is 45 miles from Nottingham and has all the aggravation of the industry, with 15 per cent. That stops us getting rate support grant.
  Out of 633 constituencies, 606 have a better employment rate than we have in Bassetlaw. We are at the bottom of the fourth division for new jobs. Our council is not loony Left of even Labour-controlled—it is a hung
  558
  council. [Interruption.] It is a Labour-controlled council, but Labour does not have a majority. There is no silly spending. We are not being punished for daft spending. We do not throw money away on daft items. The committees meet in the evening. It is a solid, responsible council which went to Brussels to get extra cash and which has been lobbying the Minister and doing its best to rectify the position. Yet everywhere we turn, help is removed. In 1980, assisted area status was removed and rate support grant has dwindled to nothing. Yet we have one of the highest rates of unemployment in Britain.
  Mr. Alan Meale: Does my hon. Friend accept that part of his constituency comes under Mansfield district council, which is a solid Labour council? [HON. MEMBERS: "Loony Left."] It is certainly not loony Left. It does not waste money either. It, too, has been involved in trips to Brussels. It is losing businesses because of its lack of assisted area status. Large firms are leaving to go to areas with assisted area status.
  Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend is right.
  Only 10 constituencies in England have a worse unemployment rate than Bassetlaw. Three are in the same county as Bassetlaw—Nottinghamshire—and one is next door in Derbyshire. Unemployment is dire. In the largest town in the constituency there is 14·7 per cent. male unemployment. There is nearly 8 per cent. female unemployment. The percentage has fallen slightly because of part-time jobs in retail shops which have recently been constructed—there is a large Co-op and a large Tesco—and in parts of the food industry. About 20 per cent. of all the workers in the area are employed in the declining industries of coal and textiles. A third of the unemployed are under 25 years of age, despite the Government's training schemes, for which there is no lack of applications. Half the unemployed have been in that position for 12 months or longer.
  The Minister read out the criteria set by the EEC and drew attention to the five clauses to be satisfied. The House should understand that Bassetlaw has the third highest unemployment rate in the east midlands, although I accept that the rate in Mansfield is slightly higher. The rate in Skegness is also higher, but that is seasonal. It is higher in the winter and lower in the summer. If we exclude the Northern Ireland constituencies, Bassetlaw and Mansfield have some of the worst rates of unemployment among the remaining 633 constituencies. There are few constituencies with worse rates.
  Unemployment has fallen nationally by 15 per cent. in the past year, but by only 5 per cent. in my constituency. With the declining coal and textile industries, there are real fears for the long term. Over the past few years the east midlands, the area within which Bassetlaw falls, has received only 0·6 per cent. of the development grants paid by the Common Market. Mansfield and Bassetlaw are on the fringes of the south Yorkshire steel and coal belt, but as the constituencies are within Nottinghamshire and the east midlands they lose practically everything that is available.
  The anomalies stemming from assisted area status are well known to the Minister. Many of the areas that enjoy that status have far lower rates of unemployment than Mansfield and Bassetlaw. The Minister has stated—he may have had valid reasons for so doing—that he will not engage in a redistribution of assisted area status until after

  559
  the next general election. Those who live in Bassetlaw and Mansfield receive nothing from the Government and will be left to struggle because of the anomalies within the present system.
  That means that we have a good claim for Common Market cash. Indeed, the Minister has put Bassetlaw on the list of areas that he recommends should receive the cash. The Common Market will say, however, "If your own Government do not give you any money, why should we?" That is what it will throw at us. Bassetlaw will be competing with Greece, Portugal, Ireland, the bottom half of Italy and the French islands in the Caribbean for Common Market cash.
  We have heard about the second objective of the new rules and the list to be formulated, but nothing has been said about how the list, or league table, will be drawn. Will the assisted areas be at the top of the list? Will areas such as Bassetlaw be at the top? What sort of ranking will there be?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, talked about additionality. The Common Market has made it clear that there must be additional money, not substitution money, and I have the feeling that if the Government are giving nothing the Common Market will also give nothing. In effect, there will be a pound for a pound. I accept that rate support grant is Government support, but if the Common Market determines that it will provide cash only for areas receiving Government support poor old Bassetlaw will fall between two stools—it does not have assisted area status and it does not receive RSG. Yet 90 per cent. of other constituencies enjoy a better employment rate and better employment prospects. There is a massive anomaly.
  I hope that the Minister will tell us what additionality is. The EEC document says:
  "The money must be genuinely concentrated on geographical areas most seriously affected."
  On any geographical or statistical basis, on any criterion of youth unemployment or long-term unemployment that the Minister lays down, my constituency must be counted as such an area—unless there is an additionality factor. Will the Minister explain the principle behind the idea of "additional to", as opposed to "not a substitution for"? How will that apply to constituencies such as mine, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale)? This is a glaring loophole, and it means a great deal to us. I hope that the Minister will meet a deputation from my constituency to explain the issue.
  11.2 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Before discussing the structural funds, I want to comment on the presentation and accuracy of the documents before us tonight. In my copies, some pages are duplicated, others are missing and the reference numbers do not tally. Earlier this afternoon, the House heard my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) draw Mr. Speaker's attention to the fact that an important document from the Community Court of Auditors was not available. That gives us great cause for concern.
  This nation is now in Europe and destined to stay there. It is high time we got one or two things straight—not only the paperwork, but the importance that the Government attach to European matters in the parliamentary timetable, the importance generally attached to European
  560
  matters and our general relationship with European institutions, including the European Parliament and its Members.
  For 15 years, I have had only one reservation about Britain in Europe: whether we shall go into the Community with a will and determination to succeed. I can see no benefit in entering the Community unless we play to win. We are all well aware that the stakes are high, so it is important to play to win. My reservation—my fear—is in no way allayed by some of the antics of the House or some of the utterances of hon. Members.
  The United Kingdom must play a full part in Europe by taking the lead in its counsels, by making it the sort of community we want to live in and, not least, by getting the best deal from it that we can for the people of these islands. The alternatives do not bear contemplation: isolationism and the worst of all worlds, socially and commercially.
  Some hon. Members will have heard me say before that I think the structural funds are a lottery. They are cash-limited; it follows that not all projects will be treated even-handedly. I have also referred to the funds as a roundabout. Money is taken from us, the taxpayers, and ultimately remitted to Brussels. Then the big shuffle starts, and we all get involved in trying to get the money back again.
  Another aspect about the funds that worries me is that they are wide open to abuse—or rather, corruption. They lead to the sort of headlines that we have seen in the press in the last seven days, such as, "Traders print money" and "A crop of fraud". The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who left his accustomed place a moment ago, spoke about the scandal, of which we are becoming increasingly aware, of the trade in beef in the Community. Sadly, we do not know enough about that because it was dealt with in the document that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East was unable to obtain in the Vote Office.
  Mr. Roger Knapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that, this year and for many years past, tens of thousands of tonnes of corn come across from France, are unloaded in the south Devon ports, stored and taken within a few days to Southampton and re-exported to France? Who benefits from all this activity?
  Mr. Gill: My hon. Friend asks a good question. The British farmer does not benefit; nor does the producer on the other side of the Channel. The consumer does not benefit either. In such cases. the actions of middlemen or traders do the trade in the products a great disservice and bring the trade and the bona fide traders into disrepute. As my hon. Friend knows, we currently spend no less than £12·5 billion per annum on the storage and disposal of surplus crops and agricultural produce. None of that benefits the producer.
  Quite apart from the structural funds being open to abuse, a sheer administrative nightmare is created. The Public Accounts Committee recently heard evidence from the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce about refunds to British exporters which are up to 12 months in arrears. The board gave computer problems as a reason or explanation for the delay. That is a lame excuse and perhaps it warrants further inspection.
  My next point is allied to the structural funds. We are 10 days from the end of the year and our beef farmers have just learned that the scheme that they expected to end on

  561
  31 December will continue until 5 March. Hon. Members cannot dispute the fact that, administratively, there is much to be desired in the workings of the European Community. On a positive note, we can help to build a much better future in Europe. That is important, and our people need to understand it. We are in Europe, and we have to get the best terms.
  Mr. Meale: The hon. Gentleman talks about understanding. Perhaps he would reflect on what he has said so far to see whether it had anything to do with the structural funds. Will he get to the point and deal with structural funds? He has already used up much time, so perhaps he will now let us have his thoughts on the subject under debate so that we can hear other hon. Members.
  Mr. Gill: I am pleased to reply to the hon. Gentleman and give him my views on the structural funds. They have a low priority in terms of achieving what we expect and need to achieve in the European Community. The top priority is a market in which there are no fiscal, technical or practical barriers. That is the goal. From that, all else flows. The structural funds do not form part of these priorities. I suggest that they work against them.
  We must not put our trust in the ideologues and Eurocrats. We must have faith and confidence in the individual, who will unfailingly adjust to changing circumstances and new opportunities and meet the challenges of tomorrow rather than those of yesterday. The sum of individual human endeavour will give us a better, more permanent and useful result than anything devised by Governments or bureaucracies. Our job as politicians is to create a climate in which the legitimate aspirations of individual citizens can flourish, to the benefit of themselves, their families and their countries.
  I support the Government's pragmatic approach. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to heed my warnings about the structural funds, not least because I for one am sceptical that when the Government talk about ensuring that the funds are concentrated on the regions in greatest need, that means the United Kingdom. On that point, I have the gravest doubts.
  11.11 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: The House would do well to accept that we are in Europe. Whether we lump it or like it, the documents show some of the results. We must get the best possible deals. It is no good arguing that we have paid our money and then go begging it back.
  I should like to refer to regional funds. On 29 November, in an Adjournment debate, I put the case for Wakefield metropolitan district council. I am worried about those hard-hit areas which are not included in the travel-to-work areas which attract assisted area status. I shall not put Wakefield's case at length because it has been well documented in the House. But Wakefield district is a prime example of traditional industry in decline. Until recently, the major industry was coal mining. Only five pits are left, employing 4,000 miners. Only four years ago there were 16 pits, employing 15,000 miners. Few jobs have replaced them, so the district's two travel-to-work areas have the highest unemployment in west Yorkshire. Unemployment is higher than in many assisted areas. A
  562
  written answer on 25 November revealed that there are 17 intermediate areas with lower unemployment than the Wakefield and Dewsbury travel-to-work area and 35 intermediate areas with lower unemployment than the Castleford and Pontefract travel-to-work area.
  In the Adjournment debate on 29 November, the Minister was good enough to confirm that west Yorkshire met the criteria for objective 2. But will the European Commission select the most severely affected parts of west Yorkshire? My main worry is that the Commission will decide that only assisted areas will be eligible. If the Commission decides that only areas that have qualified for assisted status will be acknowledged as eligible for aid from the regional development fund, areas with unemployment and industrial decline levels that are not nearly as bad as the areas to which I have referred may attract grants. If that is so, the regional fund will not work fairly. I am aware that the Government have included Wakefield on the list which they have presented to the Commission. However, we are not aware at this stage whether that full list will attract regional development funds. If it does not, the areas to which I have referred will fare badly.
  After the Adjournment debate, the Minister kindly wrote to me suggesting that the Commission may stick to its original decision, and will consider areas outside those that attract assisted area status. One hopes that at the end of the day that will be so. I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that issue.
  The Government have proposed Wakefield as an objective 2 area. I understand that the Government first sent their proposed list of objective 2 areas to the European Commission in a letter of 19 July. Would the Minister be willing to place a copy of that letter in the Library? I hope that he will be able to tell us in his reply.
  The Minister's letter referred to a meeting in Leeds between one of his officials and officers of the five west Yorkshire district councils. At that meeting, it was suggested that in January the Commission would once again ask Member states to nominate the most seriously affected parts of eligible counties. If the Government resubmit their list, will Wakefield still be included?
  The regulations set a timetable for the next stage. The Government must submit regional plans to the European Commission by the end of March. If the objective 2 list is not finalised until the end of January, there will be only two months in which to submit the regional plans.
  The European Commission has allowed itself a little longer in which to respond to the regional plans. It will have six months in which to draft a community support framework. That framework will determine what measures can be financed by the European funds and how much will be set aside for each operation. It is only when the community support framework has been completed that decisions on measures can be taken, which is not until the end of September 1989.
  Little time is available to draw up the regional plans, but the plans will be the key to obtaining European funds over the next three years. It is vital to an area such as Wakefield that the regional plan takes account of the programme drawn up by the local council and local industry. Will the regional plan for Yorkshire and Humberside take the Wakefield programme into account? I hope that the Minister will give a commitment that all interested local authorities will be consulted on the drafting of regional plans.

  563
  The regulations refer to a partnership between local authorities, the Government and the European Commission. If that partnership is to be effective, local authorities must be involved in drawing up the plans.
  I have previously drawn the Minister's attention to the programme for the regeneration of the Wakefield district. The district council, together with the chamber of commerce and other local business people, have drawn up an £88 million programme of public investment, designed to stimulate private sector investment in the district. It is summarised in the "Ideas for Action" brochure of which the Minister is aware.
  Is the Minister aware that the regulations allow programmes to be submitted before the community support framework is drawn up? They can even be submitted at the same time as the regional plan. That document was first presented to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment in May. Discussions have continued between officers of the council and officials of that Department and the Department of Trade and Industry.
  I hope that the Government will back the "Ideas for Action" programme submission to the EC at the earliest opportunity.
  The Wakefield district has suffered greatly as a result of the decline in the coal industry and there is a cast iron case for recognition under objective 2. I do not believe that that claim can be refuted and I am glad that the Minister has not sought to do so.
  The people of Wakefield are ready to help themselves to revive their area. The district council and business community have joined in partnership to devise the "Ideas for Action" programme. They have approached the Commission for funds to implement it. That partnership must include the Government as well as the Commission and that is why, once again, I ask the Minister to back Wakefield.
  11.20 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: I am concerned that the proposal places great stress on giving moneys for objective 1. As I understand the documents, objective 1 would debar England, Scotland and Wales from making successful applications. I would have preferred to see much more stress placed on objective 2 for which we would have some chance of qualifying.
  I am also worried that, in the projected figures, the United Kingdom's recovery from the funds rises from £750 million to £1 billion by 1992. That seems to represent a diminishing proportion of the growing fund and it will make our rebate position more difficult.
  To give the House an idea of the imbalances that the funds will create in moneys distributed around the Community, we can compare Portugal with the EC average. On the basis of the last year for which we have proper figures, Portugal will receive 1·3 per cent. of its gross domestic product in the form of cash from the funds whereas the Community average will be 0·1 per cent. We are talking about a massive transfer of moneys from British taxpayers, and for that matter German and French taxpayers, to Portuguese, Greek and Spanish taxpayers.
  We are also talking about the development of Communitywide programmes such as Star and Valorem, which are of dubious value anyway. It would be far better to liberalise the telecommunications industries than to
  564
  have the Star programme. Those programmes also exclude England, Scotland and Wales. I would rather that we promoted objective 2, tried to cap the total growth of the funds and asked some fairly tough questions about the use to which those moneys are put.
  I notice, for example, that Spain and Portugal have been receiving, and will continue to receive, subsidy moneys to build up the industries designed to compete against our own. British taxpayers are helping to finance the growth of the furniture, food and engineering industries in Galicia, which will doubtless then compete on a more favourable cost basis against our domestic production. That is against the spirit of the Treaty of Rome, which I welcomed. I welcome the Common Market, I welcome the free open market, I welcome the strongly enforced competition policy, but I do not welcome English or Scottish taxpayers' money being routed to Galicia to compete against us.
  How many of the investments that have been backed by such moneys get into trouble or even go bankrupt? Our experience of that type of force-fed industrial winner picking from Whitehall has been bitter. I wonder whether that experience will be any better if it is directed from Brussels or whether we shall see a lot of money going down the drain in ropey organisations.
  I notice that the Court of Auditors report, which was available in the Library, but not elsewhere, backs those of us who have fears about the way in which some of the moneys have been used. It has said of the structural measures of the regional fund:
  "the Community, for lack of overall accounting documents and implementation reports, does not carry out any follow-up examinations and does not assess the results achieved."
  That is bad enough, but it did some follow-up checks of its own on projects to which regional fund moneys had been applied. It reported:
  "In two thirds of the cases studied, the net utilisation rate of the projects was found to be less than 50 per cent.".
  There is good evidence from the Court of Auditors report that a lot of the money is going into projects that do not work, are unnecessary or are scarcely necessary in the context in which they are established.
  The report considers further examples, but there are too many to cite. One did catch my eye, however, when I read it. The report says:
  "In some cases the work has no related economic development objective."
  Yet that was the criterion for awarding the moneys in the first place and it quoted the example of the Termoli sewage plant in Italy which had received money, but, according to the European Court of Auditors, did not meet the prime criterion.
  As we learn to live with the structural and social funds, I hope that we will learn to ask the tough questions to ensure that the moneys are wisely spent, that not too much money is spent, that no money is wasted and that we edge the criteria away from objective 1 to objective 2. If we do not do that, I do not think that this country will get a fair deal from the funds.
  11.24 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: For once I agree with the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood): I too would promote objective 2, because I want some of the Halifax ratepayers' money back into my area. We might be

  565
  in Europe, but it seems to me that some of us are more equal than others when it comes to the Mickey Mouse lottery that Europe appears to be.
  I want to jog the Minister's memory about the fact that I have been in correspondence with him, because the Department of Trade and Industry has not recommended my area for objective 2. When assisted area status was taken from us, we found ourselves—I will not use the over-played term, the "hole in the doughnut"—the hole in the middle of the Polo mint. We are surrounded by areas which have assisted area status, and that has been very damaging to the local economy.
  The Minister very kindly wrote to me to explain why we had not been put forward in negotiations as eligible for objective 2. He wrote:
  "We had to take a wide range of considerations into account. Calderdale is not alone in the country in having to be omitted and it will not be entirely surrounded by eligible areas even if the Commission agrees to all our recommendations, because Pendle in Lancashire is in a similar position."
  We feel slightly betrayed by the Department as a result of
  that explanation. The Minister continued:
  "the average Calderdale unemployment rate over the 3 months April 1985, April 1986 and April 1987, comes just below the EC average when the United Kingdom figures have been harmonised."
  I wrote to the Minister stating:
  "It would be most helpful if you could let me know the basis for this calculation, and most particularly how an allowance for self-employment has been made, when no figures are available below County levels"—
  especially when the figures that are available are notoriously unreliable. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate the importance that we attach to achieving objective 2 status.
  The Minister replied:
  "Calderdale will not be entirely surrounded by eligible areas".
  I replied in my turn:
  "Calderdale has a boundary of around 50 miles, 47·5 miles of this is adjoined by areas that the United Kingdom is putting forward as most seriously affected parts under objective 2. The Calderdale-Pendle boundary"—
  to which the Minister had referred in his letter—
  "is only 2·5 miles long and lies in a remote moorland area."
  In fact, Calderdale will be surrounded by 95 per cent. of areas that qualify under objective 2. We will have to go through the process of relocation again, and our industry will be sucked out.
  Some of us are suffering under the peculiar logic upon which the funding is based. Will the Minister consider my specific points, because we are seriously disadvantaged? We believe that we will suffer in future, in particular in the textile industry, because things may happen over which we have no control. We desperately need the money, and we want some of our money back.
  11.29 pm
  Mr. William Cash: About one year ago, I served on the Committee considering the Bill that led to the abolition of regional grants. Having spent many days in Committee on the Regional Development Grants (Termination) Bill, I find myself late at night considering a remarkable change in direction. To put that, and the social engineering that I believe lies at the heart of this measure, in perspective, the House may like to know that the amount involved will be £8,500 million in 1992. I have
  566
  the 1986 Community budget figure, and if one calculates from the documents what percentage that £8,500 million will represent of the Community budget in 1992, converted into ecu, the figure is 13,000 million ecu from a total Community budget of about 35,000 million ecu.
  That is an indication of the increased amount of money being made available. My hon. Friends have made the point about scrutiny that I have made repeatedly over the past few years. It is difficult to understand why we find ourselves dealing with matters of such dramatic importance to the United Kingdom so late at night.
  The report reveals that, effectively, the money will go to Greece, the mezzogiorno, Portugal, large parts of Spain, and so on—along with the French overseas departments. Those are the areas regarded as most requiring the money. Against the background of the Court of Auditors' report, to which reference has also been made, that matter needs to be carefully examined, and it is one over which a much greater degree of not only scrutiny but control is required.
  Recently, members of the Select Committee on European Legislation visited Naples, to whose sewage plant reference has been made. We saw it—it was absolutely chaotic. It did not work, and money was being wasted like the sewage the plant is supposed to treat. It is scandalous that large amounts of British taxpayers' money is being spent on such projects.
  I say, not as any kind of anti-European gesture, that it is in the interests of the Community as a whole, and of the United Kingdom as an integral part of it, that we sort out the way in which funds are being spent, that we maintain proper control, and that we ensure that the British taxpayer receives good value for money. As I wish to be brief, that is all I shall say tonight—but much more could be said.
  11.32 pm
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I am very happy to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), and I agree with every word that he said.
  My hon. Friend the Minister said something about my attitude to Europe. I put it to my hon. Friend that he does not really know what my attitude to Europe is. The reason why I made the intervention that I did was that I have quite a strong attitude towards democracy. The way that this matter is being handled is shameful in democratic terms. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford has just said—and I am not blaming the Government or my hon. Friend for this—that this concerns in 1992, in today's money, 13,000 million ecu. That is knocking on for 40 per cent. of Community expenditure. And here we are, nine days, or whatever it is, before 1 January, when it comes into effect, and the die has been cast and the decisions have been taken. Here we are, for one and one half hours late at night, before we disappear for Christmas, almost on the nod, looking at this highly complex and highly important issue.
  It really is a massive democratic deficit. What are we talking about? As my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has said, we are talking about regional policy. Big chance in regional policy? We would have a massive statement, followed by a full-day debate. Our view of regional policy in the Conservative party is totally different from the obscure, Socialist view of the Community. And yet up with it we are having to put at this time of night.

  567
  It is talking about urban policy. We have a totally different view on urban policy from the rest of the European Community. It is talking about combating long-term unemployment. Our views as a Conservative Government in this country are very different from those of the other European Community countries.
  Let us look at it. Supposing that by stupid economic policies in other European Community countries there is a vast increase in long-term unemployment, that means that those Community countries would get a bigger slice of the cake. So the less efficient their Government, the more disasters they have within their own economies, the more we have to fork out as a result of these policies we are discussing tonight. Reinforcing failure—that is what it is about.
  Fourthly,
  "facilitating the occupational integration of young people".
  I am not quite sure what that gobbledegook means. Obviously, if you have failures in the education system of Greece and Italy, they are going to require more of this bunce that is going around at the moment—again, reinforcing failure. Other people fail, we cough up the money.
  My hon. Friend the Minister has said that we have got to take all this on the nod and accept it because it is good for Britain. Who says it is good for Britain? The Government say it is good for Britain. That is not what democracy is about. Democracy is about Parliament deciding what is good for Britain—and Parliament, Madam Deputy Speaker, has not got an earthly. We have not had a chance.
  When should we debate it? Well, is it good for Britain? My hon. Friend the Minister has said it is good for Britain. Although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham has said, today we get 15 per cent. of the European regional and social funds, in 1992 we shall get less than 12 per cent. I suppose that is good for Britain, but I cannot work it out, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I dare say you cannot. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will explain to us later on how a reduction of 3 per cent. in our share is actually of benefit to Britain. I look forward to hearing that.
  So when are we going to debate these vital and important issues? I ask my hon. Friend, can we debate it before a common position is agreed—because if we do not debate it before a common position is agreed, what chance have we got of influencing it? If a common position is agreed, then it goes before the European Parliament. If the European Parliament does not change that common position, it does not come back to this House again. If the European Parliament does change the common position and it then comes back to the House and we debate it—it having been changed by the European Parliament—at that late stage, what chance have we got of changing these massive, significant and important issues that we are debating tonight?
  If I ask my hon. Friend one question this evening, what I want to do is to enlist his support—he has my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary sitting alongside him—as he, I know, is desperately concerned about the democratic deficit and desperately concerned about democracy. Will he, having spoken to my right hon. Friend, give the House an undertaking that in future with important, significant issues like this the House will have an opportunity to debate them before the common position has been taken up?
  11.38 pm
  Mr. Atkins: With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker. One point that I have learnt since I have been involved with these regional funds is that every hon. Member—or almost every hon. Member—does as I would do, were I still on the Back Benches, and put the case strongly for their constituency or borough in wanting more money, whether from the Government or Europe. That is entirely fair and we would all uphold it. But the problem is that, as a Department, we must consider those requests across the board and make our choice of priorities.
  One reason that we took so long originally in plotting the map of assisted areas and development areas, leading up to 1984—as hon. Members who were here at the time will recall—was the vast number of representations. One reason that we do not want to change the map too easily is the amount of effort that would be needed and problems that it would cause, especially in terms of stability and continuity for businesses, local authorities and—dare I say it—hon. Members, as well as their constituents. So we hold to the decision not to change the map before a general election, although that inevitably poses some difficulties.
  Opposition Members—and some Conservative Members—have raised their concerns. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) made the case for Bassetlaw in his inimitable way—a case with which I have considerable sympathy. He would not expect me to say this evening that I can wave a magic wand, but I hear what he says. I should be delighted to receive a delegation. We do it all the time. I shall be happy to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say, because people take a lot of trouble over such matters, normally across the party divide. I shall be happy to do that, and we can make the necessary arrangements in the new year if he would like that.
  Mr. Ashton: Would it be possible for my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) to be included?
  Mr. Atkins: Of course—whoever is appropriate in the circumstances. Provided that we can fit them all into a room at the Department of Trade and Industry, I shall be more than happy to see them.
  The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) will not be surprised to learn that, in addition to her representations, my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) has made his case in his own inimitable way—not only for his own area but, as the hon. Lady will be pleased to know, for hers as well—because he recognises the problems. The hon. Lady has written to me again, but because of the post we may' be a little behind. I shall certainly make every effort to reply to her and to answer some of the questions that she has raised.
  That applies to several of the questions that have been asked. The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and I had a delightful Adjournment debate the other evening when he waved booklets at me, and I did the same back at him. I have told him that I will do all I can. However, as I said at the beginning, it is not up to me to pick priorities like that. Wakefield has a case, and it will be pressed as strongly as we can within the context. That is as I suggested to him in that debate.
  Mr. Caborn: To clarify the position, I referred to European bulletin No. 92, which said that the criteria to be used by the Minister's Department were based on assisted

  569
  area status and the urban grant areas. Is the Minister now saying that there will be a criterion outside those two areas that will be considered for submission for the new grant regimes from the Community?
  Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, as I told his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford in our recent Adjournment debate, we are putting in one or two areas over and above the assisted areas—let us call them non-assisted areas—for consideration. Several hon. Members of all parties have pressed cases for individual constituencies or boroughs. From that point of view, yes, the report was grossly exaggerated.
  Several technical questions arose. I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) who made, as I would have expected, a speech that raised several important questions, as did one or two of my other hon. Friends, who spoke about the difficulties of dealing with such matters late at night and near to Christmas. These matters are important to the country and I understand the views of my hon. Friends, whatever their position on membership of the European Community. My right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary has heard those views, as have other colleagues. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has stated that the matter concerns him also. We shall devote some thought to how best we at the Department of Trade and Industry can help.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful that the Minister has mentioned his Department. Will he not reconsider what he said at the beginning of the debate? Although there were difficulties over the summer recess, the Minister can look to the Official Report and see that last Thursday the Leader of the House said that he would have to take action in order for this debate to take place. Will the Minister give an undertaking that his Department will try to secure debates, or let the House authorities know that they should take place, before the common position is decided?
  Mr. Atkins: Whenever the hon. Gentleman writes to me or to anyone else about European legislation, we always take him seriously. We would not wish to be at odds with him or his Committee, which plays such a valuable part in such matters. I promise the hon. Gentleman that we shall endeavour to ensure that the difficulties that we have experienced over these regulations do not arise again, if it is within our power to do so. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns. He will know from our letters and from the comments that I made earlier that this is not a situation that we enjoy, and that we shall try to make sure that it does not happen again.
  570
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) asked a question about additionality. As he said, the Government are considering the future treatment of local government capital receipts. I note his preference for the second alternative in the Green Paper. My colleagues at the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office will make a statement in due course—I cannot say when, but it will sooner rather than later.
  The hon. Gentleman raised another point about article 15. He has asked the same question before, and he will receive the same answer, which is that we shall consider possible further applications in the light of the progress that we make with the schemes and with the regulations. We do not have a closed mind on the issue. I understand his point, and it is sensible, but I cannot be drawn on how we will proceed. I ask him to believe that we do not have a closed mind on the matter. We recognise the strength of some of the schemes and hope that we will be able to proceed with them.
  This has been a wide-ranging debate, in which key questions have been asked. It would be invidious for me to try to answer all of them now. If, as is certainly the case, I have not dealt with all of them, I shall endeavour to write to hon. Members, just as I did to the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford after his recent Adjournment debate. I ask the House to join me in support of the motion.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7397/1/88 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 21st November 1988 on reform of the Structural Funds, 10025/86 on the activities of the European Regional Development Fund in 1985, 10308/87 on the activities of the Fund in 1986, 6969/87 on the application of the European Regional Development Fund Regulation, 7002/87 on the social and economic situation of the regions of the Community and COM(88)501 on the future of rural society; supports the Government's aim of maximising receipts from the Funds while ensuring that they are concentrated on the regions and areas of greatest need and disbursed with due financial discipline; and endorses the Government's aim of supporting comprehensive Community consideration of rural issues.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  Housing
  That the draft Grants by Local Housing Authorities (Appropriate Percentage and Exchequer Contributions) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.—[Mr. Dorrell]
  Question agreed to.

  PETITION

    Stansted Airport (Aircraft Movements)
    11.45 pm
    Mr. Bowen Wells: I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of my constituents. Its main purpose is to pray the Secretary of State for Transport to alter the routes of aircraft leaving and arriving at Stansted airport, so that built-up areas such as Little Hadham and other villages are avoided as far as possible.
    The matter is causing grave disturbance to my constituents. I should like to add to their petition that, at present, no mechanism is installed at Stansted airport to monitor the departure and arrival routes of aircraft to ensure that they follow the laid-down routes. That is a grave omission by the Civil Aviation Authority and the British Airports Authority, and I ask the Department of Transport to take measures immediately to put it right, so that the annoyances are reduced to the absolute minimum.
    The petition ends in the customary way with the words:
    Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    It is signed by John Merrillian Smith of Camlet, Albury road, Little Hadham, and 160 or so others.

  Nurse Grading (Greater Glasgow)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
  11.47 pm
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: I welcome the fact that all concerned in the dispute in the Greater Glasgow health board are now getting round the negotiating table. We should not, however, let that distract us from examining why the dispute arose and who was responsible for it.
  We are not here to debate definitions of "continuing responsibility" or "supervision". Like the Minister, I accept that there is a national dispute in which health boards, quite properly, cannot be involved. I also accept that there always were going to be nurses who would be unhappy with their grading. I also accept that there are many who have benefited considerably. If the Minister's brief deals with those issues, I suggest that he puts it aside as there is no dispute between us on these matters.
  What we want to debate is not the national dispute but the regrading "shambles" at Greater Glasgow health board, which everyone now accepts was totally out of line with the results of every other health board in the country. While, for example, most health boards put 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. of their ward sisters on a G grade, Greater Glasgow health board had half that number—30 per cent. I accept that absolute comparisons cannot be made, but whatever the differences—there are reasons for differences between boards; they will not all be the same—I am sure that the Minister agrees that the difficulties should not be as big as 30 per cent.
  Why was there such a huge discrepancy, which has continued the downward spiral of morale and despair in the health board area? I believe that it is due to a combination of incompetence and indifference, fuelled by a drive for cheapness that pervades the health board from top to bottom. No one can escape the blame, and I am surprised that the Minister—who is normally free with his condemnation—has been so remarkably silent on this case.
  Before considering the events in detail, may I tell the Minister that I was forewarned of what was likely to happen. Several senior members of the Health Service in Scotland, centrally involved with the implementation of the gradings, told me that what Greater Glasgow health board was doing was a disgrace. Those people are closer to the Minister than they are to me, so he must have been aware of the problem. Why did he not step in sooner to rectify the position? Why did he wait until the shambles had broken? The Minister bears some responsibility, too.
  The gradings were announced on 11 November, one day after the Govan by-election. Paid-up members of the conspiracy theory would make great play of that, but I shall pass over it for the moment. I was prepared for some dissatisfaction, but not for the overwhelming anger that followed the gradings. Rather than going round stirring up trouble, the trade unions were trying to keep it as low as possible. I attended many meetings where union representatives, especially those from the Royal College of Nursing, were taken to task by their members and told that they had better adopt a more positive and militant approach.

  573
  Instead of responding to what was clearly a shambolic injustice, Greater Glasgow health board compounded its error when it said in a press release on Monday 14 November:
  "We are completely satisfied that the gradings have been awarded fairly and that the decisions were taken by professionals. Any apparent anomalies can be accounted for quite simply."
  That is a sign of the board's utter incompetence on this matter. Not only did the board get it wrong in the first place, but it then refused to admit it. The phrase "any apparent anomalies" means no sister in a theatre suite getting a G grade, no maternity sister in a labour suite getting a G grade and some single ward sisters being given an F grade. They were not apparent anomalies; they were anomalies. We are here tonight to try to discover why they occurred.
  On 14 November, the general manager said that he was happy that a "professional and fair" clinical grading exercise had been carried out. Clearly, the Minister was not, because on 16 November he met representatives of the RCN and the Royal College of Midwives and, in what for him was a fairly reticent interview, he hung out the Greater Glasgow health board to dry. I imagine that the telephones were buzzing, because by the following morning, without any appeals, suddenly the apparent anomaly that had resulted in all sisters in operating suites being given F grades was rectified. Suddenly this "fair" clinical grading exercise was crumbling.
  Perhaps the sudden turnround was also because I and my colleagues were due to meet representatives of the health board that day. At that meeting, we were amazed by their ignorance of the regrading, although the complacency and contempt that they usually display and that got them into trouble in the first place was missing.
  At that meeting we raised with the board what the Minister will agree was the crux of the dispute—the Nick Gurney letter from the Department of Health on 18 August 1988, especially the last paragraph on the second page, which concerns the grading of sisters who work in accident and emergency departments, theatres, delivery suites and intensive care units, including neonatal units. It states:
  "We would expect a significant proportion of such sisters to be graded at G or above."
  When we asked health board representatives about the letter, their initial response was that they knew nothing of it. Then they admitted that they knew something about it, but it did not apply to Scotland. But when we pushed them a dispute arose among the members present as to whether it applied to Scotland. I know for a fact that health boards were instructed on this matter by the Department, yet the Greater Glasgow health board chose to ignore those instructions. Perhaps the Minister will let us know why.
  Evasions and half truths from the Greater Glasgow health board are unacceptable. The general manager then stepped in to tell us that the letter was to trade unions and not to health boards. I disabused him of that, and I am sure that the Minister has done likewise. I am sure also that he will agree that his ignorance and incompetence in this matter are breathtaking.
  The Greater Glasgow health board officials then met representatives of the Royal College of Nursing and the midwives in London on 22 November, following which,
  574
  without recourse to normal appeals procedures, major concessions were made, mostly relating to the G2 classification contained in the Gurney letter. The apparent anomalies that were originally talked about, which could be accounted for quite simply, were reversed.
  Although the issue over the Gurney letter was clearly incompetence by the Greater Glasgow health board, there is a more sinister element in this dispute, which brings me back to what I was told by those close to the Minister—that what Greater Glasgow health board was trying to do was a disgrace, because it was trying to make the exercise as cheap as possible. In other words, it was finance-led.
  The Minister will have been apprised of the minute from the health board of 28 June 1988, item 73, headed "Clinical Grading Review", which states:
  "… the General Manager explained that until such time as the Scottish Home and Health Department advise of the financial parameters within which the Board should carry out the review, no substantive progress could be made with the Review."
  Why could no progress be made? I can interpret that passage in no other way than that the whole exercise was to be finance-led. If not, why wait to see how much money the health board was being given? Incidentally, it also seems that Greater Glasgow health board did not believe the Minister's assurances on funding. As the Minister will remember, on three separate occasions beginning in May, he reassured me that the award would be fully funded. Clearly Mr. Laurence Peterken did not believe him.
  The cynical delay, waiting for the "financial parameters", then led to a rushed exercise which has further contributed to the shambles and once again confirms my charge of incompetence.
  I am sure that the Minister will agree—he has implicitly accepted it by his actions of 16 November, when he met the royal colleges—that Greater Glasgow health board has managed this whole affair badly. It has been a mixture of meanness, incompetence, evasion, with a not inconsiderable ingredient of spite.
  It is symptomatic of the working of the board. It is a board in which management does not ignore advice, it simply never asks for it. It has a management totally isolated from its staff, closeted in distant offices, paralysed and unable to make decisions other than those related to financial cuts. In Glasgow we do not ask what the decision will be; we ask when, if ever, it will be made. It has produced a health board of low morale and accumulated despair which lacks any sense of direction. I fear the solutions to it will have to be drastic, and I shall return to them in the new year.
  Meanwhile, I ask the Minister to set up a full inquiry into the running of Greater Glasgow health board that will take as its starting point the nurses' regrading.
  We are entitled to know who was responsible for ignoring Government advice contained in the Nick Gurney letter of 18 August, why it was ignored, and what action should be taken to prevent such an event occurring again.
  That inquiry should go right to the top, because the whole ethos and practice of a health board is determined by its general manager. If he says that money comes first, to ingratiate themselves, those under him will naturally be keen to follow his philosophy. When that happens, cash always comes before care and money before medicine. It is

  575
  a practice that we have to stop, and I can think of nowhere better for initiating the process than in the Greater Glasgow health board.
  11.58 pm
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Do I understand that the Minister has agreed that there should be an intervention at this time?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Yes, I have, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. McAvoy: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) for allowing me some of his valuable time in this Adjournment debate. I also acknowledge and appreciate the Minister's co-operation.
  I associate myself with my hon. Friend's remarks about Greater Glasgow health board. I was one of the party of hon. Members at the meeting with the board and I confirm my hon. Friend's account. Along with everyone else, I welcome a relaxation of the board's intransigent attitude, but it is not negative to examine why this situation arose in the first place. I accept that it was always going to be a difficult exercise, but Greater Glasgow health board exacerbated a sensitive issue by inept handling.
  Rutherglen maternity hospital is situated in my constituency and many of my constituents are employed there in various capacities. All who work there are dedicated to their jobs and I can testify to the standard of service there as I am an expectant father. My first two sons, Thomas and Michael, were born in Bellshill maternity hospital, my third son in Calderbank and my fourth son, Brian, in Rutherglen. He is a true Ruglonian, having been born within the boundaries of the royal burgh of Rutherglen. So I am not speaking in the abstract about the hospital.
  When the regradings were issued, many of the midwifery sisters were graded F—despite the Gurney letter which specifically stated of sisters who work in delivery suites:
  "we would expect a significant proportion of such sisters to be graded G or above."
  The position has been largely rectified, with many midwifery sisters now graded G.
  I will never forget the distress of those sisters and their feeling of outrage. They felt that their whole worth was being questioned. No employer, never mind a health board employer. should drive employees to such a state of mind. It was disgraceful.
  There was also potential for division between people who take great pride in working harmoniously. Most of us believe that harmony and co-operation in a hospital staff is an essential ingredient in the standard of care provided. Without being vindictive, I suggest that any individual or organisation causing potential damage to the morale of such a key work force as nurses deserves the severest public stricture.
  I certainly have no desire to intervene in negotiations between work force and management, but I must alert the Minister to the position of those working at staff midwife grade at Rutherglen maternity hospital. Too many staff midwives have been graded E, despite the fact that they do the same sort of tasks as some sisters. That has not been
  576
  recognised and there is a need for more staff midwives at that hospital to be graded F. That will merely reflect the experience of those extremely valuable people.
  I strongly support my hon. Friend's call for a full inquiry into the running of Greater Glasgow health hoard with particular emphasis on its handling of the nurses.' regrading exercise. It is a public body, subject to public scrutiny, and it should be fully accountable to the public.
  12.2 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I am grateful that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) has given me this opportunity to put on record the substantial improvements in nurses' pay and conditions which have been introduced under this Government. This year's pay settlement is the highest the nursing profession has ever had. It is in marked contrast to the treatment nurses received under the policies of the Labour Government, when in the 1970s nurses' pay fell in real terms. In the five years between 1974 and 1979, Labour cut nurses' pay in four of them; in the financial year 1976–77, a real terms cut of over 10 per cent. was imposed, and over the period as a whole, nurses' pay fell in real terms by 21 per cent.
  Contrast those figures with what has happened since 1979. In this period, nurses' pay has gone up by 45 per cent. in real terms. In recognition of the special position of nurses, their dedication to patients and their stand against strike action, the Government set up an independent review body to determine their pay fairly and to ensure that their loyalty was not traded on or taken advantage of. The Government have accepted all five of the review body's awards and have funded over 90 per cent. of the cost of those awards. The current award—the biggest of all —has been funded in full, with an extra £1 billion of public money. That is an achievement matched by no previous Government and reflects the underlying strength of an economy which permits such massive investment in service to the public.
  Despite all the claims to the contrary, substantial pay increases have been awarded at every grade of nursing. For nursing auxiliaries going to the basic scale of the new structure, increases in the range of 7·6 to 9·5 per cent. have been awarded. These are substantial increases in real terms. Those auxiliaries whose jobs have merited the higher B grade will receive increases between 19·1 and 33·1 per cent., which in cash terms is between £1,120 and £1,510.
  Enrolled nurses have seen their pay and prospects improve out of all recognition. Those on scale C have received increases of 7·1 per cent. to 11·6 per cent., but almost half have gone to the higher grade of D, with increases of £1,450 to £1,775, taking them to a scale ranging from £8,025 to £9,200. A number have even attained grade E—
  Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister was misinformed about the title of the Adjournment debate. He has been talking for about five minutes, and he has not mentioned the Greater Glasgow health board.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for debate.
  Mr. Forsyth: I shall be coming to the position of the health board. If the hon. Gentleman is representative of the courtesy that is shown by his party, I shall know in future not to be accommodating when his hon. Friends wish to contribute to Adjournment debates. I have given some of my time, and I am trying to cover the ground.
  The regrading exercise has not been confined to pay increases, important though those are. The new structure is the greatest change in the nursing profession since the National Health Service began. This change is something which the Royal College of Nursing acknowledges as having been needed these past 20 years. The previous structure had become archaic and no longer provided the career structure necessary to motivate nurses to remain on clinical work looking after patients. Nor did the old grades reward those with the most onerous duties and responsibilities.
  Mr. Galbraith: Did not the Minister listen to the debate?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman asks whether I listened to the debate. I had the opportunity to read his speech earlier today, because he released it, with gross discourtesy to the House, without embargo to the press. It was covered in the newspapers in Scotland today. I have had every opportunity to study the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  The new structure was born out of two and a half years of negotiations between unions and management, and painstaking analysis of job contents right across the clinical spectrum. In view of the many misleading comments of late in the media, I think that it is right to re-emphasise that the structure has been agreed nationally not only by the Royal Colleges of Nursing and Midwifery and by the Health Visitors' Association but by the trade unions, including COHSE and NUPE. However, COHSE and NUPE would appear to have failed to inform their members of what they had agreed to and to have used the disappointment and uncertainty among some to create an atmosphere of unhappiness and unrest.
  It is disappointing that the hon. Member and his party have not condemned the actions of COHSE and NUPE. We are dealing with a national agreement to which they were full parties, a pay structure recommended by an independent review body, and a regrading exercise for which there are established grievance procedures.
  Against that background, I turn to the grading outcome under the Greater Glasgow health board, to which the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden has drawn attention. Throughout the regrading exercise, I have made it clear that individual nurse regradings are within the framework of the national agreement for health boards to decide and are not matters in which I would wish to intervene. I have kept to that policy. At no time, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has asserted, have either I or the Scottish Home and Health Department issued directives to boards about the grading of particular posts; nor have any quotas been imposed. That extends also to finance. There has been no attempt to cap the award by limiting cash allocations. Managers were advised that money was not to be a determinant of grade. The fact that additional allocations had to be made to cover the cost of grades awarded proves that managers took this message to heart.
  578
  Greater Glasgow health board is the largest single employer of nurses in Great Britain. It had to regrade over 12,000 posts, in terms of whole-time equivalent, on a consistent basis, in its area while recognising that the grading outcome should reflect differences in working practices between hospitals and specialties. No mechanistic approach could be adopted, and, in common with every other health board in Scotland, Greater Glasgow assessed the posts of its nursing staff and evaluated their job contents against the grading criteria. The gradings which resulted, while producing a structure similar to those in other parts of the country, of necessity reflected local working practices.
  In the case of Greater Glasgow these included two significant factors influencing the grading of hospital sisters. The first of these was the fact that the board employed a greater than average number of senior nurses. This meant that the degree to which responsibility for ward management was delegated to sister level was probably less than in other parts of the country.
  Secondly, and more important, Glasgow had a significantly higher proportion of two-sister wards than any other board in Scotland. In these, the board felt unable genuinely to identify at 1 April which post was designated to be in charge, carry continuing responsibility and so merit the higher grade of G. I understand that 70 per cent. of Greater Glasgow's wards are staffed by two or more sisters.
  Not surprisingly, these factors resulted in Glasgow assimilating a higher proportion of its hospital sisters to grade F than other Scottish boards. As a result, its grading profile for assimilation of staff, while almost identical to that for Scotland as a whole in terms of the proportion of staff on grades A to E and H to I, showed a higher proportion of staff on grade F and a lower proportion on G than Scotland as a whole. In Scotland the percentage on F was expected to be 7 per cent., but for the Greater Glasgow health board it was 10 per cent., and for G, the proportion for Scotland was 13 per cent. and for the Greater Glasgow health board it was 9 per cent. These differences could, as I have already explained, be attributed to previous staffing practices. The hon. Member makes much of Greater Glasgow's apparent failure to apply management guidance on the use of the G2 classification. In fact, unfortunately for him, the majority of ward sisters assimilated to the G grade related to the use of G2.
  In turn, this meant that Greater Glasgow had to consider restructuring more posts than other boards so as to create a G post in each ward. I would emphasise that, by proceeding in this way, the board was sticking strictly to the terms of the national agreement to which COHSE and NUPE were parties. There was no question of the board attempting to restrict regradings artificially as at 1 April, and, by promoting people at a later date, to make savings from its allocation through not having to pay backdated arrears of salary.
  On 16 November, I met representatives, as the hon. Gentleman said, of the Royal Colleges of Nursing and of Midwives. They expressed three main areas of concern about Greater Glasgow's handling of the regrading exercise. They were not convinced that an award of grade F had been appropriate in a number of single-sister wards. They were concerned that large-scale restructuring of sister posts should not commence in advance of appeals being resolved. They felt that the initial review of cases in

  579
  which staff had notified an intention to appeal could be a hindrance to the swift processing of appeals unless general managers were involved and powers of decision delegated.
  These concerns were transmitted to officials of the Greater Glasgow health board by the Scottish Home and Health Department. As a consequence, board officials came to London so as to have the earliest possible meeting with the royal colleges. Following negotiations, the board made public its intention to review its policies on sister regrading and to award the grade of G as from 1 April to day sisters in single-sister wards. This has resulted in the proportion of staff on grade F reducing to 7 per cent. and those on grade G increasing to 12 per cent. These are almost identical to the Scottish proportions in these grades. So the hon. Gentleman's assertion that Greater Glasgow's result is out of line with the rest of Scotland is quite incorrect.
  Once restructuring is carried out, these proportions will become 5 per cent. and 14 per cent. respectively. While I recognise the crucial role of sisters, the fact is that the change which has brought Greater Glasgow's profile almost exactly into line with the national average affects about 200 posts out of the 12,000 or so regraded by Greater Glasgow. Less than half of these, agreed with the RCN and RCM, are additional G2 posts, of which the hon. Member has made so much.
  The board has also taken steps to ensure that its initial review of intentions to appeal can be conducted swiftly and that decisions can be taken at unit level through the involvement of general managers.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) asked me about midwives. They have done extremely well from regrading in Greater Glasgow and in the rest of Scotland. All staff midwives have, in both cases, gone immediately to the higher grades, with increases of 23 per cent. or more. In Greater Glasgow, I understand that about 140 midwives—78 per cent.—will have moved immediately to the higher grades with increases of 16 per cent. or more. In Scotland as a whole, the proportion going to the higher grades is again around three quarters.
  The nursing staff of Greater Glasgow health board has been treated equitably. Inevitably in an exercise of this scope and complexity, some mistakes are bound to have been made, but adequate appeals machinery is available to correct them. Throughout this exercise, Greater Glasgow has acted with care and has also demonstrated its
  580
  willingness to listen to responsible representations which, regretfully, have not come from the hon. Gentleman, and to react to them where appropriate. Equally, it has quite properly declined to deal with trade unions that have used industrial action as an instrument for putting pressure on management.
  Already, the Royal Colleges of Nursing and of Midwives and the board have agreed changes as a result of calm and objective discussion. The so-called dispute has been largely manufactured by COHSE and NUPE which have even put patients into the front line in their attempts to disrupt the board's management of its affairs. Had they behaved sensibly and not sought confrontation, their members' interests would have been much better served. The hon. Gentleman is therefore raking over old coals. I do not believe that he has the interests of the nursing profession in mind in doing so. Indeed, given the record of the Labour party in government and the 21 per cent. cut in pay which nurses suffered between 1974 and 1979, I can only assume that his motives are to stir up unrest deliberately at the very time when agreement is being reached in order to bury the past.
  The Government have, however, kept faith with the profession and have honoured their commitments to it. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the result is that pay has risen by 45 per cent. in real terms since 1979 and nurses have a career structure negotiated with the professional bodies and trade unions which represent them, which should serve them and the Health Service well in the future.
  Mr. Galbraith: The Minister failed to answer a number of points, and was his usual ideological and spiteful self. Can he tell us why the Greater Glasgow health board graded the sisters in operating suites on the F grade which is contrary to the Nick Gurney letter of 18 August? That was centrally discussed by the implementation group in the Minister's Department, yet Greater Glasgow health board ignored it. I asked about the number of double-sister wards in the health hoards, and he said that the information was not available centrally. It is nice that he has suddenly found the information for the Greater Glasgow health board. Can he tell us what it is for the rest of the country?
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

TRANSPORT
  London Underground (Safety)
  London Underground (Safety)
  Light Dues
  Light Dues
  Ports
  Ports
  Network SouthEast
  Network SouthEast
  London Regional Transport
  London Regional Transport
  Railway Lines and Motorways (Usage)
  Railway Lines and Motorways (Usage)
  Lead-free Petrol
  Lead-free Petrol
  Vehicle Sales
  Vehicle Sales
  Vehicle Sales
  Vehicle Sales
  M77 Extension
  M77 Extension
ENVIRONMENT
  "Living in Terror"
  "Living in Terror"
  Government Offices (Cambridge)
  Government Offices (Cambridge)
  Housing
  Housing
  Drinking Water
  Drinking Water
  Conservation
  Conservation
  London Dockland Development Corporation
  London Dockland Development Corporation
  Waterways (Maintenance)
  Waterways (Maintenance)
  Local Authorities (Development Powers)
  Local Authorities (Development Powers)
  Planning Inspectorate
  Planning Inspectorate
  Ozone Layer
  Ozone Layer
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  Food Poisoning
  Food Poisoning
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  Bristol Channel (Pollution)
  Bristol Channel (Pollution)
  Fire Service
  Fire Service
  Hazardous Waste
  Hazardous Waste
  Local Authority Debt
  Local Authority Debt
  Weedkillers
  Weedkillers
PRIME MINISTER
  Food Production and Safety
  Food Production and Safety
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Identity Cards
  Identity Cards
  Tobacco
  Tobacco
  Post Office
  Post Office
  Inner City Task Forces
  Inner City Task Forces
  Advisory Panel on Deregulation
  Advisory Panel on Deregulation
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  British Steel (Privatisation)
  British Steel (Privatisation)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Identity Cards
  Identity Cards
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Security
  Security
  South Africa (Military Service)
  South Africa (Military Service)
  Human Rights
  Human Rights
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Foreign Affairs Council
  Foreign Affairs Council
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Civil Service Pensions
  Civil Service Pensions
  Civil Service Manpower
  Civil Service Manpower
  Business Expansion Scheme
  Business Expansion Scheme
  Electricity, Water and Steel
  Electricity, Water and Steel
  Inland Revenue (Staff)
  Inland Revenue (Staff)
  EC Budget
  EC Budget
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Litter Offences
  Litter Offences
  Graffiti
  Graffiti
  Exclusion and Attendance Orders
  Exclusion and Attendance Orders
  Student Visas
  Student Visas
  Delia McCall
  Delia McCall
  Prisons (Food)
  Prisons (Food)
  Prisoners (Suicide)
  Prisoners (Suicide)
  Non-metropolitan Areas (Policing)
  Non-metropolitan Areas (Policing)
  Armley Prison
  Armley Prison
  Racial Harassment
  Racial Harassment
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Schools (Weapons Collectors' Catalogues)
  Schools (Weapons Collectors' Catalogues)
  Degree Courses
  Degree Courses
  Mature Students
  Mature Students
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Teachers (Secondary Schools)
  Teachers (Secondary Schools)
  16 to 18-year-olds
  16 to 18-year-olds
  Childcare Provision
  Childcare Provision
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
  Antarctic Survey
  Antarctic Survey
  GCSE
  GCSE
  Students
  Students
  Meningitis
  Meningitis
ENERGY
  Chapelcross and Calderhall
  Chapelcross and Calderhall
  Subsidence (Compensation)
  Subsidence (Compensation)
WALES
  Physically Handicapped People
  Physically Handicapped People
  Welsh National Opera
  Welsh National Opera
  School Governors
  School Governors
  National Museum of Wales
  National Museum of Wales
  Current Affairs Programmes (Presenters)
  Current Affairs Programmes (Presenters)
  Elderly People
  Elderly People
  Housing
  Housing
  Eggs
  Eggs
  Rent Arrears
  Rent Arrears
  Primary Health Care
  Primary Health Care
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  House Purchase
  House Purchase
  School Doctors and Dentists (Language)
  School Doctors and Dentists (Language)
  STC (Redundancies)
  STC (Redundancies)
  Health and Personal Social Services
  Health and Personal Social Services
  Valleys Programme
  Valleys Programme
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Transitional Benefits
  Transitional Benefits
  Income Support
  Income Support
  Tax Allowances and Benefits
  Tax Allowances and Benefits
  Family Credit
  Family Credit
  Working Mothers
  Working Mothers
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Supplementary Benefit/Income Support
  Supplementary Benefit/Income Support
  Aged Persons' Homes
  Aged Persons' Homes
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Invalid Care Allowance
  Invalid Care Allowance
  Social Fund
  Social Fund
  Single Payments
  Single Payments
  Benefits (Appeals)
  Benefits (Appeals)
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Child Tax Allowance
  Child Tax Allowance
  Lower Paid Families (Tax Rates)
  Lower Paid Families (Tax Rates)
  Housing Benefit (War Widows)
  Housing Benefit (War Widows)
  Staff Reductions
  Staff Reductions
  Official Publications
  Official Publications
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Further Education
  Further Education
  Ulster museum
  Ulster museum
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Grading)
  Nurses (Grading)
  Invalidity Benefit
  Invalidity Benefit
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
HEALTH
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Cervical Smears
  Cervical Smears
  Residential Homes
  Residential Homes
  Salmonella (Eggs)
  Salmonella (Eggs)
  Salmonella
  Salmonella
  Transplants
  Transplants
  Children (Cleveland)
  Children (Cleveland)
  NHS Expenditure
  NHS Expenditure
  Nurses (Grading)
  Nurses (Grading)
  Royal Liverpool Hospital
  Royal Liverpool Hospital
  National Health Service Beds (Nottingham)
  National Health Service Beds (Nottingham)
  Hospital Incinerators
  Hospital Incinerators
  Insulin
  Insulin
  Insulin
  Insulin
  Single Market
  Single Market
  Food Poisoning
  Food Poisoning
  Disability Survey
  Disability Survey
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  Special Hospitals
  Special Hospitals
  Hepatitis B
  Hepatitis B
  Midwives
  Midwives
  Breast Cancer (Screening)
  Breast Cancer (Screening)
  Retired People
  Retired People
  Young Drinkers
  Young Drinkers
  Cervical Cytology Screening
  Cervical Cytology Screening
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Adoption
  Adoption
  Research Priorities
  Research Priorities
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment Benefit (Adjudication)
  Unemployment Benefit (Adjudication)
  Environment and Safety Information Act
  Environment and Safety Information Act
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  Skills Training Agency
  Skills Training Agency
  Rehabilitation Centres
  Rehabilitation Centres
  Employment Training
  Employment Training
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Identity Cards
  Identity Cards
  Egg Inspectors
  Egg Inspectors
  Deer (Tuberculosis)
  Deer (Tuberculosis)
  ITB Pension Fund
  ITB Pension Fund
  Food Poisoning
  Food Poisoning
SCOTLAND
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  Tenants (Transfers)
  Tenants (Transfers)
  NHS Patients
  NHS Patients
  District Councils
  District Councils
  "Keep Warm this Winter"
  "Keep Warm this Winter"
  Manufacturing Exports
  Manufacturing Exports
  Local Government Act 1988
  Local Government Act 1988
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Bus Companies (Takeover)
  Bus Companies (Takeover)
  Scottish Homes
  Scottish Homes
  Single Market
  Single Market
  Newbattle Abbey College
  Newbattle Abbey College
  East Coast Railway Line (Electrification)
  East Coast Railway Line (Electrification)
  Kyle of Lochalsh and Kyleakin (Road)
  Kyle of Lochalsh and Kyleakin (Road)
  Electricity Bill
  Electricity Bill
  "No Turning Back"
  "No Turning Back"
  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
  Damp Housing
  Damp Housing
  Health Boards (Appointments)
  Health Boards (Appointments)
  Health Boards (Tendering)
  Health Boards (Tendering)
  Electricity Industry Privatisation
  Electricity Industry Privatisation
  Constitutional Convention
  Constitutional Convention
  Dog Pollution Schemes
  Dog Pollution Schemes
  Manufacturing Exports
  Manufacturing Exports
  Bus Industry (Buyouts)
  Bus Industry (Buyouts)
  Constitutional Reform
  Constitutional Reform
  Nurses (Regrading)
  Nurses (Regrading)
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Scottish TUC
  Scottish TUC
  Education Reform
  Education Reform
  Post Offices
  Post Offices
  Drug Abuse (Govan)
  Drug Abuse (Govan)
  Electricity Boards
  Electricity Boards
  Power Stations (Coal Burn)
  Power Stations (Coal Burn)
  Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Employment)
  Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Employment)
  Education Bill
  Education Bill
  Bus Companies (Takeover)
  Bus Companies (Takeover)
  Council House Rents
  Council House Rents
  Tayside Health Board
  Tayside Health Board
  Electricity Boards (Capital Debt)
  Electricity Boards (Capital Debt)
  Business Rating Practices
  Business Rating Practices
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish NFU
  Scottish NFU
  Employment Training Scheme
  Employment Training Scheme
  Scottish Bus Group
  Scottish Bus Group
  Donor Cards
  Donor Cards
  Transplant Surgery
  Transplant Surgery
  Elder Cottage Hospital
  Elder Cottage Hospital
  Special Housing Association
  Special Housing Association
  Hospital Medical Staff
  Hospital Medical Staff
  Water Pollution
  Water Pollution
  Criminal Convictions (Alcohol)
  Criminal Convictions (Alcohol)
  Emigration
  Emigration
  Police (Recruitment)
  Police (Recruitment)
  Police (Manning Levels)
  Police (Manning Levels)
  Trunk Routes
  Trunk Routes
  Mouthbridge Inquiry
  Mouthbridge Inquiry
  Arctic Tern
  Arctic Tern
  A94
  A94
  Grampian Health Board (Grading)
  Grampian Health Board (Grading)
  Farm Woodland Scheme
  Farm Woodland Scheme
  Less Favoured Areas
  Less Favoured Areas
  Town and Country Planning
  Town and Country Planning
  Adoption Allowance Schemes
  Adoption Allowance Schemes
  Shipping Subsidies
  Shipping Subsidies
  Pacemakers
  Pacemakers
  Foresty Commission
  Foresty Commission
DEFENCE
  Tucano Aircraft
  Tucano Aircraft
  Radar Contracts
  Radar Contracts
  Trident
  Trident
  Foxhunter Radars
  Foxhunter Radars
  Identity Cards
  Identity Cards
  Nuclear Submarines
  Nuclear Submarines
  HMS Dreadnought
  HMS Dreadnought
  Boeing (Offset Report)
  Boeing (Offset Report)

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

Pelicans in St. James's Park
Lord Stodart of Leaston Lord Stodart of Leaston asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there are now fewer pelicans in St. James's Park than there were a year ago, and if so, why; and whether it is their policy to maintain numbers at the level of a year ago.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, there are now four pelicans in St. James's Park compared with five a year ago. One became seriously ill during the year and had to be put down. We have no immediate plans for a replacement.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that unhappy Answer. Does he recall the efforts made a year ago by my noble friend in trying to shed light on the sex of the pelicans? Does he recall that my noble friend said that he would like to wander through the park on one spring evening to see whether anything was going on? Can he tell us whether he made that expedition and whether he saw anything going on which aroused his interest? Lastly, will my noble friend do his best to see that the numbers are kept up because some 30 years ago the pelicans formed an extremely appreciative audience at four o'clock on a summer morning when I rehearsed my maiden speech for another place?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am advisedly informed that my noble friend was seen taking a meander in St. James's Park in springtime. He observed what was going on but did not observe very much of what the pelicans were doing.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that most of the notices warning visitors not to feed the pelicans with unsuitable food have been removed from around the lake in St. James's Park? Will he do his utmost to see that those are replaced as death can be caused through them eating unsuitable food?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall certainly take that point on board and raise it with the bailiff.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us whether the present pelicans have been given names? Is he aware that some 30 years ago there were three and they were named after the chiefs of staff? Two of them were always getting together and appeared to be ganging up on the third.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no. The present ones do not have names because we do not know
1360
their sex and, therefore, we thought it would be rather invidious to name them.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the pelicans are probably becoming very depressed, first, by being harangued by new MPs practising their speeches and, secondly, by noble Lords wandering around in the dead of night spying on them?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am informed that my noble friend was spotted in daylight. However, it has done the pelicans a power of good that my noble friend spoke to them in the early hours of that morning because none other than my noble friend and my noble friends Lord Chelwood, Lord Rippon and Lord Eccles have all been involved in pelican questions in another place.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that I dealt with my noble friend's question in another place nearly 30 years ago and the position has not changed since then? Indeed, none of this matters very much because they have not laid an egg since the time of Charles II.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not believe that they laid one then either!
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if they do lay eggs, will they be contaminated with salmonella?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the eggs are chalky white but we shall continue to look for them.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that it is easy to tell the sex of a pelican because either the male is bigger than the female or the female is bigger than the male? I cannot remember which.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I wish it was that simple, but alas it is not.

London Underground: Safety Recommendations
2.42 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to amend the financial targets imposed on London Regional Transport so that it can carry out the recommendations on safety in the London Underground contained in the report by Mr. Desmond Fennell, Q.C.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Government have increased London Regional Transport's external finance limit for the current year by £54 million to £275 million. Part of this increase is to allow for additional expenditure on safety measures following the tragic fire at King's Cross. The Government's public expenditure plans for the next three years include an extra £266 million for the implementation of the Fennell Report.
Lord Jay: My Lords, is it a fact, as reported, that British Rail, faced with privatisation, is now considering a plan to make a cut of nearly £1 million a year in expenditure on signal maintenance?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is a quite different question from one concerning London Regional Transport. However, it is the first I have heard of it.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, it is encouraging to learn from the Minister that additional money will be provided to London Underground to carry out the recommendations of the Fennell Report. Are we to understand that London Underground has made a full assessment of all moneys required to carry out all recommendations of the Fennell Report? I know that LRT has set up its own audit system, but will the department carefully monitor what is happening in case additional money is required?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, yes. Obviously we shall monitor the progress of the safety audit on LRT. The £266 million to which I referred in my original Answer was for the specific safety measures so far identified. As I said in the debate on the Fennell Report, finance will not be a barrier to implementing the Fennell recommendations.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, because of the effect upon public morale should not all efforts be made to kill the suggestion that British Rail is deliberately not carrying out its duty to provide the maximum safety because of the possibility of privatisation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we shall be debating the subject of the possible privatisation of British Rail later this afternoon. I can say in advance of that that we have no present plans to privatise British Rail. If we do, it certainly will not be within the lifetime of this Parliament.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, as regards the cost of the Fennell Report, does the noble Lord remember that I asked him during our debate whether Prodorite had been reimbursed for the cost of counsel in order to be represented at the inquiry? I am still waiting for a reply and I wonder whether the Minister is yet in a position to reply to that question.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that I have written to the noble Lord. I have certainly seen a draft of the letter that I propose to write to the noble Lord, which will explain the situation to him.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to put in the Library a statement as regards this subsidy and the other subsidies paid to the South-East per head of the population, compared with the rest of the country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if the noble Lord is willing to put down a Question to that effect I shall attempt to answer it.

Marine Nature Reserve
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to announce the designation of the second statutory marine nature reserve.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Nature Conservancy Council has recently re-submitted to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales a case for the designation of a statutory marine nature reserve at Skomer Island and the Marloes Peninsula. I cannot of course anticipate my right honourable friend's consideration of the issues. He will announce his decision in due course.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he recall that it is over seven years since discussions began on this designation? Can the Minister say whether he considers that there is likely to be any further delay? I understand that there is still one outstanding disagreement as regards this project; it concerns the sub-aqua club. Can the Minister say whether very much weight is likely to be given to this and whether it is the Government's policy to seek 100 per cent. agreement before they will proceed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right in saying that there is an outstanding objection from the sub-aqua club. The South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee suggested the by-law and believes that it is necessary; otherwise it would not have been proposed. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales will no doubt consider whether such a by-law is needed in all the circumstances before reaching his decision.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, in joining with the noble Baroness in pressing for a second statutory marine nature reserve, I ask the noble Earl by what means he hopes to keep out of the existing marine nature reserve the vast quantities of raw, untreated sewage that are pumped into our seas around the British coast every day. Does the Minister not agree that it is something of a paradox that on the one hand we designate an area as a statutory marine nature reserve and on the other we allow the water that flows into that nature reserve to be polluted by untreated sewage?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord conveniently takes me on to another environmental matter that I shall be happy to answer. However, that is a different subject. As regards the marine nature reserve, we believe that getting the agreement of all those involved is the right way to proceed.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, is it not clear that damage has continued for the past seven years to the marine environment at Skomer Island and other areas that were considered to need protection way back in 1981? The consultation procedures that were to be streamlined, according to the answers given from the noble Earl's Front Bench on at least two occasions, have failed to produce results. Is it right that in these circumstances what one might call environmental imperatives should be subordinated to commercial or sporting interests?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, all interests have to be taken into account and that is why it is taking longer than we had hoped to reach agreement and consensus on this matter. As the noble Lord will fully understand, a marine nature reserve is a much more difficult area to police than a reserve on land that can be fenced and people or animals excluded from it. One cannot do the same with a marine nature reserve unless one has agreement with as many people as possible.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, has the time gap that has occurred with this proposed reserve been used in trying to reach agreement among the people concerned, including local interests, or has the situation been caused by a shortage of resources?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. The delay is not due to a shortage of resources. From memory, I believe that in real terms the grant to the NCC has gone up 150 per cent. in the past eight years. The delay is in order to try to get agreement between all the parties.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister say how many members there are of this sub-aqua club who are holding up the designation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot answer the noble Baroness on that point.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, do I understand from the Minister's reply to an earlier question that he is seeking 100 per cent. agreement? Can the Minister also say whether this represents a new policy on the part of the Government, because they have pushed through many measures with nothing like 100 per cent. agreement?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we always seek the agreement of as many people as possible.

Companies Bill [H.L.]
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to company accounts; to make new provision with respect to the persons eligible for appointment as company auditors; to amend the Companies Act 1985 and certain other enactments with respect to investigations and powers to obtain information and to confer new powers exercisable to assist overseas regulatory authorities; to make new provision with respect to the registration of company charges and otherwise to amend the law relating to companies; to amend the Fair Trading Act 1973; to enable provision to be made for the payment of fees in connection with the exercise by the Secretary of State, the Director General of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission of their functions under Part V of that Act; to make provision for safeguarding the operation of certain financial markets; to amend the Financial Services Act 1986, the Insolvency Act 1986, the Policy Holders Protection Act 1975 and the law relating to building societies; and for connected
1364
purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Historic Buildings and Treasures
2.50 p.m.
Lord Blake Lord Blake rose to call attention to the problems of the preservation of this country's historic buildings and treasures; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I appreciate that it is not ideal to stage this debate on the winter solstice, so close to Christmas when most of us look forward to relaxation from politics. However, I do not think that this is a political subject. I am all the more grateful that so many noble Lords have put down their names to speak in the debate. I am especially glad that my noble friend Lord Daventry is to make his maiden speech on this occasion. We all look forward to his contribution. I am also grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, and my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, on behalf of the National Heritage Memorial Fund and English Heritage respectively, are to speak.
This is far from being the first time in recent months that the general question of preserving Britain's historic buildings and treasures has been raised in your Lordships' House. The last occasion was in July this year. But the matter receives a new urgency and causes greater anxiety with the decision of the dean and chapter of Hereford to auction the Mappa Mundi at Sotheby's, a decision which one hopes may be changed but which has not been changed so far. It is impossible not to discuss the sale of the Mappa Mundi in a debate on this general theme. I make no apology for doing so at the outset, though 1 shall touch upon other matters later.
We are discussing the preservation of historic buildings and historic treasures. Obviously Hereford Cathedral is a historic building and the Mappa Mundi is a historic treasure. The dilemma, as the dean and chapter see it, presumably, is that they cannot preserve the former without selling the latter; or at any rate they say that they cannot. I am somewhat sceptical. A sale of this kind, if one discounts the opprobrium involved, may be the easiest way of raising money to preserve the cathedral fabric. It is not necessarily the only way. No other cathedral has done this or is contemplating it. Lincoln Cathedral and Salisbury Cathedral are not proposing to sell their copies of Magna Carta, nor Winchester its famous bible.
Money can be raised by other means, though no doubt the task of appealing to the public, to institutions and to trusts, with all the labour, the talking and the correspondence involved, is hard work, tedious, laborious, often frustrating and always rather worrying. One appreciates that. I am afraid, however, that the dean and chapter are taking what I can only describe as the lazy way out. The episode highlights a point which, I must admit,

1365
through ignorance, I had not previously appreciated. Corporate bodies such as cathedral chapters are completely autonomous. They are exactly like private owners as concerns the disposal of their possessions, at any rate the disposal of possessions which do not directly assist the purpose for which the corporate body exists. I believe it is the case, although I may be corrected on this point, that the Charity Commissioners have some say in the disposal of objects which are directly relevant to the purposes of a cathedral. But clearly the Mappa Mundi is not in that category.
The position with regard to parish churches is very different. The vicar or rector or church wardens cannot dispose of the church's possessions without permission from a diocesan consistory court with, I believe, an ultimate appeal to the Court of Arches. And this permission is not infrequently withheld. In fact, it is often withheld. The vicar and wardens have to show that the sale is really necessary as the only means of saving the church from falling down. There is no such external authority in the case of cathedral chapters. They are sole judges in their own right.
I understand that the English General Synod intends to reform this anomaly. I can only describe it as an anomaly. The Care of Cathedrals Measure received its First Reading in October. If it becomes law, a Cathedrals Fabric Commission will be set up, and its approval will be needed not only for alterations in the fabric of the cathedral but also for the disposal of certain categories of moveables. But this Measure has not yet become law. It may not become law, though it probably will. I am afraid that I cannot avoid the suspicion that the Hereford chapter is in a sense jumping the gun in this transaction.
It is in any case most regrettable that the Mappa Mundi should go to auction. I am chairman of the Royal Commission on Historic Manuscripts. As I wrote recently in The Times—and I hope I can be forgiven for quoting myself:
"We would as the independent advisory body in this field have been only too glad to offer the Dean and Chapter our help at an earlier stage".
We were never consulted at all. I expressed the hope in the same letter that it was not too late for the chapter to think again and at least reconsider—I imagine that it did consider this at some stage—the merits of a private treaty sale to a British public collection.
The Mappa Mundi case has caused me to reflect on the whole position of corporate bodies with charitable status which possess objects of great value which are not an essential adjunct to the purposes for which they exist. Chapters are by no means the only bodies in that category. There are certain universities, colleges and schools which also possess very valuable objects. All universities, colleges and, at any rate, independent schools, have charitable status.
Charitable status confers great tax advantages on the institutions which have it. For example, they pay no income tax, no capital transfer tax—because they never die—and they pay no capital gains tax. Some Oxford and Cambridge colleges have in their possession books and other objects of enormous value. The vast majority would never even
1366
contemplate a sale. Moreover, a good many of those colleges are quite wealthy anyway and would have no need to do so; but not all of them are wealthy. It is worth remembering that there is absolutely no barrier to their making a sale of any of those objects if they so wish. They are, in that respect, exactly like private owners, but with this difference: they are in a sense—and I deliberately use this word—subsidised by the taxpayer.
Is there then a case for the view that these institutions owe it in a sense to the public not to dispose of objects which were for the most part, and in nearly all cases, given to them—they did not buy them, they were given to them—on the understanding that although they are undoubtedly the legal owners, they were and are morally custodians for posterity? The objects were given to those institutions as places for safekeeping and security under the impression that they would be there for all posterity.
I am not suggesting for a moment that charitable status for religious and educational bodies is not a very proper and correct feature of our fiscal system. But I do suggest that a corresponding duty is owed in respect of possessions; that is, not only pictures and statues but also manuscripts, archives, papers and much else. If churches cannot sell—and cathedrals soon will not be able to sell without the consent of some outside body if the Measure I referred to goes through—is there not an argument that some similar constraints should apply to other corporate charitable institutions?
Is there perhaps a case for "listing"—I use the word in inverted commas—certain very special objects in corporate possession, in the same way as we list historic houses? I think to list those which are in private possession may be an insuperable task. However, to list a limited number in institutional charitable corporate possession might be feasible, so that at least they could not be sold or put up to auction without reference to some outside body. Then we might have avoided the lamentable—I use the word as an understatement, if anything—dispersal of the Spencer Collection in the John Rylands Library and the less known, but equally unfortunate, disposal of the George Brown Ethnographical Collection in Newcastle. For those two episodes the Universities of Manchester and Newcastle have received a well-deserved obloquy.
I wonder whether there is a case for reintroducing—it does have to be reintroduced—what was called the "indefinite stop" on exports of certain national treasures and making it literally contrary to the law to export, say, the Domesday Book or the Magna Carta. Indeed, one could think of other examples. There would no doubt be plenty of difficulties in doing so and plenty of objections could be raised. But some countries actually do just that with their treasures or a limited category of them. Therefore it is not an inconceivable or ridiculous thing to do; it is something which might at least be thought about.
We tend in Britain to be a little bit parochial about such matters. There is a wide range of practice and law among other countries in regard to the export or alienation of their works of art. At one extreme, in the United States and Switzerland, there is a complete

1367
free for all; in other words, no holds barred. But they are, or have been, countries with very strong economies and very strong currencies. Other countries, at the opposite end, give their governments a complete veto on export, and Egypt is one example.
I think that by and large the British system—which, like so many of our best features is a kind of compromise—works pretty well; or, at any rate, it did until the recent astronomical rise in art prices. Some of those rises have been so vast that no government, however open-handed with public funds or taxpayers' money, could give their museums the purchasing power to match the prices paid at auction and thus save the relevant object from export. That is the only way of doing it as our present system prevails.
It may be that the inducement to private owners to sell by private treaty to a public institution or to offer pictures, manuscripts, archives or other objects in lieu of death duties should be increased. A few years ago the National Heritage Memorial Fund in its report thought that what is called the douceur should be raised and suggested that it should be increased from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. The recent tax changes introduced in the last Budget may put a different complexion on the matter. I shall be interested to know the views of my noble friend Lord Caithness when he comes to reply for the Government on that point.
The Government, and indeed all governments, get a lot of stick from the artistic and heritage world. It is inevitable. It was so under previous Labour governments and previous Conservative governments, and it is so under the present Conservative Administration. I shall not engage in barren comparisons between political parties when they were in power. I do not think that that would get us anywhere because the world changes. I shall merely say that in some respects the present Government have a good record over these matters. In 1980 they set up the National Heritage Memorial Fund under an Act of Parliament. I think that it would generally be agreed in your Lordships' House that that fund has a splendid record in preserving historical houses and keeping historical treasures in this country.
The Government have been responsive to emergency demands. The fund had quite a bit of money to start with, but its regular income is only £3 million a year. However, it has contrived, with much skill, to spend £105 million over the last eight years. Much of that sum was provided from contingency reserves. I should prefer to leave the detail of that matter to the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, when he speaks later.
In 1983, the Government set up the Historic Buildings and Monuments Committee (English Heritage) to look after some 400 government-owned properties. It spent £52 million in 1984–85 and £72 million in the past year. My noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu can speak with more authority on that matter.
There is however one point in respect of historic houses which I should like to raise with my noble
1368
friend the Minister and of which I have given him notice. What has happened to Heveningham Hall, the former seat of the Vanneck family in Suffolk. I believe—1 may be corrected—that the Department of the Environment acquired it at some stage. A few years ago it was open to the public because I went over it. It is a magnificent place. I understand that it has been sold since then. The new owner does not make the slightest effort to keep it up in any way.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord is being unfair to the new owner, who has already spent several million pounds restoring the James Wyatt masterpiece. He has received little thanks from the neighbourhood, which is ethnically opposed to him because he is an Arab. He is lavishing enormous care on the building. The house has been vandalised several times. A Wyatt fireplace has been stolen from the dining room. A large amount of Coad-ware has been removed. A fire was started in the library, which had just been renewed. The owner will be starting repairs again in the spring. We should all be grateful to him for preserving a great national monument which fell into disrepair under the guidance of the Department of the Environment.
Lord Blake: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's intervention on that point. I am glad to hear what he says, but when I motored past the place the other day it did not look like that. The building looked derelict, depressed and gloomy to a degree, but if that is merely temporary and a great deal of rehabilitation is going on, I should be only too pleased. I do not wish to cast aspersions on someone whom the noble Lord says is such a benefactor to our architectural heritage.
It is regrettable that the place has got into the state that it has, whether or not it is the present owner's fault. While it was in the possession of the Department of the Environment it was in a much better condition that it is now.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Blake: My Lords, I think that I must continue. I shall be interested to hear the comments on this matter of my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. He may have something to say about it, but if he has not I am sure that other noble Lords will.
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister whether, when Heveningham Hall was sold, any conditions were attached to the sale, and, if so, what is being done to enforce them? If no conditions were attached, why not?
There is a matter of more general interest than Heveningham. I believe that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is anxious that English Heritage should sell some of the houses that it owns. If that is the case, I hope that it will not merely be a matter of obtaining the highest price, but that the character, antecedents and bona fides of the purchaser will be carefully examined. I can see that the sale may be desirable in some cases, but the sale should be hedged about with suitable and enforceable conditions or not made at all.

1369
There is one other point about historic buildings, in particular houses, to which I should like to refer. In The Times of 3rd December there was an interesting article by Mr. Marcus Binney the president of Save Britain's Heritage. He was worried about the fittings of historic houses. He wrote:
"Fittings which are an integral part of the house ought to be protected by listed building controls".
He mentioned a number of instances where that had not happened. Time is too short to repeat them but he instanced the big rococo overmantles auctioned by Sotheby's as part of the contents of Tyninghame. That was one example and there were several others. Fixtures are constitutionally in the hands of local authorities. If Mr. Binney is right in his article, the effectiveness of enforcement varies greatly from one local authority to another. He wondered whether clearer and possibly firmer guidelines should be issued to local authorities by the Department of the Environment.
The British heritage, both in public institutions and private hands, is a magnificent one, probably the greatest in the world. There are great problems in preserving that part of the heritage in private hands unless we abandon entirely the free trade principle. I shall not pursue that possibility because I do not believe that this Government or any government would do so, nor do I think that they should. However, there is the question of that large part of our heritage which is in museums and galleries.
The Public Accounts Committee has criticised the condition in which some of the objects in the British Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum are kept. I should perhaps confess that until recently I was a trustee of the British Museum. In my view, so far as the British Museum is concerned, that criticism is grossly exaggerated. In so far as it has any foundation, I have to point out that those institutions are badly under-funded. The British Museum has been obliged to leave no fewer than 150 places on its staff vacant. That situation is bound to have a knock-on effect and to delay the work of care and conservation.
It may be, and has been, argued that museums should divert some or all of the money that they spend on the acquisition of new objects to the conservation of existing ones. No doubt in theory that could be done, but it would make the museums dead collections, and would in the long run deprive them of much of their raison d'être. It has also been suggested that the museums should be empowered to sell some of their possessions. That is a power that the trustees do not seek. It is one which would be throughly unwelcome. To sell some of one's acquisitions to further the conservation of the rest is like another Mappa Mundi. It is hardly the best way to preserve our national treasures. To get rid of objects, other than duplicates of course which we have the power to sell anyway, would necessitate ignoring the fact that museums are, in a sense, archives.
Museums, as was said in a speech recently, serve the purpose of education, entertainment and scholarship. We should not forget the last word: the element of scholarship is too often forgotten. Scholarship may often involve the study of a great
1370
many dull-looking objects which do not entertain and do not very obviously educate and which might at first sight seem easy enough to dispose of without any great loss to the public interest. I believe that this would be a profound mistake and I hope that the Government will not pursue that line.
There is however one action which I believe museums and galleries could take. I shall make myself quite unpopular among my former colleagues at the British Museum if I say this, but no longer being a trustee I think I can safely do so. I believe that museums and galleries could quite legitimately charge for entry. Exceptions can be rr.ade for school children, students and perhaps even for old-age pensioners. I am sure that would appeal to your Lordships. However, the principle of charging is widespread over the world. We take it for granted that if we go to the Uffizi or the Louvre we pay for it and we do not jib at that. Of course that is not universal but it is very widespread. I myself cannot see any objection to it, if investigation shows that it would be cost-effective and produce more money than it costs.
I am not suggesting that museums and galleries should be obliged to charge. I should leave them as they are under the present law, free to do so or not according to their own judgment. I merely express the hope that they adopt this obvious way of helping themselves, at least to some degree.
I have spoken long enough. In conclusion I hope that I have given due credit to the Government for what they have done. I recognise the great difficulties which the Government face and the efforts which they have made to overcome them. I believe that with only a small degree of extra funding a great many of the problems which vex the museums and galleries would, if not actually go away, at least become less acute. Then the task of preserving our national treasures would become that much easier. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, we all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, whose absence from the list of heads of houses in the past four terms leaves such a substantial gap in the university of Oxford, for raising this apposite and timely debate. He has confined himself to man-made beauty and I shall largely follow him in that, although few will deny that God-made beauty today faces a new wave of menace.
The threat is perhaps epitomised in the Lake District, where the percentage of appeals against planning decisions granted by the Secretary of State has been higher than in any other national park. It has recently risen to a peak of 55 per cent. The National Parks Authority is sufficiently concerned to be considering actively promoting a special Lake District protection private Bill. Most of the appeals allowed are in favour of what one may call creeping ubanisation. But bigger cases are tourist associated: developments such as time-share and large-scale leisure facilities. But this does not make the problem any better. Indeed, it becomes a classic example of the strong tendency of modern mass tourism to damage the scenery or the works of art or the ambience which created tourism in the first place. From Venice to

1371
Windermere, the results of tourism are engulfing its raison d'être. There is a great deal more still to come. Japanese tourists in Europe are likely to multiply tenfold between now and the end of the century. The other successful economies of the Pacific rim countries have hardly started yet.
I recommend to your Lordships a brilliant but sombre lecture delivered a few months ago by my noble friend Lord Norwich on this subject. I wish he was here today. How we are going to strike a balance between the rights of access and a generous internationalism on the one hand and some sense of aesthetic providence for the future on the other will be one of the most perplexing problems to be found as we move towards the turn of the 20th into the 21st century. No one wants to see Britain's and Europe's artistic heritage turned into a gigantic Caves of Lascaux. Yet I am perfectly sure that if it is all left to the free market to decide, more damage will be done in the last peaceful half of the 20th century than in all the wars of history put together.
I turn to our national treasures and their more immediate framework which is the subject of the motion of the noble Lord, Lord Blake. I wish to stress the importance of treasures not merely being preserved but remaining where they belong, by reason either of origin or of long association. This is true of the Mappa Mundi. Hereford is a much better place for it than the British Library would be. It is pre-eminently true of great collections which belong to universities and which should be anchored to their intellectual life. Apart from anything else, if gifts are turned into anonymous and fast disappearing cash, they are much less likely to be made in the future.
However, there is a deeper reason than that. Judged by the four converging criteria of the quality of its collection, the beauty of its surroundings, the strength of its tradition, and the intensity of its use, the Bodleian is probably the greatest library in the world. But its position at the core of the university of Oxford is essential to that pre-eminence. My heart temporarily sank one day in October when I was in New York and read a letter in the New York Times which started by saying that if Oxford was in need of money it should start by selling the contents of the Bodleian. But I underestimated the sophistication of the writer of the correspondence in the New York Times. It is the British disease, underestimating the sophistication of the Americans. The letter was a spoof, as became clear when it went on to advocate every possible monstrosity, from building a hotel in Tom Quad to selling degrees and consequently turning the redundant Examination Schools into a theme park. It was a strong attack on salvation through selling off.
The other great feature of our British inheritance is the country houses with their contents and collections. France has at least as many châteaux, but wars and revolutions and the dividing effect of the Napoleonic Code have dispersed their contents. So it is the house with its contents that is the unique British characteristic. I was interested to read the other day that, at the National Trust annual general meeting 54 years ago, the Marquess of Lothian, who died as ambassador to Washington in 1940, summed up the
1372
fears of the time by saying that unless positive action was taken:
"the big houses … would be stripped of their contents, the roofs will be taken off to escape rates, the gardens will run down to weeds, and the parks will become the prey of the speculative builder".
Perhaps at this stage I may be permitted to say that while I have exceptional opportunities to be made familiar with the National Trust records, I must claim in the interests of sex equality that nothing I say today should be taken by the Department of the Environment or anyone else as having the imprint of higher National Trust authority. My views may be:
"a poor thing but mine own".
The interesting thing is that most of Philip Lothian's fears of 1934 have receded. Thanks to a great deal of effort and a changing (and in this respect improving) economic climate, the fabric, the gardens, and even the parks of most big houses are reasonably safe. However, that does not apply to the contents in situ and they are crucial. One has only to look at the splendour of Kedleston, where the furniture was made for the house at exactly the same time as the house was built—the owners have had a hard struggle to keep the contents together—to realise the importance of the contents.
It is often said that the living presence of the family adds to the atmosphere and interest of a house. That, in general, I endorse. But the presence of the contents is even more vital than that of the relations. Family photographs on a fine sofa table are not much good if the table has gone. It is a feature of the paradox of modern economic developments that they have made it easier to preserve the fabric, but they have also greatly increased the temptation to sell the contents.
Where the house is sold to one of Mr. Ridley's new millionaires, which he now seems to regard as the solution to almost everything, the temptation becomes almost unbearable. I think in that context of Littlecote and Heveningham. Heveningham, in spite of what my noble friend Lord Wyatt said, has had a history over the past 15 years or so of almost unmitigated disaster. However, I do not know what the situation is at present there. I have a particular interest in Heveningham because on Christmas Day 19 years ago I woke up in a benign mood after a short postprandial speech and decided, as the Chancellor, even in the austere financial circumstances of that time, to authorise that the house should be bought for the nation. A few years later, however, it was sold and I regret to say that its history of unmitigated disaster then set in.
There are somewhat different problems currently associated with houses of great note and with great collections such as Mereworth, Daylesford, and Avebury, which has problems at the moment. I simply do not believe that the major problem of the dispersal of contents can be contained, let alone solved, by Mr. Ridley's chosen solution of the anciens pauvres selling as quickly as they can to the nouveaux riches. Nor do I believe that his somewhat sharp jibes against great national institutions like the National Heritage Memorial Fund, and indeed the National Trust, help in this direction. I believe that our need for these great national institutions becomes greater not less. I endorse nearly everything that the noble Lord, Lord Blake, said about the specific measures in

1373
regard to contents and exports thereof, although I have never been attracted by a ban on exports as such.
I think it would be a pity if the United States were a cultural desert as regards pre-1800 art. One cannot look at the collections of art in this country which are not indigenous to the Britannic Isles without thinking that a degree of cross-frontier movement is a good and reasonable thing. But, as in all matters, a sense of proportion is crucially important. 1 read the other day that in an exhibition assembled in America of 17th century portraits, of 83 major portraits 57 had been in British collections and had been dispersed from them in the period following the Second World War. That, it seems to me, is a matter of some concern.
It is a question not of an absolute ban, but of a government acting in such a way that by fostering the ability to keep things here we do not need to use undesirable and restrictive bans on exports. But there is a great deal still to be done here, and there is a great deal of responsibility which rests on the great national institutions which need fostering and not slight mockery by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
3.37 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester: My Lords, I am grateful, as we all are, to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for introducing this subject to us this afternoon. I am particularly grateful for this debate as chairman of the group which prepared the Cathedrals Measure, to which the noble Lord referred and which is now before the General Synod. Therefore, I am grateful to have the opportunity of speaking to your Lordships about that Measure and about some other legislation which will follow it.
But first I just observe that most cathedrals are not at present wholly without external control. The statutes of most cathedrals provide that objects of importance may not be alienated without the consent of the visitor who, in most cases, is the bishop of the diocese. I am not in a position to say how far that applies to Hereford, but that is certainly the case in my own cathedral, and I know that it is also the case in a number of others.
I wish to make one general observation which is not conlined to ecclesiastical buildings. Historic churches are places of living worship and mission, just as historic houses are for the most part places in which people live and work. There is therefore in relation to them always a balance to be maintained, that is a balance between conservation and development. These places are not comparable to the great Egyptian Temples or the palace at Knossos. They are buildings in use which have developed and grown over the centuries, and which subject to proper control should be allowed still to grow and develop. That would apply to many of the Oxford and Cambridge colleges, as much as to historic houses and cathedrals. I shall return to that point later on.
The Cathedrals Measure has already received general approval from the Synod and it is now being considered for revision. When that stage is completed, it will have to go to the Synod for final
1374
approval before it comes to the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament, and then to your Lordships' House and to the other place.
The Measure provides a more extensive and, if I may use the word, professional external control over deans and chapters in respect of works which would materially affect the architectural, archaeological, artistic or historic character of the cathedral. It would also control the sale or other disposal of any object of architectural, archaeological, artiste or historic interest, the property of which is vested in the dean and chapter (which would, of course, cover the Mappa Mundi) and the permanent addition of any object which would similarly affect the character of the cathedral.
There are to be two permanent bodies to exercise that control. One is a central body to be called the Cathedrals Fabric Commission containing a chairman, vice chairman and 20 members the majority of whom will be appointed after consultation with such bodies as the RIBA and the Royal Fine Arts Commission. It will have a wide advisory function similar to that of the present Cathedrals Advisory Commission. Its specific approval will be required for works which would permanently alter the fabric of the cathedral, for the demolition of any part of it or the disturbance of archaeological remains below it.
The Cathedrals Fabric Commission will work in close association with the other permanent body, which is a local fabric advisory committee. There will be one for each cathedral. The committees will each consist of seven members, three appointed directly by the commission, three appointed by the dean and chapter after consultation with the commission, and one appointed by the commission on the nomination of the local planning authority.
On most ordinary matters falling under the description which I quoted earlier the approval of the local fabric advisory committee will be sufficient. However, certain matters are, as I have indicated, reserved to the central commission. It is also provided that one-third of the members of a fabric advisory committee may require any particular matter to be referred to the commission.
There is a right of appeal by the dean and chapter against any refusal of permission by the commission. Such an appeal is to be heard by a commission of review consisting of the Dean of the Arches or a legal substitute appointed by him; a person appointed by the archbishops who is or has been a dean, provost or residentiary canon; and a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment. There is therefore a balance in that appeal body.
That is a summary of the proposals as they stand at the moment. I hope very much that I may be able to introduce them into your Lordships' House later in this Session as a Measure to be approved. I also hope that I have made it clear that the Church is honouring the undertakings it has given in this matter.
We are also involved in two other pieces of legislation which will come before your Lordships in due course. One is a revision of the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure and certain related measures

1375
along the lines proposed by the Commission on the Care of Churches and Cathedrals, over which I have the honour to preside. That proposal was referred to with approval by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in his statement on behalf of the Secretary of State about the continuance of the ecclesiatical exemption.
The other Measure, which will be short but tricky, will provide a procedure for enforcement of both the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure and the Cathedrals Measure. I say "tricky" because appropriate and effective penalties are not altogether easy to find in that area. We have the warning of the way in which the sending to prison of four clergymen in the last century rendered null and void the operation of the Public Worship Regulation Act. We have to avoid any comparable situation.
Having I hope reassured your Lordships that the Church is taking those matters very seriously so far as concerns its buildings and their contents, I should like to turn for a few moments to the point of balance of interests which I made at the beginning. I do so because I have become aware, particularly over the past two or three years, of a growing resentment (I think that that is not too strong a word) about the activities of certain of the conservation bodies. I have no desire to make any general criticism of those bodies. While English Heritage is enormously valued for its advice and assistance there appears to be a growing tendency to treat listed buildings as fossils which can in no circumstances be touched.
Enough instances of that approach have been brought to my attention for me to write to two friends of mine who are QCs versed and particularly active in the planning law. I asked them whether that was also their impression. Both replied that it was. The kind of words that they used in replying to me were "pedantic", "impracticable", and "inflexible". As I say, I intend no general criticism but I think that that matter should be taken very seriously if the right balance between conservation and use is to be maintained.
Incidentally, while mentioning central bodies I should like to pay tribute to the enormous help that we have had from the officers of the Department of the Environment in preparing and working out the various measures.
The matter of balance is, I think, fundamental to their operation. Some understanding between those who are especially concerned about conservation and those who have the responsibility of running great churches or living in and maintaining historic houses is vital. Such confidence and trust will depend on the acknowledgment that there must be a reasonable balance of interests. It is because I know that a number of people feel that that balance is being upset in the conservation direction that I make that particular point. I fear that if the balance is not maintained it will in the end lead to a reaction which would cause damage to those buildings such as I am sure all of us would greatly regret.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, all of your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, not only
1376
for giving us the opportunity of discussing this fascinating and important matter but also for the masterly way in which he introduced the debate.
Of course I find myself in agreement with everything that he said. The only gloss that I would put upon it, and I hope that it is not irrelevant, is that if I were unfortunately confronted with the stark choice of retaining the Mappa Mundi or of allowing the cathedral to fall into disrepair, I would dispose of the Mappa Mundi and make sure that the cathedral was maintained. But I agree with him that that choice does not present itself in most cases.
I cannot speak with any knowledge of Hereford Cathedral, but from limited involvement with a fairly recent appeal for Ely Cathedral I am quite satisfied that while it is very hard work raising £2 million or £3 million it is well within the capabilities of people of goodwill connected with any great building of that kind.
I am also most grateful to the noble Lord—whom I hope I may call my noble friend—Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I am in complete agreement with all that he said, which is perhaps not entirely surprising. I should like to emphasise three points in particular. The first is the value of country houses, and that I suggest should include the lesser country houses, not just those of great national importance. Those are houses which are lived in by families who often have lived there for many generations and who regard the house as their home. They are able to maintain and indeed embellish it with suitable pieces of furniture, pictures and other items. They are also—and this is an important point—able to maintain the grounds.
I also agree about maintaining a liberal attitude toward the export of works of art. It must be remembered that had Italy, France and other countries taken up in the 18th century what one can only call a chauvinistic attitude toward their works of art, this country would today be the poorer. Without being unduly patronising, I feel that it is surely some part of our duty to other countries outside Europe which have been bereft of some of the great works of art that we admire so much not to deny them the opportunity of acquiring them again. I believe that we should pursue a liberal policy in this matter and retain only those works of art which have a very close connection with our history and culture.
The third point on which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, concerns what I think he described as the "God-made" historic monuments and works of art. They must not be forgotten when dealing with cathedrals, Bodleians, colleges and stately homes. They are part of our national heritage and must be preserved.
However, I ask noble Lords to come with me along a somewhat different path. Let us walk along the path that leads away from the fine houses and museums, the pictures, sculptures and manuscripts, and into the fields and woodlands of this country. The English countryside is one of our great national treasures, created over the centuries by a combination of good taste, loving care, a sense of permanence and simply the desire to leave in a state rather more lovely than it was when it was acquired whatever possession one may have be it broad acres or a small wood, a pond or a paddock.

1377
That sense of trusteeship of the countryside is a source of great pride and has created something which gives great joy to the people of this nation and the visitors who come to this country. I hope that I shall not be accused of being a philistine if I say that I believe that there are far more people who get pleasure—even if sometimes it is an unknowing and subconscious pleasure—out of their walks, and more frequently their drives, through the English countryside than there are who get pleasure from visiting museums and cathedrals, although there are those who get pleasure from both. However, the numbers of people who appreciate and, without necessarily understanding it, enjoy the countryside are far greater than the sum of all those who go to our great museums and cathedrals.
But the countryside is now in jeopardy and has been in danger for many decades. The countryside, which is of such importance to us, is of equal and perhaps more importance to its other inhabitants. I do not mean the human beings who live there but the wildlife which inhabits it. Those of us who travel abroad—and most of your Lordships do—are impressed by the absence of birdsong and visible wildlife as they walk or drive through parts of France, Italy or Germany. When we return to this country we rejoice in the thrushes, linnets and larks which sing to us. We take them for granted. While, I am happy to say, not many of them are technically considered as endangered species, they are under continual threat. As a retired farmer I see that they are under threat from modern farming methods and from urban and suburban expansion. They are under threat from the growth of motorways, airports and everything that accompanies the economic and social life of this country. I believe that we must pay far more aattention than we do now or have done in the past to the conservation of that historic treasure in particular which is the countryside and its inhabitants.
That is not in any way to denigrate the valiant efforts of the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council and many other bodies and groups—most of which are voluntary but some of which are government-financed or aided. Nor must we undervalue the interest of the Government themselves in these matters. There are plenty of people who are concerned. Much money is spent on the countryside, but if we are to save for future generations this particular form of historic treasure. we must be prepared to spend even more money than we do now.
As many noble Lords will know, there is an admirable body which is called the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group. I am not sure that I have its name absolutely correct; it is known as FWAG, and I can rarely remember what those letters stand for. It gives advice to farmers and landowners on this matter, and to some extent is supported directly or indirectly by government funds. It is also supported by industry, and by the farmers and landowners themselves. The work of this group needs to be extended far more than it is at present. That means putting in far more money. I hope that I am not being over-optimistic; but I believe that, if a proper and urgent approach were made to some of the big concerns which make considerable profits not only
1378
out of the agricultural industry but also out of the food industry as a whole most—of them are public spirited and we know of many of their beneficent donations to the arts and such—they would increase their present contributions, and some which have not given anything may be prepared to do so. The likelihood of this happening would be far greater if there were a serious government undertaking to match pound for pound the amount that is raised.
However it is done, I urge your Lordships not to confine their views about historic monuments, buildings and treasures simply to bricks and mortar and stone and stained glass, but to realise that there are these other matters that we are too inclined to take for granted. A small minority is today making an effort to conserve them. Yet more effort needs to be expended in order to ensure that our children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy them as we have done.
4 p.m.
Viscount Daventry: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Blake for initiating this debate and for giving me the opportunity of addressing your Lordships' House for the first time. I am conscious in doing so that it is customary to be as noncontroversial as possible, and although the preservation of our historical and architectural heritage has from time to time become a matter of controversy I have endeavoured to concentrate on a noncontroversial aspect of the subject. I would therefore beg your Lordships' indulgence.
An aspect of the country's architecture that is relatively new is the public confession by architects of what would have been sin and heresy some 20 years ago; namely, their faith in the value and importance of historical architecture. This, I think, was manifested in the autumn exhibition of 1987 at the Building Centre in Store Street, entitled Real Architecture, and in the accompanying catalogue which has drawn world-wide attention, both nationally and internationally.
That the public approves this change of heart is evident in the buildings that have been erected recently at Richmond-on-Thames to the designs of Quinlan Terry, which were opened by Her Majesty the Queen in October, as well as in the widespread support His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has found for the occasional criticisms he has offered of proposals affecting buildings of national importance.
An awakening of the national conscience to our architectural heritage has plainly occurred. Your Lordships—so representative of the national heritage in other respects—will be needful to comprehend the phenomenon and find a voice for the national concern which so obviously exists.
I wish to draw the attention of noble Lords to the plight of the historic house in relation to taxation. At first noble Lords may think there is little need to do so. They will cite the great exhibition held in Washington three years ago, the Treasure Houses of Britain, and a flood of publications since then as evidence of sufficient public attention.
Noble Lords will point to the work of the National Trust and other bodies, and to the saving of Belton,

1379
Calke Abbey and Kedleston as evidence of the effectiveness of current legislation. I will be the first to join your Lordships in agreement and gratitude for these initiatives.
However, 1 would respectfully remind noble Lords that considerable problems still exist. Taxation and inflation have over the years taken their toll, and now falling agricultural incomes and the continued imposition of value added tax on repairs and maintenance at a time of soaring costs have combined to put an unreasonable burden on those who are entrusted with the maintenance of these properties. It seems utterly inequitable that someone who extends his property should be exempt from VAT, whereas should he repair his roof or carry out some structural repairs to his house he would not be so exempted.
I cannot but remember the conversation that James Boswell records with Samuel Johnson when they viewed Kedleston in 1777. "One must think," said Boswell, "that the proprietor of all this must be happy". Johnson replied, "Nay, sir, all this excludes but one evil—poverty". How bitterly ironic it is that time, changes in the national economy, and above all repeated taxation, sometimes punitive, have enabled us to deny and indeed completely reverse the doctor's assurance. Poverty is now the one evil that we may infallibly associate with so many of our country houses.
Larger houses, such as Calke Abbey and Kedleston, will awaken the machinery of our Government to effective action to relieve their poverty and its consequences to the building and collection. But I speak to noble Lords particularly of the plight of houses of the middle size, those that do not hold the foreground or attract the highlights of the composition, but form the indispensable threads of the rich tapestry of our national heritage.
Perhaps at this stage I ought to declare an interest as for the past 38 years I have been the tenant for life and therefore responsible for the preservation and restoration of an 18th century grade I middle-size house which is of considerable architectural importance. Individually these medium-size houses cannot hope to marshal the national concern and government action that their more prominent cousins can. However, I submit that since our cousins thankfully enjoy the benefits of effective legislation it is time to look closely to ways to relieve the burden of taxation upon owners of the houses of lesser prominence.
I would remind noble Lords of the words of the late Lord Clark:
"We belong to our possessions rather than our possessions belong to us. To us they are not wealth but heirlooms over which we have a sacred trust".
With these words I concur heartily but would add that the burden of capital taxes inevitably leads to repeated sales of heirlooms from country houses to provide for the survival of the house itself. This cannot be the intention of the taxation legislation but it is the effect: in brief, a progressive impoverishment of the house and of its owner and thereby of the architectural heritage of this nation.
1380
That rich tapestry to which I have referred will become a surface of foreground and highlights, a disembodied ghost without body or soul to support it, unless attention is given as a matter of priority to the country houses of the middle size which form its substance. For the architectural student of the present and the future, for the citizen of this country, such a ghost will be, as ghosts tend to be, totally inexplicable. He and she will seek an understanding of the substance of the tapestry—the ground out of which rose the foreground and highlights of architecture that make this country great among nations. The substance is the country house of the middle size which has not to date attracted sufficient effective measures for the relief from the burden of taxation.
To sum up, while we must all be immensely grateful to English Heritage for the help and assistance it gives to historic buildings, I submit that further urgent steps must be taken to satisfy the national conscience, and in particular to halt the impoverishment of the smaller country house.
4.10 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, on behalf of the House, it falls to me to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Daventry, on his excellent and informative maiden speech. It was not controversial but it put forward points with which we would all agree, many of them original in thought. He spoke of the importance of architecture and of smaller houses. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to hear from the noble Viscount more often, because it is two years since he first had the opportunity of addressing your Lordships' House.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I should first like to put to the noble Earl a question of which I have given notice. It relates to but is not the subject of the debate. Over two years ago the Government undertook to make a study of the laws of treasure trove, taking into account the modern means of finding treasures, such as metal detecting, and so forth. They recognised the fact that there is an ever-increasing interest in archaeology. I know that a working party has since been considering the matter and I realise that it is a difficult subject because many interests are concerned. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell the House that a report will be published in the near future, because it is of the greatest importance that we preserve our treasures.
The working party was set up as a result of the discovery of that great treasure, the Middleham Jewel. Can the noble Earl tell the House what has happened to the jewel? Is it still in private hands in this country? I hope so, because its loss would be almost a national tragedy.
I should like to concentrate on the preservation of treasures by our national museums. Two important reports have recently been published, one by the National Audit Office and the other by the powerful Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons. They have rightly drawn attention to the

1381
ever-deteriorating conditions of many of the treasures which can be found in the museums.
First things first. It is the museums which are in a had and lamentable condition and in danger of deteriorating still further. I stress most strongly that until they are put in proper order one cannot expect them to do what they want to do: that is, to conserve and restore the items which are mouldering underground and even on the shelves and display cabinets. If we do not put the museums in order we are putting the cart before the horse.
I should like to cite the Victoria and Albert Museum as an example. It holds so many and varied of our nation's treasures. The museum has leaking roofs in urgent need of repair. That is a huge task and it is very expensive. The working conditions for the staff are a disgrace and no private institution would tolerate them or expect its staff to work under such conditions. The plumbing is inadequate and the pipes burst. The storage space is a joke. The museum has been forced to consider placing some of its files, and so forth, in the corridors. That can no longer be done because, quite rightly, fire officers have said, "You must unclutter those corridors. Take those things out and install at once a public address warning system for fire".
Where are they to put the equipment'? Everyone will agree that a public warning system is essential. Indeed, it is important to note that there are no smoke detectors in the national museums and certainly not in the Victoria and Albert Museum. Can we dare to risk not having such an installation to protect against fire? It is disastrous not to do so, but where is the money to come from?
Earlier in the year representatives of five national galleries in London made a special visit to the Treasury appealing for help in order to remedy past neglect. The resulting help was small, if anything. I was suprised recently to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, tell the House with satisfaction—though I may be wrong —of the increase in grants for museums over the next four years. She said that they were to be increased from £150 million to £170 million. That is no increase. Taking into account the rate of inflation it is a decrease, and the squeeze appears to be continuing.
What is to be done? Do the Government expect the public to remedy the unglamorous affair? It is unglamorous and it is the fault of all governments since the war—I stress "all governments"—that museums are in their present state. The public should not be asked to bail out the Government in this respect. The public can be asked for help to erect new buildings; to provide better display facilities for our treasures; to sponsor exhibitions; and, dare I suggest it, for help in acquiring new objects. But this is not a case for public appeal. It must be financed by the Government. If in addition the museums impose charges as the noble Lord, Lord Blake, advocated—and I am in total agreement—so be it.
Only after the museums have been put in good order can they begin to meet the demands of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee for better conservation and preservation of the mouldering objects in them. Some people
1382
blame the museums for the state of affairs. They believe that the museums should be able to help themselves by selling objects, for example. I shall not argue in detail why that would be a tragic and mistaken policy; I merely say that at best it can yield only minimal amounts of money. One must think of the effect it would have on the donors who, over the years, have done the most to build up the treasures now in our national museums and galleries.
What is to be done? I personally think—and I hope that this will appeal to your Lordships—that there should be a once-and-for-all gift by the Government to be allocated, say, over five years through the offices of museums and galleries, in combination with the museums themselves, which is not related to the ordinary running expenses or the ordinary grants but is solely to put the museums in a state which they ought to be in and which they cannot get to at the present time. Such a gift would have to cover not only the national museums in London. It would have to cover those of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Earlier in the year the Government tried to gain for this country the great Thyssen collections; but they failed. But that showed that they did care about the visual arts. At that time it was rumoured that they would put up a figure of £100 million for the acquisition of the Thyssen collections If instead of that endeavour (which failed) the Government would give the £100 million to restore the museum buildings, and perhaps even more important their interiors, where devoted staffs have to work, I am sure that not only the staffs but the visitors—and remember, my Lords, that there are millions of visitors to these museums—would all rejoice, and it would show that this Government really care for the visual arts. I stress that it must be a once-and-for-all gift to put right the shameful neglect of the past.
France knows the pulling power of the visual arts. Recently they have changed the Gare d'Orsay into the Musee d'Orsay. They have also put up in the courtyard of the Louvre the Pei pyramid. Russia knows only too well the importance of its great palaces and the preservation of its great treasures and churches. Tourists will make a special pilgrimage to see such things, and that is important particularly with the present trouble over our balance of payments. Can we afford not to go down the path of improving the museums and their treasures? Can we afford to leave things as they are, mouldering and ever lower in standard? I beg the Government to consider making a noble and generous gesture at this the beginning of Museums Year in 1989.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, over the past 20 years there have been many debates in your Lordships' House on historic houses, and I believe that I have taken part in most of them—atone time as president of the Historic Houses Association, and today I must declare my interest as chairman of English Heritage. I think that the debate which noble Lords will remember best is that dramatic one in March 1977 when the party opposite was trying to find a solution to saving Mentmore. I am sorry that

1383
the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who shouldered that responsibility is not present this afternoon.
Peers taking part in that debate were generally gloomy about the future, and indeed the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who opened the debate, expressed the opinion that the combination of capital and income tax plus inflation would bring about the demise of houses in private ownership within a matter of a generation or so. Looking down the list of speakers then and today, I feel a certain déjà vu; for one of the most welcome things about the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Blake, today is that it provides us with an opportunity to review progress over the past 10 years since that Mentmore debacle. It was indeed an important catalyst, and I believe that the longer-term consequences have been more beneficial.
The situation today is dramatically different. First, the National Heritage Memorial Fund was created; and that has helped preserve several major houses and their contents. Furthermore, there has been a significant step forward in public awareness of the importance of preserving historic buildings and their contents; and indeed a welcome response from government to make the necessary legislative and fiscal changes to achieve this. In particular, the economic climate which now exists has given the owners of historic houses new confidence in their future ability to preserve them and to go on living in them, for they are without doubt the best unpaid curators of all.
Several developments have enabled more families to retain and restore their homes. I shall mention first the progressive creation of a favourable tax treatment of heritage property. The replacement of death duties by an inheritance tax has given owners the opportunity to plan ahead on the basis of the seven-year rule in order to help secure succession which is so important. There has also been the recent major reduction in the burden of personal taxation of income and capital. Finally there are proven examples of growing opportunities for earning revenue by opening historic buildings to the public, as well as the possibility of public grants in cases of need. The economic recovery is producing, as have earlier periods of prosperity in our history, new families able and willing to assume the burden of maintaining important historic houses. So do not let us knock them. They are following a fine British tradition.
If the future of historic houses now looks more secure, threats to individual buildings are still likely to arise from time to time which will not always be soluble by the private sector or the National Trust on its own. Undoubtedly some houses are too big or expensive for private owners to maintain, or their interiors and contents may be too important and fragile to permit full beneficial use by the owner.
I believe that I can speak this afternoon for the National Trust as well as for English Heritage when I say that neither is acquisitive as regards increasing our portfolio of historic houses. We have our hands full with our existing properties. But there are, and will continue to be, occasions when we and other agencies will judge it imperative to intervene as a last
1384
resort. In the happier circumstances now facing historic houses I am confident that such occasions will be rare, but they will be all the more important when they occur.
The noble Lord, Lord Blake, referred to the suggestion recently made by the Secretary of State that English Heritage should see whether there are any properties which they could sell. May I make the position clear? We have a large and varied portfolio of some 400 houses and sites. It is not finite or complete, nor will it ever be. It is right that it should be reviewed from time to time. That we are doing now. It will be done with great care.
Your Lordships must remember the many properties we have taken in guardianship from families where they no longer thought they could keep them up; but only fairly recently we have been able to hand one—Farley Hungerford—back to the original owners. Other opportunities may well occur. But when they do, I assure noble Lords that strict conditions will be exacted to ensure future correct maintenance and continued public access.
The situation of many historic buildings other than great houses has also improved. One thinks of historic railway stations, dock buildings, mills and warehouses. Happily, recent years have seen a growing awareness of re-use possibilities. Many are now being adapted for alternative use which is often the best guarantee of preservation. This trend is reflected in the fact that in 1970 approximately 400 listed buildings were demolished, but by 1987 the figure had fallen to about 140.
At the same time statutory protection has been extended to nearly half a million historic buildings by a major re-survey of such buildings. Many Victorian and vernacular buildings are now protected and we are grateful that the Government have now agreed to start the listing of post-war buildings. Also in the past 20 years over 6,000 conservation areas have been designated, which are the most popular of our planning systems, helping to maintain and enhance the traditional character of a neighbourhood.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester suggested that the listed buildings legislation was pedantic, inflexible and impracticable. I totally deny those charges.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester: My Lords, if I may intervene, I did not say that the legislation was any of those things. I said that those were words used by correspondents to me about the people who dealt with applications and about the way in which they were being responded to.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, that is the impression that I had, but I apologise to the right reverend Prelate. However, I must totally deny those charges because I think noble Lords must be aware that thousands of listed building consents are given every week without any delay, and only a tiny proportion raise important issues which have to be discussed. More often than not, discussions with architects can solve the problems and I can certainly point to hundreds of witnesses who will vouch for that and testify that we are very flexible.

1385
We at English Heritage are responsible to Parliament, as guardians on behalf of you all, for protecting the integrity of our historic buildings. We must do our duty without fear or favour. Without listing, which is a system envied the world over, the condition of our towns and villages today would be very much poorer. However, we wait with growing impatience for the Church of England to honour its side of the bargain in regard to ecclesiastic exemption, after years of government grants given without condition.
English Heritage has also made its own distinctive contribution by compiling a register of important historic parks and gardens. While no special protective measures apply to gardens, we believe they are beginning to have a very beneficial effect on planning decisions. Generally speaking, I believe that the protection and conservation of historic buildings have made great strides in recent years. This owes much to the support of all political parties, and particularly to the readiness of successive governments to provide resources and administrative time. That will certainly continue, but the situation is undoubtedly more secure now than it was years ago.
Perhaps I could gaze for a moment in the crystal ball and outline some concerns that I have about the future. Although economic prosperity is helping to secure the future of many historic buildings and areas, the intense pressures of new development pose threats. We at English Heritage are particularly concerned about the threats resulting from new retail development in the centres of our historic towns. In some areas there is pressure to adapt historic buildings in a way which threatens their integrity and historic value.
Prosperity can also lead to over-restoration by zealous owners, which can be as damaging as neglect. These threats point to the need for local authorities to adopt positive planning policies, including local plans which contain clear conservation policies, aligned to sensible provision for economic growth. I welcome the helpful remarks which the Secretary of State for the Environment made in his speech to this year's Conservative Party conference about local planning.
Secondly, I also see a need to concentrate more effort on certain problem categories of historic buildings which the market is not resolving. I will mention two groups in particular. First, some historic buildings reach a stage of decay where collapse or demolition is inevitable without outside intervention. Usually the market, quite naturally, is unwilling to take them on. English Heritage is able to allocate some grants to assist with the acquisition of such buildings, and a change of ownership will often unlock new investment. We are indeed encouraging local planning authorities to make surveys to identify their historic buildings which are most at risk and to assist them to make such houses safe and waterproof in order to gain time for long-term solutions to be found.
I am happy to announce this afternoon that my commissioners this morning agreed that we should extend our Section 10 grant scheme to assist those buildings most at risk in all conservation areas
1386
throughout England. This will run from April next year and we shall be announcing full details in February.
Also, historic buildings will remain vulnerable if there is no obvious beneficial use for them, such as old farm buildings; the first examples of certain 19th century manufacturing plant which ought to be preserved intact; redundant churches and chapels whose interiors are too important to be sub-divided for re-use; and some garden monuments. Although English Heritage and charitable trusts can help in grant-aiding repairs to such buildings, I foresee a growing problem about securing the long-term running costs. I fear there is a limit to how many can be turned into museums, concert halls or community centres.
The Motion today refers to treasures, and obviously the Mappa Mundi has been mentioned. However, this is an example of a wider problem which seems likely to loom larger in future. This refers to the best way of ensuring that the historically associated contents are retained in situ. The National Heritage Memorial Fund helped over Kedleston and Calke Abbey, but on the other hand it looks as if the state rooms at Thoresby will lose their fittings and contents, and Brodsworth's future is in the balance. Other threats seem bound to occur from time to time.
Since the war, as your Lordships know well, tourism has been the life-saving blood transfusion for many historic buildings. However, 1 must warn owners that such buildings are no longer the prime day-out attraction for the British public that they were some years ago. They now face increasing competition from purpose-designed leisure attractions, be they theme parks or sports centres. Owners must learn to present and market their properties better because they have to compete with an increasing number of large commercial companies attracted into the leisure business with large commercial advertising budgets. The going is going to get tougher. The tourist cake, magnificently large thanks to the efforts of the BTA and the tourist boards, is not growing fast enough to allow everybody who wants a slice of it a big enough piece.
Therefore in the future I can foresee a more insidious development: the gradual erosion of the contents—and not only the contents—of historic buildings which is made necessary as the owners feel pressure upon them to begin to sell essential architectural features such as statuary and garden ornaments. I agree with the noble Lord., Lord Blake, that perhaps the time is ripe to list such features. Without a doubt, there is a case for saying that such things as these could be listed and should not be moved without careful consideration. However, one has also to recognise that in certain circumstances the totality of certain buildings will be preserved only by some degree of government support, again perhaps as a last resort.
The problem is that there will not be enough money to meet every eventuality, and I must say today that we at English Heritage will have to select with increasing care which buildings we help. Owners can no longer assume that grants, even for outstanding buildings, are automatic. The owners'

1387
ability to pay will come under increasing scrutiny, because we know that there are many other historic buildings in England, in city centres and in the countryside, and also small country houses, which in the past appear not to have received the same attention and grants as the great houses. Surely these deserve help too, as they make up the totality of our national collection of buildings of architectural importance.
The question of the continuing maintenance of the fabric is not only a question of money. What I think will become increasingly scarce and expensive in the future will be the necessary skilled craftsmen to carry out specialised work. I should like to suggest that English Heritage, the National Trust and the Historic Houses Association should pay special attention to what we have done to assist in training more skilled stone masons and so on. The achievements of the conservers of Britain's historic buildings since the war are envied throughout the world, and have come about by a partnership between the state and the private owner.
Many important battles have been won but I see some clouds on the horizon, and further sacrifices will have to be made to ensure that the house and the contents are handed down to future generations. I strongly support the Secretary of State's strong opinion that enabling private owners to stay in their houses is the best solution of all. But above all we must watch the continuity of our succession. We must involve our children in the thinking and planning, for without their interest and dedication there will be no future.
I have mentioned a number of tasks and problems which remain to be tackled. This implies no criticism of the progress that has been made in recent years. It has been tremendous. But expectations and needs change, and it is only realistic to recognise that further challenges face owners, voluntary bodies and public agencies. However, with their co-operation and with the continued support and backing of the Government, I have no doubt that these challenges will be successfully met.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Cottesloe: My Lord, we must be very grateful to my noble friend Lord Blake for raising this subject, for the violent inflation of the current era, in which important works of art can fetch not merely millions of pounds but tens of millions of pounds in the saleroom, has revolutionised the whole picture of the maintenance of our national treasures. I should like to say also with what great pleasure I listened to the noble Viscount, Lord Daventry, in his maiden speech. I hope that he may build on it and that we shall hear him often in the future.
Historic buildings of one kind and another are dealt with by Lord Montagu's historic buildings fund and English Heritage, and no one who has heard him will doubt that they deal with them admirably. The only question is one of sufficient funding for their adequate maintenance. I shall confine myself to works of art and to historic objects, the control over which I have had some experience with in the past.
1388
After the war a committee as set up under the chairmanship of that remarkable man, Viscount Waverley, to recommend a system for the control of our historic works of art and objects of national importance. It recommended the establishment of a small committee known as the reviewing committee to which applications for the export of such objects—works of exceptional aesthetic or historic importance—should be referred for advice to the Government.
That committee was enjoined not to follow the practice of some Continental nations—the French and the Italians, for example, who exercise a confiscatory practice by which such objects are prohibited from export without compensation—but it recommended that export of works adjudged to be of national importance should be prohibited only if an offer for purchase at a fair price was available for their retention in this country. In the years after the end of the last great war that committee was set up by the Government with Lord Robbins as chairman. After a few years I was appointed its chairman, and was chairman for 18 years.
During that time, a period of modest inflation, the system worked well and there was no instance of its breakdown and only one instance of evasion—the export on a fraudulent application of the only known portrait in his prime of Dr. William Harvey, who initiated research into the circulation of the blood. Although his name and age were clearly painted on the canvas the export application described it as a portrait of an unknown man by an unknown artist. It was bought by a Californian doctor who, as he had had his consultant training in this country at the Royal Postgraduate Medical School at Hammersmith, ought perhaps to have known better. After his death the portrait was bought back by the National Portrait Gallery, where it now is. That is by the way. The point for the present purpose is that the current astronomical inflation in the values of such historic works of art of national importance has virtually made this system of export control unworkable.
While I was concerned with the control many years ago I was advised that the Government, under the then existing legislation, had power to prohibit the export of any work adjudged to be of national importance without compensation and without even assigning a reason. Perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench could advise us whether such a power still exists. If it does, then I think there is a strong case now, in view of the current astronomical inflation in works of art, for its being brought into use in suitable cases.
There is one other thing that I hope the Government will consider; that is, the incidence of VAT. As VAT is now applied to the sale of such things in the home market but is not applied to export sales, the foreign purchaser has a substantial advantage in the salerooms against the purchaser for this country. This anomaly should be done away with. It is long overdue that it should be done away with. Perhaps my noble friend will tell the House that this will be carefully considered.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I first congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Daventry, on his maiden speech. It was excellent. Secondly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for having instituted this interesting debate. I have to take issue with him on one thing; that is, his figures about the funding of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. He has maligned the Government. They do not give us £2 million a year; they give us £3 million. This does not make it any less remarkable that we have managed to spend £102 million—the noble Lord was right there—in eight and a half years.
It is not, I may say, a matter of creative accountancy but it is the result of the unpredictable good sense and generosity of Her Majesty's Government, who every now and then have injected into our funds very agreeable sums of money; for instance, £25 million about four years ago (with which they asked us to look after the three great houses of Kedleston, Nostell Priory and Weston Park) and last year £20 million to last us for three years.
I rather enjoy this sort of hand-to-mouth business but others may find it a little difficult. At some stage the Government will have to grasp the nettle of our funding, but all is all right for the moment. If any noble Lords would like to see examples of how this £100 million of taxpayers' money has been spent, I recommend that they go to the British Museum, where they will find an exhibition entitled Treasures for the Nation. There your Lordships will see an example of what the fund has been able to do thanks to the trust and money that Her Majesty's Government have placed in it since it came into being in 1980.
The Government have done something else besides giving us what I think is adequate supply, and for this I give them the greatest praise. They have accepted that we do not just have so much money and that we have to spend it all, but we are entitled—indeed expected—to keep some of it as an endowment.
When we were founded in 1980, we were given £12.4 million. Nobody said whether that was capital, whether we were to spend it, what we should do with it. After we had been established for about three years we decided that we should have a fund that was not to be spent. It is now agreed by government that we have this fund. The sum of £12 million has been "upped" by inflation so that we now have a fund of £19 million. That is not touched unless there is an absolute guarantee that the money will be replaced. We are a memorial fund. We spend our money in memory of, and as an expression of gratitude to, those who were killed in two world wars. I believe that in doing what they have done, the Government have to some degree redeemed the past. Noble Lords will remember that the National Land Fund started with £50 million in 1946. In 1954 it was supposed to have £60 million and £50 million was clawed back—that is a hell of a way, I say, to treat a memorial fund. However, that is past history.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and other noble Lords have spoken about the great marvel of English country houses and their contents.
1390
I believe that the English country house together with its contents is probably the greatest contribution made by this country to civilisation. We have helped very many houses. With the money given by the Government we have been able in eight years to secure the future of Canons Ashby, Calke Abbey, Kedleston Hall, Weston Park, Nostell Priory, Fyrie Castle, Thirlestone Castle, the Hill House, Helensburgh, Castle Coole in Northern Ireland and lastly, a week ago, Paxton in Berwickshire which is an extraordinary house. When it was built it was entirely kitted out by Chippendale and even now the servants' bedrooms contain the pot-cupboards made by Chippendale. To safeguard it is a great thing to have done.
Looking back over the past eight and a half years during which I have had the honour to be chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, we have let hardly anything go because we have not had enough money. That is not a bad thing to be able to say. We have been well supplied by the Government. My concluding words are: keep it up.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it is a convention in debates such as this to begin by expressing gratitude to the mover. However, on this occasion, it is a great deal more than a formality. Your Lordships are much indebted to my noble friend Lord Blake for a speech of great erudition, weight and knowledge. My noble friend is to be congratulated for another reason. He has initiated a debate which, despite the handicap of its taking place on the eve of the Christmas Recess, has produced a long list of speakers and an excellent attendance. This is a debate well worth undertaking: it was given a most brilliant start by my noble friend.
My first involvement in the problem of public support for the arts came some 36 years ago when I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury. One morning an agitated official came to tell me that the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery had loaned property—a number of pictures—to government offices and had suddenly discovered they had no legal right so to do. The problem was complicated by the fact that 20 pictures were at No. 10 Downing Street, then occupied, as your Lordships will recall, by no less a person than the late Sir Winston Churchill. The official indicated to me that it was my duty to go round to No. 10 and inform Sir Winston that I was going to remove 20 pictures from the walls. Your Lordships will not be surprised that my response was that if anyone was going to do that, it had better be the official himself. That brought matters down to a commonsense basis. And, largely in order to relieve the consciences of the board of trustees, which had been dormant for a great number of years, we decided to legislate.
I persuaded my colleagues on the Legislation Committee that it would be an inoffensive, routine, quiet little Bill which it so proved in another place. However, in your Lordships' House all hell was let loose. My noble friend Lord Selkirk, who was responsible for taking it through the House, reminded me only yesterday of the appalling time he had when some of your Lordships suggested that if

1391
the pictures were loaned to government offices and embassies, then drunken attaches would throw arrows at them and they would be in great peril, even apparently at No. 10. However, your Lordships finally decided to pass the Bill. That was a vivid indication to me of the problems faced by government in relation to the arts.
Later, as Chief Secretary I was also Minister for the Arts. That was a rather convenient arrangement particularly as regards the arts. It meant that those putting a proposition had only to convince one—man—me—whereas under the present system they have to convince the Minister for the Arts who then has to convince the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. That is a longer and perhaps more difficult exercise. However, that was a preliminary education for me of the very real problems which arise. The debate this afternoon has vividly illustrated that.
The problem is that there is no figure capable of agreement for government provision in any particular year. Every element in the arts world naturally and understandably wants more and regards the government as mean. However, unlike other areas of public expenditure for—example, social security—there is no firm indication as to where one should draw the line. It is ultimately a matter of judgment. It is easy to say, as I believe my noble friend Loi d Blake said, that just a little more will make matters perfectly all right. One knows from experience that that little bit more will not make matters all right and that next year it will be said that a further addition is needed, even if, unlike the noble Earl, Lord Perth, one does not ask for £100 million.
This is a very difficult matter for government, probably one of the most difficult in the area of public expenditure. Having said that I come to the point about which I feel very strongly; that is, the importance of the country house and, in particular, as some noble Lords have already said, of the moderate sized country house. It is important that those houses should be preserved with their contents and with their occupants. A deserted house which is just a museum somehow loses character and heart and becomes bleak. One needs green "wellies" in the hall as well as old masters in the dining room. It must be a family home which is lived in. In that regard I believe that the Government have something to answer for. One of the major problems in the preservation of moderate sized country houses, perhaps more so than in the case of the great houses, is that inheritance tax is imposed on them on the death of the current owner.
I know that there are a certain number of limited concessions as regards particular articles and that they are subject to particular conditions, but it remains broadly true that inheritance tax is imposed on the death of the owner. Many cases have involved appeals, the Government and various organisations presided over by noble Lords. The cause of the trouble has been the imposition of a heavy inheritance tax. The result has been that the heir and successor in the house has been unable to keep it up, or he has required help to keep it up, or he may have had to dispose of it.
1392
I say to my noble friend that, given the very satisfactory present condition of the national finances and that we have a budget surplus overall, why is consideration not being given (perhaps it is) to exempting from the inheritance tax someone's principal home and residence, including the contents? Such provision would prevent a great many of the difficult cases that arise. Even in the cases of houses of less merit than those that we have been discussing, it would be very much in accordance with the Government's general philosophy of encouraging a nation of home owners.
There is a very good precedent for this. One's principal home and residence is not subject to capital gains tax; it is deliberately exempted. Surely that is a very good pointer as regards dealing with this problem by way of exempting someone's principal home and contents altogether from the inheritance tax. This would relieve a great many of the difficult cases with which all of your Lordships have been concerned from time to time. The financial approach that I have been making is highly relevant. In this context I always recall the words of the late and much-loved Ian Macleod, who once remarked that whereas money was, according to Holy Writ, the root of all evil, it was also the root of everything else. It is perfectly true that if one can give tax relief in this direction one would be resolving a great many of the problems in the country house context. I very much hope that my noble friend and his right honourable friends will consider this.
In the course of his admirable speech I thought that my noble friend Lord Blake was a little hard on the dean and chapter of Hereford Cathedral. I believe that he did not fully appreciate the position and the dilemma that they were in. Above all, they are responsible for maintaining the cathedral as a place for the worship of God, for conducting Christian services and for keeping the cathedral in order. That is their first duty. To them, the possession of such treasures as the Mappa Mundi and very real treasures of great interest surely must be secondary to the maintenance of the cathedral and its services.
If they are placed (as they plainly believe they have been) in a position of real financial difficulty in maintaining the cathedral—those of us who have seen the situations of other cathedrals know how much expensive work is required to be done on them—I believe that we will sympathise with them in taking their quite brave decision. They must have known that they would be subject to criticism for wanting to sell the treasure in order to maintain the cathedral, which is their first duty. If they can be relieved or helped in some other way I am sure that everyone will rejoice. I believe that my noble friend was a little unfair in criticising the dean and chapter, who are placed in a really difficult situation.
The only other matter to which I shall refer is one that has not been mentioned before. That is the role of private generosity in this area. I believe that we should all pay tribute to the Sainsbury family for the remarkable contribution that it has made towards the National Gallery, the Clore Foundation, and the great contributions which the family has made to the extension of the Tate. I believe that we should also pay tribute to Mr. J. Paul Getty, junior, for his

1393
massive contribution to the National Gallery. We should all welcome these contributions. We should encourage the very rich men in this country to do as they do in the United States; namely, put their private support to various aspects of the arts. That is not in any way to seek to evade the responsibilities of government, but it will certainly help and encourage them if private citizens of large means apply some of those means to the support of the arts.
As regards another matter that was mentioned, I see no reason why the museums and galleries of this country should not charge for admission, as is done pretty generally throughout other countries. They can and should make exemptions for children and disabled persons. I am sure that your Lordships would be sympathetic to the idea that they should do so for persons in receipt of a retirement pension. In general, there is really no reason why the great experience of visiting these museums and seeing the treasures should not be paid for by those who have that experience in exactly the same way as they are more than willing to pay for their other pleasures. In particular. I hope that when the British Museum and the National Gallery come forward with demands for further financial support they will at least have in mind that they can quite substantially increase their own revenues and ease their financial problems if they impose a reasonable charge of admission to the galleries.
Reverting once again to country houses, the Government can help by way of taxation and so also can those who inherit them. One knows of people who have felt unable to face the task of running a house and facing the financial difficulties. My own experience covers the time when the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, was involved. I should like to pay a sincere tribute to him for the way in which, after his father's death and faced with every kind of problem, he overcame these and was able to continue (and is still able to do so) occupying and maintaining his lovely home at Chatsworth. The fact that Chatsworth continues in this way is in my own direct knowledge due to the courage and the initiative of the noble Duke. I believe that his example is one that it would be very useful for other people to have in mind in similar situations or perhaps as regards smaller houses.
This debate has shown that your Lordships' House has a deep interest in these matters. It has shown a remarkable degree of agreement across the House. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take back the clear impression that if the Government feel able to improve in the various ways suggested the support that they give to the arts, they will have perhaps the completely unanimous support of your Lordships' House.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, must be added to by the fact that it has enabled the House to hear a number of your Lordships who have had, or who still have, particular responsibilities regarding the conservation of historic buildings and treasures, both ecclesiastical and secular. I believe that I am the first speaker who can claim no such expertise. Therefore I do not propose
1394
to follow previous speakers who have rightly concerned themselves largely with the ways in which our efforts in this field might be made even better, and the ways in which Government assistance, even though generous, might in some respects be added to. I would rather ask a different question. Why does it matter at all? What has the preservation of historic buildings and treasures done to deserve the attention of one branch of the legislature? Perhaps I may approach it in this way. Noble Lords who have at any stage studied history will be aware of series of textbooks in the titles of which the word "age" appears; The Age of Reform, The Age of Revolution. I wrote a rather good one, The Age of Absolutism, which delighted or burdened sixth forms for many years. When considering this debate I asked myself what a suitable title would be for the age in which we live, supposing that this fashion were to continue among the next generation. I came to the conclusion that the most likely candidate was the Age of Philistinism.
We live in a curiously philistine age even though, as the noble Viscount, Lord Daventry, reminded us, there is, at least in the architectural world, some evidence of stirrings against the idolisation of the brutal. Let us consider what happened in the House a week ago during the debate on broadcasting. We discussed a wholly philistine White Paper in terms which by and large were themselves wholly philistine. I do not recollect that a single noble Lord suggested that the only justification for the vast amount of money and ingenuity that has gone into the development of, first, radio and then television was that by these means the heritage of culture that we enjoy could be made more accessible to wider numbers of people than those who had the privilege of living in or visiting country houses or hearing good music or seeing great works of art.
It has happened to some extent. I am sure that radio has in part—perhaps in large part—been responsible for the great revival in musical interest in this country that has been so notable in recent decades. I am less convinced that television, despite some performances in that direction, has done anything like enough. The thought of endless choice between endless rubbish does not fill me with any great enthusiasm. Roughly, my view would be that on the whole, the discovery of radio broadcasting was an enormous benefit to mankind; the discovery of television was on the whole a disaster.
Let us now consider this debate in the light of what I call the Age of Philistinism. We have to confront the fact that there is a general tendency to decry the paramount importance of the great achievements of our culture and perhaps in particular of our national heritage. Over and over again, as we plodded through the Education Reform Bill last summer, one had the feeling that people had ruled out of their minds the view that the business of schools, and in particular of institutions of higher education, is in part—and in large part—to encourage reverence for and understanding of the great creative efforts of the human spirit. Though it is important that people should earn their living, and important that the country should be wealthy enough to support not only the monuments of the past but the creative

1395
efforts of the present, the creation of wealth is a means to a nobler end and not, as so often seemed to appear in those debates, an end in itself.
I should like to deal with one aspect which is closely related to what we are discussing today. I refer to the denigration in parts of the educational system of history, and in particular British history, as a necessary core subject in our schools. What has come out of the GCSE, which was once heralded as a possible rebirth for secondary education but now seems to be very far from that? What has come out of the GCSE in relation to history? Among certain people in the inspectorate, in the Department of Education and Science and in the teaching profession—what I call and have called before the education establishment—what was once thought to be important, what Secretaries of State such as the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, and Mr. Kenneth Baker have said to be of paramount importance, is in practice in danger of being ignored. Therefore one has to ask what we can do to make clear the evils that come from believing that history began yesterday, that the present or the future are the only things that matter, and that we can cope with the present and the future in ignorance of the past. This is where the preservation of buildings and treasures and the making of them more accessible and more understood by the younger generation is a matter worthy of the legislature's attention.
It is not at all clear that the repugnance to history, the view that what happened in 1066 or 1275 is old hat, is felt naturally by the young. If one notices the interest aroused by the Armada exhibition last summer, the extreme attention that is now paid to any new archaeological discovery and the protection of archaeology against the necessary and inevitable ravages of development, a matter on which we have not so far touched today, one can see that there is a great deal of public interest among the young and in the general population.
We are now in the process of re-discovering centuries of the history of this island. The whole period of Roman Britain and the Anglo-Saxon settlements is being rediscovered before our very eyes. The only volume in the Oxford History of England which has had to be wholly replaced by a new one since the first edition in the 1930s is the first volume in the series. This suggests that it is perfectly possible for educational purposes to make use of this unparalleled degree of preservation of the treasures of this country.
Perhaps I may return to the subject of broadcasting for a moment. I believe that too little has been made of the very considerable advantages which television has, for instance, in the demonstration of the point about archeology. It is much easier when something is explained on the screen—as the late Lord Clark did in relation to the architectural and artistic past of Europe—to gather what the importance of a discovery is, as compared with looking at something in a glass case in a museum.
I also believe—this was also touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and other noble Lords—that it is important to have a realisation of
1396
how these collections, whether private or public, came about. It is of course extremely difficult to define what is our national heritage. I always try to do my homework before your Lordships' debates, provided it does not mean reading Civil Service prose, and I went the other day to view the Wallace Collection. I wandered through the enormous array of treasures—accompanied only, I may say, by a gaggle of French school children. If one were to eliminate everything which is not of origin in these islands, it would look pretty bare.
Then, also in pursuit of knowledge, I went to see the current exhibition from the Royal treasures in the Queen's Gallery at Buckingham Palace. While there, incidentally, an American lady informed me that the Queen was so rich that she ought not to charge for admission to the gallery. I mention that point to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. She also thought that what was in the gallery represented the entire Royal collection, so perhaps she was not a very well-informed lady.
But there again there are one or two pictures derived from artists native to this country; but great artists have also lived in this country. We are the country in which Van Dyck, Lely, Handel and Canaletto worked; but we are not the country of which they were born natives. Therefore it is essential to make it understood that, through these collections, through their history and from what we have of them, we can understand the links which bound and which bind us to our European neighbours.
The fact is equally true with acquisitions which are being made today. Being without logistics, I cannot visit country houses but I can go to cathedrals. Recently I had the pleasure of looking at the cathedral referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester. That cathedral has, apart from its architectural glories, three remarkable works of art, two medieval sculptures, a tapestry designed by a great British artist, John Piper, and a window by Chagall. For myself, I cannot regard Chagall as a typical Englishman. But, on the other hand, would one want Chichester Cathedral to be without that superb example of the revived art of stained glass?
Therefore, in a way, Chagall is part of our heritage, just as the work of the stonemasons from France who built the place across the road—I do not mean the House of Commons, I mean Westminster Abbey—is also part of our heritage. In other words, there is a way in the cultivation of understanding of buildings and treasures of confronting those who would denigrate the role of history in education. There is therefore something of great seriousness in that field, quite apart from the financial and administrative problems which have been so well expressed to us by noble Lords.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, I must add my thanks to those already expressed by other noble Lords to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for introducing this fascinating subject in such a compelling way. His speech was all the more compelling for the moderate way in which he spoke. I agreed with everything that he said, including his request for a little more. I remember being told by my grandfather when I was

1397
about 12 years old (60 years ago) that when I grew up, whatever my income was, the ideal income was £100 a year more—a prediction which has, of course, been overtaken by inflation.
The noble Lord, Lord Blake, spoke mainly about treasures. As I spent nine years as chairman of the National Trust, I shall confine myself to historic houses and their contents. I am prompted to do so by the wide publicity recently given to a speech made by the Secretary of State for the Environment to the Historic Houses Association. The impression left by the press was that he was primarily concerned that the state should not be expected in any way to assist those whom he called the "anciens pauvres to stay in houses inherited from their ancestors which they would otherwise be forced to sell to the nouveaux riches. Judging by the media reports, he appeared to consider the National Trust merely an instrument for preventing so natural, healthy and historically inevitable a process.
I took pains to read the speech in full and I have to say that on this occasion at least the Secretary of State attributed no such role to the National Trust. Passionate as I have always been about the preservation of historic houses, and suspicious of Mr. Ridley's robust beliefs that they must take their chances unaided in the modern world, I could not find much in the theme of that particular speech with which to disagree. It is what he left out of that speech that I found unsatisfactory. However, I shall come back to that subject in a moment.
Apart from a few gibes to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, referred—which only illuminated our Secretary of State's particular prejudices—what he said is undeniably true. There is a new prosperity, millionaires do abound, taxation has been drastically reduced and it is right in such circumstances to ask whether, and how far, the state is still needed to help preserve our country houses and the treasures they contain.
It is also right to stress, as the Secretary of State did, that historic houses are the better for being lived in and for being looked after by private owners when they have the necessary resources. Indeed, not only Mr. Ridley, but also the National Trust has long said so. That is why, in the early days of the trust's country house scheme (introduced in 1937)—under which noble Lords will remember that a donor could endow a house to produce tax free income for its maintenance and continue to live in it with, I must say, a rather limited degree of access—it could be said, and was sometimes said, that the generosity of owners coincided with a degree of self interest.
However, if houses were not to become museums that situation was, in those early days, probably inevitable. It is important to recognise that that conception is now totally out of date. It has not been true for many years and to be fair to Mr. Ridley—although he does not always acknowledge this—he acknowledged that it was not the role of the National Trust on that occasion. He said:
"The Trust does not seek to acquire more houses. It is there as a longstop. It is no longer a system of outdoor relief for the aristocracy".
1398
Well, if ever it was, the trust and the nation received a great deal in exchange for that relief. But, in any case the situation no longer applies.
The problem for donors now is that the public access required, both to help finance the high cost of maintenance and to satisfy the huge demand for country house visiting, together with the public facilities which are needed and the necessary organisation to administer them, is so great that donors can no longer live in such houses with the degree of control they once exercised, even though the building might have been owned by the National Trust. Some find that uncongenial and leave; but we cannot have it both ways. If we want more public access than donors can live with, we shall not be able to see those houses looking as though they were privately inhabited.
When one visits the state rooms of the greatest houses, it is as well to remember that those rooms have seldom been lived in at any time in their history, being kept for use on grand occasions. The appearance of being lived in is much less important in the greatest houses, where the state rooms are often all that the public sees, than in the smaller ones where signs of family occupation are so crucial to one's enjoyment of them.
I return to the Secretary of State's principal argument. There is now a market for great houses. They change hands for millions of pounds, and where they are not bought for private occupation, their use as hotels is usually acceptable. In such circumstances, it is right that the National Trust and English Heritage—neither of which is usually in a position to take on those houses without state funds in one form or another—should only be regarded as longstops.
It is what Mr. Ridley left unsaid that is of critical importance. He said nothing to indicate the criteria he would apply in judging when such longstops should be used, and when government help might be expected. He expatiated only on situations in which the market should operate and no longstop would be necessary. I suppose that he was so keen to get across his message about what the state was not prepared to do that he failed to deal with the more positive side of the matter. He drew no distinction between historic houses which have lost their contents or their setting and those which, having retained them, must be seen as whole. The longstops are needed when such a house is of first-rate quality and is at risk of being broken up. If it is sold on the open market, the likelihood of break-up amounts to near certainty.
There have been recent examples, such as Littlecote in Wiltshire where the owner found an entrepreneur who appeared to be willing to buy the house and contents and open them to the public. Shortly afterwards, the entrepreneur sent the contents to auction. Only the Cromwellian armoury was saved for the nation by the Tower Armouries with the help of the National Heritage Memorial Fund.
I do not know the facts about Heveningham. We have heard the opposite views of the noble Lords, Lord Blake and Lord Wyatt. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has put down his name to speak at the end of the debate. He will no doubt tell us more

1399
about Heveningham because he clearly feels passionate about it. It is important to establish the facts. I had heard that it was burnt in 1984 and that repairs have not yet been started. There may be some explanation for that and some hope for the future. So far it has not been a happy story.
As for Brodsworth, Dr. Mark Girouard, the principal historian of the Victorian country house, regards it as the least altered and most evocative of its period of any house known to him. Nothing has changed, within or without, since it was built, decorated and landscaped in the 1860s. It is an educational resource of exceptional interest and importance. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, said that its future was now in the balance. I hope that the Secretary of State will encourage, rather than discourage, him to take it on. We could not have expected Mr. Ridley to respond to that situation in the speech to which I referred, which I feel was incomplete and which prompted me to speak, but it should have been possible for him to say that his mind was not closed and to tell us something about his criteria for the occasions when the Government are ready to help. What is certain is that owners of historic houses with historic contents, if they have to sell the house on the market, will not give or loan them to the buyer as they frequently have to the National Trust and, as in the case of Audley End and perhaps other cases, to English Heritage, to the infinite benefit of the public.
Let us imagine—to take an example of a great house in private hands—what would happen if Burghley, that superb Elizabethan house near Stamford, had to be placed on the market because, which Heaven forbid, family finances could no longer cope with it. Would the Secretary of State wish the owners to test the market and risk the break-up of Burghley? Would he think such a risk acceptable in the national interest? Has he persuaded his colleagues that they were mistaken in their readiness to help Calke, Kedleston and Weston Park, which they did in a timely way a short while ago? Has he persuaded them that there are now so many enterprising nouveaux riches that such houses can safely be left to them? They might keep house, contents and park together, but history does not support that theory. Much more usually, contents are sold, land broken up, the house divided, its decorative entity destroyed, and what it once presented is gone forever.
In view of Mr. Ridley's insistence on what the state is not prepared to do, it would be helpful, and it would have been helpful on the occasion to which I have referred, if he could assure us that in such cases he would not set his face against government help. If he set his face against government help, that would amount to an assault on a precious part of Britain's inheritance. It would set at nought the powerful evocation of men, ideas and history which comes from the gradual accumulation of works of art and family objects within a great house, not to speak of the evolution of its surrounding estate.
It is as though the treasures of the Cecils meant nothing at Burghley, and the family Van Dycks at Wilton would do just as well in Washington or Tokyo. A government who adopted such a view—it
1400
has not hitherto been a view of this Government—might just as well say that it would not matter if Jane Austen, Dickens, Trollope, or Hardy were to be eradicated from public knowledge. The Castle Howards, the Wiltons, the Houghtons, the Drumlanrigs, the Boughtons—all still in private hands—are equally part of our real heritage and equally distinctive of the British culture.
There are between 50 and 60 first-class houses, full of first-class contents, and about another 30 which are not in that class but which it would be sad to lose. The likelihood that many of those will become what one might call a public problem in the foreseeable future is small under present circumstances. It would probably not happen all at the same time.
The large majority of fine old houses, great and small—as opposed to the few of which I have spoken, and I consider 80 to be fairly few—must take their chance on the market. We must rely on the rules for listed building consent to protect them. In respect of middle-sized houses, I echo strongly and support what the noble Viscount, Lord Daventry, said in an admirable speech. I hope that the suggestion about inheritance tax made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will be looked at carefully. It is the only answer for middle-sized houses.
I find myself unable to agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester on the subject of listed buildings. My experience of the system, which is not negligible, is that it does not work very well, not because it is too inflexible but because English Heritage does the listing centrally and it is operated by the local authorities which do not always interpret English Heritage's guidelines with great sensitivity. That is sometimes due to a lack of trained staff, or some local or political pressure. It is a curious system. In my judgment it does not need loosening. I understand the point that flexibility is needed, but the answer would not be merely to loosen the system. It probably needs looking at again. We should have a tighter system, perhaps for not so many buildings, that works well. That is another subject and I cannot go into it here. I have therefore dealt with the majority of houses.
The point I have sought to make is one which I hope the Government will continue to accept. I should not have been worried if it had not been for the Secretary of State's apparent change of emphasis, to say the least. The point I have sought to make concerns the owners of those few historic houses which, with their contents, are either of first class quality or are such rare and complete survivals of their periods as to be able to teach us valuable lessons about our social history. When those owners can no longer go on, the state must ensure, if it can, that it is not the market which determines what happens next.
The state has created the National Heritage Memorial Fund, brilliantly led by my noble friend Lord Charteris of Amisfield. It has done so in order to ensure that our inheritance is not lost. It is one of the great bipartisan successes of our time. I hope that the Secretary of State will not abandon what we had all supposed was the Government's objective in this field.
5.40 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Lord for calling this most measured and concise debate on the subject. In addition, we have been treated to an excellent maiden speech by my noble friend Lord Daventry. As Christmas approaches, I shall try to throw a little light on the subject of Heveningham Hall. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, will take the opportunity of joining me for a drink after the debate with the previous owner.
I bring no professionalism to the debate—just the experience and attachment one gets from staying several times in a truly beautiful house. Heveningham Hall, near Halesworth in Suffolk, has been described as one of the great palladian buildings of Britain. As such, it is not just important in a British sense, but also in a European sense.
Heveningham was James Wyatt's answer to Robert Adam's great remodelling of Syon and Osterley, built for Sir Gerrard Vanneck, a member of a banking family. It was completed in 1784. Twice during its history, Heveningham Hall has been rescued for posterity, originally by Andrew Vanneck when he purchased the house from his brother in 1928; and secondly by the Government in 1969 when the descendants of the Vanneck family had to face the potential capital gains tax applied to discretionary trusts, determined by the 1965 Finance Act.
It was at this time that the Government bought Heveningham Hall for the nation. I quote from the Official Report of another place of 17th April 1970, at col. 301. The right honourable gentleman, the Minister for Housing and Local Government, stated in a Written Reply:
"I am glad to be able to inform the House that I have reached agreement with theTrustees of the Heveningham Hall Settlement on the terms for the acquisition of Heveningham Hall, 477 acres of land and an agreed list of contents of the house. Subject to Parliamentary approval in due course, acquisition will be under Section 5 of the Historic Buildings Act, 1953. The contents to be acquired included all the furniture designed by James Wyatt for the house. This furniture, the house itself, which was designed by Sir Robert Taylor and completed by Wyatt, and the grounds laid out by Capability Brown, arc an outstandingly complete unity of design from the late 18th century.
The National Trust have agreed to look after the property for the time being as my agents and I shall be discussing with them and the East Suffolk County Council permanent arrangements for the care of the property. I am sure that the house and grounds will provide a valuable amenity asset for the residents of the county as well as for an increasing number of visitors from this country and overseas".
From 1969 until 1980, the house was under the management of the National Trust for the Government. Although remotely situated, attendance figures were entirely satisfactory and by dint of good management this beautiful building and its Capability Brown gardens and parkland were visited by many from all over the world.
I understand that it was in 1981 that the Government sold Heveningham Hall to a private buyer. Since that time a series of tragic misfortunes has hit the house. Its gardens and parkland apparently now lie neglected and the east wing was gutted by fire in 1984. Since that time, the protection given to the gutted part of the building has been by plastic sheet, boarding and a false roof. For over four years this part of the house has remained untouched.
1402
Here I should like to quote from a letter I received from the National Trust giving a comment by Mr. Waterson, the regional director for Suffolk:
"Since the house was privatised by the present Government, there have been a chapter of disasters. One wing has been burnt out, there have been major problems with dry rot and the public has not been admitted. The nominal owner has refused to comply with his statutory obligations until a footpath is diverted from near the house. There have been two enquiries concerning the footpath and on both occasions the inspectors have refused to confirm the footpath diversion. The matter was called in by the Secretary of State and we now understand that he has upheld the inspectors' decision".
Since that statement, there has been a meeting between the chief planning officer of the Suffolk Coastal District Council and representatives of English Heritage and the owner. At the meeting, on 4th November this year, guarantees were requested of the owner or his representative as to the date when the repairs would start. So far no dates have been given.
A considerable amount of money has been spent on Heveningham Hall. A figure of £2 million is suggested. Although there are experts who believe that the owner has changed the character of this beautiful 18th century building, he must be frustrated by the vandalism which has resulted in the theft of a James Wyatt fireplace, damage to furniture—such that some of it had to be taken back by the Department of the Environment—and the destruction of a beautiful Waterford chandelier, to say nothing of the damage caused by the fire. However, an insurance claim has doubtless been submitted and, one hopes, paid. Yet nearly four and a half years have elapsed and nothing has been done about the restoration of this jewel in our national heritage.
Here we have a unique Grade I listed building, or what is left of it, owned not apparently by the nominal owner but by an anonymous Swiss company with bearer shares. It has no identifiable and subsequently no visibly responsible shareholders. Thus the people of Suffolk and the world are left to watch over the undignified desecration of the conscientious care of many generations of British conservationists and the National Trust. How can anyone believe that these highly sensitive bastions of our heritage can be left to the unqualified element of the private sector? It must be now time that the Government either invoke Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, or deregulate the house in its entirety.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Rees: My Lords, I wish to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for initiating this debate. It has, of course, covered a very well tilled field, but it is a field capable of yielding many crops, and one to which we should return regularly. There have been notable interventions. I shall single out two of them because they touched on public expenditure, for which for some years I had some slight responsibility.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, made a speech about the state of British museums. I well remember a delegation coming from the Victoria and Albert Museum. They explained the jerry building which characterised its erection in the 19th century. The delegation described the way in which the sewers

1403
were coming up to the cellars and how the roof was in such a state that it was about to fall in. I am happy to say that it has survived, but no doubt the problems persist.
In those days, of course, the ultimate decision certainly did not lie with the Treasury, although all bad things are attributed to that great department of state. The priorities in that particular field were set, and rightly set, by the Office of Arts and Libraries. As I seem to remember from the competing pressures on me, there was greater pressure to do something for the performing arts than for other areas. While the noble Earl would no doubt have preferred me to have made available funds for the preservation of museums, I seem to remember that we wrote off the debts of a number of operatic companies. That is all past history, but for the present I want to put something on record as regards the Principality of Wales. I must declare an interest here as I sit on the Council Court of the Museum of Wales. The present Secretary of State—I am sure he would be the first to concede some of the credit to his predecessor, my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber tonight has —made available £21 million for the repair, reconstruction and extension of the main museum buildings in Cathays Park. Without wishing to stir up regional rivalries in this debate, I wish to emphasise that at least the Principality has something to be grateful for.
I now turn to the very distinguished contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Charteris. Personally I have never felt the same distaste for quangos as was evinced by certain former colleagues in another place. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I describe his great institution as a quango. I have seen in certain situations great advantages in having an autonomous, or at least quasi-autonomous, body standing between the Government and these delicate and expert decisions.
I feel that it is much better that a body like the National Heritage Memorial Fund, which has shown such delicacy of touch and experience in this field, should go on taking those decisions, rather than leaving them to the unfortunate Minister of the day who has particular responsibilities in that area.
As regards the funding of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, one would, of course, like to see it totally financially autonomous. The noble Lord and I will recall agreeable discussions about the basis of funding. The noble Lord has been persistent and charming and he has coaxed a great deal more money out of the Exchequer than I would have thought possible when I was Chief Secretary. He has put it to very good use. However, I must say that I think it is unlikely that the noble Lord and his colleagues will ever be endowed with sufficient funds to meet the extraordinary situations that can arise. The noble Lord recalled the case of Calke Abbey, Weston Park, Kedleston and the furniture at Nostell Priory. He, I, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding all had some hand in that.
But all those demands on the public purse combined in a period of 12 months. There are bound to be exceptional situations where, however
1404
reluctantly, the noble Lord will have to go cap in hand to his friends in the Exchequer.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I am always delighted to go to the Exchequer. I have been very successful there.
Lord Rees: My Lords, the noble Lord has, indeed, been successful there. But, nevertheless, I think that demonstrates a remarkable British solution to a delicate and sensitive problem.
I go back to the main theme of the debate, as opened by the noble Lord, Lord Blake. The noble Lord, Lord Blake, touched on the case of the Mappa Mundi. I must confess, with some embarrassment, that I have lived for many years within 25 miles of Hereford, but that before the present publicity that attended the Mappa Mundi I only once called on the cathedral. I once had a glancing view of the Mappa Mundi hung in penumbral gloom. I am bound to say that it was very difficult to appreciate the unique quality of that particular piece of cartography.
When, to refresh my mind before this debate, I went quite recently to the cathedral I found that there was only a 19th century facsimile which was much better lit than the Mappa Mundi. I also inquired about the Chained Library which, I suspect, is of equivalent importance, if not greater importance than the Mappa Mundi. I must tell noble Lords who may be disposed to follow my steps that in the winter months the library is only open between 11 and 11.30 in the morning and between 3 and 3.30 in the afternoon. Therefore, I am afraid I can add nothing to the sum total of the knowledge of the House on the present state of the Chained Library.
At any rate, the example of the Mappa Mundi has prompted, at least in me, two reflections. However, those reflections are not of any great originality. The Church of England—I speak as a member of its disestablished and much poorer branch, the Church in Wales—is custodian of a staggeringly large proportion of our national heritage. Therefore, the decisions that the Church takes in this field must be a matter of national and not of parochial concern. I was delighted to hear from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester that we shall be considering in the course of this Session the Cathedrals Measure. That, perhaps, will enable us to gauge what kind of checks and balances exist in this field.
I believe—I intend no criticism either of the dean and chapter of Hereford, or indeed of any other cathedral—that it would be quite wrong to leave to those who are the trustees for the time being of these magnificent artifacts the ultimate decision as to whether they should be retained in their present site or be sold. I hope that we shall have a chance to debate the principles and the practice in this field when that Measure comes before us. I only express the hope that it will not stop short of cathedrals because in many English churches there are, for example, unique medieval chalices and other artifacts that also deserve the most careful care and scrutiny.
The other thought that comes to my mind is this. If something like the Mappa Mundi is, for extraordinary reasons, to be sold it should at least be

1405
offered in the first instance to another appropriate public body. I point out that I, like perhaps many other noble Lords, hope very much that it may be retained in situ in Hereford where it has resided not quite from its original construction because I believe the original author came from Lincoln, and I cannot say whether it originated in Lincoln or Hereford. For as long as the Church of England is an established church it must regard itself as a public body. Therefore, it cannot be totally insensitive to the feelings of the world outside.
I hope that it will be possible, if such a situation recurs, for artifacts to be offered to public bodies rather than to be cast on to an open market. If this were an economic debate, I should no doubt yield to none in my admiration for the forces of market pressures, but in this kind of situation one has to recognise that the open market is now quite international. It is highly volatile and there are players in that market whose purses are comparably far deeper even than those of Englishmen in our collecting prime in the 18th and 19th centuries.
The noble Lord, Lord Blake, as did other noble Lords, dealt with the general question of the disposal of collections of importance. That question was raised by the Museums and Galleries Commission, of which I am privileged to be a member, in its report of 1985–86; it featured too in the export review committee's report of 1987–88. What is a collection of importance poses a fine question of definition and judgment. I am sure that we shall all agree with the noble Lord that the Spencer Collection in the John Rylands Library and the George Brown Collection of ethnographical material in Newcastle University must qualify by any test.
What protective measures can one suggest to prevent their disposal without due safeguards of care and thought? 1 confess immediately that I could not devise a watertight piece of legislation which would meet the situation. 1 hope at least that we can find common ground and agree that some form of clearly established and accepted convention should operate in that field. It could provide that any proposed disposal should be referred to the Office of Arts and Libraries, some quango or similar body; that there should be a temporary stop on the sale so that representations can be made and the whole problem thrashed out; and that it can be considered whether the nation as a whole becomes a beneficiary of the disposal.
The question of historic houses has been touched on by many noble Lords who are far more experienced than I am in that particular field. As the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, pointed out, the larger houses have special problems. But special solutions have been found for them. Whether those solutions will continue to be adequate remains to be seen. Difficulties may be posed by the fact that the National Trust has closed its books—perhaps that is putting it a little summarily and crudely—in this field.
I much admired the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I do not mind whether or not he spoke with the imprimatur of the chairman of the National Trust for he is a considerable figure in the field in his own right. Who
1406
will be an adequate custodian—I know that my noble friend Lord Montagu plays a role in that area—remains to be seen.
As was pointed out in a remarkable and admirable maiden speech by the noble Viscount, Lord Daventry, the medium-sized or even smaller houses pose a different problem. The social, economic and fiscal climate of this country has changed immeasurably—I would say, from a partisan position, for the better—over the past 10 years. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, whose speech was subjected to detailed and well justified analysis and criticism by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, made a point of principle which I think is unexceptionable. He said that all the time, and particularly over the past 10 years, a new generation—or dare I call it a new class—of owner or potential owner is coming forward who can to a degree fill the gap and take on the responsibility for those houses, although not completely.
However, that ignores one fundamental point. Part of the charm and the value of those houses in many cases is that they have been .n continuous occupation by the same family for a: least two or three centuries, in some instances for much longer. It is the stamp and the taste of a particular family that lends them their charm and their value.
No family can be guaranteed continuous occupation. That has never been so in this country. I have no doubt that the ancestors of certain noble Lords rued the consequences of the Wars of the Roses. In Tudor times they no doubt felt that their ancestral castles had fallen into vulgar and unmerited hands. There is a continuous process of change, domestication and civilisation, that has characterised the history of this country. That said, I think that there is a case for trying to ensure, without gigantic expenditure of public money, a measure of continuity in that field.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, does a magnificent job and is the custodian of the public purse in some of these areas. However, I doubt whether grants will ever be sufficiently generous whichever government is in power entirely to meet that problem. So I turn to the question of tax relief.
It is only perhaps three months until the Budget, so it is not inappropriate to ventilate a few views which may or may not be picked up by the noble Earl who is to reply and passed on to the Char cellor of the Exchequer. It would be churlish not to acknowledge that both the present and the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer have done some remarkable things in that field. However I think that there are a few modest measures of reform which one could commend.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter who at an earlier period and with more distinction held some of the same responsibilities as I have held, suggested that in the field of inheritance tax a measure of exemption could be extended to the smaller house and its contents. A measure of exemption is available at present. However, it would be right to look further and to consider how far that can be extended. I think that the difficulty will be to find a means of extending

1407
that relief to the ordinary bric-a-brac of a house which gives it its particular atmosphere of continued occupation.
If that does not commend itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer I suggest that the present threshold for inheritance tax of £150,000 is far too low bearing in mind the ravages of inflation over quite a period. The threshold should be raised and the rates could be lowered still further.
Since I have touched on the question of capital taxation—I do not want to widen the debate too far—I shall add that the existence of those houses does not depend exclusively on income tax. It must depend to a degree on accumulations of capital. I realise that, in a partisan sense, that issue is one of some delicacy. I believe that the Chancellor's measure in the last Budget of assimilating the rates of capital gains tax into income tax was a grave mistake and that he will have to reconsider it. I think that that measure, combined with inheritance tax, will year by year erode the stocks of capital on which the continued existence of the kind of houses we have in mind must depend, although not to the same extent as we have had to endure since the war.
Finally, in relation to repairs the noble Viscount, Lord Daventry, in his maiden speech, referred to VAT. I confess that having wrestled ministerially with VAT I would prefer to see it without any exemptions, at a lower rate and with much wider scope. However, that takes the debate into a fiscal matter which I do not want to explore at this stage. I suggest that income tax relief could be granted to the owners of listed houses. There is a precedent after all in that they used to receive relief under Schedule A. I believe also that there is some philosophic justification for that. If one has the privilege, or disadvantage, to own a listed house, one's rights of ownership are considerably circumscribed, even though the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, may look benevolently at one's applications from time to time. Nonetheless, as a fair equivalence I feel that a measure of income tax relief could be conceded in that field.
I conclude by saying that the Government have been responsible for a range of sensitive, even generous, measures. However, changing, circumstances bring into the open a whole range of fresh problems. This debate has, I hope, served to highlight some of them and to suggest some possible solutions. We await with interest the reponse of the noble Earl who is to wind up the debate.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I cannot speak for the National Trust but I ask him to accept that his statement that the National Trust has closed its books in respect of houses is an exaggeration. The true situation is that it does not seek to acquire further houses. It hopes that other solutions can be found but that is one of two longstops, English Heritage being the other. It is always ready to play its part if it is found necessary.
Lord Rees: My Lords, as a life member of the National Trust I am grateful to have been put right and to have had some of my anxieties at least
1408
partially allayed. But the noble Lord will admit that it is now not so readily available a longstop as it was perhaps 20 years ago.
Lord Gibson: Absolutely, my Lords.
6.11 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount on the aptness of his remarks on smaller houses in his excellent maiden speech and thank him for his other observations. As other noble Lords have shown, the one major obstacle to assured preservation is the necessary funding. If that is there the problem is eased. One obvious path to increasing the generation of cash is the overseas visitor route.
Indeed, our nation's heritage is a major incentive for foreign tourists to visit Britain. The recent PSI report on the economic importance of the arts mercifully discovered that 50 per cent. of overseas visitors said that the arts were "very important" in their decision to visit our shores. In 1987, 51 per cent. of foreign tourists visited at least one historic house. The fact that three of the top four tourist attractions in 1987 were museums is another indication of the vital role that our heritage plays in tourism. Visitors to our shores, forecast to number 15·9 million this year, help maintain our heritage as well as enjoying and, one hopes, learning from it. Spending by overseas visitors last year was estimated at £6.2 billion of foreign currency, thus providing jobs in many sectors of the economy, particularly the heritage.
Because heritage is thought to be the single most important aspect of Britain appealing to the overseas visitor, the British Tourist Authority sired and runs the British Heritage Committee, in which I hasten to declare an interest, to bring together all the heritage interests with a view to harnessing the overseas visitors and their spend into seeking, visiting and looking at our treasures. Thus the BTA and the heritage committee vigorously promote these in publications, films and speeches overseas.
Indeed, there is an increasing appreciation of our national treasures. The National Trust now has over 1·6 million members. This in itself provides an essential protection and, as the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, told us, encourages successive governments to consider further measures such as revised tax concessions to ensure the health of the heritage and the growth of its public appeal. Domestic tourist spend in 1986 was £7.1 billion. It is up to each and every one of us to keep the pressure on government to maintain our heritage for the enjoyment of British and foreign tourists, and so benefit the national economy.
We must acknowledge the real and important advances made under this Government in establishing the National Heritage Memorial Fund and promoting a number of tax concessions which assist owners of stately homes and parkland to maintain their properties as family seats. I shall not say more about it now as other speakers have previously touched on this subject. However, enough is enough. The undoubted appeal of our great houses, cathedral cities and innumerable museums and

1409
galleries must continue to be developed and marketed. I pay tribute to the efforts of the English, Welsh and Scottish Tourist Boards for the excellent work they do and especially to the British Tourist Authority's effectiveness in attracting increasing numbers of visitors to our shores. It is a tough international market that we compete in, and our cultural heritage is largely responsible for our continuing success. As the Government's chosen instrument for promoting the United Kingdom overseas, it is the BTA which is responsible for ensuring that the product is fully competitive.
None of us who were on the BTA board at the time will forget the terrifying lesson learnt in the late 1970s by the United States, whose government withdrew from supporting tourism, leading to a huge drop—from 13 per cent. to 10 per cent.—in their share of the world tourist market, and thus a disastrous loss of both visitors and currency.
Given better presentation, many treasures, which are now rarely seen by overseas visitors and which generate little income, could be more widely known and thus safeguarded from the ultimate fate of being sold abroad and lost to the country. A very good example of that is the Mappa Mundi. With good presentation one could assure the noble Lord, Lord Walston, opposite that it would be possible to save both the cathedral and its treasures. Until a few months ago the Mappa Mundi was little known to overseas and domestic tourists alike and not particularly well displayed; and promoted not at all, as the noble Lord, Lord Rees, mentioned. The enormous amount of publicity generated by its proposed sale gives Hereford a unique opportunity, without much further promotion, for putting the map with its remarkable story on permanent display in surroundings accessible to the overseas visitor, who should be charged an adequate admission fee.
Because of the close connection between the Church, heritage and tourism, the English Tourist Board published in 1979 a report on cathedrals and their effect on tourism. I was delighed to hear such an optimistic progress report from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester earlier in the debate. As a distinguished dean said at the time:
"We hesitate to make a distinction between pilgrims and tourists. Chaucer's pilgrims were in many ways today's tourists. As a consequence, we are determined as far as possible to help visitors to become aware of the religious dimension of the building of a cathedral—its life and work … We would not wish to separate these from the existence of the church as a great work of art".
In Ripon it is stated that complete priority is given to the sense of worship, beauty, order and space. People come because they are hungry for beauty and mystery and dignity. The ETB report recommended that tourists should be charged for admission to cathedrals to help with the upkeep and maintenance of the fabric and indeed that is still the policy of the BTA and the ETB.
In another place historic buildings and ancient monuments were considered by the Environment Committee in 1987 and that report, too, recommended that cathedrals should charge an admission fee. However, it is obviously a matter for each individual cathedral and, on the whole, their respective dioceses were not in favour of admission
1410
charges. There were, however, a number of notable exceptions—Salisbury, Ely and St. George's Chapel, Windsor—which had already introduced admission charges with increasing success and it was thus recommended that other cathedrals should follow suit.
There is little doubt that the most effective way of increasing revenue from visitors to cathedrals is by this admission charge which involves little cost and causes minuscule criticism from the visitors themselves. As tourist attractions, cathedrals compare and should fairly compete with stately homes and should charge admission accordingly. As long ago as 1977 there were nearly 1 million paid admissions to St. George's Chapel, Windsor. and over one-third of a million to Salisbury Cathedral. St. George's Chapel, where admission charges are made at all times other than during services, in fact derives more net revenue from tourism than any of the cathedrals, apart from St. Paul's.
But charges create more than just financial benefits. The atmosphere of buildings has been found to improve at once following the introduction of admission charges and thus the elimination of rowdy and disinterested visitors. As an alternative to charging admission, cathedral authorities might consider introducing the so-called "Ministry of Welcome", which has been successfully introduced at Winchester and a few other cathedrals. A free leaflet highlights the history and treasures on a recommended route, while collecting boxes and signs suggesting a reasonable donation are located at strategic places.
Experience has shown that a single collection box by itself with no guidance and no leaflets produces an average of 1p to 3p per visitor. In 1971 Rochester, which receives a high proportion of coach parties averaged but 1½p per visitor, until the wording on the main collection box was changed. There was a startling increase in donations. The notice responsible for such bountiful giving read as follows:
"Welcome to this cathedral—a gift of at least 20 pence is needed from every adult visitor to maintain and extend its work. It Costs 20 pence a minute to keep it open for you".
Cathedrals are the repositories of some of the most important treasures in Europe, many dating from the greatest era of medieval Christianity. The initiative of the Goldsmith's Company has given us a hall in which glittering examples of diocesan plate are exhibited under superb conditions.
Improved interpretation would enhance visitor numbers. There is an enormous variation. At one extreme there will be no more than a single guidebook while at the other end of the scale cathedrals such as Canterbury and Norwich offer a wide range of guidebooks, tours, exhibitions and numerous descriptive notices, diagrams, models and plans, and even tape-slide programmes.
It is thought that some 23 million visitors per year, excluding those coming to worship, enter cathedrals. But despite cathedrals and greater churches being often the most significant buildings in towns or cities where they are located, many still have non-existent or inadequate road signing.
Thus with improved marketing, promotion, signing and display, the ecclesiastical heritage should

1411
be able to be protected by increased visitor numbers and increased revenue. The English Tourist Board is empowered under the Section 4 scheme to give grants for the display of treasures. Durham was the first diocese to take advantage of such a scheme by being enabled to create the infrastructure for displaying its wonders to the public, together of course with an appropriate admission charge.
By such means as the foregoing can awareness and numbers be increased and the heritage protected and—with reference to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Montagu—there could even be enough finance left over to train craftsmen as well as to preserve that which we love and appreciate.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I apologise for not having my name on the original list. It had not been my intention to impose myself on your Lordships. I was hoping to have a quiet, tranquil, cultural course listening to great experts. However, I felt I had to intervene when I heard some astonishing remarks being made by the noble Lords, Lord Blake and Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, which I thought were singularly unscholarly and ill-researched. They were later repeated in similar vein by the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird.
I have a special interest in Heveningham Hall, which is the subject of the strange remarks. I have 28 architects in my family, many of them distinguished. James Wyatt was one of the best ones. He followed on Sir Robert Taylor in the building of Heveningham Hall. Sir Robert Taylor was discharged by the owners, the Vannecks, and he was replaced by James Wyatt early in the 1780s.
James Wyatt did much of the exterior and all of the interior of Heveningham Hall. It is regarded not only as one of his masterpieces but as one of the masterpieces of England. He was responsible for the furniture, the decorations and everything conceivable inside and outside that house. I therefore have a special feeling for Heveningham Hall. I may feel more strongly about it than anyone else in your Lordships' Chamber because of my desire always to protect a good piece of Wyatt architecture or interior decoration whenever it needs protection.
In 1969 the Vannecks found that they could no longer live at Heveningham Hall. They approached me and asked me for my help in getting the Government to buy it because they said they could not sell it to anybody else. They had tried to sell it to various institutions. They did not have enough money to keep it going as a private house. The furniture and decorations would have to be dispersed and the house might even have to be destroyed.
I approached the Department of the Environment. At that time it was a Labour Government. They were very receptive. They bought the house for the nation. I thought, "Good. That is settled, and James Wyatt's masterpiece can now be saved". However, I was not right. After that, under the ownership of the Government, the house was badly neglected. I have plenty of evidence here from such organisations as the Georgian Society to establish that point. Dry rot
1412
was rampant. The roof needed releading. The place was almost collapsing.
At the end of 1980 or thereabouts, the present Administration decided that they would like to get it off their hands because the upkeep was too great. I rather query the notion, incidentally, that attendances were large because it is in a very remote part of Suffolk. My understanding is that the attendances at that house were never very large. It depends what one means by "large". Some people might think 30 people was a large attendance; others might not.
The Government sought for a buyer and a Mr. Abdul Al-Ghazzi bought it in 1981. He has spent some £3 million or £4 million restoring this house already and he made it good in its general fabric—apart from the east wing where there was a fire to which I shall refer in a moment—sufficient to stand up again for 200 years. The dry rot has gone; the roofing is properly repaired; the releading has been done.
Unfortunately he has been subject to a campaign of xenophobia in local Suffolk where the niceties of racial relations may perhaps not yet have reached. He is an Arab and they very much resent an Arab owning this house. It was even suggested—and I am afraid that the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, repeated it—that he does not really own the house; it is owned by a company. Actually he owns the company too, so it hardly matters. It is only a kind of smear tactic. I dare say friends of some noble Lords may have, or even some noble Lords themselves may have, companies which may own their own properties. They would not care to be told that they did not really own them, because they own only 100 per cent. of the company which does.
Persistent vandalism went on. As has already been said, in 1984 the east wing was burnt down by a fire. Nobody yet knows what was the cause of that fire except that it was supposed to have been a blowlamp left connected to an electric plug by a workman on leaving the premises. That was most unfortunate because the final work of restoring the beautiful James Wyatt library, with all the fittings he had put in himself, had just been finished and the whole damned lot was burnt down. The owner was naturally extremely distressed. He had spent a great deal of money on it already and did not know quite what to do next. He was anxious because he felt that vandalism was going on around this house, no doubt stoked up by local xenophobia, which he was unable to control adequately.
In fact, the footpath across the park had never been properly defined. It was not even defined in the same way on different maps. People were found wandering around the back of the house and when asked what they were doing they said, "We thought we were on the footpath". People were having picnics behind the house, saying that they thought they were on the footpath, whereas the footpath was in front of the house. It was therefore rather difficult for them to make that mistake although they said that they did so. The owner was desperately trying to get this footpath resited so that he could have a proper security system before the rebuilding of the east wing,

1413
which he has never been reluctant to do; and I shall come to that in a moment.
There was a footpath inquiry. The local rural council was originally in favour of the footpath being rerouted. However, this was then thrown out. The owner was very puzzled because he did not have any understanding of procedures in England. He did not realise that the most emotive subject of the entire English political life is a footpath. Even though nobody has ever walked on the thing, and is unlikely to walk on it, to say that one is going to alter the course of a footpath causes uproar and commotion. People came from distant parts, from Wales, London and Scotland, to go to the inquiry and to say, "How awful. They are going to reroute this footpath".
After the original inquiry into the footpath there was more vandalism. A James Wyatt fireplace was stolen from the dining room. A van drove up to the windows close to the footpath. The thieves broke through the windows and shutters and removed the fireplace, which no doubt is now on the Continent awaiting a purchaser. Valuable pieces of Coad stoneware were removed and pictures and so forth have been stolen. There came about another footpath inquiry.
I feel responsible for what happens to my ancestors' work and I became disturbed on reading stories in the press that there had been great neglect by Mr. Al-Ghazzi. I visited the house and was shown around. Mr. Al-Ghazzi was not present but I was shown round. I thought that all the decorations were perfect and that James Wyatt would have approved. However, I am no expert so I asked a friend, John Martin Robinson, a well-known architectural historian, to visit the house. He confirmed that all the best experts on 18th century colour and decoration had been consulted and that the work done was perfect. Some people may disapprove of the work because they may not realise that what was right in 1780 may have faded by 1980 and they may wonder why the colours are not the same as in 1780. However, they are the original James Wyatt colours.
There was a second footpath inquiry in February this year and I gave evidence. Still the objectors came and still poor Mr. Al-Ghazzi was hoping to receive a clear indication as to where the position of the footpath would be. He wished to contact the security experts at Siemens to ask them to do their best to establish a properly secured route so that they could be alerted if visitors strayed from the path and came near the house.
Some people say that it would be awful to move the footpath and they cite Marcus Binney, who wrote The Life of Sir Robert Taylor, the architect who began the work on Heveningham Hall. In his book he states that the best view of the hall is from along the front of the road on the other side of the lake. That is exactly where the footpath was intended to be sited by the present owner were that allowed. However, it was not allowed.
The new footpath was rejected by the inquiry and the Government. I believe that the Government should have given greater support to someone willing to save that historic house and to spend millions of pounds of his own money continuing to do so.
1414
However, the footpath having been rejected, Mr. AlGhazzi had to sit down and consider what to do. At once he set in train plans for getting on with the work. I understand that the architect responsible for the restoration of York Minster after the fire is the architect now supervising the restoration of the east wing where the Wyatt Library was situated.
The noble Lord, Lord Blake, complained about tarpaulins. The noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, said that they did not appear to be adequate. When the Georgian Society visited the house and reported in February 1988 it stated that they were adequate, and so did the architect. The tarpaulir s have been protective of the fabric that is left and no damage has occurred underneath. I have also seen the tarpaulins and what is underneath. I am sorry to have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, that it may look a little untidy, but tarpaulin and scaffolding often does. I hope that they will he removed soon.
I spoke to Mr. Al-Ghazzi this mormng and asked him about his present intentions. He assured me that the architect has said that he does not believe that it is a good idea to try to undertake repairs during the winter but that he will begin them in the spring for certain. The rumours about insurance problems are absolute rubbish; there is no problem. Mr. Al-Ghazzi is still trying to obtain an adequate security plan to protect himself against the local xenophobics and other vandals who tour the Suffolk area. That will be very difficult but he will continue to try to do so.
The local xenophobics resent Mr. Al-Ghazzi owning two Dobermanns and having a security guard because they believe that it is unfair of him to try to protect his property. However, when they think that the property has not been properly repaired, again because of fear of vandalism, they ask why it is not better protected; and so they want to have it both ways. I have heard mention of the fact that there is a requirement on him to carry out the repairs and if that is not met it will result in a compulsory purchase. That is rubbish; there is no problem about his carrying out the repairs and he intends to do so in the spring.
I believe that instead of vilifying this unfortunate gentleman we should praise him for a wonderful job of restoration. This afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, told me that he recently stayed at the house and that the restoration has been done beautifully and nothing could be better. I have not stayed in the house; I have only visited it. Instead of vilifying the poor gentleman we should be grateful to him for saving a house which would otherwise have gone on becoming worse in government hands. It will now become better and better.
6.36 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for introducing the Motion this afternoon. It has been an education for me to hear so much about a part of our heritage with which I am less familiar: our English country houses.
I should like to offer the apologies of my noble friend Lady Birk who is unable to be here today, much as she would have liked. The noble Lord, Lord

1415
Montagu, referred to her efforts at the time of the unfortunate disposal of the contents of Mentmore. My noble friend was also engaged in what is agreed to be a non-party venture; the establishment of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. It was started by a Labour Government and was continued by the succeeding Conservative Government in 1979.
I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Viscount, Lord Daventry, for his excellent and most interesting maiden speech.
The basic issue behind the debate is where and how we shall best preserve our heritage in buildings and treasures. I have no ideology on the matter. I take the view of Brecht in the epilogue to The Caucasian Chalk Circle. I do not have the text so I must paraphrase. He said that everything should go to those who are good for it. Thus: the cart to the good driver that it be well maintained; the children to the motherly that they will be tenderly cared for. I believe that that pragmatic view of who should control our buildings and treasures is most proper.
I have a lingering affection for the system introduced after the war in Czechoslovakia—I hasten to say before the Communist putsch. In my mother-in-law's village in Boskovice in southern Moravia the castle belonging to the previously dominant ruling family now has its principal rooms used as a museum. The lower rooms leading on to the garden are used as a kindergarten. The family live in adequate premises upstairs. The orangery is used as a concert hall and occasionally as an art gallery. Parts of the stables are used as a public library and other parts are used as a restaurant, wine cellar and museum. All that has been done by the local authority in a town of only 7,000 people. Such examples are carried on throughout Czechoslovakia, and I believe that it is a good solution to many of the problems with which we are still faced.
We have heard a lot in this debate this afternoon about our great houses and their contents. Indeed, the emphasis of the debate has been rather skewed towards that issue and rather askewed away from the very important other issues of our museums, our archaeology, our film archives, and so on, and I want to devote more time to the other matters in order perhaps to redress the balance.
But what must be said about our buildings and their contents is, first, that ideology is not much of a solution for the problems which have been described. I suspect that the Secretary of State's references to the nouveaux riches and the anciens pauvres smack of a certain amount of ideology. There may be some class prejudice in it, but I rather think that what he was doing was looking for alternative ways of privatisation of our great house and contents heritage.
So far as I can understand, the argument about Heveningham Hall—and there is clearly conflicting evidence which I am certainly in no position to resolve—seems rather clear: that the rescue operation which was intended by the Government in 1969 has not in fact worked. I do not know what covenants were put upon the new owners of Heveningham Hall as regards conservation. But I know that one of the
1416
covenants required that the building should be open for at least a month a year from 1982, and 1 understand that the building has been open for only one month in 1987. So to that extent at least the covenant and the intentions of the Government at the time have not been adhered to.
I have a lot of sympathy with the view that has been expressed that by far the best way to see both our great domestic buildings and their contents is for them to be kept together and for the contents not to be put into museums. I do not go so far as Malraux in describing museums as orphanages for works of art without a home. But I think that keeping them together, and keeping them in such a way that students, visitors and researchers can see what they were put there for in the first place, is extremely valuable. In so far as that is the thrust of this afternoon's debate, I tend to agree with it.
If I now turn to museums, I find it very surprising that not a single speaker this afternoon has referred to a very important report, the first report of the Public Accounts Committee for this Session, referring to the management of the collections in English national museums and galleries. This report follows the National Audit Office report earlier this year which pointed—perhaps not as dramatically as some press comments would indicate—to a very serious state of affairs in the conservation of our great national collections; in particular, the British Museum, the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Tate Gallery since these were the three collections which were studied. It appears that, despite all the undertakings which have been made both by the museum authorities and by government that increased resources were going to be made available for conservation, conservation is falling very badly behind indeed.
In the evidence to the Public Accounts Committee the claim was made that there was no serious danger to any of the treasures in the museums, except possibly to the Western prints collection in the British Museum which appears to be deteriorating faster than anybody can do anything about it.
It clearly is a very serious situation that we have this great backlog in conservation, that we have far too few conservators even by the standards set out by the Office of Arts and Libraries and the museums in consultation, and above all that so much of our collections which are eminently suitable for display and not just for access for researchers should be stacked away and not available.
This is brought home to me very dramatically because on my 18th birthday I bought myself my first print, which was of the painting by Paul Nash, Landscape at Iden. I knew at the time that it was in the Tate Gallery. It has only been displayed in the public collections of the Tate Gallery for six months during the 37 years since I have owned that print. I have seen the real painting only once. That cannot be right. The opening of the Tate Gallery North will make a considerable difference, but there is clearly something wrong with the long-term financing of our museums and galleries.
I immediately—so that 1 shall not be accused of misrepresentation—pay tribute to the Office of Arts

1417
and Libraries in that it has introduced a three-year funding regime and it is now possible for the museums and galleries to plan their expenditure over a period of three years. But that degree of rationality, which is extremely welcome, does not go to make up for the long-term deficiences in the funding level which are causing the kind of problems to which attention is drawn by the Public Accounts Committee.
After all, it is not just a matter of having a conservation programme. You have to have the conservators to do the work, and in order to find the conservators you have to have training in conservation over a period of years. The British Museum drew attention to the fact that it has simply been unable to find anybody capable of doing the work of conservation of its extremely valuable tapestries which have to be kept under certain conditions—some of them where it is impossible to see them at all.
Regarding policy issues, which are important, when we come to museums there is a matter which has been referred to on a number of occasions; that is, the question of charging for admittance. I do not know, again, that I have a particular ideological view about charging for admittance. After all, I have paid admission fees to museums in Italy and in many other European countries. I have never particularly objected even to the situation in the Metropolitian Museum of Art where you put in a donation according to a recommended amount and you get a little yellow flag to put on your lapel to show that you have made your donation as you go around the museum. That seems to me to work perfectly well. It may well be that the policy of charging for admission to our cathedrals is inevitable.
My objection to charging for admission to our great national collections is not an ideological one. It is a very simple one. It is that experience has shown that, particularly in the first year or so after charging has been introduced, attendance drops dramatically. If you look at our museums and galleries in terms of some sort of standard of efficiency and value for money, then, if you are increasing the resources of the museum by perhaps 10 per cent. at a cost of a loss of 50 per cent. of the visitors, that is not very good value for money.
Whatever the evidence may be about the subsequent pick-up of attendance—and it appears to be, to say the best, contradictory; in other words, it works in some places and it does not in other places—there is still a very serious loss of visitors. It seems to me that in that respect we are losing one of the principal objectives of having our museums and art galleries, and I should be very sorry to see the charging principal established more widely.
It is not true to say that it is the responsibility of the museums and galleries themselves. That is only formally true. Of course they have a choice to make about whether or not they charge, but whether they are forced to make an admission charge depends on the level of funding from government. Their ability to avoid admission charges is about as real as the ability of a kitchen porter at the Ritz Hotel to take a room there in his annual leave. He is not forbidden by his contract of employment from doing so, but the fact
1418
of the matter is that he could not possibly afford in a million years to take a room at the Ritz Hotel. The same is true of museums. If governments squeeze the funding enough, museums will be forced to make unpleasant choices such as charging for admission. I do not think any of them genuinely want to, but it is only because they are forced to do so by the funding levels.
Talking about museums, finally I want to say a word about disposals. This is a mat ter of current public concern. A consultation paper was issued by the Office of Arts and Libraries in August of this year. That paper cautiously, and with a number of qualifications, suggests that the ability of museums and galleries to dispose of their possessions should be extended. There are some works of art where disposal is not a particular problem because they are themselves charitable bequests and, as the GLC discovered when it tried to dispose of works of art from Kenwood, they are not legally able to do that. So we can put those works of art on one side.
However, I ask the House to consider not only whether or not the disposal of works of art which are charitable is proper, but whether gifts that have been made without charitable protection should not be protected in the same way. It is not simply a matter of the individual works of art themselves; in many cases the donors are dead and have no other say in the matter. But people give works of art to museums and galleries not just for their own sake but because they are to fit into a coherent collection of other works of art; and if the surrounding collection is to be treated as able to be disposed of, then the whole purpose of the donation in the first place, or indeed of the acquisition from public funds—that is where the taxpayer comes in—is at risk.
The results of the disposals themselves are likely to be nugatory because in any case they are going to follow the taste of the curators or of the trustees of the museum, and they are going to be the things they consider to be perhaps duplicates or expendable. But of course tastes change and things which are out of fashion today and are being disposed of for that reason will not fetch a very good price. So from any point of view, whether a purely calculating point of view or a high-minded point of view, increased powers for the disposal of works of art for trustees do not seem make very good sense and I hope that the Government, at the end of their consultation period, will not feel inclined to make disposals easier.
However, the major matter with which we must be concerned, and with which many noble Lords have been concerned today, is the question of funding. I think it has been agreed by everybody, even by the noble Lords, Lord Rees and Lord Montagu, that the market is inadequate as a basis for deciding what should happen to our buildings and our treasures. I have rarely met such support from the Conservative Benches for a mixed economy and for the intervention of public funding. Indeed, I sometimes wonder whether the enthusiasm for public funding is not much greater when it comes to the possessions of the rich rather than the needs of the poor. Be that as it may, we do not find ourselves in ideological conflict with many noble Lords opposite.

1419
I must say that I think that some suggestions that have been made, notably by the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Rees, about increased tax relief in order to protect our buildings and treasures are going a bit far, if I may say so. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, suggested that there should be relief from inheritance tax for all principal dwellings and their contents. The more one thinks about that, the more unacceptable it becomes. First, it is clearly going to be a very significant reducer of the amount of money collected in inheritance tax, because a very large part of our wealth, even shown by the Diamond Committee, let alone in subsequent trends, is in the form of principal dwellings and their contents.
These principal dwellings and their contents increase enormously in value as the person's wealth increases. Indeed, they continue to be a very large part of a person's wealth, so that relief from inheritance tax would be very much a relief for the rich, and the lost revenue would have to be made up much more by the poor, on the whole. So it would be an extremely regressive piece of taxation reform—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? That all sounded very simple and attractive; but if you have a government which is in fact keeping control of public expenditure, reducing a particular amount of taxation does not mean that taxation has to be imposed elsewhere. That is a complete fallacy.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the Government have the ability to reduce taxation, it is proper to argue about on whom the benefit of the taxation relief as well as the pain of taxation would fall. I would argue that even in a time of reducing taxation—and I do not accept that there are not very many higher priorities for increased public expenditure than the noble Lord would agree to—if there is to be a relief of taxation, one has to consider who will be best able to bear the remaining burden, if I may put it that way—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if I may interrupt again, but does not the noble Lord also have to consider whether it is not quite a good thing to encourage people at all levels to retain their home and continue to live in it and for their family to be able to do so afterwards?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are already very substantial concessions made for principal residences. They are not subject to capital gains tax already, and to propose an extension of that on death seems to me not only continuing, but increasing, the differences in wealth in our society and increasing the prospect of inherited wealth being a strong feature of our society. The noble Lord and I will have to disagree about that. It may be a political point, but it is one I feel quite strongly about.
One side-effect of what the noble Lord proposes would be that the value of such houses and their contents would go up quite considerably, and those who have to come into the market would find themselves paying a higher premium to do so. The
1420
noble Lord may like that; I do not know. But certainly it would have a distorting effect on property values which the Treasury would have to look at extremely carefully before agreeing to what has been proposed.
The point is that special relief from taxation is as much a part of public expenditure as direct grants, because the remaining taxpayers have to pay the extra burden of taxation. They have to pay for all the rest of public expenditure. I am not in any way impressed by any of the special pleading which I have heard this afternoon for further relief from taxation specifically for our historic buildings and their contents.
The second thing that ought to be said about public funding is something that I have already referred to in talking about museums—that is, the question of consistency. The noble Lord, Lord Charteris, appeared to be happy with what he described as "hand to mouth" funding of the National Historic Memorial Fund. He may be happy with it; but it does not really offer a very good prospect of anybody planning public expenditure, on the one hand; nor does it offer a very good prospect for continuing to give institutions the kind of funding they are likely to expect over a period of time. I am no more impressed by the argument than I am, with respect, by the proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, of a once-off gift. A once-off gift is not going to solve the problem of finding conservators or of finding the best use of space, of training, and so on. All these things take place over a period of years. There tends to be revenue expenditure as well as capital expenditure and that has to be provided for by revenue funding.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Rees, that I suggested that there should be a once-for-all gift to be spread over five years, because I recognise as well as he does that this is not something that can happen all at once with a solution forthcoming. It must be done gradually.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the Government are inclined to accede to the noble Earl's suggestion of a gift of perhaps £100 million, I do not think that he would find us voting against it. All I am suggesting is that it is not perhaps the best way to ensure the continuing preservation of our historic buildings and treasures.
What we have to look for in public funding apart from consistency is some quid pro quo. In return for public funding there should be clear commitments from those receiving the public funding. I think that the National Historic Memorial Fund is a good example of that. It insists first of all that there should be a real effort—and usually a successful effort—to raise substantial private funds to match the government grant. It insists that there should be adequate access to the buildings and the treasures that are being acquired. I think we could very well consider a contract between the fund givers and the fund receivers, so to speak, which would ensure what I hope and think we all want, which is not only the best conservation but the best access to our national treasures, the best continuing use, and the best availability to visitors as well as scholars.

1421
We come back to a characteristically unpredictable speech from the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in which he talked about the educational value of our buildings and treasures. I agreed with what he said. What it means in public policy terms is a degree of pluralism, an acceptance of a mixed economy, the eschewing of ideology in our approach to these matters, but a concern always for the public welfare as well as for physical preservation.
7.2 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am delighted to have this opportunity on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to respond to the wide range of issues raised by this very interesting debate. I am not alone in being grateful to my noble friend Lord Blake for making it possible, and for provoking such a stimulating discussion this afternoon.
The future of the heritage is very dear to the Government's heart. The Government are deeply committed to the promotion of understanding and enjoyment of the best of the country's heritage and to seeing that it is preserved wherever practicable. To see and understand the very best objects and buildings from the past is important to our national way of life: Awareness of one's heritage helps us to understand how the world around us has evolved. The country's rich and valued heritage—of historic towns and villages, great houses and early industrial sites—also supports the country's strong and growing tourism industry. The many tourists who are attracted to, and enjoy their visits to, our rich variety of heritage sites are evidence of successful heritage policies.
Public resources available for heritage work must compete with many other pressing claims. That limits the scope for solutions which depend on the taxpayer. But in any event in the case of heritage objectives, the role of government and their agencies, though important, is limited. Heritage is not designated by the state—it exists around us. Many of the best buildings and objects which survive from the past were created or acquired by private individuals; and the strongest force for their conservation, and often the best judge of what should be preserved, are the individuals who won them and the local communities of which they form part.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, made a few jibes on my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's recent speech. The point that my right honourable friend was making was that as a general rule historic houses are safer and better run in private hands. It is private owners who have given them their special character and quality, which cannot be replicated by the state. This point was clearly understood by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, although I fear that he read too much into what my right honourable friend did not say.
However, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, does not support state control, export bans, and so forth. The great private collections are the result of a freer market in art treasures. It is always possible to find some exceptions, I agree. But in general, and as indicated by my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, I
1422
believe that my right honourable friend's remarks have received widespread support from historic house owners, and that the vast majority of owners are proud custodians of their rich collections.
The task of government and their agencies is to set the right framework for that force to operate in, and to provide a longstop in exceptional cases where the private sector is unable to secure the preservation and continued use of heritage buildings and objects without extra help or advice. Sanctions have been built into the legislative framework to ensure that valuable buildings are not thoughtlessly demolished or altered or left to deteriorate. And the national museums and galleries—along with many local and private collections—are one part of this safety net. Nonetheless, we believe that the best force for conservation is voluntary, and not that imposed by the state.
The state and its agencies are an essential longstop in certain circumstances. Perhaps none is more important than the National Heritage Memorial Fund and English Heritage. The noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, gave us a lively account of the excellent work of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, of which he is chairman. I should like to congratulate him and the trustees on what they have achieved. The Government feel particular pride in having set up this powerful force for conservation of the heritage. The £102 million to date has been money well spent.
Let me just say a word further on this fund, which has played such an important part in the Government's successful record on saving national heritage treasures. Successive administrations have been criticised for not using the resources of the National Land Fund to save our heritage. We put this to rights with the establishment of this new fund in 1980, with an initial endowment of £12·4 million. We deliberately gave the fund the widest remit in its interpretation of the heritage. Examples of the wide range of treasures that the fund has saved for the nation can be seen at the current exhibition at the British Museum. Any of your Lordships who have not seen it have missed out on something rather special. I give it my strongest recommendation.
Since 1980 the fund has given grants to the tune of £100 million. Every case, large or small, is considered with meticulous care and scholarship by the trustees. I believe that the trustees' stewardship of the funds entrusted to their care is second to none. All this has been made possible by a regular grant-in-aid to the fund from my department and the Office of Arts and Libraries, and by additional sums provided from time to time to save Kedleston Hall, Weston Park, Nostell Priory and Calke Abbey; and recently to bring the fund's initial endowment up to 1988 prices.
The heritage has also benefited significantly from the systems of acceptance in lieu of tax and private treaty sales. Since my noble friend Lord Gowrie's announcement in 1985 that an average of £10 million per annum would be available from the reserve to finance the acceptance in lieu of major items, the scheme has been running smoothly. Last year over £8·6 million worth of tax was satisfied, and it is possible that this year's figure may exceed that. There is no shortage of items in the pipeline.

1423
Another major initiative of this Government was to set up the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, otherwise known as English Heritage, in 1983 under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, who earlier spoke so eloquently and gave the House such a full account of English Heritage activities. In establishing English Heritage, the Government had, among others, two important aims: to develop a centre of excellence, with access to expertise and resources outside the Civil Service, on policies and practices for the preservation and understanding of the man-made heritage; and to improve the presentation and commercial performance of the historic properties in the Government's care. These aims remain the principal reason for English Heritage's existence, and it has made commendable progress towards them.
English Heritage has achieved particular success in raising income from visitors and its trading activities. Starting from a base of under £3 million in 1984–85, it generated over £7 million in 1987–88 and is planning to take its receipts beyond the £10 million mark in the next year or so. Meanwhile grant in aid from my department to English Heritage has increased from £49·3 million in 1984–85 to £65·1 million in the current financial year and is planned to rise to £76·3 million by 1991–92.
Of course, English Heritage's activities are complemented by the scholarly work of the Royal Commission on historic monuments of England which, like its Scottish and Welsh counterparts, maintains a central archive of historic buildings and architectural data. Overall resources provided by my department for the heritage, excluding PSA, have risen from £30 million or so in 1979–80 to over £90 million in the current year.
A major element of that programme are the Royal palaces and parks. The Government are taking steps to improve the arrangements for managing the Royal parks and the historic Royal palaces for which the Department of the Environment is responsible. They are an essential part of the national heritage and also a major tourist attraction. For that reason I was rather surprised and somewhat disappointed that none of your Lordships mentioned the Royal palaces or parks.
I move on to answer some points raised by your Lordships. My noble friend Lord Blake, drawing on his experience as chairman of the Royal Commission on historic manuscripts spoke in particular of the issues raised by the Mappa Mundi. As my noble friend said, it would be impossible for the debate to take place at this time in your Lordships' House without mentioning it. Indeed many of your Lordships referred to it. Naturally we share your Lordships' concern as to the future of this important piece of our nation's heritage. My right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts stated in another place his wish that a solution involving both private and public sectors be achieved which would be acceptable to all parties. He firmly believes that it should be possible to find such a solution which will keep the map in Britain and he is working with all parties to that end.
1424
Another topic raised by my noble friend which received much discussion was Heveningham Hall. Even the government of the day did not envisage that public ownership and National Trust management was necessarily the right long term arrangement. The present Government decided to review the position and to sell if a suitable owner could be found. Mr. Al-Ghazzi was judged to be suitable and to have the neLessary financial resources. I have no reason to believe that that was not a correct decision at the time.
We are fully aware of the interest and concern shown by many conservation bodies and individuals in Heveningham Hall and we are watching the situation closely. Of course, the Government wish to encourage the owners of all listed buildings to maintain them in an adequate state of repair. However. maintenance and repair are primarily the responsibility of the owner subject to the provisions of the 1971 Act dealing with repair notices. I note the strongly expressed feelings of your Lordships about this property; the concern expressed on behalf of the previous owner by my noble friend Lord Oxfuird and that of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, with his own family connections. I believe that it has been most helpful to have on the record the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, about assurances that the owner intends to repair the fire-damaged wing and also the noble Lord's clarification of the owner's situation which has excited some speculation. Of course we very much hope that repairs will proceed quickly.
Among the conditions attached to the sale in 1981, was completion of the orangery restoration. That has been done. The second was to carry out a tree-planting scheme which still has to he done. The third, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, reminded us, was to open it to the public for 30 days each year. That has been done in some years, including this year and last. Of course the owner is subject to the normal provisions of law relating to listed buildings and the sale did not impose any special obligations in relation to repairs and maintenance.
My noble friend Lord Blake referred to the systems of control over the export of works of art and antiquities which operate in other countries. My noble friend's views seemed to be in conflict with those of the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and Lord Walston. In particular my noble friend mentioned the suggestion that there should be a list of important items which should never leave the country, as is the case in the Netherlands and Spain. We operate an export system which is rooted in our historical and cultural traditions and which, I believe, operates as effectively, if not more so, than that of other countries. The concept of listing can be seductive and is often put forward as a panacea to save important heritage items. However, this Government and their predecessors resisted its apparent charms in favour of an export system balanced between the interests of the heritage, the rights of owners to dispose of their property and the flourishing art trade.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester was kind enough to bring your Lordships

1425
up to date on the state of progress on the draft care of cathedrals Measure. I was glad to hear that the draft Measure gained the general approval of the General Synod in November. That is most encouraging after the previous difficulties encountered with an earlier draft in February. It is in all our interests—the Government's as well as the Church of England's—to ensure that there is an effective system for safeguarding the fabric of cathedrals which form such an important part of our national heritage and for ensuring that major works within them are given careful consideration. The work of mission is the Church's task. But an awareness of heritage can be part of mission and a beautiful, historic, well-cared for building can be an aid to worship. I am quite sure that that mission, like civilisation itself, must be alive and responsible to the present. However, it is surely right to ensure that the new blends appropriately with the old in both the secular and ecclestiastical heritage.
Of particular significance to today's debate is that the Measure, by ensuring scope for public consultation over proposals, including proposals for the sale of important, historical or artistic objects, would enable all aspects of a proposed sale to be carefully considered before it could take place.
The noble Lord, Lord Walston, referred to the beauty of the English countryside and landscape about which I am sure we all agree. He went on to say that the wildlife is under threat and particularly excluded from that the man who lives and works on the land. I disagree with the noble Lord. I believe that man to be absolutely critical. What we see and hear is the result of man's influence. If we take out or ignore man, then the countryside and wildlife in it will be much the poorer. I should like to compliment the work of the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Rural Development Commission, not forgetting to mention the role of volunteers in maintaining the ever-changing countryside. Indeed, in that respect I noted the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, on the problems of tourism and access to some parts of the countryside.
Like many of your Lordships, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that it is better for houses to be lived in as much as possible. In an excellent maiden speech my noble friend Lord Daventry drew attention to some difficulties. I disagree with him in that I do not accept that, compared with the past, present levels of taxation are unduly burdensome. However, I assure my noble friend and indeed my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Rees, that I shall draw their remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who will also doubtless read the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, with some interest.
All owners of outstanding historic buildings, large or small, are eligible to apply to English Heritage for repair grants. As my noble friend, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, said, English Heritage is keen to see a more equitable spread of resources away from the really big houses which have great revenue raising potential and more towards smaller, listed buildings including former industrial buildings and buildings in
1426
conservation areas. Of course there will have to be a quid pro quo of access for the public.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, inquired about the progress of my department's review of portable antiquities and their relationship to the law of treasure trove. The noble Earl indicated particular concern about the need for a system for the reporting and recording of architectural finds. We are considering very carefully the responses to the paper that we issued and hope soon to form a judgment as to the most effective approach. I hope that the House will bear with us a little longer. This is an important subject and it is important to strike the right balance.
The noble Earl expressed concern about the funding of the national museums and galleries and suggested the setting up of a special endowment fund. All spending departments could draw up lists of worthy causes upon which to spend large sums of money. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter so rightly said, the Office of Arts and Libraries is no exception.
My right honourable friend the Minister, in announcing his three-year settlement of last year, achieved a 17 per cent. increase, which will allow arts bodies, museums and galleries to plan their priorities sensibly. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, agreed that that was a major step forward. I agree with my noble friend Lord Rees that it is always necessary to assess priorities with finite resources both as between the arts and other pressing needs in health, education and defence and as between museums, libraries and the performing arts. When he was Chief Secretary, my right honourable friend proved a sympathetic listener when urgent causes were put to him. We and the National Heritage Memorial Fund are in his debt for his judicious distribution of scarce resources at that time.
My noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu gave us a very comprehensive account of the present state of the conservation movement and the problems that it poses. He rightly emphasised the part that local communities and private individuals can play. My noble friend spoke of the rising prosperity that this Government have helped to bring about and how this has led to a revival of interest in owning historic houses. In the past few years their ancestral families have found difficulty in keeping them up. He also spoke of the many opportunities that exist for the imaginative re-use of historic buildings that can no longer be used for their original purposes. English Heritage has played a notable role in all this, not least in seeing through to its virtual completion the national resurvey of listed buildings.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Before the debate is completed, can he confirm that this country includes Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and that his references to English Heritage, while absolutely appropriate, should be extended to CADW and other bodies? There has been a tendency to forget that many of the matters he dealt with actually apply to other parts of the United Kingdom as well.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct. I referred to the other bodies

1427
earlier in my speech. When the debate is orientated towards what happens in England, one tends not to mention the excellent work done by the bodies in Scotland and Wales. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Rees drew that to your Lordships' attention.
My noble friend Lord Montagu spoke about some of the problems that face the heritage. It is true that pressures from development can be acute, particularly in the South-East, and that these can lead to the destruction or over-restoration of buildings that might otherwise have survived. Naturally my noble friend struck a note of realism. We really cannot preserve everything; and neither should we. The heritage is what it is because it has come down to us through a process of change.
All that your Lordships need do is look at the way in which churches have been adapted over the years. Think how very much less rich and varied our heritage of churches would be if a legislative guillotine had fallen in, say, 1800. We must be as confident as our forbears were that we can continue to combine the best of the old and the new and pass on to our children a living heritage and not a collection of museum pieces.
I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Beloff's remarks about the importance of understanding the history of our civilisation through the study of historic buildings, treasures and archaeology. As I said in my opening remarks, an awareness of our heritage helps us to understand the world around us. It gives us a sense of belonging. Here I pay tribute to the many public-spirited individuals and firms who contribute to the greater understanding and enjoyment of the heritage; for instance, by financing rescue archaeological digs.
My noble friend Lord Lindsay rightly drew attention to the benefits that Britain's heritage brings in terms of tourist revenue. I noticed in particular his comments on cathedrals. The question that he raised as regards admission charges and other means of raising revenue are matters, as he so rightly pointed out, for the cathedral authorities. As my noble friend suggested, it may be that the tourist boards, either regionally or nationally, will be able to play a part in finding a solution to certain problems like those facing Hereford Cathedral.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, showed your Lordships the width of this debate by raising new points that had not been mentioned earlier. What was interesting in the noble Lord's quotation from Brecht was that it was very similar to that used to support my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's arguments. Perhaps we are not so far apart after all. I was glad to hear that the noble Lord supports the principle that, wherever possible, houses and contents should stay together. The Government's economic policies have put existing owners in a stronger position as well as giving rise to a new breed of owners and collectors. I rather fear for the future as regards what the noble Lord went on to say, but we shall have to differ on that. Perhaps it shows that there is still a gulf between us.
The noble Lord quite rightly brought up the Public Accounts Committee report on the management of
1428
museum collections.This report was published just a week ago. My right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts is naturally studying the report very carefully and he will be making his response in due course. I was glad to hear that the noble Lord is not opposed on ideological grounds to admission charges. We are entering a new phase of entrepreneurial museum management of which this forms but a part, along with the retention of receipts and vigorous marketing in order to make their collections more accessible to the public.
As regards the question of disposal, which many of your Lordships raised, I have noted the views, some of which were favourable and some of which were not. My right honourable friend is currently considering the responses to his consultation paper. I shall ensure that the words that your Lordships have spoken today are brought to his attention.
This has been an enormously wide-ranging and stimulating debate that has revealed the depth of knowledge and understanding of the heritage by all Members of this House. I realise that in winding up I have been unable to do justice to all the valuable suggestions and comments that your Lordships have made. However, those comments now stand on the record and I will ensure that they are drawn to the attention of my right honourable friends.
7.29 p.m.
Lord Blake: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Daventry on his excellent maiden speech. It was most illuminating and helpful. I very much hope that he will not go for another two years without speaking in your Lordships' House. I thank all noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, who have taken part in this debate. I thank them for some of the overkind and overgenerous things that they said about me.
I believe that the debate has been useful and valuable. I do not propose to go over any of the points. I believe that we shall have to come to an agreement to differ about the pronunciation of Heveningham. One thing I have learnt is that it is pronounced differently. That was due to ignorance on my part. The only other point I wish to raise is that whoever is to blame—I may have been blaming the owner unfairly—it is a tragic and a disastrous story that the house that was acquired by the Government back in 1969 should still be in the condition that it is in in 1988. Whoever is at fault, it is a lamentable episode. One would like to know even now more about it than the Minister was able to tell me.
Apart from that, the only other matter I wish to raise is that I do not believe that I was being unduly hard on the dean and chapter of Hereford. Cathedrals such as Ely and York have contrived to manage very well without recourse to selling their treasures, and so I still feel somewhat censorious about the dean and chapter of Hereford. On that note I shall sit down, merely asking the House for leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

British Rail Privatisation: Policy
7.30 p.m.
Lord Mountevans Lord Mountevans rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress is being made towards the privatisation of British Rail.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the outset I must make it clear that I am fully seized of the fact that no firm decision has been taken regarding the privatisation of British Rail. But in looking at British Rail today, its achievements, its problems and its position in the market-place, 1 should like to suggest that it is right that we consider all the options for ensuring that it does not choke on what I believe to be its present success. We should look at all the possibilities to ensure that British Rail has the resources to go from what is a strong position now to a stronger position in the future.
Hence I welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State earlier this year that he was considering all the options for positioning British Rail for the 1990s. Privatisation has been much touted in this context. Perhaps I may give two definitions of that word. On the one hand, it can mean selling off by flotation. On the other hand, it can mean increasing the role played by private resources in funding, for example, British Rail's operations, or indeed those of the British Overseas Trade Board or the Civil Aviation Authority.
At present British Rail's achievements speak for themselves. Passenger traffic is running at levels not seen since before Beeching. Freight, riding on the back of strong economy, is also doing well. Revenue is increasing and the need for subsidy is falling. The investment programme, wholly funded by internal resources, is running at record levels.
All this should be seen against the background that British Rail has only 7 per cent. of the domestic passenger market, measured in terms of passenger miles; and some 9 per cent. of the freight market. That is hardly a monopoly—no more so than the idea that the Mars Bar has a monopoly in confectionery or that Persil has a monopoly of the detergent market. I admit that in some market segments British Rail has market dominance. I know, for example, that it has 75 per cent. of all coal tonne miles; some 40 per cent. of metal and mineral raw material miles. It may have, though it is difficult to quantify, some 70 per cent. of middle distance commuter traffic into London from the South-East; and perhaps 30 per cent. of the domestic business travel market. But British Rail's market-places are intensely competitive. It has market dominance but I cannot accept that it has a monopoly. It is doing very well, but just doing well poses its own problems for British Rail.
As some noble Lords will know, I judge British Rail's best kept station competition, which delightful chore during September took me all over the country; from Penzance to Wick, from Ashford in Kent to Telford, from Chester to Beverley, as well as to some 50 other places hither and yon. I used trains at the top of the range—InterCity Pullmans—and I used 1950s diesel sets which should have been withdrawn but for
1430
the fact that British Rail needs them still to keep track with the demands being made upon it.
The trains were clean and with one exception, which was totally attributable to the Central Electricity Generating Board's inability to provide electricity, were generally on time or early. Catering was provided wherever advertised and even in one unadvertised instance. I would go so far as to say that British Rail did itself proud during this expedition. It certainly seemed to be hitting the quality of service targets which have been agreed between British Rail and the Secretary of State. One might say in parenthesis that some of the quality of service targets, particularly if one judges the inquiry services of British Airways and the National Bus Company in the private sector, are tighter in the public sector—in other words, in the hands of British Rail—than they presently are elsewhere.
The 5,000 or so miles experience was a good advertisement for British Rail but it also highlighted the resource problem which its success is bringing upon it. When one has to stand on the lunchtime train from Nottingham to Derby, or l he teatime train from Birmingham to Cardigan Bay, or even on the mid-morning InterCity train from Inverness to London, one realises that overcrowding is not a problem unique to the South-East or to commuter periods of the day. Commuter peaks amount to only some 20 hours in each 168-hour week; that is, two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening for five days a week. But when overcrowding is also occurring at off-peak times the resource problems faced by British Rail are brought horne to one with a bang.
The Government have recognised five options for resolving this resource problem while at the same time making British Rail more subject to commercial discipline and getting the customer a better deal. The first of these has been called the track authority option. The track and signalling—indeed, the physical infrastructure required to run the system as a whole—would be owned by an entity which would provide slots for independent companies wishing to run trains. The word "slots" is appropriate in this case because the concept works well at airports. It satisfies the resource and competition requirements. But does it satisfy the better deal for the customer requirement? I am not so sure, and there are three major reasons why one should have one's doubts.
First, there is the need for investment in peak hour capacity. I feel that a track authority would find it difficult to justify massive investment to meet the demands posed by only a short period in each week—one-seventh of the week, perhaps. There is also pricing. Because so much of the demand is in urban areas one can almost argue that British Rail's resource in those area is finite. One cannot broaden the railway and add another two tracks. Therefore the pricing mechanism will work not necessarily for the benefit of the consumer.
If the resource remains finite, and if one continues to have only four tracks between, lets us say, Surbiton and Clapham Junction, the long-haul traffic will price the suburban traffic off the route in rnuch the same way as Boeing 747s are squeezing commuter aircraft

1431
out of major airports. If that happens the short-haul traffic does not go to the wall; it goes to the roads. I make that point because one cannot look at British Rail's problems and opportunities in isolation.
Thirdly, there is the safety aspect of the track authority. There are some horrendous American examples of disaster arising out of different operators running services over track owned by a third party. I do not dismiss the track authority option out of hand, but last week's tragedy at Clapham shows what could happen on a railway that is not fully integrated. It highlights the major weakness of the track authority option.
There is also the regional or local option—not, I hope, as some have suggested, an emotional harking back to the glorious, or allegedly glorious, days of the private railway. Local management and loyalty are seen as potential strengths, though ticketing and information provisions are seen against that as weaknesses by those of us who have followed what has happened in the passenger transport authorities. Furthermore, foreign experience suggests that this is the age of the big unit and that private railways are growing larger by acquisition rather than smaller by dismemberment.
The third option is the sector option: privatise British Rail broadly on the lines of the sectors which it currently operates—InterCity, Network South-East, provincial parcels and freight. It too has its strengths, but it has demerits, not least the problem of who owns the track. The freight sector really knows no boundaries, while InterCity and the other sectors are all major users of track managed by their colleagues.
There is a monopoly problem in privatising InterCity. If it has 40 per cent. of the North-West to South-East passenger traffic or 30 per cent. of domestic travel, all one is doing is enshrining that monopoly. That problem does not seem to go away if you go for the sector option. I also wonder if there is a subsidy option, particularly arising out of the provincial services. If provincial service trains are going to cross from the boundary of one owning sector to another or, in the case of the earlier option, from one railway to another, it would seem to me that they will almost certainly continue to require subsidy in many cases.
In the old days the subsidy per route was public information. One could see exactly how much subsidy was being given on the route from Carlisle to Edinburgh or on the line from Brecon to Merthyr. However, I believe that there is now a European ruling that subsidy can only be published en bloc. That, in my view, would pose a problem in respect of the particular option we are discussing.
Last of the favoured four options which the Secretary of State announced is to float off BR en bloc—the so-called BR plc option. If flotation is the form of privatisation chosen, then that would be the route I would wish to follow, preserving the unitary nature of the railway and its many strengths in terms of ticketing and service and, most of all, of safety.
Resources might become more readily or easily available provided that BR could improve on its
1432
ability to identify and to control costs and revenues. But would it add anything to the competitive dimension of the discussion which I have introduced tonight? I am not at all sure about that.
The fifth option is to take bits and pieces from the first four. But there is a sixth option; it is one that appeals to me enormously. I mentioned it briefly in my opening remarks. It avoids the flotation issue but seeks by all means to maximise the private resource that is going into British Rail's operations. It leaves, as the BR plc option does, a united railway. And it leaves the railway to do the thing it does best, which is to run trains.
However, it gives the private sector the opportunity to invest in the running of those trains. In the words of the Department of Transport's press release announcing authorisation of the joint BR/BAA plc Paddington to Heathrow link, it gives maximum private sector involvement but, at the same time, the maximum financial benefit to British Rail. With BAA plc meeting approximately 80 per cent. of the costs of the Heathrow rail link, BR gets its inner-suburban electrification out of Paddington on the cheap.
Meanwhile, in operating the trains and the signalling BR deploys its own abilities to best advantage. Commuters from the Heathrow area get a new, albeit expensive, choice of journey to London; while commuters from Southall have the possibility of an electric service which they do not presently enjoy. There are so many benefits in so many directions—benefits which might also stem from the eventual private sector construction of the route which will be needed between London and the Channel Tunnel.
This treatment may at first seem brand new. But, of course, it is not. Similar activities have been going on in the freight sector for many years. If you ignore coal traffic, 70 per cent. of all goods wagons running on British Rail are privately owned. Foster Yeoman owns its own locomotives, though they are run by BR and maintained under its supervision. Freight customers, working with BR and often with government support, are developing their own terminals; while companies such as Procor and Tiphook continue to explore the opportunities for the private wagon fleet and its expansion.
Many of those opportunities involve leasing. One wonders why British Rail is not allowed to lease. A great deal of the rolling stock which one sees on North American railways is the property of Manufacturers Hanover Trust Railway Leasing Ltd., or some similar body. I wonder whether this is a possible source of private funding which is presently unavailable to British Rail. If that is so, I wonder whether the Minister can tell us why? It seems to me to be a rational source of private funding.
There is one other major source of private funding available to British Rail—its property assets. At the moment these are doing a great deal to fund BR's massive investment programme. But I wonder whether the arrangements allowed to British Rail, and its need to capitalise rental income very early on, make the best use of this resource. Why is it not allowed to do longer-term deals or, indeed, become

1433
the freeholder of property which it is developing with the property sector? At present it has no option, but I feel that it should at least have the ability to look for deals which give it the scope for longer-term investment, as opposed to short-term income.
I do not believe that BR's future lies irrevocably in the public sector. But as we journey towards whatever degree of privatisation is eventually settled upon, I would hope that there would be no blight on investment decisions similar, for example, to the way that the development of Fawley B Power Station has suddenly been brought to an acute and dead stop, pending privatisation. I do not think that investments on the scale which British Rail needs, and with the lead times it has, can afford to be put under this blight.
If I have been relatively brief in considering the options discussed by the Secretary of State it is because I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has much more detail than I have. After all, I mentioned resource, and he has the resources which I do not enjoy.
I welcome the Government's proposals and initiative in terms of the Secretary of State's announcement. I hope, however, that I shall be allowed to add my own additional option which stops short of all-out flotation. I especially commend it to your Lordships because it seems to me to bring private money into British Rail much more quickly than any other option currently under discussion.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, we are all most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, for introducing this most interesting subject. Although the Government might have mentioned it, I think that he has rather caught everyone's attention by actually speaking on the matter in a public forum. Moreover, I must say that he has done so extremely well. However, his speech came to such an abrupt end—I thought he was going to continue for another 10 minutes—that there was a slight pause before I rose to my feet.
We must all recognise that railway privatisation is not new. The railways grew up as private companies, and before 1922 there were over 100 separate railways ranging in size from the "giants"—the ones we all know like the Great Western—to very small local lines. They were drawn together into four large groups in 1922 as a result of legislation. As we know, in 1948 they were nationalised, although it would have been slightly earlier if it had not been for your Lordships. Therefore, in today's Question, it seems that the wheel will have turned full circle. I think that if the Government decide to privatise British Rail, we would be well advised to consider the lessons of the past.
The noble Lord has kindly suggested, or rather hinted, that if I wish to speak at all then my speech should be based on the subject of privatisation of the bus industry, and the lessons which we can learn from that for the railways. I think that the most important lesson is that buses were not privatised in isolation; that privatisation was part of the overall policy of competition and deregulation.
1434
The Government, in the Transport Act 1985, sought to ensure that passengers were protected from exploitation by deregulation, freedom of entry to the market and open competition; and that adequate arrangements were made for the appropriate public authority to secure, in a competitive market, subsidised non-commercial services. In discussing rail privatisation, we need to ask the Government to state clearly how they will tackle those issues. The bus industry has given us some useful lessons which we would be well advised to heed.
Privatisation has been beneficial where it has released local management who know the market, and the business, from the constraint of centralised control. It has also been a means of involving employees more closely in the success of their business and thereby aligning the interests of management and the workforce. if the railways are to be privatised, we must be satisfied that the Government's proposals achieve those benefits without any of the disadvantages such as asset stripping and inadequate financing which have already affected parts of the bus industry. However. I shall go no further down that road.
I am encouraged by the. Government's attitude towards employee share ownership; and plans for privatising the bus companies owned by the passenger transport authorities and the district councils. On the face of it, that seems to be a good way to achieve the objectives of combining management and employee incentives with serving the passenger efficiently and effectively. I hope that if privatisation takes place, the employees will have the experienced management that they have so far enjoyed. I hope that people who understand the transport industry, and have been trained to work in it will be retained, and that whizz kids who believe that they can put everything right in five minutes will not be brought in.
I trust that when considering methods of privatising the railways, the Government will recognise that its business has a national and local dimension and will ensure that adequate arrangements are made to achieve benefits without cost to the passenger or any other part of the public purse. I have nothing more to say other than to wish the plans well.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, for raising the subject for debate, not only because it enables us to express an opinion on the possible privatisation of the railways, but because we can comment on the present situation in the railways. We must look at the railways' future prospects in the light of what is now happening and what may be required. There is not the slightest doubt that historically, at present and in the future, the railways were and are a great industry. They have enormous skills and capabilities at their disposal. I was closely associated with the railways for many years when I was in the coal industry.
One of biggest achievements in the post-war history of the railways is the way in which vast quantities of coal have been moved from the big pits

1435
in Yorkshire and the Midlands to the massive power stations. It was a merry-go-round system. It was virtually automatic in operation. That movement of freight is probably more intensive than anywhere else in the world. The system works successfully and adequately. It shows the great skill that the railways have when given the opportunity to deploy them.
The problem with the railways since the war is that under successive governments there was no clear idea of which way they should be run; whether they should be run commercially or as a social service. It was not until the Railways Act of 1974 that an attempt was made to try to resolve that question. It was left to the Secretary of State to decide what the railways board should provide beyond a commercially viable service. The commercial services were left to them. That gave rise to the system which is in operation today—that is, that the non-commercial services were to be met by what was known as the public service obligation grant. That grant has remained. In the past financial year it amounted to some £794 million, having come down from a previous higher level. The objective within the next two to three years is to bring it down to £555 million. The railways are making every effort to keep to those objectives.
The railways' other major financial control is the external financing limit. That is a control which has been applied to all nationalised industries. I know all about how it works from my experience in the coal industry. The trouble with the PSO grant and the EFL is that they are short-term devices. They apply year by year. They come to an abrupt end at the end of a year, and then one negotiates the next year's restraints. As those are the primary financial controls in the industry, they militate against what is inevitably a long-term capital-intensive industry. That is worrying.
I have read with care, as have I am sure other noble Lords who are intervening in the debate, the report of the transport committee of the other place on the financing of the rail services which was published in the middle of 1987 and which clearly identified the fact that those financial priorities have frequently led to British Rail being unable to achieve its capital investment objectives. If one runs out of cash for any reason, one cannot go ahead. I found that time and time again in the coal industry. The problem is not unique to the railways. However, that raises questions about the future and the form of financial constraint, which it is the prime objective of the railways to achieve and adhere to, as one can see from looking at its last annual report. The first thing to which the report refers is the external financing limit; how it has been able to keep to it; and the PSO grant, and how it is keeping to that. They are good achievements. The question is however whether these constraints are consistent with what will be required from the railways in the future.
Let us look at the future. The future for the railways could be different from the recent past. On the whole, since the war, the railways have tended to languish as a form of transport, except for special sectors such as the coal sector which has been mentioned. In passenger and freight terms, as the
1436
noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, pointed out, the railways contribute a relatively small amount to the overall figure of passengers and freight moved in this country. However, in the past three years, there has been a substantial increase in passenger and freight traffic. That has been brought about not only as a result of the growth in the economy and the natural growth in transport requirements, but because of the increase in congestion on the roads. Many people transfer to rail to get away from that congestion. The trouble is that when they have moved from the congestion on the roads they then find themselves, as the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, pointed out, in overcrowded trains. They go from one form of congestion to another.
In the debate it is proper to ask the question: where do the railways go from here? Are the present financial structure and corporate plan relevant to what now appears to be a much increased need for railway services? The time has come to undertake a strategic review of the whole of the railways' future. I do not believe that the present system will achieve what is needed. What is needed is not to be continually refurbishing what is basically a Victorian network, admirable as it is; we need effectively to build a new railways system to meet the needs of the 21st century. That has been done elsewhere. It has been done in France and other Continental countries. The report from the other place to which I referred pointed out that we spend a much smaller proportion of our GDP on the railways than they do. That is the issue, above all others, that we need to face.
I am sure that when he replies the Minister will tell us of the substantial sums allocated for railway investment. I am sure that he has all the figures at his fingertips.
It is perfectly true that this is being done, but it is not, I suggest, the issue. The issue is whether, as a result of this investment, we shall get the sort of railway system we need for the end of this century and beyond. That is the issue. In a sense I submit that the cost we are talking about is secondary because the cost of not getting a much improved railway system will be vast. 1 submit that the time has come to think big about the railways.
It is in that context that we need to turn to the subject of the debate; namely, possible privatisation. I was very pleased when I read the speech, already quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, of the Secretary of State for Transport on 28th October on this subject. He was very cautious: right at the beginning of his speech, he said:
"Of course we must look at privatisation as an option. But it will only be an option that is chosen if we are convinced that we can provide a better service to travellers in some privatised BR than has been done up to now".
That is a very important statement with which I fully concur. I am delighted that the Government take the view that they do not proceed with privatisation unless they are convinced that it will bring benefit to the traveller.
Further on, as the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, pointed out, the Secretary of State looked at the various possible options. It is fair to say that while he pointed to advantages in certain cases, he suggested

1437
that in almost all cases there were also disadvantages. He ended by saying that if anybody had other proposals to bring forward then he would be delighted to consider them.
I am very interested, as I am sure we all are, in the proposal which the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, put forward today. But at the end of the day it is a matter of priorities. The priority for the railways at the present time in my opinion is to elaborate a new strategy within the existing framework. I do not believe that what the railways now need is a change of ownership. What they need is a change of strategy.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, this is an interesting debate. I cannot however congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, on his timing. On the eve of the Christmas Recess a very thin House is discussing matters of great importance. I should have thought that the subjects raised by the noble Lord. Lord Mountevans, and the wider debate which has been opened by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, require much more detailed examination and much more thorough discussion than is possible at eight o'clock on the eve of the Christmas Recess. I hope that arising from these proceedings the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will be encouraged to introduce a debate at a later stage on the wider strategy for railways in relation to the total transport system of this country. There are social and environmental matters involved in such a strategy as well as purely economic matters.
The public are deeply concerned about the subject of the privatisation of British Rail. The first question we must ask is, why privatise? The Minister's right honourable friend, speaking to the Centre for Policy Studies, as quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, spelt it out:
"We must be convinced that we can provide a better service to travellers in some privatised BR than has been done up to now".
If the Minister's right honourable friend regards that as the test, then I am quite happy. I look at the annual report of British Rail for last year. I shall not quote extensively from it, but the report talks of last year as a "record breaking year" for British Rail:
"The group result at a surplus of £290 million after interest and extraordinary items was the highest ever achieved by British Rail. The surplus on ordinary activities was £47·3 million after interest, compared with £2·4 million in 1986–87".
That is a considerable improvement.
"The railway's operating profit of £190 million before interest was the best result recorded in 25 years' history of the British Rail Board and the passenger volume of 20·6 billion passenger miles was the highest for 27 years and all three passenger sectors had record profits".
Rail freight is very important, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed out. We all learnt that during the miners' strike when coal had to be transported along our roads and through our villages. We realised then how important it was for the environment that British Rail carry the coal freight. The report says:
"The rail freight had its best results for a decade with an operating surplus before interest of £43 million".
If the Minister will be guided by the test laid down by his right honourable friend, there is no reason in my view for introducing privatisation into the entire railway system. At the same time it is important that
1438
we examine some of the ideas that have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans.
There is something wrong with this Government's attitude to privatisation in general. They seem to believe that privatisation is some kind of magic formula that guarantees an improvement in performance. I commend to the Minister a very interesting booklet recently published by the London Business School—a very objective study called Does privatisation work? It indicates that privatised firms, judged on several measures including their total factor productivity, have not done notably better than enterprises which were owned by the state. They give a number of examples. So there is no magic formula about ownership being the contributing factor to improved performance.
The options discussed very objectively by the Minister's right honourable friend in his important speech to the Centre for Policy Studies have been analysed by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans. All I say about the regionalisation option is that there is a great feeling of nostalgia among people who travelled on the Great Western Railway line. Some people in the railway system and some employees still regard their loyalty as being to the LMS and LN ER. But that is past. In Scotland, British Rail is known nowadays as "Scotrail" in order to encourage local and regional loyalty. There is no reason for upsetting the overall structure in order to accommodate these local loyalties.
As regards BR owning and renting out the track to operators, it is worth looking at one or two possibilities. I should have hoped that it might he possible on the Victoria-Gatwick link and the access route to the Channel Tunnel. There could perhaps be an experiment in the area of a private, or privately financed, line, with British Rail owning the track. A good deal of work has been done but we have not gone very far in conducting an experiment.
Frequently it is argued, in support of the privatisation idea, that it would enable the railways, or the other industries that are to be privatised, to get access to the market for finance. At present interest rates, I am not so sure that access to the market is as attractive as it might have been. For example, British Rail borrows four to five year money at 11·25 per cent. The Public Works Loan Board rate expects a 5 per cent. return from British Rail on investment. So, to go to the market today at present interest rates does not suggest any improvement in the financing of the railways.
British Rail has not required financing this year. It has generated sufficient funds from its own internal resources, and from the disposal of property assets. to avoid any borrowing. Therefore, the argument that privatisation would give it some kind of access to sources of new funds is irrelevant at the moment.
I wish to say a few words about privatisation within the railways. There has been considerable privatisation within the railway system already. My worry about the Government is that they are not very efficient in the handling of privatisation of national resources. A few years ago the railway hotels were, quite rightly, privatised. I agreed with that because I do not believe that railways should be running hotels.

1439
Hotels are very different things from railways, and it creates difficulties as regards options for investment. Those in charge of the railways do not know whether it is better to put down new track somewhere, or to put new carpets in Gleneagles Hotel, for example. So, rightly enough, sales of the railway hotels took place.
But so concerned were the Government to put those hotels on the market as some kind of political demonstration of their commitment to privatisation that some 28 of the best hotels of this country were thrown on the market at the same time. No one would dispose of their assets in that way. If the Government are looking at areas of privatisation, I hope that at least if they are going to privatise they will do it sensibly. The net effect of the railway hotels privatisation was that one company bought Gleneagles, the North British Hotel in Edinburgh and the Caledonian Hotel in Edinburgh. It then sold two of them off a few years later. It got Gleneagles for nothing—it is still owned by Guinness—and obtained £10 million in cash in the kitty by disposing of the two other hotels.
I regard the process of privatisation as being a much more sophisticated business than simply calling for immediate privatisation and throwing assets indiscriminately on the market. I noticed today that station catering has been privatised, and there has been a management buy-out for £25 million. I think that is a good thing.
British Transport Advertising has been privatised. There has also been a vast privatisation process in property sales. My trouble with the Government in this connection is that they insisted that the property board should dispose of its sites when, if the property board had been permitted to hold on to those sites and develop them in conjunction with private enterprise, a much bigger contribution would be made to British Rail financing.
I noticed that property sales last year raised gross sales of £181 million, and there was a gross income from letting of £82 million. If British Rail had been permitted to hold on to its sites and develop them, it would have been one of the major property companies in this country. But, instead of that, it was pressurised by the dogma which states that one must get rid of ownership and privatise. As a consequence, other people are enjoying some of the benefits. However, there have been some recent disposals of property and more recent developments in combination with private investment. Indeed, the Broadgate development at Liverpool Street station has resulted in British Rail getting a new station. British Rail is also receiving a share of the large profits that are being earned in that development.
I was a member of the British Rail Property Board, and for too long it was simply a matter of selling the sites as quickly as possible. As a result, Rosehaugh and others enjoyed the major benefits of those developments. I am in favour of privatisation of the peripheral activities of British Rail. I am also in favour of experimenting as regards access to private capital for, say, the Victoria to Gatwick line, and also for the access to the Channel Tunnel. But I am not in favour of the general principle of privatisation of British Rail.
1440
It is running well, it has considerable achievements and it has considerable social obligations as well as an obligation to run the railways efficiently. I hope that on some future occasion we may return to the place of British Rail in the transport system, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, so that we can have a full debate rather than a rather scrappy exercise at this late hour.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I somewhat share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, about the timing of this debate. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, for putting this Question down because it enables us to put down some markers ourselves and, I hope, obtain some definite answers from the Minister.
When I read the debate on rail privatisation which took place in another place on 28th July, I was a little heartened when I saw that the Minister for Public Transport said:
"I stress that we have no plans to privatise British Rail at present, and we are constantly reviewing our long-term options."—[Official Report, Commons, 28/7/88; col. 682.]
I am also pleased that some reference has been made to the Secretary of State's cautionary statements. But am I not correct that at the Conservative conference in October it was made clear that the Conservative Party intends to privatise British Rail after the next general election? If that is correct, I must echo the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, when he asked why there was an intention to privatise British Rail.
Will it be, as in the cases of some other privatisations, or even other Bills, that, having made decisions, the Government then have to think up arguments to justify why privatisation should take place? Would it not be just following dogma and a doctrinaire attitude to make a definite decision to privatise?
I have another question which I have asked a number of times in the past few years. Does the Conservative Party still believe in a mixed economy, in which my own party still believes, or has it thrown over the idea of a mixed economy? I hope that the argument will not be used that British Rail must be returned to the private sector where it properly belongs. That was the argument used in practically every case of privatisation that has occurred.
Reference has been made to the pre-1923 position when there were 150 railway companies. It has been made perfectly clear—I think we all know this—that in the 10 years prior to the last war three of the four private companies never paid a dividend of more than 1 per cent. on ordinary shares. Even the Great Western Railway rarely paid more than 3 per cent. So I hope there will not be any argument that the railways should be taken out of the public sector and put into the private sector as a matter of principle.
As we know, public ownership of the railways came about in 1947. We are pleased, as the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, has said, that today the number of passengers carried by the railways is increasing. British Rail's percentage of the freight

1441
carriage market is also increasing. We all accept that the percentage of passengers carried by rail is still much lower than by other means of transport.
We must also remember the good safety record of British Rail, despite the recent tragedy at Clapham Junction. It has a first-class safety record when one compares fatalities and serious injuries on the railway with the 5,000-plus killed on our roads and the 64,000 suffering serious injuries as a result of road accidents.
Various options have been put forward, and I shall refer to those briefly later. I do not believe that any of the options can be justified on the grounds of competition. They may be justified on other grounds, but certainly not on the grounds of competition. I am convinced that any attempt to justify them on the grounds of competition would merely be a fabrication, as it is in the case of the privatisation of the electricity industry.
I think that we should all agree that some other countries, particularly in Europe, have a greater pride in their railway systems and the railways have a greater place in their national life than they have in this country. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, reminded us of the support given by other governments to their rail systems compared with the situation of BR, as was mentioned in the 1987 report of the House of Commons transport committee. He also referred to the very high proportion of its costs which BR raises from revenue compared with other European railways. I should also like to refer to the House of Commons transport committee report published only a few months ago. That dealt with transport expenditure for 1988–89 and 1990–91. In paragraph 38 it states:
"If the Department wishes to see a modern railway for the twenty-first century it may have to encourage BR to undertake the necessary investment and at the same time provide an appropriate financial framework for BR to operate in. We recommend the Department to take immediate steps to ensure that additional investment funds are made available to meet the necessary investment requirements of BR".
In the Observer of 18th December Nigel Hawkes, in a piece headed "No way to run a railway", which was hardly uncritical of BR, made it clear that:
"It is not BR but the Government that sets the financial targets that are met by running fewer trains with more people aboard".
I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, about PSO and EFL as they apply to British Rail.
I should draw the attention of the House to what my noble friend Lord Jay said during Question Time this afternoon, although it was not perhaps pertinent to the Question on the Order Paper. I have checked the newspaper comment. The Guardian of 17th December states that the British Rail board is studying proposals to cut nearly £1 million from its annual signals maintenance bill. I have not seen any contradiction of that statement by the BR board. I hope that the Minister can make a statement on that point. If the financial position is such that at this critical time BR has to cut £1 million from its signal maintenance system there is something tragically wrong.
There have been improvements in British Rail over the past few years which we all welcome. However, we all recognise that there are still some grounds for
1442
complaint. Because the unions had grave doubts that the Government would restore in full the amount of grant, the House will recall that they launched the "Better Rail Campaign". They believed that it is essential that conditions should be improved in order to attract more passengers and thus more revenue. They suggested improvements in six areas: punctuality and reliability; overcrowding; cleaning standards; booking and inquiry services; station staffing; and service frequency.
The unions sent the report to independent consultants, and I believe that some noble Lords have seen that report. Some of us went to a briefing session at which the results of the independent consultation were explained. The costs are set cut in detail in explanatory literature. It is suggested that those great improvements, if achieved, would cost £137 million a year, plus a one-off spend of around £500 million.
I should like to ask the Minister what has happened to the proposal which the union put forward for great improvements in British Rail and to attract more passengers. What has been the result of any consultations which the Government may have had with the unions?
In a statement on the last report of British Rail the chairman of the board, Sir Robert Reid, stated:
"Major organisational change is the remedy for a business which is in bad shape. Ours is not. The debate on our future ownership is only just beginning and there are some years of hard work ahead of us before major changes in the present statutory framework, if decided, could be implemented … This year's record financial results—
to which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, referred—
"and our forecasts for the next five years may encourage speculation about future ownership of the railway".
One got the impression that Sir Robert would argue that it would he blatant injustice to break up a company which has now been turned round financially.
However, if one looks at this Government's record, it is when public ownership has turned round the financial results—such as in the case of BA and BAA—that the Government decides tc privatise. The Minister may use other quotations. BAA was congratulated by the Government when in public ownership on its great success. British Airways turned round its financial position which enabled it to be floated on the market.
I understand that the British Railways board would have three criteria for any possible change: it should benefit the customer; the railway should be free to compete with other national transport operators; and it should have the support of the management and the staff.
In the Guardian of 31st October I noticed that Mr. David Kirby, vice-chairman of BRB, stressed that BR wanted to retain the national network. He said:
"We may be the only people running full-scale railways in this country, but we are competing with all sorts of other forms of transport".
That must not be forgotten.
I shall not go in detail into the four options outlined so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans; namely, to split BR into regional

1443
divisions, the sale of separate sections, the sale of separate routes or a national track authority. I do not believe that any of those provides competition or can meet the three criteria suggested by the board.
Under any of those options what would happen to a national rail system? All would surely make an efficient rail network practically impossible. What would happen to through-ticketing? What would happen to scheduling? What would happen to a pricing structure? What would happen to discounted fares and rail cards?
Shortly before this debate, I received an urgent letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who regrets that she cannot be here today. She asked me if possible to include in my remarks some reference to the fact that any future plans for British Rail must have firm arrangements, as at present, for disabled passengers. In her own words, "Many people make use of the service and are very grateful for it".
I conclude, as did the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, by asserting that the Government have to determine what they see as the railway's future role. We now have congested main roads; every single day there is congestion on some motorway—and in particular the M.25—with tailbacks for many miles; and there are congested conurbations. Problems of the environment and energy conservation have to be tackled. Consideration must be given to the assistance to industry and commerce that can be provided by an efficient railway service. Neither must we overlook what has been stated so often in our debates on the Channel Tunnel Bill—that the carriage of both freight and passengers from the North, the Midlands and Scotland through to the Continent requires a continuation of the national network. We must have a safe, modern and efficient rail network. That is essential to carry people from one part of the country to another and enable people to get to and from work. It must be a network that serves the community.
Of course regard must be had to performance figures. I think that it would generally be agreed that the performance of British Rail staff has been excellent over the past few years. However we must not think only in terms of financial return. There must be a clear standard of service provided for this country and a clear understanding of the purpose of the railways in all their different aspects. I do not believe that it can be provided by privatisation. Different measures of assistance to British Rail may provide it, but I hope that the answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, will be that no progress will be made on the development of privatisation of British Rail.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, for raising this subject this evening.
I must start my remarks by referring to the dreadful tragedy at Clapham Junction, which happened only nine days ago. Obviously it is right that safety should have been mentioned in our debate today. Before I say any more I should like to stress
1444
that the Government attach the highest priority to safety. That will be paramount when considering the possible privatisation of British Rail. My right honourable friend made that very clear in his speech on 28th October to the Centre for Policy Studies. We must now learn the lessons from the accident at Clapham Junction and ensure that the highest possible standards of safety are achieved and maintained whatever may be the future structure of the railways.
A few words about investment may also be appropriate at this point. There is no question of government financial targets constraining sensible investment. Since 1983 over £2 billion has been invested in the railways. Investment is at the highest level since the 1960s, with over £3·5 billion planned over the next five years. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned the cost of signalling works. The British Railways Board assured my right honourable friend last month that financial targets were not preventing adequate safety provision and the board would ensure that they never would. That is quite right.
I now return to privatisation prospects and the progress made on considering whether this is the right answer for British Rail. I want to emphasise at the start that the Government have not decided to privatise British Rail. There will be no chance to do so in this Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said that there was a need for a strategic review, and what we have decided to do is to look at the long-term options for BR so that we can plan a successful future for it in the 1990s. Of course we must look at privatisation as an option. This Government see a number of potential advantages in the privatisation of commercial businesses. It puts them on the same footing as their competitors; it frees companies from the bureaucratic constraints of the public sector; and it ensures that management and staff will be motivated by the incentives and disciplines of the market-place. Most important of all, it ensures that a business must put the customer first if it is to develop and flourish. There is also the added possibility of employee share ownership, to which my noble friend Lord Teviot referred.
Although it is only in the last few months that privatisation of British Rail has been considered a serious possibility by many, it is in many ways a natural development of BR's more customer-orientated approach of recent years. By paying more attention to the needs of the customer and the need for greater efficiency, BR has substantially reduced its dependence on government subsidy.
But this more commercial approach has not meant that investment in the railways has been reduced. As I said earlier, the board's capital expenditure is at record levels. Major new projects are going ahead, such as the electrification of the east coast main line and the new train services for the Channel Tunnel. At the same time, big programmes of renewal of existing services are in progress. As the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, mentioned, the railway is also winning more traffic. The figure of passenger traffic last year was the highest for 27 years and this has led to problems of overcrowding on some services.

1445
These changes have been helped forward by the clear framework of policy that we have set for BR. We have given it clear published objectives on both financial targets and quality standards. We have backed its progress by approving major investments. Our policies have brought British Rail to the point where it is right to think about the long-term options. To analyse the best way forward for BR we must consider possible ways of privatising BR so that we can see the advantages and disadvantages of each course.
In looking at BR we also have to ask ourselves whether there are any special considerations. We believe that there are indeed three special points to which we have to put our minds from the start. First, as I have already said, there is safety, which requires rigorous oversight by an independent inspectorate. For nearly 150 years, the railway inspectorate has had the oversight of railway safety, and railways are an extremely safe form of travel. I repeat that the highest possible standards of safety must be paramount.
The second special point is that some of BR's operations receive substantial subsidies, including the large provincial network which is maintained for broad social reasons. I must make it clear that subsidy does not depend on ownership. We would anyway have to look closely at the reasons for subsidy, as we have already been doing, and see whether the mechanisms for deciding and paying subsidy can he improved. Those are issues irrespective of ownership, though a change of ownership may present questions of mechanics. But there is no reason why privatisation should affect subsidy to services where it is clearly needed. Bus deregulation and privatisation have proved perfectly compatible with subsidies. Some rail services will inevitably need to be subsidised for the foreseeable future.
The third special point is that in some markets the railway is dominant. In most cases it faces strong competition, but in carrying commuter traffic into central London from outside the London area the railway has a dominant share. So in that case there are important questions of protection from monopoly power. Where that exists, fares and service quality will need to be regulated to ensure that the traveller receives value for money.
In his speech to the Centre for Policy Studies, my right honourable friend set out the possible options for privatisation. In no particular order they are: a division of the railways into a number of independent regional companies; a vertically separated railway industry with track owned by a track authority or company and independent operating companies which would run the trains, generally known as the track authority option; a single company to run Britain's railway network, which has been called in the press BR plc; and, lastly, a division into several independent companies based on British Rail's business sectors, which I shall call the sector option.
Finally, there is no need to stick to a single option for the whole railway. It would be perfectly possible to combine aspects of more than one of the other options. For example, a division into independent
1446
companies based partly on regions and partly on sectors might be possible. Another possibility is an arrangement where parts of the railway were run by independent vertically integrated companies and other parts had a track authority and operating companies.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, has suggested a further possibility; namely, a public sector British Rail with a maximum of private sector involvement along the lines of the proposed joint BAA/BR service to Heathrow. There are of course already examples of private sector involvement with BR, as the noble Lord has already said. Foster Yeoman, who own their own locomotives, are one example of the freight side. The Venice-Simplon Orient Express is another on the passenger side. There is no doubt that opportunities for increased private sector involvement would need to be looked at very carefully if it were decided that full privatisation should not proceed.
Let me take first regional railways. Our approach to regional companies has to be forward looking. Would they meet the needs of the late 20th and the 21st centuries? Regional companies could have a number of advantages. They would allow some, largely indirect, competition to be introduced. Morale might be improved by building on local loyalty. It might be possible to achieve more flexibility and in some cases the management task could be made simpler.
What about the problems? Through-ticketing, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has mentioned, is often quoted, though independent companies would have a strong commercial incentive to make adequate arrangements for through travel. Through trains would be a larger problem, particularly freight trains, which often take little account of regional boundaries. It is possible that economies of scale would be lost though it is open to debate whether railways need to be as large as BR to achieve them.
More significant could be the mix of businesses within each region. Several of the current BR regions have almost as great a range of types of business as BR as a whole, with all the problems of divided management attention that this implies.
Moreover, the loss-making provincial services would be spread fairly evenly around all the regions with the exception of Southern and Anglia. Several of the railways based on the current regions would inevitably be dependent on subsidy to a significant extent.
Let me turn now to the track authority option. The main advantage usually quoted is the opportunity for the introduction of competition in the actual running of trains, with a number of independent companies using the same track. But competition between railway companies will be limited by the practicalities of railway operation and the main competition for many rail services would be from car, coach or air. The track authority itself would of course be in an entrenched monopoly position in relation to the operators, and moreover would be more rather than less remote from the eventual customers. It is clear that the monopoly position of the track authority could present very difficult regulatory problems.

1447
Investment decisions would also present problems as investment in track and trains can often interact, most obviously if electrification is considered.
A unitary BR has obvious advantages of continuity and minimising the cost of change. It would not require new arrangements for through-ticketing or intercompany transactions. There could be no question of losing any possible economies of scale.
On the other side, the opportunity to introduce even limited competition would be missed. Even indirect "competition by emulation" could provide useful information to those responsible for regulation and subsidy. The very size and spread of BR's activities may introduce what might be called "diseconomies of complexity". The balance of pros and cons needs a great deal of thought.
Railways based on BR's business sectors would avoid some of the problems of complex objectives and dilution of commercial incentives, since the loss-making services would be concentrated in the provincial sector. However, the option runs up against the serious problem of who would own the track. Much of BR's track is used by more than one sector with intercity and freight in particular sharing much of their networks. Someone would need to own the track. If this were the sectors themselves on a geographical basis one would have something akin to a regional option. If this were an umbrella body this is probably a form of the BR plc option; and if it were a third party it is a sort of track authority option.
Finally, one might consider hybrid options, for example, combining some of the features of the sector and regional approaches by basing a division partly on geography and partly on business sector. It is possible that some such option would allow some of the better features of the others to be incorporated, while avoiding some of the drawbacks.
1448
More work is still needed on many questions about each option. Does it meet the subsidy problem? Does it take account of the virtual monopoly which BR enjoys in some areas?
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, has referred to both property and leasing as areas where more flexibility is needed, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, referred to the property side of it. This would of course be easier for private sector railways. How far it is possible to go in the public sector, I am not sure. I should have to write to the noble Lord if he would find that useful.
All these questions must be resolved in a way that frees a privatised railway industry from unnecessary bureaucracy while retaining the controls, such as those over safety, which are essential. The structure needs to allow the industry to provide a better service to the customer by identifying new market opportunities within a changing transport market, by operating more efficiently, and by investing in modern and attractive services.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, asked whether a better service to customers would be the test of privatisation. I entirely accept that that will be the ultimate test against which any proposals for privatisation must be judged.
The Department of Transport is working on all these questions, but it will be some time before the Government are able to reach any firm conclusions. I welcome the comments from noble Lords, which we shall certainly take away and study carefully. If at the end of the day we do decide to privatise, it will be because we are convinced it is the best way forward for the customer, the railway industry and the country as a whole.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before nine o'clock.

  M.40: WEST LONDON JUNCTION IMPROVEMENTS
  M.40: WEST LONDON JUNCTION IMPROVEMENTS
  BOARD AND LODGING PAYMENTS: INFORMATION TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES
  BOARD AND LODGING PAYMENTS: INFORMATION TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES
  HOSTEL DWELLERS: INCOME SUPPORT
  HOSTEL DWELLERS: INCOME SUPPORT
  SELECTIVE INVESTMENT BROKERS LTD.
  SELECTIVE INVESTMENT BROKERS LTD.
  KATYN MASSACRES INQUIRY
  KATYN MASSACRES INQUIRY
  OZONE LAYER: MONTREAL PROTOCOL RATIFICATION
  OZONE LAYER: MONTREAL PROTOCOL RATIFICATION
  INLAND WATERWAYS REPORT: IMPLEMENTATION BY BWB
  INLAND WATERWAYS REPORT: IMPLEMENTATION BY BWB
  LEAD IN PAINT IN HISTORIC HOUSES: BAN
  LEAD IN PAINT IN HISTORIC HOUSES: BAN
  HISTORIC BUILDINGS PROTECTION AND THE EC
  HISTORIC BUILDINGS PROTECTION AND THE EC